great precision, indeed, of language, and distinctness of method, but with a degree of conciseness, which necessarily creates obscurity. The darkness in which his conceptions are involved is often so impenetrable, that his readers experience a mortifying conviction of the truth of his apology to Alexander for disclosing the secrets of his school, that his doctrines were published and not published. His general propositions are often obscure for want of examples; and even when examples are introduced, they are often as unintelligible as the doctrines they are intended to illustrate. In those parts of his writings, which are most perspicuous, he is more occupied in defining and arranging terms, than in ascertaining facts or deducing principles. Even his grand invention, the syllogistic art, of whatever use it may be in multiplying hypothetical propositions, or in practising or detecting sophistry, affords no assistance in the discovery of truth. The conclusion in every syllogism is, in fact, contained in the premises; if the premises have not been previously proved by other means than syllogistic reasoning, the conclusion is not established; if they have, the syllogism is unnecessary. The truth is, as Dr. Reid (see his brief account of Aristotle's Logic in the appendix to the third volume of Lord Kaim's "Sketches of Man,") has well observed, that this kind of reasoning, independently of observation and experiment, only carries a man round, like a a horse in a mill, without any real progress. On the whole, notwithstanding all the homage which has been paid to the name of Aristotle, we must conclude his philosophy to have been rather that of words than of things. His descriptions in natural history, and his observations on political, moral, and critical subjects, are a valuable treasure: but the subtleties of his metaphysics and dialectics, to which he owed his unrivalled fame and supreme authority in the Arabian, Jewish and Christian schools, have been so far from contributing to the advancement of science, that they have fatally obstructed its progress. In pursuit of the phantoms of abstraction raised by the Peripatetic philosophy, men for ages neglected substantial knowledge; and it was not till they were emancipated from their vassalage to Aristotle, that the human mind asserted its native freedom and dignity, and that genuine science began to enlighten the world.

Aristotle's principal writings have, separately, passed through innumerable editions. Some of the more valuable are the following:

"Organon," Gr. fol. ap. Ald. 1495. 4to.

VOL. I.

ap. Morell, Paris, 1562. 8vo. Oxon, 1759. Gr. and Lat. 2 vols. 4to. Pacii, Franc. 1597. Svo. Hanov. 1598. "Rhetorica," 4to. Basil, 1529. Paris, 1562. Gr. and Lat. 4to. Goulstoni, Lond. 1619. 8vo. Battie, Cant. 1728. "Poetica," Gr. fol. ap. Ald. 1508. 12mo. Oxon, 1760. Gr. and Lat. 4to. Goulston, Lond. 1623. 8vo. Cant. 1696. 12mo. Glasg. 1745. "Ethica," Gr. and Lat. fol. Turnebi, Paris, 1555. 8vo. Heinsii, Lugd. Bat. 1607. Wilkinsoni, Oxon. 1716. "Politica, Gr. 4to. Paris, 1556. Gr. and Lat. Heinsii Jenæ, 1660. "De Animalibus," Gr. fol. Ald. 1503. Gr. and Lat. fol. Scaliger, Tolosa, 1619. Physica," Gr. 4to. Morelii, Paris. Mechanica, Gr. and Lat. Paris, 1599. "Oeconomica," Gr. 4to. Morell, Paris, 1560. "De Anima," Gr. and Lat. 8vo. Pacii, Franc. 1621. " De Mundo," Gr. and Lat. 12mo. Franc. 1601. Glasg. 1745.

66

66

Of the entire works of Aristotle, the principal editions are, Gr. 6 vols. fol. ap Ald. Venet. 1498. 6 vols. 12mo. Ald. 1552. 10 vols. 4to. Sylburgii, Franc. 1587. Gr. and Lat. fol. Casauboni, Lugd. 1590, 1646, fol. Genev. 1605. 8vo. Lugd. 1597. 2 vols. fol. Du Val, Paris, 1629, 1654. Diog. Laërt. Dionys. Halic. Epist. ad Ammæum. Ammonii Herm. vel Philoponi, Anst. Vit. Suidas. Fabric. Bibl. Græc. lib. iii. c. 6. Bayle. Stanley. Brucker. E.

