omitted; whether by the original redactor or by his translator Rufinus, it is not easy to say'. Thus in the portions corresponding to and probably taken from the Homilies no traces of this hostility remain. But in one passage adapted from another work, probably the 'Ascents of James',' it can still be discerned, the allusion having either escaped notice or been spared because it was too covert to give offence. It is there related that a certain enemy (homo quidam inimicus) raised a tumult against the Apostles and with his own hands assaulted James and threw him down from the steps of the temple, ceasing then to maltreat him, only because he believed him to be dead; and that after this the Apostles received secret information from Gamaliel, that this enemy (inimicus ille homo) had been sent by Caiaphas on a mission to Damascus to persecute and slay the disciples, and more especially to take Peter who was supposed to have fled thither (i. 70, 71). The original work, from which this and in the portion of the Recognitions seems to have been borrowed, was much Ascents of more violent and unscrupulous in its attacks on St Paul; for in the 'Ascents of James' Epiphanius read the story, that he was of Gentile parentage, but coming to Jerusalem and wishing to marry the high-priest's daughter he became a proselyte and was circumcised: then, being disappointed of his hope, he turned round and furiously attacked the Mosaic ordinances (Haer. xxx. 16). James. 1 In one instance at least the change tion of St Paul, which is wholly alien to the spirit of these Clementine writings, disappears. 2 Uhlhorn, p. 366. Epiphanius mentions this book, ἀναβαθμοὶ Ἰακώβου, 28 being in circulation among the Ebionites (xxx. 16). It was so called doubtless as describing the ascents of James up the temple-stairs, whence he harangued the people. The name and the description of its contents in Epiphanius alike favour the view that it was the original of this portion of the Recognitions. But if so, the redactor of the Recognitions must have taken the same liberties with it as he has done with the Homilies. This passage is substantially the same in the Syriac. the sect A.D. In the earlier part of the third century these Gnostic Ebionites Activity of seem to have made some futile efforts to propagate their views. An emissary of the sect, one Alcibiades of Apamea in Syria, appeared in Rome with the pretended revelation of Elchasai, and (thinking at Rome, himself the better juggler of the two, says Hippolytus) half suc- 219-223, ceeded in cajoling the pope Callistus, but was exposed and defeated by the zealous bishop of Portus who tells the story (Haer. ix. 13—17). Not many years after another emissary, if it was not this same and CasaAlcibiades, appears to have visited Cæsarea, where he was confronted A.D. 247? and denounced by Origen'. rea, Churches Ebionite. contro This display of activity might lead to an exaggerated estimate The of the influence of these Judaizing sects. It is not probable that of Palesthey left any wide or lasting impression west of Syria. In Palestine tine not itself they would appear to have been confined to certain localities lying for the most part about the Jordan and the Dead Sea. After the reconstitution of the mother Church at Ælia Capitolina the Christianity of Palestine seems to have been for the most part neither Ebionite nor Nazarene. It is a significant fact, implying more than appears at first sight, that in the Paschal controversy which raged in the Paschal middle and later half of the second century the bishops of Cæsarea versy. and Jerusalem, of Tyre and Ptolemais, ranged themselves, not with the Churches of Asia Minor which regulated their Easter festival by the Jewish passover without regard to the day of the week, but with those of Rome and Alexandria and Gaul which observed another rule; thus avoiding even the semblance of Judaism'. But we have more direct testimony to the main features of Palestinian doctrine about the middle of the second century in the known opinions of two writers who lived at the time-Justin as representative of the Samaritan, and Hegesippus of the Hebrew Christianity of their day. The former of these declares himself distinctly against the two characteristic tenets of Ebionism. Against their humanitarian views Justin. he expressly argues, maintaining the divinity of Christ. On the 1 Euseb. H. E. vi. 38. This extract is taken from Origen's Homily on the 82nd Psalm, which appears to have been delivered in Cæsarea about A.D. 247. See Redepenning Origenes 11. p. 72. 