the new and sublime ideas which his conversation had introduced.” The expression ἐπορεύετο — χαί ρων occurs elsewhere in Scripture. Χαίρων Χαίρων Well expresses the genuine consolations of the Gospel. 40. Φίλιππος δὲ εὑρέθη εἰς Αζωτον. Heinrichs thinks that eugen is a dictio pægnans for "he went to Azotus, and there abode." But I agree with Kuinoel, that it is not necessary to resort to this principle; especially as cases occur where the preposition is to be used when that principle is inapplicable. Thus in Herod. 4, 14. where, speaking of Aristæus, a poet who, after he had been thought to be dead, suddenly disappeared, nor could even his corpse be found, till seven years after he appeared, davéνTα αὐτὸν ἐς Προκόννησον, ποιῆσαι τὰ ἔπεα, &c. Indeed, the Latin ad seems to have a similar force; as appears from our at.

Eugioκeola, like the Heb. NY, has often the sense of be, abide; of which Kuinoel gives the following examples. Esth. 1, 5. 1 Par. 29, 17. 2 Par. 29, 29. 30, 21, 25, & 31. 1 Mal. 2, 6. Eurip. Iph. Τ. 277. που ποτ ̓ ἔνθ ̓ εὑρήμεθα. Sir. 44, 20. See Kypke on Matt. 1, 18. and Loesner on 1 Cor. 4, 2. Beza compares the French "Il se trouva, for il fut trouvé. On Azotus or Cæsarea see the Geographers or Schl. Lex.

CHAP. IX.

On the important subject of Paul's conversion, as now related by St. Luke, the recent Commentators are not agreed whether we are to regard it as strictly miraculous, and supposed that Jesus Christ really appeared, or whether it may be ascribed to, and accounted as the effect of, certain terrific natural phenomena, or the high-wrought imagination and wounded conscience of Paul. Since the question came under discussion, the former position has been ably maintained by several of the most eminent Theologians, as Grotius, Hammond, Limborch, and Lyttleton, and, of the German writers, Hasse, Niemeyer, Michaelis, and many others. The arguments on that side of the question are thus summed up [though with little impartiality. Edit.] by Kuinoel.

a) "Paul is not simply said to have heard a voice, but a voice which said unto him, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”'

(See 9. 4. 22, 7. 26, 14.) He asks who it is that addresses him, and having received the answer, again enters into a conversation with it, which is distinctly narrated by St. Luke (9, 4—6), and by St. Paul himself (22, 7, 8 & 10. 26, 14 seqq.); and in 26, 19. he calls it ουρανιας οπτασία. Paul himself, in communicating this conversation, has been so exact as not to have omitted to detail any circumstance, even what would seem of minor importance, namely, that he who addressed him spoke in the Hebrew language. (See 26, 14.) b) Ananias, in 9, 17., says that Paul saw Jesus in the way; which he could not have known but from St. Paul himself: and the same is affirmed by Barnabas, to whom Paul had related the circumstance. c) St. Paul, in 1 Cor. 9, 1. 15, 8. Gal. 1, 1, 16. boasts of this appearance of Christ [but in Gal. 1, 16. another appearance of Christ is alluded to. Compare Acts 22, 18. Kuin.], and from it deduces arguments in proof of his Divine legation, which he could not have thus established, if Jesus had not appeared to him. d) The Apostles doubtless made every enquiry before they would receive into their society a man from whose cruelty and fanatic piety there might have seemed much to fear; nor would they have received him, unless they had been thoroughly persuaded that Jesus Christ had appeared to him. "From this common view of the subject, however, (continues Kuincel,) many Commentators of our age dissent, contending that we need not imagine any miracle, or the corporeal appearance of Christ, but that, accommodating ourselves to the peculiar forms of expression used in the antient world, we are to explain the whole of a vision, scen amidst thunder and lightning, and of the thoughts which then arose in the mind of Paul. Such is the opinion of Ammon, Eichhorn, Eckermann, Gruling, Paulus, Schulz, Ravius, Heinrichs, Boehm, Wittig, Hezel, Rosenmuller, Dindorf. &c. The hypothesis had been broached, as far back as 1685, by Vitringa, Obs. Sacr. L. 6, 10, 12., whose words are these: "Primo refertur, lumen de cœlo Paulum prostravisse humi; dein vero illum audivisse vocem. Per lucem sive lumen de cœlo, quis aliud hic intelligat, quam fulgor fulminis? Quod si admiseris, non negaveris, per vocem, fulmini conjunctam, vocem tonantem et gravem intelligendam esse, quia ex lege naturæ fulmina comitari solent tonitrua.'

