_Answ._ We may suppose, that the apostle, when he says, _I wist not that he was the high priest_, intends nothing else, but I do not own him to be the high priest, as you call him; for he is not an high priest of God’s appointing or approving; which, had he been, he would have acted more becoming that character; and then I should have had no occasion to have told him, _God shall smite thee, thou whited wall_; for that would have been a _reviling him_; since I know that scripture very well, that says, _Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people_; therefore he intimates, that, though he was an high priest of man’s making, he was not one of God’s approving; and accordingly he was to be treated with contempt, instead of that regard which was formerly paid to the high priests, when they were better men, and acted more agreeable to their character. No one, that deserves to be called God’s high priest, would have ordered a prisoner, who came to be tried for his life, instead of making his defence, to be smitten on the mouth. But, suppose we render the words agreeably to our translation, I did not understand that he was the high priest, he may be vindicated from the charge of telling a lie, if we consider, _1st_, That this was a confused assembly, and not a regular court of judicature, in which the judge, or chief magistrate, is known to all, by the place in which he sits, or the part he acts in trying causes. _2dly_, The high priest, in courts of judicature, was not known by any robe or distinct habit that he wore, as judges now are; for he never wore any other but his common garments, which were the same that other people wore, except when he ministered in offering gifts and sacrifices in the temple. Therefore the apostle could not know him by any distinct garment that he wore. _3dly_, Through the corruption of the times, the high priest was changed almost every year, according to the will of the chief governor, who advanced his own friends to that dignity, and oftentimes sold it for money; it is therefore probable, that Ananias had not been long high-priest; and Paul was now a stranger at Jerusalem, and so might not know that he was high priest. Thus, if we take the words in this sense, in which they are commonly understood, the apostle may be sufficiently vindicated from the charge of telling a lie. (6.) It may be farther enquired, what judgment we may pass concerning David’s pretence, when he came to Abimelech, in 1 Sam. xxi. 2. that _the king commanded him a business_, _which no one was to know any thing of_; and that he had _appointed his servants to such and such a place_; and also of his _feigning himself mad_, before the king of Gath, ver. 13. which dissimulation can be reckoned no other than a practical lie.