Dissertation concerning the "And the proof of this lies within the compass of one plain argument, obvious to every capacity; which is as follows:If the eating of blood never was permitted, either before the flood or after the flood, or under the Law, or under the Gospel; then surely, no man in his senses will say it is now lawful to eat it. Now, that it never was permitted in any of these periods, is undeniable. Nay, the argument is yet stronger; for it was not only not permitted in any of these periods, but, in truth, it is plainly enough prohibited in the first of thein; and I think, as clearly prohibited in all the rest. "First, I say, the eating of any living creature, and consequently of blood, is not only not granted before the flood, but plainly enough prohibited, in that part of the curse denounced upon man after the fall, Carsed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it, all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee: and thou shalt eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread: till thou return to the ground. Can any thing be plainer than, that man is here condemned to eat bread, and the herb of the field, to the day of his death! "And thus we see that man had no right to the blood of the F398 creatures before the food. That he had no right after this, obliged to abstain from blood and things strangled. And if hath been since repealed; and this will best appear, by con- only temporary, to prevent giving offence to the Jews, in the the reasons now mentioned, for abstaining from blood, do not equally extend to all ages and nations of the world; and if In answer to this, I desire it may be considered, whether they do, it is evident this injunction of the apostles had no peculiar relation, either to the infancy of the Christian religion, Jews are the only people in the world who are obliged to abstain from cruelty to the creatures, or to recognize God as the or to the people of the Jews: unless it be thought that the author and giver of life; or that this nation only were entitled to the atonement made by blood; and if so, how came sacrifi came blood to be prohibited to all the sons of Noah, before there was any such thing as a Jew in the world? This preces to be instituted immediately after the fall? And how tence then seems very ill-founded. atonement for sin, as a type of the sacrifice of Christ; and soning, that the apostolic decree against blood was past many selves, and consequently had the blood in them, might be blood separate from the creature, or eating the blood design Dissertation concerning the CHAPTER XV. of this distinction is obvious; if men were permitted to make any advantage of creatures torn to death by beasts, what an inlet to all manner of cruelty (as well as villany) might such a permission be! And who can say where it would end 7 Nay, who knows how far such dilacerations might even be counterfeited to the purposes of idolatry, or indulgence in blood? "Again: I must beseech all Christians seriously to attend to the tenor of the words, by which abstinence from blood and things strangled is enjoined: 'It seemed good unto the Holy Ghost, and to us, (say the apostles,) to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and froin fornication.' If these abstinences were only intended to be enjoined for a season, could they properly be enjoined under the denomination of 'necessary things | Is that the proper appellation for duties of a transient, teinporary observance? Did neither the apostles, nor the Holy Ghost, know the distinction between necessary and expedieat? Or, suppose it not convenient to make that distinction at that time; how came things of a temporary, and things of an eternal obligation, to be placed upon the same foot of ne cessity, in the same decree"? Or, were fornication and idol pollutions only to be abstained from for a time 1 And in compliment to the infirmity of the Jews? What monstrous absurdities are these? And what a train of them are they obliged to maintain, who assert this decree to be only of temporary obligation 1 "But to proceed: If this was only a temporary necessity, how long did this necessity last } "To this Dr. Hammond answers, that it lasted till the Jews and Gentiles were formed into one communion. And St. Augustin says, that it lasted till the time that no carnal Israelite appeared in the church of the Gentiles; and again, that it lasted till the temple and the Jewish polity were destroyed. "To all this I answer, that, if the two first opinions are admitted, then, the necessity of observing the apostolic decree continues to this day: first, because the Jews and Gentiles are indisputably not yet fully formed into one communion: and, secondly, because there was never any time, wherein there was not some carnal Israelite in the church; and 1 think it must be notorious to many of my readers, that there are some such even in this part of the Christian church, at this day: and so doubtless in every Christian church over the face of the whole earth; and therefore both these opinions are wild and unsupported. "As to the third opinion, viz. that the necessity of observ. ing this decree lasted only till the destruction of the Jewish temple and polity; to this I answer, that whatever may be thought of the necessity of this decree, it is evident that the wisdom of it, and the advantage of that abstinence which was due to it, extended much farther. Since, without this, that calumny imputed to Christians, of killing infants in their assemblies, and drinking their blood, could never be so easily