vate house, at which (as some think) there had been held a private synagogue of the Galilæans. Be that, however, as it may, it is certain that upper apartments were, in the houses both of the Greek and Oriental nations, so constructed as to serve for the purposes of dining-rooms, parlours, apartments for taking exercise, &c. and from their stillness and privacy, were often appropriated, as oratories, to the purposes of united and family worship, or religious retirement and private prayer. Michaelis compares the Arabian Alegan. On the names see Matt. 10, 2, seqq. After 'IakaBov subaud adeλpòs, which is a somewhat unfrequent ellipsis. See Luke 6, 16. Jud. 1. Alc. 2, 2. where see Bogler., and Eurip. Iph. A. 768. See also Wess. on Diodor. Sic. 1, 312. all referred to by Kuinoel.

14. προσκαρταροῦντες ὁμοθυμαδὸν τῇ προσευχῇ. Here are three things to be observed: first, the syntax and sense of προσκαρταρεῖν, which carries a dative, and is used both with a person, in the sense of to be by, to wait upon any one, (as in Acts 8, 13. 10, 7. Demosth. 386, 6.) and with a thing; but chiefly with the latter, and, from the adjunct, signifies to apply oneself closely to any thing. This use is common both to the Scriptures (as 2, 42. Rom. 17, 12. Col. 4, 2. Acts 6, 4.) and to the Classical writers; examples of which may be seen in Schl. Lex. Secondly, we may observe the use of the participle and auxiliary verb instead of the imperfect; a periphrasis very frequent, especially in the later Greek writers. Kuinoel refers to the numerous examples brought together by Fischer on Weller, T. 3. P. 2. p. 4. Oμobupadov is a word frequently used by St. Luke, and once by St. Paul, in Rom. 15, 6. It not unfrequently occurs in the Sept. simply in the sense of together; as in Num. 24, 24. καὶ αὐτοὶ ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἀπολοῦνται, and Jos. Ant. 15, 8, 2. ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐξηβόων. It is explained by the Gloss. vett. simul, and by Suidas and Hesychius ὁμοῦ οι ὁμοψύχως. It occurs not unfrequently in the Classical writers, of which

examples are adduced by Wets. T. 2, 93. from Xen. Hist. 7. Herodot. 2, 3, 6. Demosth. Phil. 4. Philo 2, 92, & 102. and Liban. Or. 446 B.

The word dee is nearly synonymous with the preceding poreux, but I cannot see on what principle it has been expunged from the text by Griesbach and Heinrichs. It carries every mark of genuineness, even in that pleonastic use which is so characteristic of the Oriental and Hellenistic style, and of which we have examples in Eph. 6, 18. Phil. 4, 6. By the yuvaîkes are not merely meant (as some have supposed) the wives of the Apostles and brethren of our Lord, (otherwise, as Wolf observes, auty would have been added,) but the women generally, including those who had followed our Lord out of Galilee, "and ministered unto him of their substance," (see Matt. 27, 55. Luke 8, 2, & 3. 24, 10.) and who (as Kuinoel observes) had joined themselves to the Apostles with so much the more decorous propriety, since the Mother of Jesus did herself form a part of their body, as having her abode with John. By Jesus's brethren being mentioned, it is clear that they were now faithful believers, however they had formerly been induced to doubt of his Messiahship, and were swayed by worldly minded views. See the note on Joh. 7, 3.

15. From this verse to the end of the chapter, we have the exhortation of Peter to the Apostles to choose another in the room of Judas Iscariot, and the result of that choice. By pairal we are to understand, not the Apostles only, but the Disciples in general. By vóuara are meant persons, men; as in Apoc. 3, 4. ἔχεις ὀλίγα ὀνόματα. Examples of this idiom are given by Glass, Phil. 896., Raphel in loc., Suic. Thes. 2, 492., and Wetstein; as Polyb. 1426. μαρτυρίαις δὲ χάριν ὁμολογοῦμενα δύο ὀνόματα. Nor is it unknown to the Latin writers; as in Ovid, A. 2, 1, 35. Heroum clara valete nomina. Stat. Theb. 6, 373. Quisnam iste duos, fidissima Phoebo. Nomina, commisit Deus in discrimina reges? I add, Hor.

Carm. 3, 1, 16. Omne capax movet urna nomen. See Gronov. on Liv. 1, 3. After ì Tò autò subaud χωρίον οι οἴκημα. It however simply denotes toge ther, and is explained by Hesych. uou, with which also it is interchanged in the various Greek versions of the Old Testament. This expression (which is often used by St. Luke) may indicate identity of time, or of place, or purposes and views; as in 2, 44. (where see the note,) and perhaps on the present occasion the latter may be associated with the former. By the 201, &c. is merely meant the number of disciples then present, out of a far more considerable number, (upwards of six hundred,) most of whom had remained in Galilee after the Lord's asscension and as to the number assembled for public worship, it would vary according to circum

stances.

16. ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί. See the note on ver. 11. Ἔδει πληρωθῆναι—τὸν Ἰησοῦν. Some Theologians, as Dr. Sykes, Eckerman, and others, join anρwaι with Tepì 'Louda. But the sense thus elicited is neither permitted by the context nor by the usus loquendi; since the phrase πληρωθῆναι περὶ τινὸς, for ἐπὶ or ἐν Tiva, is utterly unauthorized. Nor can I assent to Wolf and Eckerman, that Peter had reference to Ps. 41, 9 & 10. since there is no vestige of any such allusion in the context: whereas, from ver. 20 it is plain that the Apostle had in mind Ps. 49, 25. and 109, 8.; and though there are many parts of both those Psalms which are not to be confined to Judas, but are more applicable to David, yet it is plain, from the Apostle's words, that some passages of these Psalms were meant to have reference to Judas primarily, though not to the exclusion of David. Kuinoel, and other commentators, have recourse to what is called accommodation. But, upon the whole, it seems safer to conclude, with Dr. Doddridge, that while David prophesied of the calamities which should befal his persecutors, it was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit, that the enemies and murderers

of the Messiah should inherit those curses in all their terror, and be yet more miserable than the persons on whom they were more immediately to fall. This fact (in itself exceeding probable) he takes to be asserted in these words, as what was revealed by the same Spirit to the Apostle Peter. After having, for their consolation, reminded them of this prophecy, Peter begins to disclose his intentions more clearly.

17. ὅτι κατηριθμημένος ἦν σὺν ἡμῖν. Wetstein adduces two examples of karappéw, the one without the preposition, the other with perà. 'Ev would have been more elegant; and indeed it is so written in the Cod. Cant. In all the manuscripts, however, in which it is found, it cannot but be considered as a gloss. Kuinoel renders or quamquam; as in Luke 11, 25., and refers to his note on Joh. 5, 25., and Glass, Phil. 5, 31. Markland renders it because: but the former signification, though somewhat rare, seems more agreeable to the context.

καὶ ἔλαχε τὸν κλῆρον τ. δ. τ. Λαγχάνειν properly denotes to receive by lot; as in Luke 1, 9., and then to obtain, receive; as in Xen. Anab. 3, 1, 9. Thus Kapos, which properly signifies lot, or what happens by lot, is transferred to whatever in any way happens to any one, and is used of possession of wealth or property, especially in land, since such possessions were anciently divided among colonists by lot; as in Hesiod Opp. 341. where see Grævius, and Elsner on ver. 25. It is also used of labour enjoined on any one in Polyb. 837. See Raphel in loc. Here kanpos does not designate lot in the same sense with diakovía, apostolical ministry, and is therefore redundant. (Kuin.) It is however, (I conceive,) not so much redundant, as it denotes generally appointment. Hence the word Clericus. See Walchius in a learned dissertation De munere Apostolico. Wetstein illustrates this sense of diaкovía by citing the following words of Æschines Ctesiph. ὅσα τις αἱρετὸς πράττει

κατὰ ψήφισμα, οὐκ ἐστι ταῦτα ἀρχῆ, ἀλλ ̓ ἐπιμέλεια καὶ διακονία.

18, 19. I assent to Kuinoel, Rosenm., and Heinrichs, that these verses are parenthetical, and come from St. Luke, not St. Peter. I cannot, however, but censure the rashness of Dr. Owen, who would entirely cancel them, as if there were any MS. authority for the omission, and the sacred writers were not accustomed to make such explanatory insertions. The words themselves πρηνής γενόμενος involve some difficulty, which has, however, been at large examined, and, as far as the case admits, adjusted in the note on Matth. 27. 5. Kypke compares a similar passage of Joseph. Β. 7, 5, καὶ πταίσας πρὸς τινα πέτραν πρηνὴς ἐπ' αὐτῆς μετὰ μεγίστου ψόφου κατέπεσεν. The word λakéw seems to be an onomatopoeia, like crepo, crack, opéw, &c., and denotes the sound emitted by the bursting of any vessel; and 2dly, the bursting itself (with which our leak and lack appear to be cognate). Of the numerous passages heaped together by Wetstein, the only apposite ones are the following. #lian H. A. 4, 52. ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἵππων πλευ ραῖς ἐμπεσόντες διέσχισαν, καὶ τὰ σπλάγχνα ἐξέχεαν. Cholin, f. 56, 2. Aramæus quidam vidit hominem, qui de tecto in plateam decidit, et ruptus est ejus venter, et viscera ejus effluxerunt.

As to the difficulty involved in ἐκτήσατο χωρίον, which seems at variance with what we learn in the Gospels, namely, of Judas's having thrown down the thirty pieces of silver to the priests, many commentators, as Whitby and Doddridge, remark, that an action is sometimes said in Scripture to be done by a person who was the occasion of doing it, and they compare Gen. 42, 38. Exod. 23, 8. 1 Kings 14, 16. Isa. 6, 10. Jer. 38, 23. Rom. 14, 15. 1 Cor. 7, 16. 1 Tim. 4, 16. But I should rather be inclined to prefer treating this as a figurative catachresis, by which Judas might be said to have bought the field with the wages of iniquity, by receiving such wages as would have bought the field. So 2 Kings,