detailed, and translated by Mr. Burgh, in his valuable INQUIRY. The Unitarians being driven from their position, that "the Fathers of the three first Centuries were the consegenerally Unitarians," quence, which Mr. Lindsey drew from it, that all Christian people for more than upwards of three hundred years after Christ were generally Unitarians, fell to the ground. The premises being false, the consequence, of course, was false. Yet Dr. Priest ley took up this false consequence, in which he was followed by Mr. Belsham. But what could be more obviously irrational, than the supposition that the generality of Christians were Unitarians, while their teachers were Trinitarians? Mr. Belsham is a professed Unitarian, and therefore I conclude that his Congregation in Essex-street are Unitarians. If it were asserted, that they were believers in the doctrine of the Trinity, no one would credit the assertion; no one would believe that a congregation and their teacher held contrary opinions. To Mr. Belsham's assertion, that "there is no proof whatever that any Church of orthodox Jews ever existed, (Calm Inquiry, p. 412.) I have opposed ample evidence of the existence and orthodoxy of the Church of Jerusalem (with an authentic list of the Bishops of Jerusalem and Elia, from James, the first Bishop, to Hermon, the last of the third Century) from the testimony of Hymenæus, Eusebius, and Sulpitius, and from the creed of the Church of Elia. Continuation of Mr. Belsham's inaccuA glaring Anachronism. Bishop Horsley maintained, on the authority of Epiphanius, that the Hebrew Christians, who fled from Jeru salem to Pella during the siege of the city by Adrian, returned to Jerusalem, and were there when Aquila was superintending the works of Elia, who was converted by them. Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham assert that the Jews mentioned by Epiphanius were the Jews who returned to Jerusalem after its destruction by Titus. This dispute is not essential to the inquiry into the faith of the primitive Church; but the issue of it is, to the character of the disputants for accuracy and right information. The main question between Bishop Horsley and Dr. Priestley (as you may remember) was, whether belief in the Divinity of Christ was the faith of the primitive Church. I have before stated to you indisputable evidence, that it was. Whether, the Church of Jerusalem, with their belief O in Christ's Divinity, retained the ordinances of Moses after the building of Elia, or renounced, them in submissio mission to Adrian's decree, whether the orthodox Church of Elia consisted wholly of Gentiles, or partly of Jews, are questions extraneous to the principal subject. Yet here, we are told," begins the triumph of Dr. Priestley." Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham charge Bishop Horsley with a gross error in Chronology in this part of the inquiry; but the error is wholly their own. I will first give you Dr. Priestley's account of this matter: "I do maintain, that Epiphanius makes no mention whatever of any return of Christian Jews from Pella, besides that which took place after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and not at all of any return after the destruction by Adrian*." You shall judge for yourselves from Dr. Priestley's own translation of the words of Epiphanius. After mentioning that Aquila was employed by Adrian as inspector of his works at Elia, Epiphanius proceeds thus: "Aquila, living at Jerusalem, and seeing the disciples of the disciples of the Apostles flourishing in the faith, and working great miracles, especially in healings (for they had returned from the city of Pella to Jerusalem, 'and taught there. For when the city was about to be taken by the Romans, all the disciples had been forewarned by an angel to leave the city, which was devoted to destruction. These, leaving it, went and dwelt in the abovementioned Pella, beyond Jordan, one of those that were called Decapolis; but returning after the desolation of Jerusalem, as I have said, worked miracles) Aquila, therefore, being convinced, became a Christian, and after some time requesting the seal of Christianity [viz. baptism] obtained it." * Letters to the Archdeacon of St Alban's, Part III. p. 22. The original is quoted there, and in Bishop Horsley's Tracts, p. 370. The contemporaries of Titus; and there are other reasons which clearly prove they were the contemporaries of (not the disciples of the Apostles, as Mr. Belsham does in his Claims, p. 32, but) the disciples of the disciples of the Apostles. These disciples in the second degree from the Apostles could not have been contemporaries with the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, A. D. 70. Most of the Apostles, indeed, and their disciples, were contemporary with that event; but the disciples of their disciples, were living not only in the