Page images
PDF
EPUB

should be examined by scourging; that he obtain the means of becoming a Roman citizen ?” might know wherefore they cried so against him. | Paul had informed him that he was a native of

Tarsus, (chap. xxi, 39 ;) and the chief captain

supposed that that was not a free city, and that The castle.— The tower of Antonia. He would

Paul could not have derived the privilege of citibe there removed entirely from the wrath of the Jews. Should be eramined.-'Avetá'Eojau. The

zenship from his birth. But I was free born.word " examine,” with us, commonly means to

I was born a Roman citizen, or I am such in

virtue of my birth. Various opinions have been : inquire, to question, to search for, or to look

formed on the question, in what way, or for what carefully into a subject. The word here used is

reasons, Paul was entitled to the privileges of a commonly applied to metals whose nature is

Roman citizen. Some have supposed that Tartested, or examined, by fire ; and then it means

sus was a Roman colony, and that he thus beto subject to torture or torments, in order to ex

came a Roman citizen. But of this there does tort a confession, where persons were accused of crime. It was often resorted to among the an

not appear to be sufficient proof. Pliny says cients. The usual mode has been by the rack ;

(v. 27) that it was a free city. The city of Tar

sus was endowed with the privileges of a free but various kinds of torments have been invented

city by Augustus Cæsar, after it had been greatly in order to extort confessions of guilt from those

afflicted and oppressed by wars.- Appian. Dio who were accused. The whole practice has been one of the most flagrant violations of justice, and

Chrysost.says to the people of Tarsus, “he one of the foulest blots on human nature.

(Augustus) has conferred on you every thing

In this case, the tribune saw that Paul was accused

which any one could bestow on his friends and Violently by the Jews; he was ignorant of the

companions, a country (i. e, a free country,) Hebrew language, and had not probably under

laws, honour, authority over the river (Cydrastood the address of Paul; he supposed from the

nus), and the neighbouring sea.” Free cities

were permitted, in the Roman empire, to use extraordinary excitement, that Paul must have

their own laws and customs, to have their own been guilty of some flagrant offence, and he therefore resolved to subject him

magistrates, and they were free from being sub

to torture, to extort from him a confession. By scourging.

ject to Roman guards. They were required By the scourge or whip. Comp. Heb. xi. 36.

| only to acknowledge the supremacy and authoThis was one mode of torture, in order to extort

| rity of the Roman people, and to aid them in

their wars. Such a city was Tarsus, and hava secret from those who were accused.

ing been born there, Paul was entitled to these l'ER. 25. And as they bound him with thongs,

privileges of a free man. Many critics have sup

posed that this privilege of Roman citizenship Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, had been conferred on some of the ancestors of Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that Paul, in consequence of some distinguished miliis a Roman, . and uncondemned ?

tary service. Such a conferring of the rights of

citizenship was not unusual, and possibly might 6 Chap. xvi. 37 ; xv. 16.

have occurred in this case. But there is no di

rect historical proof of it; and the former fact, Bound him with thongs.— With cords, prepara- | that he was born in a free city, will amply actory to scourging. Is it lauful, &c.— It was di count for his affirmation that he was free born. rectly contrary to the Roman law, to bind and scourge a Roman citizen. See Note on chap. xvi. Ver. 29. Then straightway they departed from 36, 37.

him which should have examined him: and VER. 26. When the centurion heard that, he |

the chief captain also was afraid, after he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take

knew that he was a Roman, and because he heed what thou doest: for this man is a Ro

had bound him. man.

cor, tortured him. 27. Then the chief captain came, and said Then straightway.- Immediately. They saw unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He that by scourging him they would have violated said, Yea.

the Roman law, and exposed themselves to its 28. And the chief captain answered, With

penalty. Which should have examined him.- Who

were about to torture him by scourging him. a great sum obtained I this freedom. And (Ver. 24.) Because he had bound him.- PreparaPaul said, But I was free born.

tory to scourging him. The act of binding a

Roman citizen, with such an intent, untried and With a great sum obtained I this freedom. uncondenined, was unlawful. Prisoners who This freedom or privilege of Roman citizenship. were to be scourged were usually bound by the From this it would seem, that the privilege of Romans to a pillar or post; and a similar custom being a Roman citizen might be purchased. Per prevailed among the Jews. That it was unlawful haps he refers, however, to the expenses which to bind a man, with this intent, who was un

ere necessarily attendant in passing through condemned, appears from an express declarain proper forms of becoming a Roman citizen. / tion in Cicero (against Verres). “ It is a heinous De argument of the tribune in this case is this :) sin to bind a Roman citizen; it is wickedness to

obtained this privilege at a great price. / beat him ; it is next to parricide to kill him ; and Hence did you, Paul, thus poor and persecuted, what shall I say to crucify bim?"