ARISTOXENUS, an eminent musician and philosopher of antiquity, was a native of Tarentum, and son of the musician Mnesias or Spintharus; he studied first under his father and Lamprus of Erythræ, at Mantinea in Arcadia, afterwards under Xenophilus the Pythagorean, and finally under Aristotle. Hence he is to be placed in the age of Alexander the Great and his immediate successors. He was a copious writer on a variety of subjects, philosophical, historical, philological, &c. but he principally attained eminence as a writer on music, which science in the opinion of Cicero, filled his head to the exclusion of clear ideas on other topics. A catalogue of all his lost works is to be found in Fabricius's Biblioth. Græc. Nothing remains to our times but his three books of "Harmonic Elements," which are the most ancient treatises on music extant, and appear to have been in great reputation, as they are referred to by many of the writers of antiquity. The Greek text of this work was first published by Meursius, along with the musical treatises of Nicomachus and Alypius, at Leyden, 4to. 1616. A Latin version of Aristoxenus by Gogavin had appeared at Venice as

3 D

early as 1561. But the original text, revised and corrected, accompanied with a new translation, and illustrated by the learned notes of Meibomius, was edited in a more splendid form, together with the other Greek musicians, at Amsterd. 1652, in 2 vols. 4to. Aristoxenus was at the head of a sect in music opposite to that of Pythagoras. The Pythagoreans, by their rigid attention to calculation, and the mathematical divisions of the monochord, trusted chiefly to the judgment of the eye concerning the perfection of consonance; whereas Aristoxenus referred every thing to the ear, making it the judge of all the musical distinctions. He fell, however, into inconsistencies, which are exposed by Dr. Burney. His treatises appear to be rather fragments of different works, than parts of one and the same work. They abound in repetitions, and the text seems to have undergone a variety of corruptions; yet there is in them an accuracy and an Aristotelian precision not to be found in the compositions of later writers. From the titles of some of his lost works on music, Aristoxenus appears to have entered into the practical and mechanical part as well as the scientific. Moreri. Burney's Hist. of Music.-A.

ARIUS, a Christian divine, presbyter of the church of Alexandria, and founder of the sect of Arians in the fourth century, was, according to Epiphanius, (Hær. 69.) a native of Lybia: according to Photius, of Alexandria. Of the early part of his life little is known. It is probable that he was of the school of Lucian, bishop of Antioch, who appears to have favoured the opinions of Paul of Samosata; for Arius, in a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia calls him a Collucianist, which seems to imply that they were fellow-disciples of Lucian. Peter, bishop of Alexandria, appointed him deacon, but afterwards excommunicated him, for disapproving of his treatment of Miletius and his adherents. The next bishop, however, Achillas, restored him, and ordained him presbyter, and he officiated in one of the churches of Alexandria. Early in the prelacy of Alexander, the successor of Achillas, probably about the year 315, a dispute arose between Arius and the bishop, concerning the person of Christ, which, though at first a little spark, afterwards spread to a great conflagration. Whether the debate originated with the bishop, or the presbyter, the historians are not agreed; the different opinions of the disputants are, however, plainly stated. (Conf. Socrat. lib. i. c. 4. Sozom. lib. i. c. 15. Euseb. Vit. Const. lib. ii. c. 67.) Alexander, philosophising ostentatiously, inaintained that

there was in the Trinity an unity, and that the Father and the Son were of the same essence. To this language Arius objected, as approaching to the Sabellian heresy, which had confounded the Father with the Son, and, as contradicting the decision of the church, which had asserted the real distinction of the persons of the Trinity. On the contrary, he advanced as his own opinion, that the Son was essentially distinct from the Father, and that, being a Son, there must have been a beginning of his existence, and consequently a time when he was not. After this debate Arius publicly maintained that the Son did not exist from eternity, but was created out of nothing by the will and pleasure of the Father.

In an age of controversy, when the minds of men were universally occupied in theological speculations, it is not surprising that this opinion should excite general attention, and that Arius should soon have numerous followers. His doctrine had many advocates in Alexandria, and spread rapidly in Egypt and the neighbouring provinces. It was, moreover, patronized by several eminent persons among the clergy, and particularly by Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, one of the most distinguished prelates of the age. Alexander, observing with displeasure the unexpected progress of doctrines which he held to be heretical, probably in the year 320, called a council of nearly an hundred bishops of Egypt and Lybia at Alexandria, in which the tenet of Arius was condemned, and Arius himself, with several of the clergy who followed him, were excommunicated from the church, and expelled the city. (Epiphan. Hær. 69. n. 3.) This resolution was communicated by Alexander to the bishops of distant sees, by a circulatory letter loaded with invective. Arius, who now withdrew into Palestine, in a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, complained, and not without reason, of the unjust persecution which he and his friends had suffered he, however, bore the disgrace and injury with great firmness of mind, from the persuasion that he was suffering in the cause of truth. His fortitude, too, was animated by the continuance and support of numerous and respectable followers, among whom he soon reckoned many of the bishops of Asia.

