were Jews, because the people were fo. It is natural, therefore, to fuppofe, that when the bishops were Greeks, the people were Greeks alfo. And this is what Nicephorus expreffly afferts to have been the case. For he fays, that Adrian caufed Jerufalem to "be inhabited by Greeks only, and per"mitted no others to live in it*."

Origen is fo far from faying, that any Jews abandoned circumcifion, and the rites of their religion, that he fays fome of the Gentile chriftians conformed to them.

Having confulted Eufebius, and other ancient writers to no purpose, for fome account of thefe Jews who had deferted the religion of their ancestors, I looked into Tillemont, who is wonderfully careful and exact in bringing together every thing that relates to his subject; but his account

* Έλλησι δε μόνοις την πολιν εδίδε, και κατοικειν επερεπεν. Hift. lib. 3. cap. 24. vol. 1. p. 256.

+ Quia non folum carnales Judæi de circumcifione carnis revincendi funt nobis, fed nonnulli ex eis, qui Chrifti nomen videntur fufcepiffe, et tamen carnalem circumcifionem recipiendam putant: ut Ebionitæ, et fi qui his

fimili

paupertate fenfus aberrant. In Gen. Hom. 3. Opera. vol. 1. p. 19.

03

of

of the matter differs widely indeed from that of Mofheim. He fays (Hift. des Empereurs, tom. 2. part 2. p. 506) "The

Jews converted to the faith of Chrift "were not excepted by Adrian from the "prohibition to continue at Jerufalem.

They were obliged to go out with the "reft. But the Jews being then obliged "to abandon Jerufalem, that church began "to be compofed of Gentiles, and before "the death of Adrian, in the middle of the

66

year 138, Marc, who was of Gentile "race, was established their bishop." He does not fay with Mofheim, that this Marc was chofen by the Jews who abandoned the Mofaic rites. Hift. vol. 1. p. 172.

Fleury, I find, had the fame idea of that event. He fays (Hift. vol. 1. p. 316.) "From this time the Jews were forbidden "to enter Jerufalem, or even to fee it at "a diftance. The city being afterwards. "inhabited by Gentiles, had no other name "than Ælia. Hitherto the church of Je

rufalem had only been compofed of Jew"ifh converts, who obferved the ritual of "the law under the liberty of the gospel;

"but then, as the Jews were forbidden to "remain there, and guards were placed to "defend the entrance of it, there were no "other chriftians there befides thofe wha "were of Gentile origin; and thus the re"mains of the fervitude of the law were "entirely abolished."

I cannot help, in this place, taking fome farther notice of what Mofheim fays with refpect to this charge of a wilful falfhood on Origen. Jerom, in his epiftle to Pammachius (Opera, vol. 1. p. 496.) says, that Origen adopted the Platonic doctrine of the fubferviency of truth to utility, as with refpect to deceiving enemies, &c. the fame that Mr. Hume, and other fpeculative moralists have done; confidering the foundation of all focial virtue to be the public good. But it by no means follows from this, that such perfons will ever indulge themselves in any greater violations of truth, than thofe who hold other fpeculative opinions concerning the foundation of morals.

Jerom was far from faying, that " Origen reduced his theory to practice." He mentions no inftance whatever of his having 0 4 recourfe

recourfe to it, and is far, indeed, from vindicating any perfon in afferting, that to filence an adverfary, he had recourse to the wilful and deliberate allegation of a notorious falfhood.

paffage which

Grotius alfc fays, that it is well observed by Sulpitius Severus, that all the Jewish chriftians till the time of Adrian held that Chrift was God, though they obferved the law of Mofes, in the have quoted from him. But the fenfe in which Grotius understood the term God in this place must be explained by his own. fentiments concerning Chrift. As to Sulpitius himself, he must be confidered as having faid nothing more than that, " al"most all the Jews at Jerufalem were "chriftians, though they obferved the law "of Mofes." This writer's mere affertion, that the Jewish chriftians held Chrift to be God, in the proper fenfe of the word, unfupported by any reafons for it, is not to be regarded.

CHAP

CHAPTER X.

Of the fuppofed Herefy of the Ebionites and Nazarenes, and other particulars relating to them.

I

Have obferved that Tertullian is the first chriftian writer who exprefsly calls the Ebionites heretics. Irenæus, in his large treatise concerning herefy, expreffes great diflike of their doctrine, always representing them as believing that Jefus was the fon of Jofeph; but he never confounds them with the heretics. Juftin Juftin Martyr makes no mention of Ebionites, but he fpeaks of the Jewish chriftians, which has been proved to be a fynonymous expreffion; and it is plain, that he did not confider all of them as heretics, but only thofe of them who refused to communicate with the Gentile christians. With refpect to the reft, he fays, that he fhould have

ΠΟ