VER. 30. On the morrow, because he would science. I have done what I believed to be right.

have known the certainty wherefore he was This was a bold declaration after the tumult, and accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his ch

charges, and accusations of the previous day,

(chap. xxi. ;) and yet it was strictly true. His bands, and commanded the chief priests and persecutions of the Christians had been conducted all their council to appear, and brought Paul conscientiously, Acts xxvi. 9: “I verily thought down, and set him before them.

with myself,” says he, “that I ought to do many

things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazs- | d Chap. xiii. 18.

reth.” Of his conscientiousness and fidelity in

their service, they could bear witness. Of bis On the morrow.— After he had arrested Paul.

conscientiousness since, he could make a similar || Paul was still a prisoner; and if suffered to go

| declaration. And he, doubtless, meant to say, at liberty among the Jews, his life would have that as he had been conscientious in persecution, been in danger. And commanded the chief priests, so he had been in his conversion, and in his &c._Summoned a meeting of the sanhedrim, or | subsequent course. And as they knew that great council of the nation. He did this, as he his former life had been with a good conscience, was prevented from scourging Paul, in order to | they ought to presume that he had maintained know what he had done, and that he might learn the same character still. This was a remarkably from the Jews themselves the nature of the charge bold appeal to be made by an accused man, and against him. This was necessary for the safety it shows the strong consciousness which Paul had of Paul, and for the ends of justice. This should of his innocence. What would have been the have been done without any attempt to torture

drift of Paul's discourse in proving this, we can him in order to extort a confession. And brought | only conjecture. He was interrupted. (ver. 2;) Paul down.-From the elevated castle or tower but there can be no doubt that he would have of Antonia. The council assembled commonly | pursued such a course of argument as should teod in the house of the high priest. And set him be. | to establish his innocence. Before God.-Gr. fore them.—He brought the prisoner to their har, “ To God," Tom Oeu. He had lived to God, or that they might have an opportunity to accuse with reference to his commands, so as to keep a him, and that thus the chief captain might learn conscience pure in his sight. The same printhe real nature of the charge against him.

ciple of conduct he states more at length in chap. xxiv. 16 : “ And herein do I excrcise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men.” Until this day.-- In

cluding the time before his conversion to ChrisCHAPTER XXIII.

tianity, and after. In both conditions he was

conscientious; in one, conscientious in persecuVER. 1. And Paul, earnestly beholding the coun tion and error, though he deemed it to be right; cil, said, Men and brethren, I « have lived in

in the other, conscientious in the truth. The

mere fact, that a man is conscientious, does not all good conscience before God until this day.

way. | prove that he is right, or innocent See Note on a Chap. xxiv. 16. 2 Cor. i. 12. Heb. xiii. 18. John xvi. 2. And Paul, earnestly beholding.-'Atevioas. “Fix- VER. 2. And the high priest Ananias commanding his eyes intently on the council.” The word | ed them that stood by him to smite him on denotes a fixed and earnest gazing; a close observation. See Luke iv. 20. Note, Acts iž. 4.

