a sect of the first two or three centuries; but it is not
certain whether they received their name from a leader of the name of
Ebion, (whom Dr. Lardner considers as a disciple of Cerinthus,) or from
the meaning of the Hebrew word _ebion_, which implies poverty; and if
the latter, whether they assumed the name, as affecting to be poor, like
the Founder of Christianity; or whether it was conferred on them by way
of reproach, as being of the lower orders. The use of the term, also,
according to Dr. Horsley, was various and indefinite. Sometimes it was
the peculiar name of those sects that denied both the divinity of our
Lord, and his miraculous conception. Then its meaning was extended, to
take in another party; who admitted the miraculous conception of Jesus,
but still denied his divinity, and questioned his previous existence. At
last, it seems, the Nazarites, whose error was rather a superstitious
severity in their practice, than any deficiency in their faith, were
included by Origen in the infamy of the appellation. Dr. Priestley,
claiming the Ebionites as Jewish Unitarians, considers the ancient
Nazarenes, that is, the first Jewish converts, as the true Ebionites;
these, he thinks, were called Nazarenes, from their attachment to Jesus
of Nazareth; and Ebionites, from their poor and mean condition, just as
some of the reformers were called Beghards, or beggars. The Doctor cites
the authorities of Origen and Epiphanius, to prove that both these
denominations related to the same people, differing only, like the
Socinians, in receiving or rejecting the fact of the miraculous
conception; and neither, as he assures us, were reckoned heretics by any
writers of the two first centuries. To this Dr. Horsley replies, that
both Jews and Heathens called the first Christians Nazarenes, in
allusion to the mean and obscure birthplace of their Master, Jesus of
Nazareth, Matthew ii, 23; Acts x, 38; but insists, and answers every
pretended proof to the contrary, that the term Nazarenes was never
applied to any distinct sect of Christians before the final destruction
of Jerusalem by Adrian. Dr. Semler, a German writer, gives the following
opinion: “Those who more rigidly maintained the Mosaic observances, and
who were numerous in Palestine, are usually called Ebionites and
Nasaræans. Some believe that they ought not to be reckoned heretics;
others think that they were united in doctrine, differing only in name;
others place them in the second century. It is of little consequence
whether we distinguish or not the Nazarenes, or Nazaræans from the
Ebionites. It is certain that both these classes were tenacious of the
Mosaic ceremonies, and more inclined to the Jews than to the Gentiles,
though they admitted the Messiahship of Jesus in a very low and
Judaizing manner. The Ebionites held in execration the doctrine of the
Apostle Paul.” Dr. J. Pye Smith, who quotes this passage from Dr.
Semler, adds, “Such, it is apprehended, on grounds of reasonable
probability, was the origin of Unitarianism; the child of Judaism
misunderstood, and of Christianity imperfectly received.”
2. On this controversy great light has, however, been since thrown by
Dr. Burton. It is well known to those who have studied the Unitarian
controversy, that it has been often asserted that the Cerinthians and
Ebionites were the teachers of genuine Christianity, and that the
doctrine of Christ’s divinity, and of universal redemption through his
blood, were the inventions of those who corrupted the preaching of the
Apostles. If this were so, we must convict all the fathers, not merely
of ignorance and mistake, but of deliberate and wilful falsehood. To
suppose that the fathers of the second century were ignorant of what was
genuine and what was false in Christianity, would be a bold hypothesis;
but if Irenæus, the disciple of Polycarp, asserted, as a matter of fact,
that St. John wrote his Gospel to refute the errors of Cerinthus, it is
idle, or something worse, to say that Irenæus did not know for certain
if the fact was really so. As far, then, as the testimony of the fathers
is concerned, the Cerinthians and Ebionites were decidedly heretics. The
Unitarians, on the other hand, maintain that the Ebionites were the true
and genuine believers; and it is easy to see that the preference was
given to these teachers, because they held that Jesus was born of human
parents. Never, I conceive, was there a more unfortunate and fatal
alliance formed than that between the Ebionites and modern Unitarians.