The general attention of the public was excited; and, while the clergy were divided in their judgment, and respectively took their stations under Alexander or Arius, the contention spread through churches, and even through private families. Almost every individual became a party in the contest, and mutual altercation

was carried to such a ridiculous excess, as to furnish a subject of satirical exhibition in the public theatres. (Theodoret, lib. i. c. 4, 5. Epiph. H. 69.) The pious and well-meaning emperor Constantine observed with concern the rising ferment, and addressed a conciliatory letter to the contending parties, Alexander and Arius, in which he probably followed his own unbiassed judgment, and expressed the undisguised feelings of a candid and benevolent mind. Assuming the office of a moderator in the dispute, he blames each party; Alexander for raising fruitless enquiries and disputes among the clergy, by proposing to them questions concerning the interpretation of difficult passages of Scripture; and Arius for inconsiderately bringing forward opinions which ought for the sake of peace to have been kept out of sight. Such questions, which he calls cobwebs spun by idle ingenuity, however useful as exercises of intellect among the learned, ought not, he thinks, to be discussed before the vulgar, and made the subject of popular contention. It is not fit, says this prudent adviser, that the people should be divided into factions by your private disputes on points of little moment. He recommended to them the example of the Greek philosophers, who, while they differed in judgment, agreed in friendship. In fine, treating these disputes concerning the person of Christ as childish wranglings on matters of indifference, he earnestly entreats them, in the midst of diversity of opinion, to preserve harmony of affection. (Euseb. Vit. Constant.) It is infinitely to be regretted, that this wise and temperate counsel was slighted; and that bigotted ecclesiastics soon found means to persuade the emperor that the dispute was too important to be dropped, and too difficult to be settled but by the collected wisdom of the church. When Constantine, in the year 325, assembled three hundred bishops in the council of Nice, to decide whether the "Logos," or only begotten Son, was of the same substance with the Father, instead of terminating, he perpetuated the dissentions of the church, and divided the whole Christian world into "Homoousions," and "Homoiousions." In the memorable council of Nice, after many warm debates, and many violent efforts of each party to gain the ascendancy, it was decided, that Christ is consubstantial with the Father; the Nicene creed was signed as the established formulary of orthodox belief, the doctrine of Arius was condemned; and the vanquished presbyter himself was banished into a remote province of Illyricum. The emperor's zeal, so lately kindled against the impious

heresiarch, now flamed out in an extravagant edict which stigmatised his adherents with the opprobrious name of Porphyrians, ordered his writings to be burned, and made it a capital offence to conceal them. In all this, however, he appears rather to have been led by others, than to have followed his own unbiassed judgment; for, after a short interval, his disposition and conduct towards Arius underwent a total change. Eusebius of Nicomedia, by means of a presbyter, who enjoyed the confidence of Constantia, the emperor's sister, gained over that lady to the interest of Arius. In her last sickness, she recommended to the favour of the emperor this presbyter, by whom he was soon persuaded to believe, that the conduct and faith of Arius had been misrepresented by his enemies. Upon this, Constantine recalled him from banishment, and after receiving from him a declaration of faith, in which he professed his belief that "the Son was begotten of the Father before all ages," but without any acknow ledgment of consubstantiality, recommended it to the bishops, who were then assembled at Jerusalem, to readmit him into the communion of the church. The bishops, who were for the most part concealed Arians, readily complied with the request of their sovereign, and recommended it to their brethren in other churches to give Arius a cordial reception. At the same time his friend, the Nicomedian Eusebius, who had shared his disgrace and exile, was restored to his episcopal see, and regained his influence over Constantine. Nothing now remained to complete the triumph of Arius, but that he should be admitted to the church of Alexandria from which he had been first ejected. This, however, was refused by Athanasius, Arius's sworn enemy, who, after the death of Alexander, had succeeded to that see. At Constantinople, by the express command of the emperor, a day was appointed for the solemn readmission of Arius to the communion. But, we are told, that on that very day, as Arius was walking in the city, retiring to obey a sudden call of nature, he discharged his entrails, and died on the spot. The story of his death is related both by the historian Socrates, (lib. i. c. 25. ii. 38. Ep. ad Serap.) and by Athanasius, but with circumstances which very much weaken its credit. We leave it in the same state of uncertainty in which it is left by Mr. Gibbon, who says: "Those who press the literal narrative of the death of Arius must make their option between poison and miracle." Only we must add, that it is easier to believe, that mortified and irritated priests, in the moment when the man whom

they had banished as an heresiarch, was returning triumphantly into the bosom of the church, might think it their duty to deliver her from her most formidable enemy; than that the deity would, by a miracle, bring a man to an ignominious and shocking end, for no other offence, than because he could not believe in the mysteries of consubstantiality and eternal generation.

