expreffed in Greek by Eaños, not by as: nor does hany any where occur as a proper name. Befides, as Tertius is a well known Latin name, it is wholly foreign to the purpofe to feek for a Hebrew etymology. Silas appears likewife to be a Latin name, and a contraction of Silvanus fo that between Tertius and Silas there is no connexion whatever. In fact the attempt to identify Tertius either with Silas or with any other perfon, is very extraordinary, fince no reafon can be affigned why Tertius fhould not be confidered as having had a feparate exiftence for himfelf. La Croze hazarded a different conjecture, though of a fimilar kind, and contended that Tertius was nothing more than a name of St. Paul, who bore the three names of Saulus, Paulus, and Tertius'. In ch. xvi. 22. is I Tertius, who wrote this Epiftle, falute you in the Lord.' Now if St. Paul himfelf had been here meant, it would have been fufficient to have faid, I falute you,' without any name: or if it was neceflary to exprefs a name, furely that would have been used, by which the Apoftle was already known to the Romans, and the paffage would have run thus, 'I Paul falute you.' Befides, as St. Paul had already faluted the Romans, ver. 16. a falutation in his own name in ver. 22. would have been wholly fuperfluous. We may reft fatisfied therefore with knowing that the perfon to whom St. Paul dictated his Epistle to the Romans was called Tertius: and it is totally useless to ask any further questions about him, for they never can receive an answer. Left the reader fhould doubt, whether fo great a man as La Croze could advance fuch a conjecture, I requeft him to confult F, W. Roloff's differtation, De tribus Pauli nominibus, printed at Jena in 1731. SECT. II. Of the foundation of the church at Rome, and its first teachers. HE foundation of the church at Rome, appears TH had never been at Rome, when he wrote his Epiftle to the Romans, as he himfelf fays, ch. i. 13.: and that St. Peter converted the Romans to Chriftianity, and then refided among them as their bishop, has in modern times been fufficiently exploded as an empty fable. It is impoffible that St. Peter could have been in Rome either before St. Paul wrote his Epiftle to the Romans, or even before St. Paul himfelf came thither. For had he been there when St. Paul wrote to the Romans, his name would certainly have appeared in the lift of falutations to the principal members of the Roman community. And if he had been at Rome, when St. Paul arrived there, a falutation would have been sent from him, as an immediate Apostle of Chrift, in the Epiftles, which St. Paul wrote from Rome, Befides, in Col. iv. 10~11. St. Paul mentions thofe of the circumcifion, who were his fellow-labourers at Rome, in preaching the Gofpel: but he fays not a fingle word of St. Peter, whofe name in that place efpecially could not have been omitted, if St. Peter had been in Rome. Among those who were prefent at the effufion of the Holy Ghoft on the day of Pentecoft, which followed Chrift's afcenfion, we find some strangers of Rome". That these perfons, who expreffed a devout admiration of what they had feen and heard, related the whole on their return to Italy, and made known the doctrines of Chriftianity in their own country is highly probable. u Acts ii. 10. probable. After this, many Chriftians, who had been converted elsewhere, may be fuppofed on their journey to the capital of the world to have communicated still further knowledge of Chriftianity, and in this manner to have laid the foundation of a Chriftian community in Rome. Indeed it is certain, from the fixteenth chapter of St. Paul's Epiftle to the Romans, that there were many firm Chriftians at that time in Rome, with whom St. Paul had been acquainted in other places. Among thefe are particularly to be noted, 1. Aquilas and Prifcilla, who had attended St. Paul feveral years partly at Corinth, partly at Ephefus, who had inftructed Apollos in the doctrine of Christ, and who, on their return to Rome, made their own house a place of affembly for a part of the Chriftian community in that city, ver. 3-5., 2. Andronicus and Junius, who had formerly been fellow-prifoners with St. Paul on account of the Gofpel, and had been converted to Christianity before him, ver. 7. St. Paul calls them perfons of note among the Apostles,' by which he means not Apostles of Chrift, but Apoftles, or envoys from Chriftian communities. As they were Jews by birth, it is not improbable that they were deputed to Rome from the church at Jerufalem, in order to eftablish the Jewish converts at Rome in the Chriftian doctrines, and to preach the Gofpel. 