THE

PREFACE.

MY defign in writing the Hiftory of the Corruptions of Chriftianity, it will eafily be perceived, was to compose a work proper for the ufe of all chriftians, learn ed and unlearned, and indeed chiefly the latter. Also, having an extenfive object before me, I did not give much more attention to one part of the scheme than to another. On thefe accounts I avoided all unneceffary quotations from original writers in the languages in which they wrote, especially in Greek, which I had great difficulty in getting printed ; but gave some paffages that were of particular value, and in Latin, and diftinctly refered to as many others as I had actually made use of myself; making a point of referring to none, at firft or second hand, of which I faw any reafon to doubt.

I

It has happened that hitherto the first article in my work, viz. The Hiftory of opinions

opinions concerning Chrift, has attracted the more particular notice of critics, which has led me to ftudy this fubject more than I fhould otherwife have done; and I think it will probably engage my attention fome time longer. Indeed, as the question is of particular importance, I think it right to take every method in my power to invite and promote the fullest difcuffion of it. With this view, I replied to fome remarks of a writer in the Monthly Review, which, though not in the leaft affecting my principal argument, gave me an opportunity to add fome new illuftrations.

Dr. Horley's Charge to his clergy has afforded me another opportunity of re-examining the subject; and the result, which is now before the reader, has been, as I think, a farther illustration and a stronger confirmation of my original pofition, viz. that the belief that Chrift was a mere man, naturally poffeffed of no other powers than other men have, but a diftinguished meffenger of God, and the chief inftrument

in his hands for the good of men, was the original faith of the chriftian church, confifting both of Jews and Gentiles.

This controverfy, I hope, will continue, either with Dr. Horfley, or some other perfon. Nothing, however, fhall be wanting on my part to keep it up, fo long as any new light fhall appear to be thrown upon the queftion in debate; and after this I intend to compofe an entire work on this fubject only; ftating, in as clear a light as I fhall be able, the evidence of the above important truth (for fuch I cannot help confidering it) as it fhall then appear to me, with all the proper authorities in the original languages, and leave it to make whatever impreffion it may on the minds of others, having then done my duty with refpect to it.

In the mean time, I am by no means fanguine in my expectations from the effect of the moft forcible arguments, on the minds of those who are at present indifpofed

a 2

L

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 converfation, especially if those who are influenced by them be advanced in life. 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 ရွာ off the stage. For otherwife the whole fpecies would foon arrive at its maximum in all improvements, as individuals now do.

If any perfon ought to have candour for others in this refpect, I ought; having had abundant experience of the difficulty with which deep-rooted prejudices give way to the strongest evidence, even when the mind is naturally active, and the attention is conftantly kept in a state of inquiry. On this account, a fhort history of the progress of my own thoughts with refpect to this fubject may be useful.

To

To myself the reflection upon it is highly fo, at the fame time that it is not a little humbling.

Having been educated in the strictest principles of Calvinism, and having from my early years had a serious turn of mind, promoted no doubt by a weak and fickly conftitution, I was very fincere and zealous in my belief of the doctrine of the trinity; and this continued till I was about nineteen; and then I was as much fhocked on hearing of any who denied the divinity, of Chrift (thinking it to be nothing less than impiety and blafphemy) as any of my opponents can be now. I therefore truly feel for them, and most fincerely excuse them.

About the age of twenty, being then in a regular course of theological studies, I faw reason to change my opinion, and became an Arian; and notwithstanding what appeared to me a fair and impartial study of the fcriptures, and though I had no bias on my mind arifing from fubfcribed creeds, and confeffions of faith, &c. I continued in