τοῦ ̔Αγίου Πνεύματος μὴ ἀρνούμενοι γεγονέναι τὸν Κύριον· οὐ μὴν ἔθ ̓ ὁμοίως καὶ οὗτοι, προϋπάρχειν αὐτὸν, Θεὸν Λόγον ὄντα καὶ Σοφίαν ὁμολογοῦντες, τῇ τῶν προτέρων περιετρέποντο δυσσε Beia. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 27.

Now, what Eusebius says of the doctrine of the Ebionites respecting CHRIST, Origen says of their doctrine respecting JESUS and he is equally silent, as to their holding the marked peculiarity of the tenet specially held by the Cerinthians.

Οὗτοι δ' εἰσὶν οἱ διττοὶ Εβιωναῖοι ἤτοι ἐκ παρθένου ὁμολογοῦντες, ὁμοίως ἡμῖν, τὸν Ἰησοῦν· ἢ οὐχ οὕτω γεγεννῆσθαι, ἀλλ ̓ is TOÙS XOπovs åvepúπоvs. Orig. cont. Cels. lib. v. p. 272.

Uniting, then, these two testimonies, and combining them with the preceding testimonies, we seem once more brought to the conclusion: that The Ebionites, (as I believe Irenèus to have stated by the expression non similiter or ovx opoiwc) did NOT agree with the Cerinthians in those points of doctrine which respect the nature of our Lord. For, while the Cerinthians held, that The distinct Eon CHRIST descended upon the distinct mere man JESUS at the time of his baptism: the Ebionites held, that There was no such distinction between CHRIST and JESUS, but that The single individual JESUS-CHRIST was one mere man whether born from Joseph and Mary or born miraculously from the Virgin Mary alone.

V. Nay, if I mistake not, even Epiphanius himself ought really to be considered, as corroborating, instead of contradicting, my view of the doctrinal system of the early Ebionites.

Though, in the middle of the fourth century, he describes those sectaries as symbolising with the Cerinthians in the pretended descent of the Eon Christ into the man Jesus: yet he likewise exhibits them, as having therein departed from the sentiments of their founder Ebion; whom, accordingly, he charges with no such speculation; but whom, on the contrary, he represents, as believing CHRIST to have been born, after the manner of other men, from Joseph and Mary. Epiph. adv. hær. lib. i. tom. 2. hær. 30.

Thus, in effect, Epiphanius bears the same testimony respect

ing the early Ebionites, as Irenèus and Theodoret and Augustine and Eusebius. For, however, in the middle of the fourth century, some of their descendants (and, after all, Epiphanius vouches only for some, and that too in lapse of time) might have departed from the original doctrine of Ebion: the very name of the sect imports, that the early or the first Ebionites agreed with him.

VI. Be this as it may, from the speculations of the Cerinthians and the Ebionites alike, so far as respected the nature and character of our Lord, the Nazarenes differed altogether. For, though they agreed with those two judaising sects in the religious necessity of observing the Ceremonial Law, they still, with the entire Church Catholic, maintained; that JESUS-CHRIST was THE SON OF GOD incarnate from the Virgin Mary: or, in other words, they maintained; that JESUS-CHRist was, true GOD OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FATHER begotten before the worlds, and true man of the substance of his mother born in the world.

This inevitably follows from the current phraseology of the early Church. For, by the special title of THE SON OF GOD, the ancient writers always understood GOD FROM GOD, LIGHT FROM LIGHT, TRUE GOD FROM TRUE GOD. See below, append. ii.

numb. 10.

Hence, in testifying that The Nazarenes believed our Lord to be THE SON OF GOD born from the womb of the Virgin: they, in effect, according to the purport of their own phraseology, testified, that The Nazarenes believed our Lord to be VERY GOD incarnate.

SECTION V.

RESPECTING THE CHRONOLOGY OF EPIPHANIUS IN REGARD TO

AQUILA.

In the chronology of Epiphanius respecting Aquila, there is an

apparent difficulty, which Dr. Priestley has employed for the purpose of throwing discredit upon the whole account of that officer's intercourse with a body of Hebrew Christians while he was superintending the works at Elia.

Epiphanius tells us that Adrian, in his progress through Palestine, visited the ruined city of Jerusalem; that, determining to rebuild it under the name of Elia, he appointed Aquila his master of the works; that Aquila, while superíntending the business, there conversed with certain Hebrew Christians who had returned thither from Pella, and there became a convert to Christianity; that, afterward, he apostatised to Judaism; and that, when he had thus apostatised, he applied himself to the study of Hebrew and translated the Old Testa

ment.

