conscience it could not be, because of the decree of the apostolical college, and the writings of Paul "...." and the notion that Paul could be mistaken in this point, is an impiety which I cannot impute to our holy brethren, the saints of the primitive church of Jerusalem." It did not, it seems, occur to the venerable archdeacon that the apostolic decree related wholly to the converted Gentiles: that St. Paul bears his testimony only against the imposition of the Mosaic ritual upon proselytes from heathenism; and that at any rate, "our holy brethren, the saints of Jerusalem,' are known to have disregarded the writings of Paul, because he spoke slightingly of the obligation of the law.5. That in these "good christians, motives of worldly interest, which would not overcome conscience, would overcome mere habit."—And 6. " That a desire of partaking in the privileges of the Ælian colony would be a prevailing motive with the Hebrew christians to lay aside their ancient customs." "These things," says the learned archdeacon, “I TAKE FOR GRANTED." And these things the German professor had taken for granted before him in that long note to his Ante-Constantine history, which is the grand store-house from whence the English Theologian derives all his knowledge of the Ælian church.

But as the profound Editor of the Works of Newton was well apprized that taking things for granted, though the most easy, is not always the most satisfactory mode of proof, he now proceeds to state his direct evidence of the origin of his favourite church. And judiciously passing over with very slight notice the fore-cited passage of Sulpitius Severus, which passage, however, is the principal mine from which Mosheim draws his precious discoveries, the archdeacon hints at the testimony of Orosius, a historian of the fifth century, who says that "the Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem, the freedom of the city being granted to Christians only." This testimony, however, is very properly dismissed, as little more than "a feather in the scale," p. 367; and the learned writer advances to his Seventh proposition, p. 373, which affirms,

7. "That a body of orthodox christians of the Hebrews

were

were actually existing in the world much later than the time of Adrian."

Passing by the testimony of Origen, whom he had before denounced as the asserter of a notorious falsehood, the venerable dignitary rests the whole proof of his proposition upon the authority of Jerome. This learned father, in his commentary upon Isaiah, relates two expositions of chap. ix. 1; of which expositions he ascribes the one to the Hebrews believing in Christ, the other to the Nazarènes. A critic of less acumen than the Archdeacon of St. Alban's would have been at a loss to discover any proof of his seventh proposition, and much more of the marvellous account of the sudden revolution in the Hebrew church in the reign of Adrian, and of their settlement at Ælia, in these few words from the Commentary of Jerome. But Dr. Horsley was not a scholar of the vulgar class. He strenuously argues, p. 374, that the Hebrews described by Jerome as believing in Christ, must have been orthodox believers. "For this description of them," says he, "without any thing to distinguish their belief from the common belief of the church, without any note of its error or imperfection, is a plain character of complete orthodoxy." Also, "the distinction of them from the Nazarenes, made by St. Jerome, is a plain proof that they were not observers of the Mosaic law."

Dr. Priestley in his reply, (Third Letters, p. 25,) producing the whole passage from Jerome, has made it appear probable that the Nazarenes, and the Hebrews believing in Christ, were the same persons; that Jerome only meant to diversify his phraseology, and that the interpretations which the archdeacon represents as different, are in effect the same. But let this pass. We give him Jerome. We will admit, even upon this slender evidence, and the archdeacon's arbitrary interpretation, in defiance of all probability, and in contradiction to the whole tenor of history, that in the age of Jerome, placed by Lardner in A. D. 392, there existed a considerable body of orthodox Hebrew

"I give him Origen." Horsley's Tracts, p. 374.

christians,

christians, who had abandoned the customs of their forefathers. But how does this prove that 250 years before, the majority of Hebrew christians had suddenly, and at once, deserted the ritual of Moses in order to enjoy the privileges of the Ælian colony? This great difficulty did not escape the notice of the shrewd polemic. And the solution of it is so appropriate, and so truly characteristic of the learned writer's manner, that I will give it in his own words, p. 375. "If the orthodox christians of the Hebrews, actually existing somewhere in the world, from the reign of Adrian to the days of St. Jerome, were not members of the church of Ælia, dwelling at Ælia, and in the adjacent parts of Palestine, DR. PRIESTLEY, IF HE BE SO PLEASED, MAY SEEK THEIR SETTLEMENT.'