3. Rufus, ver. 13. whofe father had affifted in carrying the cross of Chrift, Mark xv. 21. 4. The Chriftian religion had been received in fome of the principal houfes in Rome, for inftance in those of Ariftobulus and Narciffus, ver. 10-11. It is true, that the mafters of the families are not faluted, but only those of the houshold: but under these we must not reckon merely abject flaves according to the modern acceptation of this term, for in the great houses at Rome they, who See my first Note to the Epistle to the Galatians. Compare alfa 2 Cor. viii. 23. Philipp. ii. 25. Acts xv. 25. who bore this name were frequently men of great importance. Of Ariftobulus we have no knowledge: but Narciffus, whofe houfhold St. Paul falutes, is perhaps the fame perfon as the freedman of Claudius of this name, who food in high eftimation with the Emperor, and was appointed his cabinet-fecretary. The moral character of this man was not the beft, and therefore it was no lofs to Christianity, that he was not among the members of the Chriftian community in Rome. Under thefe circumftances, it is not extraordinary that, when St. Paul wrote his Epiftle to the Romans, Christianity was in a flourishing ftate there. But, as they had hitherto received a vifit from no Apostle, none of them could have received the gifts of the Holy Ghost, except those who had been either at Jerufalem, or in other places where Apoftles refided. For this reafon St. Paul fays, ch. i. 11. that he longed to fee them, that he might impart to them fome fpiritual gifts. SECT. III. Of the false notions, which fome of the fews entertained concerning fuftification. IN N the Epistle to the Romans St. Paul alludes very little to local circumftances, because he had never been in Rome, and was therefore lefs acquainted with their peculiar fituation, than with the fituation of those communities, which he himfelf had founded. It is properly a didactic or doctrinal Epiftle, and will be best understood by knowing what erroneous notions the Jews had of justification, and of the election of their nation, and how they were affected toward the Roman magif trates. * See my note to 2 Tim. i. 6. In the commentary on the Epifle to the Romans, which I intend to publish, more will be faid on this fubject, in the note to the paffage in queftion. trates. We are more concerned at prefent with the erroneous, than with the right notions of the Jews: yet we must not confider the errors, which we have now to examine, as common to the whole nation, for even in the Talmud we fometimes find remains of the most orthodox theology. They were chiefly maintained by the most zealous among the Pharifees, efpecially by those who were attached to the party of Judas Galilæus. In regard to the doctrine of juftification it must be previously obferved, that not even the Pharifees or any Jew whatfoever who was confidered as orthodox, underftood it in fuch a manner, as to denote that a man could be juftified by a perfect obedience to the law. The whole Jewish church unanimously confeffed that no man was exempt from fin. This therefore could not poffibly be the doctrine combated by St. Paul. Nor could any Jew, who paffed for orthodox in Palestine, have imagined that his former fins were forgiven, merely in confequence of his endeavours to lead a new life: for he knew that God had appointed facrifice for fins, and had promised forgivenefs in confequence of the facrifice. It could not therefore be the defign of St. Paul to fhew, that we may obtain remiffion of fins by a fubfequent courfe of piety, and obedience to the moral law. Indeed, had this been his defign, he would have been at a loss for arguments to prove it. The Jews affigned three grounds of juftification. 1. The extraordinary piety and merits of their anceftors, and the covenant made by God with thofe holy men.' Among thefe holy ancestors they reckoned not only Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, according to Scripture, but likewife the twelve patriarchs, though the actions of fome of these twelve pariarchs, according to the relation of Mofes, were of fuch a kind, as would have been punished in the prefent age with imprisonment, or even with death. Very unreasonable terms were thus offered to the deity, in order to claim juftification. Further, they thought the piety of their early ancestors fo very extraordinary, and confidered the painful circumcifion of Abraham |