only who had laid aside the use of the Mosaic law were in his time considered as true christians." This is extraordinary indeed; but let us see how it is given to be understood. Having found so little in your clear conclusions, I do not expect much from your supposed insinuations.

"For he mentions it as a further proof of the ignorance of Celsus, pretending, as it appears he did, to deep erudition upon all subjects, that, in his account of the heresies of the christian church, he had omitted the Israelites believing in Jesus, and not laying aside the law of their ancestors. But how should Celsus,' he says, 'make clear distinctions upon this point, who, in the sequel of his work, mentions impious heresies altogether alienated from Christ, and others which have renounced the Creator, and has not noticed [or knew not of] Israelites believing in Jesus, and not relinquishing the law of their fathers?' What opinion," you say, "is to be entertained of a writer's veracity, who in one page asserts that the Hebrews professing christianity had not renounced the Jewish law, and in the next affirms that a part of them had renounced it, not without an insinuation that they who had not were heretics, not true christians? EGO HUIC TESTI, ETIAM JURATO, QUI TAM MANIFESTO FUMOS VENDIT, me NON CREDITURUM ESSE CONFIRMO."

Such is the curious inference of the learned Arch

* Αλλα γαρ ποθεν Κελσῳ τα κατα τον τόπον τρανωσαι, ός και αἱρέσεων μεν αθεων, και του Ιησου παντη αλλοτρίων εν τοις έξης εμνημόνευσε, και άλλων καταλειπούσων τον δημιουργον ουκ οίδε δε και Ισραηλίτας εις Ινσουν πιστεύοντας, και ου καταλείποντας τον πατριον νόμον, ου γαρ προέκειτο αυτῷ φιλαλήθως όλα τα κατα τον τοπιν εξέτασαι, ἐν εἴ τι χρήσιμον εύρισκοι παραδέξηται, αλλά και θρος και όλος του ανατρέπειν άμα τῳ ακουσαι γενόμενος, τα Tolaura aveɣpa jev. Orig. contra Cels. lib, ii. p. 59.

ως εχ

deacon of St. Alban's. From this construction of the passage a person might be led to think that Origen represented Celsus as having undertaken to give an account of the heresies in the christian church, and as having in that account omitted the Israelites believing in Jesus, and not laying aside the rites of their ancestors; and on no other ground can your insinuation stand. Whereas the most natural construction of the passage is, that Origen says, "It is no wonder that Celsus should be so ignorant of what he was treating, when he classed the Gnostics along with christians, and did not even know that there were Israelites who professed christianity, and adhered to the laws of Moses." Where then is the most distant insinuation that the Israelites believing in Christ, and not laying aside the rites of their ancestors, were heretics? That the Gnostics were classed with christians, was a common complaint of the orthodox in that age.

You strangely allege another instance of what you call prevarication in Origen, in the same book against Celsus. In the controversy with the Jews about the meaning of the word by, which he contends signi fies a virgin, he says, "The word by, which the LXX have translated into the word wagbeves [a virgin], but other interpreters into the word veavis [a young woman], is put too, AS THEY SAY, in Deuteronomy, for a virgin*."

On this you remark as follows: "What is this as they say? Was it unknown to the compiler of the

oi

* Εαν δε Ιουδαίος ευρεσιλόγων, το 18ου ή παρθενος μη γεγράφθαι λεγει αλλ' αντ' αυτου 18ου ή νεανις· φησομεν προς αυτόν, ὅτι ἡ μεν λεξις ἡ Ααλμα ἦν οἱ μεν ἑβδομήκοντα μετειλήφασι προς την παρθε νον, άλλοι δε εις την νεανιν, κεῖται ὡς φασι και εν τῳ Δευτερονομιῳ επι παρθενου ούτως έχουσα. Orig. contra Cels. lib. i. p. 27.

Hexapla, what the reading of the Hebrew text, in his own time, was? If he knew that it was what he would have it thought to be, why does he seem to assert upon hearsay only? If he knew not, why did he not inform himself, that he might either assert with confidence what he had found upon inquiry to be true, or not assert what could not be maintained? EGO HUIC TESTI, ETIAMSI JURATO, QUI TAM

MANIFESTO

FUMOS VENDIT, ME NON CREDITURUM ESSE CONFIRMO.'

I am astonished that any man could think this state of the case probable. The question between Origen and the Jews was not what was the word in the Hebrew, but what was the meaning of it in a particular place. But even admitting that the dispute was about the true reading in the original, what great matter was there in Origen's saying the Jews said so, when he knew that what they said was true? Is this a foundation on which to affirm that you would not take a man's evidence upon his oath? What an appetite must a man have for calumny, who can seize upon such a circumstance as this to gratify it!

Fonum habet in cornu: hunc tu, Romane, caveto.

I am, &c.

LETTER II.

General Observations relating to the supposed Orthodox Church of Jewish Christians at Jerusalem after the Time of Adrian.

REV. SIR,

HAVING fully considered what you have alleged in support of your extraordinary charge of wilful falsehood in Origen, because the supposition of his being an honest man was inconsistent with the existence of your church of orthodox Jewish christians at Jerusalem after the time of Adrian, I shall proceed to consider the positive evidence that you have produced for the actual existence of such a church. But I shall, in the first place, mention some observations of a general nature relating to the subject.

That there was a christian church at Jerusalem after the time of Adrian, we all acknowledge; but you say, "the point in dispute between us is, of what members the church of Elia was composed. He says, of converts of Gentile extraction: I say, of Hebrews, of the very same persons, in the greater part, who were members of the ancient Hebrew church at the time when the Jews were subdued by Adrian."

1. Now, that the members of this church were not Jews, but Greeks, I think indisputable from this plain consideration, that after the time of Adrian the bishops of that church were Greeks, and that the language in which the public offices were performed was Greek ; whereas immediately before the bishops had been Hebrews, and the public offices had been in the Hebrew tongue.

2. If there was any considerable body of orthodox Jewish christians, it is extraordinary that no particular mention should be made of them by any ancient writer. Jerom speaks of his acquaintance with learned Ebionites by whom he was taught the Hebrew tongue. Living as he did in the country, he might as easily, on your idea, have found learned orthodox Jewish christians, with whom it would have been more agreeable to him to associate, unless you suppose that the learned Ebionites were heretics, and the unlearned orthodox.

3. As so many writers speak of Ebionites, or heterodox Nazarenes, it would surely have been natural for some of them to have added, that they were not the great body, or at least not the whole, of the Jewish christians. The mention of the one would naturally have drawn after it, on some occasion, the mention of the other. And yet no ancient writer speaks of them.

4. As to a whole church of orthodox Jewish christians at Jerusalem, or elsewhere, we hear of no intercourse between any such church and other orthodox churches. None of their bishops, or deputies from them, appear at any council; no appeals are ever made to them; which would have been natural, as to the mother of all the churches. This is easily accounted for, on the supposition that all the remains of the Jewish christians were the poor and despised unitarian Ebionites, residing chiefly beyond the sea of Galilee, whose numbers likewise were inconsiderable; but hard to be supposed, if there were any churches of orthodox Jewish christians residing at Jerusalem, or elsewhere.

5. If there was any considerable body of orthodox Jewish christians, why do we never hear of any Hebrew gospels besides that of Matthew? If they held the