His name was Arius, and he was the most popular preacher of the city.

Seeing the foundation of the faith, as generally accepted, undermined, he caused Arius to be deposed by a synod of bishops.

He regarded the speculations of Arius as heretical, as derogating from the supreme allegiance which was due to Christ.

Therefore he despatched Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, in Spain,in whom he had great confidence, who was in fact his ecclesiastical adviser,to both Alexander and Arius, to bring about a reconciliation.

Arius, as the author of all the troubles, was of course present at the council.

He was bitterly opposed to Arius and his doctrines.

Such seem to have been some of the effects of the Trinitarian controversy between Athanasius and Arius, and their respective followers even to our own times.

The lives of Athanasius and Arius should be read in connection.

Ambrose did not deny the great intellectual ability of Arius, nor the purity of his morals; but he saw in his doctrines the virtual denial of Christ's divinity and atonement, and a glorification of the reason, and an exaltation of the will, which rendered special divine grace unnecessary.

Hence the doctrines of Arius undermined, so far as they were received, the whole theology of the early Church, and obscured the light of faith itself.

But whether Pelagius did or did not hold all the doctrines of which he was accused, it is certain that the spirit of them was antagonistic to the teachings of Paul, as understood by Augustine, who felt that the very foundations of Christianity were assailed,as Athanasius regarded the doctrines of Arius.

The combatants were as great as Athanasius and Arius,as vehement, as earnest, though not so fierce.

The energies of his mind led him to despise the fopperies of idolatry; and he found the Christians, in the most unfavourable situation, torn into innumerable parties, by the sectaries of Athanasius, Arius, Eutyches, Nestorius.

What Arius himself meant, I do not know: what the modern Arians teach, I utterly condemn; but that the great council of Ariminum was either Arian or heretical I could never discover, or descry any essential difference between its decisions and the Nicene; though I seem to find a serious difference of the pseudo-Athanasian Creed from both.

The latter view was held by Arius and his party at the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325.

yet he drove Arius and his associates into banishment, for opinion's sake, denounced death against all with whom his books should afterwards be found, and prohibited, on pain of death, the exercise, however peaceably, of the functions of any other religion than Christianity.

Julian the Apostate; Leo the Isaurian; his son, Constantine Capronymus; Arius; Nestorius; Manicheus; Luther; Calvin:very characteristic of the age of controversy which had succeeded to the age of faith, when, instead of solemn saints and grateful votaries, we have dead or dying heretics surrounding the Mother of Mercy!

On the contrary, I had learned of an intermediate tenet, called Semi-Arianism, which appeared to me more scriptural than the views of either Athanasius or Arius.

Arius was judged by Athanasius (I was informed) to be erroneous in two points; 1. in teaching that the Son of God was a creature; i.e. that "begotten" and "made" were two words for the same idea: 2. in teaching, that he had an origin of existence in time; so that there was a distant period at which he was not.

Those who accepted the Creed, and hereby condemned the great error of Arius that the Son was of different substance from the Father, but nevertheless agreed with Arius in thinking that the Son had a beginning of existence, were called Semi-Arians; and were received into communion by Athanasius, in spite of this disagreement.

Those who accepted the Creed, and hereby condemned the great error of Arius that the Son was of different substance from the Father, but nevertheless agreed with Arius in thinking that the Son had a beginning of existence, were called Semi-Arians; and were received into communion by Athanasius, in spite of this disagreement.

On the other hand, it is certain that the doctrine of Athanasius, equally as of Arius, was, that the Father is the underived or self-existent God, but the Son is the derived subordinate God.

ALEXANDER, ST., patriarch of Alexandria from 311 to 326, contributed to bring about the condemnation of Arius at the Council of Nice; festival, Feb 26. ALEXANDER, SOLOMON, first Protestant bishop of Jerusalem, of Jewish birth, cut off during a journey to Cairo (1799-1845).

ARIANISM, the heresy of ARIUS (q. v.).

Eastern: Nice, 325 (at which Arius was condemned), 787; Constantinople, 381 (at which Apollinaris was condemned), 553, 680, 869; Ephesus, 431 (at which Nestorius was condemned); Chalcedon, 451 (at which Eutyches was condemned).