« ForrigeFortsæt »
gery, The letters considered as genuine papers were unknown when they ought, and could not fail to have excited the greatest noife and ferment. When contidered as a forgery their appearance was in the exact moment of propriety. For the conspirators having completed the usurpation of the government, were in a situation where it was absolutely necessary for thein either to acknowledge their own transgressions, or to impeach the Queen. Their crimes and rebellion, the neceffties of their hituation, and her impeachment, are all correspondent and explanatory. They are the parts of a whole, and throw mutually a light to one another.
. In this act of council the conspirators discover the greatest anxiety for their pardon and security. Now, if the letters had been genuine, this anxiety would have been most unnatural; for, the notoriety of her guilt would have operated most completely their jultification and purdon. In this act of council they betray the utmost folicitude to establish the criminality of the Queen. Yet, if the letters had been real, her criminality would have been established from the moment of their discovery. This anxiety therefore for themselves, and this attempt againt the honour of the Queen at * , juncture fo particular, are more than fufpicious. They appear to be obviously the suggestions of their guilty fears; and the steps by which they thought to accomplish their purposes are a new evidence against them, and a fresh intimation of their guilt. . It was with a view to the approaching convention of the Eitates, that this act of council had been formed and managed. It was a preparation for the parliament, in which the confpirators had secured the fullest fway; and where they proposed to effectuate their pardon and secu. rity, and to etablish the letters as decisive vouchers againit the Queen.
Accordingly upon the xv, day of December, LDLXXII. the three Estates were assembled. The conspirators invited no candid or regular enquiries or investigation. The friends of the nation and of the Queen were overawed. Every thing proceeded in conformity to the act of council, The conspirators by a parliamentary decree received a full approbation of all the severitiçs they had exercised against the Queen. A pardon by anticipation was even accorded to them for any future cruelty or punishment they might be induced to inflict upon her. The letters were mentioned as the cause of this singular law; and this new appeal to then may be termed the second mark of their dittinction. But amidst the plentitude of their power the conspirators called not the Ęitateş to a free and honeit examinațion of them. This, indeed, if the letters had been genuine, would have annihilated for ever all the consequence of the Queen. Upon this measure, however, they ventured not. They apprehended a detection of their forgery, and a protestation against it. The letters were neither read, nor exainined, nor recorded. The Queen was not brought froin her confineinent to defend herself, and no advocate was permitted to speak for her. By a Itrong and unwarrantable exertion oc authority, the parliament sustained them as vouchers of her guilt without inspection, scrutiny, or debate. The conspirators who were themselves the criminals, were here her accusers, and her judges,
• There was yet no actual exhibition or display of the letters. 16 was, however, necessary to describe them in the act of council, and in the ordination of the parliament; and these deeds having fortuna tely defcended to postority, it is most remarkable that from a com. parison of them, it is to be observed that the letters must have uns dergone eflential alterations under the management of the conspira
In the act of council the letters are described expreisly as written and subscribed by the Queen. But in the act or ordination of the parliament, they are faid to be only written with her own hand, and there is no intimation that they were subscribed by her. Under one form they had been appealed to as vouchers of her guilt in the privy council. Under another form they were meptioned as vouchs ers of it in the parliament. Now if the letters had been genuine; they would have appeared uniformly with the fame face. These variations are therefore stages in the progress of the forgery. The keenness of the conspirators engaged them at first to adhibit to them the name of the Queen. But a maturer confideration of the gross impropriety of their contents discovered to them, that her sub, Icription would communicate to them an air of extravagance and improbability. They accordingly rejected this method, and adopted the form of executing the letters without her fubfcription.. With this fashion of them in fact they were finally satisfied; and it is una der this aspect that they were actually to be produced, and to be known.
They were now as complete as the conspirators wished them to be; yet in this state, while they were unfubfcribed they wanted-other formalities which are usual in dispatches. They were without any direction ; they had no dates, and they had no seal. . They must have been sent by the Queen to Bothwel as open and loose papers. They yet contained evidence against herself and against him of the most horrid wickedness; and Nicholas Hubert the person who is faid to have carried them, was of the lowest condition, and indiscreet. These are most incredible circumstances on the suppofition that the letters are authentic; and even when the letters are considered in the light of a forgery, they seem to intimate that the conspirators did not intend any more than to appeal to them in their defence, to keep them from observation, and to rest for their authority on the parliamentary sanction to be communicated to them.
