Works

VERS. I.

COMPARE that passage Chap. XI. 27. with this place, and neither the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 some; will seem redundant; nor the phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so harsh, There came some Prophets from Jerusalem to Antioch, when yet, there were in the Church of Antioch some Prophets of their own already. And it seems to hint that the separation of Paul and Barnabas to the Ministry was done by the stated Ministers of that Church, and not by others that came thither.

These offices indeed are distinguished, 1 Cor. XII. 28. and Ephes. IV. 11. but here, they seem as if they were not so to be; for the Church of Antioch was not yet arrived at that maturity that it should produce Teachers that were not endowed with the Holy Ghost, and the gift of Prophesy; and the phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seems to intimate some such thing, viz. that according to the state of the Church then being in that place, there were, nay it was necessary there should be prophetic Teachers, because there was not any who by the study of the Scriptures, was become fit for that office. But why then is it not rather said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Prophetick Teachers, than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Prophets and Teachers? Namely, because there were Prophets who were not ordinary Teachers, but acted in their Prophetick office occasionally only; and they were such as rather foretold things to come, than ordinarily preached, or taught chatechistically. But these were both Prophets, and constant Preachers too.

So Menahem is writ in the Alexandrian copy, at 2 Kings Chap. XV. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Manaen: but the Roman hath, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Manaem. This our Manaens education with Herod the Tetrarch, brings to mind what is related in Juchasin. Hillel and Shammai received their traditions from them (that is, from Shamaiah and Abtalion) But first were Hillel and Menahem. Menahem went off into the Kings family and service, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with fourscore men clothed in gold—Menahem was grave and wise, like a Prophet, and uttered many Prophesies. He foretold Herod, when he was yet very young, that he should come to reign: And when he did reign, he sent for him, who foretold him also that he should reign above thirty years. And he did reign seven and thirty. Josephus (who is quoted also by this our Author) speaks much the same as to part of the story. There was amongst the Essenes one named Menaem, who, besides that he was famous for the holiness of his life, had obtained of God a fore knowledge of future things. He called Herod while he was yet a child, King of the Jews, &c.

I do not think this our Menaem, was the same person; nor do I say, that he was his son (for had the Essenes children?) But whereas this person was so accepted in the Court of Herod the Great, and our Manaen brought up with Herod his son; I cannot but suspect there might be something of kindred betwixt them. But that matter is not tanti: it is only worthy our considering whether this Menaen might not lay the foundations of his Christianity, while he was in Herod the Tetrachs Court, where John the Baptist preached, and that with some kind of approbation and applause even from Herod himself, Mark VI. 20.

As to the remaining part of the story, the Talmudists add this passage; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Menahem went out, and Shammai entered. But whether went Menahem? Abai saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he lashed out into all abundance of wickedness. Aba saith, he went into the service of the King, and with him went four score pair of Disciples, all clad in silk. I dare not say this Menahem was the same with our Menahem unless he were an hundred years of age or thereabout; and yet when I observe the familiarity that was between that Menahem and Herod the father; and how ours was brought up with Herod the son (which certainly was not put in by our Historian for no reason) it cannot but give me some apprehension that either he might be the person himself, or rather his son (if at least the Essenes had children) or in a word, some very near relation. Be it one or other, it is worthy enquiry, whether this our Manaen might not lay the foundation of his Evangelical religion in the Court of Herod the Tetrach, when John the Baptist preached there.

VERS. II.

I. THE more religious amongst the Jews fasted, and met in their Synagogues to the public Prayers and Service, on the second and fifth day of the week: so that on those days it might be properly said of them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that they ministered and fasted. On their Sabbath indeed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , they Ministred, but they did not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , fast; but on these days in the week, the second and the fifth they did both.

II. Perhaps it might be somewhat bold to say that the Church at Antioch, did according to the Jewish custom, observe the weekly fasts. And yet more bold to say, that Church chose those days for fasting which the Jews had done, viz. the second and fifth day of the week. But it would be most audacious to conjecture that they observed the Jewish Sabbath in some measure with the Lord's day; and that with fasting, when as the Jews would by no means endure a fast upon that day. But whatever the day of this fasting was, or what occasion soever there was of it: from that ordinary custom of the Jews it is easy to judge of that phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Ministring, viz. that a public fast was celebrated with the public assembly of the Church; and administration of holy things; which whether it was so done, verse. 3. where it is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , then they fasted and prayed, may be some question: that is, whether at that time there was a public fast of the whole Church, or a more private one amongst the Elders only.

VERS. III.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the ordaining of the Elders, and beheading the Heifer is by the three. In this thing therefore, this present action agreeth with the common usage of the Synagogue, that three persons, Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen lay their hands on two that were to be sent out, viz. Paul and Barnabas. But in that they lay on their hands, they do also recede from the usual custom. After what manner is the ordaining of Elders forever? Not that they should lay their hands upon the head of an Elder, but only should call him Rabbi, and say to him, behold thou art ordained, and thou hast power of judging, &c. Antiently, everyone that had been promoted to be an Elder, promoted his Disciples also: But this honor the wise Men indulged to old Hillel, namely decreeing that no person should be ordained to be an Elder, but with the license of the President. But neither is the President to ordain any person, unless the Vicepresident assist him, nor the Vicepresident, unless the President assist him. But as to what belongs to the other Societies: It is lawful for one man to ordain with the allowance of the President; but let him have two more with him: For it is not an ordination unless by three; nor do they ordain Elders out of the Land.

It might not be unworthy our enquiry (if there were place for it here) both why they have abolished the ceremony of imposition of hands, as also, why they should restrain the ordaining of Elders to the land of Israel only. We see the Church at Antioch doth otherwise, and by the same rule the Christian Church. But perhaps some will ask, upon what reason; when laying on of hands in the ordination of Elders, was hardly used at all, either under the first Temple, or before or under the second Temple. It was not under the second Temple, if we may believe the Rabbin newly quoted; or at least if it was used, it was abolished at last. And before the second Temple, where is there any sign or footstep of such a thing?

VERS. IV.

THIS doubtless is Seleucia of Pieria, concerning which Strabo tells us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Beyond Silicia, the first City in Syria, is Seleucia which is said to be in Pieria. So Xylander Translates it, leaving out the Version of the last clause wholly, intimating that the river Orontes pours itself into the Sea not far from this place. And to this, the situation and distances in Ptolemy do agree.

• Seleucia of Pieria, 68. 36. 35. 26.
• The mouth of the River Orontes 68. 30. 35. 30.

Pliny also affirms that Seleucia in Pieria is the very first Coast of Syria from Silicia. Latitudo (Syriae) a Seleucia Pieriae ad oppidum in Euphrate Zeugma, DXXV M. p. The latitude (of Syria) from Seleucia of Pieria, to Zeugma a Town upon Euphrates is DXXV Miles.

