Indeed, if I had not had the object above mentioned, and also thought that their animadversions gave me a good opportunity of producing additional evidence for what I had advanced in my History of the Corruptions of Christianity, I should not have troubled myself with replying to their objections or abuse. If I had left all their darts sticking in my buckler they would not have retarded my progress. At all events, I wish the most rigorous investigation of this subject to proceed, whatever may be the consequence with respect to my opinions or myself, as I can sincerely adopt the prayer of Ajax, quoted by me in my first controversy with Dr. Brown: Ποιησον δ' αιθρην, δος δ' οφθαλμοισιν ιδέσθαι, Hom. Il. lib. xvii. v. 646, Give me but day, let light the truth disclose; Since the whole of this treatise was sent to the press, I have seen a posthumous piece of Dr. Lardner's, just published, entitled Four Discourses on Phil. ii. 4-12. which I cannot omit this opportunity of most earnestly recommending to all my readers. It is written with that simplicity and modesty which distinguish all his writings; and I should think it cannot fail to make a great impression on those whose minds are at all open to conviction in favour of the doctrine of the simple humanity of Christ. This he generally calls the Nazarean, and sometimes the Unitarian doctrine, as opposed both to the Trinitarian and the Arian schemes, which he particularly considers. "This," he says, p. 70, "seems to be the plainest and most simple scheme of all; and it is generally allowed to have been the belief of the Nazarean christians, or the Jewish believers." For the convenience of the reader I have subjoined to this preface a short state of the different opinions held by Dr. Horsley and myself on the subject of this controversy; and also an account of the time in which the principal ecclesiastical writers, and other persons whose names most frequently occur in the course of it, flourished. This will also be useful to the readers of my History of the Corruptions of Christianity. Having, in the course of this controversy, had occasion very carefully to revise that part of the History which relates to the person of Christ, I can assure the reader that I see no reason to make any more than the following corrections and alterations, which, considering the difficulty and extent of the undertaking, will, I think, be deemed to be very inconsiderable, and upon the whole by no means unfavourable to my principal object. N. B. (b) signifies from the bottom of the page. P. 7. 1. 8. (6) after Nazarenes, read and it may be inferred from Origen, Epiphanius, and Eusebius, that the, &c. P. 9. 1. 7. read on account of the errors it contained, and these errors could be no other than the unitarian doctrine. P. 19. 1. 2. after corrupted, add and as these unitarians are called idiota (common and ignorant people) by Tertullian, it is more natural to look for ancient opinions among them than among the learned, who are more apt to innovate. With such manifest unfairness does Eusebius, or a more ancient writer, whose sentiments he adopts, treat the unitarians, &c. lb. 1. 6. for successor, read predecessor, P. 29. 1. 9. &c. (b) dele all within the parenthesis. P. 74. 1. 6. dele According to Epiphanius, and to the end of the sentence. P. 99. 1. 6. (b) read that there may be God, the word, wisdom, man. P. 216. 1. 12. for our Lord, read the Lord. IN VOL. II. P. 11. 1. 10. read, In this age the table on which it was celebratea was called the mystical table, and Theophilus, to whom Jerom (if the epistle be genuine) writes, says, that the very utensils, &c. For this last correction I am obliged to the writer of the Cri tical Review; and I shall be thankful to any of my readers for the notice of any other oversight, from which a work of this extent could not be expected to be exempt. N. B. A copy of these corrections will be given to the pur chasers of the History. |