Πιστεύειν here denotes to believe in the doctrine of the Messiah. See the note on 18, 25. (Kuin.)

This question Paul was justified in putting, since Christianity had, as it were, but just dawned at Ephesus.

2. ἀλλ' οὐδὲ, εἰ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐστιν, ἠκούσσαμην, “ we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." And yet they who said this were Jews. For John and his disciples baptized none but Jews; and to them the phrase could not

but be familiar; and by this they believed the prophets were inspired. See Ezech. 11, 5. These Ephesians, then, seem to have meant, that they had never heard the Messiah was come, and who he was, that they had not known that the period spoken of by Joel 3, 1. (see the note on Acts 2, 17) had arrived, when the Spirit was to be poured out upon all men, still less had they been imbued with it. (Kuin.) The learned Commentator is moreover persuaded that Paul had appealed to this very prophecy. But this seems precarious.

Αἰ τι νεῦμα ἅγιον ἐστι subaud δοθέν. See the note on Joh. 7, 39., and Glass, Phil. Sacr. 630. Kuinoel has omitted to notice the sense of ei, "annon." See 1 Cor. 7, 16.

3. εἰς τί, scil. όνομα, or βαπτίσμα. Some Commentators, however, (as Kuinoel,) take the eis to denote the final cause: q. d. "To what purpose, then, were ye baptized? what doctrine did ye profess on baptism?" And they determine the answer to be, "Namely, that we should profess the doctrine which John announced, to which we were bound by his baptism.' And thus Ιωάννου βάπτισμα will signify John's doctrine and baptism. This mode of interpretation, however, seems to need confirmation.

Βάπ

4. 'Iwávvns μèv éßáttiσe, &c. Mèv is here, as often, put without any particle to correspond to it. Вάлτισμα μετανοίας signifies the baptism by which those who receive it are bound to reformation of life. See the note on Mark 1, 4. The words TouTÉOTIV EIS TOY

Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν are those of St. Paul, explaining who is that exóuevos announced by John, namely Jesus, whom they ought (he means to say) to account as Messiah, and worship as such. There is a similar passage in Rom. 10, 6 & 7. (Kuin.) In TOUTÉCTIV τουτέστιν εἰς τὸν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, there is a popular brachylogia for, "now that Messiah whom John bound you to worship is Jesus." Yet I assent to Kuinoel, that Paul might proceed to explain more fully the doctrine of Christ, and enlarge on the magnitude and certainty of its benefits, both from Scripture and the discourses themselves of John: no doubt, too, he informed them of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

5. ἀκούσαντες δὲ ἐβαπτίσθησαν έ. τ. ἄ. τ. κ.

That these men were re-baptized by Paul, who had been before baptized by John, every unprejudiced person will readily allow. But since some have abused this passage to depreciate the efficacy of John's baptism; and since this repetition of baptism seemed to favour the notions of the Anabaptists, niuch pains have been be stowed on the explanation of the passage: and not a few have denied that Paul caused these men to be baptized. Most of them maintain that v. 5. is a continuation of Paul's speech: and they refer the words of it to John's baptism, received at his recommendation. So Beza, Drusius, Schmidt, Calixtus, Suicer, Glass, Buddeus, Olearius, Wolf, and others. They rest their proof chiefly on μèv and dè, which they make to be relative particles, indicating a continuation of the same discourse. To this it may be answered, 1st, that the argument which rests upon μèv and dè is of no force, since those particles are often not apodotic. See 2, 37. 2dly, that interpretation being admitted, a frigid tautology will arise. 3dly, we no where read that John baptized men into the name of Jesus. For it was not then known what would be the name of the Messiah. It was only the Apostles who did that. Nor does Paul, in fact, say that John exhorted the people to believe Jesus: he merely, in the words τοῦτ' ἔστι, &c., indicates that by ἐρχόμενον John meant Jesus, though he did not name him. 4thly, It is necessary that they who were baptized be those to whom the following avrois pertains: καὶ ἐπιθέντος αὐτοῖς Παύλου τὰς χεῖρας, in verse 6. But these cannot be different persons from those. 5thly, That those baptized by John were again dipped by the Apostles, may also be collected from Acts 2, 38, & 41. For since almost all the Jerusalemites and Jews had been baptized by John (see Matt. 3, 5.), it is incredible that none amongst the 3,000, who were baptized by the Apostles, had been baptized by John. And yet all without distinction are said to have been baptized by the Apostles.