the mouth. Paul would naturally look with a keen and atten

6 John xviii. 22. tive observation on the council. He was arraigned before them, and he would naturally And the high-priest Ananias.-This Ananias" observe the appearance, and endeavour to ascer | was, doubtless, the son of Nebedinus, (Jos. Ant tain the character of his judges. Besides, it was xx. chap. 5, § 3,) who was high-priest when by this council that he had been formerly com Quadratus, who preceded Felix, was president of missioned to persecute the Christians. Chap. ix. Syria. He was sent bound to Rome by Quadra1, 2. He had not seen them since that commis tus, at the same time with Ananias, the prefect sion was given. He would naturally, therefore, | of the temple, that they might give an account of regard them with an attentive eye. The result their conduct to Claudius Cæsar. (Josephus, Ant. shows, also, that Paul looked at them to see b. xx. chap. 6, § 2.) But in consequence of the what was the character of the men there as intercession of Agrippa the Younger, they were sembled, and what was the proportion of Phari. | dismissed, and returned to Jerusalem. Ananias, sees and Sadducees. (Ver. 6.) The council.-Gr. however, was not restored to the office of high“ The sanhedrim." chap. xxii. 30. It was the priest. For, when Felix was governor of Judea, great council, composed of seventy elders, to l this office was filled by Jonathan, who succeeded whom was intrusted the affairs of the nation. | Ananias. (Josephus, Ant. b. xx. chap. 10.) JonaSee Note, Matt. ii. 4. Men and brethren.—Gr. / than was slain in the temple itself, by the instiga“Men, brethren;" the usual form of beginning I tion of Felix, by assassins who had been hired for an address among the Jews. See chap. ü. 29. | the purpose. This murder is thus described by He addressed them still as his “ brethren.” 1 Josephus : (Ant b. xx. chap. 8, § 5:) " Felix have lived in all good conscience.—1 have con- | bore an ill-will to Jonathan, the high-priest, beducted myself so as to maintain a good con- | cause he frequently gave him admonitions about

re

governing the Jewish affairs better than he did, and that justice was on his side. This expreslest complaints should be made against him, since sion of Paul, “ God shall smite thee,” is not to be he had procured of Cæsar the appointment of regarded in the light of an imprecation, or as an Felix as procurator of Judea. Accordingly, Fe- expression of angry feeling, but of a prediction, lix contrived a method by which he might get or of a strong conviction on the mind of Paul, rid of Jonathan, whose admonitions had become that a man so hypocritical and unjust as Ananias troublesome to him. Felix persuaded one of was, could not escape the vengeance of God. Jonathan's most faithful friends, of the name Ananias was slain, with Hezekiah his brother, Doras, to bring the robbers upon him, and to put during the agitation that occurred in Jerusalem bim to death.” This was done in Jerusalem. | when the robbers, or Sicarii, under their leader, The robbers came into the city as if to worship Manahem, had taken possession of the city. He God, and with daggers, which they had conceal attempted to conceal himself in an aqueduct, but ed under their garments, they put him to death, was drawn forth and killed. See Josephus, JewAfter the death of Jonathan the office of high- | ish Wars, b. ii. chap. 17, $ 8. Thus Paul's prepriest remained vacant, until king Agrippa ap diction was fulfilled. Thou whited wall. This is pointed Ismael, the son of Fabi, to the office. evidently a proverbial expression, meaning, thou (Josephus, Ant. b. xx, chap. 8, $ 8.) It was hypocrite. His hypocrisy consisted in his preduring this interval, while the office of high-priest tending to sit there to do justice; and yet, in Tas vacant, that the events which are here re commanding the accused to be smitten in direct corded took place. Ananias was then at Jeru violation of the law, he thus showed that his galem; and as the office of high-priest was vacant, character was not what, by his sitting there, he and as he was the last person who had borne the professed it to be, but that of one determined to Gher, it was natural that he should discharge, carry the purposes of his party, and of his own prosably by common consent, its duties, so far at feelings. Our Saviour used a similar expression, least as to preside in the sanhedrim. Of these to describe the hypocritical character of ihe Phaifacts, Paul would be doubtless apprized; and risees, (Matt. xxiii. 27,) when he compares them 1! bence what he said (ver. 5) was strictly true, and to whited sepulchres. A whited wall is a wall

Is one of the evidences that Luke's history ac- | or enclosure that is covered with lime or gypsum, cords precisely with the peculiar circumstances and that thus appears to be different from what

which then existed. When Luke here calls it is, and thus aptly describes the hypocrite. | Ananias “the high-priest,” he evidently intends Seneca (de Providentia, cap. 6,) uses a similar 1, not to affirm that he was actually such; but to figure to describe hypocrites : “They are sordid,

use the word as the Jews did, as applicable to one base, and like their walls adorned only exter\ who had been in that office, and who, on that oc nally." See also Seneca, Epis. 115. For sittest

