The works of the Reverend and learned John Lightfoot D. D., late Master of Katherine Hall in Cambridge such as were, and such as never before were printed : in two volumes : with the authors life and large and useful tables to each volume : also three maps : one of the temple drawn by the author himself, the others of Jervsalem and the Holy Land drawn according to the author's chorography, with a description collected out of his writings.

CHAP. VII.

VERS. II.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

To Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia.

g 1.1 ABRAHAM is like the friend of a King, who when he saw the King walking in darksome Galleries, gave light to him by a window: which when the King saw, he said unto him, because thou hast given me light through a window, come and give me light before my face. So did the Holy Blessed God say to Abraham, because thou hast given light to me, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of my Mesopotamia, and its Com∣panious, come and give light to me in the Land of Israel. Whether or no it be worth the while to enquire why God should term it my Mesopotamia, as also what should be the meaning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 her Consorts, or Companions: yet can I not but take notice that this adjunct doth once and again occur in the writings of the Jews.h 1.2 O seed of Abra∣ham my friend I took thee from the ends of the Eurth; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 viz. from Mesopotamia and her Companions.i 1.3 Who is he among you that feareth the Lord? This is Abraham: who walketh in darkness. Who came 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of Meso∣potamia and her Consorts, and knew not whither; like the man that dwelleth in darkness. It is written indeed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as if it should be out of Spain, but I correct it by the authority of the Aruch, and indeed the very sense it self corrects it. The Gloss hath nothing but this trifling passage in it, I have found the interpretation of Mesopotamia, viz. that it is the name of a City in Aram Naharaim.

The Geographers do indeed distinguish betwixt Mesopotamia and Babylon, or Chaldaea; So in Ptolomys fourth Table of Asia to omit other authors, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. The Country of Babylon is bounded, on the South lieth Mesopotamia, &c. And yet Babylon may in some measure be said to be in Mesopotamia: partly because it lay between the two Rivers Euphrates and Tigris, but especially ac∣cording to the propriety of Scripture Language, because it was beyond the River. Which we may take notice was observed by the Vulgar Interpreter in Josh XXIV. 3. where what in the Hebrew is, I took your Father Abraham 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the other side of the flood, he hath rendred it, I took your Father Abraham, De Mesopotamiae finibus, from the borders of Mesopotamia.

Josephus speaking of Abraham and his removing from his Country, hath this passage,k 1.4 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Wherefore the Chaldeans and other Mesopotamians moving tumults against him he thought fit to remove his seat, &c. Where we see the Chaldeans amongst others are called, those of Mesopotamia. Nor indeed without cause, when as Eratosthenes in Strabo tells usl 1.5 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. that Mesopotamia with the Country of Babylon, is contained in that great compass, from Euphrates and Tigris.

And so perhaps the Rabbin newly quoted, distinguisheth; that that is Mesopotamia, which he makes to be called by God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 my Mesopotamia, is Charran, where the wor∣ship of God had been kept up in the family of Nahor; and which had been the native Country and breeder up of eleven Patriarchs. And so let 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 her Consorts Babylon, and Chaldea; for in what other signification 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here can be taken in, I cannot well tell.

In that Stephen speaks of God appearing to Abraham while he was yet in Chaldea be∣fore he removed to Charran, when Moses rather ascribes that passage to Terah his Father Gen. XI. he speaks with the Vulgar, according to the commonly received opinion of his Countrymen. Who not only taught that Abraham acknowledged and worshipt the true God even while his Father Terah worshipped Idols; bur further, that Terah was so zea∣lous an Idolater, that he delivered his son Abraham to Nimrod to be cast into a fiery furnace. We have the tale in Bereshith Rabba,* 1.6 ridiculous enough.

VERS. III.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

Get thee out of thy Country, and from thy kindred.

I Would not confound this passage with that in Gen. XII. 1. For Stephen and indeed the thing it self assures us that this was spoken to Abraham, in Chaldea; but that, in Charran. Here is no mention of his going from his Fathers house, as there is there. Nor

did he indeed depart from his Fathers house, when he removed from Ur of the Chal∣deans; for he took his father and whole family along with him. But he departed, when he removed from Charran, leaving his father buried behind him, and Nahor his brother, with his family.