time of Adrian, but many years afterwards. Papias and Polycarp were disciples of St. John, and long survived the building of Elia by Adrian. Irenæus was a disciple of Polycarp. The reason, which Dr. Priestley gives, for asserting that the return of the Jews from Pella here mentioned, was after the destruction of Jerusa- Adrian. For Epiphanius calls them lem by Titus, and not by Adrian, is, that, on the former occasion, they were said to be warned by an angel to leave the city, but never before that of Adrian. How could Dr. Priestley assert this? The history of the latter siege, now unfortunately lost, was written by Aristo Pellæus, from whom, in all probability, Epiphanius derived his narrative. Dr. Priestley could not prove, and had no authority for asserting, that the Christians were not warned at the latter siege, as well as at the former. It might have been mentioned by Aristo. Such surmises therefore are no proof that these returning Jews were the St. John, A. D. 70. died about 100-Titus, Domitian, Nerva. Polycarp, A. D. 108. 166 Trajan, Adrian, Antoninus P. 201Antoninus Ph. Commodus. stantine Memoirs, the reverend Prebendary accuses him of having made a very precipitate assertion, and, after having occupied two or three paragraphs of decent length in settling the date of the two publications, he gravely concludes, that he is very far from being certain, that the General History was first published. after the other; and then, with his accustomed courtesy,' he thinks it not improbable, that Mr. B. with the usual heedlessness of his master, looked to the date affixed to the first work in the volume, when he should have looked to the second.' To settle this intricate and momentous question, which seems to have cost the reverend Prebendary, no small expence of time and temper, he need but consult Maclaine's Eccl. Hist. vol. II. p. 170, where he will fiod, that Mosheim actually refers, in a note, to his Ante-Constantine History, and retracts an assertion, which he had made in it." Irenæus, A. D. 167. The disciples, therefore, of the disciples of the Apostles were contemporaries with Trajan, Adrian, and the Antonines. And consequently the return of the Jews from Pella, after the desolation of Jerusalem mention ed by Epiphanius, could not have been in the time of Titus, but of Adrian. Yet this fact recorded by Epiphanius, and quoted from him by Mosheim and Bishop Horsley, is stigmatized by Dr. Priestley as a forgery, only because he looked for it in Mosheim's Institutiones instead of his Commentarii. And this gross error in Chronology, and grosser charge of forgery, are the TRIUMPHS OF DR. PRIESTLEY, again and again reviewed, applauded, and adopted by Mr. Belsham. Mr. Belsham's ignorance of the Works of Mosheim. Mr. Belsham is as unacquainted with the history of the works of Mosheim, as his predecessor was. In his "Claims of Dr. Priestley" (p. 92, Note) he says of Bishop Horsley's Son: "The reverend Prebendary, in his great eagerness to fix the imputation of ignorance upon the Calm Inquirer, not unfrequently exposes his own. The Reviewer of the controversy (Mr. Belsham) having insinu ated that Mosheim, in his General Ecclesiastical History, had, upon mature reflection and better information, omitted some circumstances which he had introduced into his Ante-Con * I have quoted the passage at length, that you may see that Mr. Belsham is never more inaccurate, than when he is most confident. Mr. Belsham (in his Claims of Dr. Priestley) infers from the reference just quoted, that Mosheim's Ante-Constantine History was a less accurate work than the General History. This inference is * The General History was first published long before the other. necessary necessary to Mr. Belsham, because (in his Review of the Controversy) he considers that the fact in question (the return of the Christians from Pella to Jerusalem) " was omitted in the General History in consequence of mature reflection and better information." But the reverse of this inference is the truth. The AnteConstantine History (or Commentarii de rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum Magnum) was published in 1753, 16 years after the first publication of the General History (or Institutiones Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ antiquioris,) in 1737. The latter work was, as its title imports, a merely elementary work in its first publication, though greatly improved in the edition of 1755. The COMMENTARII, on the contrary, is one of Mosheim's most elaborate productions. In the description of his works, subjoined to the Institutiones, ed. 1755, there is this remark on the Commentarii : "Tractantur in his capita singularia curatissimè." The dates and characters of the two works are of importance in ascertaining Mosheim's opinion of the credibility of the fact recorded in the Commentarii; and Mr. Belsham's ignorance of