to religious worship of any kind. In lieu of their former interpretations of fcripture, they have devifed a great many new ones; which, although equally weak, and in many inftances more ridiculous, are ftill calculated to ensnare the ignorant, and the unwary.

Some may imagine that it was quite unneceffary to enter into the controverfy, as far as it refpects the Fathers; because the decifion of the general question cannot depend upon their doctrine. I am as fully fatisfied as they can be, that the word of God is the only teft of divine truth, and that any human authority, as far as it opposes this, is of no weight. Although the majority of Chriftian writers, in the age immediately fucceeding that of the Apostles, had held a doctrine directly contrary to the obvious mean. ing of fcripture, they would not have merited our regard. For if the fcriptures were written for the ufe of mankind in all ages, and were therefore to be interpreted according to the plain fenfe of language; we, humanly speaking, must be as capable of understanding them in all things neceffarily connected with falvation, as those who lived in that early age, or even as thofe to whom they were immediately directed.

However, when our opponents appeal to the Fathers, it is of importance to fhew that they appeal in vain. For it cannot be denied that, did the current of antiquity in this respect seem to oppose the Trinitarian doctrine, with many it would be a powerful argument against it. But it being ⚫ once established that this is the doctrine of scripture, according to its obvious meaning; when it is also proved that the church from the beginning has adhered to it, although this circumftance can add nothing to the authority of the doctrine itself, it is very confirming to the mind in a fubordi

nate refpect; fhews that the cause of our opponents is indefenfible on every quarter; tends to filence their vain boastings; may have weight with those who will not attend to any other kind of argument; and illuftrates the unity of the church, in her fucceffive generations, with refpect to a doctrine which conftitutes the very bafis of revelation, deeply afects almost every article of her faith, and immediately characterizes the whole of her worship.

But in the prefent inflance, the Fathers have been appealed to, not properly with refpect to opinions, but with respect to facts; not as themselves interpreting the sense of fcripture, but as declaring the fenfe in which it was interpreted by others. From their teftimony Dr Priestley has attempted to prove that all the Hebrew Chriftians were Ebionites, or what he calls Unitarians, and that the majority even of Gentile Chriftians, in the firft ages, were of the fame opinion. Were it poffible to prove only the first of these positions, I do not say that we ought to renounce the doctrine of the Trinity, but that we ought to renounce Chriflianity entirely. For it would follow that, in the New Teftament, the faith and practice of the primitive church are exhibited as directly the reverfe of what they really were. But a proof of this kind is in fact impoflible. For did the Fathers affert fuch things, there would be an evident neceffity for rejecting their teflimony as falfe or adulterated. For they fubject it to the authority of fcripture: and the fcriptural narrative of facts, as far as it extends, is fully as intelligible as theirs. But although their teftimony could not invalidate that of revelation, they may be fustained as competent witneffes of the state of facts in their own times; when there is no certain evidence that they were themfelves mifled, or that they were difposed to milead others.

It has been my wish, as far as poffible, to avoid going over the fame ground with thofe learned gentlemen who have animadverted on the Hiftory of the Corruptions of Christianity. But this could not be entirely avoided, without an abfolute difregard to connexion. The fubftance of the arguments contained in that work, is republished in the Hiftory of Early Opinions. But it is fo interfperfed with a variety of new evidence, that the one could not well be separated from the other. Befides, as the Hiftory of Opinions did not make its appearance till the controversy with respect to the former work was terminated, or nearly fo, Dr P. has exhibited many of his old arguments in a new form; meaning, doubtlefs, that this last statement fhould bet confidered as the refult of all the investigation on both fides of the question. I am far from flattering myself, that any thing I can fay will have more weight with him, than what has been advanced by preceding writers. But perhaps, it may appear to others, that fome additional light has been thrown even on thofe points which have been already debated. As no reply has profeffedly been made to what the Doctor calls his large work, an ample field has hitherto remained unoccupied.

That able and elegant writer Mr Whitaker, in his Origin of Arianifm difclofed, has chiefly directed his attention to the faith of the ancient Jews. This work was transcribed for the prefs, before I knew that he had wrote on the subject. I was apprehenfive that what he had published might have fuperfeded the neceffity of any thing further with refpect to the Jewish creed. But he has taken a general view of the subject; whereas I have confidered it particularly, in relation to the objections made by Dr P. Thus, even where there is fome coincidence in the reafoning, it affumes

a very different form. There are alfo feveral points in which we materially differ.

This work has fwelled fo much beyond what was originally defigned, that it has been neceffary to overlook various articles of importance which have received a place in the Hiftory of Early Opinions. I particularly regret that I could not enter on the confideration of what is advanced on the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception. But if this attempt meet with a favourable reception from the public, that may be the fubject of a future difcuffion.

It would be prefumption to imagine, that there are no mistakes in a work of fuch extent and variety. But I am confcious that I have in no inftance wilfully mifreprefented the meaning of our modern hiflorian, or mifinterpreted the language of any ancient writer quoted on the fubject. Nor have I followed the ordinary plan of Socinians, in difregarding what may be reckoned the ftrongeft arguments on the oppofite fide; but have endeavoured, on the contrary, to give every one its full force.

In the courfe of this work, thofe whom our author acknowledges as brethren are often defigned by that name. which they have affumed. They, indeed, call themfelves Unitarians, as pretending that they alone hold the divine unity. I feed not fay that, in this fenfe, every Trinitarian muft deny their title to the name; as being fully convinced that thofe only who believe in three Perfons hold the fcriptural doctr of one God. But as this work contains fo many quotations, in which the name occurs in the fenfe impofed by Socinians; I could not, without confufion or frequent circumlocution, avoid the use of it in this fenfe, Therefore, it is ufed merely as a genera diftinctive appel

lation claimed by the party, without the moft diftant idea of acknowledging the juftness of the claim.

Always, when it has been attainable, I have confulted the original writers referred to, unwilling to take the quotations of others upon trust.

It is not one of the leaft difadvantages to which this work is fubjected, that it makes its appearance at a time when the public attention feems to be confined to the management of the kingdoms of this world. But there are ftill many, it is to be hoped, who have their eye principally directed to that kingdom which cannot be moved. Others may look on, as nowife interested in the iffue of this controversy; or may confider it as of no moment, compared with that which engroffes their attention. But they will contemplate all the shakings of nations, in their certain fubferviency to the more eminent coming of the Defire of all nations. As the defence of bis effential rights has been my great defign in this work, I am not ashamed to avow that I humbly commend it to his all-powerful protection.

CON