286.
It is very observable, that the Ebionites rejected three of the Gospels, receiving only St.Matthew's (or what they called so), and that curtailed.

They rejected likewise all St.Paul's writings, reproaching him as an apostate.

How unlikely is it that Justin should own such reprobates as those were for fellow-Christians! I dare avow my belief--or rather I dare not withhold my avowal--that both Bull and Waterland are here hunting on the trail of an old blunder or figment, concocted by the gross ignorance of the Gentile Christians and their Fathers in all that respected Hebrew literature and the Palestine Christians.

I persist in the belief that, though a refuse of the persecuted and from neglect degenerating Jew-Christians may have sunk into the mean and carnal notions of their unconverted brethren respecting the Messiah, no proper sect of Ebionites ever existed, but those to whom St.Paul travelled with the contributions of the churches, nor any such man as Ebion; unless indeed it was St.Barnabas, who in his humility may have so named himself, while soliciting relief for the distressed Palestine Christians;--"I am Barnabas the beggar." But I will go further, and confess my belief that the (so-called) Ebionites of the first and second centuries, who rejected the 'Christopaedia', and whose Gospel commenced with the baptism by John, were orthodox Apostolic Christians, who received Christ as the Lord, that is, as Jehovah 'manifested in the flesh'.

As to their rejection of the other Gospels and of Paul's writings, I might ask:--"Could they read them ?" But the whole notion seems to rest on an anachronical misconception of the 'Evangelia'.