their relative character may shew you how incompetent he is to every portion of this inquiry. A complication of inaccuracies. If the COMMENTARII had been a less elaborate work than the Institutiones, the difference would have tended to lessen the probability of the fact appealed to, the return of the Jewish Christians from Pella to Jerusalem after the siege by Adrian. Mr. Belsham tells Mr. Horsley, in the passage before quoted, that "he need but consult Maclaine's translation of Mosheim's Ecclesiastical His tory, vol. II. p. 170, where he will find that Mosheim actually refers, in a note, to his Ante-Constantine History, and retracts an assertion which he had made in it." It is not easy to parallel the inaccuracy of this passage. In the first place, there is no note of Mosheim in p. 170, of the second volume of Maclaine's Translation; nor was it likely there should be any, relative to the Ante-Constantine history; for p. 170 belongs to the seventh Century. But conceiving that the reference to vol. II. might be an error of the press, I consulted 1 the first; and there, indeed, I find a note concerning the Commentarii De rebus Christianorum ante Const. Mag. and the retractation of an opinion once entertained by Mosheim. But even there the note is not by Mosheim, but by Maclaine; and the retractation is not of an opinion maintained in the Commentarii, and corrected in the Institutiones; but of an opinion asserted in his dissertation De Ecclesia turbata per recentiores Platonicos, and corrected by the "mature reflection and better information" of the Commentarii. * Irrational prejudice. Such complicate inaccuracy embroils, and, so far as it goes, renders useless the advantages of this enlightened era; it retards the progress of free inquiry, and is injurious to that advancement of religious knowledge, to which, Unitarians boast of having largely contributed. Inaccuracy, however, may be remedied by "mature reflection and better information." But prejudice (whether it arise from the prepossession of " antecedent" principles, or from aversion to every thing that is established) "has neither eye nor ear," as was very acutely observed by a right reverend Member of the British and Foreign Bible Society at the late Anniversary Meeting t. It sees no evidence, and hears no reason, which militates against its own individual judgment. I cannot give you a better instance of such blindness of prejudice, than the manner in which Mr. Belsham refuses to admit the direct testimony of St. Paul to the Divinity of Christ (Tit. ii. 13.) This testimony has every ground of evidence which reason can require, from context, from idiom, from other passages of Scripture, from antiquity of doc trine, and from the unanimous judge ment of the Greek Fathers, and of the Latin also, with one insignificant exception. Yet Mr. Belsham says, that he will give up the text, as inexpli cable, rather than " believe that the Apostle intended to teach a doctrine *On the Rev. H. Norris's Practical Exposition, a Tract professing demon stration, but which Mr. Dealtry has effectually, answered by the correction of fifty mistakes. + See the Reports of the Anniversary Meeting. so new, so incredible," as the Divinity was as it is tion or refutation. As, however, But how your Correspondent could think these trifles worthy a place in your Obituary, or what possible amusement or edification he expected your readers to derive from them, can be obvious certainly to no mind but his own. Ale k It is also true, that Mr. George Ramsey was one of my Consistent with Dr. Clarke's Logos; congregation during his father's and belongs only to "the low, mean Mr. URBAN, residence at Manchester; but that from the pulpit he ever by name called him or any other hearer to awake, and much less in the ludicrous manner here stated, I can take upon me very confidently to deny; and Mr. Ramsey, if living, will, I am sure, deny it too. I will only here beg your Correspondent to remember that when any person, in order to make another appear ridiculous, deigns to resort to the mean and pitiful arts of misrepresentation, he must himself, when detected, appear somewhat worse than ridiculous. Fordingbridge, Hants, August 17. YOU OU will not, I am persuaded, deny a Son the privilege and pleasure of vindicating the memory of an honoured Parent, which, I am sorry to say, has been traduced by some anonymous Correspondent in In the next article, your Correyour Obituary for June. Not being spondent, rising in the spirit of confiin the habit of constantly reading dence, but not in the majesty of truth, your valuable Miscellany, it was by boldly charges my father's memory mere accident that I happened to see with the profaneness, which, he says, what is there related concerning my has been often by mistake attributed late valued father, the Rev. T. Priest- to others: affirming that, when he ley