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 gra vity, 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; "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 Elia." 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 Ælia. 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

city. These went and dwelt in the above-mentioned Pella, beyond Jordan; but, RETURNING AFTER THE DESOLATION OF JERUSALEM, worked miracles."

This is a plain, and, leaving the miracles out of the question, not an improbable narrative. What can be alleged in contradiction to this explicit testimony of Epiphanius? Nothing that I know of, save one or two little difficulties relating to the chronology of the event. These, indeed, the learned dignitary foresaw; and with wise precaution he earnestly deprecates "any cavils which ignorance or fraud (he might have added, or truth) may raise about the chronology of the return." THE FACT is, and the archdeacon does not deny it, that the desolation of Jerusalem, of which Epiphanius speaks, was that by Titus, A. D. 70, MORE THAN SIXTY YEARS BEFORE THE coLONY OF ELIA EXISTED 7. "But this," says the learned dignitary, p. 371, "is a matter of no importance. It is sufficient for my purpose that these returned christians were residing at Jerusalem, or more properly at Ælia, at the same time that Aquila resided there as overseer of the emperor's works." So then, we are now to believe that these Hebrew christians, who "returned in great numbers to Ælia after Adrian's settlement of the Elian colony," who abandoned the rites of Moses, and placed themselves under a Greek bishop, and worshiped in an unknown tongue, that they might be qualified to partake of the valuable privileges of the Elian colony, were the very same persons who had quitted Jerusalem to avoid the calamities of the siege by Titus SIXTY YEARS before! Now if we allow that at the time of their retreat they were upon an average twenty years of age, they must have been fourscore at the time of their return. And it is really quite edifying to figure to one's self these illustrious Octogena

7 The emperor Adrian began his reign in August, A. D. 117, and died in July, A. D. 138. The Jewish war broke out in the fourteenth year, and was finished in the eighteenth. It was in this period that Jerusalem was totally demolished, and the colony of Ælia was founded. Elia was begun in A. D. 132. Sec Basnage.

ries, "our holy brethren, the saints of the primitive church of Jerusalem," upon the first intelligence of the good news, hasting away from Pella and the north of Galilee, where they had been passing threescore years in obscurity and tranquillity, and in heroic defiance of the most inveterate attachments and of the habits and preju dices of fourscore, abandoning at once the rites of their forefathers, and the forms, and even the language, of the devotions to which they had been ever accustomed, in order to obtain, What?—the valuable privileges and immunities of the Ælian colony! And how gratifying must it be to every pious mind to learn, upon the high authority of Epiphanius, that after all the fatigues and hazards of their journey, they were still in a flourishing state, teaching and working miracles with great effect, at the time when Aquila, who was converted by them, was superintendant of Adrian's works 8!

But here again there is another little chronological stumbling-block, which it is necessary either to remove or to step over. Taking the account as it stands in Epiphanius, the only authority, such as it is, for the fact in question, this Aquila, who was converted by the miracles of the orthodox Hebrew christians, was employed by Adrian as overseer of the works at Jerusalem in the thirteenth year of his reign. But the Jewish war did not break out till the fourteenth year, and was terminated in the eigh teenth; so that the Hebrew christians, with whom Aquila conversed, were those who were resident at Jerusalem before its desolation by Adrian, not those who, after Adrian's settlement of the Ælian colony, returned from Pella," and abandoned the rites of Moses to enjoy the privileges of Ælia. His Lordship, however, when pressed with this objection by his acute opponent, after piteously complaining of the uncivil attempt to embarrass the argument with chronological difficulties, against which he had

• Ανθοντας τη πίστει, και σημεία μεγαλα εργαζομενες ιασεων και aλλwv Davμarwy. Epiph. de Pond, et Mens.

entered

entered so earnest and necessary a caveat 9, proceeds in his usual way to help out the broken story by his own conjectures. "I maintain," says he, p. 371, note, " that there is no reason to believe that the Hebrew christians quietly settled at Ælia before the Jewish rebellion were included in Adrian's edict for the banishment of the Jews." From this it should seem, that "our holy brethren❞ never moved from the place of their abode during the war of Adrian; but prudently embracing the first opportunity of discarding the Mosaic ritual, they were at once admitted to the privileges of the Ælian colony. His Lordship forgets, or at least he presumes that his readers will forget, that, upon the authority of Mosheim, he had before sent them all to Pella, and to the north of Galilee, till after the demolition of Jerusalem by Adrian; and that this is stated, p. 156, 157, as one of the indisputable facts in confirmation of the charge against Origen. Upon second thoughts, the learned prelate kindly consents to keep these aged and pious brethren at home, and only requires that, lest they should "pass for Jews with the Roman magistrates, they should renounce the Mosaic law." Whether the easy simplicity of the Roman magistrates was really imposed upon by the specious artifice of our holy brethren," or whether their good nature, at the hazard of incurring the emperor's displeasure, winked at the pious fraud; or finally, since, by the testimony of the bishop's great authority, St. Epiphanius, miracles had not yet ceased in the Jerusalem church, whether their eyes might not be holden so that they did not know them, does not appear 10. The bishop acknowledges, p. 366,

that

"Dr. Priestley has treated this testimony of Epiphanius just as I expected, and indeed predicted....the caution which I gave the public not to be abused by cavils about chronology is but too much justified by the event." Bishop Horsley's Tracts, p. 372, note.-A less sagacious disputant than the Bishop of St. David's might naturally expect from so acute an opponent as Dr. Priestley, an attack in that quarter which he was conscious that he had left so much exposed.

10 It might have been deemed officious in Dr. Priestley to have put the question, How were these holy and prudent brethren disposed of