Hence it is not improbable, that the Effenes introduced themfelves into the church of Ephefus by the means of Apollos, who came from Alexandria, in the neighbourhood of which city, according to Philo, the Effenes were not only very numerous, but were held in high estimation at Alexandria itself. It is true that Apollos is not expreffly faid to have been an Effene : but as he had been a member of that fect, which took its name from the Baptift, and this fect in many refpects resembled that of the Effenes, especially in their ftrict fafts, it is highly probable that Apollos, before he was better inftructed, had fuffered himself to be blinded by that external appearance of wisdom and fanctity, by which the Effenes made fo many converts.

I have already obferved that befide Apollos, twelve other perfons, came to Ephefus, who had been baptized only according to the baptifm of John. St. Paul on his arrival there baptized them in the name of Jesus, and imparted to them the gifts of the Holy Ghoft, of which till that time they had no knowledge. From this last circumftance one might almoft conclude that thefe perfons had lived in fome defert place: for whoever has been baptized, and taught to expect the gifts of the Holy Ghoft, must have heard of their actual communication within the courfe of twenty years after Chrift's afcenfion, unless a total retirement from the world had cut off all means of information. Perhaps thefe twelve difciples were Egyptian hermits: or poffibly they had spent the former part of their lives in the defert of Judæa, where John had baptized. Now the defert of Judæa, as well as the defert of Egypt, was a place of refort for the Effenes, who, according to Pliny, were very numerous in the neighbourhood of Engeddi, near the Dead fea. It is therefore very probable that they were either Effenes themfelves, or at leaft that they had imbibed the principles of this fect. Now fince Apollos and thefe twelve perfons were the first converts to Chriftianity at Ephefus, we fee in what manner the Effene tenets were introduced into the

F 4

the Ephefian church. I will not accufe them of an actual defign of propagating herefy: on the contrary, I am perfuaded that, after they had been fully inftructed, and had received fpiritual gifts, they embraced Christianity with great fincerity. But, as it is extremely difficult to eradicate entirely the principles in which we have been educated, it is not extraordinary that Effene notions were diffeminated in a community, of which men attached to this fect were the earlieft and principal members.

Further, it is not impoffible, though till further proof be given it cannot be afferted as a fact, that the Jewish exorcifts mentioned Acts xix. 13. who, during St. Paul's refidence at Ephefus, attempted to caft out evil spirits by invoking the Lord Jefus whom Paul preached,' were likewife Effenes. For it is well known that the Effenes applied themselves to fuperftitious arts, and pretended to have converfe with fpirits. Some of them laid claim to the gift of prophecy, of which we find many inftances in Jofephus: others healed diseases, and as Jofephus exprefsly mentions, made ufe of herbs for that purpose, with the virtues of which they thought themselves better acquainted than others. Now we know that the Jews afcribed almost all diseases to the influence of evil fpirits. To cure a disease therefore was, according to their notions, to expel an evil fpirit: and it appears from the relation of Jofephus, that it was one of their modes of expulfion to apply a ring to the nose of the difeafed perfon, and to use a certain root, fuppofed to poffefs a magic power. Such arts are well fuited to the manner of life and principles of the Effenes. On the other hand it is not impoffible that these exorcifts were Pharifees, who likewife entertained these notions of exorcifm, as appears from Matth. xii. 24. 27. That the Jewish exorcifts at Ephefus therefore were Effenes, I advance only as a conjecture, and as a fubject of further confideration,

Bell. Jud. Lib. VII. 2. 23.

CHAP.

CHAP. XVI.

OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

SECT. I.

Of the date and occafion of this Epiftle: and of Tertius, who acted as St. Paul's amanuenfis in committing it to writing.

THE

HE Epiftle to the Romans was written after St. Paul's arrival at Corinth, and at the time, when he was preparing to go to Jerufalem with the fupplies, which had been collected in Macedonia and at Corinth. It was written therefore toward the end of the year 58. The journey of Phoebe from Corinth to Rome afforded St. Paul an opportunity of writing to the Roman Christians: but the motive, which induced him to write, was the confideration of his duty, as an Apostle of the Gentiles, to inftruct in the principal doctrines of Christianity the Roman community, which had been hitherto vifited by no Apostle. As it was the custom of the Jews to corrupt the Gofpel of Christ by various additions, St. Paul had reafon to apprehend, that the Romans would be doubtful whom they should believe, fince they had not received the Gofpel from any Apostle immediately commiffioned by Chrift. He therefore found it neceffary to lay before them a fhort abstract of the principal truths of the Gofpel, which were in danger of mifreprefentation.

He dictated this Epiftle to an amanuenfis, whose name was Tertius, as appears from ch. xvi 22. Some commentators have conjectured that this Tertius was the fame perfon as Silas, because in Hebrew fignifies three.' But this Hebrew word would be expreffed

$ Rom. xv. 25-27. xvi. 1.

expreffed in Greek by Zaños, not by as: nor does why any where occur as a proper name. Befides, as Tertius is a well known Latin name, it is wholly foreign to the purpose to seek 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 existence for himself. 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 neceffary to exprefs a name, furely that would have been ufed, by which the Apostle 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 Epiftle to the Romans was called Tertius and it is totally ufelefs to afk any further questions about him, for they never can receive an anfwer.

F

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.

Of the foundation of the church at Rome, and its first teachers.

HE foundation of the church at Rome, appears

THE

not to have been laid by an Apoftle. St. Paul had never been at Rome, when he wrote his Epistle to the Romans, as he himself 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 himself 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 Christ, in the Epiftles, which St. Paul wrote from Rome. Besides, 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.

6

Among those who were prefent at the effufion of the Holy Ghoft on the day of Pentecoft, which followed Chrift's afcenfion, we find fome ftrangers 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.