casion, when the office was vacant, performed its thou, &c.—The law required that justice should duties. To smite him on the mouth. To stop him be done, and in order to that, it gave every man from speaking; to express their indignation at | an opportunity of defending himself. See Note, what he had said. The anger of Ananias was John vii. 51. Prov. xviii. 13. Lev. xix. 15, 16. excited, because Paul affirmed, that all that he Exod. xxiii. I, 2. Deut. xix. 15, 18. To judge had done had been with a good conscience. Their me after the law. As a judge to hear and decide feelings had been excited to the utmost; they re the case according to the rules of the law of garded him as certainly guilty; they deemed him Moses. Contrary to the law. In violation of the

to be an apostate; and they could not bear it that | law of Moses, (Lev. xix. 35,) - Ye shall do no i he, with such coolness and firmness, declared | unrighteousness in judgment.” 1 that all bis conduct had been under the direction

of a good conscience. The injustice of the com- | Ver. 4. And they that stood by said, Revilest 1 mard of Ananias is apparent to all. A similar thou God's high-priest?

instance of violence occurred on the trial of the Saviour. (John xviii. 22.)

Revilest thou, &c.—Dost thou reproach or abuse

the high-priest of God ? It is remarkable that FER. 3. Then said Paul unto him, God shall | they who knew that he was not the high-priest, smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou

should have offered this language. He was, howto judge me after the law, and commandest me

ever, in the place of the high-priest, and they

might have pretended that respect was due to the to be smitten contrary to the law ?

office. e Lev. xix. 35. Deut. xxv. 1, 2. John vii. 51.

VER. 5. Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, God shall smite thee.-God shall punish thee. that he was the high-priest: for it is written, God is just; and he will not suffer such a manilest violation of all the laws of a fair trial to pass

Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy unavenged. This was a remarkably bold and

people. learless declaration, Paul was surrounded by

d Exod. xxii. 28. Eccl. x. 20. 2 Pet. ii. 10. Jude 8. enemies. They were seeking his life. And he ! must have known that such declarations would Then said Paul, I wist not.— I knew not; I was

bare only excited their wrath, and made them ignorant of the fact, that he was high-priest. Inmore thirsty for his blood. That he could thus terpreters have been greatly divided on the meancaress the president of the council, was not only ing of this expression. Some have supposed that

ugly characteristic of the man, but was also a Paul said it in irony; as if he had said, “ Pardon suvalg proof that he was conscious of innocence, me, brethren, I did not consider that this was the

[ocr errors]

high-priest. It did not occur to me, that a man rity, Paul declares here that he would not be who could conduct thus, could be God's high- guilty of showing disrespect for it, or of using ! priest.” Others have thought (as Grotius) that reproachful language towards it. Paul used these words for the purpose of mitigating their wrath, and as an acknowledgment | Ver. 6. But when Paul perceived that the one that he had spoken hastily, and that it was contrary to his usual habit, which was not to speak

part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, evil of the ruler of the people. As if he had said, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, " I acknowledge my error and my haste. I did "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of pot consider that I was addressing him whom

the hope and resurrection of the dead I am God had commanded me to respect.” But this interpretation is not probable, for Paul evidently

called in question. did not intend to retract what he had said. Dr.

