¹ Thomas C. Pfizenmaier, ‘Why the third fell out: Trinitarian dissent’, in Robert D. Cornwall and William Gibson (eds), Religion, politics, and dissent, 1660–1832: essays in honour of James E. Bradley, Aldershot–Vermont 2010, 17–33 at pp. 18, 21. In 1710 Whiston was expelled from his position as Isaac Newton's hand-picked successor in the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge for his heretical beliefs. For narratives of what came to be called ‘Whiston's affair’ see Eamon Duffy, ‘“Whiston's affair”: the trials of a Primitive Christian, 1709–1714’, this Journal xxvii (1976), 129–50; Maurice Wiles, Archetypal heresy: Arianism through the centuries, Oxford 1996, repr. 2004, 93–110; Snobelen, Stephen David, ‘William Whiston, Isaac Newton and the crisis of publicity’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science xxxv (2004), 573–603Google Scholar at pp. 578–86; and Gilliam, Paul R.iii, ‘William Whiston: was he or wasn't he?’, Baptist History and Heritage xlvii (2012), 19–33Google Scholar at pp. 20–4.

² It is worth mentioning here that in his article Pfizenmaier's goal is to separate the Christology of Newton and Clarke from that of Whiston. Pfizenmaier argues that Newton and Clarke were not Arians; Whiston, however, was one. Thus, according to Pfizenmaier, Whiston became estranged from Newton and Clarke because Newton and Clarke ‘had become convinced that Whiston had become an Arian and therefore a heretic, while they had not’: ‘Why the third fell out’, 30. This article will demonstrate that Whiston was not an Arian either. In light of this, it seems that Stephen Snobelen's suggestion that the reason for the break between Newton and Whiston was due to a ‘crisis of publicity’ is the most cogent suggestion in print.

³ Duffy, ‘“Whiston's affair”’, 129.

⁴ Richard S. Westfall, Never at rest: a biography of Isaac Newton, Cambridge 1980, repr. 1990, 649, 650.

⁵ Snobelen, ‘William Whiston, Isaac Newton’, 581.

⁶ Duane Wade-Hampton Arnold, The early episcopal career of Athanasius of Alexandria, Notre Dame–London 1991, 9–23.

⁷ Ibid. 99.

⁸ Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: theology and politics in the Constantinian empire, Cambridge–London 1993, 1. In an earlier work Barnes wrote that ‘Athanasius possessed a power independent of the emperor which he built up and perpetuated by violence … Like a modern gangster, he evoked widespread mistrust, proclaimed total innocence – and usually succeeded in evading conviction of specific charges’: Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge–London 1981, 230.

⁹ Rowan Williams, Arius: heresy & tradition, rev. edn, Grand Rapids–Cambridge 2002, 82.

¹⁰ David M. Gwynn, The Eusebians: the polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the construction of the ‘Arian Controversy’, Oxford 2007, 245.

¹¹ Arnold, The early episcopal career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 11.

¹² William Whiston, Primitive Christianity reviv'd, London 1711–12, i, historical preface at p. cxxvii.

¹³ Idem, Athanasius convicted of forgery in a letter to Mr. Thirlby of Jesus-College Cambridge, London 1712.

¹⁴ Whiston contended for the opposite of the modern scholarly consensus. He was convinced that the Ignatian long recension was authentic and that what modern scholars refer to as the Ignatian middle recension was an abbreviation composed ‘most probably about the Middle of the Fourth Century of the Church’: Primitive Christianity reviv'd, i.1. Scholarship since the monumental works of Theodor Zahn and J. B. Lightfoot has proved Whiston wrong concerning the authenticity of the Ignatian long recension: Theodor Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien, Gotha 1873; J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers: St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, 2nd edn, London–New York 1889. However, two important observations must be made. Firstly, that the only textual evidence of the Ignatian middle recension available to Whiston was the Greek Medicean manuscript and a Latin translation. If Whiston had possessed the amount of evidence that is now in existence, he may have come to more satisfactory conclusions. Secondly that, none the less, Whiston was absolutely correct that there are later fourth-century concerns reflected in the Medicean manuscript of the Ignatian middle recension: Paul R. Gilliam iii, ‘Ignatius of Antioch and the Arian Controversy’, unpubl. PhD diss. Edinburgh 2011, 14–55. In relation to the Apostolic constitutions, Whiston erroneously concluded that Jesus descended from heaven after his initial ascension to deliver these constitutions to the eleven Apostles gathered in the upper room where Passover was celebrated: Primitive Christianity reviv'd, iii. 10–11. Modern scholarship places the Apostolic constitutions in the fourth century along with the Ignatian long recension, and suggests that the two documents were forged by the same hand. See, for example, Marcel Metzger, Les Constitutions apostoliques, SC cccxx, cccxxix, cccxxxvi, Paris 1985.

