he himself said (Matt. 10, 34.), "I come not to send peace, but a sword." Edit.] He knew not, (is it likely that he should have done?) the true cause of the tumult; and he followed uncertain rumour. It happened to him, as it has done to other Heathen writers when treating of Jewish affairs, especially such as concern religion, qui non tam loquuntur quàm balbutiunt. (Wassenburg ap. Valckn. Schol.)

3. διὰ τὸ ὁμότεχνον εἶναι. Ὁμότεχνος is properly an adjective of two genders (see the examples produced by Raphel and Wets.); but it is here, as often, used substantively, and may be paralleled by our common expression, "a brother-trade," and others yet more vulgar. Kuinoel remarks that Paul had planned and purposed to stay at Corinth for a considerable time; since in that populous city, and highly frequented mart of commerce, he might expect favourable opportunities for disseminating the doctrines of Christ: but, lest he should be thought burthensome to his new converts, determined to support himself by his labour at the trade which, according to the custom of the Jews,* he had been taught, and probably had hitherto occasionally exercised. See Thes. 2, 9. 2 Thes. 3, 8.

3. ἦσαν γὰρ σκηνοποιοὶ τὴν τέχνην. Subaud κατὰ. On the import of Koos Commentators are by no means agreed. The general opinion is, that it signifies a tent-maker. But Luther, Morus, and others, take it to mean a weaver of tapestry. Others, a maker of mathematical instruments. Others again, a saddler. All these modes of interpretation, however, lie open to particular exceptions, which my limits will not permit me to state; and to one general objection, namely, that these occupations would require too much skill and experience for a person so differently employed, as Paul had been, to have gained a creditable living by.

* So Maimonides, in Tract. Talmud. Tora C. 1. § 9. Sapientes plurimi artem aliquam fecerunt, ne aliorum beneficentia indigerent. See Schoettg. Dissert, de Christo Rabbinorum summo.

Kuinoel, after a laborious examination of all the opinions, acknowledges that the simplest and most probable is the common one, which supposes St. Paul to have been a tent-maker, in the common acceptation. And in this I must myself acquiesce. But I see no reason why we should not include the hypothesis of Schurzfleisch, Dindorf, Rosenm., and (as it seems) Schoettgen, who supposes that he made those portable tents, formed of leather, or thick cloth, which (from a scarcity of inns, and from the heat of the sun) travellers still use in the East. Such he might surely manufacture, as well as military tents. After all, however, as Schoettgen has rightly remarked, the question can scarcely be positively determined, without a more accurate acquaintance with the antiquities of the trades of the antients. He freely confesses that he could make out nothing certain from Talmudical and Rabbinical antiquities.

Wetstein tells us that St. Paul had before exercised this art among the Arabians, because some were named ΣKYTal, as dwelling in tents. But this is utterly improbable, since those people used to themselves manufacture whatever they had need of.

4. διελέγετο δὲ — καὶ Ἕλληναις. Here we find the Apostle pursuing his usual plan; namely, that of addressing the Jews first. (Kuin.) "Erede is rendered by most recent Commentators docebat; which, however, seems too arbitrary an interpretation. Still less can I approve of that adopted by Reichard, and commended by Kuinoel, studebat præparare. Without wandering so far from the primitive sense, we may render it, "persuading them (to believe and embrace Christianity)." So 19, 8. Teilwv τà Tegì Tâs βασιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ. And 26 & 28. πείθων αὐτοὺς τὰ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. But the most apposite passage is that of 2 Cor. 5, 11. εἰδότες οὖν τὸν φόβον τοῦ Κυρίου ἀνθρώπους πείθομεν. It is strange that all the above are by Schleusner, in his Lex., classed under the head doceo, trado. Now it is evident that in this use of Teído some word corresponding to believe, &c.

is left to be supplied. And therefore it supposes the use of arguments calculated to convince the understanding, and thus sway the will to obedience.

The 'Exaves are by almost all modern Commentators regarded as proselytes of the gate. Doddridge, however, as usual, take exceptions to this interpretation, though, as it should seem, on insufficient grounds.

5. ws de KaTĥov, &c. See the note on 17, 14.

5. συνείχετο τῷ λόγω ὁ Παῦλος, &c. The common reading is συνείχετο τῷ πνεύματι. Now since συνέ Xeoba, among other significations, denotes angi, mærore corripi (see Luke 12, 50. and the note on Matt. 4, 24.), many Commentators, as Hammond, Mill, and Wolf, explain, "angebatur Paulus animo, dum docebat Judæos, Jesum esse Messiam ;" viz. "since he could produce no effect among them." And they compare ver. 6. But this interpretation is at variance with the context.

Now ouvexw also signifies to incite, urge; as in 2 Cor. 5, 14. Hence Beza, Pricæus, and others, explain: "intus et apud se æstuebat præ zeli ardore ;" which interpretation I should admit, if there were not reason to suppose, from the authority of MSS. and Versions, that the true reading, (though the more difficult one,) is λóyw, of which the best interpretation, and that most suitable to the context, is the one found in the Vulg. "instabat verbo." For σuvéxeobaι denotes also to be held, occupied by any thing; as in Sap. 17, 20. κόσμος ἀνεμποδίστοις συνεί χετο ἔργοις. Herodot. 1, 17, 22. συνεχόμενος ἡδοναῖς. Ælian, V. H. 14, 22. σvvéxeoba odupu. This signification of the word being admitted, the sense will be: "When they had approached whom Paul (who knew that combined strength is most efficacious) had expected as his assistants in promulgating the Christian doctrine, and of whom, in so large and populous a city there was need, then he applied himself closely to the work of teaching." (Kuin.)

