Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

lative persons are always the first to begin an alteration in public opinion. If the public opinion is right, speculative men are the first who introduce error: if it be wrong, they are the first to reform and correct it. The change in the mass of the unlearned is gradual and slow: but generally, in process of time, it follows the direction of the learned. What is now the popular doctrine was once confined to the philosophers, and made its way by very slow degrees, and with great difficulty, among the common people. The corruptions of christianity were introduced by the learned and inquisitive. And by the learned and inquisitive the reformation was begun. By persons of this description it is still carried on, and is visibly, though slowly, advancing in opposition to the clamours of the ignorant, and to the artifice or violence of the interested. That truth by its native energy, aided by time, will eventually prevail, there can be no reasonable doubt: and when it has once re-established its glorious empire, there is no ground to apprehend that the age of darkness will return again. The prejudices which now obstruct its progress will then all operate in its favour: while the universal diffusion of knowledge, and the continually accelerated progress of human improvement, will oppose an insurmountable and eternal bar to the return of those gross errors and abominations which have for so many centuries been the disgrace of reason, and the bane of christianity.

ABSTRACT

APPENDIX TO SECT. XII.

OF THE

CONTROVERSY BETWEEN DR.

PRIESTLEY AND DR. HORSLEY CONCERNING THE EXISTENCE OF AN ORTHODOX CHURCH OF HEBREW CHRISTIANS AT ÆLIA, WHO HAD DEPARTED FROM THE JEWISH RITUAL.

DR. PRIESTLEY having asserted upon the authority of Origen, that "the Jews who believed in Jesus were called Ebionites; that these Ebionites were of two sorts, one of them believing the miraculous conception, the other not, but all of them considering Christ as a mere man 1",

Dr. Horsley in reply, after endeavouring to show that Origen's words might be interpreted differently, proceeds in a very triumphant tone to remark, "Let his words be taken as you understand them.I shall take what you may think a bold step. I shall tax the veracity of your witness of this Origen. I shall tell you that whatever may be the general credit of his character, yet in this business the particulars of his deposition are to be little regarded, when he sets out with the allegation of a notorious falsehood. He alleges of the Hebrew christians in neral, that they had not renounced the Mosaic law. The assertion served him for an answer to the invective which Celsus had put in the mouth of a Jew against the converted Jews, as deserters of the laws and customs of their ancesThe answer was not the worse for wanting truth, if his heathen antagonist was not sufficiently informed in the true distinctions of christian sects, to detect the falsehood......THE FACT is, that after the demolition of Jerusa

tors.

1 Priestley's Lett. to Horsley, p. 18.

ge.

lem

lem by Adrian, the majority of the Hebrew christians, who must have passed for Jews with the Roman magistrates, had they continued to adhere to the Mosaic law, which to this time they had observed more from habit than from any principle of conscience, made no scruple to renounce it, that they might be qualified to partake in the valuable privileges of the Ælian colony, from which Jews were excluded. Having thus divested themselves of the form of Judaism, which to that time they had borne, they removed from Pella and other towns to which they had retired, and settled in great numbers at Elia. The few who retained a superstitious veneration for their law, remained in the north of Galilee, where they were joined perhaps by new fugitives of the same weak character from Palestine. And this was the beginning of the sect of the Nazarenes. But from this time, whatever Origen may pretend to serve a purpose, the majority of the Hebrew christians forsook their law, and lived in communion with the Gentile bishops of the new-modelled church at Jerusalem. All this I affirm with the less hesitation, being supported by the authority of Mosheim. From whom indeed I first learned to rate the testimony of Origen in this particular question at its true value2."

One would conclude from the manner in which Dr. Horsley appeals to the testimony of Mosheim, that, having first, from his own extensive researches into ecclesiastical history, made this notable discovery of a Jewish church at Ælia, he was confirmed in his judgement by finding that Mosheim had also made the same discovery. But the truth is, that the learned dignitary, placing implicit confidence in Mosheim's testimony, having borrowed all the circumstances related by that celebrated historian, and mixed up a little of his own, has stated with great parade, and as incontrovertible fact, a narrative most improbable in itself, and utterly destitute of foundation in ecclesiastical antiquity.

