The commencement of the eighteenth century wit nessed the revival of the Arian controversy, in a shape which at first was rather alarming, and certainly un becoming the character of the times, and of the coun try in which it appeared. Mr \Vhiston, professor of mathematics in the university of Cambridge, a man of learning, and a divine, having examined the subject with much conscientious diligence, thought himself entitled to conclude, that the eternity of the Son of God was not a real eternity, but only a metaphysical exist ence, in potentia, or in some sublimer manner, in the Father, as his wisdom or word ; that Christ's real ge neration, or creation, happened some time before the creation of the world ; and that this was the doctrine of the council of Nice itself, as well as of Christ, of his apostles, and of the first Christians. It was scarcely 'o be expected, that such opinions, coming from such a man, were to be allowed to pass unnoticed : but the way in which they were actually noticed was extremely violent and unjustifiable. Mr \Vhiston was not only re moved from his pastoral and theological functions, but also deprived of his mathematical professors/4z ! The heresy of Arianism, important as we deem it, cannot surely be considered as at all productive of error in the mathematics. And, though attachment to the Athana sian creed may be thought necessary for a teacher of religion within the established church of England, some ingenuity is required to spew, and much bigotry to be lieve, its necessity, to him who is appointed to teach the elements of Euclid, or the science of algebra. The celebrated Dr Samuel Clark had nearly met with simi lar severity of treatment. His opinions were much less at variance with the orthodox faith, on the subject of the Trinity, than those of Whiston. He appears, in deed, to have been a very moderate Semi-arian ; for, though he denied the self-existence of the Son and the Holy Ghost, and maintained their subordination of na ture in respect to existence and derivation; he asserted, at the same time, the eternity of both, which freed him from the charge, at least, of pure Arianism. Notwith
standing, however, the cautious manner in which he had spoken on the subject, and the moderate extent to which he carried this doctrine, the convocation were offended at him, and threatened him with their displea sure. And it was with some difficulty, that he quieted the apprehensions, and pacified the resentment, of that reverend assembly. His Scripture Doctrine of the Tri nity, (for that was the title of his heretical work) was keenly attacked by Dr Waterland, and other able and learned men of that time, against whom the doctor de fended himself with much spirit and with great perse verance. The pamphlets written on the occasion are worthy of the perusal of the theological student ; but it is proper to remind him, by way of caution, that most of them contain too much metaphysical language, and that, if on one side there is a tendency to genuine Arianism, there is an equally manifest tendency on the other to the still more dangerous errors of Tritheism.
Since the days of Whiston and Clarke, the Arian sys tem has produced in England neither the violence of polemical discussion, nor the more odious interference of ecclesiastical authority. It seems to have given place to the dogmas of Socinus, for which we can observe a growing predilection. Still, however, it has had, and continues to have, its admirers and professed votaries; and of these not a few eminent for their talents, their erudition, and their successful labours, in the cause of Christianity and of truth. In proof of this, we need only mention the names of Lardner and Price.
Instead of entering into a minute discussion of the merits of the Arian controversy in this place, we refer our readers to the article THEOLOGY, in which the divi nity of Christ, according to the orthodox sense of that expression, will be maintained and proved, and the best writers on the subject recommended.