How great a multitude of Jews there were in Cyprus, may be somewhat conjectured from the times of Trajan backward, from this story. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. In the mean time the Jews who dwelt about Cyrene, under the conduct of one Andrew, fall both upon the Romans and the Greeks, feed on their flesh, eat their bowels, besmear themselves with their blood, and cover themselves with their skins: Many of them they sawed asunder, from the crown of the head down the middle; many of them they threw to the wild beasts; many of them they forced to fight amongst themselves, till they had destroyed above two hundred and twenty thousand men. In Egypt and Cyprus they committed the same kind of outrages, the leader (of the Cypriots) being Artemion; where two hundred and forty thousand men were lost: whence it came to pass that a Jew might not come into Cyprus. But if by chance and stress of weather he put in upon the Island, he was killed. But the Jews, as by others, so especially by Lucius, whom Trajanus sent upon that expedition, were all subdued.

VERS. VI.

VERS. VIII.

I. IT may be inquired, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Jesus, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Barjesus, be a proper name, or an appellative. In the Arabic in the Polyglot Bible, it is writ as a proper name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jesu. But in the Arabic of the Erpenian edition, it is writ as an appellative 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jesus, and under the same notion, the Syriac taking the word, for Bar-Jesus, hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bar-Shumah, the Son of a Name, as Beza would have it: but trulier, the Son of a Swelling, or a Wound: for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Tumor or Pustle, in the Targumists, of Jonathan, and of Jerusalem, upon Levite. XIII. 2. and in the Syriac it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 So also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Wound, is by that translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Isa. I. 6. and LIII. 5. And indeed Elymas, can no way be the interpretation of Bar-jesus, if Jesus here be a proper name, and especially if it must be writ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

II. I would therefore write Bar-jesus in Hebrew letters thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a word derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifies to waste away, or be corroded and worn by a Disease. So Psal. VI. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mine Eye is consumed, or as the Interlinear, corroded because of grief. And that the Syriac had reference to this radix, when he renders it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Son of a Wound, or a Swelling proceeding from a Disease, is little to be doubted; and with the etymology the word Elymas agrees excellently well.

III. There are those that would have it to be the interpretation of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, that the Arabic word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so Elymas is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Sorcerer, which does not seem very distant from truth; once indeed such a conceit pleased me well enough; but since, these two things well considered, have led me another way.

1. Because it may reasonably be doubted, whether St. Luke would explain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a well known word, by a word far more unknown. Besides, why should this Sorcerer only be called Elymas when as according to that etymology, all persons of the same art might have the same name.

2. Because the Syriac and Arabic do not begin the word Elymas with the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ain, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aleph. I little doubt therefore but this name Elymas takes its original from the Arabic word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Alima or Elima, which signifies to grieve or be tormented. And how this sense agrees with the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 any one may see. For what can be nearer akin than to consume away, and to grieve; and to waste away by a distemper, and be under torment? So that, I suppose, this Sorcerer was called in his own Hebrew name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bar-Jesus, and went by that name among the Hebraizing Jews: but amongst those that speak Arabic, Elymas, which in the Arabic Tongue signifies the same thing. I confess it is something an unusual thing for St. Luke to render an Hebrew name by Arabic and not by Greek, which the Evangelists commonly do. But it seems, that this Magician was born and bred in some place or Country, where the Arabic was the mother Tongue, inhabited by Jews also, that used their own Language, and from thence he came to be known by this twofold name. I am mistaken, if Jabneh itself, a known Academy of the Jews, and sometime the seat of the Sanhedrin, was not in such a Country. For it may be made out elsewhere, that it is very probable the whole Philistine Country, at least the greatest part of it, did use the Arabic as their mother Tongue.

VERS. IX.

HERE is both his Hebrew and Roman name too, upon the account of that relation he had to both Nations. He was by his parentage a Jew, and so called Saul, but withal, he was a free denison of Rome, and thence had the name of Paul. Under the same notion Silas is called Silvanus; for he also was a Citizen of Rome, as may be collected out of Acts XVI. 37. The Apostle having hitherto conversed chiefly amongst the Jews retains his Jewish name, but being now declared the Apostle of the Gentiles, and traveling amongst the Gentiles, St. Luke gives him his Gentile name only.

VERS. X.

IS not this much of the same import with that in the Old Testament, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Son of Belial? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at first hearing seems to sound very harshly, and indeed at first sight might appear as if it signified the first-born of Satan; but it is given to a certain Rabbin to his praise, and as a title of honor, in a far different signification, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 taking its derivation from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to decline from.

VERS. XII.

THIS is a word much in use amongst the Talmudists, with a little variation only in the reading. R. Chaninah, and R. Joshua ben Levi passed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Deputy of Cesarea. He seeing them, rose up to them. His own people say unto him, Doest thou rise up to these Jews? He answered them and said, I saw their faces as the faces of Angels. See the Aruch upon the word.

VERS. XIII.

FROM Paphos in Cyprus, whether old or new (both being Maritim places situated on the Western shore of the Island) they seemed to Sail into the mouth of the river Cestrus, concerning which Strabo hath this passage. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Then there is the river Cestrus which when one hath sailed sixty furlongs, he comes to the City Perga, near which is the Temple of Diana of Perga, in an high place, where every year there is a solemn convention. Ptolomey also speaks of the river Cestrus, and of the Cataract, concerning which Strabo hath some mention.

But Mela hath this passage, Thence there are two strong rivers Oestros and Cataractes. Oestros is easily navigable: but Cataractes hath its name from the violence of its running, amongst these is the City Perga, &c. One may justly suspect an error in the Writer here, writing Oestros for Cestros, and it is something strange that Olivarius hath taken no notice of it.

We may conjecture there was no Synagogue of Jews in Perga, because there is no mention of it, nor any memorable thing recorded as done by the Apostles here; only that John whose Sirname was Mark, did in this place depart from them; for what reason is not known.

VERS. XIV.

STrabo reckons up thirteen Cities in Pisidia from Artemidorus, amongst which he makes no mention of Antioch. But Pliny tell us, Insident vertici Pisidiae quondam Solymi appellati, &c. There are that inhabit the top of Pisidia, who were once called Solymites, their Colony is Casarea, the same is Antioch. And Ptolomey, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The inland Cities in Pamphilia, are Sileucia of Phrygia, and Antioch of Pisidia. Where the Interpreter most confusedly, Civitates sunt in Provincia Mediterranea, Phrygia quidem Pisidiae, Seleucia Pisidiae, Antiochia: that is, there are Cities in the midland Country, Phrygia of Pisidia, Seleucia of Pisidia, Antioch, and in the margin he sets Cesarea.

VERS. XV.

