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.