christianity and its votaries. But the Philippians evinced fortitude and endurance in resisting the yoke of the Mosaic law which their adversaries endeavoured to impose upon them; as also, in refusing to have any connexion with the heathen worship. They were not terrified by threats, or by the number and power of their adversaries; but stedfastly adhered to the apostolic doctrine, so that their firm resistance might serve as a prelude and a demonstration of the destruction of their foes, while it was an evidence of their own salvation.

From the preceding remarks it will be seen, that we do not admit the existence of divisions in the church at Philippi arising from the efforts of false teachers; although Eichhorn, Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald, and others, entertain such a view. Neither is there satisfactory evidence in the epistle that doctrinal errors had obtained currency among the believers. On the contrary, the members of the church seem to have stood firm against the assaults of persecution, and the temptations arising from doctrinal corruption. The apostle does not censure them for having apostatised from the purity of the gospel; nor does he accuse them of vicious conduct. The letter contains commendations and encouragements, not reprehensions or reproofs. It presents exhortations to perseverance in the course on which they had entered, and various cautions as well against dangerous teachers as against particular states of mind. The opinion entertained of his readers by the apostle is concentrated in one verse: 'There. fore, my brethren, dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.' (iv. 1.) With Calvin, we refer the particle so in this passage to their state, not to the preceding affirmations of the apostle himself.

It has been conjectured by De Wette, Credner, and others, that spiritual pride was an ingredient in the Philippian character. In proof of this assumption, reference has been made to chaps. i. 12-ii. 16; iii. 15, 16; iv. 2. But it is not easy to see how the last part of the first chapter is appropriate, since it relates to Paul himself, and the conduct of two classes of preachers at Rome. The only legitimate conclusion to be drawn from the passages just quoted is, that there was a tendency in the Philippian character to vain-glory and high-mindedness. Into such a frame of mind they were in greater danger of falling than any other. Their besetting sins were just the qualities mentioned. Hence the apostle cautions them in regard to such propensities. It is easy to see how a high degree of spiritual advancement may coexist with a near approach to mental states incompatible with the true christian character. The very condition in which the christians at Philippi were, when

the apostle addressed them a condition of great promise and progress, would be more liable to beget pride within them, based upon remaining corruption, than a low and languishing piety. Such is the weakness of humanity, that the highest spirituality stands near the verge of pride, superciliousness, and vain-glory. It has been thought by Credner, that the natural character of the Philippian people was strongly tinctured with vanity and self-conceit, as manifested in their claiming from the Romans for their city the empty title apúr óλs. The same qualities, as he supposes, reappeared within the church in the form of spiritual pride. Perhaps there may be some truth in this conjecture, although it is impossible to arrive at any definite knowledge upon the point. One thing is certain, that such high-mindedness would prevent the full development of christian unity, and prepare the way for the entrance of Jewish corruptions. Yet the actual existence of spiritual pride, vain-glory, and strife in the bosom of the Philippian community, cannot be proved. We can only affirm, that the believers appeared to the apostle to require especial warning against such unseemly phases of character.

V. Some peculiarities in the exordium and conclusion of the epistle.

It is contrary to Paul's usual method to specify bishops and deacons in the general salutation. The reason why he mentions them particularly in this letter is not obvious. Theophylact supposes, that the bishops are saluted separately from the members of the church because, in conjunction with the brethren, they had exhibited their zeal towards the apostle in sending Epaphroditus with the contribution. The Philippians alone had thus ministered to Paul's necessities. This supposition has been generally adopted as probable. It will be observed, that the members are first mentioned: To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and dea

This precedence is contrary to modern ideas, and would doubtless be censured as unseemly, were it not stamped with infallible authority. The majority of the clergy in these days suppose that the people are a kind of appendage to themselves. This idea is particularly liable to rest in the minds of those who have been elevated to episcopal dignity. Yet an apostle mentions all the saints first: the bishops and deacons come after. Here there is nothing to feed the vanity of the human mind.