VERS. IV.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

When his Father was dead, &c.

HERE ariseth a difficulty, and upon that a controversie, which we may take in in the words of R. Salomon upon Gen. XI. And Terah died in Charran, that is, more than threescore years after Abraham had left Charran, and had setled in the Land of Canaan. For it is written, Abraham was seventy five years of age, when he went out of Charran, and Terah was seventy years old when Abraham was born. Behold Terah was one hundred and forty five years of age, when Abraham left Charran, and he had a great many years yet behind. There remained indeed, according to this calculation, sixty years.

I. In that whole Chapter there is no mention of the death of any person there na∣med, before or beside that of Terah. Where by the way we may take notice of the boldness of the Greek Interpreters, who to every one of those persons have annext, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and he died, directly against the purpose of Moses, and the mind of the Apostle, Heb. VII. 3. Now therefore why, when Moses had past over the death of all the rest that had been reckoned up before in that Catalogue should it be put in concerning Terah only, that he died in Charran, were it not to shew, that Abraham did not re∣move from thence till after his Fathers decease there? This R. Solomon, even while he is defending the contrary, seems something apprehensive of; For thus he expresseth himself; Why doth the Scripture tell of the death of Terah, before it mentions Abrahams removal? viz. lest the matter should be made public, and men should say, Abraham did not give that honour to his Father that he ought to have done, relinquishing him now in his old age, and going away from him; the Scripture therefore speaks of him as now dead, be∣cause the wicked, even while they are alive, are accounted for dead.

How is this Rabbin mistaken? For Terah now is no wicked man nor an Idolater, but converted, and therefore Moses makes him chief in that removal out of Chaldea, that his conversion might be known; although the command concerning the departure from that Country came first to Abraham. And if it was not lawful for Abraham to have forsaken his Father being yet an Idolater, much less was it so, when he was now become a worshipper of the true God.

II. It is indeed said that Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abraham, Nahor, and Haran, but as it is against reason to suppose they were all begot in one year, so there is no necessity to think they were begot in the order they are placed in in the story. Here that common maxim of the Rabbins takes place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there is no first and last in the Holy Scripture, i. e. the order of the story does not ne∣cessarily determine the time of it. And the Gemarists themselves, however they sup∣pose that Abraham might be older than Nahor one year, and Nahor than Haran one year; yet do they at length conclude 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 perhaps Abraham was the youngest of his Brethren;m 1.7 which they also confirm out of the order observed in numbring the sons of Noah, where Sem is first in the Catalogue, though he was younger than Japhet.

It is commonly received amongst the Jews, that Sarah Abrahams wife, was the daughter of his brother Haran, and that not without reason 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jecah (say they) is the same with Sarah, and Josephus, speaks it out, as a thing of antient tradition. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Haran leaving one Son, Lot, and Sarah and Milcha two daughters dyed in Chaldea.n 1.8 If therefore Sarah who was but ten years younger than Abraham was Ha∣rans daughter (which seems to be in some measure confirmed, Gen. XX. 12.) we can by no means suppose Abraham to have been the first born amongst the sons of Te∣rah, but Haran rather, unless we will trifle with some of the Rabbins, and say that Ha∣ran begat Milcha when he was but six or eight years old. But they conclude at length a little more rationally, if I understand what they mean, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they reckon them up according to their wisdom.

Conceive Abraham therefore born, not in the seventieth but in the hundred and thirthieth year of Terah, and that these words here recited by Stephen were spoken to him in Ur of the Chaldeans; but those mentioned Gen. XII. 1. spoken in Charran;

and thus joyn the story. Terah dyed in Charran: Then said God unto Abra∣ham, &c.

VERS. XIV.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Threescore and fifteen Souls.

THE Hebrew Copies have it every where but threescore and ten. So also Josephuso 1.9 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. He came to Egypt with his Sons, and all their Sons, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they were in all threescore and ten. Again elswherep 1.10 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. wherewith threescore and ten, all that were with him going down into Egypt, &c.

