most natural to think, that the Gospel in which they delighted, was very different from that used by the Ebionites. Thefe heretics appear in another light, in the chapter immediately following, where he informs us that they received this Gospel only. We have, indeed, certain proof of the general reception of the Epiftles of Paul among the believing Hebrews, from the language of the Apostle of the circumcifion, 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16. unless Socinians be difpofed to deny the canonical authority of this Epiftle. Epifcopius himself, however warmly he efpoufed the cause of the Socinians, renounces all connexion with the Ebionites on this very account, that "they loaded the Apostle Paul "with calumnies, and accused Peter of lying. Therefore," he fays, "they appear to be the worft of men *." If Peter calls thofe unlearned and unftable, who wrefted the writings of his beloved brother Paul; if he says, that they did fo to their own deftruction; what judgment would he have paffed on those who rejected them, who calumniated, nay, curfed their infpired writer?

7. The generality of profeffed Chriftians of the Jewish nation believed the deity of Chrift. This is attested by Sulpitius Severus, an hiftorian of undoubted credit. We fhall have occafion to confider his teftimony afterwards. I need not say that all the Ebionites afferted that Jefus was

a mere man.

As these confiderations may fatisfy any candid inquirer, that the Hebrew believers were not Ebionites in doctrine, it may also be justly inferred from them that Dr P.'s fuppofition, that they all received this name, is entirely groundlefs. Those who accounted the Hebrew Chriftians found in the faith, would never give them a defignation which properly belonged to a heretical fect, whofe leading doctrines were equally detefted by both.

Inftitut. Theolog. ap. Bull. vol. ii. p. 281.

CHAP.

D

CHA P. IV.

Of the Origin of the Name of Ebionites.

R PRIESTLEY obferves that "the members of the "Jewish church were, in general, in very low cir"cumstances, which may account for their having few "perfons of learning among them; on which account they were much despised by the richer and more learned Gen"tile Christians, especially after the destruction of Jerusa

lem, before which event all the Chriftians in Judea "(warned by our Saviour's prophecies concerning the de"folations of that country) had retired to the north east of "the fea of Galilee. They were likewise despised by the "Gentiles for their bigotted adherence to the law of Mo❝fes. And on all these accounts they probably got the "name of Ebionites, which fignifies poor and mean, in the "fame manner as many of the early reformers from Popery got the name of Beghards, and other appellations of a fi"milar nature *." The reason why the Doctor fixes on this, as the most probable origin of the name, is obvious. If it should appear that the Ebionites received this defignation from an individual, it would naturally follow that they received their doctrine alfo from him; and of course, that they did not conftitute the body of the Hebrew Chriflians, but were heretics.

Dr P. is not the first who has occupied this ground. Zuicker, in his Irenicum Irenicorum, hath preceded him. Our author, however, if I recollect right, fomewhere in his Letters to Dr.Horfley, fays that he had not feen Zuicker. Perhaps he may have seen Toland. There is, at least, a ftriking coincidence between the account given of the ori

Hift. Corrupt. vol. i. p. 7.

gin

"

gin of this name by Dr P. and that given by the Deift. He fays that they were called Ebionites or beggars; by "their adverfaries, because of their poverty, just as the first "Proteftants in Flanders were called Gueux *." But upon a candid examination of the ancient writers it will appear that there is as clear proof of the existence of fuch a perfon as Ebion, as there is of that of many other herefiarchs whofe exiftence has never been doubted.

Dr P., indeed, fays; "I have feen no evidence at all "that any person of that name ever exifted. There is no "founder of a fect, of whofe hiftory fome particulars have "not been handed down to pofterity; but this is vox et "præterea nibil +." Toland was of the fame judgment; with this difference, however, that he durft not refuse the tranfmiffion of fomething more than a mere voice. "Some perfons," he says, "equally ignorant of the Jewish language, and of the Chriftian hiftory, ridiculously invented "a certain Ebion (of whom they tell formal ftories) to be "the author of the Ebionites; as they faw feveral other "fects had peculiar founders, of whom they derived their "appellation ‡."

