I cannot but admire that they who within these few years have in this kingdom embraced Socinus his opinions, should consider no better how little success they have had elsewhere against the truth, and that upon the score of their divisions, which will unavoidably follow, till they can agree in unanimously rejecting the authority of Scripture. Neither doth it avail them anything to use quibbles and evasions, and weak conjectures, since they are often unanswerably confuted even by some of their brethren, who are more dexterous than they in expounding of Scriptures.
But being resolved by all means to defend their tenents, some chief men amongst them have undertaken to set aside the authority of Scriptures, which is so troublesome to them: and the author of a late book, intitled Considerations, maintains that the Gospels have been corrupted by the Orthodox party, and suspects that of St. John to be the work of Cerinthus.
It is no very easy task to dispute against men whose principles are so uncertain, and who in a manner have no regard to the authority of Scripture. It was much less difficult to undertake Socinus himself, because he owned however the authority of Scripture, and that it had not been corrupted. But one knows not how to deal with his disciples, who in their opinion seem to be so contrary to him, and one another.
(The Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church against the Unitarians, London, 1699, Preface.)
[Pierre Allix, born in Alençon in 1641, died in London in 1717. He was pastor at Charenton up to 1685, when he fled to England and became Canon of Salisbury. He contemplated writing a history of the Councils in seven volumes. A special Act of Parliament (11 & 12 Will. iii., c. 3) was obtained, providing that the paper for the entire work should be imported duty free.]
ABEL BOYER
Upon History (1702)
Some writers barely relate the actions of men, without speaking of their motives, and, like gazeteers, are contented to acquaint us with matter of fact, without tracing it to its spring and cause; others, on the contrary, are so full of politicks and finesse, that they find cunning and design in the most natural and innocent actions. Some, to make their court to the powerful, debase the dignity of history, by cringing and adulation; whilst others, to serve a party, or faction, or merely to gratify their ill-nature, rake up all the scandal of men's lives, give a malicious turn to every thing, and libel every body, even without respecting the sacred Majesty of Princes. Another sort moralize upon every petty accident, and seem to set up for philosophers, instead of historians. And lastly, others are peremptory in their decisions, and impose on the world their conjectures for real truths.
These faults I have endeavoured to avoid. When I relate matters of fact, I deduce them, as far as my informations permit me, from their true causes, without making men more politick, or subtle, than nature has made them. I commend what, in conscience I believe, deserves to be commended, without any prospect of favour, or private interest; and I censure what I think deserves to be blam'd, with the liberty that becomes a faithful unprejudic'd historian, tho' with due regard to persons, whose birth, dignity and character command the respect, even of those who disapprove their actions. I am sparing of reflections, unless it be upon those remarkable events from which they naturally result; and I never biass the reader's judgment by any conjectural impositions of my own.