SECT. III.

Of the principal doctrines and cuftoms of the Effenes, against whom St. Paul wrote his first Epifle to Timothy, as alfo thofe to the Ephefians and Coloffians.

TH

HE scattered accounts, given by Philo and Jofephus, of the Effenes, may be all explained from the principles of that philofophy, which may be termed the oriental or the Gnoftic, and which I prefume the reader has already learnt from ecclefiaftical history. It must be observed however, that the Effenes did not adopt all the peculiarities of this philofophy, for they confined themfelves chiefly to the moral part of it, which they received in its most gloomy and monaftic form. That they rejected the fpeculative parts of this philofophy, especially what related to the creation, we may conclude from the circumftance that Philo has fo highly extolled them: which he certainly would not have done, if they had reprefented the Creator as a Spirit, inferior to the Supreme Being, and capable of error, because this doctrine of the Gnoftics is reprobated by Philo in the ftrongest terms.

The Effenes held the names of their angels as facred, and therefore not to be uttered. Thefe angels were probably confidered as their mediators with God, in which refpect the other Egyptian Jews, and even Philo himfelf, concurred with them.

They abftained from blood: and thofe, who lived in Egypt would not even offer a facrifice, because they regarded the flaying of beafts as finful. They confidered wine as a poifon, which deprives men of their fenfes and partook of no other food than bread, falt, water, and at the utmost of hyffop. Solinus indeed pretends that they ate dates: but he feems to have

mif

mifunderstood Pliny, from whom he copied, and who calls the fect of the Effenes Socia palmarum,' that is, who dwelt near palm trees.' They even thought it dangerous to the foul to fatisfy the body. Many of them ate only once in three days, and fome only once a week and this in the night, because they efteemed it a work fit only for darkness to relieve the wants of the body. They thought themselves greatly defiled after touching oil, or a young man, and in order to remove the ftain they carefully washed the place of contact. Most of them abftained from marriage, and thought it an obftacle to the fearch after wisdom. The places, in which they purfued their meditations, and which they held facred, were called

μοναστήρια.

All ornamental drefs they detefted. They maintained perfect community of goods, and an equality of external rank, confidering vaffalage as a violation of the laws of nature. They believed the foul would live for ever: but they seem to have denied the refurrection of the body, which according to their principles would only render the foul finful by being reunited with it.

They attributed a natural holiness to the fabbath day, because it is the feventh: and the number feven refults from adding the fides of a fquare to thofe of al triangle. They observed the fabbath therefore more ftrictly than other Jews, and avoided as much as poffible on this day to perform the neceffary offices of

nature.

They fpent most of their time in contemplation, which they called philofophical, and boafted of a philofophy pretended to be derived from their ancestors, with which the pages in Philo and Jofephus quoted in the preceding fection abound.

After this ftatement of the doctrine and manner of the Effenes, the reader will eafily perceive from the contents of St. Paul's firft Epiftle to Timothy, and of those to the Ephefians and Coloffians, that they were written with a view of confuting the errors of this fect.

These three Epiftles have a ftriking affinity to each other. The Epiftle to the Coloffians resembles that to the Ephefians both in its contents, and in its language, fo that the one illuftrates the other. In all three the Apostle fhews the fuperiority of Chrift to the angels, and warns the Chriftians against the worship of angels. He cenfures the obfervation of fabbaths, rebukes thofe, who forbid marriage, and the touching of certain things, who deliver commandments of men concerning meats, and prohibit them. He permits Timothy to drink wine, blames thofe, who abstain from nourishing their bodies, and enjoin various bodily exercises. He cautions his readers against a philosophy, which teaches all these things, and against perfons, who affume a great appearance of wifdom and virtue. Further, the Apostle delivers Hymenæus over to Satan, because he pretended, that there was no refurrection of the. flesh. Laftly, the very words, which Philo has used in defcribing the tenets of the Effenes, are for the most part retained by St. Paul. It is manifeft therefore that the Apoftle wrote with a view of confuting this fect.

