« PreviousContinue »
had within him that principle which afterwards af. sumed a personal character.
Besides, all the christian fathers, 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 fupplied the place of one in Christ.
Upon the whole, the arian hypothesis appears to , me to be destitute of all support from christian an
tiguity. 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 faith of the bulk of christians, and especially the unlearned christians, for two or three centuries after Christ.
To the preface to the account of the trial of Mr Elwall
in p. 59, 60, Dr. Priestley in 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 perfectly remembers that it was in 1.726, and he thinks it was the summerassizes, 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 inen 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 fowing garments, ftruck every body with respect. He spake about an hour with great gravity, Auency 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 confusion of the clergy, whien 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
it to that of Paul. He does not recollect that the jury brought in any verdict, but the judge said he was at liberty to go where he pleased. It is possible that the trial might not come to a regular terinination, on account of Mr Elwall not having had a copy of the indictment, as mentioned in this account.