We find the Ebionites referred to, as if they agreed in every point with
the Socinian or Unitarian creed; and yet it may almost be asserted, that
in not one single point do their sentiments exactly coincide. If a real
Ebionite will declare himself, we are not afraid to meet him. Let him
avow his faith; let him believe of Christ as Ebion or Cerinthus taught;
let him adopt the ravings of the Gnostics; we shall then know with whom
we have to combat; we may gird on the sword of Irenæus, and meet him in
the field. But let him not select a few ingredients only from the
poison; let him not take a part only of their infatuated system. If he
will lean on that broken reed, let him talk no more of Ebion or
Cerinthus only; but let him say boldly, either that the Gnostics agreed
with the Apostles, or that the Gnostics preached the true Gospel, while
the Apostles were in error.
3. We can hardly suppose the Unitarians to be ignorant that the
Ebionites and Cerinthians were a branch of the Gnostics. If the fact be
denied, the whole of this discussion might as well at once be closed. We
know nothing of Cerinthus and Ebion, but from the writings of the
fathers. If it had not been for them, we should never have known that
these persons believed Jesus to be born of human parents: the same
fathers unanimously add, that in this point they differed from the
preceding Gnostics, though agreeing with them on other points. If we are
to receive the testimony of the fathers in one particular, but to reject
it in every other, I need not say that argument is useless. But the fact
can never be denied nor evaded. The Cerinthians, to whom some Unitarians
have appealed, did not ascribe the creation of the world to God, but to
an inferior being. Like the rest of the Gnostics, who engrafted that
philosophy on Judaism, the Cerinthians and Ebionites retained some of
the Jewish ceremonies, though they rejected some of the Jewish
Scriptures. Many of them taught that the restraints of morality were
useless; and the Cerinthians, it is well known, promised to their
followers a millennium of sensual indulgence. With respect to their
notions concerning Christ, it is true that they believed Jesus to be
born of human parents; and this fact is referred to, as if it proved the
falsehood of what is called the miraculous conception of Jesus. But it
is plain that this tenet is mentioned by the fathers, as being opposed
to that of the other Gnostics, who held that the body of Jesus was an
illusive phantom. Such had hitherto been the belief of all the Gnostics.
But Cerinthus and Ebion, who were perhaps more rational in their
speculations, and who lived after the publication of the three first
Gospels, could not resist the evidence that Jesus was actually born, and
that he had a real, substantial body. This is the meaning of the
statement, that Cerinthus and Ebion believed Jesus to be born of human
parents. It shows that they were not _Docetæ_. But because there were
other Gnostics who were more irrational and visionary than themselves,
we are not immediately to infer that their own notion concerning the
birth of Christ was the true one. They believed, at least, many of them
believed, that Jesus was born in the ordinary way; that Joseph was his
parent as well as Mary. But they could hardly help believing so; for
they agreed with all the Gnostics in thinking (though it might seem as
if this point had been forgotten) that Jesus and Christ were separate
persons: they believed, as I have already stated, that Christ descended
upon Jesus at his baptism, and quitted him before his crucifixion. They
were therefore almost compelled to believe that Jesus, who was wholly
distinct from Christ, had nothing divine in his nature, and nothing
miraculous in his birth; in the same manner that they believed that the
death of Jesus, from whom Christ had then departed, was like the death
of any ordinary mortal, and that no atonement was made by it. But are we
on these grounds to reject the miraculous conception and the atonement
of Christ? Or are the Unitarians to quote these Gnostics as holding the
human nature of Jesus, and to forget that by Jesus they meant a person
wholly different from Christ?