The only objection which could be made to this opinion is, that the Effenes lived, as is generally fuppofed, in deferts and not in towns: whence it might be concluded that the church at Ephefus could not have been infected by them. But if this fuppofition were true, it would ftill be poffible that their doctrines fpread from the retirement of the Effenes into the neighbouring cities; for inftance, from the deferts of Egypt into Alexandria. But the notion that the Effenes never refided in towns is a miftake. is a paffage in Jofephus, Bell. Jud. Lib. II. § 4. which puts the matter out of doubt: Mia x 51 Zutwy wo265, αλλ' εν έκαστη κατοικεσι πολλοί, and a few lines after, Κηδεμών εν έκαση πολει το ταγματος εξαιρέτως των ξένων απο δείκνυται, ταμιεύων έσθητα και τα επιτηδεια. This objection therefore is devoid of foundation.

There

SECT.

Of the more immediate caufe of the propagation of the Effene errors at Ephefus.

ST

PAUL's firft vifit to Ephefus was on the journey, which he made from Corinth to Syria, as appears from Acts xviii. 19. and was about four years before he wrote his firft Epiftle to Timothy. He had then preached the Gospel the first time at Corinth, and was travelling to Jerufalem, to perform a vow, which he had made. When he left Corinth it does not appear that he had any intention of going to Ephefus, for St. Luke writes, Acts xviii. 18. that he fet fail for Syria. Some accident therefore unknown to us must have brought him to Ephefus. At this first vifit he seems not to have preached to the Gentiles, on account probably of the fhortnefs of his ftay: St. Luke at leaft fays nothing of any conversation at that time. with heathens, and mentions only that he taught in the fynagogue, Some of the Jews requested him to remain there, with which requeft he could not comply, but he promised that he would foon return to them. These Jews were either well inclined to Chriftianity, or had actually received it. He left Aquilas and Prifcilla at Ephefus, and travelled himself to Jerufalem. St. Luke indeed does not mention Jerufalem by name: but having related the Apoftle's arrival at Cæfarea, ver. 22. he adds that St. Paul went up, and faluted the church,' which going up' fignifies the going up to Jerufalem, as my father has fhewn in his Differtatio de notione inferi et fuperi in chorographiis facris, § 36-38.

In the mean time, as we fee from ver. 24. the eloquent and learned Jew Apollos arrived at Ephefus. St. Luke fays in the following verfe, that he was infructed in the way of the Lord" (κατηχημενος την όδον

Te Kugis), by which he means the religion of Christ. The word xarnxnuevos reprefents him as having then only juft imbibed the principles of Chriftianity, not as a person then qualified to be a teacher: though I will not affert that St. Luke intended to defcribe him as a catechumen, according to the ecclefiaftical fense of the term. That his proficiency in Chriftianity was at that time not very great, appears likewife from what St. Luke has added in the fame verfe, namely that though he fpake and taught of the Meffiah from a knowledge of the Old Teftament, he had been initiated only in the baptifm of John. But as John the Baptift had taught his difciples that he was only the forerunner of the Meffiah, who would baptize with the Holy Ghoft, Apollos must have expected the gifts of the Holy Ghoft, though he did not know that they had been actually communicated. It is true, that when St. Paul came foon after to Ephefus, he met with twelve other perfons, who, like Apollos, had been baptized only according to the baptifm of John, and when queftioned by St. Paul, whether they had received the gifts of the Holy Ghoft, anfwered, We have not fo much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghoft. Yet I cannot fuppofe that either they or Apollos were totally ignorant of the exiftence of the Holy Ghoft, or that they had never heard the name mentioned: and therefore I underftand their answer to St. Paul as implying nothing more, than that they did not know whether the great promife was already accomplished, that the Meffiah would baptize with the Holy Ghoft. Now this deficiency of Apollos in the doctrines of Chriftianity was fupplied by Aquilas and Prifcilla, who, on their arrival at Ephefus, gave him further inftructions".

411

But even before Apollos had received the inftructions of Aquilas and Prifcilla, he taught publickly in the Jewish fynagogue at Ephefus concerning the Meffiah'. Hence

• Acts xix. 1-7.

g Ver. 25, 26.

P Acts xviii. 26.