Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
He says , in his Claims of Dr * Priestleyy that in the controversy between Bp , Horsley and Dr . Priestley , the Bishop did not claim the Victory , —and that he knew he could not claim it . Whether he
did or not , must be a , matter of fact easily ascertainable from tracts , which betray no marks of indecision . If therefore Mr . Belsham mistates or reverses the fact , what confidence can he be entitled
to in his opinions concerning doctrines which are not plain matters of fact ? I will give you his own words , and will then shew by passages
from Bishop Horsley ' s Tracts , how entirely the present champion of Unitarianism has failed in all his assertions . In speaking of his own review of the controversy , he says , ' * Nor does he know that he should
ever have published his thoughts oft the subject , had it not been for the unblushing confidence of Bishop Horsley ' partizans , in claiming for their chief that palm of victory , which he did not , and which he well knew he could not
claim for himself . *—In the points at issue between him and the learned prelate , the victory of the great advocate of the Divine Unity was decisive and complete . This the bishop well knew . " *
*' If Bp . Horsley had conceded the victory , we might readily have admitted it to be decisive and complete . But no one can read a jpage in the Bishop ' s Tracts without seeing how contrary to the truth Mr . Belsham ' s assertion is .
In the second part of his Remarks , ( p . 376- ) the Bishop says , " Upon these foundations , which a
strong-. * Dr . Priestley ' s Claims , p . 8 , 9 ' and p . 29 * * w
Untitled Article
er arm than Dr . Priestley s shaTl not be able to tear up , stands the Church of orthodox Jewish Christians at Jerusalem : to which the assertors of the Catholic faith will not scruple to appeal , in proof of the antiquity of their doctrine . " Ibid . p . 499 , he says , the disturbed foundations of the church
of / Elia are again settled : 1 could wish to trust them to their own solidity , to withstand any future attacks . I could wish to take my final leave of this unpleasing task of hunting an uninformed , uncan . did adversary , through the mazes of his blunders * and the
subterfuges of his sophistry / ' - It Mr , Belsham can read these passages ( he must have often read them ) , and yec can assert that Bishop Horsley knew himself to be
defeated in argument by Dr . PnesU ley , he is not competent to judge of any fact of ecclesiastical history , or of the opinions of the ancient fathers , or the doctrines of the Established Church . t
Mr * Belsham is not content with the false assertion * that Bp . Horsley knew Dr . Priestley ' s vie . tory to be decisive and complete- *; but adds , that the Bishop would have laughed at the 6 < ignoramus /' who should seriously think that the
f How incompetent he is to pass an impartial judgment on sucb subjects , ( either from want of learning , or the farce of prejudice , or from both ) is evident from the following most ; uricandid and untrue cbaraoleV of the Established Church and CLergy . " Tied down in an enlightened and inquisitive
era to a system of theology , the wretched relic of a dark and Lartiarousage , upon the profession and defence 4 rf which all his hopes are built , TRUTH must necessarily be the object ^ of his aversion and alhfirrence . xf ( The Claims of Dr . Priestley , p . xOO . )—tOWJttinrtlacI a very different opinion ofoui ^ cM ^ n-