e Chap. xxvi. 5. Phil. iii. 5. Doddridge renders it, “I was not aware, brethren,

Chap. xxiv. 15, 21; xxvi. 6; xxviii. 20. that it was the high-priest," and regards it as an apology for having spoken in haste. But the ob But when Paul perceived.-Probably by bis! vious reply to this interpretation is, that if Ana- | former acquaintance with the men who composed nias was the high-priest, Paul could not but be | the council. As he had been brought up in Jeaware of it. Of so material a point, it is hardly rusalem, and had been before acquaioted with possible that he could be ignorant. Others sup. the sanhedrim, (chap. ix. 2,) he would have an pose, that as Paul had been long absent from acquaintance, doubtless, with the character of most Jerusalem, and had not known the changes which of those present, though he had been absent from had occurred there, he was a stranger to the per- | them for fourteen years. (Gal. ii. 1.) The one son of the high-priest. Others suppose that part, &c.—That the council was divided into tro Ananias did not occupy the usual seat which was parties, Pharisees and Sadducees. This was coin. | appropriated to the high-priest, and that he was monly the case, though it is uncertain which had not clothed in the usual robes of office, and that the majority. In regard to the opinions of these Paul did not recognise him as the high-priest. two sects, see Notes on Matt. ii. 7. He cried out, But these interpretations are not probable. It is &c.— The reasons why Paul resolved to take adwholly improbable that, on such an occasion, the vantage of their difference of opinion were, probhigh-priest, who was the presiding officer in the ably, (1.) That he saw that it was impossible to sanhedrim, should not be known to the accused. expect justice at their hands; and he, therefore, The true interpretation, therefore, I suppose is, regarded it as prudent and proper to consult his that which is derived from the fact that Ananias safety. He saw, from the conduct of Ananias, was not then properly the high-priest; that there and from the spirit manifested, (ver, 4,) that was a vacancy in the office, and that he presided they, like the other Jews, had prejudged the i by courtesy, or in virtue of his having been for- | case, and were driven on by blind rage and fury. || merly invested with that office. The meaning (2.) His object was to show his innocence to the then will be, “I did not regard or acknowledge chief captain. To ascertain that, was the pure ! him as the high-priest. I did not address him as pose for which he had been arraigned. Yet that, such, since that is not his true character. Had perhaps, could be most directly and satisfactorily he been truly the high-priest, even if he had thus shown by bringing out, as he knew he could do been guilty of manifest injustice, I would not the real spirit which actuated the whole council, have used the language which I did. The office, as a spirit of party-strife, contention, and person : if not the man, would have claimed respect. But cution. Knowing, therefore, how sensitive they as he is not truly and properly clothed with that were on the subject of the resurrection, he seems office, and as he was guilty of manifest injustice, to have resolved to do what he would not have I did not believe that he was to be shielded in his done had they been disposed to hear him accordinjustice by the law which commands me to show ing to the rules of justice, to abandon the direct respect to the proper ruler of the people.” If this | argument for his defence, and to enlist a large be the true interpretation, it shows that Luke, in part, perhaps a majority, of the council in his this account, accords entirely with the truth of favour. Whatever may be thought of the prohistory. The character of Ananias, as given by priety of this course, it cannot be denied that ' Josephus; the facts which he has stated in regard it was a master-stroke of policy, and that it to him, all accord with the account here given, evinced a protound knowledge of human nature. and show that the writer of the “Acts of the I am a Pharisee. - That is, I was of that seet Apostles” was acquainted with the history of among the Jews. I was born a Pharisee, and I that time, and has correctly stated it. For it is ever continued, while a Jew, to be of that sect. written.-Exod. xxii. 28. Paul adduces this to In the main, he agreed with them still. He did show that it was his purpose to observe the law; not mean to deny that he was a Christian, but that he would not intentionally violate it; and that so far as the Pharisees differed from the that, if he had known Ananias to be high-priest, Sadducees, he was, in the main, with the former. he would have been restrained by his regard for He agreed with them, not with the Sadducees, in the law from using the language which he did. regard to the doctrine of the resurrection, and Of the ruler of thy people.--This passage had not the existence of angels and spirits. The son of a any peculiar reference to the high-priest, but it Pharisee.- What was the name of his father is inculcated the general spirit of respect for those not known. But the meaning is, simply, that he in office, whatever that office was. As the office was entitled to all the immunities and privileges! of high-priest was one of importance and author of a Pharisee. He had, from his birth, belonged '

to that sect; nor had he ever departed from the danger. Of that doctrine I have been the advo| great cardinal doctrines which distinguished that cate. I have never denied it. I have endeavoured

sect--the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. to establish it, and have every where defended it, Comp. Phil. iii. 5. Of the hope and resurrection and have devoted myself to the work of putting of the doud. That is, of the hope that the dead it on an imperishable basis among the Jews and will be raised. This is the real point of the per- the Gentiles. For my zeal in that, I have been

secution and opposition to me. I am called in opposed. I have excited the ridicule of the Geni question.-Gr., I am judged ; that is, I am perse- tile, and the hatred of the Sadducee. I have thus

cuted, or brought to trial. Orobio charges this been persecuted and arraigned ; and for my zeal upon Paul as an artful manner of declining per- | in this, in urging the argument in defence of it, secution, unworthy the character of an upright which I have deemed most irrefragable-the reand honest man. Chubb, a British deist of the surrection of the Messiah, I have been persecuted seventeenth century, charges it upon Paul as an and arraigned, and now cast myself on your pro

act of gross “dissimulation, as designed to con tection against the mad zeal of the enemies of the | ceal the true ground of all the troubles that he doctrine of our fathers.” Not only, therefore, was

had brought upon himself; and as designed to this an act of poliey and prudence in Paul, but j; deceive and impose upon the Jews.” He affirms, what he affirmed was strictly true, and the effect I also, that " St. Paul probably invented this pre- | was as he had anticipated. tended charge against himself, to draw over a party of the unbelieving Jews unto him." See |