To the clear and decisive account 'exhibited by Dr. Stuart, of the letters he has edded notes that affist and fubftantiate the history as it goes along.
As the account of the evidence in the cause of the Queen of Scots is not only important, but long, we beg to recommend it to the particular reflection of our reas ders ; and in our next Review, we shall pursue the history before us without interruption, and exhibit what shall further occur to us upon it.
ART. VI. Letters from the Archdeacon of St. Alban's in Reply to
Dr. Priestley. With an Appendix, containing short Strictures on Dr. Priestley's Letters by an unknown Hand. 8vo. zs. Robson. *1784. ART. VII. Remarks on the Monthly Review of the Letters to Dre
Horsey; in which the Rev. Mr. S. Badcock, the Writer of that Review, is called upon to defend what he has advanced in it. By
Joseph Priestley, LL. D. F. R. S. 8vo.6d. Johnson. 1784. ART. VIII. A Letter to Dr. Priestley ; occasioned by his late
Pamphlet, addreffed to the Rev. Mr. S. Badcock. 8vo. 15. Exeter, Thorn. London, Baldwin. 1784. AVING in our last number laid down the plan we in
tended to pursue in our account of this controversy, we shall proceed without farther preface to the business we proposed to ourselves for the present article. We shall“ state the arguments by which the value of Dr. Priestley's authorities is attempted to be undermined, as well as the positive evidence, that has been adduced on the orthodox party." And as our design is to furnish a general summary of the evidence on both sides so far as it has been brought before the public, and as each of Dr. Priestley's antagonists, whatever be their comparative merits, have made some figure in the eye of the public, we shall notin delineating the strength of the orthodox cause, think it neceffary to confine our attention to the ar guments of Dr. Horsley. At the same time to conciliate this plan as much as poffible with the separate attention we owe to the qualifications of each of these gentlemen, we will ascribe the extracts as we go along to their respective authors ; and we will wind up this article, as we did our former, with some Specimens of the spirit in which they write, and the style af their composition.
The subjects of disquisition as enumerated in our January review were as follow. I. Whether the more ancient Unitarians were regarded as heretics? 2. Whether they were the majority of unlearned Chriftians ? 3. Whether the fathers have not invented a particular hypothesis respecting the preaching of the apostles to account for their being fo4. Whether the ancient Jewish church were Unitarian ? 5. When, and by persons of what defcription among the fathers the pre-existence of Christ can be proved to have been carlieft taught ?".
I. 1. “ The word " to come” is ufed by metaphor I be! lieve in all languages to signify either a man's birth, or first entrance into public life. He came into the world; he came into life; he came into tusiness. But is thc phrase come in the flesh” no more than equivalent to the word isto come?” Are the words in the fielh” mere exple
• You say, that this phrase of coming in the flesh “ refers natu
rally to the doctrine of the Gnostics." I say the very fame thing. But I say, that in the sense in which the Church hath ever understood it, this phrase refers to two divisions of the Gnostics; the Docetæ and the Cerinthians; affirming a doctrine, which is the mean between their opposite errors. The Docetæ affirmed, that Jesus was not a man in reality, but in appearance only : the Cerinthians, that he was a meer man, under the tutelage of the Christ, a superangelic being, which was not so united to the man as to make one person. 6t. John says, “ Jesus Christ is come in the flesh ;" that is, as the words have been generally understood, Jesus was a man, not in appearance only, as the Docetą taught, but in reality; not a meer man, as the Cerinthians taught, under the care of a superangelic guardian, but Chrift bimtelf come in the flesh; the Word of God incarnate,
Cerinthus was much earlier than Ebion ; and Ebion, in his notions of the Redeemer, seems to have been a mere Cerin: thian.' Epiphanius says, that he held the Cerinthian doctrine of a union of Jelus with a superangelic being.' Dr. Horsley.
