For he mentions it as a further proof of the ignorance of Celfus, pretending, as it appears he did, to deep erudition upon all fubjects, that, in his account of the herefies of the christian church, he had omitted the Ifraelites believing in Jefus, and not laying afide the law of their ancestors. "But how fhould Celfus," he says, "make clear "diftinctions upon this point, who, in the fequel "of his work, mentions impious herefies, alto"gether alienated from Chrift, and others which "have renounced the creator, and has not noticed "for knew not of] Ifraelites believing in Jefus, "and not relinquishing the law of their fathers*." What opinion,' you fay, is to be entertained of a writer's veracity. who in one page afferts that the Hebrews profeffing chriftianity had not renounced the Jewish law, and in the next affirms that a part of them had renounced it, not without an infinua'tion that they who had not were heretics, not true ' chriftians. EGO HUIC TESTI, ETIAM JURATO, < QUI TAM MANIFESTO FUMOS VENDIT, ME NON 'CREDITURUM ESSE CONFIRMO.'

.

४

* Αλλα γαρ ποθεν Κελσω τα καλα τον τόπον τρανώσαι, ος κ αιρεσεων μεν αθεων, και το Ιησε παντη αλλοτριων εν τοις εξης εμνημο νευσε, καὶ αλλων καλαλειπέσων τον δημιεργον· εκ οίδε δε και Ισραηλίτας εις Ιησεν πιτεύονίας, και 8 καταλειπονίας τον πατριον νόμον ; & γαρ προεκείνο αυτω φιλαληθώς όλα τα καλα τον τοπον εξετασαι, ιν ει τι χρήσιμον ευρισκοι παραδέξηται, αλλά και ως εχθρός, και όλος τα ανατρέπειν αμα το ακέσαι γενομεν, τα τοιανία ανεγραψεν. Lib. ii. P. 59.

Such

Such is the curious inference of the learned Archdeacon of St. Albans. From this conftruction of the paffage, a perfon might be led to think that Origen represented Celfus as having undertaken to give an account of the herefies in the chriftian church, and as having, in that account, omitted the Ifraelites believing in Jefus, and not laying afide the rites of their ancestors; and on no other ground can your infinuation ftand. Whereas the moft natural conftruction of the paffage is, that Origen says, "It "is no wonder that Celfus fhould be fo ignorant of "what he was treating, when he claffed the Gnoftics along with chriftians, and did not even know "that there were Ifraelites who profeffed chriftianity, and adhered to the laws of Mofes." Where then is the most diftant infinuation that the Ifraelites believing in Chrift, and not laying afide the rites of their ancestors, were heretics? That the Gnoftics were claffed with chriftians, was a common complaint of the orthodox in that age.

66

You ftrangely allege another inftance of what you call prevarication in Origen, in the fame book against Celfus. In the controverfy with the Jews, about the meaning of the word by, which he contends fignifies a virgin, he fays (Remarks, p. 29) "The word by, which the LXX have "tranflated into the word wap [a virgin] but "other interpreters into the word vans [a young

"woman]

"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 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 affert upon hearfay only? If he "knew not, why did he not inform himself, that he

might either affert with confidence what he had "found upon enquiry to be true, or not affert "what could not be maintained? EGO HUIC TESTI, 66 ETIAMSI JURATO, QUI TAM MANIFESTO FUMOS VENDIT, ME NON CREDITURUM ESSE CON"" FIRMO."

I am aftonished that any man could think this ftate of the cafe 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 dif pute was about the true reading in the original, what great matter was there in Origen's faying the Jews faid fo, when he knew that what they said was

* Εαν δε Ιδδαίος ευρεσιλογών, το ιδε η παρθενος μη γεγράφθαι λέγει αλλ' αλ' αύτε ιδε η νεανις· φησομεν προς αυλον, οτι μεν η μεν λέξις η αλμα ην οι μεν εβδομηκονία με ειλήφασι προς την παρθενον, άλλοι δε εις την νεανιν, κείται ως φασι και εν τω δευτερονομιω επι παρθενε όλως εχεσα. Lib.i. p. 27.

true?

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 feize upon fuch a circumftance as this to gratify it?

Fænum habet in cornu, hunc tu, Romane, caveto.

I am, &c.

LETTER

II.

General Obfervations relating to the fuppofed orthodox church of Jewish chriftians at Jerufalem, after the time of Adrian.

REV. SIR,

HAVING fully confidered what you have

alleged in fupport of your extraordinary charge of wilful falsehood in Origen, because the fuppofition of his being an honeft man was inconfiftent with the exiftence of your church of orthodox Jewish chriftians at Jerufalem after the time of Adrian, I fhall proceed to confider the positive evidence that you have produced for the actual existence

of

of fuch a church. But I fhall, in the first place, mention fome obfervations of a general nature relating to the fubject.

That there was a chriftian church at Jerufalem after the time of Adrian, we all acknowledge; but you fay, p. 41," the point in difpute between us is, "of what members the church of Elia was com

pofed. He fays of converts of Gentile ex"traction, I fay, of Hebrews, of the very fame "perfons, in the greater part, who were members

of the ancient Hebrew church at the time when "the Jews were fubdued by Adrian."

1. Now that the members of this church were not Jews, but Greeks, I think indifputable from this plain confideration, 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 confiderable body of orthodox Jewish chriftians, it is extraordinary that no particular mention should be made of them by any ancient writer. Jerom fpeaks of his acquaintance with learned Ebionites by whom he was taught the Hebrew tongue. Living as he did in the country, he might as eafily, on your idea, have found learned orthodox Jewish chriftians, with whom it would have been more agreeable to him to affociate, unless

you