LETTER II.

Of the Diftinction between the Ebionites and the Nazarenes.

IT

DEAR SIR,

T has been imagined by fome, that there was a difference between the doctrine of the Ebionites, and that of the Nazarenes concerning the perfon of Chrift; the former difbelieving the miraculous conception, and the latter maintaining it; whereas I have faid that I can find no fufficient authority for that difference; that which has been thought to have been the peculiar opinion of the Nazarenes, being exprefsly afcribed to one branch of the Ebionites, by Origen, Eufebius, Epiphanius, and perhaps other ancient writers.

And as to any Nazarenes who believed that Christ was any thing more than man, I find no trace of them in hiftory; fo that it is highly probable that the Nazarenes of the fecond century were the fame people with those of the first, or the primitive Jewish Chriftians, and that they were called Ebionites by way of reproach.

To the arguments from Origen and Eufebius you say nothing, but with refpect to that from Epiphanius your conduct is very particular indeed.

On

On my faying that "Epiphanius exprefsly fays that "Ebion held the fame opinion with the Nazarenes," you fay, p. 77, "The only inference to be made "from this affertion is this, that Dr. Priestley has "never troubled himself to read more of Epipha"nius's account of the Ebionites than the first "eleven words of the first fentence. Had he read "the first fentence to the end, he would have found "that Ebion, although he arofe from the school "of the Nazarenes, and held fimilar opinions, preached alfo other doctrines, of which he was "the first inventor. Among these novelties, by "the confent of all antiquity, though not with Dr. Priestley's leave, we place the mere humanity "of Chrift, with or without the miraculous conception."

I fhall not return your offenfive language, but had you yourself read the fecond paragraph in this fection, you would have found that your remark had no foundation whatever. For it there appears, that though, according to this writer, the Ebionites and Nazarenes did differ in fome particulars, it was not with refpect even to the miraculous conception, much lefs with refpect to the doctrine of the mere humanity of Chrift.

He says, in the middle of the first section, " that "Ebion," whom, in the twenty-fourth fection, he makes to be cotemporary with the apostle John, "borrowed his abominable rites from " the Sama<< ritans,

« ritans, his opinion (γνωμην) from the Nazarenes, "his name from the Jews*, &c." And he fays, in the beginning of the fecond fection, "he was cotemporary with the former, and had the same origin with them; and first he afferted that Chrift "was born of the commerce and feed of man, "namely Jofeph, as we fignified above," referring to the first words of his first fection, "when we "faid that in other refpects, he agreed with them « all, and differed from them only in this, viz. in "his adherence to the laws of the Jews with refpect to the fabbath, circumcifion, and other "things that were enjoined by the Jews and Sa"maritans. He moreover adopted many more

things than the Jews, in imitation of the Samaritans t,” the particulars of which he then proceels to mention.

In the same section he speaks of the Ebionites inhabiting the fame country with the Nazarenes, and

* Σαμαρείλων μεν γαρ και εχει το βδελυρον, Ικδαίων τε το όνομα, Οσσαίων δε και Ναζωραίων και, Νασαραίωντην γνωμην—και Χρισ Πιάνων βουλείαι εχειν την προσηγορίαν. Hær. 30. Sed. i. p. 125.

γαρ

+ On Ο Εξίων συγχρονα μεν τελων υπήρχεν, απ αυτων δε συν αυτοις ορμαίαι. τα πρωία δε εκ παρατριβης και σπερμαία ανδρG, τελεσιν τε Ιωσηφ, τον Χρισον γεγενησθαι, ελεγεν, ως και ηδὲ ημιν προειρήται, ότι τα ισα τοις άλλοις εν απασι φρονων, εν τείω μόνω διαφέρεια, εν τω τω νόμω τε Ιεδισμό προσανέχειν, καλα σαβαλισμόν, και καλα την περίλομην, και κατα τα αλλα παλα ισαπερ παρα τες Ιεδαίες ομοίως τοις Σαμαρείαις διαπρατείαι. Ib. Sect. ii. Ρ. 125, 126.

adds

adds that," agreeing together, they communicated "of their perverfeness to each other." Then, in the third fection, he obferves that afterwards fome of the Ebionites entertained a different opinion concerning Chrift, than that he was the fon of Jofeph; fuppofing that after Elxæus joined them, they learned of him "fome fancy concerning Christ "and the holy spirit †."

Concerning the Nazarenes, in the feventh fection of his account of them, he fays that they were Jews in all respects, except " that they believed in "Chrift; but I do not know whether they hold "the miraculous conception, or not." This amounts to no more than a doubt, which he afterwards abandoned, by afferting that the Ebionites held the fame opinion concerning Chrift with the Nazarenes, which opinion he expressly states to be their belief, that Jefus was a mere man, and the fon of Jofeph.

I now appeal to yourself whether this does not abundantly justify my quoting the authority of

* Ενθεν αρχεται της κακής αυτε διδασκαλίας, οθεν δηθεν και Ναζαρηνοι οι ανομοι προδεδηλωνίαι. Συναφθεις γαρ ούλος εκείνοις, και εκείνοι τέλω, εκατερος απο της εαυτε μοχθηρίας τω ελέρω μελεδωκε. Her. 30. Sect. ii. p. 125, 126.

† Φανίασιαν τινα περι Χρισε διηγείται, και περι πνευματος αγι8. Ibid. Sect. iii. p. 127.

† Περι Χρισε δε εκ οίδα ειπείν ει και αυλοι τη των προειρημένων περι Κήρινθον και Μηρινθον μοχθηρια αχθέντες, ψιλόν ανθρωπον νομίζεσιν, η καθώς η αλήθεια έχει, δια πνευματος αγια γεγενησθαι Ex Mapias, diaßeßalovila. Hær. 29. Sect. vii. vol. i. p. 123. Epiphanius,

C

Epiphanius, whatever that may be, in fupport of the Ebionites and Nazarenes having held the fame opinion concerning Chrift, though they might differ in other things. Please alfo to obferve that these Nazarenes were prior to Ebion, who was himself cotemporary with the apostle John.

You acknowledge, p. 29, that, "in Jerom's "time the Nazarenes were fo far declined from

"the pure faith of the first race of Chriftians, and "were become heretical to that degree, that Jerom "confidered them as a Jewish fect, rather than a "Christian." How much earlier this general defection took place you do not fay. It appears, however, as you do not deny, that the unbelieving Jews called all thofe of their race, who were Chriftians, by the name of Ebionites, in the time of Origen. Indeed Origen's own words are too express to admit any doubt of this. "Those," fays he, "of the Jews who believe that Jefus is "the Chrift, are called Ebionites*." And these Ebionites Origin fays were of two forts, one of them believing the miraculous conception, and the other not; but all of them confidering Christ as a

mere man.

You say, indeed, p. 35, that " the word Ebionite "had, in the time of Origin, out-grown its original "meaning: for at last the Nazarenes, whofe error "was rather a fuperftitious severity in their prac

* Εβιωναίοι χρηματιζεσιν οι απο Ιεδαίων τον Ιησον ως Χριςον wagadegausva. In Celfum, Lib. ii. p. 56.

"<tice,