¹⁵ Sara Parvis, Marcellus of Ancyra and the lost years of the Arian Controversy, 325–345, Oxford 2006, 181.

¹⁶ R. P. C. Hanson, The search for the Christian doctrine of God: the Arian Controversy, 318–381 (1988), Grand Rapids, Mi 2005, p. xvii. In a recent article, Matthew R. Crawford summarises that scholarly consensus well: ‘As scholarship on the fourth-century “Arian” conflict continues to grow, one feature of the period that is becoming increasingly clear is the diversity that existed on both sides. The terms “Arian” and “Nicene” have long since been shown to be insufficient descriptors for the varied figures who made up the opposing sides of this conflict’: ‘On the diversity and influence of the Eusebian alliance: the case of Theodore of Heraclea’, this Journal lxiv (2013), 227–57 at p. 227.

¹⁷ For the wider historical context of the Trinitarian controversies of Whiston's day see Roger D. Lund (ed.), The margins of orthodoxy: heterodox writing and cultural response, 1660–1750 (1995), Cambridge 2006; Alexandra Walsham, Charitable hatred: tolerance and intolerance in England, 1500–1700, Manchester–New York 2006; and Paul C. H. Lim, Mystery unveiled: the crisis of the Trinity in early modern England, Oxford–New York 2012.

¹⁸ As is well known among patristic scholars, later in his career Athanasius differentiated between those who disagreed with the Nicene Council as a whole and those who disagreed only with the term homoousios. Those such as Basil of Ancyra, who preferred the term homoiousios, were not be treated as enemies and called ‘Ariomaniacs’. Rather, Athanasius says, ‘we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers, who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word’: De synodis 41 (trans. NPNF ii.4).

¹⁹ Pfizenmaier draws his own definition from William G. Rusch (ed.), The Trinitarian controversy, Philadelphia 1980, 17.

²⁰ In his Thalia, preserved in Athanasius’ Orations against the Arians 1.5–6 and On the councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 15, Arius says that ‘We worship him as eternal because of him who was born in the order of time (en chronois). The one without beginning established the Son as the beginning of all creatures … For he [the Son] is not equal to God, nor yet is he of the same substance (homoousios)’ (trans. from Williams, Arius, 102). In a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, preserved in Theodoret's Ecclesiastical history 1.4 as well as in Epiphanius’ Refutation of all heresies 69.6, Arius says that before the Son ‘was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not’ (trans. of Theodoret's version, NPNF ii.3).

²¹ Even Athanasius gave credence to Eusebius’ interpretation of homoousios: De decretis 3; Ad Afros 6. For an ancient explicit defence of Eusebius of Caesarea as Nicene and not Arian see Socrates, Ecclesiastical history 2.21.

²² Whiston's understanding of the Son as a creature, and thus the έξ όυκ όντων, will be examined at 763–4 below.

²³ For the developing attitudes toward the Bible and Christianity that inspired Boyle to endow his lectureship see Christopher Hill, ‘Freethinking and libertinism: the legacy of the English Revolution’, in Lund, The margins of orthodoxy, 54–70 at pp. 54–63.

²⁴ For a discussion of the background to Whiston's Boyle lectures see James E. Force, William Whiston: honest Newtonian, Cambridge 1985, 65–77.

²⁵ Whiston, Primitive Christianity reviv'd, i, historical preface at p. ii.

²⁶ For a lively discussion of Paul Best and John Biddle see Lim, Mystery unveiled, 16–68. Lim argues that while the defenders of orthodox Trinitarian doctrine appealed to mystery, opponents of Trinitarian orthodoxy argued that ‘ante-Nicene writers were anti-Nicene’ (p. 54). Lim clarifies that by Whiston's day concerns about the Trinity were in the air that he breathed. In other words, it was not novel in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century to question the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity of three co-equal eternal beings.

