lefs than infatuated, to have advanced what all his readers must have known to be falfe. A falfehood Lo circumstanced, and which must have been a wilful one, would have been fo evidently ruinous to his credit, and fo fatal to his caufe, that he must have been a fool not to have feen it.

Besides, this particular circumstance, of the chriftian Jews not abandoning the cuftoms of their ancestors, was not of fo much confequence to his general argument in defence of chriftianity, but that he might very well have neglected it. Nothing, therefore, but a perfect confidence that what he did advance was true, could have led him to make any declaration on the fubject.

What is more extraordinary still, you say, p. 25, " he himself contradicted his own affertion, at no greater diftance than the third fection of the "fame book; where the good Father," as you ironically call him," takes quite another ground to con"fute his adverfary." Certainly this must be thought to be a priori, in the highest degree improbable.

I shall now confider this flagrant contradiction, by which this great man (for fo all the world has ever called him) is fuppofed to confute himself, and fo far to have loft all character, that the Archdeacon of St. Alban's would not take his evidence upon oath ; and I fhall recite it in your own words.

At no greater diftance than in the third fection ' of the fame book, the good Father takes quite an⚫ other

B 4

other ground to confute his adverfary; he infults ' over his ignorance for not making the diftinctions which he himself, in the allegation in queftion, had confounded.' "It is my prefent point, fays Origen, to evince Celfus's ignorance, who has "made a Jew fay to his countrymen, to Ifraelites

66

believing in Chrift, Upon what motive have you "deserted the law of your ancestors: But how have "they deferted the law of their ancestors, who reprove those who are inattentive to it, and fay Tell me ye, &c?" Then after a citation of certain ' texts from St. Paul's epiftles, in which the apostle ' avails himself of the authority of the law to enforce particular duties, which texts make nothing either 'for or against the Jew's affertion, that the chriftians ' of the circumcifion had abandoned their ancient laws, but prove only that the difufe of the law, if it was actually gone into difufe, could not be ' deemed a desertion, because it proceeded not 'from any difregard to the authority of the lawgiver. After a citation of texts to this purpose, Origen proceeds in this remarkable strain.'" And "how confusedly does Celfus's Jew fpeak upon this "fubject, when he might have faid more plausibly, "Some of you have relinquished the old cuftoms "upon pretence of expofitions and allegories. "Some again expounding, as you call it, fpiritually, "nevertheless, obferve the inftitutions of our ancefBut fome, not admitting thefe expo"fitions, are willing to receive Jefus as the perfon "foretold by the prophets, and to obferve the law " of Mofes, according to the ancient customs, as "having

<tors.

·

“having in the letter the whole meaning of the " spirit*." In these words Origen confeffes all that I have alleged of him. He confeffes, in < contradiction to his former affertion, that he knew of three forts of Jews profeffing christianity; one fort adhered to the letter of the Mofaic law, rejecting all figurative interpretations: another fort admitted a figurative interpretation, conforming, however, to the letter of the precept, but a third fort (the first in Origen's enumeration) had • relinquished the obfervance of the literal precept, conceiving it to be of no importance in comparifon of the latent figurative meaning.'

.

This contains the whole of your curious reasoning, in which you fuppofe that Origen, in treating of the fame fubject, and in continuation of the fame argument, has given you this pretence for impeaching his veracity as you have done. But furely this writer, who must have known his own meaning, could not have imagined that he had really contradicted himself in two paffages, not in different works, written at different times, or in diftant parts of the fame work (in which he might have forgotten

Κελσω Ιεδαι

Και ως συγκεχυμένως γε ταυθ' λεγεί, 0 παρα τω δυναμενος πιθανώτερον ειπείν, οτι τινες μεν ημων καταλελοίπασι τα εθη προφάσει διηγήσεων και αλληγοριων· τινες δε και διηγεμένος, ως επαγγέλλεσθε, πνευματικως, εδεν ητίον τα παίρια τηρείλε· τινες δε, εδε διηγέμενοι, βέλεσθε τον Ιησεν παραδέξασθαι ως προφη ευθενία, και τον Μωυσέως νομον τηρησαι, καλα τα παίρια· ως εν τη λέξει εχονίες τον πανία τε πνεύμαλος νεν. Lib. ii. p. 59.

what

what he had faid in one of the paffages, when he . was writing the other) but in the fame work, the fame part of the work, and in paragraphs fo very near to each other. And I believe nobody before yourself, ever imagined that there was any contradiction in them at all.

In the former he afferts, in general terms, without making any particular exception, that the Jewish chriftians adhered to the cuftoms of their ancestors, and in the latter, which almoft immediately follows it, he fays that his adverfary, who had afferted the contrary, would have faid what was more plaufible (not what was true) if he had faid that fome of them had relinquished their ancient cuftoms, while the reft adhered to them; alluding, perhaps, to a few who had abandoned thofe cuftoms, while the great body of them had not, which is fufficiently confiftent with what he had faid before. For inconfiderable exceptions are not regarded in general af fertions. It would have been very extraordinary indeed, if no Jewish chriftians whatever had abandoned the rites of their former religion, when, in all ages, fome Jews, whether they became chriftians or not, have done fo. In like manner, it concerns me not to affert that no individuals of the Jewish chriftians embraced the doctrine of the trinity, because my purpose is fufficiently answered if the great body of them, to whom the reft bore no fenfible proportion, were unitarians. And though there might be a few Jewish chriftians who had deferted their former customs, which would have given Celfus a plausible

pretence

pretence for making fuch a divifion of them as to make thefe one of the claffes, yet the great body of them had not; and this was fufficient to remove the reproach which Celfus had thrown out against the Jewish chriftians in general.

That this was really the cafe, and that the great body of Jewish chriftians were likewife unitarians, we have the exprefs teftimony of Origen, uncontradicted, as I have fhewn, by himself, or any other authority whatever. He could not but be well informed with refpect to the fact, his veracity was never impeached; and if he had been difpofed to deny the truth (which he had no temptation to do) he wrote in circumstances in which his attempts to falfify could not have availed him.

But to prove Origen to be guilty of contradicting himself is not the only ufe you make of the paffage. You fay, p. 27, "But this is not all. In the next "fentence he gives us to understand, though I "confefs more indirectly, but he gives us to understand, that of thefe three forts of Hebrews

66

દુઃ

profeffing christianity, they only who had laid "afide the use of the Mofaic law, were in his <time confidered as true chriftians." This is extraordinary indeed; but let us fee how it is given to be understood. Having found fo little in your clear conclufions, I do not expect much from your fuppofed infinuations.

< For