4. We are told, indeed, that the first part of St. Matthew’s Gospel is
spurious, because the Ebionites rejected it. Undoubtedly they did. They
read in it that Jesus Christ was born, not Jesus only; and that he was
born of a virgin. They therefore rejected this part of St. Matthew’s
Gospel; or rather, by mutilating and altering the whole of it, they
composed a new gospel of their own to suit their purpose; and yet this
is the only authority which is quoted for rejecting the commencement of
St. Matthew’s Gospel. The fact, that some even of the Ebionites believed
the miraculous conception, speaks infinitely more in favour of the
genuineness of that part of the Gospel, and of the truth of the doctrine
itself, than can be inferred on the contrary side from those who denied
the doctrine, and mutilated the Gospel. Those other Ebionites appear in
this respect to have agreed with the first Socinians, and to have held
that Jesus was born of a virgin, though they did not believe in his
preëxistence or divinity. But the miraculous conception was so entirely
contrary to all preconceived opinions, and the more simple doctrine of
the other Ebionites and Cerinthians was so much more suited to the
Gnostic system, which separated Jesus from Christ, that the evidence
must have been almost irresistible, which led one part of the Ebionites
to embrace a doctrine contrary to all experience, contrary to the
sentiments of their brethren, and hardly reconcilable with other parts
of their own creed. The testimony, therefore, of these Ebionites, in
favour of the miraculous conception, is stronger, perhaps, than even
that of persons who received the whole of the Gospel, and departed in no
points from the doctrine of the Apostles. If the Apostles had preached,
according to the statement of the Unitarians, that Jesus Christ was a
mere human being, born in the ordinary way, what could possibly have led
the Gnostics to rank him immediately with their Æons, whom they believed
to have been produced by God, and to have dwelt with him from endless
ages in the pleroma? There literally was not one single heretic in the
first century, who did not believe that Christ came down from heaven:
they invented, it is true, various absurdities to account for his union
with the man Jesus; but the fair and legitimate inference from this fact
would be, that the Apostles preached that in some way or other the human
nature was united to the divine. So far from the Socinian or Unitarian
doctrine being supported by that of the Cerinthians and Ebionites, I
have no hesitation in saying, that not one single person is recorded in
the whole of the first century who ever imagined that Christ was a mere
man. It has been observed, that one branch of the Ebionites resembled
the first Socinians, that is, they believed in the miraculous conception
of Jesus, though they denied his preëxistence; but this was because they
held the common notion of the Gnostics, that Jesus and Christ were two
separate persons; and they believed in the preëxistence and divine
nature of Christ, which Socinus and his followers uniformly denied.
certain whether they received their name from a leader of the name of
Ebion, (whom Dr. Lardner considers as a disciple of Cerinthus,) or from
the meaning of the Hebrew word _ebion_, which implies poverty; and if
the latter, whether they assumed the name, as affecting to be poor, like
the Founder of Christianity; or whether it was conferred on them by way
of reproach, as being of the lower orders. The use of the term, also,
according to Dr. Horsley, was various and indefinite. Sometimes it was
the peculiar name of those sects that denied both the divinity of our
Lord, and his miraculous conception. Then its meaning was extended, to
take in another party; who admitted the miraculous conception of Jesus,
but still denied his divinity, and questioned his previous existence. At
last, it seems, the Nazarites, whose error was rather a superstitious
severity in their practice, than any deficiency in their faith, were
included by Origen in the infamy of the appellation. Dr. Priestley,
claiming the Ebionites as Jewish Unitarians, considers the ancient
Nazarenes, that is, the first Jewish converts, as the true Ebionites;
these, he thinks, were called Nazarenes, from their attachment to Jesus
of Nazareth; and Ebionites, from their poor and mean condition, just as
some of the reformers were called Beghards, or beggars. The Doctor cites
the authorities of Origen and Epiphanius, to prove that both these
denominations related to the same people, differing only, like the
Socinians, in receiving or rejecting the fact of the miraculous
conception; and neither, as he assures us, were reckoned heretics by any
writers of the two first centuries. To this Dr. Horsley replies, that
both Jews and Heathens called the first Christians Nazarenes, in
allusion to the mean and obscure birthplace of their Master, Jesus of
Nazareth, Matthew ii, 23; Acts x, 38; but insists, and answers every
pretended proof to the contrary, that the term Nazarenes was never
applied to any distinct sect of Christians before the final destruction
of Jerusalem by Adrian. Dr. Semler, a German writer, gives the following
opinion: “Those who more rigidly maintained the Mosaic observances, and
who were numerous in Palestine, are usually called Ebionites and
Nasaræans. Some believe that they ought not to be reckoned heretics;
others think that they were united in doctrine, differing only in name;
others place them in the second century. It is of little consequence
whether we distinguish or not the Nazarenes, or Nazaræans from the
Ebionites. It is certain that both these classes were tenacious of the
Mosaic ceremonies, and more inclined to the Jews than to the Gentiles,
though they admitted the Messiahship of Jesus in a very low and
Judaizing manner. The Ebionites held in execration the doctrine of the
Apostle Paul.” Dr. J. Pye Smith, who quotes this passage from Dr.