Leaving it to theologians to decide, whether Arius, in the tenets which he taught, was returning towards, or receding from the true scriptural doctrine concerning the Divine Nature, we shall content ourselves with paying that tribute to his merit, which historians have commonly withheld. The credit of considerable talents and learning has not been denied him; and it has been admitted that he was courteous and affable, yet grave and serious in his manners, and that he had the outward appearance of piety; yet he is accused of hypocrisy, ambition, dishonesty, and impiety, and his memory is

loaded with execration.

Hic nigræ succus loliginis, hæc est Ærugo mera.

HOR. lib. i. Sat. iv. 100.

For aught that appears upon the face of his story, it may be confidently asserted, that his morals were untainted, and his piety sincere. The incidents of his life afford a strong presumption, that he possessed a genuine love of truth, and adhered to what he judged to be its cause with firm integrity. "I will never receive their impious doctrines, though I were to suffer a thousand deaths," is at least the language of sincerity. The creed which Arius, according to the report of an historian by no means inclined to favour him, presented to Constantine on his return from banishment, was not contradictory to his avowed tenets: and it is not to be credited, that, after having been for so many years resolute in his opposition to the catholic faith, he should at once abandon his principles, even when he had been permitted to retain them, by subscribing to the Nicene creed. Had his party prevailed during his life, there can be no doubt that after his death his name would have been enrolled among the saints having had the misfortune to be registered by the church which called itself orthodox among heretics, he can only be found by posterity in the humbler list of honest men.

It does not appear that Arius wrote much. For the instruction of the ignorant, and to impress his religious tenets more forcibly upon the

minds of his followers among the vulgar, which were probably numerous, he wrote small pieces in verse. A poem of this kind, under the name of "Thalia," is mentioned by Socrates, (Hist. lib. i. c. 9.) and Sozomen, (Hist. lib. i. c. 21.) and censured as wanton and dissolute. Athanasius (De Scut. Dion. n. 6.) several times cites it, and speaks of its effeminacy and buffoonry and both he and Socrates compare him to Sotades, a loose pagan writer: but it must be remembered, that this is the report of enemies, and that Sozomen owns he had not seen the book. It is an extraordinary circumstance, that the fragments of this piece which are found in Athanasius do not appear to be in verse. Arius wrote, besides, many letters: we have still extant an epistle written by him to Eusebius of Nicomedia, (Ap. Epiph. Hær. 69.) and another to Alexander bishop of Alexandria, (Theod. lib. i. c. 5, 7, 8.)

The opinions of Arius did not perish with him. His sect flourished, and sometimes even gained the ascendancy; when it never failed to exercise in its turn the same intolerant spirit, under which it had itself suffered. In succeeding ages it yielded, on the one side, to the irresisti ble authority of the catholic church, and on the other to that bold spirit of enquiry, which led Socinus and his followers to adopt and propagate the opinion, that Christ had no existence prior to his appearance on earth, and that he was a mere man endowed with supernatural powers. Since the rise of the Socinian sect, Arianism has gradually declined, and, among those who have professed this system, its tenets have undergone a material change; and Christ is held to be, not as Arius taught, the first and most glorious production of creating power, who, though he had a beginning, existed before, and superior to all other creatures, and was the instrument by whose subordinate agency the universe was formed, but an inferior spirit, or angel, the tutelar divinity of this terrestrial globe. Athanas. contr. Arian. De Synod. Nic. et Arim. Epist. ad Serap. Socrat. Hist. lib. i.. Sozomen Hist. lib. i. Epiphan. Hær. 69. Cav. Hist. Lit. Lardner's Cred. pt. ii. ch. 69. § r 5. Bayle. Mosheim. Gibbon, c. 21.—E..· ARKENHOLZ, JOHN, an historian, born at Helsingfors, a town in Swedish Finland, on the 9th of February 1695. He went through his academical studies at Abo and Upsal, and about the year 1730 accompanied the Swedish nobleman Von Hildebrand on his travels into France and other parts of Europe. During his residence at Paris he turned his thoughts towards the political state of his native country,