ICE IN THE ADJOINING TEXT.

ospel, occur in the early ecclesiastical writers under

ording to Origen and Eusebius, they appear to have le deity of Christ. Hence, at a later period of their

II. CLASS OF

EBIONITES,

by the Jews Nazarenes.

ous conception, but not the deity of Christ.

e name of Ebionites, while those of the second class þd, we must consider the Jewish Christians under the

NAZARENES,

nites, and still by the Jews Nazarenes.

ous conception, but not the deity of Christ.

pters, but beginning with the events of the third. Whether after Matthew's time, is a question which cannot at all of Matthew's original gospel, seems to me to be sufficiently disciples, during his life and ministry, other than the son of sorrowing." iv. 22. “And they said, Is not this Joseph's ite, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." vi. 42. “And he faith of the gospel, never, in their sermons, speeches, or fore, which was complete on this subject, argued either their as the truth. 3. There are three false quotations from the described. (1.) It was remarked long ago by Symma&c., (Matt. i. 23,) quoted from Isaiah vii. 14, has no eover, applied the prediction to an event which was to occur 1 be forsaken of both her kings." ver. 16. (2.) There is no s, He shall be called a Nazarene." (3.) The statement ollection of a past event, viz., the deliverance of the Israelall the children of Bethlehem under two years of age is not Empire. It is almost incredible that such an event should

*

Antioch, and afterwards from all Greeks, Romans, and barbarians, throughout the empire. In this case, one might suppose that the Gentile believers, holding by the name of Christians, might have conceded to the Jewish converts the other appellation of Nazarenes, to which they themselves (that is, the Jewish Christians) were not probably disinclined. But this act of favour was not granted, because the name of Nazarenes was most likely thought, though inferior to that of Christians, still too good for men, who attached importance to the law of Moses after the coming of Christ. On the contrary, a term of reproach seems to have been sought after; which was found in the appellation Ebionites, denoting poverty,† whether bodily or mentally; and the following appears to me to have been the immediate occasion of its application to the Jewish Christians. We learn from several fathers, that there was a man among the Jewish Christians of the name of Ebion, who distinguished himself not a little. He was probably a violent partizan, who, coming among the Gentile believers, gave them annoyance by the boldness of his language about the importance of the Mosaic rites; and also concerning the proper humanity of Jesus Christ, from which the Gentile Christians had, in his time, begun to deviate, though it were only in a small degree. Now the Gentile Christians would very likely, as I conceive, when Ebion thus attracted their notice, be apt to call the Jewish Christian party, from which he had sprung, and whose views he was defending, persons like him, persons like this Ebion, whose name signified poor,‡ a very proper appellation for a party adhering to the " beggarly elements" § of the law, and which did not entertain sufficiently high notions (in the view of the Gentile believers) concerning Christ. In short, the Gentile believers would be disposed, as I think, to call the Jewish Christians Ebionites, without meaning to say that Ebion was the founder of a sect, or father of a heresy; an inference which is far too sweeping, though it serves the purpose of Trinitarian writers sometimes to draw it.

Thus far with a conjecture about the origin of a name; let me come to my proofs, which is a thing of more importance. According to strict arrangement I ought, first, to identify, by proof, the name of Ebionites with that of the Jewish Christians; and then, secondly, to show that those, who were Ebionites, held the proper Unitarian doctrine. But several of the passages, which I shall quote, go to establish both of these things at once; and there is also a citation from Origen which will bring before us the Unitarianism of the Jewish Christians directly, without the intervention of the term Ebionites. In consequence of these two circumstances, I

*Acts xi. 26.

See the quotations from Origen and Eusebius, at pages 76, 77.
Ibid.

Galatians, iv. 9.

K

prefer to proceed with my quotations after the order of chronology; leaving it to my readers to decide, whether my evidence, taken as a whole, will be satisfactory.

6

Irenæus, A. D. 178. In the first book of his treatise against heretics, he has a particular chapter on the "Doctrine of the Ebionites,”* in which he describes their error as consisting in an adherence to the Jewish law, notwithstanding their belief in Christ.† We hence learn that he means by Ebionites at least some Jewish Christians; and the doctrine of these concerning Christ is discovered by the following passages. Irenæus says that the spiritual disciple' will judge various classes of men, who hold incorrect doctrine, and among these, the Ebionites: "He will judge the Ebionites; how can they be saved, unless he, who wrought their salvation upon earth, was God?—And how can Christ have had more than Solomon, and more than Jonah, and have been the Lord of David, if it be said that he was of the same substance with them ?”‡ "The Ebionites are vain, not acknowledging through faith the union of God and man (in the person of Christ), nor being willing to understand how the Holy Spirit came upon Mary."§ "Such an interpretation is incorrect, viz., that a young woman shall conceive and bring forth a son, as Theodotion of Ephesus, and Aquila of Pontus interpret; whom the Ebionites following, say that Christ was begotten by Joseph." ||

Tertullian, A. D. 200. Tertullian does not mention the Ebionites, but he speaks of the doctrine of Ebion ; and it is quite common with this writer to put the name of a distinguished individual and his doctrine, for that of the name and doctrine of the party to which he belonged. Nor is it neces

* Quæ est Ebionitarum doctrina. Lib. i. cap. 26.

