doctrine of the orthodox gentile churches concerning the person of Christ, it is probable that they would have had the same respect for the other gospels, and the other books of the New Testament; and yet it is almost certain that they made little use of them.

By way of apology for your additions to the scanty accounts of the ancients, concerning the conquest of Jerusalem by Adrian, you say, "The ecclesiastical history of those times is so very general and imperfect, that whoever attempts to make out a consistent story from any ancient writers which are come down to us, will find himself under the necessity of helping out their broken accounts by his own conjec

But certainly, Sir, the contradicting of an ancient writer is not the way to help out his account of things. Now Eusebius, the oldest writer who mentions the fact, says, that after the taking of the city by Adrian, the whole nation of the Jews (a vos, which excludes all distinction with respect to religion) were forbidden even to see the desolation of their metropolis at a distance*. To help out this broken account, because it does not contain all that you wish it to do, (though I see nothing broken in it,) you say that the Jews were allowed to remain in the place, and enjoy the privileges of the Ælian colony, on condition of their becoming christians. To help out this addition, I would further add, that another of the terms of the capitulation was, that they should from that time speak Greek, as without this they

* Και του της απόνοιας αυτοις αιτίου την αξίαν εκτισαντος δίκην, το παν εθνος εξ εκείνου και της περι τα Ιεροσολυμα γης παμπαν επιΚαίνειν ειργεται, νομου δογματι και διατάξεσιν Αδριανου ως αν μηδ' εξ απόπτου θεωροιεν το πατρῴον εδαφος εγκελευσαμενου. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. iv. cap. 6. edit. R. Steph. Paris, 1544. fol. 34.

I could have derived no benefit from the offices of a

Greek church.

Sulpitius says, that by this severity to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Adrian thought to destroy the christian faith. But to this you oppose the authority of Orosius, (calling it, however, p. 43, but a feather in the scale,) that when the Jews were excluded, the christians were allowed to remain. If your liberty of helping out a broken story may be exercised here, I should say that, in the idea even of this writer, the Greek christians might remain, but the Jewish not. If any regard is to be paid to Eusebius, the oldest historian, or to Sulpitius, who is much more circumstantial than Orosius, and on that account better entitled to credit, no Jews, christians or others, were allowed to remain in the place.

To make your account the more probable, you say, p. 44, "It is a notorious fact that Adrian was not unfavourable to the christians, and that the church in his reign obtained a respite from persecution." But how far did this favour to christians extend? You say, "the fury of their persecutors was restrained by the imperial rescripts to the provincial governors, who were directed not to proceed against the christians, except by way of regular trial, upon the allegation of some certain crime, and, when nothing more was alleged than the bare name of christianity, to punish the informer as a sycophant." That is, as the history of those times enables us to interpret it, they were not to be punished as christians till they were proved to be so, which was the case in the reign of Trajan; but does not amount to a toleration of the Jews at Jerusalem, on condition of their embracing christianity.

Your favourite Mosheim says (Hist. vol. i. p. 128.) that what was done by Adrian (in whose reign the persecution of christians had raged with peculiar violence) was a solemn renewal of the law of Trajan. In the reign of Antoninus Pius, but not before, it was ordered, that a man being proved to be a christian should not be deemed sufficient for his condemnation, unless he was also proved to have been guilty of some crime against the state. There is, therefore, little reason to think that Adrian was so well disposed towards christianity, as to permit the rebellious Jews to remain in Jerusalem on condition of their embracing it.

I am, &c.

LETTER III.

Of the Testimony of Epiphanius to the Existence of a Church of Orthodox Jewish Christians at Jerusalem after the Time of Adrian.

REV. SIR,

AFTER the preliminary observations contained in the preceding letter, I shall now consider the testimony that you have produced from Epiphanius.

You say, p. 46, that "the fact (viz. of the return of the Jews from Pella to Jerusalem after the wars of Adrian) of which Dr. Priestley has done me the honour to make me the inventor, is asserted by Epiphanius.The confidence," you add, "with which he mentions this as a fact forged by me, is only one instance out of

a great number of his own shameless intrepidity in assertion "

If, Sir, you wish to reclaim a person, you should never deprive him of all character, but should leave him a little, a small root, from which more may afterwards spring. Having now no character to lose, being capable of asserting any thing, true or false, that is likely to answer my purpose, I wili, “with the most shameless intrepidity," assert that Epiphanius mentions no such fact as you so very confidently suppose him to have done. After carefully examining the passage which you have produced, I do maintain that in it he makes no mention whatever of any return of christian Jews from Pella, besides that which took place after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and not at all of any return after the destruction by Adrian. This is most evident from attending to the very next sentence which follows the words that you have quoted. The whole passage is as follows:

After mentioning Aquila, as appointed by Adrian the inspector of his works at Ælia, Epiphanius gives the foilowing history of him :-" Aquila, living at Jerusalem, and seeing the disciples of the disciples of the apostles flourishing in the faith, and working great miracles, especially of healing, (for they had returned from the city of Pella to Jerusalem, and taught there. For when the city was about to be taken by the Romans, all the disciples had been forewarned by an angel to leave the city, which was devoted to destruction. These, leaving it, went and dwelt in the above-mentioned Pella, beyond Jordan, one of those that were called Decapolis; but, returning after the desolation of

Jerusalem, as I have said, worked miracles.) Aquila therefore, being convinced, became a christian, and, after some time, requesting the seal of christianity [viz. baptism], obtained it*."

What can be more evident, than that the return of the Jewish christians from Pella, mentioned in this passage by Epiphanius, is that return which followed the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus? For he speaks of their having left that city, antecedent to this return to it, in consequence of being warned by an angel so to do.; which was said to be the case before the destruction by Titus, but never before that by Adrian; and it was by the disciples of those who then returned that Aquila was converted to christianity; which was probably a considerable time before the destruction of the Jews by Adrian.

After the imperfect quotation of the passage of which I have given the entire translation, you have the assurance to add, "Whether this return of the christians of Jerusalem from Pella took place in the interval between the end of Titus's war and the commencement of Adrian's, or after the end of Adrian's, is a matter of no importance. It is sufficient for my pur

* Ο τοίνυν Ακύλας, διαγων εν τη Ιερουσαλήμ, και όρων τους μα θητας των μαθητων των αποστολων ανθούντας τη πίστει, και σημεία μεγάλα εργαζόμενους, ιασεων και αλλων θαυμάτων. ησαν γαρ ὑποστρεψαντες από Πελλής της πολεως εις Ιερουσαλημ, και διδάσκοντες, ἡνικα γαρ ημελλεν ἡ πόλις ἁλισκεσθαι υπο των Ρωμαίων, προεχρηματίσθησαν ύπο αγγελου, παντες οἱ μαθηται μεταστήναι απο της πόλεως μελλούσης άρδην απολλυσθαι οἱ τινες και μετανασται γενόμενοι, ώκησαν εν Πελλη τη προγεγραμμένη πόλει, πέραν του Ιορ δάνου, ήτις εκ Δεκαπόλεως λεγεται είναι μετα δε την ερήμωσιν Ιερουσαλημ αποστρέψαντες, ως εφην, σημεία μεγαλα επετέλουν. Ὁ συν Ακύλας κατανύγεις την διάνοιαν, τῷ χριστιανισμο επίστευσεν. αιτήσας δε μετα χρονον την εν Χριστώ σφραγίδα, εκόμισατο. De Mensuris et Ponderibus, Epiphanii Opera, vol. ii. p. 171. Paris. 1622.