The arguments adduced in support of this interpretation are are thus summed up by Kuinoel. a) Yovn, like the Hebr. p, in Ex. 19, 16. not unfrequently denotes thunder (see the note on Matt. 3, 17. 17, 5. Joh. 12, 28.); and pos, like ns, lightning, in Job 37,3. τὸ φῶς αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πτερύγων τῆς γῆς. And so Hebr. 3, 10. Now thunder and lightning both Jews and Gentiles numbered among signs of the presence of God, prodigies Divinely produced, the meaning of which they interpreted according to circumstances. See the note on Matt. 3, 17. 17, 1. Joh. 12, 28. So Joseph. Ant. 3, 4. ἀστραπάι τε ἦσαν φοβεραὶ τοῖς ὁρῶσιν, καὶ κεραυνοὶ κατενεχθέντες ἐδήλουν τὴν παροῦσιαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Senec. Quæst. natural. C. 31. mira fulminis si intueri velis, opera sunt, nec quicquam dubii relinquentia, quin divina insit illis et subtilis potentia. Such thunder

and lightning the Jews accounted as prodigies, nay called by that name, and thinking that God spoke in them, termed them the voice of God. See Matt. 3, 17. Joh. 12, 28. They believed also that the Almighty, in order to strike terror into the minds of men, especially those of the wicked, manifested his presence amidst lightnings and thunders. See Ps. 18, 13 & 14. 1 Sam. 12, 17 & 18.

The above Commentators therefore maintain, that, agreeably to the notions of the antient world, we are here to imagine a prodigious crack of thunder, and suppose that the thoughts which then arose in the mind of Paul are related as the voice of Jesus speaking in the thunder.

b) "St. Paul no where in his Epistles appeals to any vision exceeding the bounds of nature, but only affirms this, that he was converted to Christianity by a heavenly vision. c) The corporeal appearance of Christ cannot be admitted, since if Christ had appeared clothed in a human form, and in a visible manner, not only the Apostle, but also his companions, would have seen it; which is, however, denied at 9, 7."

The foregoing view of the subject is also adopted by Kuin., who subjoins the following further illustration.

"Paul, a Pharisee and a strenuous defender of the religion of his forefathers (Acts 22, 3. 26, 5.) had heard of the doctrine of Christ, which, (distorted, misrepresented, and calumniated as it was by the Priests,) he held in abhorrence, as false and pernicious. The Messiah indeed he eagerly expected, but it was an earthly one; and thus Jesus (who had been crucified, and whom the Priests called an impostor and corrupter of the ancient religion) he utterly rejected. His followers therefore he persecuted, fancying that he was supporting the cause of God and of Religion. Yet he had not entirely forgotten the admonitions of his master Gamaliel, who was endued with a remarkable exemption from prejudice in deciding on the merits of another religion, and who recommended this disposition of mind to others. (See 5, 34.) Besides, the constancy, and even joy with which Stephen and many Christians had met persecution and death, together with what he had heard from them of the doctrine of Christ, (so contrary to what it had been represented by the Jewish Rulers,) had produced such an effect upon his mind, that he began to doubt of the goodness of his cause. But, hurried away by desire of vain glory, and lest he should appear inconsistent with himself, and seem to be a colder partizan and a less zealous defender of the Pharisaical sect than he had heretofore been, he studiously repressed conviction and the force of truth, up to the time of his journey to Damascus, when he was compelled by a vision to abandon his prejudices and embrace the truth; and, as is the case with persons of ardent temperament, he then rejected and condemned the Pharisaical dogmas with the same fervid impetuosity as that with which he had before maintained them. When, therefore, to evince to his companions his zeal for his sect, he was proceeding to Damascus, with an intent to seize and persecute the Christians, and was, by the way, reflecting on the purpose of his journey, there occurred to his mind all that he had heard from the Christians con

