« PreviousContinue »
received their denomination. Summary View, No. 4.
7. When a particular description is given of a class of persons within any period of time, any person who can be proved to have had the proper character of one- of that class may be deemed to have belonged to it, and to have enjoyed all the privileges of it, whatever they were. Summary View. No. 9.
8. When an historian, or writer of any kind, prosessedly enumerates the several species belonging to any genus, or general body of men, and omits any particular species or denomination, which, if it had belonged to the genus, he, from his situation and circumstances, was not likely to have overlooked, it may be presumed that he did not consider that particular species as belonging to the genus. Summary View, No. 7.
9. Great changes in opinion are not usually made oi a sudden, and never by great bodies of men. That history, therefore, which represents such changes as having been made gradually, and by easy steps, is always the more probable on that account. Summary View, No. 16.
10. The common or unlearned people, in any country, who do not speculate much, retain longest any opinions with which their minds have been much impressed; and therefore we always look for the oldest opinions in any country, or any class of
S 3 men, men, among the common people, and not among the learned. Summary View, No. 13, 14. .
11. If any new opinions be introduced into a society, they are most, likely to have introduced them who held opinions similar to them before they joined that society. Summary V. No. 15.
12. If any particular opinion has never failed to excite great indignation in all ages and nations, in which a contrary opinion has been generally received, and that particular opinion can be proved to have existed in any age or country when it did not excite indignation, it may be concluded that it had many partizans in that age or country. For the opinion being the fame, it could not of itself be more respectable; and human nature being the same, it could not but have been regarded in the same light, so long as the fame stress was laid on the opposite opinion. Summary View, No. I. Ji, 12.
13. When a time is given, in which any very remarkable and interesting opinion was not believed by a certain class of people, and another time in which the belief of it was general, the introduction of such an opinion may always be known by the effects which it will produce upon the minds, and in the conduct of men; by the alarm which it will give to some, and the desence of it by others. If,' therefore, no alarm was given, and no desence of
it was made, within any particular period, it may be concluded that the introduction of it did not take place within that period. Summary View, No. 2, 3. 6.
14. When any particular opinion or practice, is necessarily or customarily accompanied by any other opinion 'or practice; if the latter be not found within any particular period, it may be presumed that the former did not exist within that period. Summary View, No. 5.
It will be perceived that the whole of this historical evidence is in savour of the proper unitarian doctrine (or that of Christ being a mere man) having been the saith of the primitive church, in opposition to the arian no less than the trinitarian hypothesis.
As to the arian hypothesis in particular, I do not know that it can be traced any higher than Arius himself, or at least the age in which he lived. Both the gnostics and the platonizing christians were equally sar from supposing that Christ was a being created out of nothing; the former having thought him to be an emanation from the supreme being, and the latter the logos of the Father personified. And though they sometimes applied the term creation to this personification, still they did not suppose it to have been a creation out of nothing. It was only a new modification of what existed before. Fer God, they said, was always rational (Mytr-&Y or
had had within him that principle which asterwards assumed a personal character.
BesiJes, all the christian sathers, before the time of Arius, supposed that Christ had a human soul as well as a human body, which no arians ever admitted; they holding that the logos supplied the place of one in Christ.
Upon the whole, the arian hypothesis appears to me to be destitute of all support from christian antiquity. Whereas it was never denied that the proper unitarian doctrine existed in the time of the apostles; and I think it evident that it was the saith of the bulk of christians, and especially 'the unlearned christians, for two or three centuries aster Christ.
To the preface to the account of the trial of Mr Elwdlf in p. 59, 66, Dr. Prleslleyin 1788 made the following addition.
Since the writing of the above the editor has had the pleasure of knowing many of Mr. Elwall's acquaintance, and particularly Mr. John Martin, of Skilts-Park, between Birmingham and Alcester, who was present at the trial. He is now in his eighty-fourth year, and persectly remembers that it was in 1726, and he thinks it was the summeraffizes, because the weather was very hot. The reputation of the trial drew many persons to hear it, and himself among the rest; and being acquainted with some of the sheriff's men he got a very convenient station, at about an equal distance from the judge on his left-hand, and Mr. Elwall on his right, where he saw and heard to the greatest advantage. The trial, he says, was in the morning, and the figure of Mr. Elwall, who was a tall man, with white hair, a large beard and flowing garments, struck every body with respect. He spake about an hour with great gravity, fluency and presence of mind, but what is printed is the substance of what he said. The judge gave the most obliging attention to him, and the consusion of the clergy, when he paused and waited for their answer, as mentioned in the trial, was very visible. During the trial, Mr. Martin says he was struck with the resemblance of