and so effectually confuted; for nothing could do this so thoroughly, as demonstrating that it was a fundamental principle with Christians to touch no blood of any kind and what could demonstrate this so effectually as dying in attestation to the truth of it! as it is notorious, both from the apologists and the ecclesiastical historians, that many Christian martyrs did. "But it is farther urged, that this apostolic decree was only given to the Jewish proselytes; and, consequently, that the necessity of abstaining from blood and things strangled, related to them only; this, they tell us, appears, in that the apostle, when he preached in any city, did it as yet in the synagogues of the Jews; whither the Gentiles could not come, unless they were proselytes of the gate.' "Now, this opinion, I think, will be sufficiently confuted, by demonstrating these two things; first, that before the pass. ing of this decree, St. Paul preached Christianity to the whole body of the Gentiles, at Antioch; and, secondly, that this decree is directed to the Gentiles at large, and not to the Jewish proselytes. "Now, this transaction at Antioch happened seven years before the decree against blood and things strangled, was passed by the apostles at Jerusalem. Can any man in his senses doubt, after this, whether the apostles preached to the Gentiles before the passing of that decree? When it appears, from the words now recited, that the apostles not only preached to the Gentiles, but preached to them in contradis tinction to the Jews: and does any man know the Jews so lit. tle, as to imagine that when the apostles turned to the Gentiles, from them, the Jews would after this suffer those apostles to preach to the Geutiles in their synagogues? Besides, the text says, that the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region; consequently the apostles were so far from confining themselves to the Jewish synagogue, that they were not confined even to the extent of that ample city, but preached throughout the whole country. This opinion, then, that the apostles preached only to the Jews and proselytes before the passing of this decree against blood at Jerusalem, is demonstrably false; and if they preached to the Gentiles at large, to whom else can that decree be directed? It is directed to the Gentile converts at large; and who can we imagine those converts were, but those to whorn Christianity was preached, s. e. the Gentiles at large 1 unlawfulness of eating hous. tence, in this fifteenth chapter of the Acts, upon which the apostolic decree is founded. His words are these. "19. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not there which from among the Gentiles are turned to God. "20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pol. lutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things stran gled, and from blood. "21. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day. "What then what if Moses had those that preached him in the synagogues every Sabbath? Why then, there was no necessity of writing upon these points to any of those who were admitted into the synagogues; because they knew, from the writings of Moses, that all these things were, from the foundation of the world, unlawful to the whole race of Adam. "My sentence (says the apostle) is, that we write to the Gentile converts upon these points; for Moses hath those of old in every city, that preach him, i. e. there is no necessity of writing to any Jewish convert, or to any proselyte convert to Christianity, to abstain from these things; because all that are admitted into the synagogues, (as the proselytes were,) know all these things sufficiently already; and accordingly, upon this sentence of St. James, the decree was founded and directed: doubtless, from the nature of the thing, directed to those whom it was fitting and necessary to inform upon these points, i. e. those who were unacquainted with the writings of Moses; for the decree, as far as it contained a direction to certain duties, could give no information to any others. "Again: An objection is raised against this doctrine from the conclusion of the decree, ye do wel: insinuating, that though they should do well to observe it, yet they did no ill in not observing it. "I answer, that doing well, in the style of Scripture, as well as common speech, is acting agreeably to our duty; and doing well in necessary things, inust certainly be acting agreeably to necessary duty; and certainly the same duty cannot be at the same time necessary and indifferent. "But it is objected, that if the points contained in this de. cree, are not parts of the Mosaic law, the decree has no relation to the question in debate; for the debate was whether the Gentile converts to Christianity should be obliged to observe the law of Moses ? "I answer, that the decree hath the clearest relation to the question; inasmuch as it is a decision, that the Gentile converts were not obliged to observe the law of Moses. It hath at the same time a plain relation to the point in question; for what could be more proper, than to take that occasion to let the Gentiles know, that they were obliged to the observance of such duties as were obligatory antecedently to the law of Moses, though they were exempted from that law? "Again, it is urged, that this decree could only oblige those to whom it was directed, i. e. the Gentiles of Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia. "As if the decree, and the reason of it, did not equally extend to all Gentile converts throughout the whole world. And