ARIANISM
392
ART AN ISM
the Vandal empire through Belisarius in 534. The Suevi of Spain became Arians about the middle of the fifth century, probably in consequence of their con- nection with the Visigoths ; they went over to the Catholic Church in 558, under Theodemir. The Bur- gundians, who came to Gaul as pagans in 417, appear as Arians in 440. The progress of the Catholic Church among this tribe is especially due to Aristus of Vien- na, who gained oyer the son of king Gundobad, Sigis- mund, who, after his accession to the throne in 517, secured to the Catholic Church the ascendency. No- where did the Arian doctrine maintain itself so long as among the Lombards. They invaded Italy (A.D. 568), and founded a new kingdom at Pavia, and their king, Antharis, embraced Arian Christianity in 587 ; but when his successor Agilulph married Theudelin- da, the Catholic daughter of the duke of Bavaria, the orthodox faith soon found adherents among them, and the son of Theudelinda, Adclward, gave all the churches to the Catholics. But this called forth a re- action. An Arian ascended the throne, who, howev- er, was unable to suppress Catholicism ; and we now find in every important city in Lombardy both a Cath- olic and an Arian bishop. Under Luitprand, who died in 744, the Catholic Church was entirely predominant. But, although Arianism was externally suppressed, its long prevalence in Spain, Gaul, and Northern Italy left behind it a spirit of opposition to the ecclesias- tical supremacy of Borne, and made these countries a fertile soil for the spreading of dissenting doctrines. See Revillont, de I'Arianisme des Ptvjyks Germaniques (Paris, 1850, 8vo).
II. Modern Arianism. — After the Reformation, the Antitrinitarians, who soon appeared, were chiefly Socinians. In Italy they especially developed them- selves, and Alciati (1555) commenced his heretical course with teaching that Christ was divine, but infe- rior to the Father. Kis views were adopted by Job. Val. Gentilis (q. v.), an acute Calabrian, who was be- headed at Berne (1566), after goin<_r far beyond Arian- ism in heresy. The earlier English writers on the Church history of the period tell of Arians put to death in England for heresy under Elizabeth. Plowright (t 1579), Lewis (f 1583), Cole and Ket (f 1588), are named by Fuller, who, as well as Burnet, speak of Arian sentiments as held and propagated by various individuals in England after the Reformation. There is so much vagueness and inaccuracy in the way in which they speak about them that little dependence can be placed on most of the allegations. Arian views were probably held by individuals from time to time ; but no important manifestation took" place till the be- ginning of the 18th century, when Arianism made its appearance in the Church of England, and also among Dissenters. Thomas Emlyn (q. v.), an English Pres- byterian (but pastor in Dublin), was deposed for Ari- anism by the Presbytery of Dublin in 1698 (see Eeid, Hist. ofPresbyt. Ch. in Ireland, iii, 14), and afterward wrote largely on the controversy (Emlyn, Works, uitk Life, Lond. 1746, 3 vols. 8vo). In the Church of Eng- land Arian views were set forth by Whisfon, professor of mathematics at Cambridge, in his Primitive Chris- tianity /,'. vived (Lond. 1711, 4 vols. 8vo), the last volume of which contains an account of what he considered the primitive faith in the person of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity, and the first volume a historical account of the proceedings of the University and Convocation against him. His sentiments were declared heretical, and he was ejected from his chair at Cambridge, lie still, however, went on to write, and produced a fifth volume of his Primitivi Christianity Revived, in 1712 ; his Council of Nice Vindicated from the Athanasian Beresy, in 1713; bis Letter to ///< Earl of Nottingham, on the Eternity of the Son of God and the Holy Ghost, 1719; to which Lord Nottingham replied in 1720. Whiston went on to the end of his life occa- sionally publishing on the subject. Seo Whiston.
A far more learned and logical champion of error ap- peared in Dr. Samuel Clarke, who published in 1712 Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, in which he endeav- ors to show, in a commentary on forty texts of Scrip- ture, the subordination of the Son to the Father. " Reason had so strongly the ascendant in Clarke's composition that every thing must be subjected to its rule and measure ; that only must stand, in matters of religious belief, which reason could distinctly grasp and make good by a formal demonstration. His book on The Trinity is pervaded by this spirit, and is very artfully planned. It is divided into three parts ; in the first of which are set forth all the passages in the New Testament bearing on the Father, then on the Son, and, lastly, on the Spirit; certain of the passages, and particularly those relating to the Son, being ac- companied with brief comments, partly furnished by the author, and partly taken from the fathers and from later theologians. In the second part, the im- port of all these passages so explained is presented in a series of propositions' concerning Father, Son, and Spirit respective]}-, each proposition accompanied with quotations from the Liturgy of the Church of England, to show the conformity of the propositions with the devotional utterances of the church" (Fairbairn, Ap- pendix to Dorner, Person of Christ, v, 373). Clarke was replied to by Dr. Knight in The Scripture Doc- trine of the Trinity Vindicated against Dr. Clarke (ed. by Nelson, London, 1713 and 1715, 8vo); by Bishop Gastrell, in Some Considerations of Dr. Clarke's Doctrine of the Trinity (republished in Randolph's Enchiridion Theolofficum, vol. iii); and by various others. Clarke wrote voluminously in reply to these and other attacks (Clarke, Collected Works, London, 1738, 4 vols. fol.). His works were translated into German by Semler, and found favor there, at a period in which the ten- dency of the age was toward " the creaturely aspect of Christ." See Clarke. But his superior in learn- ing and controversy appeared in Waterland, who pub- lished, at different times. A Vindication of Christ's Divinity; — A Further Vindication : — A Defence of the Divinity of Christ, in eight sermons : — The Case of Ari- an Subscription Considered: — A Critical History of the Athanasian Creed, and the Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity asserted; making six vols. 8vo, besides smaller pieces. Waterland brought to his task a log- j ical intellect, cool, wary, and disciplined, a thorough knowledge of the fathers, and a profound though un- impassioned love of truth. He demonstrated the in- accuracy, to say the least, of Clarke's patristic learn- ing, and proved that the very fathers whom Clarke had cited maintained the strictly divine, uncreated, eternal being of the Son, while, at the same time, he pointed out their defective apprehension of the eter- nal filiation. See Waterland. On the other side, and in answer to Waterland, Whitby wrote Disqiti- sitiones Modestre, and Reply to Dr. Waterland's Objec- tions against them, in two parts, with an Appendix, 1720-21. An anonymous country clergyman (after- ward known to be Sir. Jackson) produced .1 Reply to Dr. Waterland's Defence of his Queries, 1722, en- tering very largely into the controversy. It was this book which gave rise to Dr. Waterland's Second Vin- dication (1723), above mentioned. Dr. Sj'kes wrote several pamphlets on the subject {Letter to tin Pari of Nottingham (1721); Answer to Remarks <n Dr. Clarke (1730); Defence of the Answer (1730). In this controversy, Clarke, and those who sided with him generally, refused to be called Arians, while at the same time they affirmed the subordination of Christ, and denied that he was consubstantial with the Father. Dr. Waterland exposed the sophistry of this position sharply: "They deny the necessary existence of God the Son. Run them down to but the next immediate consequence, precarious existence, and they are amazed and confounded. Push them a little further, as mak- ing a creature of God the Son, and they fall to bless-