difficult to press out any other meaning, fitted to our purposes than, that, of those Judaisers, who were distinguished from the members of the Church, and scarcely deserving of the name of Christians, two kinds were denominated Ebionites. It will not we imagine, be denied, that a term applied as a name of reproach *, affords rather curious ground to rest an argument upon; and the polemic who plants himself upon such slippery ground, in maintaining a favourite point, would do well to look to his heels, lest the ballast of too much brains should endanger his footing. Those who have but experience sufficient to know, how sects and parties, not merely in religious but secular concerns, bandy compliments; must know, that their names of reproach, are not always chosen or applied, with logical precision. The orthodox of the Athanasian age were called Sabellians; the Unitarians of the last age were called Socinians; and those of the present age are denominated Deists and Infidels. But we believe it never entered into the conception of any head, but one contrived like Dr. Priestley's, to conclude, that the different denominations thus confounded under the same term, were literally the same; because they were similarly termed. This slight flaw in the testimony of the learned and celebrated Mr. Jones has indeed objected, Seq. to Eccl. Research. p. 183. and before him Mr. Toland, Nazaren. ch. viii. p. 26: That the word Ebion was not applied, as a term of reproach. Granting this to be the case, it does not affect the point in dispute; which is confined to an inference deduced from the testimony of Origin: in whose age the word certainly received this application: vid. sup. p. 510. n.*. But the objections of M. M. Jones and Toland are not founded in fact; as the latter gentleman was given to understand by Dr. Mangey, who left him very little to rejoin on this subject, Toland. Mongo neut. p. 170. We subjoin a few of the reasons, which confirm us in the same opinion. (1) The term as, properly signifies, not merely a poor-man, but a beggar; vid. Deut. xv. 4. Job. xxxi. 19. Ps. cxl. 13. (2) This sense it possesses derivatively; as descended from the root nas to crave. (3) In this sense it is put in apposition with y needy, Deut. xxiv. 14. Job. xxiv. 14. Ps. xxxviii. 14. xl. 18. lxx. 6. lxxiv. 21. (4) To this sense it is limited by Origen and. Epiphanius; who were both versed in Hebrew; the latter being considered a converted Jew. Vid. supr. p. 570. n. *, S. Epiphan. Hær. xxx. p. 141. Ἐβίων ἐκαλεῖτο—ὁ πτωχὸς καὶ τάλας. In which short definition, wxès a poor-man, is accurately distinguished from as a beggar, by the essential difference of being ☀ ránas, wretched; which reduces the Hebrew word to a term of reproach. Origin" Origen" was not wholly lost on the observation of Dr. Horsley. He accordingly put in his exceptions; but as the reply of Dr. Priestley is a curiosity, we subjoin the answer and its rejoinder as we find them reported by Mr. Belsham. "Upon the first of these citations (from Origen) the Bishop remarks, that "the word Ebionite, in Origen's time, had outgrown its original meaning," (Tracts. p. 38.) so as to include the orthodox Jewish believers: to which Dr. Priestley replies, (Tracts. p. 19. p. 30. ed. 1815,) that "this is a gratuitous conjecture of his own, contradicted by the unanimous testimony of antiquity, and that if true, it must have made three sorts of Ebionites, and not two only." Pref. p. v. The reader will discern, from the words in Italics, how much this ingenious reply of Dr. Priestley's derives from the learning of the last reporter; the opinion of Petavius, Bp. Bull, and De la Rue*, being now made "the gratuitous conjecture" of Bishop Horsley. But the force of Dr. Priestley's reply rather challenges our admiration. In order to give it full effect, we shall illustrate it by a familiar example. The term Socinian is now applied, and as Mr. Aspland declares, is applied as a term of reproach, to the Unitarians; in the same manner as the term Ebionite was applied in Origen's days, to the Hebrews of the orthodox and deistical communion. From hence a man of plain understanding would merely infer with Bishop Horsley, that the word has now "outgrown its original meaning." No; replies the objector, "if this be true, it makes three sorts of Unitarians;" i. e. we conjecture, Socinians, Unitarians, and certain Nondescripts, which possess the name