BUT in what Language were the Law and the Prophets read, in this Synagogue? It is generally supposed that in the Synagogues of the Hellenists, the Greek Bible was read. But was that Tongue understood amongst the Pisidians? Strabo at the end of his thirteenth Book tells us, The Cibratian prefecture was reckoned amongst the greatest of Asia. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Cibyrates used four Languages, the Pisidian, the Suleiman, the Greek, and Lydian. Where we see the Pisidian Tongue is expressly distinguished from the Greek. If Moses and the Prophets therefore were read here in the Greek Tongue, were they understood by those in Pisidia? Yes, you will say, for the very name of the City Antioch speaks it, to have been a Greek Colony. Grant this: but then suppose a Jewish Synagogue in some City of Pisidia that was purely Pisidian, such as Selge, Sagalessus, Pernelissus, &c. or in some City of the Solymites, or of the Lydians, in what Language was the Law read there? Doubtless in the same Tongue and the same manner that it was read, in the Synagogue of the Hebrews, i. e. in the Original Hebrew, some Interpreter assisting, and rendering it to them in their mother Tongue.

So it is expressed commonly of any one that teaches; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he sat down. And if the Rulers of the Synagogue had no other knowledge of Barnabas and Saul, they might gather they were Preachers, from this, that when they entered the Synagogue they sat down, according to the custom of those that Taught, or Preached.

VERS. XVI.

THAT is, Proselytes, Blessed is everyone that feareth the Lord, that walketh in his ways, Psal. CXXVIII. 1. He doth not say, Blessed is Israel, or blessed are the Priests, or blessed the Levites, but blessed is everyone that feareth the Lord. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 these are the Proselytes, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , they that fear the Lord. According as it is said of Israel, Blessed art thou O Israel, so is it said of these, blessed is everyone that feareth the Lord. Now of what proselyte is it said, that he is blessed? It is said of the proselyte of justice. Not as those Cuthites, of whom it is said, that they feared the Lord, and yet worshiped their own God's.

VERS. XVIII.

THE particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seems to exclude the reading of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which word we meet with in the Seventy, Deut. I. 31. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , God did indeed bear with them full forty years: and so you will say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is not wide from the truth. But the Apostle adding the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 about the time of forty years, seems chiefly to respect that time, which went between the fatal decree, that they should not enter the land, and the going in.

VERS. XIX.

THE Rabbins very frequently, when they mention the Canaanitish people, give them this very term of the Seven Nations. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

VERS. XX.

AMongst the many things that are offered upon this difficulty, I would choose this, that in this number are reckoned the years of the Judges, and the years of those Tyrants that oppressed Israel, computing them disjunctly and singly, which at first sight any one would think ought to be so reckoned; but that 1 Kings VI. 1. gives a check to a too large computation.

1. The years of the Judges and Tyrants, thus distinguished, answer the Sum exactly.

So that reckoning three hundred thirty nine, and one hundred and eleven together, the Sum amounts exactly to four hundred and fifty.

II. Josephus seems expressly to follow this computation. Solomon began to build his Temple in the fourth year of his reign, and in the second month, which the Macedonians term Artemision, the Hebrews Ijar. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . After five hundred ninety and two years, from the Israelites going out of Egypt.

In 1 Kings VI. 1. there are reckoned four hundred and fourscore years. Josephus, five hundred ninety two, exceeding that number by a hundred and twelve years: So as the three years of the Tyrants makes the number to exceed in this place.

III. In the particular summing up of these years, I cannot omit what is said concerning Sampson in the Jewish Writers . Sampson saith, O Lord Eternal, give me a recompense for one of mine eyes, in this world, and for the other, in the world to come. One place saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And he judged Israel forty years. Another place saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And he judged Israel twenty years. R. Acha saith, by this it is hinted that the Philistines were afraid of him twenty years after his death, as they had stood in fear of him twenty years while he was alive.

From these words we might imagine that it was written concerning Sampson that he judged Israel Forty years, which yet is nowhere found: only it is said in two places ( Judge. XV. 20. and Chap. XVI. 31.) that he judged twenty years. Whence the Jewish Writers draw that conclusion as was said before, viz. that the Philistines were under the terror of him, for the space of twenty years after he had been dead. Indeed it is said of Eli, That he judged Israel forty years, 1 Sam. IV. 18. which when I observe the LXX. rendering by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , twenty years, I cannot but suspect they might somewhat favor the received opinion amongst the Jews.

VERS. XXXIII.

WHY are the daily Prayers to the number of eighteen? R. Joshua ben Levi saith, it is according to the eighteen Psalms, from the beginning of the Psalms to The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble [Psal. XX. 1.] But if any one say to thee, they are nineteen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 say thou to him, Why do the heathen rage, [i. e. the second Psalm] is not one of them. Hence they say, he that prays and is not heard, it is necessary for him to fast too.

I. Judge hence whether this second Psalm were joined or confounded with the first, when it seems in some measure sequestered from the whole number. And do you observe the Rabbins way of arguing? Being to prove that the number of the daily Prayers being eighteen, was adapted to the number of the eighteen Psalms, from the beginning of the Book to that place, The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble, &c. Psal. XX. he takes refuge in a common Axiom of theirs, He that prayeth and is not heard, must fast also. As if that Maxim was founded upon the equality of numbers, and the authors of that Maxim did so design it. q. d. He that pours out eighteen Prayers, according to the number of those eighteen Psalms, and is not head, let him Fast and he shall be heard, according to the tenor of the Psalm immediately following, The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble, i. e. in the day when thou troublest and afflictest thyself with Fasting.

II. I will not make any nice enquiry for what reason they should exclude the second Psalm out of the number. We find in it, however shut out of the number, a considerable testimony to the resurrection of the Messiah: and perhaps to this the Apostle may have some respect in these words. But if not, by this his noting the number and order of the Psalm, we may guess he spake to this sense, viz. ye have a testimony of the Resurrection of Christ in the very entrance of the Book of Psalms, so near the beginning of it, that we meet with it even in the second Psalm.

R. Solomon confesseth that the Rabbins do interpret this Psalm of the Messiah, but he had rather it should be applied to David. For the Jews take special care that the Messias should not be acknowledged as the genuine Son of God. Hence Midr. Till. Thou art my Son: Hence we may answer the Heretics who say he is Son to God. Do thou answer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He doth not say, thou art Son to me, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but, thou art my Son. (A very learned distinction indeed!) As the Master speaking kindly to his Servant, may say to him, I love thee like my own Son. So the Targumist , The Lord said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Thou art beloved to me as a Son is to his Father.

They do indeed acknowledge that the Messiah is concerned in this Psalm , but then, if you will be a true Jew indeed, you must have a care how you acknowledge him the begotten Son of God. It would be a vain and impertinent thing to collect all their little artifices by which they endeavor to evade the force of this place. It were much more proper for us to observe the way of the Apostles arguing, and by what means he makes it out, that these words of the Psalmist point at the Resurrection of the Messiah. Take this passage by the way: R. Honna saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 There are three portions of chastisements divided. The Fathers of the world and all generations received one part: The generation of persecution another, and the generation of the Messias another. And when his time cometh, then will the Holy blessed say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it lies upon me to make him a new creature. And so he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 today have I begotten thee.

