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

Przipcovius-wrote upon this subject, 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 suspect 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 several circumstances to be collected from them *.

* Since this was written, I bave had a particular account of this work from a learned foreign correspondent, and it has not contributed to heighten my regret at not having been able to procure it. It does ' nor appear to

b 3

And it certainly requires no fmall degree of patience, as well as judgment and fagacity, to trace the real ftate of the unitarian chriftians 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.

almost all Arians, such as Dr. Whitby, Dr. Clarke, Mr. Whiston, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Pierce, &c. In their time, it was a great thing to prove that the opinion of the perfect equality of the Son to the Father, in all divine perfections, was not the doc. trine of the early ages.

Those writers could not, indeed, help perceiving traces of the doctrine of the simple humanity of Chrift; but taking it for granted that this was an opinion concerning him as much too low, as that of the Athanasians was too high, and there being no distinguished advocates for the proper unitarian doctrine in their time, they did not give sufficient attention to the circumstances relating to it. These circumstances it has been my business to collect, and to compare ; and, situated as I am, it may be depended upon, that I have done it with all the circumspection of which I am capable.

My authorities from original writers will perhaps be thought too full'; but I imagined that an error on this side would be b 4

the

the better extreme of the two. In fome
few places, the fame references have been
repeated, and in p. 147, through inadvert-
ence unneceffarily, as they occur again, p.
169, where they were more wanted. But
I do not think that befides thefe, there are
more than three or four repetitions of re-
ferences in the whole work. It will fre-
quently be found that more is contained
in the reference than in the text; but
this will gratify fome perfons who may
wish to see in what manner chriftian
writers of fo early a period expreffed them-
felves on the fubjects of this work, ef-
pecially as but few of my readers will
have an opportunity of feeing many of
the originals. If fome of my quota-
tions fhould excite a fmile, I hope they
will not be difpleafed. In whatever light
fuch paffages may appear to them, they
may be affured that they were written
with great ferioufnefs; and this will con-
tribute to their forming a more perfect
idea of the character and manner of that
clafs of writers.

My

My claffical reader must not expect the most correct ftyle in the authors with whom I shall bring him acquainted, efpecially fome of thofe who wrote in Latin; and the Greek writers abound with paffages which the ableft critics have not been ableto restore. In these cafes I have generally given that reading which the editors have preferred, and fometimes that which I have thought the fenfe abfolutely required. However the meaning (which is all that I have to do with) is generally fufficiently obvious, when the grammatical conftruction of the words is the most difficult.

It is fometimes of great confequence to diftinguish between the genuine and the Spurious works of the Fathers. With respect to this, I have moftly followed Cave. But, in general, it is fufficient for my purpose, if the books I quote were written within the period to which the fuppofed writers belong; because all that I am concerned with, is the exiftence of any particular opinion in the age to which I refer

1