ARIANISM, those peculiar tenets, concerning the Son of God, which were originally held by Arius, a presbyter of the fourth century. He maintained, in op position to the received opinions on this subject, that the Son is essentially distinct from the Father, that lie is only the first and greatest of those beings whom God created out of nothing, and consequently that he is in ferior to the Father, both in nature and in dignity.
This new doctrine soon found a multitude of abettors; and, though condemned by two councils at Alexandria, and by the celebrated council of Nice, in Bithynia, con tinued to gain ground till it had infected a considerable portion of the church. It gave birth to a controversy which was carried on for a long series of years, with the utmost violence, and was productive of much indi vidual and public mischief. Both parties were actuated by the most intemperate zeal. They were equally guilty of employing force, rather than argument, to settle the dispute. Every made, however exceptionable, of reci procal injury and abuse, was eagerly adopted. And it is difficult to determine which of them exceeded most the bounds of decorum, justice, and humanity. After experiencing a variety of fortune, which it would be at once painful and useless to detail ; after being alternate ly protected and persecuted by the civil power ; after giving rise to opposing councils and contradictory de crees, and spreading confusion and perplexity over the whole Christian world, for more than half a century ; the Arian faith received a blow from the hand of Theo dosius the Great, from the effects of which it never completely recovered. He drove the Arians from their churches, enacted penal laws of the severest kind, car ried into full effect the decrees of the Nicenian council, and succeeded so perfectly in his efforts to crush the obnoxious heresy, that the public profession of it was confined to the Goths, Vandals, and other unconquered tribes.
While Arianism was thus opposed and checked by the exertions of its enemies, it suffered nearly as much from the divisions that took place among its friends. These soon began to differ in opinion ; and, yielding to the impulses of imagination, or indulging in the use of metaphysical subtilty, gradually separated into a great variety of subordinate sects. The shades of doctrine by which these sects were distinguished, appear to have been in most cases very nice, and in some quite imper ceptible. But this circumstance did not prevent them from hating one another as cordially as they ever hated the orthodox ; and wasting, in mutual recriminations and animosities, that zeal which should have been solely directed against their common adversaries. Such dis
cords indicated great weakness and corruption ; but it is some consolation to reflect, that they were instrumen tal in retarding the progress of error, and obtaining an easier triumph to the cause of religious truth.
It. is impossible, and, indeed, would serve little pur pose, to give an accurate and detailed account of the various sects that sprung from the original stock of Ari anism. Mosheim is of opinion, that they may all be rank ed under two classes, the Semi-arians and the Euno mians. But the Eunomians, so far as we are qualified to judge front what is said of them by the ancient wri ters, seem to have differed from the genuine Arians, in nothing more than the particular name which they as sumed. They contended that the Son is dissimilar to the Father in essence, as well as in other respects, which is exactly, though not so explicitly announced, the doc trine maintained by Arius himself. But they thought proper, from some motive which is not recorded, to range themselves under another leader, and to follow in the footsteps of Eunomius, a man of extensive knowledge, but of a restless and aspiring temper. The Semiarians, on the other hand, whom the Eunomians professed to oppose, entertained opinions which were evidently a real and distinct modification of Arianism. Not choosing to expose themselves to odium, by departing so widely as Arius had done, from the established belief, or, not thinking themselves warranted to do so by the language of scripture, the Semi-arians declared, that, though the Son is not consubstantial (Z1.4..o2teries) with the Father, he is yet similar in substance or essence (4.4.41trios) to the Father, not by nature, but by a certain peculiar privi lege ; and a majority of them professed their belief in the divinity of the LOGOS, while they denied the same attribute to the Holy Spirit. A considerable number of the Semi-arians united themselves by degrees to the orthodox party ; from whom, in some cases, they differ ed more in appearance than reality. They even went the length of subscribing the confession that had been composed by the council of Nice, as a proof of their re turn to sound doctrine. And, though many of them, in consequence of the law of toleration, promulgated by Gratian, again seceded from the church, their number afterwards, from the operation of various causes, sensibly declined.