as if this doctrine were only taught and received in those par ticular regions; when it is evident, bevond a possibility of being denied or doubted, that all Christians in every region of the earth, were taught, and actually embraced the same doctrine, at least, for the first three hundred years after Christ. "But it is still objected, that this dispute could not have happened otherwise than between Gentile and Judaizing con. verts; and consequently, the decision of it must have respect to the conduct which it was then necessary the Gentiles should hold, with regard to the Jews, who could not converse with them upon the foot of a friendly communication, could not sit at meat, &c. unless the Gentiles abstained from blood, &c. "Consequently, that this necessity is now ceased. "In answer to this, admitting the premises, I must own I cannot see how this conclusion follows from them, as long as there are Jews and Mahometans in the world to be con verted to the Christian religion. "Fornication, idolatry, luxury, and cruelty to the creatures, are prohibited by this decree; and an original precept from God to Noah, of manifold advantage to mankind, restored: is it to be believed, the apostles could stand in need of a particular occasion to prohibit those enormities; or to restore this blessing? "Fornication did not appear to the heathen world to be contrary to the law of nature; (nor do the libertines of the age see it to be so to this day ;) and as they had no restraints upon intemperance, their luxury of food greatly contributed to make them abandoned. How then could the apostles, whose business it was to reform the world, pretend to amend mankind, without recovering them from these corruptions ? And what more effectual method could they take to recover them, than a most solemn and sacred injunction of abstinence in those points contained in the decree of Jerusalem ? And that the apostles had nothing less than this in view from that decree, is, I think, fairly and fully to be collected from these words of St. Luke, Acts xvi. 4, 5. And as they (i. e. Paul and his companions) went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apss "But this is yet farther demonstrated, from St. James's sen-tles and elders which were at Jerusalem, and so were the Dissertation concerning the clearly determines the lawfulness of eating any thing sold in "But there are yet two other main fundamental objections against this doctrine, taken from the declarations of our Savour, St. Peter, and St. Paul. "And the first of them is built upon those words of our blessed Saviour, on the 15th chapter of St. Matthew, at the eleventh verse, Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man, but that which cometh out of the mouth. From hence it is inferred, that a man may eat or drink any thing without sin, notwithstanding the apostolic decree. But surely no Christian would say this, that saw the absurdities of this assertion; for if this declaration of our Saviour's destroys the validity of the apostolic decree, then it will follow: "First, That this decree was repealed just twenty years before it was made, which is surely a very extraordinary supposition; for whoever looks into the chronology of his Bible will find, that these words of our Saviour were spoken twenty years before the apostolic council was held at Jerusalem. "Secondly, It will follow, that the whole body of the apostles did, after fill debate and mature deliberation, make a most solemn decree, in direct contradiction to the plain, express declaration of their blessed Lord and Saviour. "And this supposition is surely as modest, and as Christian, as the first was extraordinary: nay, more; they made this decree under the immediate direction and influence of the Spirit of God, and yet made it in direct contradiction to the declaration of the Son of God. I am really at a loss to think whether the absurdity or the blasphemy of these suppositions is most shocking. Let us quit them then, and examine our Saviour's words by the common rules of reason. "And to clear this point, I lay this down as a plain rule of interpretation, That general expressions ought not to be extended beyond the reason of them, and the occasion of their being delivered. For example, St. Paul, in the tenth chapter of his First Epistle to the Corinthians, answering the arguments of those converts who pretended they might innocently eat of those things offered to idols, even in the idol temples, ases these words, All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient. Will any man infer from hence, that murder, and adultery, and incest, were lawful to St. Paul? Or that he thought they were? No, surely! What then can be mean by them? I answer, that the reason and occasion of them must determine that question; and do determine the plain sense of those words to be this: All things that are lawful to any other man, are also lawful to me; but every thing that is lawful to be done, is not always expedient: though the liberty you took of eating in the idol temple were lawful; yet, if it give offence, you ought not to take it. "In the same manner should that general expression of our Saviour's be interpreted, Not that which goeth into the mouth, defileth the man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, that defileth the man. Does any man imagine, that our Saviour meant to give full license to gluttony and intemperance by this declaration? Or that a inan might deliberately swallow poison by virtue of these words; or, in general, might innocently eat any thing which the