ch. vi. 11, 12. appears to me to relate, not fo much to the immediate temptation of the devil, as to the temptation to idolatry, which is the fervice of the devil. This leads me to the conjecture, that idolatry, which had been banished by Chriftianity, had again attempted to infinuate itself under the mask of the Gnofis, which was itself nothing more than a fyftem of heathenifm and polytheifm.

The moral part of this Epiftle, which begins with ch. iv. 17. is, as well as the preceding part, very fimilar to the Epistle to the Coloffians, and in many places almost exactly agrees with it. But as we know not for how many different communities this Epiftle was defigned, and therefore with the exception of the Ephefians, are unable to judge of the particular fituation of thofe perfons who received it, we cannot eafily affign the motive, which influenced St. Paul in the choice of those moral doctrines, which he delivered in it. But though the motive is unknown to us, he certainly felected these moral doctrines with fome particular view. Throughout the whole Epistle we find no mention made of particular faults or reigning vices, and for this very reafon, that it was a circular Epiftle, and not defigned for any one church exclusively. Hence this Epiftle contains fewer cenfures, than the generality of St. Paul's Epiftles. But we must not therefore conclude, that all the communities, to which St. Paul fent it, were fo exemplary in their conduct, as not to merit cenfure: fince we fee that the circumftance of its being a circular Epiftle prevented St. Paul from entering into a detail of the faults peculiar to any one community. And that they had their faults. we may conclude from the caution, which he has given them, ch, v. 5. 6. • This ye know that no whoremonger, nor unclean perfon, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Chrift, and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words. By the expreffion vain words' (xevois Royous) St. Paul probably meant the empty and falfe doctrines of fome of the heathen philofophers, especially among the Greeks, and likewife of fame of the Gnoftics, who maintained,

maintained, that the indulgence of fenfuality was not a crime. In ch. v. 22-35. he gives directions for the conduct of married perfons, and reprefents matrimony as a holy state, by comparing the union of inan and wife with the union of Chrift and his church. Perhaps in this comparifon, he intended to combat indirectly the doctrine of the Effenes, who afferted that matrimony was an unholy ftate, and unworthy of a wife man. . With respect to the ftyle of this Epiftle, it must be obferved that there is a peculiarity in it, which makes this Epifle in fome measure more difficult to be underftood, than any other of St. Paul's Epiftles. Each fingle word is perfectly intelligible but the fentences are fo long, and the members, of which each fentence confifts, are at the fame time fo fhort, that they are frequently capable of many different conftructions, of which we cannot easily determine which is the right one. If a paffage therefore of this Epiftle were taken unpointed, fome would place the commas in one place, fome in another: and, what increases the difficulty is, that in our common editions of the Greek Teftament, the points are placed with much lefs judgement in this Epistle, than in any other part. other part. The Epiftle to the Coloffians allo contains in fome places long periods, with short claufes, but not in an equal degree with the Epistle to the Ephefians. The cause of this peculiarity in the Epiftle to the Ephefians, to which every commentator ought efpecially to attend, I will not attempt to affign'. We cannot afcribe it to the circumftance of St. Paul's advanced age for the fecond Epiftle to Timothy, which was written ftill later, has as fluent language as any other of St. Paul's Epiftles.

See Vol. II. Ch. xiii. Sect. 4. of this Introduction.

There is one paffage however, in which I will hazard a conjecture. In ch. vi. 11. 13-16, St. Paul has a very long metaphor taken from the feveral parts of offenfive and defenfive armour, in fome of which I have doubts in regard to the application. But the question here to be afked is: Was this long continued metaphor occafioned. by St. Paul's fituation, when he wrote this Epiftle, he being then in euf tody at Rome, and watched by foldiers of the imperial life-guard ? Compare Acts xxviii. 16: with Phil. I. 13.

СНАР. ХХІ.

OF THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

SECT. I.

Of the city Philippi, and the state of the Christian community. there.

ST

T. PAUL had established a Christian community at Philippi, on the journey through Macedonia, which St. Luke has defcribed, Acts xvi. 12-40. and of which I have given an account, Ch. xi. Sect. 1. Philippi was a city of Macedonia, of moderate extent, and not far from the borders of Thrace. It was formerly called Crenides, from its numerous fprings, from which arifes a small stream, mentioned Acts xvi. 13. though it is commonly omitted in the maps. The name of Philippi it received from Philip, father of Alexander, who enlarged it, and fortified it as a barrier town against the Thracians. Julius Cæfar fent hither a Roman colony, as appears from the following infcription on a medal of this city, COL. IUL. AUG. PHIL. quoted in Vaillant Num. an. imp. T. I. p. 160, and from Spon Misc. P. 173. See alfo Pliny, L. IV. c. 11. and the authors in Wolfii Curæ, in the note to Acts xvi. 12. St. Luke calls Philippi, πρωτη της μερίδος της Μακεδονίας πολις, “the first city of that diftrict of Macedonia' but in what fenfe the word wgwrn, or firft,' is here to be taken admits of fome doubt. Paulus Æmilius had divided Macedonia into four diftricts, and that, in which Philippi was fituate, was called wgwrn, or the firft diftrict. But of this diftrict Philippi does not appear to be entitled in any fenfe to the name of πρώτη πολις. For if be taken in the fenfe of firft in refpect to place', this title belonged rather to Neapolis, which was the frontier

