had the union been of a religious nature, it muft indeed have been furprising. Others have fuppofed that the main body of diffenters had either imbibed the focinian fyftem, or were haftily approaching towards it. Whether the fuggestion of Dr. Horfley, that "the genuine "calvinifts among our modern diffenters are "very few," has contributed to this opinion, or whatever be its origin, it is far from being juft. Every one who knows the diffenters, knows that the body of them are what is commonly called orthodox. Dr. Prieftley, who is well known to be fufficiently fanguine in eftimating the numbers of his party-fo fanguine that, when speaking of the common people of this country, he reckons " nine out of ten of "them would prefer a unitarian to a trinita"rian liturgy;"* yet acknowledges, in regard to the diffenters, that unitarians are by far the minority. In Birmingham, where the proportion of their number to the reft of the dif fenters is greater than in any other town in the kingdom, it appears from Dr. Priestley's account of the matter, that thofe called orthodox are nearly three to one; and throughout England and Wales they have been fuppofed

to be "as two, if not as three to one, to "the focinians and arians inclufive."*

If Dr. Horfley found it neceffary in fupport of his caufe, to overturn Dr. Priestley's affertion, that " great bodies of men do not change their opinions in a small space of "time;" fome think he might have found an example more to his purpose, than that of the body of diffenters having deferted their former principles, in the well-known change of the major part of the church of England; who, about the time of Abp. Laud, went off from calvinism to arminianifm. Had this example been adduced, his antagonist might have found fome difficulty in maintaining his ground against him; as it is an undoubted fact, and a fact which he himself acknowledges, with feveral others of the kind, in the Third of his Familiar Letters to the Inhabitants of Birmingham.

The fuppofition, however, of the diffenters being generally gone, or going off to focinianifm, though far from juft, has not been without its apparent grounds. The confequence which focinians have affumed, in papers and pamphlets, which have been circulated about

* See Dr. Priestley's Familiar Letiers to the inhabitants of Birmingham. Lett. III. XI.

Also Mr. Parry's Remarks on the resolutions of the Warwick Meeting.

the country, has afforded room for fuch a fuppofition. It has not been very uncommon for them to speak of themselves as THE DISSENTERS, THE MODERN DISSENTERS, &c. It was faid in a paper that was published more than once, "The ancient, like the modern diffenters, worJhipped one God-they knew nothing of the "Nicene or Athanafian creeds."-The celebrated authorefs of The Addrefs to the Oppofers of the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, is not clear in this matter. That otherwife admirable performance is tinged with the pride of party confequence. "We thank you gen"tlemen (the fays) for the compliment paid "the DISSENTERS, when you fuppofe that the moment they are eligible to places of power "and profit, all fuch places will at once be "filled with them.-We had not the prefump"tion to imagine that, inconfiderable as we are in numbers, compared to the established

66

church, inferior too in fortune and influence, "labouring as we do under the frowns of the "court, and THE ANATHEMA OF THE ORTHO

DOX, we should make our way fo readily "into the receffes of royal favour. "-Even the Monthly Reviewers, though they have borne teftimony against mingling doctrinal difputes, with thofe of the repeal of the Teft-laws;* yet

* M. R. enlarged. Vol. I. p. 233.

have fometimes fpoken of diffenters and focinians, as if they were terms of the fame meaning and extent.

"It appears to us as abfurd (they fay) to charge the religious principles "of THE DISSENTERS with republicanifm, as "it would be to advance the fame accufation "against the Newtonian philofophy. The doc"trine of gravitation, may as well be deemed "dangerous to the ftate, as SOCINIANISM."*

Is it unnatural from fuch reprefentations as thefe, for thofe who know but little of us, to confider the focinians as conftituting the main body of the diffenters; and the calvinifts as on-' ly a few ftragglers, who follow these leading men at a distance in all their measures, but whose numbers and confequence are fo fmall, that even the mention of their names among proteftant diffenters may very well be omitted?

This, however, as it only affects our reputation, or at moft can only impede the repeal of the Teft-laws, by ftrengthening a prejudice, too frong already, againft the whole body of diffeaters, might be overlooked. But this is not all: it is pretty evident that the, union among us in civil matters has been improved for the purpose of diffeminating religious principles. At one of the most public meetings for the repeal

*M. R. enlarged, for June 1790, p. 247.

of the Corporation and Teft-Acts, as the author was credibly informed, focinian peculiarities were advanced, which paffed unnoticed, becaufe, thofe of contrary principles did not choose to interrupt the harmony of the meeting, by turning the attention of gentlemen from the immediate object for which they were affembled. What end could Dr. Priestley have in introducing fo much about the TestAct in his controverfy with Mr. Burn, on the perfon of Chrift; except it were to gild the pill, and make it go down the cafier with calviniftic diffenters?

The writer of thefe Letters does not blame the diffenters of his own perfuafion for uniting with the focinians. In civil matters, he thinks it lawful to unite with men, be their religious principles what they may; but he and many others would be very forry, if a union of this kind fhould prove an occafion of abating our zeal for thofe religious principles which we confider as being of the very effence of the gospel.

The reafon why the term focinians is preferred in the following Letters to that of unitarians, is not for the mean purpose of reproach; but because the latter name is not a fair one. The term, as conftantly explained by themfelves, fignifies thofe profeffors of chriftianity who worship but one God: but this is not that