Is it not well known that there are both Arians and Socinians members of the church of England, and even among the clergy themselves; and yet if they can reconcile it to their own minds to keep in communion with a trinitarian church, there are no attempts made to moleft them. Zealous as the beads of the church are (from the archdeacons to the archbishops) for the purity of its tenets, they think proper to connive at these things, and fo they did in an age more zealous than this. The excellent Mr. Firmin was not only an avowed Socinian, and in communion with the church of England, but in habits of intimacy with Tillotson, and some of the most distinguished churchmen of his time.

At present there are Arian and Socinian writers within the pale of your church, and yet I dare fay it never occurred to any archdeacon, bishop, or archbishop, that it would be proper to excommunicate any of them for the part they have acted. Such a thing as this might not have paffed fo eafily in the time of Theodofius; but even then I make do doubt but that perfons who could content themfelves without disturbing others, would not have been molested.

You and I are both agreed that perfons who do not bona fide hold the acknowledged tenets of y church (I mean fuch great and distinguished ves as thofe relating to the object of worship) ght to withdraw themfelves from it, and t, by continuing in communion with it,

to countenance its errors. But how many are there who do not fee the thing in the fame light, or whofe habits and prejudices are fuch, that they cannot bring themfelves to act as we think every principle of honour, as well as of religion dictates; and yet I cannot agree with you, if you should say that all fuch perfons are hypocrites, and infincere, doing what they themselves know and feel to be wrong. They have excufes which I doubt not fatisfy their own minds, though they do not fatisfy me. Great allowance, no doubt, is alfo to be made for the force of habit, and even for a natural timidity. There are many Erafmus's for one Luther, many Dr. Clarkes for one Whifton, a name which, notwithstanding the weakness of his judgment in fome things, ought never to be mentioned without refpect, on account of his almost fingular and unparalleled uprightness.

As to the common people, the idiote of Tertullian, we generally fee that, as they are not innovators in doctrine, they go to public worship where they have been used to do, without any nice difcrimination of what is tranfacted there; and the obfervation will generally apply to the bulk of the inferior clergy. When Henry VIII. reformed the church of England, how many joined him in it, who would never have declared themselves diffenters from the established church? The church is now trinitarian; but fuppofing that an Arian or Socinian parliament G 4 (which

(which is a poffible cafe in this inquifitive and fickle age) should change the established religion in that refpect, how many do you think of the clergy (excepting those who poffefs the rank, the knowledge, and the zeal of Archdeacons, &c. and alfo those whom you would place in the dregs of method:fm, p. 62.) would become diffenters; especially if, as was often the cafe in former times, they had no alternative but a prison with a good conscience, or their prefent emoluments without one. I rather think they would contrive to keep both, and foon make themselves perfectly eafy in their new fituation.

With refpect to the common people in general, fettled as you may think them to be in the doctrines of the church of England, perpetually hearing of three perfons and one God, and daily making their responses to the holy blessed and glorious trinity; yet could they, without any preparation, or difcuffion, hear Mr. Lindsey's reformed liturgy read to them by their ufual minifters, and no Archdeacon fhould found the alarm, but they were to take it for granted that all was done by order of their fuperiors, and therefore right, I dare fay the peace of few parishes would be much disturbed by it.

Thefe confiderations, which are founded on fuch a knowledge, of human nature as we may learn from all history, and our own daily obfervation, may render it credible, that the majority

of

of the common people, the idiota of Tertullian, though not the ideots of Dr. Horsley, might be unitarians, and yet continue in communion with the church after its forms became trinitarian, especially as they would not become fo all at once. In the most ancient liturgies, you know, there were no prayers addreffed to Chrift; and as the members of chriftian focieties were not required to fubfcribe to any thing*, there was nothing that they were expected to bear a part in, concerning which they might not be able to fatisfy themselves.

I am, &c.

I

LETTER X.

Of the Quotation from Athanafius.

REV. SIR.

T is with very little effect, indeed, that you cavil at my quotation from Athanafius, and the defence I made of it. To every impartial reader it discovers how extremely averfe the Jews were to the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift; and, to borrow a word from

In the times in which the doctrine of the trinity was most agitated, fome of the more zealous bishops proposed the Nicene creed, and other tests, to those who were in communion with them; but even then this practice does not appear to have been general.

you

you and Mr. Badcock, to what management the apostles were reduced in divulging this offenfive doctrine to them. I have nothing to offer in addition to what I faid on that fubject, except that I have no objection to your rendering 12, a good reason, instead of a plausible pretence; for I doubt not that it appeared a very good reafon to Athanafius, who had nothing better to fuggeft.

Athanafius, however, by no means stands single in his view of the prejudices of the Jews, and of the conduct of the apofties with refpect to them. Epiphanius, as quoted above, fhews how prevalent the doctrine of the fimple humanity of Chrift was at the time that John wrote. There are alfo paffages in feveral of the Fathers, and especially a great number in Chryfoftom, by which we clearly perceive that their ideas of the conduct of the apostles was precifely the fame with that which I have afcribed to Athanafius; and as it is poffible that by a different kind of inftinct, my rapid giances may have discovered more paffages of this kind than have occurred to you, in the actual reading and ftudy of all the authors, I fhall here produce one of them from the preface to his Commentaries on the Book of Acts.

After treating pretty largely of the conduct of the apofties with refpect to their infifting on the doctrine of the refurrection of Chrift, rather than that of his divinity, immediately after the defcent of 1. Holy Spirit, he fays, "As to the Jews, who had