6thly, Nor does it follow, because those baptized by John were again dipped by the Apostles, that the baptism of John was useless, and brought into contempt by the Apostolical baptism. For the abrogation of any thing, as being yet imperfect in respect to its time, is not casting any reproach upon it. Luke himself teaches us that the baptism of John was not altogether the same as the baptism in the name of Jesus. (See supra 18, 25.) Now John's baptism was imperfect pro temporum ratione. John baptized entirely to the Messiah that was to come; the Apostles to Jesus the Messiah. But by John's baptism and teaching the minds of the Jews were prepared to more readily receive Jesus and his better instruction, and to dedicate themselves to himn by a new and similar rite. 7thly, Neither does this repetition of baptism favour the notions of the Anabaptists. For they repeat the same baptism. But those who are baptized in the Christian Church are fully bound to Christ and his doctrine, and therefore have no need of any repetition of baptism, to whatever sect they may join themselves. See Limborch in loc., and Ernest. Opusc. Theolog. 233. [and Doddr. in loc. Edit.] Carpzov., however, in a Diss. on this subject, maintains the sense to be as follows: "Agnoverunt, didicerunt illi se baptizatos olim fuisse a Johanne in nomen Jesu." But it has been rightly objected by Semler that this intepretation offends against the usus loquendi, and every rule of narration. Other in. terpretations, still less admissible, have been proposed by Jung, Ziegler, &c. The true state of the case seems to be this. Those who were baptized by John were bound to the μeravoía, to which he exhorted them, and were prepared for the kingdom of the Messiah that was to come. The Apostles, while Jesus was on earth, baptized those who applied for baptism. (Joh. 3, 5., where see the note, and 26. 4. 1, 2.), thus binding them to Jesus and his doctrine, and instituting the new economy, soon to be established by the Messiah. So Joh. 4, 1. μαθητὰς ποιεῖ καὶ βαπτίζει, compared with verse 2. That Jesus was the Messiah the Apostles were not at that time assured (see the note on Matt. 16, 20, 10, 7.), and so they did not baptize them to Jesus the Messiah. Those who had undergone John's baptism, and had been taught by Jesus himself, and admitted his doctrine, were not re-baptized by the Apostles. See Joh. 3, 26. Nor were the Apostles again baptized by Jesus; for they were nursed up under his instruction, and in due time taught his Messiahship, and were baptized with the Holy Spirit. But when, after Christ's departure to Heaven, a Church had, by his direction, been established by the Apostles, whose foundations he himself had laid, and into which they who should account Jesus as the Messiah, and profess his doctrine, were to be received; then also those who had been baptized by John, or, after his death, by his disciples, and who had not enrolled themselves in the number of Jesus's followers, while he was on earth, nor accounted him as Messiah (see Acts 2, 37 & 41.), were by the Apostles again baptized; as were by Paul those twelve disciples of John living at Ephesus, of whom we are now treating. It is not, indeed, at Acts 2. expressly said that any of John's disciples were amongst the baptized, but from the silence of St. Luke nothing can be proved. Of Apollos (Acts 18.) it is no

where said that he was not re-baptized, but (as Ernesti has well remarked) the thing is passed by, as well known and usual. (Kuin.)

6-8. ἐλάλουν γλώσσαις, καὶ προεφήτευον. I can by no means accede to the harsh interpretations of these words propounded by the Foreign Commentators. The plain and simple sense is: "they spoke with other, and, to them, strange and foreign tongues, and sustained the character of prophets and inspired teachers." See Ecumenius and Chrysostom.

