Epiphanius fays farther concerning the Ebionites, that "they deteft the pro"phets *." This, however, I think altogether as improbable, as what he says of their revering water as a god. He is the only writer who afferts any fuch thing, and as far as appears from all other accounts, the Ebionites acknowledged the authority of all that we call the canonical books of the Old Teftament. Symmachus, whose translation of the fcriptures into Greek is fo often quoted, and with the greatest approbation, by the learned Fathers, was an Ebionite; and Jerom fays the fame of Theodotion. They both translated the other books of the Old Testament, as well as the Pentateuch, and, as far as appears, without making any distinction between that and the other books; and can this be thought probable, if they had not confidered them as entitled to equal credit? Befides, our Saviour's acknowledgment of the authority of the whole of the Old Tef

* Αν [Κλημης] γαρ εγκωμιαζει Ηλιαν, και Δαβίδ, και Σαμ των, και πανίας της προφήτας, ως ελοι βδελυτίονίας. Hær. 30. p.

139.

tament

tament is fo exprefs, that I cannot readily believe that any chriftians, Jews efpecially, acknowledging his authority, would reject what he admitted.

Laftly, the authority of Epiphanius is, in effect, contradicted by Irenæus, who fays, that "the Ebionites expounded the

66

prophecies too curioufly *." Grabe says, that Ebion (by which we muft understand fome Ebionite) wrote an expofition of the prophets, as he collected from fome fragments of Irenæus's work, of which he gives fome account in his note upon the place t.

†.

* Quæ autem funt prophetica curiofius exponere nituntur. Lib. 1. cap. 26 p. 102.

+ Ipfum Ebionem εknynow τwv @po¶nlwv fcripfiffe, colligo ex fragmentis hujus operis, quæ ante paucos dies Parifiis accepi, en MS. codice collegii Claromontani descripto, a viro humaniffimo, R. P. Michaele Loquien, inter addenda ad fpecilegium hæreticorum fæculi 1. fuo tempore, dea volente, publicanda. Ibid.

CHAP

CHAPTER

XII.

Of Men of Eminence among the Jewish

Christians.

THOUGH it is probable, that the Jewish chriftians in general were poor, and therefore had no great advantage of liberal education, which might be one means of preserving their doctrine in such great fimplicity and purity; yet it ap-. pears that there were fome men of learning among them. Jerom mentions his being acquainted with fuch during his refidence in Palestine; and there are three perfons among them who diftinguished themselves by tranflating the Old Teftament from Hebrew into Greek, viz. Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus; though the last of them only was a native of Palestine, and born a Samaritan. Eufebius fays, that "Theodotion and Aquila were both Jewish "profelytes, whom the Ebionites follow❝ing,

86

ing, believe Chrift to be the son of Jofeph." According to Epiphanius, Theodotion was first a Marcionite, and then a Jewish convert. Aquila is faid to have flourished about the year 130, Theodotion about 180, and Symmachus about 200. Whatever was thought of the religious principles of these men, the greatest account was made of their verfions of the Hebrew fcriptures by learned christians of all parties, especially that of Symmachus, which is perpetually quoted with the greateft respect by Origen, Eufebius, and others. Jerom, fpeaking of Origen, fays, that "be"fides comparing the verfion of the fep"tuagint, he likewife collated the verfions "of Aquila. of Pontus, a profelyte, that of Theodotion an Ebionite, and that of Symmachus, who was of the fame fect; "who alfo wrote commentaries on the "gospel of Matthew, from which he en

* Ως Θεοδόλιων ηρμήνευσεν ο Εφέσιος, και Ακύλας ο Ποντικός, αμ φότεροι Ιεδαίοι προσηλυτοι· οις κατακολέθησανίες οι Εβιωναιοι, εξ Ιωσηφ αυλον γεγενησθαι φάσκεσι. Hift. lib. 5. cap. 8. p. 221.

+ Θεοδόλιων τις Ποντικα απο της διαδοχης Μαρκίωνος τε αιρεσι agxe Te Eiwπily. De Menfuris, Opera, vol. 2. p. 172, "deavoured

"deavoured to prove his opinion*." In fo great estimation was Symmachus held, that Austin says the Nazarenes were fometimes called Symmachians+.

I referve the account of Hegefippus to the last, because it has been afferted that, though he was a Jewish christian, he was not properly an Ebionite, but orthodox, with respect to his belief of the trinity. But that he was not only a Jewish chriftian, but likewise a proper Ebionite, or a believer in the fimple humanity of Chrift, may, I think, be inferred from feveral cir cumftances, befides his being a Jewish christian; though, fince Origen says that none of them believed the divinity of Christ, we ought to have fome positive evidence before we admit that he was an exception.

Aquileæ fcilicet Pontici profelyti, et Theodotionis Hebionei, et Symmachi ejufdem dogmatis, qui in evangelium quoque nala Malaov fcripfit commentarios, de quo et fuum dogma confirmare conatur. Catalogus Scriptorum, Opera, vol. 1. p. 294.

Et tamen fi mihi Nazareorum objiceret quifquam quos alii Symmachianos appellant. Contra Fauftum Man. Opera, vol. 6. p. 342.

That