When the Jews asked a sign of our Savior, he constantly gives them the sign of Jonas the Prophet; that is, that his Resurrection which should come to pass, should be a most undoubted proof for him, that he is the Son of God, the true Messias. So Rom. I. 4. He was declared to be the Son of God, by his Resurrection from the dead. For so was he indeed distinguished from all mortals, and Sons of men. And God saith he had then begotten him, when he had given a token that he was not a mere man, by his divine power whereby he had raised him from the dead. And according to the tenor of the whole Psalm, God is said to have begotten him then, when he was ordained King in Zion, and all Nations subdued under him. Upon which words that passage of our Savior uttered immediately after he had arisen from the dead, is a good Commentary: All power is given unto me, &c. Matth. XXVIII.

What do those words mean, Matth. XXVI. 29. I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the Vine; until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom? They seem to look this way, viz. I will drink no more of it before my Resurrection. For in truth his Resurrection was the beginning of his Kingdom, when he had overcome those enemies of his, Satan, Hell, and Death; from that time was he begotten and established King in Zion. I am mistaken if that of Psal. CX. v. 3. doth not in some measure fall in here also, which, give me leave to render by way of paraphrase into such a sense as this. Thy people shall be a willing people in the day of thy power: it shall be a willing people in the beauties of holiness, it shall be a willing people from the Womb of the morning: thine is the dew of thy youth. Now the dew of Christ is that quickening power of his, by which he can bring the dead to life again, Isai. XXVI. 19. And the dew of thy youth, O Christ, is thine. That is, it is thine own power and virtue that raiseth thee again. I would therefore apply those words from the womb of the morning to his Resurrection: because the Resurrection of Jesus, was the dawn of the new world, the morning of the new Creation.

VERS. XXXIV.

IT hath been generally observed that this phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is taken from the Greek Version in Isai. LV. 3. But it is not so generally remarked, that by David was understood the Messiah, which yet the Rabbins themselves, Kimchi and Ab. Ezra have well observed, the following Verse expressly confirming it. The Resurrection of our Savior therefore, by the interpretation of the Apostle, is said to be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The sure mercies of Christ. And God by his Prophet (from whence this clause is taken) doth promise the raising again of the Messiah, and all the benefits of that Resurrection. He had fortold and promised his death Chap. LIII. But what mercies could have been hoped for by a dead Messiah, had he been always to have continued dead? They had been weak and instable kindnesses had they terminated in death: He promises mercies therefore firm and stable that were never to have end, because they should be always flowing and issuing out of his resurrection

Whereas these things are quoted out of the Prophet in the words of the LXX, varying a little from the Prophets words; and those much more, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Behold ye despisers and wonder, &c. verse. 41. it might be inquired in what language the Apostle preached, as also in what language Moses and the Prophets were read in that Synagogue, verse. 15. If we say in the Greek, it is a question whether the Pisidians could understand it. If we say in the Pisidian language, it is hardly to be believed the Bible was then rendered into that language. It is remarkable what was quoted above out of Strabo, where he mentions four tongues, amongst them the Greek and the Pisidian distinct from one another. But this I have already discusst in the Notes upon Verse 15. of this Chapter.

VERS. XLI.

DR. Pocock here, as always, very learnedly, and accurately examines what the Greek Interpreters Hab. I. read: saving in the mean time the reading which the Hebrew Bibles exhibit: for it is one thing how the Greek read it, and another thing how it should be truly read.

VERS. XLII.

IT is all one as to the force of the words as far as I see, whether you render them they besought the Gentiles, or the Gentiles besought them; the later Version hath chiefly obtained: but what absurdity is it if we should admit the former? And doth not the very order of the words seem to favor it? If it had been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , one might have inclined to the later without controversy: but being it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , there is place for doubting. And if it were so that the Jews resented the Apostles doctrine so ill, that they went out of the Synagogue disturbed and offended, as some conjecture, and that not improbably, we may the easilier imagine that the Apostles besought the Gentiles that tarried behind, that they would patiently hear these things again.

I. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the Lexicons tell us, amongst other things, denotes, hence forward, or hereafter. Now this must be noted, that this discourse was held in the fore noon, for it was that time of the day only that they assembled in the Synagogue; in the afternoon they met in Beth Midras. Let us consider therefore whether this phrase will not bear this sense: They besought that afterwards upon that Sabbath, viz. in the afternoon, they would hear again such a Sermon. And then, whether the Gentiles besought the Apostles, or the Apostles the Gentiles, it dot not alter the case.

II. Let us inquire whether the Apostles and the Christian Church did not now observe and celebrate the Lord's day. It can hardly be denied; and if so, then judge whether the Apostles might not invite the Gentiles that they would assemble again the next day, that is, upon the Christian Sabbath, and hear these things again. If we yield that the Lord's day is to be called the Sabbath, then we shall easily yield that it might be rightly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Sabbath after. And indeed when the speech was amongst the Jews or Judaizing Proselytes, it is no wonder, if it were called the Sabbath. As if the Apostles had said, tomorrow we celebrate our Sabbath, and will you on that day 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , have these words preached to you?

III. Or let 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , be the week betwixt the two Sabbaths (as that expression must be rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I fast twice in the week ) then, as the sense is easy, that they besought them, the same things might be repeated on the following week, so the respect might have more particularly been had to the second and fifth day in the week, when they usually meet together in the Synagogue.

CHAP. XIV.

VERS. VI.

STRABO tells us expressly that Iconium also was within Lycaonia ; Thence are the Lyconian Hills, plain, cold, naked, and pastures for wild Asses, &c. There are also the lakes, the greater called Coralis; the less, called Trogitis. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ About those places stands Iconium, a Town built in a better soil than what I mentioned as the pasture of wild Asses. Ptolemy also places Iconium in Lycaonia . How comes it to pass then that St. Luke doth not call Iconium a City of Lycaonia, as well as Derbe and Lystra? Because Iconium was of something a distinct jurisdiction. Datur et Tetrarchia ex Lycaonia, &c. There is also granted a Tetrarchy out of Lycaonia, on that side that bounds upon Galatia, consisting of fourteen Cities, the most famous of which is Iconium.

VERS. XI.

IT is hard to say what the Lycaonian Tongue was; nor is it easy to say why this was added, when it might have sufficed to have said, They lift up their voices, saying, the God's, &c.

I. I should hardly be persuaded the Lycaonian Language was any Greek Dialect, when it sufficiently appears by what I lately quoted out of Strabo that there were peculiar Mother Tongues in these Countries, distinct from the Greek. And he himself remarketh , That the Carians, who are situated something nearer Greece than the Lycaonians, were called by Homer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , people of a barbarous language; so the Phrygians also were Barbari, barbarous .

Let us hear once again what Strabo saith , The Coppadocians who use the same language, are those chiefly who are bounded South-ward, with that part of Silicia, that is called Taurus East-ward by Armenia, and Colchis; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and other interjacent Countries, that use a different language. What amongst these other languages, should be the Lycaonian, let him find out, that hath leisure and capacity to do it. As for my part I neither can, nor dare attempt it.

CHAP. XV.

VERS. II.