cerning Jesus and his doctrine, namely, that he had returned to life, that he sat at the right hand of God, and would return to judge the quick and dead. He recalled to mind, also, the admonitions of Gamaliel, and other moderate men, who disapproved of the persecution carried on against the Christians, and began to doubt whether he were engaged in a good cause. 'What (thought he) if the things which the followers of Jesus tell me be true? I would believe if he would appear to me!" While revolving this in his mind, suddenly, about mid-day, there arose (though the sky had been just before serene) a tempest conjoined with thunder and lightning, and that so much the more terrific since (as we learn from Maundrell) the valley of Damascus is closed in by exceedingly lofty mountains. There suddenly shone round about him a flash of lightning, and indeed, with a vivid imagination, he fancied he beheld a celestial nature, even Jesus. Struck with terror, he sinks to the earth, and falls into this soliloquy: 'Is not this the Jesus whose followers I have hitherto persecuted? Yes; it is he: He is rebuking my presumptuous attack on his society. I must repent, and abandon my prejudices. I will go to Damascus, and there consider what it will behove me to do. While Paul, amidst frequent peals of thunder, was revolving these things in his mind, he fancied that in the crack of thunder he discerned the voice of Jesus, accusing, threatening, admonishing, exciting him. Hence also he afterwards, when narrating the affair to others, related his own thoughts in the form of a conversation between himself and Jesus. When Paul had risen from the earth, he saw no one (v. 8.), his sight being temporarily suspended by the dazzling effect of the lightning. As to his companions, they had seen nothing (v. 7.), since to them the lightning would not appear portentous, neither were they so likely to have been tormented by the stings of a rebuking conscience."

Thus far Kuinoel, whose matter is chiefly formed upon the learned treatises to which he refers, and whose language I have reported at large and accurately, that I might not be thought to misrepresent it. But I must maintain that the hypothesis which it supports, though ingeniously devised and ably supported by De Dieu, Elsner, and other Commentators, yet is utterly untenable; and though it professes to simplify, produces more difficulties than it removes. It were surely inconsistent with ingenuousness and truth to dress up vivid impressions of the mind, caused by natural phenomena, in a dramatic style, and manufacture them into a dialogue. Paul, however ardent might be his temperament and vivid his imagination, could not so far deceive himself as to suppose that the conversation (related by him at large in his speech before Agrippa) really took place, if there had been no more than these Commentators tell us. The Apostle's mental powers were of too superior a kind to permit us to suppose that he could not distinguish between the thoughts of his own mind the address of a supernatural being. Besides, he is so minute as to say it was in the Hebrew language. And moreover, if he were so worked upon by his own high-wrought feelings and tender conscience, that could not be the case with his

attendants; and yet it is said that they also, struck dumb with astonishment, heard the voice, though they saw no one. Now this difficulty, which those Commentators have not noticed, cannot be eluded. As to the objection which they make at c), that the corporeal appearance of Christ cannot be admitted, since if Christ had appeared clothed in a human form and in a visible manner, not only the Apostle, but also his companions, would have seen it; which is denied at 9, 7. I answer, that we are not obliged, nor will we undertake, to prove the corporeal appearance of Christ; since it is no where asserted, nay not even implied: for when it is said of the attendants μηδένα δὲ θεωροῦντες, opposition is involved in dè, and the words were only meant, in conjunction with the preceding ἀκούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς, to assign a reason why the attendants were so dumb with astonishment, namely, because they heard a voice speaking in the Hebrew language, but could not discern the speaker: and though it is said of these persons at 22, 10. τὴν δὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν, yet ἤκουσαν there (with the accusative) has the sense of understand, and that, probably, because they did not sufficiently comprehend the language, and perhaps the words might have been uttered in a low tone.

By this admission and explanation, the objection at b) is also destroyed. Besides, owry, if it has ever been used for thunder, cannot be so taken here: for what would be more absurd than, "I hear a clap of thunder saying." And again, we are told that the attendants, hearing the-what? the clap, and seeing no one, (who could they expect to see?) were mute with astonishment. Then again, pus is no where used of lightning. And as to the example adduced from Job 37, 3. it is not to the purpose, since us there means the sun's light. Besides, from the manner in which this Os is spoken of, it cannot be thought to denote a flash of lightning.* For where is lightning said TeporρаTTеiv: And moreover, we are told that it exceeded the brightness of the mid-day sun; which, I apprehend, cannot apply to a flash of lightning, any more than to the arò ñs dóns Tou pwròs. Finally, when the attendants and Paul threw themselves with their faces to the ground, it is surely far more reasonable to suppose that they did so from connecting the blaze of light with the idea of a supernatural appearance, (which, with the superstition of their nation, they were anxious to avoid seeing,) than with that of merely a flash of lightning.

1. ἔτι ἐμπνέων ἀπειλῆς καὶ φόνου. Ετι, even yet ; i. e. from the time of Stephen's death. 'Eμvéw is said to be for Tvéwv. Markland cannot see how ἐμπνέων éuvé can signify breathing our threatening. Even

* Hence may be excellently defended the common reading pus in Eurip. Bacch. 585 which Matth. upon conjecture altered to parua. Wetstein here compares Petron. 127. Toto mihi clarius cœlo nescio quid relucente, libuit Deæ nomen quærere.