²⁷ Whiston, Primitive Christianity reviv'd, i, historical preface at p. iii.

²⁸ Ibid. p. iv.

²⁹ Ibid.

³⁰ Ibid. p. vi.

³¹ For Whiston's prolonged case before Convocation see again Duffy, ‘“Whiston's affair”’. On George i's accession in 1714, he pardoned all those accused of heresy under Queen Anne. In Duffy's words, ‘The trials of William Whiston had ended’ (p. 149).

³² See Whiston, Primitive Christianity reviv'd, i, second appendix to the historical preface at pp. 12–13. For the important footnote attached to this quotation see at pp. 762–4 below.

³³ Whiston, Primitive Christianity reviv'd, i. historical preface at p. ii.

³⁴ Ibid. i, second appendix to the historical preface, 12.

³⁵ Ibid.

³⁶ Ibid. 13 (italics mine).

³⁷ Idem, ‘The Council of Nice vindicated from the Athanasian heresy’, in Three essays, London 1713, 11.

³⁸ Idem, Primitive Christianity reviv'd, i, second appendix to the historical preface, 13.

³⁹ Whiston did allow that Arius denied saying that the Son was a creature like all other creatures. However, he appeared to think that Arius’ original teaching was that the Son was a creature like all the other creatures. In his letter to Alexander of Alexandria, dated around 320, Arius referred to the Son as the perfect creature of God. Here, however, he says that the Son is not as the other creatures. It is worth noting that this letter was from Arius as well as numerous other supporters of Arius. Arius and his coreligionists may have decided it best to alter Arius’ original teaching on the Son as a creature as all the other creatures.

⁴⁰ Whiston, Primitive Christianity reviv'd, i, second appendix to the historical preface, 13.

⁴¹ J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian creeds, 3rd edn, New York 2006, 242. For Kelly's Greek text of the Nicene Creed see pp. 215–16.

⁴² Whiston, Primitive Christianity reviv'd, iv. 2.

⁴³ Idem, ‘The Council of Nice vindicated’, 4–5.

⁴⁴ Frances M. Young with Andrew Teal, From Nicaea to Chalcedon: a guide to the literature and its background, 2nd edn, Grand Rapids 2010, 20.

⁴⁵ Whiston acknowledges that the Arians, Athanasians and Eusebians all agree on some of his articles of faith. However, even when he says that they all agree, he usually finds some problem with regard to Athanasius and his later followers. For example, Whiston writes about articles 9–14 that ‘These six Articles were intirely agreed to by all, Eusebians, Athanasians, and Arians.’ Whiston then notes that all the ancients agreed to the subordination of the Son to the Father, a common theme found in articles 9–14, ‘till after the Council of Nice’. However, he criticises Athanasius and his later followers for restricting the subordination of the Son to the Father to the Son's human nature: Whiston, ‘The Council of Nice vindicated’, 17–18. Elsewhere (p. 10), he calls the practice of limiting the Son's subordination to his incarnation a ‘later Athanasian evasion’ because ‘it never appear'd till the later Days of Athanasius’.

⁴⁶ Ibid. 3.

⁴⁷ Ibid. 4.

⁴⁸ Ibid. 3.

⁴⁹ Ibid. 4.

⁵⁰ Ibid. In 341 Bishop Julius of Rome sent a letter to the bishops of the east in order to explain why Athanasius and Marcellus were declared innocent of all charges against them. In this letter Julius referred to the ‘Eusebians’ and the ‘Athanasians’. He also identified those around Eusebius of Nicomedia as ‘Arians’. The letter is preserved in Athanasius’ Defence against the Arians 21–35. For discussion see Lienhard, Joseph T., ‘The “Arian” Controversy: some categories reconsidered’, Theological Studies xlviii (1987), 415–37Google Scholar at pp. 417–18.

⁵¹ William Whiston, A collection of original texts of Scripture and testimonies of antiquity that relate to Christian discipline, London 1739, 41. I am grateful to Maurice Wiles for leading me to these statements: Archetypal heresy, 102.

