Socinians, Arians, or Antitrinitarians

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.

There is a small sect here made up of clergymen and a few highly learned people outside the clergy. Although its members do not call themselves Arians or Socinians, they completely reject St. Athanasius’s views on the Trinity. They state quite openly 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.”

Do you remember the story of an orthodox bishop who wanted to convince an emperor that consubstantiation was real? He put his hand under the chin of the emperor’s son and grabbed his nose in his sacred majesty’s presence. The emperor was about to order his attendants to throw the bishop out of the window. But the good old man offered this fine and convincing argument: “Your majesty is angry when your son is not shown proper respect,” he said. “What punishment, then, do you think God the Father will inflict on those who deny his Son Jesus his rightful titles?” The people I just mentioned say the holy bishop made a serious mistake and his argument proved nothing. They say the emperor should have answered him like this: “You should know that people can disrespect me in two ways. First, by not showing my son enough honor. Second, by showing him the same honor they show 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.

Be that as it may, the principles of Arius are beginning to revive in England, Holland, and Poland. The celebrated Sir Isaac Newton gave this view the honor of his support. Newton thought the Unitarians reasoned more mathematically than we do. But the most enthusiastic champion of Arianism is the distinguished Dr. Clark. He is strictly virtuous and gentle by nature. He is more attached to his beliefs than eager to spread them. He is so completely absorbed in problems and calculations that he is nothing but a 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 wrote a book on the existence of God that is highly regarded but little understood. He also wrote a more understandable but widely scorned book 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.

He never joined in theological disputes, which our friend calls time-honored trifles. He only published a book collecting all the testimony from early Christianity for and against the Unitarians. He leaves readers free to count the voices on each side and form their own judgment. The book won the doctor many supporters but cost him the position of Archbishop of Canterbury. But in my humble opinion, he miscalculated. He would have been better off as Primate of all England than as 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.

You see that opinions undergo revolutions just as empires do. Arianism triumphed for three centuries, then lay forgotten for twelve centuries. Now, at last, it rises from its own ashes. But it has chosen a very poor time to reappear. The present age is thoroughly tired of disputes and sects. Besides, this sect has too few members to be allowed to hold public meetings. They will doubtless be allowed to meet publicly, however, if their numbers grow considerably. But people are now so indifferent to all such matters that any new or revived religion is unlikely to find favor. Isn't it strange that Luther, Calvin, and Zuinglius, all dreadful writers, founded sects now spread across much of Europe? And that Mahomet, though so ignorant, gave a religion to Asia and Africa? Yet Sir Isaac Newton, Dr. Clark, Mr. Locke, Mr. Le Clerc, and others have barely managed to gather a small flock. These men were the greatest philosophers and the most capable writers of their times. Even so, their little flock shrinks 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.

That is what it means to be born at the right time. If Cardinal de Retz returned to the world, neither his eloquence nor his scheming could gather even 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.

Oliver Cromwell beheaded his king and seized royal power. If he rose from the dead, he would be a wealthy City trader and nothing more.