Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 Elian 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 value."

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.

2

Dr. Priestley, astonished beyond measure at a discovery

Horsley's Tracts, p. 156. I quote from the Collection of Tracts published by the Bishop of St. David's, 1789.

[ocr errors]

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. This 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.

the

the Ælian colony; nothing of any Jewish christians removing from Pella, and settling at Elia; 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 language4."

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

5

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

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

T

Gentiles. He expresses great indignation at the unfounded charge against Origen's character; and ends his letter with the severe remark, "unless you can make a better apology for yourself than I am able to suggest, you will be considered by impartial persons as a falsifier of history, and a defamer of the character of the dead, in order to serve your purpose.

[ocr errors]

The learned dignitary, who, to say the truth, was innocent of the charge alleged, who was misled by the great authority of Mosheim, and who really meant nothing more than the common ruse de guerre of passing off Mosheim's discoveries for his own, probably presuming upon security from detection by the scarcity of the book, deeply resented and vehemently repelled Dr. Priestley's unfounded accusation. In the second chapter of his Remarks upon Dr. Priestley's Second Letters, after laying in the prudent precaution, that "whoever attempts to make out a consistent story from ancient writers, will find himself under a necessity of helping out their broken accounts by his own conjectures," he proceeds to the humble confession, that he had in fact advanced nothing but what he had borrowed from Mosheim. And not knowing at the time that his opponent had consulted the wrong reference, for, in truth, Dr. Priestley had not acknowledged it, Dr. Horsley, with much plausibility, retaliates the charge of wilful misrepresentation upon his adversary. "If he opened Mosheim in the place to which I referred," says our indignant respondent," he must know that I have added no circumstances to Mosheim's account but what every one must add in his own imagination. He must know that these circumstances in particular, which he is pleased to mention among my additions, are affirmed by Mosheim. The conflux of Hebrew christians to Elia; the motive which induced the majority to give up their ancient customs, namely, the desire of sharing in the privileges of the Ælian colony; and the retreat of those who could not give their ancient cus toms up to remote corners of the country: these were Mosheim's assertions before they were mine: and Dr. Priestley either knows this, or pretending to separate Mos

heim's account from my additions, he hath not taken the trouble to examine what is mine and what is Mosheim's."

So it is that the truth comes out between these learned polemics. Dr. Horsley, after having peremptorily stated that " THE FACT IS so, which I affirm with the less hesitation, being SUPPORTED by the authority of Mosheim,” is now reduced to the humiliating acknowledgement that he had advanced nothing but what he had borrowed from Mosheim. And Dr. Priestley having consulted a wrong reference, unjustly taxes the venerable archdeacon with being a bold falsifier of history, and defamer of the dead, when he was in fact nothing more than the humble, and we may charitably hope, the uninformed plagiary of the falsehood and defamation of another.

The archdeacon, however, was sufficiently sensible that in the estimation even of willing judges, his justification of himself from the charge of Dr. Priestley would not entirely acquit him from that of adopting implicitly the errors of Mosheim: or, as he himself correctly expresses it, p. 364, having "related upon the authority of Mosheim, what Mosheim relates upon none." He very properly, therefore, proceeds to study eccclesiastical history for him. self; and after eighteen months' hard labour (p. 410) he at length produces the following new and most satisfactory demonstration of the existence of this famous church of orthodox Hebrew christians at Ælia, who had abandoned the Mosaic ritual.

First, the learned dignitary states in form six distinct propositions (p. 364); the first three of which are undisputed facts, and the three last, gratuitous assumptions. The first asserts the existence of a Hebrew church of the circumcision at Jerusalem or Pella, " till the dispersion of the Jews by Adrian."-2. That "upon this event a christian church arose at Elia."-3. "This was a Greek church governed by bishops of the uncircumcision." All these were allowed facts.-4. The fourth proposition assumes, that "the observation of the Mosaic law by the primitive church of Jerusalem was a matter of mere habit and national prejudice, not of conscience. A matter of conscience

T 2

« PreviousContinue »