any who was πένης διάνοιαν. Hence, Epiphanius calls Cerinthus Ebion. We are told by Irenæus, (1. iii. c. 3.) that there were perfons living in his time, who had heard Polycarp relate the following circumstance of St. John, at a bath at Ephefus: his words are thefe: Ιωάννης ὁ του Κυριου μαθητης εν τη Εφέσῳ πορευ θεις λευσασθαι, και ιδων εσω Κήρινθον εξήλατο Κήρινθον εξήλατο του βαλα νειου μη λουσαμενος, αλλ' επείπων, φυγωμεν, μη και το βαλανείον συμπεση, ενδον οντος Κηρίνθου του της αλήθειας Exegov. Epiphanius, relating this very fame circumstance, calls Cerinthus Ebion, (Contra Hæref. 30.) that is, whereas Irenæus fays, it was Cerinthus who was the enemy of truth, and on whofe account St. John quitted the bath, left he should perish in the ruin of it with the Hærefiarch, Epiphanius fays, it was Ebion. Here, then, Epiphanius must either, by mistake, have written Ebion instead of Cerinthus, or he muft defignedly have ufed Ebion as characteriftic of Cerinthus; or, at the time when the affair happened, Ebion must have been in the bath together with Cerinthus. This laft, although the fuggeftion of a very learned man, feems to be wholly inadmiffible; as, doubtlefs, Irenæus would have mentioned it, had it been the truth: but, what Irenæus fays, is wholly confined to Cerinthus, without even a hint at any other perfon; and, therefore, we may certainly conclude, that the τον της άληθειας εχε epov, was Cerinthus alone. Equally Equally alfo inadmiffible does it seem to be, that Epiphanius fhould have written by mistake Ebion inftead of Cerinthus; for, the whole ftory was derived from Irenæus; and of Ebion he does not mention a fingle fyllable; therefore, it is very improbable, that Epiphanius, in retailing a story from Irenæus, fhould be guilty of fo very extraordinary a blunder as this, that he should tell of Ebion, whom Irenæus never once mentions, what, in plain, unequivocal terms, is told of Cerinthus alone. Eufebius relates the fame story, but relates it of Cerinthus, (lib. iii. Ecclef. Hift.) and, if I miftake not, never once in his Ecclefiaftical History mentions Ebion as the proper appellative name of a perfon. It feems, therefore, hardly poffible, that Epiphanius fhould have fallen into fo palpable a mistake, in a matter wherein he could not but have been certainly informed, both from Irenæus and Eufebius. Confequently, the conclufion is, that he did not use the word Ebion through mistake, but by design, as characteristic of Cerinthus, thinking it more proper, perhaps, to describe so vile a corrupter of Chriftianity by a name of difgrace, rather than by his own proper name, well knowing, at the fame time, that he could not hereby impose upon, or mislead, his reader; because, the original author of the ftory, Irenæus, fays expreffly, that it was Cerinthus who was in the bath; and, because Eufebius, whofe Ecclefiaftical History was written not many years before Epiphanius, and whose history was in the hands of every one, as expreffly fays the fame. The refult, then, of what has been faid is, that there never exifted, in the apoftolic age, any person, the father of the Ebionites, whofe perfonal and proper name was Ebion; and, confequently, that the firft father in the Socinian pedigree was a nonentity. The Socinians, therefore, need not exult and triumph, because, Irenæus has no where called Ebion an heretic; he never mentions him at all, and, of course, could not call him heretic; and he never mentions him, because no such person ever existed. The Ebionites, indeed, he mentions, and plainly enough, as heretics; but Ebion he never mentions once. But, if no fuch perfon as Ebion ever exifted, whence did the Ebionites obtain that name? and, why were they fo called? They were fo called δια την της δια νοιας τωχειαν, and not from the name of any preceding herefiarch. In one refpect they differed in principle from Cerinthus; but, in what refpected our bleffed LORD, they concurred entirely with him, and with Carpocrates. They rejected the writings of St. Paul, and called him an apoftate. Circumci. duntur (faith Irenæus) ac perfeverant in his confuetudinibus quæ funt fecundum legem, & Judaico chara&ere vitæ, uti & Hierofolymam adorent quafi domus fit Dei. From this account of them, they appear to have been a mongrel kind of people, a compound of Ju daifm, and the corruptions which Cerinthus and Carpocrates had introduced into Christianity; and, therefore, most juftly entitled to the appellation of Ebionites, Ebionites, as being a moft abfurd and infenfate people. Very probably, when the Chriftians were warned to retire from Jerufalem prior to its deftruction, and fettled at Pella, thefe men followed them thither; and, thus, like the mixed multitude which accompanied the Ifraelites when they went up out of Egypt, became a fnare to many weak Chriftians, and perverted them from the fimplicity which is in JESUS CHRIST. If a conjecture may be hazarded in a matter where any abfolute certainty is not to be expected, the Ebionites were Jews of the fect of the Pharifees, who, being moft pertinaciously attached to the ceremonial and traditional part of their religion, blended together with it fuch portions of the Christian doctrine as fhould not prove deftructive of it, and thus became what the Socinians inadvertently call them, Jewish Chriftians. If this conjecture has any foundation in truth, it accounts for their inveterate animofity against St. Paul, who, having been a Pharifee himself, they inveighed against him as an apoftate, for having deferted their Pharifaical tenets, and for having fo ftrenuously infifted upon it, that it was not neceffary for the converts to Christianity to be circumcifed, and to keep the law of Mofes: nay, and who had fo peremptorily written in his Epiftle to the Galatians, chap. v. "Behold, I Paul fay unto you, that, if ye be circumcifed, CHRIST "shall profit you nothing. For, I teftify again to every man that is circumcifed, that he is a debtor "to do the whole law." And it is farther remarka ble, ble, that the opinion of the neceffity of circumcifion, and of keeping the law of Mofes, had its origin from among the Pharifees. It feems, certain men had come down from Judea to Antioch, endeavouring to perfuade the brethren, that, except they were circumcifed after the manner of Mofes, they could not be faved; which, when it had occafioned a great deal of diffenfion among them, it was determined to fend Paul and Barnabas to the Apoftles at Jerufalem, to enquire, whether it really was neceffary or not. The Apostles and Elders, with the Church, being affembled upon this occafion, "there rofe up (Acts 66 xv.) certain of the fect of the Pharifees which be "hieved, faying, that it was needful to circumcife "them, and to command them to keep the law of "Mofes." The Apoftles, however, determined otherwise, and appointed Paul and Barnabas, with others, to carry their decree to Antioch. Hence, then, it appears to be very certain, that the Ebionitish doctrine, of the neceffity of keeping the law of Mofes, had its origin from the fect of the Pharifees; and, therefore, we may reafonably conclude, that the Ebionites had belonged to that fect. St. Jude's Epiftle, which is thought to have been written particularly against the Ebionites, to Chriftians in general, feems to confirm us in this opinion, when he fays of them, Ουτοι εισιν διαποδιορίζοντες ἑαυτους, "These be they who separate themselves;" the word Pharifee fignifying a feparatift, from the Hebrew , Separo. But, whatever may become of this con |