WERE I to render these words into the Talmudic Language (which was the School Language) I would render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 terms very well known in the Schools; according to which Idiom, if they were expounded, there would be no difficulty in them.

Of this journey Paul himsel makes some mention, Gal. II. 1. where he intimates that he went up by revelation, that is, given to the Ministers of Antioch: for it would not have been said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , they determinded, if the Revelation had been made to Paul himself. Amongst others that •• companied him in his journey, Titus was one: But where he adopted him to himself▪ in those his journeys described Chap. XIII. and XIV. let him guess that can.

VERS. VII.

I Do not question but St. Peter in these words had an eye to that saying of our Savior, I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, viz. that thou mayst first open the door of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Then it was that the Lord chose him, that by his mouth first the Gentiles might hear the word of the Gospel, and might believe. This he saith was done 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , In former days: that is, as he speaks elsewhere, In the time when Jesus went in and out amongst them, Acts I. 21. which time is expressed by our Evangelists by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ From the beginning, Luke I. 2.

VERS. XVI.

RAB. Nachman said to R. Isaac, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Whence art thou taught when Bar Naphli will come? He saith unto him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Who is this Bar Naphli? The other replied; it is the Messiah. Dost thou then call the Messias Bar Naphli? Yes, saith he, for it is written, In that day I will build again the Tabernacle of David, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nopheleth, falling down.

VERS. XVII.

I. I Think it will hardly be denied by any but that St. James spake now in Hebrew, i. e. in the Syriac Tongue. For reason will tell us that the Council at Jerusalem would be managed best in the language of Jerusalem: and indeed the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Simeon, with which he begins his discourse, argues that he spoke Hebrew amongst Hebrews; not so much in that he saith Simeon and not Simon; as in that he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with the letter v, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Simeon; the Syriac Tongue affecting the letter u, in the first syllable, as in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bu • ra, Gushma, Ductha, and many such words. So also in proper names, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ben Sutda, in Jerusalem Language, for Ben Satda, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mugdala, for Magdala.

II. Neither, I presume, will it be denied that the Apostle quoting this passage of the Prophet recites the very words as they are in the Hebrew: which was always done in their Schools, and Sermons: when they recited any place or testimony of Scripture, they did it always in the very original words. But do you think that the Hebrew words of Amos, in the mouth of James, were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That the residue of men might seek; in which sense the Greek words speak? The Hebrew Text in Amos IX. 12. is thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That they may possess the remnant of Edom. But the Greek Interpreters have it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord. where they add 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Lord, of their own, and is not the Prophets; nor indeed is it in the Roman Copy, but in the Alexandrian M. S. it is.

It is hardly worth our enquiry whether through carelessness or set design they have gone thus wide from the words of the Prophet; for indeed nothing is more common with those Interpreters than to depart after that manner from the Hebrew Text. One may suspect that they did it on purpose here, partly as envying so comfortable a promise made to Edom; and partly, because in the Prophesy next following it is said, There shall be no remnant of the House of Esau, Obad. verse. ult. where they distinguish that also by rendering 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , One that carrieth fire.

III. The Hebrew words of Amos quoted by James, do suit very well with his design and purpose, when to prove that God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name, he cites this, I will build again the Tabernacle of David, that they may possess the remnant of Edom. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The remnant of •• om, in the same sense with the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the remnant of Israel, mentioned, Rom. XI. 5. And by naming Edom one of the bitterest enemies that Israel had, from whom a remnant should be taken out and reserved, the thing propounded is the more clearly made out, viz. That God had visited the Gentiles, &c. The words also in the Greek Version which St. Luke follows, do prove the thing too: mention being made of all Nations seeking after the Lord: and therefore he doth the more safely follow that Version here which indeed he doth almost everywhere; and for what reasons he so doth, I have observed in another place.

IV. I know that the Talmudic and other Jewish Writers understand by the Edomites, commonly the Romans; but why they do so, does not so well appear. But their impudence sufficiently appears, when they introduce the Romans owning themselves for the Children of Esau, or Edom, and making their boasts of it. At Rome once within seventy years, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They bring forth a sound man, [one that represents Esau ] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and make him ride upon a lame man [that represents Jacob, and by that they show how Esau now ruleth over Jacob ] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And they cloth him with the Garments of Adam [those were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Garments of desire that Esau had.] And they put upon his head 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the skin of the head of Rabbi Ishmael [He was the High Priest, that had been killed by the Kingdom of the Romans; but had so comely a face, that Caesar 's Daughter caused the skin of it to be taken off and preserved in Balsom.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And they hang upon him a Pearl of the weight of a Zuzee, — and proclaim before him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The computation of the Lord (of Jacob, as one Gloss, or of Isaac, as another) is falsehood. [That is, his Prophesy by which he promised Redemption to his Children, is a lie.] The Brother of our Lord [i. e. of Esau] is a deceiver. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Whosoever sees [this sight at present] let him see it, and whosoever doth not see it shall not see it, [that is, till the seventieth year again.] What did thy deceiver get by his deceit, and what did that falsifier get by his falsehood? And so at length conclude, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Woe to this man, when he shall arise. [Woe to Esau, when Jacob shall arise.]

I thought fit to transcribe these things, only to give you a specimen, with what confidence the Jewish Writers esteem the Romans for Edomites: of whom they hardly ever speak without spleen and hatred, curse and abhorrency. The words shut within the Parenthesis are not mine but those of the Gloss.

V. I do not belive that the Romans were thus taken for Edomites by the Jews, when the Greek Version was wrote: but yet I do believe that at that time the Edomites were as odious to the Jews: so that it is no wonder, if those interpreters from that hatred should envy them those things Amos had foretold should happen to them that remained of Edom, and diverted his words another way. This is the offering thou shalt receive from them, Gold, Silver, and Brass, Exod. The Gold is Babel: The Silver is Media: The Brass is Greece, Dan. II. But there is no mention of Iron: Why so? Because wicked Edom that wasted the Sanctuary is likened to that. To teach us, that God in time to come will accept an offering from every Kingdom, except Edom.

VERS. XX.

I. IT may with good reason be asked, whether these four things were forbidden under one and the same notion; namely this, That the converted Gentiles might not give offense to the Jews, if they should not abstain from all these things. Or, whether there might not be something else interwoven, viz. that those converted Gentiles might not relapse into something of their former Heathenism: the abstaining from pollutions of Idols, and from Fornication, seems to respect this later, as that of abstaining from things strangled, and from blood, the former.

In the mean time one might wonder at the heart and forehead of the Nicolaitans, who not only practiced, but taught diametrically contrary to this decree of the Apostles, Revel. II. 14, 20. Those Balaamites, and Jezebelites: with what paint could they beautify that horrid and accursed doctrine and practice of theirs? was it the liberty of the Gospel they pretended? or rather did they not abuse that love and charity commanded in the Gospel? Namely, making a show of some more transcendent friendship amongst themselves, they would eat anything with any Man, and lie carnally with any Woman.

