previous cruelties, crucified. See Stanhope, Ep. and Gosp. IV. p. 536.

—Ó ÉTIKλndeis] Lucian in Macrob. xv. Vol. III. p. 218, ὁ μνήμων ἐπικληθείς. De Cal. xvi. Vol. III. p. 146, Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ Διονύσῳ ἐπικληθέντι. Plut. Amilius, p. 262, ὁ Νασικάς ÉTIKAλOVμEVOS EKITIWV. See Acts i. 23: x. 32: xii. 12.

4. Σίμων ὁ Κανανίτης]. The place of his birth is uncertain: and no particulars are mentioned of him in the New Testament. Had the epithet here used been meant to express his being from Cana, it would have been Κανίτης or Καναῖος. (A very few MSS. read Kavavalos). And St. Matthew xv. 22, writes yun Xavavaía and elsewhere Xavaar where the discourse is about the place. Besides St. Luke vi. 15, expressly calls him Ziuwva Tov καλούμενον Ζηλωτήν, which seems to be the Greek translation of the Hebrew appellation. For from the Hebrew word signifying "he was jealous," comes the Chaldaic word signifying a Zealot. Put the Greek termination to this Chaldaic word and it becomes Κανανίτης. This appellation therefore and the Ζηλωτής of St. Luke are as perfectly the same as Cephas and Petros, Tabitha and Dorcas. Or possibly Σίμων ὁ Κανανίτης may be o similar to Ματθαῖος ὁ τελώνης, as expressive of his former conduct and party.

The Znλwrai were a particular sect or faction among the Jews, who in later times under colour of zeal for God committed all the disorders imaginable. They pretended to imitate the zeal of Phinehas, Elijah, and the Maccabees, expressed in their manner of punishing offenders. But they acted from blind fury or from worse principles, without regard either to the laws of God or to the dictates of reason. See Joseph. B. J. Iv. 3, 9: Iv. 6, 3:. vII. 8, 1. Some are of opinion that Simon was formerly one of this faction. But as there is no mention made of it till a little before the destruction of Jerusalem, others have supposed the surname to have been given him on account of his uncommon zeal in matters of true piety and religion.

Upon the dispersion of the Apostles he is said to have preached in Egypt, Cyrene, Africa, Mauritania, and the barbarous parts of Libya: to which some add Mesopotamia; and say that meeting there with St. Jude, they went together into Persia, and there both received the crown of martyrdom. This tradition. may possibly be the cause why the Church commemorates both together in one festival. See Stanhope, Ep. and Gosp. Vol. IV. p. 535.

'Iovdas d'Iokapuтns] Many MSS. omit o and it is

observable that almost wherever the word occurs in the New Testament there is either a variation in the MSS. or the article is wholly omitted..

The meaning and origin of the surname 'Iokapiτns is unknown; and commentators are divided in their opinions about it. Some suppose it to have been given after his death, and derived from iseara which signifies strangling. The majority however suppose it derived from Carioth a town of the tribe of Judah, Josh. xv. 25. In the five passages in St. John, the Camb. MS. uniformly renders it arò καρiúтov. Вp. Middleton however, Gr. Art. p. 201, thinks that the frequent absence of the article authorizes a suspicion that the word is a surname and not an epithet significant of the place of birth or residence; because in that case the article should be prefixed, as in Mapía ἡ Μαγδαληνή. St. Mark has indeed xv. 21, τινὰ Σίμωνα Κυρηvalov: but this is only on the first mention, besides that riva would make τὸν Κυρηναῖον absurd. He seems inclined to think the same inference strengthened by the compound etikaλoúμevov used of the name Iscariot, Luke xxii. 3, and which as far as he has observed is confined, as in strictness it ought to be, to surnames: thus in the present verse éπiкλnleis Oaddaios: Acts i. 23, ὃς ἐπεκλήθη Ιοῦστος : x. 5, ὃς ἐπικαλεῖται Πέτρος : xii. 12, τοῦ ἐπικαλουμένου Μάρκου. If this notion be well founded, the article in this verse and in every other in which 'lovdas precedes Iorapurns, ought to be omitted.