66

7. ἦσαν δὲ οἱ πάντες ἄνδρες ώσει δεκαδύο. Markland objects to our translation, and would render, but they were all men, about twelve." I should prefer, "there were in all about twelve, men." It appears to me that a stress is laid upon avopes, in order thereby to hint that this was the number of the men, or masters of families, and did not include the women and children.

8. TεiDWY τà TEρì, &c., "persuasively urging on πείθων τὰ περὶ, them the doctrines of Jesus." Kuinoel thinks that Paul did not, at the beginning, teach that Jesus was the Messiah, but only after he had prepared the Jews for the Christian religion. See the note on 18, 4.

9. ὡς δέ τινες ἐσκληρύνοντο καὶ ἠπείθουν, "but when some obstinately refused to yield credence." This metaphorical term for contumacy is used in many passages of the Old and New Testament; as Ps. 94, 8. Hebr. 3, 8. μὴ σκληρύνητε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, and Sirach. 30, 11. μήποτε σκληρυθεὶς ἀπειθήσῃ σοι. Α harsher metaphor occurs in the use of 20ów in Arrian. Epict. 1, 5.

These contumacious persons went so far as not only to refuse credence to the Gospel, but even to speak evil of it before the multitude; which seems to hint that they were themselves of the higher class. On άreideîv see Keuchen, who, among other passages, compares Exech.

The words ἀποστὰς and ἀφώρισε evidently denote separating from Church communion. As to the name Tyrannus, it was, we are told, a not very unfrequent one, like King with us. Commentators are not quite

agreed what sort of a school this Tyrannus taught. Lightfoot, Vitringa, Hammond, Doddridge, and Schoettgen think it was a kind of Beth Midrasch, or Divinity Hall, designed for reading theological lectures. Others, as Pearce, Rosenmuller, and Kuinoel, think it was a philosophical lecture room, and that Tyrannus was a rhetorician, or sophist. If the former conjecture be true, he was probably a converted Jew; if the latter, a converted Gentile.

10. ὥστε πάντας τοὺς κατοικοῦντας τὴν Ασιαν ἀκοῦσαι τὸν λόγον τ. Κ. I. Many Commentators take πάντας in a qualified sense, and understand it of those who resorted to Ephesus. And (as Grotius and Kuinoel observe) infinite was the number of persons who resorted to this capital and emporium of Asia Minor, on all kinds of business, religious, political, and commercial.

10. 'Erì, unto, for, during. So Thucyd. 2, 35. See Raphel. Possibly άkoura may mean "heard of;" a sense which the word often bears.

11. δυνάμεις τε οὐ τὰς τυχούσας. Here we have an elegant litotes; for the sense is, miracula insignia. Tuxov properly signifies, "what is met with, obvious, common." Hence, with ou, it denotes haud vulgaris, in the sense of insignis: examples of which are adduced by Wetstein, Munthe, and Loesner: as Diodor. Sic. 418 A. où TYY TUXOÛσAY άyшvíav. Polyb. 1, 42. οὐ τὴν τυχοῦσαν ἀπορίαν. & 53. ου μίκρους οὐδὲ τοὺς τυχόντας ἀγώνας. Long. 16. Xiph. ταραχῆς οὐ τῆς τυ Xouons. The idiom appears to be one of later Grecism. Though something very much akin to it occurs in Soph. Ed. Tyr. 401. (cited by Valcknaer), où xì τοὐπίοντος ἦν ἀνδρός.

12. ὥστε καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας, &c. See the note on 15, 15. Zoudápia is from the Latin sudarium, a handkerchief. See the note on Luke 19, 20. ZiKivolov, or onμkívov, is also of Latin origin, and sig

* That the term was applied to them as well as to schools for boys, is well known, and is proved by Wetstein's citations.