A review by theologiaviatorum
Arians of the Fourth Century by John Henry Newman

informative slow-paced

4.0

 This was John Henry Newman's first published work. In it he details the circumstances which gave rise to Arianism (the belief that there was a time when the Son "was not", i.e. that he is a creature), the growth and disputations surrounding that doctrine, as well as its decline and fall. But this work is more than that. It is an incisive look into Church History and a sort of "anatomy of heresy." A few things stand out as contributing factors to the development of Arianism. 1. The refusal of mystery. Moved by a strict rationalism (Aristotle was called The Bishop of the Arians) they could not countenance the mystery of a God who is Three-in-One or the Man who is also God. So they divided the Trinity into rationally comprehensible parts. 2. Refuse extra-biblical terms. The Arians were happy to call the Son "Lord" and "Christ," they acknowledged him as "Son of God" and "Only-begotten," but they defined those terms in ways which denied his divinity. So the orthodox imposed the symbol of the Homoüsion (same-substance) to suss out those who denied the Trinity. The Arians objected on the grounds that Homoüsion is not a scriptural term. So long as the Arians could stick to the terms of scripture they could hide behind its vagueries.  Cardinal Newman describes the danger of this by saying "there are no two opinions so contrary to each other, but some form of words may be found vague enough to comprehend them both" (80). 3. Related but separate from 1 and 2, insist upon a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible. The Arians adhered to a strict definition of "Father" and "begotten" arguing that if the Son is "begotten" then there must have been a time when the Son "was not" for fathers always precede their sons. The Blessed John Henry Newman is to be canonized on October 13, 2019. His erudition and holiness makes it obvious why. (Concerning this edition: there were a number of spelling and formatting errors. The sense of the text was always discernible but it was occasionally irritating. The desirable edition, which I would have purchased had finances allowed, is the edition by Notre Dame Press with notes from Rowan Williams)