law of God at that time forbad to be eaten? These were strange absurdities to be supposed: the sense of the declaration then must be drawn from the reason and occasion of it, which was this: The Pharisees were offended with our Saviour's disciples for sitting down to meat before they washed their hands, contrary to the tradition of the elders; as if such a violation of a traditional precept, were sin and a pollution. In answer to this, after our Saviour hath shown the iniquity and absurdity of their traditions, he adds, Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man. Now the question is, what he meant by those words? And if he himself had not told us, I really think that the occasion and common sense would teach us to understand no more by them, than this, that it is not any little soil or filth taken into the mouth, from eating with unwashed hands, that can be said to defile a man; nothing of that kind can be called a pollution. This, I say, is the plain, natural, obvious sense of those words. Indeed, the latter part of the declaration is not so plain; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth the man. This part of it, I say, is not so intelligible; neither was it so to the disciples, and therefore Peter desired his Lord to declare this parable unto them. And accordingly he did so, by showing that whatsoever pollution was taken in at the mouth was cast out into the draught, but what came out of the mouth, came forth from the heart, as did evil thoughts of all kinds: and then he adds, these are the things that defile the man-but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man. "I come now to the last objection of weight. which is this: that the distinction of clean and unclean meats is plainly taken away in the New Testament; and particularly by that voice from heaven in St. Peter's vision: and that St. Paul 400 very command to St. Peter in that vision, is so far from ta to St. Peter was given in the forty-first year from our Sa a command of easy, unexpensive observance; preventive of of the forbidden fruit. Moses, and ratified by the apostles of Jesus Christ; given im- that it is an error on the sure side: it is innocent: it is an error infinitely better authorized, and nearer allied to religion, "If mine be an error, it must be owned at the same time virtue, and humanity, than its contrary! for, (not to mentio the precepts of apostles, the opinions of fathers, and the de crees of councils.) if I err, I err with the most of men, (not heathen,) and with the best! with the whole Christian world err on the side of humanity and health; and a religious gratitude to the Author and Giver of life, for every creature slain of the best ages! and the whole eastern world to this day. I for my support! I err, in opposition to a practice manifestly brutal and savage; a practice which human nature abhore; Paul associates with himself CHAPTER XVI. a savage practice! which overran the West, together with the T Timothy, a young convert every virtue lives, and is esteemed in the world. Who is so ignorant as not to know that this meanest denomination of men subsists upon earth, like the meanest species of insects; by teazing and tainting to the utmost of their malignant might, and then feeding where they have infected: but God be prai sed, their impotence affects nothing but infirmity; and the slightest fence is security against them. Some difference, I hope, will be allowed between us on this occasion. I write from the dictates of a good conscience; it is theirs to see if they reproach not from the influence of an evil; I write from the clearest conviction: let them beware that they rail not from corruption. This I will say without scruple, I reason from the light of an humble, an honest, and a diligent inquiry: and if they ridicule, they ridicule from the depth of a lazy and conceited ignorance. How far that ignorance will acquit them at the great day of account, God only knows." DELANY's Revelation Examined with Candour. p. 18, &c. CHAPTER XVI. Vol. II Paul coming to Derbe and Lystra, meets with Timothy, the son of a Jewess by a Greek father, whom he circumcises, and takes with him into his work, 1-3. As they pass through the different cities, they deliver the apostles' decrees to the churches; and they are established in the faith, and daily increase in numbers, 4, 5. They travel through Phrygia, Ga latia, Mysia, and to Troas, 6-8, where Paul has a vision relative to his preaching in Macedonia, 9, 10. Leaving Troas, he sails to Samothracia and Neapolis, and comes to Philippi in Macedonia, 11, 12 Lydia, a seller of purple, receives the apostles' teaching; she and her family are baptized, 12-15. A young woman with a spirit of divination dispossessed by St. Paul, 16-18. Her masters finding their gain by her soothsaying gone, make an attack upon Paul and Silas, drag them before the magistrates, who command them to be beaten, thrust into the closest prison, and their feet made fast in the stocks, 19-24. Paul and Silas singing praises at midnight, the prison doors are miraculously opened, and all the bonds of the prisoners loosed, 25, 26. The keeper being alarmed, supposing that the prisoners were fled, is about to kill himself, but is prevented by Paul, 27, 23. He inquires the way of salvation, believes, and he and his whole family are baptized, 29 34. The next morning the magistrates order the apostles to be dismissed, 35, 36. Paul pleads his privilege as a Roman, and accuses the magistrates of injustice, who, being alarmed, come themselves to the prison, deliver them, and beg them to depart from the city, 37-39. They leave the prison, eater into the house of Lydia, comfort the brethren, and depart, 40. [A. M. cir. 4057. A. D. cir. 53. An. Olymp. cir. CCVIII. 