History, or my intended View of the Doctrine of the first Ages of the Christian Church, concerning the Person of Christ, as I may see necessary; submitting every thing to the judgment of those who may think proper to give any attention to the subject.

I cannot conclude this preface without cautioning our readers not to imagine that this is a mere trial of skill between me and my opponents. It is the opening of a serious and important controversy, tending to decide whether the christian church in the age of the apostles was unitarian or trinitarian; which, independently of any arguments from particular texts of scripture, will assist us to determine whether the doctrine of the trinity, which has had so long possession of the minds of the christian world, be a real doctrine of christianity, or one of its oldest and worst corruptions.

I wish to draw out the ablest men, both on the trinitarian and the Arian side of the question; and I hope that I shall not long be the principal on the proper unitarian side. My Vindicator is much better qualified to take this place, and leave me that of auxiliary.

I would further observe, that in a controversy so various and extensive as this will probably be, it should not be imagined that the question is absolutely decided when any particular advantage is gained on either side. All men are liable to oversights; but a judicious reader will consider the extent and consequences of an oversight, and particularly whether it affects the question itself, or the writer only.

Especially, let not persons who are not themselves much conversant in ecclesiastical history, conclude that when any writer has gained a seeming advantage, it is. therefore a real and final one; but let them wait till

his opponent has been heard. On the first appearance of Dr. Horsley's Charge, many persons considered it as decisive against me. Others may now think as favourably of my side of the argument. But let all persons suspend their judgment till they see that we have nothing of consequence to allege further, and let a reasonable time be given to each of us.

To the Letters to Dr. Horsley I have subjoined a Postscript of supplemental and miscellaneous matters; and especially a summary view of all the evidence that I have hitherto been able to collect, and maxims of historical criticism, with which the several articles may be compared. I wish that my opponents would take the same or any similar method, in order to bring the controversy to a more easy, speedy, and satisfactory

termination.

I have likewise added some notice of the writer in The Monthly Review for September last, which contains a large answer to my reply to his former animadversions. It was certainly improper for a person who assumes the character of a judge to become a party in the dispute. With the intentions that he avows, of drawing me into a controversy, he ought to have left his former province of reviewer to another; and not to have availed himself of the prodigious advantage of the cheap and immense circulation which the Review gave him. As Dr. Horsley considers this writer (p. 77) as learned in ecclesiastical history, and may wish to have him for an ally, let him not, like Commodus, throw his darts from a stage; but if he have any confidence in his own prowess, (of which he seems to have no distrust,) let him, masked or unmasked, descend into the arena along with us.

AN INTRODUCTORY LETTER.

DEAR SIR,

As it is my earnest wish that every subject of impor tance may be fully investigated, I am happy to find that you have done me the honour to animadvert on my History of the Corruptions of Christianity, in your late Charge to the Clergy, at St. Alban's, as you formerly did on my Treatise on Philosophical Neces sity, in a Sermon. I was in hopes that my reply to the latter would have led you to pursue the argument with me to its proper termination. But though I failed in my attempts to engage your assistance in that inquiry, I flatter myself that I shall be more successful in this; especially as, by the temper and style of your performance, you seem to interest yourself more deeply in this subject, imagining, no doubt, and very justly, that much more depends upon it.

You have given, however, a degree of importance to my work which, I own, I had not thought of myself, when you say to your reverend brethren, p. 5, "You will easily conjecture that what has led me to these reflections, is the extraordinary attempt which has lately been made to unsettle the faith, and to break up the constitution, of every ecclesiastical establishment in Christendom. Such is the avowed object of a recent publication, which bears the title of A History of the Corruptions of Christianity, among which the Catholic doctrine of the trinity holds a principal place."

Now I see nothing so very extraordinary in my at

tempt. I have only done what has been done by every other person who has endeavoured to refute the doctrine of the trinity, or any other essential article of established churches. However, as you seem to have taken so particular an alarm in this case, I am willing to hope you will exert yourself with proportionable vigour; when, in your apprehension, it is no less than to save a falling state. Before I enter upon the subject itself, I must endeavour to set you right with respect to two preliminary circumstances.

Whether it be to my credit or not, I must observe that you make my reading to be more extensive than it is, when you suppose me to have borrowed my principal arguments from D. Zwicker or Episcopius. I do assure you, Sir, I do not recollect that I ever met with the name of Zwicker before I saw it in this publication of yours. For Episcopius I have the highest reverence; and I thank you for informing me that, though an Arian himself, he was convinced that the Christian church was originally what is now called Socinian.

On the other hand, by your recommending Bishop Bull's Defence of the Nicene Faith so very strongly, and not mentioning any other modern writers, you seem to have overlooked, or to have undervalued, several works which may certainly be very useful to those who wish to form an impartial judgment on the subject of this controversy; especially Whitby's Disquisitiones Modesta, in answer to Bishop Bull, and his Replies to Waterland, with several pieces in the Socinian Tracts, in three small volumes 4to. But I am more particularly surprised that you should not have mentioned Dr. Clarke's celebrated Treatise on the Trinity, which is calculated to be of the greatest use to

those who would study this subject; containing all the texts that relate to it most advantageously arranged for the purpose, together with some very useful references to the christian fathers. There are several parts of that work which I would take the liberty to recommend to your own particular attention.

You charge me with arguing in a circle, saying, p. 12, “It is the professed object of his undertaking to exhibit a view of the gradual changes of opinions, in order to ascertain the faith of the first ages. And he would ascertain the faith of the first ages in order to settle the sense of the scriptures in disputed points. He is therefore not at liberty to assume any sense of the scriptures, which, because it is his own, he may be pleased to call the clear sense, for a proof that the original faith was such as would confirm the sense he wishes to establish."

"So long," you say, " as the sixth page of the first volume of Dr. Priestley's History shall be extant, the masters of the dialectic art will be at no loss for an example of the circulating syllogism." But unless they be provided with one already, you must look out for them elsewhere, as this you have now pitched upon will not answer their purpose, if they be really masters of the dialectic art.

Had I produced no other proof of the unitarianism of the scriptures besides that of the primitive church, and also no other proof of the unitarianism of the pri mitive church, besides that of the scriptures, I should have argued in a circle. But you will find that I have been far from doing this.

Is it not usual with all writers who wish to prove two things, which mutually prove each other, to ob

с