So Ezekiel, Tragad. in Euseb. de praepar. Evangel.* 1.11 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. From the time that Jacob having left the Land of Canaan, came down into Egypt, having seven times ten Souls with him. So the very Greek Version it self in Deut. X. 22. 'Ev 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Thy Fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons; which is strange, when they have it in another place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 threescore and fifteen.* 1.12 We may easily discern that Saint Luke here follows that Version, that adds five Grand∣children to Joseph, Gen. XLVI. 20. Machir and Gilead, because of those words, Gen. L. 22. The Sons of Machir, the Son of Manasseh, brought up upon Josephs knees. And Sute∣lah, and Tahan and Eden, because it is said, Joseph saw Ephraims Children unto the third genera••••on. Where, by the way, I cannot but think it strange, why the Greek Inter∣preters should select these their additional persons out of the Sons of Joseph rather than any other of the Patriarchs: and further take notice, how though they reckon up nine Children of Joseph, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Now the Sons of Joseph which were born to him in the Land of Egypt were nine Souls, ver. 27.) yet they name but seven. Josephus the Historian speaking of those threescore and ten persons that went down into Egypt, I will reckon them up (saith he) that I may satisfie those who would pre∣tend we took not our original from Mesopotamia, but from Egypt: It is strange therefore that the Interpreters would add those that were actually born in Egypt. But it seems that when they would confound the true number, they chose those upon the ac∣count of those words in Gen. L. which we mentioned.

As to these Children of Ephraim, and others whose story is mentioned 1 Chron. VII. 20. the Masters of Traditions tell some ridiculous tales of them; viz. that having not counted right as to the years of their bondage in Egypt, they went to invade the Land of Palestine before the appointed time, and fell by the sword of the Git∣tites.q 1.13 But that they came to life again with those whom Ezekiel raised from the dead, Chap. XXXVII.r 1.14

I have in my notes upon Luke III. offered my conjecture why the Interpreter should confound the number, and put threescore and fifteen, instead of threescore and ten: as also why the Evangelist should follow that Version, and that number: and am of the same mind still. In the mean time wondring at their retaining the true number, Deut. X. 22. Where Nobilius in his Scholia, tells us, Josephus lib. 2. Antiquitatum &c. Josephus in his second book of Antiquities writing of Jacob, hath set the number. (I have quo∣ted the passage already) And St. Jerom in his questions upon Genesis, witnesseth that the Septuagint so writ it. Alii codices, &c. Other Copies have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 threescore and fifteen Souls.

If the Septuagint wrote so in this place, when elsewhere they have threescore and fifteen, I know no other reason can be rendred of it, but that Moses is here introdu∣ced speaking to the people of Israel, who very well knew the certain and true num∣ber; but elsewhere, where it is rendred by them threescore and fifteen, he is writing an History for the whole world, to whom the precise number was not so well known. But one may suspect the same pen did not translate the Book of Deuteronomy, that had translated the Books of Genesis, and Exodus. So Gaphterim in Gen. X. 14. by the Interpreter of that Book is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gaphthoriim, or as it is in M. S. Alex. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Caphthoriin; but in the Book of Deuteronomy, Chap. II. 23. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cappadocians.

VERS. XVI.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Were carry'd over into Sychem.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ever let a man teach his disciple concisely s 1.15, or briefly. So that a short way of speaking, especially in a thing plain, was not strange amongst the Jews; which rule if Steven follow'd in this place, he might do it more safe∣ly and unblameably in a story so well known.

I. It was very commonly and without any kind of doubt receiv'd amongst them that the bones of the Twelve Patriarchs, as well as those of Jacob, were carry'd out of Egypt into Canaan t 1.16. It is written I will go down with thee into Egypt, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and even in going up I will make thee to go up, Gen. XLVI. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What are we taught by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 even in going up? He saith I will make thee to go up, and I will make all the other Tribes to go up too: teaching thereby 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that every Tribe should carry up the bones of the Patriarch of his Tribe with it. Take notice by the way that the Seventy render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unto the end.

u 1.17 The bones of all the Patriarchs were carry'd out of Egypt and buried in the land of Canaan, as it is written, And ye shall carry up my bones with you, Gen. L. 25. w 1.18

II. Thus far therefore Stephen speaks with the consent of that Nation, viz. that the bones of the Patriarchs were conveighed out of Egypt into Canaan. But what can we say as to their being bury'd in Sychem? Doubtless he spake according to the common re∣ceived opinion amongst them in this thing also; though I cannot but say that a•••• Jewish writers, as far as I have met with, are wholly silent in it. Nay Josephus himself will have them buried in Hebron, and that before the Israelites came out of Egypt x 1.19.

