This page has been validated.
118
LAW OF PASSIVE OBEDIENCE
for the general good of mankind! So that if we approve of the apostle's advice, in the beginning of the same sentence, viz: "Rendering, therefore, unto all their dues"—"tribute, unto whom tribute,—"custom to whom custom"—"fear to whom fear"—"honor to whom honor;" we must needs also allow, that the apostle's practice (even in his behaviour to Ananias) was strictly consistent with his own declared precepts, and that he most justly rendered to Ananias his due, when he so severely reprimanded his conduct as a judge! When all these circumstances are duly considered, the meaning of the apostle's reply, may, fairly enough, be paraphrased in the words of Lorinus,[1]
- ↑ "Nesciebam eum esse pontificem, quia, ex modo, loquendi furioso, non videtur esse pontifex, sed tyrannus." Many of the most learned and celebrated commentators have considered the apostle's censure nearly in the same light. In the learned commentary, commonly called Assembly's Annotations, the same sense is applied to the apostle's reply to the charge of having reviled God's high priest, viz: " I know him not to be a lawful high priest, who thus violateth the law; and, indeed," (says the Commentary,) "he was but an usurper." For proof of which they refer us to "Josephus, Ant. I. 20. c. 3. 5. Chr. Helvic. Theat. Hist. Anno Christi, 46."
The learned Mathias Flacius Francowitz remarks that the famous Augustine, bishop of Hippo, thought this reply of the apostle ironical. "and truly," says he, "it borders upon irony; for when he saw him (Ananias) sit in the chief place among the priests, to judge according to the law, he necessarily knew him to be the high priest: for even the little children knew that by his mere pomp and attendants; and much less could a man, so watchful and diligent as Paul, be ignorant of it; the sense, therefore, is," says the learned Francowitz, "I do not acknowledge, in this man, the high priest of God, but a hypocrite, a deceiver, and a persecutor of the truth. Otherwise, I well know that a ruler is not to be spoken against or reviled." To the same effect, also, the learned Monsieur Martin—"As St. Paul," says he, "was not ignorant, nor could be ignorant that this was the high priest, especially as he saw him at the head of the sanhedrin, it is better to translate the term of the original, by I did not think, &c. as in Mark ix. 5. and so to understand this reply of St. Paul as a grave and strong irony, by which he would make those understand, by whom he was accused of want of respect for the high priest, that this person was a man unworthy of that character, and that he did not believe, that a vicious and wicked man, such as Ananias, who had usurped