Dr. Priestley, astonished beyond measure at a discovery 2 Horsley's Tracts, p. 156. I quote from the Collection of Tracts published by the Bishop of St. David's, 1789.

SO

so perfectly new to him, and so contrary to every thing which he had himself met with in his laborious researches, indignant likewise at the outrageous attack upon the unsullied character of the illustrious Origen, immediately, with his accustomed ardour, sets himself to examine the evidence of this extraordinary narrative. The only authority referred to by the learned archdeacon was a book not very commonly to be met, with in England, Mosheim de Reb. Christianorum ante Constantinum. This book not being at that time in Dr. Priestley's possession, he looked into Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, in which it appears that the learned author expresses himself with much greater caution than in his former work, being probably aware that his authorities would not bear him out in the facts, or rather, the conclusions which he had formerly stated3. Dr. Priestley, not being apprized of this difference in the two works of Mosheim, concluded rather hastily, that the additional circumstances originated in the exuberant invention of the archdeacon.

"Struck," says he, "with this extraordinary narration of a transaction of ancient times, for which you refer to no authority besides that of Mosheim, I looked into him: but even there I do not find all the particulars that you mention. He says nothing of the Jewish christians having observed their laws more from habit than from any principle of conscience; nothing of their making no scruple to renounce their law in order to partake in the privileges of

The account given by Mosheim in his Ecclesiastical History, (cent. 2. part ii. ch. v.) is as follows: "When the Emperor Adrian had razed Jerusalem, entirely destroyed even its very foundations, and enacted laws of the severest kind against the whole body of the Jewish people, the greatest part of the Christians who lived in Palestine, to prevent their being confounded with the Jews, abandoned entirely the Mosaic rites, and chose a bishop named Mark, a foreigner by nation, and consequently an alien from the commonwealth of Israel. step was highly shocking to those whose attachment to the Mosaic rites was violent and invincible; and such was the case of many. These, therefore, separated themselves from their brethren, and founded at Pera and in the neighbouring parts particular assemblies, in which the law of Moses maintained its primitive dignity, authority, and lustre.” See Dr. Maclaine's Translation, vol. i. p. 212.

This

the

the Ælian colony; nothing of any Jewish christians removing from Pella, and settling at Ælia; nothing of the retiring of the rest to the north of Galilee; or of this new origin of the Nazarenes there. For all these particulars therefore, learned Sir, you must have some other authority, in petto, besides that of Mosheim, and you ought to have produced it." He then proceeds to state how improbable it was that any great body of men, much less Jews, should suddenly change their opinions, customs, and habits. "You might just as well suppose," says Dr. P. "that all the Jews in Jerusalem began to speak Greek, as well as abandoned their ancient customs, in order to enjoy the privileges of the Ælian colony. And you would have this to allege in your favour, that from that time the bishops of Jerusalem were all Greeks, and the public offices were no doubt performed in the Greek language 4."

Dr. Priestley proceeds to observe, that the words of Sulpitius Severus, a writer of the fourth century, to which Mosheim refers, by no means support his or Dr. Horsley's narrative. He only says, that " because the christians were thought to consist chiefly of Jews, Adrian ordered a cohort of soldiers to keep constant guard, and drive all Jews from any access to Jerusalem: which was of service to the christian faith: for at that time they almost all believed Christ to be God, but with the observance of the law: the Lord so disposing it, that the servitude of the law should be removed from the liberty of the faith and the church. Then was Mark the first bishop of the Gentiles at Jerusalem 5." The authority cited by Mosheim being so little relevant to his purpose, Dr. Priestley afterwards consulted Eusebius and other ancient writers, who, though they give an account of the expulsion of the Jews, say not one word of the Jewish christians abandoning the Mosaic ritual. And he concludes with Tillemont and Fleury, that the christian Jews were expelled equally with the rest, and that the church which was formed at Ælia consisted wholly of

* Letters to the Archdeacon of St. Alban's, Lett. 4.

5

Sulpit. Sever. Hist. Sac. lib. ii. c. 31. Dr. Priestley, ibid. p. 41.
Gentiles.

T

« ÎnapoiContinuă »