Tertullian, a moft accurate writer, often mentions Ebion. Illustrating these words, God fent forth his Son, made of a woman, he says, "That he was a Virgin is evident, al"though Ebion denies it." He introduces him in the fame lift with Marcion, Valentinus, Appelles and Simon, who were undoubtedly real perfons §. Speaking of the Apostle John, he fays; "But in his epiftle, he especially "calls those antichrifts, who denied that Chrift, was come "in the flesh, and who did not believe Jefus to be the Son "of God **; Marcion maintained the former, Ebion the "latter,

Nazarenus, c. 9. p. 25. ap. Mofheim Vindiciae, fect. 1. c. 5. p. 95.

† Earl. Opin. vol. iii. p. 177.

De Virgin. Veland. c. 6. ** Ibid. c. 33.

Nazarenus, Mofh. Vind. p. 183.

§ De Præfcript. c. 10. 33.

"latter." After giving an account of Cerinthus, he fays; "His fucceffor was Ebion +." He mentions him different times in his book De Carne Christi ‡,

Ebion is introduced by Philafter, as the difciple of Cerinthus. Marius Mercator, a writer cotemporary with Augustine, does not merely speak of Ebion,, but calls him a Stoic Philosopher ||. It has been also said that his name is mentioned in the Talmud **.

66

Jerom informs us that " John, being folicited by the " bishops of Afia, wrote his gospel against Cerinthus, and especially against the opinion of the Ebionites, then making "its appearance+t." Therefore, even fuppofing that it made its appearance so early, can it be imagined that a writer of the learning and fagacity of Tertullian, who flourished only about an hundred years afterwards, would so often mention Ebion, if no such person had ever exifted? Had he been in any doubt, would he not rather have mentioned the fect under the general name of Ebionites? Will any one undertake to prove that he had no proper opportunity of knowing the certainty of Ebion's existence, only about a century after the time of his fuppofed appearance? Is it not evident, that Tertullian was well acquainted with the Christian writers who preceded him? Many of them he closely follows, and others he exprefsly cites, as Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Melito, Miltiades, &c. There is fcarcely a heretic of his age, or of the preceding ages, that he does not mention. And when they were denominated from any accidental circumftance, he speaks of them under this general defignation. But in no other inftance does he mention the name of an individual, unless be was the VOL. II. founder

D

*De Præfcript. c. 33. + Ibid. c. 48.

In Appendice ad Contradictionem 12 Anathemat. Neftorianifmi. ap.

C. 14. 18. 24.

波典

Mofheim Vindic. p. 188.

†† Catalog. Script. in Joan.

Ittig. de Haer. c. 6. f. 7.

z©

founder of the fect*. Whether, then, had Tertullian, or have the modern friends of this doctrine, best access to know the fact? He could have no end to serve in raising up a fictitious herefiarch; for he mentions feveral others who held the fame opinion: but Socinians have, in their attempts to difprove the existence of Ebion. Had he been in a mistake in mentioning Ebion, it may be fuppofed that fome of his friends would have put him right. Although it should be fuppofed to have gone abroad in one work, he would have guarded against it in another. Had none of his friends corrected him, fome one of his enemies would. As Dr P. reckons Praxeas among Unitarians, and Tertullian wrote against him; is it not supposable that he, or his followers, would have been sharp-fighted enough to obferve the confequence of one perfon being mentioned as the first of the party? If they knew that there never had been fuch a perfon as Ebion, and that it was a fraud of their enemies, meant to difgrace their principles; (and it is inconceivable that they should not have had abundant access to know ;) would they not have accused Tertullian of falsehood? Thus, to reject his testimony, would be, to renounce all faith in history,

The principal objection to what has been faid, is the derivation which Origen and Eufebius have given of this name. Origen fays; "We have not received these things "as those beggars in understanding, the Ebionités, deno❝minated from the poverty of their mind. For a poor "man is called Ebion with the Hebrews +." To the fame purpose is the testimony of Eufebius. "The ancients aptly "called thofe Ebionites, who think poorly and meanly of "Christ."

Juftin Martyr speaks as if it had been the general rule in this cafe to defign every body of heretics from the name of their founder. Therefore, after mentioning the Marcionites, Valentinians, Bafilidians, and Saturnilians, he fays; "Others are called by their names; every one being dens"minated from the author of his opinion." Dial. p. 253.

De Princip. lib. 4.