_ There is a little sect here composed of clergymen, and of a few very
learned persons among the laity, who, though they do not call
themselves Arians or Socinians, do yet dissent entirely from St.
Athanasius with regard to their notions of the Trinity, and declare
very frankly that the Father is greater than the Son.
Do you remember what is related of a certain orthodox bishop, who,
in order to convince an emperor of the reality of consubstantiation,
put his hand under the chin of the monarch's son, and took him by
the nose in presence of his sacred majesty? The emperor was going
to order his attendants to throw the bishop out of the window, when
the good old man gave him this handsome and convincing reason:
"Since your majesty," says he, "is angry when your son has not due
respect shown him, what punishment do you think will God the Father
inflict on those who refuse His Son Jesus the titles due to Him?"
The persons I just now mentioned declare that the holy bishop took a
very wrong step, that his argument was inconclusive, and that the
emperor should have answered him thus: "Know that there are two
ways by which men may be wanting in respect to me--first, in not
doing honour sufficient to my son; and, secondly, in paying him the
same honour as to me."
Be this as it will, the principles of Arius begin to revive, not
only in England, but in Holland and Poland. The celebrated Sir
Isaac Newton honoured this opinion so far as to countenance it.
This philosopher thought that the Unitarians argued more
mathematically than we do. But the most sanguine stickler for
Arianism is the illustrious Dr. Clark. This man is rigidly
virtuous, and of a mild disposition, is more fond of his tenets than
desirous of propagating them, and absorbed so entirely in problems
and calculations that he is a mere reasoning machine.
It is he who wrote a book which is much esteemed and little
understood, on the existence of God, and another, more intelligible,
but pretty much contemned, on the truth of the Christian religion.
He never engaged in scholastic disputes, which our friend calls
venerable trifles. He only published a work containing all the
testimonies of the primitive ages for and against the Unitarians,
and leaves to the reader the counting of the voices and the liberty
of forming a judgment. This book won the doctor a great number of
partisans, and lost him the See of Canterbury; but, in my humble
opinion, he was out in his calculation, and had better have been
Primate of all England than merely an Arian parson.
You see that opinions are subject to revolutions as well as empires.
Arianism, after having triumphed during three centuries, and been
forgot twelve, rises at last out of its own ashes; but it has chosen
a very improper season to make its appearance in, the present age
being quite cloyed with disputes and sects. The members of this
sect are, besides, too few to be indulged the liberty of holding
public assemblies, which, however, they will, doubtless, be
permitted to do in case they spread considerably. But people are
now so very cold with respect to all things of this kind, that there
is little probability any new religion, or old one, that may be
revived, will meet with favour. Is it not whimsical enough that
Luther, Calvin, and Zuinglius, all of them wretched authors, should
have founded sects which are now spread over a great part of Europe,
that Mahomet, though so ignorant, should have given a religion to
Asia and Africa, and that Sir Isaac Newton, Dr. Clark, Mr. Locke,
Mr. Le Clerc, etc., the greatest philosophers, as well as the ablest
writers of their ages, should scarcely have been able to raise a
little flock, which even decreases daily.
This it is to be born at a proper period of time. Were Cardinal de
Retz to return again into the world, neither his eloquence nor his
intrigues would draw together ten women in Paris.
Were Oliver Cromwell, he who beheaded his sovereign, and seized upon
the kingly dignity, to rise from the dead, he would be a wealthy
City trader, and no more. _