of the one, but the qualities of neither. If these instances be not parallel, we now challenge Mr. Belsham to point out, in what they essentially differ? Having thus heard the testimony of this unanswerable witness to the close, let us now attend to the conclusion which it irrefragably establishes. "What I undertook to prove," states Dr. Priestley, was, that the faith of the primitive church was unitarian." "And upon the whole," restates Mr. Belsham," he made good his allegations, and particularly, that in his assertion of the perfect unitarianism of great body of Hebrew Christians, he was supported-above all, by the learned and celebrated Origen.” * Petav. not. in S. Epiphan. Hær. xxx. § 3. D. Bull. Jud. Cathol. Eccl. cap. ii. § 18. p. 303. in Orig. Tom. I. p. 385. n. f. Tom. II. p. 55. We We have thus followed this curious demonstration to the close, with as much gravity as we could muster on an occasion so fertile in the ridiculous. And while we feel curious to be informed what it may be which Dr. Priestley has proved, we challenge the advocate of his fame and the participator of his triumphs, to point out, in the whole range of theology, Mr. Jones's labours excepted, another attempt at argument, which makes a pretence to learning or research, which is half so despicable as the present. We call for another instance, in which the reading is more shallow, the argument more weak than this happiest effort of the genius and learning of " the indefatigable and undaunted champion of the Divine Unity." Thus far we have considered the controversial claims of Dr. Priestley, without any particular regard to the seasonable casfigation which his errors received from the powerful arm of Bishop Horsley. The respective merits of these opponents we are now fated to consider, whom no man has ever had the front to compare; until Mr. Thomas Belsham undertook to insult the memory of that able prelate, and the common sense of his readers, by proclaiming, that he was foiled in argument by that miserable driveller, whose pretensions, the most superficial observer must see through and despise. As every ardent admirer of Dr. Priestley is entitled to our peculiar respect; as the calumniator of Bishop Horsley stands indebted to our supreme regard; and as Mr. Thomas Belshamn has claims of a private nature upon "the wise men of the British Critic;" we shall now transfer a little of our regard from the principal to the accessary in this controversy, which he has undertaken to revive. We have no room, and have little inclination to abuse our readers' patience with the repetition of the shallow impotence in which the friend and successor of Dr. Priestley exhausts his efforts at being severe and contemptuous. The competency of Mr. Thomas Belsham, in point of knowledge and discernment, to form any opinion on the subject before us, is the exclusive object of our subsequent remarks on his work. For this purpose, we shall set the controversy which he has restated, in the light in which it strikes the sagacity of such a reviewer. "The character of Origen," says Mr. Belsham, "and the existence of an orthodox Hebrew church at Elia, which discarded the rites of the law, are the principal topics of controversy between Dr. Horsley and Dr. Priestley. Other questions, however, of minor importance occasionally intervened." P. 25. Such indisputably was the channel into which Dr. Priestley industriously laboured to divert the controversy, from the original fundamental question, on the testimony of Ecclesiastical Antiquity, VOL. IV. NOVEMBER, 1815. LI Antiquity, and the faith of the primitive Hebrew Church. In the last series of "Letters" to which Dr. Horsley condescended to make any reply, such was the ground on which it was excluşively placed. And this it was which induced his opponent, then Bishop of St. David's, to set the question upon the true and broad basis; ou which his sentiments were formally stated in seven distinct propositions. As a further specimen of Mr. Belsham's discernment, we shall give them according to his reporting; "And as his argument lies in a narrow compass, and is worthy of being recorded as a curious specimen of what learning and logic are able to accomplish, the several steps of his demonstration shall be set down in his own words. Tracts. P. 409. "I take for granted (says Bishop H.) these things." 