1.] came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek, THEN 2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. 5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily. 6 Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, 7 After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia; but the Spirit suffered them not. 8 And they passing by Mysia, hcame down to Troas. d Ch 6.3-el Cor.9 20. Gal.2.3. See Gal. 5.2.-f Ch. 15. 28, 29.-g Chap. 15.44.h2 Cor. 2.12, 2 Tim. 4.13. NOTES.-Verse 1. A certain disciple] Bishop Pearce would written here. He supports his opinion by a reference to the read the latter part of this verse, and the beginning of the word xpvw, I judge; used by James, chap. xv. 19. whence next, thus-A certain disciple named Timotheus, (the son of the whole decision, as it referred-1. To the inexpediency of a certain Jewish woman that believed, but of a father who circumcising the Gentiles; and, 2. To the necessity of obserwas a Greek) who was well reported of by the brethren, &c.ving the four precepts laid down, was called ra KEKρiμEva, the This Timothy was the same person to whom St. Paul wrote things that were judged, or decided on; the judgments of the those two noble epistles which are still extant. His mother's apostolic council. Instead of KEKPLμEva, the Syriac has a word name was Eunice, as we learn from 2 Tim. i. 5. What his fa- that answers to yeypapuera, the decrees that were written. ther's name was we know not; he was either a mere heathen, The word doypa, froin doo, to think proper, determine, deor, at most, only a proselyte of the gate, who never submitted to crce; signifies an ordinance, or decree properly and delibecircumcision: had he submitted to this rite, he would, no rately made, relative to any important point; and which, in doubt, have circumcised his son; but the son being without reference to that point, has the force of law. Our term dog5. And so were the churches established] The disputations it, is a proof that the father was so too. Some MSS. state that ma, which we often abuse, is the Greek word in English letters. Timothy's mother was now a widow, but this does not appear at Antioch, relative to circumcision, had no doubt spread far to be well founded. and wide among other churches; and unhinged many. The decrees of the apostles came in good time, and prevented farther mischief: the people, saved from uncertainty, became of converted souls. established in the faith; and the church had a daily accession 2. Which was well reported of] These words are spoken of 4. They delivered them the decrees for to keep] Ta doyuara, 6. Were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia] The Asia mentioned here could not be Asia Minor, in general; for Galatia, Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia, and Pamphylia, were provinces of it; and in these the apostles preached; but it was what is called Proconsular Asia, which included only Ionia, Eolia, and Lydia. The apostles were not suf fered to visit these places at this time; but they afterward went thither, and preached the Gospel with success: for it was in this Proconsular Asia that the seven churches were situated. God chose to send his servants to another place, where he saw that the word would be affectionately received; and probably those in Proconsular Asia were not, as yet, suff cienty prepared to receive and profit by it. 7. After they were come to Mysia] They passed through Phrygia into Mysia, which lay between Bithynia on the north, Phrygia on the east, Æolia on the south, and the Mediterranean on the west. But the Spirit suffered them not.] God saw that that was not the most proper time to preach the word at Bithynia; as he willed them to go immediately to Macedonia, the people there being ripe for the word of life. Instead of ro Iveva, the Spirit merely; To Пvεvua Incov, the Spirit of JESUS, is the reading of ABCDE, several others, with both the Syriac, the Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Vulgate, Itala, and several of the Fathers. The reading is undoubtedly genuine, and should be immediately restored to the text. 8. Came down to Troas.] The Troad, or part of Phrygia Minor, in which the celebrated city of Troy was formerly si401 tuated. This city was first built by Dardanus, who was its king, 35* 9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood 10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endea 13 And on the "sabbath we went out of the city by a river iChap 10 30-k 2 Cor. 2.13-1 Phil. 1.1.-m Or, the first.-n Gr. Sabbath day. and from whom it was called Dardania: from Tros, his 9. A vision cppeared to Paul in the night] Whether this Some suppose that the guardian angel of Macedonia ap- 10. We endeavoured to go into Macedonia] This is the first place that the historian St. Luke refers to himself: we endea voured, &c. And from this it has been supposed, that he joined the company of Paul, for the first time, at Troas. Assuredly gathering) Evußißatorres, drawing an infer. ence from the vision that had appeared. That the Lord had called us for to preach] That is, they inferred that they were called to preach the Gospel in Macedonia, from what the vision had said, come over and help us; the help meaning, preach to us the Gospel. Instead of o Kuptos, the Lord, meaning JESUS, several MSS., such as ABCE, several others, with the Coptic, Vulgate, Theophylact, and Jerome, have 6 Osos, GOD. Though this stands on very reputable authority, yet the former seems to be the better reading; for it was the SPIRIT of JESUS, ver. 7. that would not suffer them to go into Bithynia, because he had designed that they should immediately preach the Gospel in Macedonia. 