VER. 7. And when he had so said, there arose a ! Chubb's Posthumous Works, vol. ii. p. 238. Now, in reply to this, we may observe, (1.) That there

dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadis not the least evidence that Paul denied that he ducees: and the multitude was divided. had been, or was then, a Christian. An attempt

to deny this, after all that they knew of him, A dissension.--A dispute, or difference. And I would have been vain ; and there is not the the multitude. The council. Comp. chap. xiv. 4.

slightest hint that he attempted it. (2.) The The Pharisees embraced, as he desired and exdoctrine of the resurrection of the dead was the pected, his side of the question, and became his | main and leading doctrine which he had insisted advocates, in opposition to the Sadducees, who

op, and which had been to him the cause of were arrayed against him. much of his persecution. See chap. xvii. 31, 32. I Cor. xv. 'Acts xiii. 34 ; xxvi. 6, 7, 23, 25. VER. 8. For the Sadducees & say that there is no (3.) Paul defended this by an argument which

resurrection, neither angel nor spirit: but the , be deemed invincible, and which constituted, in fact, the principal evidence of its truth-the fact

Pharisees confess both. that the Lord Jesus had been raised. That fact 9 Matt. xxii. 23. Mark xii. 18. Luke xx. 27. had given demonstration to the doctrine of the

Pharisees, that the dead would rise. As Paul For the Sadducees say.They believe. No reI had every where proclaimed the fact that Jesus surrection.Of the dead. By this doctrine they

had been raised up, and as this had been also understood that there was no future state, the occasion of his being opposed, it was and that the soul did not exist after death. See true that he had been persecuted on account Note, Matt. xxii 23. Neither angel.That there of that doctrine. (4.) The real ground of the are no angels. They deny the existence of good opposition which the Sadducees made to him, or bad angels. See Note, Matt. iii. 7. Nor spirit. and of their opposition to his doctrine was, the ---Nor soul. That there was nothing but matter. additional zeal with which he urged this doc- | They were materialists, and supposed that all the trine, and the additional argument which he operations which we ascribe to mind, could be brought for the resurrection of the dead. Per- traced to some modification of matter. The Sadhaps the cause of the opposition of this great ducees, says Josephus, (Jewish War, b. ii. chap. party among the Jews-the Sadducees—to Chris. 8, § 14,)“ take away the belief of the immortal tianity, was the strong confirmation which the duration of the soul, and the punishments and resurrection of Christ gave to the doctrine which rewards in hades." “ The doctrine of the Sadtheç so much hated the doctrine of the resur- ducees is this,” says he, (Ant. b. xviii. chap. 1, rection of the dead. It thus gave a triumph to $ 4,) " that souls die with the bod es." The opitheir opponents among the Pharisees; and Paul, nion that the soul is material, and that there is as a leading and zealous advocate of that doc- | nothing but matter in the universe, has been held trine, would excite their special hatred. (5.) All by many philosophers, ancient and modern, as that Paul said, therefore, was strictly true. It well as by the Sadducees. Confess both.--Ac

was because he advocated this doctrine that he knowledge, or receive both as true; i.e. that I was opposed. That there were other causes of there is a future state, and that there are spirits

opposition to him might be true also ; but still, distinct from matter, as argels, and the disemthis was the main and prominent cause of the bodied souls of men. The two points in dispute

hostility. (6.) With great propriety, therefore, were, (1.) Whether the dead would be raised, and I he might address the Pharisees, and say, “Bre exist in a future state; and, (2.) Whether mind

ihren, the great doctrine which has distinguished was distinct from matter. The Sadducees denied you from the Sadducees is at stake. The great both, and the Pharisees believed both. Their doctrine which is at the foundation of all our belief of the latter point was, that spirits existed hopts--the resurrection of the dead, the doctrine in two forms-that of angels, and that of souls of of our fathers, of the Scriptures, of our sect, is in men distinct from the body.

« PreviousContinue »