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 cafe. 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 some 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 fubject; but his account

Έλλησι δε μόνοις την πολιν εδίδε, και κατοικείν επείρεπεν. 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 Christi 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. I. p. 19.

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

66

68

were not excepted by Adrian from the prohibition to continue at Jerufalem. They were obliged to go out with the "rest. 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

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.

"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 those who "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 respect to this charge of a wilful falfhood on Origen. Jerom, in his epiftle to Pammachius (Opera, vol. 1. p. 496.) fays, that Origen adopted the Platonic doctrine of the fubferviency of truth to utility, as with respect to deceiving enemies, &c. the fame that Mr. Hume, and other fpeculative moralifts have done; confidering the foundation of all focial virtue to be the public good. But it by no means follows from this, that fuch. perfons will ever indulge theinfelves in any greater violations of truth, than those 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 recourfe

04

recourse 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.

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 observed the law of Mofes, in the paffage which I

have quoted from him. But the sense 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 "christians, though they obferved the law "of Mofes." This writer's mere affertion, that the Jewish chriftians held Christ to be God, in the proper sense of the word, unfupported by any reafons for it, is not to be regarded.

СНАР

CH A P T E R X.

Of the supposed Heresy of the Ebionites and

Nazarenes, and other particulars relating, to them.

;

Have observed that Tertullian is the I

first christian writer who expressly calls the Ebionites beretics. Irenæus, in his large treatise concerning beresy, expresses great dislike of their doctrine, always representing them as believing that Jesus was the son of Joseph; but he never confounds them with the heretics. Justin Martyr makes no mention of Ebionites, but he speaks of the Jewish christians, which has been proved to be a synonymous expression ; and it is plain, that he did not consider all of them as heretics, but only those of them who refused to communicate with the Gentile christians. With respect to the rest, he says, that he should have

no