VOL. IV.

2 Q

Most Commentators for the last century prefer the reading λóyw; and our English Critics have contended for it with ability. "Luke seems (says Bp. Pearce) to have intended to express something relating to Paul, which was the consequence of the coming of Silas and Timotheus; and that was rather his labouring with them more abundantly in preaching the word, than his being pressed in spirit."

Markland professes that he does not understand the common text, unless συνείχετο διαμαρτυρόμενος can signify συνείχετο διαμаprúρeσ0αι. "The version, was pressed in the Spirit and testified, μαρτύρεσθαι. cannot (says he) be right, is quite different from åñeλðìν áñýyξατο, he went and hanged himself, cr λαβοῦσα γυνὴ ἐνέκρυψε, α woman took and hid, and the like. One might think something had been wanting in the present copies, there being seemingly no reason why Paul should be συνεχόμενος τῷ πνεύματι (as some copies read) after the arrival of Silas and Timotheus, any more than he was before. The Vulgate, translating it instabat verbo, pressed, or urged, the word, seems to have read évékeito tų Xóyw, which makes good sense." I cannot, however, assent to the learned Commentator, that we are to read évékeɩto, since for it there is no authority whatever. And the testimony of the antient Versions, in such a case as the present, is of little weight. Certainly there are difficulties attending either reading: but fewer (I think) connected with λóyw. Indeed the two readings are so different they could not have been accidentally interchanged: and one of them must be a παραδιόρθωσις. Now the question is which could have most easily arisen er interpretatione? I do not hesitate to say vеúμari. The phrase ovvéxeolαι vεúμаτi seems to be the easier: but even on the interpretation of that Commentators are not agreed. The earlier ones, as Casaubon, Grotius, and Heinsius, take it to denote the Holy Spirit. But, as Doddridge remarks, the phrase would seem rather to refer to the effect which that agency produced. And he renders, "borne away by a strong impulse in his spirit:" which interpretation (adopted also by Luther and Schleusner) is indeed suitable enough; but of this sense of the verb no example has been adduced. Our common version, pressed in spirit, seems more correct, but (as has been before observed) is unsuitable. Besides the difficulty mentioned by Markland, with respect to the participle, cannot be got over; for in such a case it will not admit of being taken for the infinitive. As, therefore, the present reading is not only not the less difficult, but is inconsistent with any rules of legitimate interpretation, and yields no sense to our purpose, we must (I think) choose the other, Xóye, which, though somewhat obscure, admits of a satisfactory explication. Now the verb ovvéxeo Dai denotes properly to be held or occupied with or about, distineri negotio; as in the passages of Sirach and Herodian above cited; to which I add, Thucyd. 3, 98. r avτų nóvų žvvexóuevos. Polyb. 1, 7, 9. συνέχεσθαι τοῖς πολέμοις : and 4, 17, 4. στάσεσι συνεσχῆσθαι. Eurip. Heraclid. 634. συνέχεσθαι φρόντιδι. J. Chrysost. συνέXeolαι проovμía. Demosth. 396, 22. Edit. Reisk. рáyμao ovrειχόμην.

Whitby endeavours to explain πvevpari. But there is more of subtlety than truth in his method of treating the term. Wetstein adduces a passage of Strabo where ouvexer is found in the same sentence with veμa. But the verb is in the active voice, and TVеuμа in the accusative; and the sense is, draw in, or hold, the breath.

6. ἀντιτασσομένων αὐτῶν, “ opposing themselves to him." Now avτITάoσe is properly a military term, and signifies to draw up in order opposite to an enemy: but is often, as here, used in a metaphorical sense, to denote opposition of every sort, even by words; and thus may be rendered contradict. Of this signification Elsner has adduced two examples from Isocr.; and Munthe one from Diodorus Siculus. I add a very elegant passage of Thucyd. 3, 83. τὸ δὲ ἀντιτετάχθαι ἀλλήλοις τῇ γνώμῃ ἀπίστως ἐπὶ πολὺ SveyKey; on which obscure passage the Commentators, with their usual wisdom, or prudence, have chosen to say nothing.

6. ἐκτιναξάμενος τὰ ἱμάτια. This shaking the garments seems to bear a close affinity to the custom mentioned in 13, 51., and was, like it, a symbolical action, implying that we desire to have no longer any communion with another. (See the note on 13, 51.) The next words, τὸ αἷμα ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν ὑμῶν, are strongly metaphorical, and in them there is an ellipsis of reverai (see Aristoph. Nub. 39.) or Tρé

TOITO.

See Aristoph. Acharn. 833., Muret. Lectt. Var. 12, 4., Kuster on Aristoph. Plut. 526., and Bos Ellip. By alux is here meant, not slaughter, but destruction in a figurative sense, i. e. perdition in another world. The sense therefore is: "For your perdition you can have no one to blame but yourselves; it is to yourselves alone that you must impute it."* See Vorst. de Hebr. 416. (Kuin.)

* This manner of speaking was usual both with the Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. So 2 Sam. 1, 16. Ez. 33, 4. "his blood shall be upon him: but he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul." Matt. 27, 25. Aristoph. Nub. 39. eis tùv kepaλýv äzavra tùv oùv rpétera. Phal. Ep. 128. Ter. Hecyr. 2, 1, 54. Capiti illorum. Virg. Æn. S, 483. Dii capiti ipsius, generique reservent.

The