I have oftentimes thought of those words of the Apostle, 1 Tim. IV. 3. forbidding to marry. Who were these that forbad to Marry, but especially upon what account did they forbid it? We know indeed upon what unreasonable reason Marriage is forbidden to some, in the Romish Communion, in these later ages of the world; but to whom, and upon what occasion it was forbidden in those lasts days of the Jewish Economy (to which times the Apostle refers, in this place) is not easily determined.

As to the clause that follows immediately in the Apostle, commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received, &c. that passage comes into my mind, When the Temple was destroyed the second time, the Pharisees [i. e. the Separatists] were greatly multiplied in Israel, who taught that it was not lawful to eat flesh, nor to drink wine. R. Joshua applied himself to them and said, My Sons who do you not eat flesh nor drink any wine? They say unto him, shall we eat flesh, that were wont to offer it upon the Altar, and that Altar is now broken down? shall we drink wine, that were wont to pour it out upon the Altar, which Altar is now gone? If it be so, saith he, then we should not eat bread, because the Offerings of bread-corn are ceased: we should not eat any fruits, because the offering of first-fruits is at an end. We should not drink water, because the drink offering is ceased, &c. And a little after, Since the Kingdom of iniquity [the Roman Empire] hath decreed sharp things against us — it is but just that we should ordain amongst ourselves 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not to marry Wifes, nor beget Children, &c. and so it would come to pass that the seed of Abraham would decay and fail of itself. But let Israel rather be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mistaken than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 presumptuous.

How great a difference is there between these men, and the Nicolaitans? And yet these as foolishly and superstitiously erred in one extreme, as those did impiously and filthily in the other. As to the Nicolaitans, we may wonder at their ignorance if they knew nothing of this decree of the Apostles; and their impudence in so bold a contradiction, if they did.

In the Epistle of the Council it is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . From meats offered to Idols. The Rabbins distinguish the matter (when they discourse of what is forbidden concerning Idolatry) into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 things prohibited to eat, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 things prohibited to use. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or things offered to Idols, were prohibited to eat. And all the Utensils about any Idolatrous Sacrifice, were prohibited to use. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , doubtless comprehended all things offered to Idols, and perhaps all the Utensils too: and it is no impertinent question, whether that in the Epistle commanding them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to abstain from things offered to Idols, did not restrain them from the use of all such Utensils, as well as from the eating of things offered.

Any one may discern how obvious this twofold enquiry is. Namely, of what Fornication the discourse here is; and for what reason Fornication, whatsoever it is, should be reckoned here amongst the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or indifferent things.

I. When I recollect what we frequently meet with amongst the Rabbins, that some things are permitted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for peace sake; and some things forbidden 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by reason of the customs of the Amorites, or the Gentiles: I am apt to suspect, in these decrees of the Apostles there is some relation to both: that it was permitted to the converted Gentiles, to Judaize in some things for peace sake; but to abstain in other, not that they might not Judaize, but that they might not do as the Heathen.

II. Particularly in this prohibition of Fornication, we must consider, that it is not so proper to think there needed any peculiar command or prescript of the Apostles, to those that had embraced Christianity, against Fornication in the common notion and acceptation of the word, whenas the whole tenor of the Gospel prescribed against it. And for that very reason I cannot persuade myself that by blood forbidden in this place, we are to understand murder.

III. There was a certain Fornication amongst the Jews that seemed to them lawful, and had some color of Legitimation: this was Polygamy, Hos. IV. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They commit whoredom and shall not increase: So the Chaldee and Syriac, and our own Translation render it well. But now Fornication, as it denotes Whoredom, doth not wish or expect any offspring, but the contrary rather: But the words relate to Bigamy, or Polygamy. For in case of the Wife's barrenness, it was a common thing for them to take to them another Woman, or more for propagation sake; and this it is that God brands with the reproachful name of Fornication. They commit Fornication but do not multiply. Whatever else is understood by this word; I would certainly understand this, namely, That the Apostles prescribed against Polygamy, a thing esteemed indifferent amongst the Jews (as fornication was amongst the Gentiles) and therefore not unfitly mentioned here amongst things indifferent.

Tell me in what place in the New Testament Bigamy, or Polygamy, is forbidden, if not in this? perhaps you will say in that of our Savior, Matth. XIX. 4, 5. Where indeed provision is made against putting away of a Man's Wife, but hardly against Polygamy, especially comparing the Apostles words, 1 Cor. VI. 16. Provision is made that Bishops and Deacons shall not have two Wifes, 1 Tim. III. and I should not believe but that the same provision is made against the Bigamy of the Laity. But where is that done, if not in this place?

IV. There was another Fornication, ordinarily so reckoned also in the opinion of the Jews themselves (for they did not account the having many Wives to be Fornication) and that was, besides what they call simple Fornication, their marrying within the prohibited degrees, that which they commonly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nakedness. These Marriages they were so averse to, that to some of them they allotted Death, to all of them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or cutting off. Concerning which Maimonides speaks largely . In the mean time they allowed the Gentile that became a proselyte to the Jewesh Religion, to marry with his Kindred though never so near in blood, with his Sister, if he pleased, or with his Mother, &c. Hence perhaps arose that incestuous Marriage mentioned 1 Cor. V. They did well therefore to provide by this Apostolical decree, against such kind of Marriages as these, being so odious to the Jews.

These (I suppose) were forbidden the Gentile converts for the sake of the Jews, and by way of condescension, that they might not take offense. By blood therefore ••• by no means understand murder; by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , strangled, shall be considered by and by▪

1. For wherefore should any mention of murder come into this present controves •• • Were the Gentile converts to be brought over to Moses? when the Moral precepts of Moses scarcely came in their minds, as being the precepts even of Nature itself. But the question is about ceremonials, and what hath murder to do in that? and as I have already said, what need could there be of such peculiar caution against Murder to those who had embraced the Gospel of love and peace?

II. By the prohibition of blood therefore, I make no question but that caution is given against eating of blood: which is more than once prohibited in the Law, Gen. IX. 4. Deut. XII. 16, &c. and there could hardly anything (except an Idol) be named, that the Jew had a greater abhorrence for, than the eating of blood.

III. The Jews distinguish between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the member of a living beast, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the blood of a living Beast . The former is forbidden by that, Flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat. The later also is forbidden, Thou shalt not eat blood let out by the cutting of a vein, or any other way, from any beast, saith R. Chaninah in the place above quoted. See also Pesikta, and R. Solomon , and instead o • more, that passage: Wherefore is blood forbidden five times in Scripture? [Gen. IX. 4. Levite. III. 17. & VII. 26. & XVII. 10. Deut. XII. 16.] That the blood of Animals that are holy might be included, and the blood of Animals not Holy, and the blood that was to be covered in the dust, and the blood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the member of a living Beast, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the blood that is let out, by the cutting of a vein, or otherwise. God himself adjudgeth him that eats blood to be cut off, Levite. VII. 27, &c. But as to this matter there are wondrous nice and subtle questions and distinctions laid down in Maimonides; I will only transcribe this one: As to the blood that is let out, and the blood of the members, viz. of the Spleen, the Kidneys, the Testicles, and the blood gathered about the heart in the time of slaying, and the blood found about the Liver, they are not guilty of cutting off; but whoever eateth of any of that blood let him be scourged: because it is said, Thou shall eat no blood. But concerning being guilty to cutting off, it is said, because the life of the flesh is in the blood. A man therefore is not guilty of cutting off, unless he eats of that blood with which the life goes out.