It will be also observed, that allusion is made to several bishops. Presbyters or elders are not mentioned. Hence it has been rightly inferred, that presbyter and bishop were synonymous terms in the apostolic age. The same conclusion is demonstrable from other passages. There was no distinction

between presbyter and bishop. They were different appellations belonging to the same spiritual officers. But how is the mention of two or more bishops accounted for, since modern usage and modern ideas lead us to expect no more than one? Are we to say, with Michaelis, that the christians had no public edifices or temples which contained, as in later ages, an assembly of several thousands, but were obliged to hold their meetings in private houses, over each of which an inspector or bishop presided? This explanation is insufficient, because it is utterly improbable that the christians in Philippi were so numerous as to be under the necessity of distributing themselves into little bands or companies. It is an idle conjecture to assume, that there was no edifice to which they had access capable of affording accommodation to all members of the church. If in Ephesus there was but one congregation, much more may we expect only one at Philippi. If in Jerusalem there was only one assembly meeting in one place, much more may this be affirmed of the comparatively small Philippi. To every impartial reader of the epistle it will always appear, that there was no more than one congregation meeting for worship in one place. There were several bishops in the church. Nor was a plurality of pastors peculiar to the Philippian society. Ephesus too had its elders (Acts xx); and in Ephesus there was a single church. Jerusalem had its bishops; and in it there was one church or assembly of christians. Whether all the apostolic churches had a plurality of pastors, although such a feature be not expressly attributed to them in the New Testament, is a topic which cannot be discussed in this place. The settlement of it involves an answer to the question, Were the primitive churches similarly organised? Did the apostles, acting under infallible direction, and the evangelists whom they sanctioned, give the same constitution to all? Different inquirers will furnish different replies to such a question.

The exordium contains no mention of Paul's apostolic office, as is usual in his other letters. He associates Timothy with himself, because the latter had been with him when he founded the church at Philippi, and when he visited it subsequently; both being denominated bondmen (douλ) of Jesus Christ. His laying aside the apostolic character on the present occasion, may perhaps be explained by a motive of delicacy. He wished to avoid the use of a title which would naturally suggest a claim on his part to the benefit he had received. In addition to this it should be remembered, that he had no reason for asserting his apostolic authority. There were no factions in the church to which he was writing. The believers had not apostatized from the faith, or given heed to seducing

teachers who impugned his apostleship. On the contrary, the church had stood firm in maintaining his doctrine and loving his person. The apostle cared not for associating with his name a title which justly belonged to him; as long as there was no sufficient cause for assuming it. Such were his humility and delicate sense of propriety, that he waived the higher for the sake of the lower appellation. He took no pride in names and titles. In regard to the salutations at the conclusion of the epistle, it has been observed by Lardner that they are singular, because different from those of the other epistles written about the same time. First it is said: "The brethren which are with me greet you.' (iv. 21.) Secondly, 'All the saints salute you.' (22.) The brethren are Mark, Aristarchus, Jesus Justus, Demas, and Luke, who had joined the apostle at Rome, and endeavoured to promote the interests of christianity under his direction. The salutation sent by all the saints was prompted, not merely by the love subsisting between all the brethren however remote, but by a consideration of the kind present which they had sent the apostle, exhibiting attachment to his person and the cause of the gospel. Such a token of their regard for Paul, must have tended to endear the donors to the christians at Rome. The individuals belonging to Cæsar's household are particularly mentioned as sending salutations. Probably Cæsar's freedmen or domestics are meant those who were called Cæsariani. Whether any of his relatives are included in the appellation, is doubtful. There is no proof that Poppaa, the emperor's wife, was a christian; although Macknight, in order to shew that she favourably regarded the apostle, quotes the epithet which Josephus applies to her, soosßns devout. Neither is there any ground for supposing that Seneca was of this number, for he did not belong to Cæsar's household, neither was he at any time a christian, as far as can be ascertained from his history. He was a senator in the city. Whether these converts were chiefly composed of such as had been Jewish slaves, or natives of Rome, cannot be known; although the former is more probable from the circumstance that Josephus was introduced to Poppea by a Jewish comedian named Alityrus. Doubtless it would rejoice the Philippians to hear that christianity found its way into the palace of Cæsar-a place full of abomination and wickedness. So rare an instance of the power of truth would fill their minds at once with amazement and consolation. And that these domestics especially saluted the Philippians, augured well for the release of him by whom they had been converted, and for the cause of the gospel at Rome. VI. Authenticity and genuineness.

