If after the manner of men, &c.— St. Paul was a Roman citizen, and pleaded his privilege as such, and therefore the chief captain was afraid because he had bound him; for, as Cicero says, Facinus est vinciri civem Romanum, scelus verberari;—that is, "it is wicked, or unlawful, to bind a Roman citizen;—it is villainous to scourge him," that is, "to examine him by scourging." This was at Jerusalem; but he had done the like before at Philippi. Now, if he pleaded his privilege on these lesser occasions, would he not much more have done it on such an occasion as this which is specified in the text? Besides, who could order it? The provincials had no such power; and the governor would not venture to inflict such a punishment on a Roman citizen, from which he was exempt by their laws: and especially he would not have attempted it at that time, which was the beginning of Nero's reign, while he governed well, and very moderately. Nor does any time appear in the course of the history which can well be assigned for it; for when St. Paul came first from Ephesus, he stayed but a little while, and left them in quiet, Acts 18:19.; and upon his return thither, when the Jews endeavoured to prejudice the multitude against him, he taught in the school of Tyrannus; and though he continued there two years, we hear of no riot till the affair of Demetrius. After this he immediately left the city, and went into Macedonia. There is a like difficulty as to the place;—for to suppose it to have been in the theatre, as some have done, seems wholly without foundation. Theatres were designed for scenical entertainments, such as plays, musical concerts, the contests of poets and orators; and sometimes their publiccouncils were held there. But they were no ways fitted, nor indeed safe, for contests with wild beasts. The amphitheatres were the usual places for those shows: nor do we find mention made in ancient writers of any amphitheatre at Ephesus; though had there been one, and St. Paul had been exposed in it, it is scarcely probable but we should have heard of it. Moreover, had the Apostle been thus engaged, it is difficultto apprehend how he could have escaped without a miracle. For those who conquered the beasts were obliged to fight with men till they were killed themselves. This was the barbarous custom at that very time, as we learn from Seneca, epist. 7. It seems most reasonable, therefore, to understand the expression as metaphorical, and that he alludes to the tumult raised by Demetrius. He uses the like metaphors, and with respect to the same thing, ch. 1 Corinthians 4:9 and again, 1 Corinthians 15:13 alluding to another custom. And in Acts (Acts 20:29) speaking of the Ephesians, making use of the same trope, he says, I know this, that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. As to the expression κατα ανθρωπον, the sense seems to be, humanly speaking; and so it is used by Chrysippas, and the phrase κατ' ανδρα by AEschylus, as Grotius remarks upon Romans 3:5. See also Galatians 3:15 the relations which Nicephorus and Theodoret give us, of an encounter which St. Paul had with wild beasts on the theatre at Ephesus, have been so far regarded by Dr. Whitby, that he contends for the literal interpretation of this passage; in favour of which it is also urged, that had he spoken of brutal men, he would rather have mentioned the assault made upon him at Lystra, where he was stoned, and supposed to be dead. But the danger of being pulled to pieces might be greater at Ephesus: It had happened very lately, and as the scene was much nearer Corinth, it might be more natural for him to mention it here. The silence of St. Luke in his history as to so memorable an event as a combat with beasts must have been, and St. Paul's omitting it in the large catalogue of his sufferings, 2 Corinthians 11:23 together with his knownprivilege as a Roman citizen, which would probably, as to be sure it should legally, have protected him from such an insult, do all favour the figurative interpretation; and the expression κατα ανθρωπον, after the manner of men, or humanly speaking, has a propriety on this hypothesis, which it cannot have on the other, and seems to be quite decis
Let us eat and drink, &c.— If the dead rise not at all, the Epicurean maxim might seem to be justified: "Let us make the best of this short life, which is the whole period of our being; and, giving up those sublime sentiments and pursuits which belong not to creatures of so short and low an existence, let us eat and drink, since we are to die as it were to-morrow or the next day; for, so little is the difference between one period of such a life and another, that it is scarcely worth while to make the distinction." It should be observed, that St. Paul writes all along upon a supposition, that if such proofs as he had produced of Christ's resurrection were not to be depended upon, we could have no certainty at all with respect to any future existence. And though it must be acknowledged, that the natural arguments for the immortality of the soul, and future retributions, carry with them great probability, yet the degree of evidence is by no means comparable to that which the Corinthians must have had of Christ's resurrection, with which our own has so necessary a connection: and, consequently, had these proofs been given up, what might have been pleaded in favour of the other, would probably have made very little impression. It is scarcely necessary to observe, that the Apostle is not here speaking his own sentiments, but arguing according to the Epicurean or Sadducean notions of those who, denying a future state, urged as a natural consequence, that man in that case had nothing more to do than to make the best he could of the present life. St. Paul could not, for a moment, admit of such a supposition. He was too firmly grounded in the belief of a resurrection, to allow for one moment any reasoning built upon the idea of its falsehood; and therefore we may observe, that he immediately adds to the sentiments which he puts into the mouth of his opposers, Be not deceived, &c. 1 Corinthians 15:33. Consequently, all the absurd and blasphemous reasonings of Chubb, drawn from this passage, are grounded upon the most false and indefensible principles. St. Paul, in every page of his writings, shews too great a regard to holiness and virtue, for us ever to believe that he could think, upon any hypothesis, a life of impurity and vice preferable to them.