11. Loosing from Trous] Setting sail from this placeWith a straight course to Samothracia] This was an island of the gean Sea, contiguous to Thrace, and hence called Samothracia, or the Thracian Samos. It is about twenty miles in circumference, and is now called Samandrachi by the Turks, who are its present masters. And the next day to Neapolis. There were many cities of this name: but this was a seaport town of Macedonia, a few miles eastward of Philippi. Neapolis signifies the new city. 12. And from thence to Philippi) This was a town of Mas cedonia, in the territory of the Edones, on the confines of Thrace, situated on the side of a steep eminence. It took its name from Philip II. king of Macedon. It is famous for two battles fought between the imperial army commanded by Octavianus, afterward Augustus, and Mark Antony; and the republican army commanded by Brutus and Cassius, in which these were successful: and a second between Octavi anus and Antony, on the one part, and Brutus on the other. In this battle the republican troops were cut to pieces, after which Brutus killed himself. It was to the church in this city that St. Paul wrote the epistle that still goes under their name. This place is still in being, though much decayed; and is the see of an archbishop. The chief city of that part of Macedonia) This passage has greatly puzzled both critics and commentators. It is well known thatwhen Paulus Emilius had conquered Macedonia, he divided it into four parts, uepn, and that he called the country that lay between the rivers Strymon and Nessus, the first part, and made Amphipolis its chief city, or metropolis: Philippi, therefore, was not its chief city. But Bishop Pearce has, with great show of reason, argued, that though Amphipolis was made the chief city of it by Paulus Emilius, yet Philippi might have been the chief city in the days of St. Paul, which was two hundred and twenty years after the division by P. Emilius. Besides, as it was at this place that Augustus gained that victory which put him in possession of the whole Roman empire, might not he have given to it that dignity which was before enjoyed by Amphipolis? This is the most rational way of solving this difficulty; and thereupon I shall not trouble the reader with the different modes that have been proposed to alter and amend the Greek text. And a colony] That is, a colony of Rome; for it appears that a colony was planted here by Julius Cesar, and afterward enlarged by Augustus: the people, therefore, were considered as freemen of Rome, and from this, call themselves Romans, ver. 21. The Jewish definition of Np kolonia (for they have the Latin word in Hebrew letters, as St. Luke has it here 402 the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she con sel 4 possessed with a spirit of divination, met as, which 16 And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain dambrought her masters" much gain by soothsaying: men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto Kowvia in Greek letters) is a free city which does not pay Ou evoμLETO TOOσevyn eivai, where it was said there was a pro seuchu. The proseucha was a place of prayer, or a place 13. By a river side, where prayer was wont to be made] used for worship, where there was no synagogue. It was a large building, uncovered, with seats, as in an amphitheatre. Buildings of this sort the Jews had by the sea side, and by the note on Luke vi. 12. It appears that the apostles had heard from some of the Gentiles, or from some of the Jews themsides of rivers. See this subject considered at large in the they went out in quest of it, knowing that as it was the Sabselves, that there was a place of prayer by the river side; and bath, they should find some Jews there. of their public worship; and while they were waiting for the was situated. The Lydian women have been celebrated for Jewish religion; as were probably all the women that resorted Which worshipped God] That is, she was a proselyte to the hither. shipper of God, she was prepared to receive the heavenly truths spoken by Paul and his companions; and, as she was Whose heart the Lord opened] As she was a sincere wor faithful to the grace she had received, so God gave her more grace, and gave her now a divine conviction that what was spoken by Paul was true; and therefore she attended unio the things; she believed them, and received them as the doctrines of God; and in this faith she was joined by her whole family and in it they were all baptized. meaning seems to be this: if my present reception of the Gos pel of Christ, be a proof to you that I have been faithful to the 15. If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord] The Lord, in the light previously imparted; and that I am as already received; and consequently, not likely by light or fickle conduct, to bring any discredit on this divine work; likely to be faithful to this new grace, as I have been to that that this woinan had not received a measure of the light of God before this time. come into my house and abide there. It is wrong to suppose persuasions, that at last they consented to lodge there. ruwvos, having a spirit of Python, or of Apollo. Pytho was, term soothsaying comes from the Anglo-Saxon rob, truth |