could not help giving particular attention to it; and it being impoffible not to be ftruck with the abfurdity of their reasoning about it, I was by degrees led to think whether any thing better could be faid in proof of the fact; and at length my collections and fpeculations, grew to the fize that is now before the reader.

It has been my business to collect and digeft facts and opinions, and it will be his to form a judgment concerning them. What I myself think of them he will eafily perceive, because I have frankly acknowledged it; but that ought not to bias him. I rather wish that it may operate to awaken his fufpicions, and lead him to examine what I have advanced with the greatest rigour. To affift his judgment, I have kept nothing back that has occurred to myself, or that has been suggested by others; and in order to collect opinions with more ease, I first published this article in the Theological Repofitory, as I alfo did that relating to the intricate business of Platonism.

I am well aware that what I have advanced on this fubject will give my enemies fresh occafion for raifing a clamour against me. But they cannot, with this new provocation, add to what they have already faid of me. If they tax me with mean artifice, base difingenuity, grofs ignorance, and the moft wilful perverfion of the authors I quote, there will be nothing new in it. My ears are now accustomed to thefe charges, and callous to them; fo that I receive them as things of course. And though I, no doubt, wish to stand better with my readers, and to pafs for a fair and earnest, though fearless enquirer after truth (because I believe myself to be fo) it is, from habit, no great pain to me to be confidered in a different light. To my enemies, therefore, who have already calumniated me fo grofsly, I make no apology, and of them I afk no favour. I should fue in vain if I did.

The only article for which I acknowledge myself an advocate in this work, is

the truth and antiquity of the proper unitarian doctrine, in oppofition to the trinitarian and Arian hypothefes. And even with respect to this, 1 am, as I have obferved before, by no means fanguine in my expectations from the effect of the moft forcible arguments; the minds of many being at prefent greatly indifpofed to receive the opinion that I contend for, in confequence of strong early prejudices in favour of a different one; prejudices which have been confirmed by much reading, thinking, and conversation. Least of all can I expect to make any impreffion on those who are advanced in life. My chief expectations are from the young, and from posterity. And it is happy for the cause of truth, as well as other valuable. purposes, that man is mortal; and that while the fpecies continues, the individuals go off the stage. For otherwise the whole species would foon arrive at its maximum in all improvements, as individuals now do.

In this work I find myself in a great meafure, as I was well apprized, upon new ground.

ground. At least, I fee reason to think that it has never been fufficiently examined by any person who has had the fame general views of things that I have. Dr. Lardner, who was as much converfant with the early christian writers as perhaps any man whatever, and whose fentiments on the subject of this controverfy, were the fame with mine, yet had another object in reading them.

Przipcovius wrote upon this fubject, but what he has advanced is very short, and very imperfect. What Zuicker did, I can only learn from Bishop Bull, who had not seen all his works; but I fufpect that he was not master of all the evidence that may be procured from a careful reading of ancient writers, and a comparison of the feveral circumstances to be collected from them *.

* Since this was written, I have had a particular ac count of this work from a learned foreign correfpondent, and it has not contributed to heighten my regret at not haying been able to procure it. It does nor appear to

And it certainly requires no fmall degree of patience, as well as judgment and fagacity, to trace the real ftate of the unitarian christians in early times, from the writings of their enemies only. For all their own writings are either grossly interpolated, or have perished, except the Clementines. But a candid reader will make allowance for this great difadvantage, which, as the hiftorian of the unitarians, I have laboured under. Who is there that will pretend to collect from the Roman hiftorians only, a complete account of the affairs of the Carthaginians, the maxims of their conduct, and the motives of their public tranfactions, especially in relation to those things with refpect to which we know that they mutually accused each other.

As to the learned christians of the last age (excepting the Athanafians) they were

me, that either Mr. Zuicker, or any of the Polish Socinians, were fufficiently acquainted with christian antiquity.

almost