Semler, adds, “Such, it is apprehended, on grounds of reasonable
probability, was the origin of Unitarianism; the child of Judaism
misunderstood, and of Christianity imperfectly received.”
2. On this controversy great light has, however, been since thrown by
Dr. Burton. It is well known to those who have studied the Unitarian
controversy, that it has been often asserted that the Cerinthians and
Ebionites were the teachers of genuine Christianity, and that the
doctrine of Christ’s divinity, and of universal redemption through his
blood, were the inventions of those who corrupted the preaching of the
Apostles. If this were so, we must convict all the fathers, not merely
of ignorance and mistake, but of deliberate and wilful falsehood. To
suppose that the fathers of the second century were ignorant of what was
genuine and what was false in Christianity, would be a bold hypothesis;
but if Irenæus, the disciple of Polycarp, asserted, as a matter of fact,
that St. John wrote his Gospel to refute the errors of Cerinthus, it is
idle, or something worse, to say that Irenæus did not know for certain
if the fact was really so. As far, then, as the testimony of the fathers
is concerned, the Cerinthians and Ebionites were decidedly heretics. The
Unitarians, on the other hand, maintain that the Ebionites were the true
and genuine believers; and it is easy to see that the preference was
given to these teachers, because they held that Jesus was born of human
parents. Never, I conceive, was there a more unfortunate and fatal
alliance formed than that between the Ebionites and modern Unitarians.
We find the Ebionites referred to, as if they agreed in every point with
the Socinian or Unitarian creed; and yet it may almost be asserted, that
in not one single point do their sentiments exactly coincide. If a real
Ebionite will declare himself, we are not afraid to meet him. Let him
avow his faith; let him believe of Christ as Ebion or Cerinthus taught;
let him adopt the ravings of the Gnostics; we shall then know with whom
we have to combat; we may gird on the sword of Irenæus, and meet him in
the field. But let him not select a few ingredients only from the
poison; let him not take a part only of their infatuated system. If he
will lean on that broken reed, let him talk no more of Ebion or
Cerinthus only; but let him say boldly, either that the Gnostics agreed
with the Apostles, or that the Gnostics preached the true Gospel, while
the Apostles were in error.
3. We can hardly suppose the Unitarians to be ignorant that the
Ebionites and Cerinthians were a branch of the Gnostics. If the fact be
denied, the whole of this discussion might as well at once be closed. We
know nothing of Cerinthus and Ebion, but from the writings of the
fathers. If it had not been for them, we should never have known that
these persons believed Jesus to be born of human parents: the same
fathers unanimously add, that in this point they differed from the
preceding Gnostics, though agreeing with them on other points. If we are
to receive the testimony of the fathers in one particular, but to reject
it in every other, I need not say that argument is useless. But the fact
can never be denied nor evaded. The Cerinthians, to whom some Unitarians
have appealed, did not ascribe the creation of the world to God, but to
an inferior being. Like the rest of the Gnostics, who engrafted that
philosophy on Judaism, the Cerinthians and Ebionites retained some of
the Jewish ceremonies, though they rejected some of the Jewish
Scriptures. Many of them taught that the restraints of morality were
useless; and the Cerinthians, it is well known, promised to their
followers a millennium of sensual indulgence. With respect to their
notions concerning Christ, it is true that they believed Jesus to be
born of human parents; and this fact is referred to, as if it proved the
falsehood of what is called the miraculous conception of Jesus. But it
is plain that this tenet is mentioned by the fathers, as being opposed
to that of the other Gnostics, who held that the body of Jesus was an
illusive phantom. Such had hitherto been the belief of all the Gnostics.