The Talmudists speak very much of Joseph's being bury'd in Sychem, and amongst other things say this, That they stole him from Sychem, and restor'd him to sychem again y 1.20. But as to the burying of the other Patriarchs there, they have not one word. Benjamin also in his Itinerary, speaking of Sychem mentions the Sepulcher of Joseph, and none but that. And so do the Cippi Hebrai••i, as the Learned Hottinger translates them, From Sechem at the distance of a Sabbath-days journey, lyes a village call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Belata, where Joseph the just of blessed memory lyes buried.

I conceive the reason why the Jews are so silent in this matter, may be because they fear it would be a reproach to themselves, and too great an honour for the Samaritans, that the Patriarchs bones should lye amongst them. As to Joseph's being buried there, there could be no denial of that, because the Scripture speaks it in express terms, that he was buried in Sichem; but it is very grievous for them to acknowledg that all the other heads of the Nation and Tribes should lye there where the apostacy of the Ten Tribes first began; and after their expulsion the odious Nation of the Samaritans were seated; and for this very reason one might argue that Stephen would never have mention'd such a thing if it could have been contradicted by them. The Masters of the Traditions indeed do tacitly yield that the eleven Patriarchs were not buried in Hebron, when they admit but four couples there, viz. Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah a 1.21. And if so, where were they buried? If we do but consider how the great charge and care of publick affairs was committed to Joshua, who was of the stock and lineage of Joseph, and from that very relation had a particular concern with Sichem, pro∣bability it self would argue (were there no other proof for it) that he would have as strict a care of the Patriarchs now deal as his Progenitor Joseph had had of them while they were yet alive.

Whence I cannot but wonder that the Samaritans dwelling in Sichem, having in their Letters sent lately into England made mention of the Sepulchers of Joseph, Eleazar, Phinehas, the Seventy Elders, Eldad and Medad, that are with them to this day, should say nothing of the Sepulchers of the eleven Patriarchs. But so long as all the other Tribes are in mean esteem amongst them, and the Tribe of Ephraim, i. e. (if I may so speak) the Samaritan Tribe being of greatest account, it is the less wonder if they are not so very sollicitous, at least do not boast so much of the heads of the other Tribes.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And laid in the Sepulcher that Abraham bought for a summ of money, of the Sons of Emmor, the father of Sichem.

This passage is not a little obscure: not very unlike that in Gen. L. 5. saith Joseph, My father made me swear, saying, lo I die. In my grave 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which I have digged for me, or, which I have purchas'd for my self, there shalt thou bury me. I will not contend about the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whether it should be render'd, I have digged, as the Greek, Jonathan's

Targum, &c. have render'd it; or whether it should be, I have bought, as Onkelos; the Syriack and the Talmudists. Be it the one or the other, seeing the discourse is plainly about the cave of Maepelah, how can we say either this or that is true? I little question the for∣mer sense; for when Abraham had bought the Cave, and digged a Sepulcher in it for him∣self and Sarah; reason will tell us that Isaac did the same for himself and Rebecca; and Jacob for himself and Leah, for they both dwelt in Hebron as well as Abraham. But if we will admit of the latter sense (which the Rabbins tenaciously adhere to) there is no less a difficulty occurs than what is now before us. They indeed remove it by this blessed comment, viz. that when Jacob purchased the birthright from Esau, he did by a peculiar writing and deed of contract include this Cave within the bargain, as his own propriety. We may read the whole figment in Sotah, and the Targum of Jonathan in the places above quoted.

But to take this matter in hand a little more seriously.