These have never been called in question. Testimonies in

favour of its authenticity are found in Polycarp, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and the epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons. Polycarp writes: "For neither I, nor any one like me, can reach the wisdom of the blessed and renowned Paul, who, when absent, wrote to you letters; into which if ye look, you will be able to edify yourselves in the faith which has been given you.'* And again: 'But I have neither perceived nor heard any such thing to be in you, among whom the blessed Paul laboured, who are in the beginning of his Epistle; for he glories in you in all the churches, which then alone knew God.'+ Irenæus says: As also Paul says to the Philippians: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God.' In Clement of Alexandria we find the following: 'When Paul confesses of himself, 'Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect,' &c.' § Tertullian writes: Of which [hope] being in suspense himself, when he writes to the Philippians, 'If by any means, says he, I might attain to the resurrection of the dead; not as though I had already attained, or were perfected.'|| In the epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons, as given by Eusebius, is the following quotation of Philip. ii. 6: 'Who also were so far followers and imitators of Christ: who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God.'¶

VII. Contents.

Whether the apostle wrote more epistles than one to the Philippians cannot be satisfactorily determined. Although they had sent him several presents, it does not follow that he

* Οὔτε γὰρ ἐγώ, οὔτε ἄλλος ὅμοιος ἐμοὶ δύναται κατακολουθῆσαι τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ μακαρίου καὶ ἐνδόξου Παύλου -ὃς καὶ ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν ἐπιςολὰς εἰς ἃς ἐὰν ἐγκύπτητε, δυνηθήσεσθε οἰκοδομεῖσθαι εἰς τὴν δοθεῖσαν ὑμῖν πίςιν, κ.τ.λ. Ep. Ad. Philipp., cap. iii., p. 118, ed. Hefele. (editio altera.) 1842.

Ego autem nihil tale sensi in vobis, vel audivi, in quibus laboravit beatus Paulus, qui estis [laudati] in principio epistolæ ejus. De vobis etenim gloriatur in omnibus ecclesiis, quæ Deum solæ tunc cognoverant.— Id. p. 122, cap. xi.

Quemadmodum et Paulus Philippensibus ait: Repletus sum acceptis ab Epaphrodito, quæ a vobis missa sunt, odorem suavitatis, hostiam acceptabilem, placentem Deo.-Advers. Hæres., lib. iv., cap. 34, p. 326. Eầ. Grabe.

§ Αὐτοῦ ὁμολογοῦντος τοῦ Παύλου περὶ ἑαυτοῦ· Οὐκ ὅτι ἤδη ἔλαβον, κ.τ.λ. Prædag., lib. i., p. 107, D. See also Stromata, lib. iv., p. 511, A; Cohort. ad Gentes., p. 56, B. (Ed. Colon. 1688.)

Ad quam (justitiam) pendens et ipse, quum Philippensibus scribit, si quâ, inquit, concurram in resurrectionem quæ est a mortuis; non quia jam accepi, aut consummatus sum.-De Resur. Carnis. cap. xxiii.

[ Οἳ καὶ ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ζηλωταὶ καὶ μιμηταὶ Χριςοῦ ἐγένοντο, ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων ουκ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ.-Euseb. Η. Ε. lib. v. cap. 2.