2. “ The inference Dr. Priestley would draw from the filence of Hegesippus is equally indefensible. Only some very scanty and imperfect fragments of this hiftorian have been transmitted to us ; and from them it is impossible to make out any thing like a list of the heretics of his age. It is as remarkable, that he should have omitted the Cerinthians as the Ebionites.”_" It is very improbable, that Hegefippus should have been himself an Ebionite ; since Eusebius, who spoke of this feet with great contempt and asperity, speaks of him in the same terms of respect as he doth of the other and most orthodox fathers of the primitive church. · Hegesippus too speaking of Jude, the brother of Christ, calls him his reputed brother according to the flesh.” Mr. Badcock.
4. Granting that the Ebionites are omitted by Clemens in his lift of heretics, is it, Eir, a consequence, that Clemens thought their opinions indifferent? I cannot see the necessity of this conclusion, unless indeed it had been of importance to the arguinent of Clemens, that he should make an exact enumeration of aļl the fects, which he deemed heretical. But this was not the case. A few instances sufficed for the illustration of his reasoning ; and these, in a discution with Greek philosophers, which was the object of his Siromita, he would naturally select from those herefes, which, for something of subtlety and refinement in their doctrine; were the most likely to have attracted the notice of the Gentiles. A sect, which lived in obsčurity in the North of Galilee, of no consideration for number, learning or abilities, was likely to be the last that he would mention.' Dr. Horsley.
To the arguments, by which Dr. Priestley's authorities have been parried has been subjoined some original evi, dence on this head, among which is the following.
(1.). The apostles creed, whose antiquity is unquestionable, and which is quoted or described by Tertul
lian (A.D. 192) and other fathers, as an universal rule of faith, has à claufe,“ born of the virgin Mary,” expressly exclusive of the Ebionites. Mr. Badcock.
(2). There are indeed many, who make a profession of Christi anity, who avow atheistical and blafphemous tenets, and act according to the influence of such doctrines. Amongst us they are deno.
minated by the names of those from whom they derived their respec\ tive principles. Some therefore in one way, and others in another, * teach their own peculiar method of blaspheming the maker of alí things, and Christ, who was to come from him as foretold in proe
phecy, and who was the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, " With persons of this defcriptionwe hold no communion; convinced
that they are atheistical, impious, unjust and licentious; and who, " instead of womhipping Christ, only confess him by naine. They “ call themselves Christians with juit the same propriety as the heathens “ inscribe the name of God on works constructed by human &ill; and “mix in impious and impure rites. Some of these are cailed Marcio"nites, fome Valentinians, fome Bafilideans, fome Saturnilians: and "there are also others who are distinguished by other names according
to the different denominations of their respective leaders.” Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone, A. D. 140. Mr. Badcock.
"The vain Ebionités.”-“ A fect that diffolved, as “ far poffible, the most important dispensation of God, and "nullified the predictions of his prophets.” Irenæus. A. D. 167. Mr. Badcock.
(4) * In this epistle St. John chiefly calls those Anti “ christs, who denied that Christ was come in the flesh,
or who did not believe him to be the Son of God. The “ former was the error of Marcion; the latter of Ebion."
“ We believe, that Christ was the Word, by whom God " made the worlds, and whg af various tiines appeared to “ the patriarchs and prophets :- This is the rule of faith,
appointed by Chrift, and which admits of no dispute
among us, but such as heretics raise, and such as make $ men heretics. Tertullian, de Præscriptione Hereticorum. A. D. 192 Mr. Badcock,
II. 6." The most important clause of this authority stands thus in the original; ois ou συντιθεμαι, ουδ' αν πλεισθοι ταυτα μοι δοξασαντες
Which ought to be rendered, “ To whom I could “ not yield my affent, no not even though the majority ► of Chriftians should think the same ;” or perhaps still more accurately, “though the majority who have hitherto " thought as I do, should affert it." "Mr. Badcock.
7. ' Let the words of Tertullian be attended to, and you will find in them neither complaint, nor acknowledgement, of a general prevalence of the Unitarian doctrine among Christians of any rank. The father alleges, that what credit it obtained was only with the illiterate. To preçlude the plea of numbers, he remarks that the illite