Qui autem dicuntur Ebionæi consentiunt quidem mundum a Deo factum, ea autem quæ sunt erga Dominum non similiter ut Cerinthus et Carpocrates opinantur. Solo autem eo quod est secundum Matthæum Evangelio utuntur, et apostolum Paulum recusant, apostatum eum legis dicentes. Quæ autem sunt prophetica curiosius exponere nituntur, et circumciduntur ac perseverant in his consuetudinibus quæ sunt secundum legem, et Judaico charactere vitae uti, et Hierosolymam adorant, quasi domus Dei. Lib. i. cap. 26.

Judicabit autem et Ebionitas; quomodo possunt salvari, nisi deus est, qui salutem illorum super terram operatus est ?-Quomodo autem plusquam Salomon, aut plusquam Iona habebat, et dominus erat David, qui ejusdem cum ipsis fuit substantiæ? Lib. iv. cap. 59.

§ Vani autem et Ebionæi, unitionem dei et hominis per fidem non recipientes in suam animam; neque intelligere volentes, quoniam spiritus sanctus advenit in Maria.

Lib. v.

Non ergo vera est quorundam interpretatio, qui ita audent interpretari scripturam Ecce adolescentula in ventre habebit, et pariet filium, quemadmodum et Theodotion Ephesius est interpretatus, et Aquila Ponticus, utrique Judæi proselyti, quos sectati Ebionæi, ex Joseph generatum eum dicunt. Lib. iii. cap. 24.

sary that we should infer from the connexion by Tertullian of the name of Ebion with the doctrine of the proper humanity of Christ, that he was the author of that doctrine, as some would have it.* Otherwise, we should be obliged also to infer from Tertullian's connecting the same name with the defence of legal observances, that Ebion was the first advocate for the Mosaic law among Christians, an opinion which our acquaintance with the Acts of the Apostles would, of course, overturn. The passage in Tertullian, which connects the name of Ebion with the observance and defence of the Mosaic law, is as follows: "And in his epistle to the Galatians Paul declaims against those who were observers and defenders of circumcision, and of the law; this is the heresy of Ebion." But this was not the heresy of Ebion alone, or as having him for its author. In like manner we must judge with respect to those passages which connect Ebion's name with the doctrine of Christ's strict humanity: “This opinion," says Tertullian, "might accord very well with the sentiment of Ebion, who declared Christ to have been merely a man, of the race of David." "Now that I may answer," he again says, candidly: the Son of God could not have been begotten in the ordinary way of men, unless he was altogether a son of man, having nothing more (in substance) than Solomon or Jonah; which would be to coincide in opinion with Ebion." But Ebion has no claim as the inventor of the doctrine ascribed to him in these passages, any more than in the first passage where he is made the defender of the Mosaic law. The three passages just prove that Ebion, who was a Jewish Christian adhering to the law, was also a believer in the strict humanity of Christ; indicating thus (according to Tertullian's manner,) the faith of the body of men to which he belonged.

Origen, A. D. 230. The testimony of this father is most explicit and satisfactory, leaving no room to doubt that all the Jewish Christians were, according to his knowledge, properly Unitarians. In the following passage, the Jewish believers are introduced to our notice without the name of Ebionites: "And when you consider," he says, "what belief THEY OF THE JEWISH RACE, WHO BELIEVE IN JESUS, entertain of the Saviour, some

*Dr Jamieson's Vindication, in reply to Priestley, vol. ii. p. 47. et seq.

Et ad Galatas scribens, invehitur in observatores et defensores circumcisionis et legis: Hebionis hæresis est. De Præ. hæret. cap. 33.

Poterit hæc opinio Hebioni convenire, qui nudum hominem, et tantum ex semine David, id est, non et Dei filium, constituit Jesum. De Carne Christi, cap. 14.

Nunc ut simplicius respondeamus, non computebat ex semine humano Dei filium nasci, ne si totus esset filius hominis, non esset et Dei filius, nihilque haberet amplius Salomone et amplius Iona, et de Hebionis opinione credendus erat. Ibid. cap. 18.