peared to savour too much of boasting, in one who was brought as a prisoner before him, with such heavy crimes laid to his charge. He, therefore, commanded him to be smitten on the face.

2. And the high-priest, Ananias, commanded them that sood by him to smite him on the mouth “on the face."

This was an act of gross injustice to a man who had yet been convicted of no crime, and was called before the council only for the purpose of being examined, and might well betray the apostle into some warmth.

3. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, "is about to smite thee," thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

In calling the high-priest a whited wall, the apostle has recourse to the same kind of image as that which was employed by Christ, when he said, that the Pharisees were like whited sepulchres, which appear fair outwardly, but within are full of rotten carcasses. Of the same kind was the character of this high-priest, who, pretending to observe the forms of law, was guilty of the grossest injustice. Examples, indeed, of similar treatment were to be found in the Jewish history; for Zedekiah, the son of Chenaniah, ordered Micaiah the prophet to be smitten on the face, when he delivered a prophecy with which he was not pleased; and Pashur the governor, ordered Jeremiah to be treated in the same manner, * on a like occasion. The conduct of the high-priest, in this case, was contrary to the express language of the law, which forbade them to do unrighteousness in judgment; and to its whole spirit and tenor, the great end of it being to administer justice on the principles of equity.

By saying, "God will smite thee," or, "is about to smite thee," the apostle has been supposed to utter a prophecy, predicting the speedy destruction of the high-priest, which was fulfilled in his violent end about five years afterwards, at the beginning of the Jewish wars. But perhaps he meant to express no more, than that God would punish him for this brutal action at the period when all injustice will meet with its reward.

4. And they that stood by, said, Revilest thou God's high-priest?

The office was originally appointed by God, and Aaron chosen to it by the particular destination of the Divine Being. From him it was to descend in succession to the eldest son of the family. In one sense, therefore, the high-priest was God's high-priest; but every one that filled the office was not appointed by God, much less did he behave in a manner becoming his sacred trust.

5. Then said Paul, I wist not, "I knew not," or

* 1 Kings xxii. 24. Jer. xx. 2.

"I did not consider,"* that he was the high-priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of," Thou shalt not revile," the ruler of thy people.

It is not easy to conceive how Paul could be really ignorant in respect to the high-priest; for his dress and station would sufficiently point him out, if he had been unacquainted with his person. His language, therefore, must be supposed to refer to want of consideration, rather than to ignorance. It is as if he had said, Excuse the language which I have used; the warmth of my indignation has led me to speak too freely of this personage, and made me forget the decorum due to his character, even when he acts in a manner unworthy of his office. Had I duly considered this circumstance, and the language of Scripture, I should not have used this freedom.

Paul has now recourse to a stratagem, in order to defeat the malicious purposes of his enemies, by sowing dissensions among them.. His language was undoubtedly ambiguous, and understood with greater latitude by other persons than by himself; for when he calls himself a Pharisee, he does not mean to say, that he embraced all the sentiments of that sect. Some may, therefore, doubt how far the apostle's conduct, on this occasion, was strictly proper. This is a question into which I shall not now enter, but shall content myself with observing, that it is not necessary for Christians to maintain, that the apostle was, on every occasion, free from mistake. It is sufficient for their purpose if he never acted wrongly from intention.

6. But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; of the hope and resurrection of the dead, for the hope and for the resurrection of the dead," I am called in question, "I am judged."

Christianity must have been particularly obnoxious to the Sadducees, on account of the clear manner in which it taught the doctrine of a resurrection, and the strong evidence which it affords for this truth, by the resurrection of Jesus. Their enmity to Paul might justly be said to arise from his being so illustrious an advocate for that cause.

7. And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the multitude was divided.

8. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

The Sadducees maintained that the angels mentioned in Scripture

* Pearce's Note on Matthew xxii. 29.

were not permanent existences, but beings, or rather phantoms, raised up for the occasion on which they were employed; and as they denied the existence of angels, so they did likewise that of any other beings of a similar nature, which men have called spirits, and asserted that the Deity was the only immaterial Being in the universe. In these opinions, with the exception only of that which regards the resurrection, many professors of Christianity of the present day will think they were not far from the truth. The reason why angels are mentioned here by the historian, is to account for the language of the next verse.

9. And there arose a great cry, and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part, arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.

In saying that an angel might possibly have spoken to Paul, they refer to the story which he had told of his conversion, of his having seen Jesus in the way to Damascus, and having heard him speak to him.