— ὁ καὶ παραδοὺς] Dion. Hal. νιι. 69, δοῦλον ἐπὶ τιμωρίᾳ θανάτου παραδούς. Alian. xii. 37, οἱ δὲ τούς ἐπὶβουλεύοντας oi παρέδοσαν αὐτῷ κολάσαι. The Vulgate here reads tradidit, properly; most others prodidit. But rapadovva is tradere, podovvai prodere. The former expresses simply the fact, without any note of praise or blame: the other marks the fact as criminal, and is properly a term of reproach. Now there is this peculiarity in the spirit of the Evangelists, that when speaking in their own character as historians, they satisfy themselves with relating the bare facts, without either using such terms, or af fixing such epithets as might serve to impress their readers with their sentiments concerning them, either of censure or commendation. They tell the naked truth without hinting an opinion, and leave the truth to speak for itself. A few MSS. here read rapaδιδούς.

5. παραγγείλας, λέγων] In these words, i. q. τάδε.

eis odor cover] See Middleton, Gr. Art. p. 201. For eis ὁδὸν ἢ ἄγει εἰς τὰ ἔθνη. So Jer. ii. 18, ἡ ὁδὸς Αἰγύπτου.

The reason why Christ gave his disciples this prohibition was, that he might not give any offence to the Jews. For as they

were persuaded that the Messiah was to come only for them, they would have imagined that Jesus was not the Messiah, had he preached the Gospel to the Gentiles. It was besides expedient that he should maintain the privileges of that nation. They were the children of the kingdom, viii. 12, comp. Acts xiii. 46. When about finally to leave them, this prohibition was removed, xxviii. 19: Mark xvi. 15: and the Apostles directed to teach all nations. -eis Tóλ] Sub. Tua, The Jews entertained no better opinion of the Samaritans than they did of the heathens. Nay those two nations had such an extreme aversion the one for the other, that the Samaritans were much more odious to the Jews than the heathens themselves, John iv. 9: viii. 48. To preserve therefore the privileges of the Jews safe, and that they might not otherwise prove an offence to that nation, the Samaritans are made parallel to the heathen, and as distant as they from partaking of the Gospel.

Theophylact in loc. says συνάπτει τοὺς Σαμαρείτης τοῖς ἐθνικοῖς, ἐπεὶ Βαβυλώνιοι ὄντες κατῴκησαν τὴν ̓Ιουδαίαν, They seem to have been a mixture of such Jews as remained in the land, when the ten tribes were carried away captive; or such as afterwards returned thither on several occasions; and likewise of those idolatrous people, which were transplanted thither by Salmaneser, and are known by the general name of Cuthæans. So that there was among the Samaritans a mixture of religions as well as of nations. How far the antient inhabitants of Samaria were concerned in this way of worship, cannot be determined: but it seems probable that they embraced the religion of their conquerors; or at least that their worship had some tincture of paganism in it. This however has been supposed to have been reformed before the time of our Saviour.

The mutual antipathy of the two nations began with the schism of Jeroboam; and was increased by the opposition the Samaritans made against the Jews on their return from the Babylonish captivity, both in rebuilding the temple and repairing the walls of Jerusalem. On all occasions they were industrious in shewing their anger and one particular instance Josephus mentions, Ant. XVIII. 2, 2; when a few years before the birth of Christ, they strewed the temple of Jerusalem with dead men's bones to defile and pollute it. No wonder therefore that feuds and animosities existed between them.

εἰσέλθητε] Theodor. Mopsuest. Οἱ Σαμαρεῖται πόλεις

κατῴκουν ἐν μέσῳ τῆς Ἰουδαίας, δι ̓ ὧν ἀναγκαῖον ἦν τοὺς Ἀποστό λους πορεύεσθαι, διὸ καὶ ἐκώλυεν αὐτοὺς, μὴ εἰσέλθητε. Ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἐθνῶν οὐκ εἶπεν· μὴ εἰσέλθητε, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἀπέλθητε. This situation of Samaria gave the inhabitants frequent opportunities of exercising acts of hostility against the Galileans, and of offering them affronts and injuries when they were going up to the solemn feasts at Jerusalem. See Luke ix. 51-53: Joseph. Ant. xx. 5: B. J. 11. 12, 3.

paλλov] See Glass, Phil, Sac. p. 415.