But Cerinthus and Ebion, who were perhaps more rational in their
speculations, and who lived after the publication of the three first
Gospels, could not resist the evidence that Jesus was actually born, and
that he had a real, substantial body. This is the meaning of the
statement, that Cerinthus and Ebion believed Jesus to be born of human
parents. It shows that they were not _Docetæ_. But because there were
other Gnostics who were more irrational and visionary than themselves,
we are not immediately to infer that their own notion concerning the
birth of Christ was the true one. They believed, at least, many of them
believed, that Jesus was born in the ordinary way; that Joseph was his
parent as well as Mary. But they could hardly help believing so; for
they agreed with all the Gnostics in thinking (though it might seem as
if this point had been forgotten) that Jesus and Christ were separate
persons: they believed, as I have already stated, that Christ descended
upon Jesus at his baptism, and quitted him before his crucifixion. They
were therefore almost compelled to believe that Jesus, who was wholly
distinct from Christ, had nothing divine in his nature, and nothing
miraculous in his birth; in the same manner that they believed that the
death of Jesus, from whom Christ had then departed, was like the death
of any ordinary mortal, and that no atonement was made by it. But are we
on these grounds to reject the miraculous conception and the atonement
of Christ? Or are the Unitarians to quote these Gnostics as holding the
human nature of Jesus, and to forget that by Jesus they meant a person
wholly different from Christ?
4. We are told, indeed, that the first part of St. Matthew’s Gospel is
spurious, because the Ebionites rejected it. Undoubtedly they did. They
read in it that Jesus Christ was born, not Jesus only; and that he was
born of a virgin. They therefore rejected this part of St. Matthew’s
Gospel; or rather, by mutilating and altering the whole of it, they
composed a new gospel of their own to suit their purpose; and yet this
is the only authority which is quoted for rejecting the commencement of
St. Matthew’s Gospel. The fact, that some even of the Ebionites believed
the miraculous conception, speaks infinitely more in favour of the
genuineness of that part of the Gospel, and of the truth of the doctrine
itself, than can be inferred on the contrary side from those who denied
the doctrine, and mutilated the Gospel. Those other Ebionites appear in
this respect to have agreed with the first Socinians, and to have held
that Jesus was born of a virgin, though they did not believe in his
preëxistence or divinity. But the miraculous conception was so entirely
contrary to all preconceived opinions, and the more simple doctrine of
the other Ebionites and Cerinthians was so much more suited to the
Gnostic system, which separated Jesus from Christ, that the evidence
must have been almost irresistible, which led one part of the Ebionites
to embrace a doctrine contrary to all experience, contrary to the
sentiments of their brethren, and hardly reconcilable with other parts
of their own creed. The testimony, therefore, of these Ebionites, in
favour of the miraculous conception, is stronger, perhaps, than even
that of persons who received the whole of the Gospel, and departed in no
points from the doctrine of the Apostles. If the Apostles had preached,
according to the statement of the Unitarians, that Jesus Christ was a
mere human being, born in the ordinary way, what could possibly have led
the Gnostics to rank him immediately with their Æons, whom they believed
to have been produced by God, and to have dwelt with him from endless
ages in the pleroma? There literally was not one single heretic in the
first century, who did not believe that Christ came down from heaven:
they invented, it is true, various absurdities to account for his union
with the man Jesus; but the fair and legitimate inference from this fact
would be, that the Apostles preached that in some way or other the human
nature was united to the divine. So far from the Socinian or Unitarian
doctrine being supported by that of the Cerinthians and Ebionites, I
have no hesitation in saying, that not one single person is recorded in
the whole of the first century who ever imagined that Christ was a mere
man. It has been observed, that one branch of the Ebionites resembled
the first Socinians, that is, they believed in the miraculous conception
of Jesus, though they denied his preëxistence; but this was because they
held the common notion of the Gnostics, that Jesus and Christ were two
separate persons; and they believed in the preëxistence and divine
nature of Christ, which Socinus and his followers uniformly denied.