"to the contrary) yet will the difficulty be alt " removed at once by this fingle confideration, "that Epiphanius never faw any gofpel of the "Nazarenes; for though he calls it pisalo",

yet he himfelf fays, «η οίδα δε εἰ καὶ τας γενεαλογιας σε περιειλον, that he did not know whether they "had taken away the genealogy, as the Ebionites “ had done; i. e. having never seen the Nazarene gospel, for ought he knew it might be the

very fame with that of the Ebionites, as in"deed it most certainly was." On the Canon, vol. I. p. 386.

As I have perceived that the opinion of the moderns has fometimes great weight with you, I fhall transcribe part of a note of the learned tranflator of Mofheim on this fubject. "This "gofpel," he fays, vol. I. p. 173. "which was "called indifcriminately the gospel of the Na

zarenes, or Hebrews, is certainly the fame with "the gospel of the Ebionites, the gospel of the "twelve apostles," &c. and, after referring to other authors, he fays, "the reader will, how"ever, find a still more accurate and fatisfactory "account of this gospel, in the first volume of "the learned and judicious Mr. Jones's incom"parable method of fettling the canonical au"thority of the New Teftament."

But in my opinion Jerom has fufficiently decided this question against you. Could he have had any other idea than that these two fects (if

they were properly two) ufed the fame gospel, when he faid," in the gospel used by the Naza"renes and Ebionites, which is commonly called "the authentic gofpel of Matthew, which I lately "tranflated from Hebrew into Greek*," &c.

You farther fay, p. 71. "the Ebionites ac "knowledged no part of the Old Teftament but "the Pentateuch, nor the whole of that; and "therefore that Hegefippus citing the Proverbs "of Solomon, by a title which implies his ac"knowledgment of that book, is a proof that he "was not an Ebionite." I know of no fufficient evidence that the Ebionites did not acknowledge the authority of all that we call the canonical books of the Old Teftament. Symmachus, whofe tranflation of the fcriptures into Greek is fo often quoted, and with the greatest approbation by the fathers, was an Ebionite, and Jerom fays the fame of Theodotion. They both tranflated the other books of the Old Teftament, as well as the Pentateuch, and as far as appears, without making any diftinction between that and the other books; and can this be thought probable, if they had not confidered them as intitled to equal credit? Befides, our Saviour's acknowledgment of the authority of the whole of the Old Teftament is fo exprefs, that I cannot readily

In Evangelio quo utuntur Nazareni et Ehionite, quod puper in Græcum de Hebræo fermone tranftulimus, et quod vecatur plerifque Matthæi authenticum, &c. in Matt. xii. 13. Opera, vol. vi. p. 21.

believe

believe that any christians, Jews efpecially, acknowledging his authority, would reject what he admitted.

What you say can be only on the authority of Epiphanius, and that, you ought to have known is in effect contradicted by Irenæus, who fays, that "the Ebionites expounded the prophecies "too curiously. Quæ autem funt prophetica cu"riofius exponere nituntur, lib. I. cap. 26.— Grabe fays, that Ebion wrote an exposition of the prophets, as he collected from fome fragments of the work, of which he gives some account in his note on the place. By Ebion we may underftand fome Ebionite; for I much doubt the existence of fuch a perfon as Ebion, the Ebionites being mentioned long before the name Ebion occurs in ecclefiaftical writers.

It is an argument in favour of the identity of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, that the former are not mentioned by name by any writer who likewife speaks of the Ebionites before Epiphanius, though the people fo called afterwards were certainly known before his time. The term Ebionites occurs in Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, and Eufebius; but none of them make any mention of Nazarenes; and yet it cannot be denied, that they must have been even more confiderable in the time of these writers than they were afterwards; for, together with the Ebionites (if there was any difference between them) they dwindled

away, till, in the time of Austin, they were ad modum pauci, very few.

Origen must have meant to include thofe who were called Nazarenes under the appellation of Ebionites, because he speaks of the Ebionites as being the whole body of Jewish chriftians; and the Nazarenes were chriftian Jews as well as they. Jerom feems to use the two terms promifcuously; and in the paffage of his letter to Austin, so often quoted in this controverfy, I cannot help thinking he makes them to be the fame.

The conduct of these writers is easily accounted for, on the fuppofition of the Jewish chriftians having been first known to the Gentiles by the name of Ebionites only, before the appellation of Nazarenes (by which they had been distinguished by their unbelieving brethren) came to be generally known abroad. It must be more particularly difficult, on your principles, to account for the conduct of Eufebius, whose business, as an historian, it certainly was to have noticed the Nazarenes, if they had been different from the Ebionites, whom he has mentioned; and even you allow them to have had their rife in the time of Adrian, whofe expedition against the Jews he particularly mentions.

On this fubject of the Ebionites, I must take fome notice of what you say in defence of Eufebius, who fays, that Theodotus was the first who taught the doctrine of the humanity of Chrift. You still main

tain, without the leaft fhadow of authority for it, that he carried the doctrine farther than the Ebionites had ever done; whereas, you cannot poffibly produce any evidence whatever of Theodotus having been confidered by the ancients in a worfe light than the Ebionites.

"It is very certain," you fay, p. 131. "that "Theodotus maintained the mere humanity of "Chrift in the groffeft fenfe; in that grofs and "shocking sense in which it is at this day taught

by yourself and Mr. Lindsey. It is not certain "that the Ebionites before Theodotus had gone "farther than to deny our Lord's original divinity. "They probably, like Socinus, admitted fome unintelligible exaltation of his nature after his refur"rection, which rendered him the object of wor" ship." You alfo fay, p. 87. "I deny that the "unitarian doctrine exifted in that time" (the age "of the apoftles) "in the moft obnoxious form. "Produce your indifputable evidence. Obferve,

"that by the most obnoxious form, I understand "that form which excludes the worship of Chrift."

By the most obnoxious form, I meant the belief that Jefus was the fon of Joseph as well as of Mary. That fuch perfons exifted in the age of the apostles, no perfon, I believe, except yourself, ever denied ; and there is no reafon whatever to believe that thefe Ebionites, or any Ebionites, ever confidered Christ as a proper object of worship. Your idea of their entertaining the notion of an unintelligible exalta