6. πрóẞата áπоλwλóra] He calls all Israel sheep, though they were not obedient to the voice of the shepherd, as being all God's chosen people; he calls them lost sheep, because they were in so great peril of being losť and ruined by the ignorance and wickedness of their guides. See ix. 36: so Ps. cxviii. 176: Isai. liii. 6: Jer. xxvii. 6. See also 1 Pet. ii. 25, who has ρóβατα πλανώμενα in which sense ἀπολωλός is used Luke xv. 4. To them the Apostles are first sent, because they were the children of the kingdom, viii. 12, to whom the promise of the Messiah was made, Gen. xvii. 1, and the adoption and promises especially belonged, Rom. ix. 4. Whence the Apostle saith, the Gospel ought first to be preached to them, Acts xiii. 46. οἴκου Ισραήλ] i. q. υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ.

7. KnрúσσETE] Proclaim, from knрvč. See p. 63.

йyyikevn Baoiλeía] Properly speaking, the Kingdom of Heaven or Gospel Dispensation did not begin till the Jewish Economy was abolished: and therefore the Apostles in out Lord's time, and even our Lord himself preached the approach only and not the actual existence of that kingdom. But though the Apostles were directed to preach the approach of the kingdom of Heaven, they did not yet fully understand its nature, that it was not to be a temporal but a spiritual kingdom, consisting in the dominion of righteousness and truth within men.

8. ἀσθενοῦντας, λεπρούς, &c.] Without the article: for not all the sick were healed, nor all lepers cleansed. Middleton, Gr. Art. p. 201.

νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε] These words are wanting in many MSS. and some Fathers and versions: and because the Apostles raised none from the dead before Christ's resurrection, they have been supposed to have been added to the text and for this opinion there are great authorities. But they are found in the Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions; and it is easier to drop than to insert a clause by accident. Chrysostom, who is one of the Fathers mentioned as omitting them in

his Commentary on this passage, quotes them six times in other parts of his works: and Euthymius and Theophylact have not denied their existence, though they omit them in the text prefixed to their Commentaries, and which was adapted to the copies at hand, and therefore of more recent date. Besides the argument used for excluding these, would exclude also λeπρov's Kalapilere, for we read of none cleansed by them.

It is very evident that some passages in this discourse refer to events which did not immediately take place: see vers. 17, 18, 19, 20, &c. They have therefore a reference to the period comprehended under that more extensive commission which they received after our Lord's resurrection, John xx. 21. To this second mission relates the commission to cleanse the lepers and to raise the dead; for most of the things mentioned in this chapter are the very things spoken of in our Lord's prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, and are there mentioned as things to be done then; Matt. xxiv. 9. And these words ver. 22, He that endures to the end shall be saved, are the very words which Christ uses when he speaks of the destruction of the Jewish polity, Matt. xxiv. 13: Mark xiii. 13: and therefore it is observable that St. Mark vi, 7, and St. Luke ix. 1, 2, who only relate what happened to their first mission, speak nothing in these chapters of their commission to cleanse the lepers or raise the dead.

Swpeav éλáßete, &c.] This was not an unusual saying among the Hebrews. The direction here given relates to the dispensing of miraculous gifts, and not to the stated offices of the Apostolical functions, as is evident from Luke x. 7; where our Lord in giving a similar commission to the seventy, bids them eat and drink what was set before them, because the labourer was worthy of his hire. And in this very charge, after these words, he forbids them to provide gold, &c.; for the workman is worthy of his meat: plainly intimating that while they were preaching the Gospel, they had a right to maintenance from those who enjoyed the benefit of their labours, and should in the course of Divine Providence be supplied with all things necessary. Accordingly we find the Apostles receiving maintenance, and insisting upon it as their due, 1 Cor. ix. 4, 5, 14: Gal. vi. 6.

9. Kтnonobe] Here signifies to get, to furnish one's self with a thing as quærere in Ovid. A. A. 11. 13, Nec minor est virtus, quam quærere, parta tueri. Plato Theætet. p. 143, où Toivvv μοι ταυτὸν φαίνεται τὸ κεκτῆσθαι τῷ ἔχειν, οἷον εἰ ἱμάτι