1. "A Church of Hebrew Christians, adhering to the observance of the Mosaic law, subsisted for a time at Jerusalem, and for some time at Pella, from the beginning of Christianity until the final dispersion of the Jews by Adrian. 2. "Upon this event a Christian Church arose at Ælia. 3. "The Church at Elia, often, but improperly called the Church of Jerusalem, for Jerusalem was no more: the Church of Ælia, in its external form, in its doctrines and its discipline, was a Greek Church; and it was governed by a bishop of the uncircumcision.-- Again, I take for granted 4. "That the observation of the Mosaic law in the Primitive Church at Jerusalem was a matter of mere habit, and national prejudice, not of conscience.-St. Paul in all his Epistles, maintains the total insignificance of the Mosaic law-the notion that Paul could be mistaken in a point which is the principal subject of a great part of his writings, is an impiety which I cannot impute to our holy brethren the saints of the Primitive Church of Jerusalem. Again, I take for granted— 5. "That with good Christians, such as I believe the Primitive Church of Jerusalem to have been, motives of worldly interest, which would not overcome conscience, would nevertheless overcome mere habit. 6. "That the desire of partaking in the privileges of the Ælian colony-would accordingly be a motive, that would prevail with the Hebrew Christians of Jerusalem, and other parts of Palestine, to divest themselves of the form of Judaism, by laying aside their antient customs. I affirm― 7. "That a body of orthodox Christians of the Hebrews, were actually existing in the world much later than the time of Adrian," P. 57. To any person, not wilfully blind to the truth, or in utter darkness, respecting the great question on which Dr. Horsley and Dr. Priestley were engaged, it must be palpable, that the main strength of the ground, thus occupied by the Bishop of St. David's lies in the first four propositions together with the last; such being the invincible position, pre-occupied by his great predecessor, the incomparable Bishop Bull*. For it must be obvious to the shallowest observer, that, if," from the beginning," an orthodox Hebrew Church existed at Jerusalem, and continued until the times of Hadrian, it is of no conse quence where it afterwards existed, provided it remained as an evidence of the existence of the original orthodox Hebrews. The vigorous and indefatigable Dr. Priestley, however, resolved at least to perpetuate the quarrel, as he was unable to support the contest, again returned to the charge: with a becoming contempt for humbler considerations, overlooking the original question, he enters into a vindication of his own candour and originality; reiterates two tremendous objections which had been started on the testimony of Clement and Tertullian and brings up, as his reserve, the old and edifying discussion on the testimony and evidence of Origen, and the existence of the Elian Church. All consideration of the original question, and grounds of Bishop Horsley's defence, being thus judiciously suppressed, the necessity and even the pretext for rejoining by an observation, was thus taken from the Bishop of St. David's, and the controversy of necessity died a natural death. Such was the situation of matters when Mr. Thomas Belsham, itching with the desire of being known--as the friend of Dr. Priestley, and the adversary of Bishop Horsley, pricked forward with a flourish, and made his entry into the field. Prudently reserving his attack, however, until the moment of danger was over, he then courageously demonstrated his prowess by insulting a dead adversary, at whom he trembled when alive. From the hero who advanced thus briskly to the contest, we had some right to expect at least an effort, to recover the ground from which his predecessor had been driven, or had judiciously retired. But how does Mr. Belsham acquit himself in the character which he assumed? Those who do not know, by experience, how shallow in knowledge and discernment the foundation is laid on which an Unitarian's confidence is usually built, will find a difficulty in bringing themselves to believe. Incredible however as it may appear, it is notwithstanding a fact, that the several positions which Dr. Horsley had "taken as granted," from being proved without controversion †, Mr. * D. Bull. Jud. Eccl. Cath. cap. ii. § 10. sqq. p. 298. Prim. Apost. Trad. cap. i. § 5. sqq. p. 363. Vid. D. Bull ut supr. n. *. |