IV. I know what the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , strangled flesh, in Atheneus mean: but that hath no place here, nor is there any reason why such Meats as he there sets on the Table, should be forbidden even to the Jew. Nor would I by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , strangled, understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the member of a living Beast, partly because I suppose that included in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , blood; and partly because it is thus determined by the Rabbins concerning it. They learn by tradition that that which is said in the Law, Thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh, forbids the eating of a member torn from a living Animal: and concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the member cut off from a living Beast, God saith to Noah, But flesh with the life which is the blood thereof, shalt thou not eat. So that, to eat a member so cut off, is to eat blood: and under that clause 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and from blood, is contained the prohibition of eating both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the blood of a living Beast, and also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the member of a living Beast. And under that clause 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and of things strangled, is the prohibition of eating flesh of a Beast not well killed, so as the blood issueth not one as it ought to do. Concerning which there is a large discourse in the Tract Cholin, obscure and tedious enough; however, I cannot but note one passage out of it. If any one desire to eat of a Beast before the life of it be gone, let him cut off a piece of flesh from the killing place, to the quantity of an Olive, and salt it very well, and wash it very well, and stay till the life of the Beast be gone out of him, and then he may eat it: this is equally lawful both to the stranger and to the Israelite. When we speak of not eating of flesh which the blood is not duly got out of, it is not necessary we should include within this rank 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that which dies of itself, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that which is torn of wild Beasts.

CHAP. XXIII.

VERS. II.

IT is a question among some Expositors whether this Ananias be the same Ananias that Josephus mentions, that was High Priest. And I ask again, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place, be to be necessarily rendered High Priest.

I. That Ananias the High Priest whom Josephus mentions , was sent bound to Rome, by Quadratus the Governor of Syria, to render an account of his actions to Claudius Caesar, and that, before Felix entered upon the procuratorship of Judea; but whether he ever returned to Jerusalem again, is uncertain: still more uncertain whether ever restored to his place of High Priest: and most uncertain of all, whether he filled the Chair at that time when Paul pleaded his cause, which was some years after Felix had been settled in the Government, Acts XXIV. 10.

II. About this time there was one Ananias, a man very much celebrated indeed, but not the High Priest, only the Sagan of the Priests, concerning whom the Talmudic Writers record these passages: There were thirteen Corban Chests, thirteen Tables, thirteen Adorations in the Temple: But to them that were of the House of Rabban Gamaliel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and to those that were of the House of R. Ananias, Sagan of the Priests, there were fourteen, &c. R. Ananias Sagan of the Priests saith, &c. Ananias Sagan of the Priests was slain in the time of the destruction (of Jerusalem) with Rabban Simeon the Son of Gamaliel. R. Ananias the Sagan, is said to be slain on the five and twentieth day of the month Sivan, together with Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel, and R. Ishmael.

If we cannot reconcile the Ananias in Josephus, with this in St. Luke; let Ananias the Sagan be the Ananias mentioned in this place, who may very well be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or High Priest, as may be evident from those titles given to Annas and Caiaphas; Luk. III. 2. Nor doth anything hinder but that we may easily suppose that Ananias the Sagan was in the possession of his Saganship at this very time.

VERS. V.

I. SUppose he might not know that man to have been the High Priest, or the Sagan (which is hardly probable) yet he could not be ignorant, from the rank he held, and the seat he possessed, that he must be at least one of the Fathers of the Sanhedrin, and Rulers of the people, and so in reviling him, he transgressed that precept, Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people, as well as if he had reviled the High Priest.

II. It is very little to the credit of the Apostle to think, that when he said, God shall smite thee thou whited wall, &c. That he uttered it rashly and unadvisedly, or carried away in an heat of passion and indignation, or that he did not know whom he thus threatened, or what degree and office he held. But he spoke it soberly, and as became an Apostle, by the Authority and guidance of the Holy Ghost. Nor did he, nor had he any need, to retract those words, or make apology for his rashness, but they are of the very same tenor with the rest, that he uttered.

III. If this Ananias was that Sagan of the Priests that perished in the destruction of Jerusalem, as hath been already said, I would conceive his death was foretold prophetically by the Apostle, rather than that he rashly poured out words, that he afterwards retracted. Let me therefore paraphrase upon the words before us,

IV. The President of the Sanhedrin at this time was Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel: his Father Gamaliel, having been dead about two or three years before. Paul knew Simeon, and Simeon very well knew him, having been fellow Disciples, and both sat together at the feet of Gamaliel; nor indeed could he be ignorant of any of the Rulers of the people, if they were of any age, because he had been so long educated and conversed in Jerusalem. So that it is very improbable he should not know either Ananias the High Priest, if he were now present, or Ananias the Sagan, or indeed any of the Fathers of the Sanhedrin if they had any years upon their backs.

Indeed not a few years had passed since he had left Jerusalem: But seeing formerly he had spent so many years there, and had been of that Degree and Order, that he was an Officer of the Sanhedrin, and had a Patent from them; he could not have so slippery and treacherous a memory, but that upon his return, he could readily know and distinguish their faces and persons. And whereas it is said in the Verse immediately following, That Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, &c. If it should be asked whence he came to distinguish so well concerning their persons; it may be answered, That (if he had no other ways to know them) he might understand that by his former knowledge of them; He had known them from the time that he himself had been a Pharisee, and conversed among them. See Chap. XXII. 5.

V. Forasmuch therefore as he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I wist not, I do not see how it can argue so much an ignorance of his person (with whom he might have had some former transactions, in obtaining that accursed commission against the followers of Christ) but that it must relate to his affection rather than his understanding. So that the sense is, I knew not that there was any High Priest at all: or, I do not acknowledge this person for such an one. It was safer to inveigh against the person, than the office: But if he had said concerning the very office, I do not know that there is any High Priest at all; I question not but he had uttered his mind: being well assured, that that High Priesthood was now antiquated, by the death of our great High Priest, Jesus.

For let us lay down this Problem: Although the Apostle, as to other things, had owned the service of the Temple (for he was purified in it.) Yet, as to the High Priesthood, he did not own the peculiar ministry of that; doth it not carry truth with it? seeing God by an irrefragrable token, viz. the rending of the Veil of the Temple from the top to the bottom, had shewn the end and abolishing of that office.

