this plain good man might have been a little ftartled.

That Eufebius, and others, fhould speak of Hegefippus with refpect (from which it has been argued that he could not possibly have been an Ebionite) appears to me nothing extraordinary, though it fhould have been known to them that he was one, confidering that they quote him only as an historian; and fuppofing, what is very probable, that he did not treat particularly of doctrinal. matters, but confined himself to the acts of the apostles, and other hiftorical circumftances attending the propagation of the gofpel; especially as he was the only hiftorian of that age, and had always been held in esteem. A man who is once in poffeffion of the general good opinion, will not be cenfured lightly, efpecially by fuch men as Eufebius.

Can it be fuppofed alfo that Eufebius, in exprefsly quoting ancient authorities against those who held the opinion of the fimple humanity of Christ, would not have cited Hegefippus, as well as Irenæus, Juftin Martyr, and others, if he

could

could have found any thing in him for his purpose? This may be confidered as a proof that there was nothing in his work unfavourable to the doctrine of the Ebionites. A negative argument can hardly be ftronger than this.

Had there been any pretence for quoting Hegefippus as a maintainer of the divinity of Chrift, he would certainly have been mentioned in preference to Juftin Martyr, or any others in the lift; not only because he was an earlier writer, but chiefly because he was one of the Jewish chriftians, who are well known not to have favoured that opinion.

The manner in which Eufebius fpeaks of Hegefippus's quoting the gospel of the Hebrews, is fuch as led him to think that he was a Hebrew chriftian. "He quotes fome things "from the gospel according to the Hebrews " and the Syriac, and especially in the He"brew tongue, fhewing that he was one of "the Hebrew chriftians *." 1 We may, therefore, conclude, that he quoted it with refpect; and this was not done ex

* Εκ τε το καθ Εβραιος ευαγγελια και το Συριακό, και ιδίως εκ της Εβραιδος διαλέκτε τινα τίθησιν, εμφαίνων εξ Εβραίων εαυλόν πεπιστευ Hift. lib. 4. cap. 24. p. 184.

κεναι.

cept

cept by those who were Ebionites, or who favoured their opinions. As Hegefippus wrote in Greek, he must have been acquainted with the Greek gospels, and therefore must have quoted that of the Hebrews from choice, and not from neceffity.

Lastly, the manner in which Hegefippus fpeaks of James the Juft, is much more that of an unitarian, than of a trinitarian.—

66

James the Juft," fays Eufebius, "is re

prefented by Hegefippus as faying, Why "do you ask me concerning Jefus the fon "of man *?" This looks as if both James and the hiftorian were unitarians; the phrase fon of man, being probably fynonymous to a prophet, or a person having a divine commiffion, and certainly not implying any nature properly divine.

Valefius, the learned commentator on Eufebius, has intimated a fufpicion, that the works of Hegefippus, as well as those of Papias and the Hypotyposes of Clemens Alexandrinus, were neglected and lost, on

* Τι με επερωΐαλε περι Ιησέ τε υιε τε ανθρωπε. Hif. lib. 2. cap. 23. p. 79.

account of the errors they were fuppofed to contain *. This I cannot help thinking highly probable, and thofe errors could hardly be any other than the unitarian doctrine, and the things connected with it. Indeed, there were no errors of any confequence afcribed to that early age befides those of the Gnostics, and of the unitarians. The former certainly were not those that Valefius could allude to with refpect to Hegefippus, because this writer mentions the Gnostics very particularly as heretics. Though Clemens Alexandrinus was not an unitarian, yet he never calls unitarians keretics; and fince, in his accounts of heretics in general, which are pretty frequent in his works, he evidently means the Gnoftics only, and therefore virtually excludes unitarians from that defcription of men; it is by no means improbable but that, in those writ

*Porro ii Clementis libri continebant brevem et compendiariam utriqufque teftamenti expofitionem, ut teflatur Photius in bibliotheca. Ob errores autem quibus fcatebant, negligentius habiti, tandem perierunt. Nec alia, meo quidem judicio, caufa eft, cur Papiæ et Hegefippi, aliorumque veterum libri interciderint. In Eufeb. Hift. lib. 5. cap. 11.

ings of his which are loft, he might have faid things directly in favour of unitariaus.

In this paffage Valefius alfo mentions the writings of Papias, as having, in his opinion, been loft for the fame reason. Now Papias has certainly been fuppofed to be an Ebionite. Mr. Whifton has made this very probable from a variety of circumstances. See his Account of the ceafing of Miracles, p. 18. In the fame tract he gives his reafons for fuppofing Hegefippus to have been an Ebionite, and he expreffes his wonder, "that he should have had the good fortune "to be fo long efteemed by the learned for "a catholic," p. 21, &c. In this Mr. Whifton may be fuppofed to have been fufficiently impartial, as he was an Arian, and expreffes great dislike of the Ebionites; as, indeed, Arians always have done.

It is to be lamented that we know fo very little of the hiftory of the Jewish christians. We are informed, that they retired to Pella, a country to the east of the fea of Galilee, on the approach of the Jewish war, that many of them returned to Jerufalem when that war was over, and that they