Dr. Priestley, however, notwithstanding this most clear and satisfactory account of the origin of the orthodox church at Ælia, returns the bill with an indorsement of ignoramus: "Before you can show," says he, p. 28, “that this passage in Jerome is at all to your purpose, you must prove the three following things: First, that the Hebrews believing in Christ were different from the Nazarenes: secondly, that the former were completely orthodox: and thirdly, that those orthodox Jewish christians resided at Jerusalem. And it appears to me that not one of these suppositions is at all probable."

The venerable archdeacon, then advanced for his great merits to the bishoprick of St. David's, in condescension either to the infirmity, or to the argument of his opponent, in his Reply, abates a little of his lofty language; and in the last of the Disquisitions, annexed to the repub lication of his Tracts, p. 490, he admits "that St. Je rome's evidence goes barely to the proof" of his seventh proposition, namely, that a body of orthodox christians of the Hebrews was actually existing in the world much later than the time of Adrian.' St. Jerome's evidence," says his Lordship, "is brought for the proof of this proposition SINGLY. And the existence of these orthodox Hebrew believers in the time of St. Jerome being thus proved by St. Jerome's evidence, the probability of the fact

that

that they resided at Ælia, and that such a body had been settled at Ælia from the time of Adrian downwards, rests upon my SIX FORMER POSITIONS."

These positions have been already stated, and the attentive reader may perhaps recollect, though his Lordship has not reminded him of it, that these six propositions are introduced, p. 364, with the following remarkable words: "I TAKE FOR GRANTED THESE THINGS." And in order to impress the circumstance more strongly upon the reader's mind, after having stated the three first propositions, concerning which there was no dispute, he introduces the three following with a repetition of the same remark. For AGAIN, I TAKE FOR GRANTED.

The whole fabrick, then, of this famous church of orthodox Hebrew christians at Ælia, who abandoned at once the institutions of Moses in order to enjoy the privileges of the Ælian colony, rests solely upon the testimony of Jerome, more than 250 years afterwards, to this single fact, that in his time there were "Hebrews who believed in Christ." And by the learned writer's own frank and liberal concession, all the rest is TAKEN FOR GRANTED.

66

The venerable champion of the uncircumcised Hebrew church, having thus arranged his invincible arguments, proceeds, p. 376, with a most edifying and imposing gravity, and the most intrepid assurance, to state his grand conclusion. Upon these foundations, which a stronger arm than Dr. Priestley's shall not be able to tear up, stands the church of orthodox Jewish christians at Jerusalem." -Upon these foundations, would I say, let it stand. No force of arm can be necessary to overturn an edifice which the first passing breeze will sweep from the surface of the earth.

The difficulties of the learned dignitary do not however end here. Dr. Priestley's unfortunate mistake, in consulting the wrong book, involved his antagonist in another embarrassment, from which all his ingenuity in helping out a broken story has not been able to extricate him with credit.

Among

Among other indisputable facts, and which the archdeacon alleges, p. 157, in order to confirm his charge against Origen, this is one; one; "that the majority of Hebrew christians," having renounced the Mosaic law," that they might be qualified to partake in the valuable privileges of the Ælian colony," they "removed from Pella and other towns, to which they had retired, and settled in great numbers at Ælia." This migration of the Hebrew christians from Pella to Elia is stated by Mosheim in his Ante-Constantine history; but upon more mature reflection and better information, it had been omitted in the general Ecclesiastical History, which alone Dr. Priestley had consulted. This, therefore, is one of the facts which he suspects his reverend opponent to have forged, and of which he challenges him to produce a proof; which challenge gave rise to the above-mentioned mortifying confession, this was "Mosheim's assertion before it was mine." But as Mosheim's bare assertion, though re-echoed in the pompous language of the archdeacon of St. Alban's, would not be generally deemed sufficient, independently of evidence from antiquity, to impeach the hitherto spotless, character of the great Origen, the archdeacon proceeds to cite the testimony of Epiphanius, referred to by Mosheim: a reference which if he had had the prudence or the good fortune to have consulted before he had published his affirmation, he would at least have expressed himself with greater caution. "The Hebrew christians," says the learned dignitary, Tracts, p. 370, "AFTER ADRIAN'S SETTLEMENT OF THE ELIAN COLONY, returned from Pella, whither they had retired from the distresses of the war, to Elia. It happens that this fact, of which Dr. Priestley does me the honour to make me the inventor, is asserted by Epiphanius." And in truth, Epiphanius, in the passage cited by the archdeacon, uses these very words: "The disciples of the disciples of the apostles had returned from 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