πρώτη

town of Macedonia toward Thrace, as appears from Acts xvii. 1. And, if it be taken in the fenfe of

ift in refpet to rank,' it belonged rather to Amphipus, which was the capital of this district of Macedonia, as appears from the following paffage in Livii Hift. Lib. XLV. 29. Capita regionum, ubi concilia fierent, prin regionis Amphipolin, fecundæ Theffalonicen, &c. But the difficulty is not fo great as it appears to be. For, though Amphipolis was made the capital of the firft diftrict of Macedonia in the time of Paulus Æmilius, and therefore entitled to the name of wewrn, it is not impoffible that in a fubfequent age the preference was given to Philippi. Or even if Amphipolis ftill continued to be the capital of the district, or the feat of the Roman provincial government, yet the title wewrn may have been claimed by the city Philippi, though it were not the very first in point of rank. We meet with many inftances of this kind, on the medals of the Greek cities, on which we find that more than one city of the fame province affumed the title of wewrn. St. Luke therefore, who ipent a long time at Philippi, and was well acquainted

with

* In Boze's differtation on a coin of the city of Smyrna, printed in the 17th volume of the Memoires de l'Academie des Infcriptions et Belles Lettres, are quoted feveral examples, though they are not applied there to the prefent queftion. For inftance, on the medals fruck at Nicæa in Bithynia, this city was called ΠΡΩΤΗ ΤΗΣ ΕΠΑΡ.. XIAZ, (see p. 3. of this differtation): yet the title πρώτη was likewife affumed by Nicomedia, on a coin of which city we find NIKOMHAEIA Η ΜΗΤΡΟΠΟΛΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΡΩΤΗ ΒΙΘΥΝΙΑΣ. Another coin of Nicomedia ftruck in the time of Trajan has ΝΙΚΟΜΗΔΕΙΑ Η ΜΗΤΡΟΠΟΑΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΡΩΤΗ ΠΟΝΤΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΒΙΘΥΝΙΑΣ. (p. 4) Now fince the concifenefs of infcriptions on medals does not uiually permit an unneceffary repetition of the fame thing in different words, we must conclude that earn was not fynonymous to promis. In the Proconfalar Afia, Ephefus was properly the capital: yet both Smyrna and Pergamus affumed the title garn. Boze (p. 5. 6.) mentions not only an Ephenian coin with the infcription ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ ΠΡΩΤΩΝ ΑΣΙΑΣ, but acoin of Pergamus with ΠΕΡΓΑΜΗΝΩΝ ΠΡΩΤΩΝ, though without ΑΣΙΑΣ, and two coins of Smyrna, the one infcribed ΣΜΥΡΝΑΙΩΝ ΠΡΩΤΩΝ ΑΣΙΑΣ, the other ΠΡΩΤΗ ΑΣ ΑΣ ΚΑΛΛΕΙ ΚΑΙ ΜΕΓΕΘΕΙ. In confequence of these pretentions of Smyrna and Pergamus, the Ephefans infcribed their coins ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ ΜΟΝΩΝ ΠΡΩΤΩΝ ΑΣΙΑΣ.

with the customs of the place, gave this city the title which it claimed, and which, according to the custom of the Greek cities, was infcribed probably on its coins. Hence it appears that the propofal made by Pierce to alter πρώτη της μερίδος το πρώτης μερίδος is unneceffary.

From the contents of this Epiftle we learn that the moft dangerous feducers, against whom it was neceffary to warn the Philippians, were the Pharifaical Jews, or zealots for the law of Mofes. Further, we perceive that the Chriftian community at Philippi fent to St. Paul a regular ftipend, or an annual ftated prefent, ch. i. 5. iv. 15-17. This annual prefent had been fent to the Apoftle by the hands of Epaphroditus, as deputy from the Philippians; who at the fame time affifted him in propagating the Gospel in Italy, St. Paul himself being prifoner in Rome, which affiftance brought on Epaphroditus a very fevere and dangerous illness, ch. ii. 25-30. Daubuz, in his firft book De teftimonio Chrifti apud Jofephum, P. III. §. 8. reprefents this Epaphroditus as a perfon of great diftinction, fuppofing him to be the Epaphroditus, who was a freed-man of Nero, and whọ encouraged Jofephus to write his Jewith Antiquities. But fince many perfons within the compafs of the Roman Empire might have borne the name of Epaphroditus, the identity, though poffible, cannot be faid to be probable. And if we take into the account, that Jofephus wrote his Jewish Antiquities at the request of Nero's freed-man, the fuppofition becomes even improbable: for, if the freed-man of Nero was the fame, as the Epaphroditus who, was deputed by the Philippians, he was a zealous Chriftian, and confequently he would not have patronifed the works of Jofephus. The Jewifh feducers, who were undoubtedly of the new Pharifaic fect founded by Judas Galilæus, are defcribed by St. Paul, ch. iii. 2. 18. 19. in very ftrong terms, as men of reprobate character: and they appear to have been exactly of the fame ftamp, as the feducers of the Galatians, of whom I liave given an account, Ch. xi. Sect. 2.

As