3 Dial. cc. 48, 127. universal obligation of the law he declares, not only that those who maintain this opinion are wrong, but that he himself will hold no communion with them, for he doubts whether they can be saved1. If, as an apologist for the Gospel against Gentile and Jew, he is precluded by the nature of his writings from quoting St Paul', whose name would be received by the one with indifference and by the other with hatred, he still shows by his manner of citing and applying the Old Testament that he is not unfamiliar with this ApoHegesip- stle's writings. The testimony of Hegesippus is still more important, for his extant fragments prove him to have been a thorough Hebrew in all his thoughts and feelings. This writer made a journey to Rome, calling on the way at Corinth among other places; he expresses himself entirely satisfied with the teaching of the churches which he thus visited; 'Under each successive bishop,' he says, 'and in each city it is so as the law and the prophets and the Lord preach". Was the doctrine of the whole Christian world at this pus, The ex In Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. is of little or no weight on this side; for he constantly uses his fluency in Latin to gloze over his imperfect knowledge of Greek, and the evasion of a real difficulty is with him the rule rather than the exception. If we retain diadoxn, the words of Hegesippus would still seem to imply that he left Rome during the episcopate of Anicetus. Eusebius indeed (H. E. iv. 11) infers, apparently from this passage, that he remained there till Eleutherus became bishop; and Jerome (de Vir. Ill. 22), as usual, repeats Eusebius. This inference, though intelligible, seems hardly correct; but it shows almost conclusively that Eusebius did not read διατριβήν. The early Syriac translator of Eusebius (see above, p. 280, note) certainly read diadox. The dates of the accession of the successive bishops as determined by Lipsius are, Pius 141 (at the latest), Anicetus 154-156, Soter 166 or 167, Eleutherus 174 or 175, Victor 189, Zephyrinus 198 or 199, Callistus 217, Urbanus 222; Chron. der Röm. Bisch, p. 263. But there is considerable variation in the authorities, the ac Eusebius not an time (A.D. 150) Ebionite, or was the doctrine of Hegesippus Ca- cession of Anicetus being placed by some as early as A.D. 150; see the lists in Clinton's Fasti Romani 11. p. 534 sq. 1 H. E. iv. 21 wv kal els nμâs Tĥs ἀποστολικῆς παραδόσεως ἡ τῆς ὑγιοῦς πίστεως ἔγγραφος κατῆλθεν ὀρθοδοξία. 2 Euseb. H. E. ii. 23. See the account of St James below. 3 See the passage quoted above, p. 332, note 4. For the inferences of the Tübingen school see Schwegler Nachapost. Zeitalter 1. p. 355, Baur Christenthum etc. p. 78. A parallel instance will serve the purpose better than much argument. In a poem by the late Prof. Selwyn (Winfrid, afterwards call ed Boniface, Camb. 1864) the hero is Ebionite. Ebionism tament,' and corresponding expressións would not appear out of place even in our own age. True lastly, he condemns the use made of the text, 'Eye hath not seen nor ear heard' etc.', as contradicting our Lord's words, 'Blessed are your eyes for ye see, etc.'; but he is here protesting against its perverted application by the Gnostics, who employed it of the initiated few, and whom elsewhere he severely denounces; and it is a mere accident that the words are quoted also by St Paul (1 Cor. ii. 9). Many of the facts mentioned point him out as a Hebrew, but not one brands him as an Ebionite. The decisive evidence on the other side is fatal to this inference. If Hegesippus may be taken as a type of the Hebrew Church in his day, then the doctrine of that Church was Catholic. And if the Palestinian Churches of the second century held not preva- Catholic doctrine, we shall see little or no reason to fix the charge of Ebionism on other communities farther removed from the focus lent in other churches. προφητῶν καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, Hippol. 1 The fragment to which I refer is It is argument which follows that he referred to the esoteric teaching of the Gnostics; but the lately discovered treatise of Hippolytus establishes the fact that it was a favourite text of these heretics, being introduced into the form of initiation: see v. 24, 26, 27 (of Justin the Gnostic), vi. 24 (of Valentinus). This is the opinion of Lechler p. 463, Ritschl p. 267, Westcott Canon pp. 206, 281, Bunsen Hippolytus 1. p. 132 (2nd ed.), and Hilgenfeld Apost. Väter p. 102, but otherwise Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 1876, p. 203 sq. Yet Baur (Christenthum p. 77, Paulus p. 221), and Schwegler (1. p. 352), forcing an unnatural meaning on the words, contend that Hegesippus is directly denying St Paul's claim to a revelation and asserting that this privilege belongs only to those who have seen and heard Christ in the flesh. It is worth noticing that the same quotation, 'eye hath not seen etc.,' is found in the Epistle of Clement (c. 34); and this epistle was referred to by Hegesippus, as the notice of Eusebius seems to imply (H. E. iv. 22), with approval. This very mention of Clement's epistle is in itself a secondary evidence that Hegesippus recognised the authority of St Paul. |