⁵² All translations of Eusebius’ letter to his diocese are taken from NPNF ii.4.

⁵³ Whiston, ‘The Council of Nice vindicated’, 14.

⁵⁴ Ibid. 15.

⁵⁵ In Defence of the Nicene definition, 20, Athanasius states that at the Council of Nicaea an attempt was made to use scriptural terms to define the relationship of the Son to the Father. However, Athanasius’ opponents ‘were caught whispering to each other and winking with their eyes’ in order to communicate that they too could accept the scriptural terms even as they meant something entirely different. Athanasius therefore says that homoousios was needed to bring about more precision (trans. NPNF ii. 4).

⁵⁶ Whiston, ‘The Council of Nice vindicated’, 6.

⁵⁷ Ibid. 7.

⁵⁸ Ibid.

⁵⁹ Ibid.

⁶⁰ Ibid. Earlier, in his Primitive Christianity reviv'd, Whiston displayed his belief in the possibility that the Son was of the same substance as the Father. He says (iv.77–8) that he does not deny that ‘there may be some other extraordinary and singular Circumstances in the original of the Son of God, whereby he may be distinguish'd from all other Beings; as perchance that the Son was produc'd out of the Substance of his Father, while all the Inferior Creatures were created out of nothing’. However, he is hesitant because he knows ‘no sufficient Authority for any such like Opinions before Philosophy came into the Church’. Therefore, ‘I look upon them all as Philosophical Notions of some Christians, but not as parts of the Christian Faith, nor proper to be inserted into this plain Account of the original Articles thereof’. Once again, Paul Lim's work demonstrates that Whiston's opinions were not novel. Lim summarises Thomas Hobbes's (1588–1679) critique of Nicene theology with three statements. The third is that ‘While Nicaea did right by affirming the deity of Christ, it also committed an egregious error by officially endorsing a philosophy-laden theology’: Mystery unveiled, 228.

⁶¹ Whiston, ‘The Council of Nice vindicated’, 10.

⁶² Ibid.

⁶³ Ibid.

⁶⁴ Ibid. 11.

⁶⁵ Ibid. 10.

⁶⁶ Ibid.

⁶⁷ Ibid. 11.

⁶⁸ Ibid.

⁶⁹ Ibid.

⁷⁰ Ibid.

⁷¹ Ibid.

⁷² Ibid. 12.

⁷³ Ibid.

⁷⁴ Ibid. 13.

⁷⁵ Ibid.

⁷⁶ Ibid.

⁷⁷ Ibid.

⁷⁸ Ibid. 28.

⁷⁹ William Whiston, Memoirs of the life and writings of Mr. William Whiston containing memoirs of several of his friends also, 2nd edn corrected, London 1753, 131.

⁸⁰ Ibid. 384. Here Whiston comes to the conclusion that it is not appropriate for a clergyman who reads the Athanasian Creed to give communion to known Eusebians such as himself since the Athanasian Creed states that unless one adheres to that creed, one cannot be saved. To such a clergyman, therefore, Whiston stands already condemned. Prior to reaching this conclusion, Whiston would absent himself during the part of the Anglican service when the Athanasian Creed was read, but would then return for communion. Now, however, his view and practice has changed. In fact, on Trinity Sunday 1747, when the Athanasian Creed was read, Whiston left the church and did not return. He went ‘to the Baptist Meeting at Morcot, two miles off’: Whiston, Memoirs, 386. For Whiston's relationship with the Baptists see Gilliam, ‘William Whiston: was he or wasn‘t he?’

⁸¹ There is, of course, a longstanding debate concerning Eusebius of Caesarea's Christology. Frances Young's conclusion is sound: ‘In the old days of controversy, it is hardly surprising that some condemned Eusebius, others tried to defend the “father of Church history” from the charge of heresy. Clearly Eusebius’ position was neither on one side nor the other and, like Constantine himself, in some bewilderment, he acted primarily in the interests of Church unity. He wanted to steer a middle course’: From Nicaea to Chalcedon, 20. For a discussion of scholarly opinion concerning Eusebius’ understanding of the relationship of the Son to the Father see Gilliam, ‘Ignatius of Antioch and the Arian Controversy’, 149–51.