'■'  For  he  mentions  it  as  a  further  proof  of  the  igno-
rance of  Celsus,  pretending,  as  it  appears  he  did,  to
deep  erudition  upon  all  subjects,  that,  in  his  account  of
the  heresies  of  the  christian  church,  he  had  omitted  the
Israelites  believing  in  Jesus,  and  not  laying  aside  the
law  of  their  ancestors.  '  But  how  should  Celsus,*
he  says,  '  make  clear  distinctions  upon  this  point,  who,
in  the  sequel  of  his  work,  m.entions  impious  heresies
altogether  alienated  from  Christ,  and  others  which  have
renounced  the  Creator,  and  has  not  noticed  [or  knew
not  of]  Israelites  believing  in  Jesus,  and  not  relinquish-
ing'the  law  of  their  fathers*?'  What  opinion,'*  you
say,  "  is  to  be  entertained  of  a  writer's  veracity,  who  in
one  page  asserts  that  the  Hebrews  professing  Chris-
tianity had  not  renounced  the  Jewish  law,  and  in  the
next  iiffirms  that  a  part  of  them  had  renounced  it,  not
without  an  insinuation  that  they  who  had  not  were  he-
retics, not  true  christians  ?    Ego  huic  testi,  etiam

jrjRATO,  QUI  TAM  MANIFESTO  FUMOS  VENDIT,  ME
NON   CREDITURUM  ESSE  CONFIRMO."

Such  is  the  curious  inference  of  the  learned  Arch-

*  AXXx  yap  iccihv  KsAtro;  ra  y.a.ra.  Tov  roTTOv  r^avujo-a.i,  o;  xa»
al^ecTEWv  jX£v  afitwy,  xaj  rov  Itjcou  Ttcuvr-n  aAAor^iwv  ev  roi;  £?'^;f

eij^vriixovsvcs,  xaj  ixK}mv  y.ccraXstTToucrujv  tov  ^rijj.iovpyov  our.  oioe  Sa
noii  IcrparjKiras  sig  IryO-ouv  iria-Tavovroci ,  xaj  ou  KccraXsiitovra,;  rov  ita-
rpiov  vo'Mv ;  ou  yccp  TtposKsiro  avrw  (piXxXr]^ws  oXa,  ra  xara  tov
t'i'TCoy  £^sTcx,(ra,i,  W  £(  ti  ^pr^a-iaov  gJoicTKOt  irapaSs^rfrai,  aXXa.  xai
cJf  B^Qcog,  y-ai  oXog  rov  avar^sTtitv  d[j.a  rw  UKOuaai,  ygvo^svo;,  ra
ToiOLvra  avEypa'l'^v-     Orig.  contra  Ceis.  lib.  ii.  p.  59.
