Gentiles. He expresses great indignation at the unfounded charge against Origen's character; and ends his letter with the severe remark, "unless you can make a better apology for yourself than I am able to suggest, you will be considered by impartial persons as a falsifier of history, and a defamer of the character of the dead, in order to serve your purpose. The learned dignitary, who, to say the truth, was innocent of the charge alleged, who was misled by the great authority of Mosheim, and who really meant nothing more than the common ruse de guerre of passing off Mosheim's discoveries for his own, probably presuming upon security from detection by the scarcity of the book, deeply resented and vehemently repelled Dr. Priestley's unfounded accusation. In the second chapter of his Remarks upon Dr. Priestley's Second Letters, after laying in the prudent precaution, that "whoever attempts to make out a consistent story from ancient writers, will find himself under a necessity of helping out their broken accounts by his own conjectures," he proceeds to the humble confession, that he had in fact advanced nothing but what he had borrowed from Mosheim. And not knowing at the time that his opponent had consulted the wrong reference, for, in truth, Dr. Priestley had not acknowledged it, Dr. Horsley, with much plausibility, retaliates the charge of wilful misrepręsentation upon his adversary. "If he opened Mosheim in the place to which I referred," says our indignant respondent, "he must know that I have added no circumstances to Mosheim's account but what every one must add in his own imagination. He must know that these circumstances in particular, which he is pleased to mention among my additions, are affirmed by Mosheim. The conflux of Hebrew christians to Elia; the motive which induced the majority to give up their ancient customs, namely, the desire of sharing in the privileges of the Ælian colony; and the retreat of those who could not give their ancient cus. toms up to remote corners of the country: these were Mosheim's assertions before they were mine: and Dr. Priestley either knows this, or pretending to separate Mos heim's account from my additions, he hath not taken the trouble to examine what is mine and what is Mosheim's." So it is that the truth comes out between these learned polemics. Dr. Horsley, after having peremptorily stated that " THE FACT IS so, which I affirm with the less hesitation, being SUPPORTED by the authority of Mosheim,” is now reduced to the humiliating acknowledgement that he had advanced nothing but what he had borrowed from Mosheim. And Dr. Priestley having consulted a wrong reference, unjustly taxes the venerable archdeacon with being a bold falsifier of history, and defamer of the dead, when he was in fact nothing more than the humble, and we may charitably hope, the uninformed plagiary of the falsehood and defamation of another. The archdeacon, however, was sufficiently sensible that in the estimation even of willing judges, his justification of himself from the charge of Dr. Priestley would not entirely acquit him from that of adopting implicitly the errors of Mosheim: or, as he himself correctly expresses it, p. 364, having "related upon the authority of Mosheim, what Mosheim relates upon none." He very properly, therefore, proceeds to study eccclesiastical history for him. self; and after eighteen months' hard labour (p. 410) he at length produces the following new and most satisfactory demonstration of the existence of this famous church of orthodox Hebrew christians at Ælia, who had abandoned the Mosaic ritual. First, the learned dignitary states in form six distinct propositions (p. 364); the first three of which are undisputed facts, and the three last, gratuitous assumptions. The first asserts the existence of a Hebrew church of the circumcision at Jerusalem or Pella, "till the dispersion of the Jews by Adrian."-2. That "upon this event a christian church arose at Elia."-3. "This was a Greek church governed by bishops of the uncircumcision." All these were allowed facts.-4. The fourth proposition assumes, that "the observation of the Mosaic law by the primitive church of Jerusalem was a matter of mere habit and national prejudice, not of conscience. A matter of conscience T 2 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 Theolo gian derives all his knowledge of the Elian 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 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 Nazarenes. 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 Elia, 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. Jerome'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 |