artfully related, as it strikes once read in public the language of me; commencing with the ludicrous, St. Paul, I can do all things," he advancing to the profane, and con- pulled out half-a-crown, and offered cluding with the false and dishonour- to lay a wager with the Apostle that able; and with such a tone of conthis was not true; but, reading on fidence, as is likely to impose upon that this was to be done by faith," many. I think it, therefore, a duty he in vulgar language retracted. which I owe to you, Sir, and your Your Correspondent, in this statenumerous readers, as well as to the ment, is, as it regards his own credit, pious dead, to repel the undeserved peculiarly unfortunate, proving himcalumny, in the same publication by self unable to quote correctly either which it as been so widely propa- Scripture or fact; for there happens gated. One incident, indeed, appears to be no such text in the Bible as he too insignificant to merit either inser- mentions; and my worthy father *Calm Inquiry, p. 155. never uttered a word of what is here so confidently imputed to him. t have heard the anecdote related (only more correctly) of some other person, when my late father has been present, who never failed to express, on hearing it, his disapprobation and regret. Finally, your Correspondent has the temerity and wickedness to accuse my late honoured parent of duplicity and falsehood. Being very desirous, he says, of preaching for his brother Dr. Priestley at Birmingham, he artfully promised, in order to obtain his pulpit, to abstain from the discussion of doctrinal points, and afterwards grossly violated that promise by preaching a furious Calvinistic sermon. This conduct, Sir, would unquestionably have been very mean and base; but the fact is, that in this statement there is not a word of truth. What will your Readers think of your Correspondent, when I assure them, that my father never did, in any instance, preach for Dr. Priestley at Birmingham, nor ever request to do so? At a very early period of their Ministry indeed, the two brothers did, by mutual agreement, preach for each other; but without any personal allusions, or unseemly hostility on either side. From reviewing what your Correspondent has said, and especially on the last article, I am disposed to think that he is no friend to what is usually termed Orthodoxy, and that he has here aimed a blow at the system through the side of one of its deceased friends.. Pray, Mr. Urban, when you shew him these lines, take the opportunity of reminding him, that they who use the weapons of misrepresentation and falsehood, often wound themselves instead of their opponent; and that any system which stands in need of such means of defence, must be unworthy of being defended. Tell him likewise, that if there be not more magnanimity, there is at least less meanness, in assailing those who are able to defend their reputation, than such as are incapable of breaking the silence of the grave, to speak on their own behalf. He has read, no doubt, in antient fable, how a noble animal was attacked by the meaner brutes, and especially by one more ignoble than the rest, at a period when unable to defend himself from insult and from injury; and GENT. MAG. August, 1815. might, one would have thought, have gathered from the instructive line, this, at least, that if it be cowardly and mean to assault the persons of the feeble and the afflicted, it cannot be less so, to insult and defame the characters of the venerable dead. Do not fail to express to him, Sir, your earnest wish and hope, that he will be careful, from this instance of ill success, as well as from the evil nature of the employ itself, to abstain in future from any unworthy attempts to calumniate either the living or the dead; and hereafter to manifest an inviolable regard for the things which are "true and just; lovely, and of good report." When, however, our departed friends, who have approved themselves the servants of God and righteousness, are thus assailed, there are, among many others, two especial sources of comfort. The one is, that their characters, when unjustly reproached, may be defended; and their enemies be put to silence, if not to shame. The other is, that their happy spirits have soared above, where no shafts of calumny can reach, and where no accuser of the brethren can follow to annoy. There, we doubt not, this aged disciple of Jesus, who usefully served him in the Ministry of the Gospel for upwards of half a century, has entered into the rest and joy of his Lord. And when that Lord shall come in his glory to receive his followers to himself, he will say to those who have reproached and injured, as well as to those who have befriended them, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Hoping, Sir, that you will have the goodness to insert the above, I remain Yours, &c. WM. PRIESTLEY. |