:

Now we know that Adrian commanded Jerusalem to be rebuilt in the year 137, immediately after the enactment of an edict in the year 136, which banished from its precincts all observers of the Ceremonial Law.

Yet Epiphanius also tells us; that Aquila became known in the twelfth year of Adrian, or in the year 129. And, from the mode in which this information is conveyed, Dr. Priestley pronounces that Aquila then became known by his translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Hence he concludes: that, Since Epiphanius himself fixes the date of the translation to the twelfth year of Adrian or the year 129, Aquila could not have conversed with Hebrew Christians at Jerusalem and have there become a convert to Christianity in the year 137 or the twentieth year of Adrian. Whence the result is that The whole account of his intercourse with a body of Hebrew Christians at Jerusalem, subsequent to the edict which banished from that city all observers of the Ceremonial Lan, must needs be a mere fable.

I. The premises, upon which this objection rests, are the alleged contradictory statement of Epiphanius: that Aquila translated the Hebrew Scriptures in the twelfth year of Adrian or in the year 129.

But it may be doubted, whether these premises are themselves secure.

Epiphanius says, indeed: that Aquila became known in the twelfth year of Adrian. But he no where says: that, In that year, he translated the Hebrew Scriptures.

His statement, which occurs at the end of a tolerably long chronological enumeration of dates and periods, is the following. In the twelfth year of Adrian, Aquila became known. From Augustus, therefore, to Adrian, there are 180 years and 4 months save 9 days: so that, from the time of the seventy-two interpreters to Aquila the interpreter or to the twelfth year of Adrian, there are 430 years and 4 months. Oper. p. 302.

Epiph. de Pond. et Mens.

1. From the circumstance of Epiphanius saying, that There are 430 years and 4 months from the time of the seventy-two INTERPRETERS to Aquila the INTERPRETER or to the twelfth year of Adrian, Dr. Priestley, I suppose, would infer that The period in question is said by Epiphanius to have elapsed from the time of the one INTERPRETATION to the time of the other INTERPRETATION; and consequently, that The INTERPRETATION of Aquila is, by Epiphanius, ascribed to the twelfth year of Adrian or the year 129.

2. This, however, is a mere gratuitous inference.

Nothing is more common, than anticipatively to distinguish a man by an appellation under which he subsequently became celebrated and thus, even prima facie, we have no right to deduce more from the statement of Epiphanius, than that a certain period elapsed from the interpretation of the seventytwo down to the twelfth year of Adrian, in which year the afterward celebrated interpreter Aquila for the first time became known or conspicuous.

Accordingly, that such is the real sense of the passage, is clear from the subsequent context.

Epiphanius tells us that Adrian, having engaged THE ABOVE MENTIONED INTERPRETER Aquila, appointed him his master of the works at Elia. And then he goes on to relate: how, after

this time of his engagement, Aquila became successively a Christian and a Jew, and how finally he gained his anticipated name of an INTERPRETER by his translation of the Old Tes

tament.

Hence it is evident: that Epiphanius, by anticipation, calls Aquila an INTERPRETER previous even to his conversion to Christianity, and therefore much more previous to his actually undertaking the task of his INTERPRetation.

And hence, consequently, it is evident: that The chronological statement of Epiphanius is wholly insufficient to establish Dr. Priestley's necessary premises of the translation of Aquila having been made in the twelfth year of Adrian.

II. Still, however, it will naturally and reasonably be asked: What Epiphanius could mean, by so peculiarly stating; that, in the twelfth year of Adrian, Aquila became known.

1. Bishop Horsley thinks: that Aquila then became known, because Aquila then was appointed to so considerable an office as that of overseer of the public works at Elia. Remarks on Priestley's second Letters, part ii. chap. 2. p. 372.

I regret, that I cannot follow the learned Prelate in this solution.

A temple, it is true, had been built and dedicated to Jupiter Capitolinus, anterior to the breaking out of the jewish rebellion, and in truth mainly producing that rebellion. But the appointment of Aquila, as Epiphanius distinctly states, was to superintend the rebuilding of the city, including most probably the reparation and restoration of the temple of Jupiter: and the rebuilding of the city was not determined upon, nor was a superintendant for that purpose appointed, until the year 137 or the twentieth year of Adrian, when now the jewish rebellion had been quelled and every observer of the Ceremonial Law had been banished.

Hence I perceive not, how Adrian could have appointed Aquila his master of the works at Elia in his twelfth year or in the year 129.

2. Rejecting, then, on this point, the supposition of Bishop