But suppose the words of the Apostle relate to the person and not the office, and that they were spoken in reference to the man himself, I do not own him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , High Priest, that he is not worthy of that title: Perhaps St. Paul knew of old how wicked a person he had been; or from his present injustice, or rash severity, had reason enough to make such a reply. To know, instead of to own and acknowledge, is not unusual in Scripture style; that is a sad and dreadful instance enough, I know you not, depart from me, ye workers of iniquity. And in the Jewish Writings, when R. Judah being angry with Bar Kaphrah, only said to him, I know thee not, he went away as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one rebuked, and took 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the rebuke to himself. The story is this: When bar Kaphrah came to visit him, he said unto him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 O Bar Kaphrah, I never knew thee; He understood what he meant: Therefore he took the rebuke unto himself for the space of thirty days.

VERS. VIII.

WHAT therefore is the Religion of a Sadducee? He Prays, he Fasts, he offers Sacrifice, he observes the Law, and yet doth not expect a Resurrection, or life Eternal. To what end is this Religion? It is that he may obtain Temporal good things, observing only the promise of them, made in the Law, and he seeks for nothing beyond the mere letter. That the Sadducees took their denomination from one Sadoc, a Disciple of Antigonus Socheus, is commonly received, and that not without reason. In the mean time it may not be amiss to inquire whether Sadoc did himself deny the resurrection; and whether he rejected all the Books of the Holy Scripture excepting the five Books of Moses, which the Sadducees in some measure did.

I. The Jewish writers do relate his story with so much variety, that as some represent him, we might think he denies the resurrection and future rewards; but as others, that he did not. For so say some, Sadoc and Baithus, were the heads of the Heretics, for they erred concerning the words of their Master, &c. Sadoc and Baithus hearing this passage from their Master, be ye not as Servants that serve their Master for hire and reward sake, &c. they said among themselves, our Master teaches us, that there is neither reward nor punishment, &c. Therefore they departed from the rule, and forsook the Law, &c.

Others say otherwise; Antigonus Socheus had two disciples, who delivered his doctrine to their Disciples, and their Disciples again to their Disciples; They stood forth, and taught after them, and said, what did our Fathers see that they should say, It is possible for a laborer to perform all his work for the whole day, and yet not receive his wages in the Evening? Surely, if our Fathers had thought there was another world, and the resurrection of the dead, they would not have said thus, &c. Antigonus Socheus had two Disciples, their names Sadoc and Baithus: He taught them saying, be ye not as hirelings that serve their Masters only that they may receive their pay, &c. They went and taught this to their Disciples, and to the Disciples of their Disciples 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but they did not expound his sense. [Mark that] There arose up after them that said, if our Fathers had known that there were a resurrection, and a recompense for the just in the world to come, they had not said this. So they arose up and separated from the Law, &c.— And from thence sprung those two evil Sects, the Sadducees and Baithusians. Let us but add that of Ramban, mentioned before, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sadoc and Baithus did not understand the sense of their Master, in those words, Be ye not as Servants, who serve their Master for the rewards sake, &c.

From all which compared together, as we find the Jewish writers varying from one another somewhat, in relating this story; so from the later passages compared, one would believe that Sadoc was not a Sadducee, nor Baithus a Baithusian; that is, that neither of them were leavened with that heresy that denied the resurrection, &c. There was an occasion taken from the words of Antigonus misunderstood and depraved, to raise such an heresy, but it was not by Sadoc, or Baithus, for they did not understand the sense of them, saith Ramban; and as it appears out of the Aruch, they propounded the naked words to their Disciples without any Gloss at all upon them, and their Disciples again to the Disciples that followed them. So that the name, sect and heresy of the Sadducees does not seem to have sprung up till the second or third generation after Sadoc himself: which, if I mistake not, is not unworthy our remark, as to the Story and Chronology. There was a time when I believed (and who believes it not?) being led to it by the Author of Juchasin, and Maimonides, that Sadoc himself was the first Author of the Sect and Heterodoxy of the Sadducees; but weighing a little more strictly this matter from the allegations I have newly made out of R. Nathan and Aruch, it seems to me more probable, that that sect did not spring up till many years after the death of Sadoc. Let us compare the times.

The Talmudists themselves own that story that Josephus tells us of Jaddua, whom Alexander the great met, and worshipped: but they alter the name, and say it was Simeon the just. Let those endeavor to reconcile Josephus with the Talmudists about the person and the name, who believe anything of the story and thing itself, but let Simeon the just and Jaddua be one and the same person, as some would have it So then the times of Simeon the just, and Alexander the great are coincident. Let Antigonus Socheus, who took the chair after him, be contemporary with Ptolomeus Lagu • . Let Sadoc and Baithus, both his Disciples be of the same age with Ptolomeus Philadelphus. And so the times of at least one generation (if not a second) of the Disciples of Sadoc may have run out, before the name of Sadducees took place.

If there be any truth or probability in these things, we shall do well to consider them, when we come to inquire upon what reasons the Sadducees received not the rest of the Books of the sacred Volume with the same authority they did those of the five Books of Moses. I ask therefore first, whether this was done before the Greek Version was writ? You will hardly say Antigonus, or indeed Sadoc his Disciple was touched with this error. He would have been a monster of a president of the Sanhedrin, that should not acknowledge that distinction of the Law, the Prophets and Holy writings. And it would be strange if Sadoc should from his Master renounce all the other books, excepting the Pentateuch.

The Sadducees might learn indeed from the Scribes and Pharisees themselves to give a greater share of honor to the Pentateuch, than the other Books, for even they did so: but that they should reject them, so at least as not to read them in their Synagogues, there was some other thing that must have moved them to it.

When I take notice of this passage, that five of the Elders translated the Law into Greek for Ptolemy; and that in Josephus that the Law only was translated, and both these before so much as the name or sect of the Sadducees were known in the world, I begin to suspect the Sadducees, especially the Samaritans, might have drawn something from this example. At least if that be true that is related by Aristeas, that he was under an Anathema, that should add anything to, or alter anything in that Version. When the Sadducees therefore would be separating into a Sect, having imbibed that heresy, that there is no resurrection, and wrested the words of Antigonus into such a sense, it is less wonder if they would admit of none but the Books of Moses only, because there was nothing plainly occured in them, that contradicted their error; and further because those ancients of great name, having rendered those five Books only into Greek, seem to have consigned no other, for Books of a divine stamp, I do not at all think that all the Sadducees did follow that Version; but I suspect, that the Samaritans took something from thence into their own text. It is said by some in defense of the Greek Version, that in many things it agrees with the Hebrew Text of the Samaritans, as if that Text were purer than our Hebrew, and that the Greek Interpreters followed that Text. They do indeed agree often; but if I should say that the Samaritan Text in those places, or in some of them hath followed the Greek Version, and not the Greek Version the Samaritan Text, I presume, I should not be easily consuted.

Shall I give you one or two agreements in the very beginning of the Pentateuch? In Gen. II. 2. the Hebrew Text is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For God ended his work on the Seventh day. But the Greek hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God finished his work on the sixth day. The Samaritan Text agrees with this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He finished his work on the sixth day, &c. You will say the Greek Version translated according to the Samaritan Text. I say the Samaritan Text was framed according to this Greek Version. Who shall determine this matter between us? That which goes current amongst the