I. It had been enough for Stephen to have made mention of the burial of Jacob and the Patriarchs without any addition about the purchase of the burying place, if he had not a design to hint something peculiar, in the mention he makes of it. Nor did it make for his cause at all to tell over a bare story, which they all knew, if there were not something included in it, that made for his defence. He had said before, ver. 5. concerning Abraham, that God had not given him any inheritance in the promised land, no not so much as to set his foot on; and here he tells them, that even Jacob and the Patriarchs had no place where they should be buried, but what they themselves bought for a sum of money:

And will you, O ye persecutors upon the meer promise of the land made to your Fa∣thers, be so confident as to perswade your selves it will be your abiding place for ever, and that howsoever you behave your selves toward God, you cannot be remov'd from it?

II. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That Abraham bought for a sum of money. Thus far is no difficulty when the discourse is of the burial of Jacob in the Cave of Macpelah, but the knot is in the following words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Sons of Em∣mor, the father of Sichem. That the Text is not interpolated (as Beza and Heinsius would have it) appears from the universal consent both of the Copies and the Translations. For those that would have it interpolated, cannot shew one Copy, reading it otherwise, and all the Versions follow this reading, in the very words wherein the difficulty most lyeth. The Syriack indeed refer the words to Jacob only, rendring it in the singular number 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And he was carried and laid, &c. but yet owns the following words in the Sepulcher that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the Sons of Hemor, where all the difficulty lyes. So also as to that clause, other Versions have it.

Now as to what is objected, let us take it in the words of Bereshith rabba b 1.22. R. Judan bar Simon saith, This is one of the three places, (viz. the Cave Jacob bought, Gen. XXXIII. 19.) concerning which the Nations of the world cannot reproach Israel, saying, that they took it by force and rapine: The places are these, the Cave of Macpelah, the house of the Sanctuary, and the Sepulcher of Joseph. The Cave of Macpelah, as it is written, And Abraham hearkened to Ephron, and weighed to Ephron, &c. Gen. XXIII. 16. The house of the Sanctuary, accor∣ding as it is said, so David gave to Ornan for the place, &c. 1 Chron. XXI. 25. And the Sepulcher of Joseph, as it is said, He (Jacob) bought a parcel of a field, &c. Gen. XXXIII. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jacob bought Shechem; or that parcel of it; therefore Abraham did not. But,

I. Let us take a little view of that passage, Gen. XII. 6. Abraham passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the high Oak: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the plain of Moreh. Vulg. Usque ad convallem illustrem, to the famous valley. Targ. Hieros. & Samarit to the vale of vision, &c. But our enquiry is for the place, rather than the Etymology. Deut. XI. 29, 30. Thou shalt put the blessing upon mount Gerizzim, and the curse upon mount Ebal. Are they not on the other side Jordan, by the way where the Sun goeth down, in the land of the Canaanites, who dwell in the Champaign, over against Gilgal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 besides the plains of Moreh.

Let us take the Talmudick Comments upon this place, c 1.23 When the Israelites had passed over Jordan they came to mount Gerizzim and mount Ebal, which are in the Country of Samaria, neer Sichem, which is besides the plain of Moreh. According as it is said, Are they not on the other side Jordan, &c. And it is said elsewhere, Abraham passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, to the plain of Moreh. What is the plain of Moreh there? Gen. XII. 6. it is Si∣chem. And so the plain of Moreh is Sichem here also. Deut. XI. 30. d 1.24 R. Eliezer ben Jose saith, In this thing have I accused the Samaritan Books of falsisying; and I said unto them, ye have falsisied your Law, and gained nothing by it; for you say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the plain of Moreh which is Sichem. For we confess that the plain of Moreh is Sichem. The Samaritan Text in Deut. XI. 30. hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the plain of Moreh near Sichem; but no such thing in Gen. XII. 6. is added.

If the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Sepulchre, did not lay some obstacle in the way, I should easily conceive that Stephen had his eye as intent (if not more) upon this place, as upon the Cave of Macpelah. It is not said that Abraham bought this place, much less that he bought it for a burying place; but however, that he did buy it (though not under that notion of a burying place) seems probable, because this was the first place in which he pitcht his Tent, and built an Altar; all which he would hardly have done upon another mans ground. It is said of Jacob that he bought a parcel of ground where he had spread his Tent, Gen. XXXIII. 19. And why should we not think that Abraham did the same, only it is not expressly said so of him as it is of Jacob.

