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 ÆLIA EXISTED7. "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 Ælian 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 Elia was founded. Ælia was begun in A. D. 132. See Basnage.

ries,

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 prejudices 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 eighteenth; 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

* Ανθέντας τη πίστει, και σημεια μεγαλα εργαζόμενος ιασεων και aλλwv Savμatwv. 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 Elian 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,

66

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

that "no promise of any particular immunities was made to Jewish christians upon condition that they renounced the Jewish law." But presuming, which is not improbable, that the Hebrew christians had taken no part in the rebellion, he supposes that the emperor might distinguish between rebels and good subjects. He then takes for granted, that the emperor did make this distinction; and assumes, without a tittle of authority from ecclesiastical antiquity, that they abandoned the Mosaic institute, because, "if they had not discarded the Jewish rites, they might have been mistaken for Jews," and been debarred the immunities of the Ælian colony. In this forlorn and deplorable condition, resting wholly upon gratuitous assumption, unsupported by history, and contradicted by chronology, is this learned prelate constrained finally to leave this his favourite church. Still, however, he is unwilling absolutely to give it up. "The disturbed foundations of the church of Ælia are," says he, p. 499, “again settled. I could wish to trust them to their own sclidity to withstand any future attacks."

But though the right reverend polemic thus sued for peace, his active and determined adversary would neither desist from the contest, nor grant him quarter. After having stated in his Letters to the Lord Bishop of St. David's, p. 53, "that all the accounts of the destruction of Jerusalem by Adrian are absolutely inconsistent with the supposition of any such church;" that "they all say that no Jew, without making any exception in favour of christian Jews, was allowed to remain in the place, and they expressly speak of the new church as consisting wholly of Gentiles, who made use of the Greek language;" and appealing once more to the concurring opinion of Fleury and Tillemont, he adds, " to this mass of evidence from the clearest facts and the strongest probabilities,

during the interval when " Jerusalem was no more," and while Ælia was building at another place? But, no doubt, his Lordship would have referred him to his former most ingenious and satisfactory reply, p. 375: "If they were not dwelling at Ælia, Dr. Priestley, if he be so pleased, may seek their settlement."

your

your Lordship opposes a mere idle story picked up by Epiphanius, of Aquila being appointed by Adrian to superintend the works at Jerusalem, and being converted to christianity;" and he reminds the bishop that, "according to Epiphanius, this must have happened before the war began." "Your Lordship," he concludes, " may well say that I have embarrassed your argument with chronological difficulties; and when chronology is against a man, he is naturally against chronology."

In reply to the bishop's concluding remark, Dr. Priestley says, p. 57, "My Lord, in humble imitation of your Lordship's style, I will say, the foundations of your church of Trinitarian Jews at Jerusalem, after the time of Adrian, are again, and I will venture to say for ever, overturned: and a church, the foundations of which were attempted to be laid on the grossest calumny, and on the ruins of the fairest character that christian history has to exhibit, would not expect any better fate. And it has fallen where it ought to have done, on the head of the architect." He adds, "If your Lordship should make a fresh attempt to rebuild this favourite church, I hope you will lay its foundations deeper than on an idle story of Epiphanius.-Also condescend to give some small degree of attention to the humble subject of chronology. Otherwise, how pompously and magisterially soever your Lordship may write, a plain tale will be sufficient to put you down." Dr. Priestley concludes with a spirited challenge to the newlycreated bishop to resume the controversy. "Come

forth then again, my Lord, and to all your powers of language be pleased to add those of argument. To use your own high platonic language, Come forth with the full projection of all your energies, and, if possible, overwhelm me at once."

To this animated challenge the right reverend adversary made no reply. The oracle was silent. The warfare was accomplished. The prize was won. And both the contending parties retired from the field equally well satisfied with the result of the conflict; Dr. Priestley with his VICTORY, and Dr. Horsley, with his MITRE.

NOTE.