10. And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle.

11. And the night following, the Lord, i. e. Jesus Christ our Lord, stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul, "take courage ;" for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

This seems to have been an appearance of Jesus Christ to Paul, not in vision, like that in the temple, but in person, and will serve to explain 1 Thess. iii. 11, "Now God himself and our father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you;" for he prays for such a miraculous appearance of Christ to him to direct his journey as he had enjoyed upon the present occasion. It must be remembered that the apostle was called to the profession of Christianity: was instructed in its doctrines, and invested with the apostolic office by Christ; and he appears from this and other passages, to have been in all his progress, under his special direction. It might, therefore, be very proper in him to offer up an address to Christ: but this is no warrant for our addresses to him, which would indeed be contrary to his express authority, and idolatrous. The apostle's circumstances were peculiar; and he is not, in this respect, an example to Christians in general.

REFLECTIONS.

1. How happy was the apostle, in being able to say, when a prisoner, accused of crime before the Jewish Sanhedrim, "I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." It is, indeed, his own testimony in favour of himself; yet the history of his life proves the truth of his declaration. Nothing but a supreme regard to the convictions of his own mind could have induced him to abandon all worldly prospects, and to embrace a cause which was every where opposed, and its advocates persecuted, by his countrymen. For all his sacrifices and dangers he received no other return than a consciousness of integrity, and the approbation of his own mind. But this return was a sufficient recompense: it was a pledge of the divine favour and of an everlasting reward. It furnished him with a secret joy which was a continual feast, and which he might in vain have looked for from wealth, or honour, or any temporal enjoyment. It made the prisoner at the bar more to be envied than the judge who sat upon the bench. Happy is the man who can adopt this language, not only with respect to one action, but to the whole tenor of his life! The censures of the world cannot wound his heart or distress his mind: he possesses a treasure of which he cannot be deprived by any temporal calamity. If you, my brethren, wish to obtain this prize, pursue the same course; follow the dictates of conscience, whithersoever they may lead, although they may expose you to calumny, suffering, and death.

2. How odious the character of those who pervert the forms of justice, which were established for the protection of innocence and the punishment of guilt, to gratify their private passions! Such was the conduct of this high-priest, who took advantage of his situation as a judge, to offer a cruel and unprovoked insult to a helpless prisoner; and if other judges have not often been guilty of the like indecency, yet they have suffered themselves to be biassed by motives which have proved equally injurious to the cause of justice. They have allowed their opinions and language respecting the guilt or innocence of the persons brought before them to be governed by party spirit, by the prospect of favour or of gain. To such men, the language of the apostle, however improper to be addressed to them in the exercise of their office, is justly applicable. They are whited walls; they bear the fair show of candour, equity, and truth; but they are in reality the reverse of all this; being full of pride, passion, and self-interest. Let such men know that a day is coming, when their evil deeds will be examined by a superior judge, and receive a just recompense of reward.

SECTION XXXIX.

The Jews conspiring to kill Paul, he is sent to Cæsarea.

ACTS xxiii. 12-35.

12. AND when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, "met together," and bound themselves under a curse," an oath of execration," saying, that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.

They imprecated the most dreadful calamities upon themselves if they violated their oaths.

13. And they were more than forty who had made this conspiracy, "had entered into this joint oath."

14. And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves with an oath of execration that we will eat nothing until we have. killed Paul.

15. Now, therefore, ye, with the council, signify to the chief captain that he bring him down unto you to-morrow, as though ye would inquire something more perfectly concerning him and we, or ever before ever" he come near, are ready to kill him.

Paul's enemies, finding that they could not reach him so speedily as they wished by the slow forms of justice, and fearing that he might ultimately escape, resolve to take away his life with their own hands, and to have recourse to stratagem for that purpose. They persuade the chief priests and Sanhedrim, or at least, a certain number of that body, who seem to have approved of their wicked project, to send for Paul again, under pretence of further examination; intending to lie in wait for him by the way, and to put him to death. That their zeal in the execution of this diabolical design might be quickened, they resolve to abstain from food until it should be accomplished. From the circumstance of forty persons immediately entering into this conspiracy, it seems natural to conclude, that the lawfulness of putting to death an apostate from their religion, without waiting for the forms of law, was a prevailing opinion among the Jews at this time. Accordingly we learn, both from Philo and Josephus, Jewish writers, that such was their sentiment. The former recommends the practice to his countrymen from the example of Phineas, mentioned in the Old Testament, and persuades them, when they meet