It might be no improper question here upon what conditions Abraham, Isaac and Jacob fed their Cattel, and maintained their Families in the land of Canaan. Whether the pla∣ces and fields they occupied were common, and had no proper owner? Whether Abraham not far from Sichem in the plain of Moreh, in the disposal of himself and his flocks, intru∣ded upon an others possession, or whether it was all champaign without any Lord? It is probable it was neither one nor the other; and therefore some third thing must be found out, viz. that either they might purchase those lands, or take them of the owners upon an agreed rent. It is said of Abraham that he planted a Grove in Beersheba, Gen. XXI. 33. How came he to any right in that piece of land? Had that place no Lord, no Prince, no owner till he came? If it had any Lord or owner (which is most probable) then it is easie apprehending how Abraham might come by the possession of it, viz. by some sum of mo∣ney, though there is no mention made of it.

However, whether Abraham bought the plain of Moreh or no, it is very evident from the words of the Protomartyr, that the Patriarchs were buried in that place, where he in his very first entry upon that land had made his abode, where he had received the first promise of the land by vision, and where he erected his first Altar; and I cannot believe but that either St. Stephen, or St. Luke would in this their short way of speaking, revive the memory of some such thing; viz. that the Patriarchs were buried in that very same place where Abraham had made his first abode, where he had received the first promise of the land; yet that they did not possess that land any otherwise than in their graves.

VERS. XXIII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

When he was full forty years old.

THE Martyr speaks agreeably with that whole Nation e 1.25 Moses was forty years in Pharaohs Court, and forty years in Midian, and forty years he served Israel. Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai exercised Merchandize forty years, was learning the Law forty years, and forty years he ministred to Israel. R. Akibah was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an illiterate person forty years; he bent himself to study forty years, and forty years he ministred to Israel f 1.26.

VERS. XXV.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

For he supposed that his brethren would have understood, &c.

MOSES was endowed with a spirit of Prophesie even in Pharaohs Court, (to which that passage may refer, that he was mighty in words and in deeds) and knew himself designed to redeem Israel out of Egypt, and so he thought that people conceived of him too. For they could not but know the story of his miraculous preservation in his infancy; his Providential education in a Prince's Court, and especially the apparent signs of a Prophetick spirit in him. Which though Moses himself speaks nothing of, yet doth Stephen relate it, not without good authority, and the consent of his Country-men, who all suppose Moses miraculously born, and as wonderfully saved in the Ark of Bulrushes; namely, that he was conceived when his mother was an hundred and thirty years of age; brought forth without any of the pangs of childbirth, and born 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 good, that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 apt for prophesying g 1.27. Note by the way how that fiction of Josephus h 1.28 concerning Pharaoh's putting his Crown upon the head of the child Moses, and his throwing it to the ground, is told also by the Jewish Rabbins i 1.29 only with this variation, that Moses himself took the Crown from Pharaoh's head and put it upon his own.

VERS. XLII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

Have you offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices, &c.

KImchi upon this place of Amos speaks out what the Jewish Schools think in this matter, by a passage taken out of Bab. Chagigah k 1.30, There is a Tradition concern∣ing the daily sacrifice made in mount Sinai. R. Eliezer saith, that there were rules indeed gi∣ven concerning it on mount Sinai, but the sacrifice it self was not offered. R. Akibah saith, it was offered, and from that time hath not ceased. But what do I prove (in these words) Have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices, by the space of forty years in the wilderness, O ye house of Israel? viz. the Tribe of Levi that had not committed Idolatry, they offered, but Israel did not offer. And in those words the children of Israel kept the Passover in its time, seems to be some reproach reflected upon Israel, as hinting that they had observed no Passover in the wil∣derness but that.

It is most certain that Sacrifices were offered in the striking of the Covenant, Exod. XXIV. in the Consecration of the Altar and the Tabernacle, and in the celebration of that Passover; and this was all done in Sinai, before the fatal decree past of their not en∣tring the land. But it may not without reason be suspected that though the daily Sacri∣fice were continued after that time, (for we find live-coals upon the Altar, Numb. XVI. 46. and it is not to be thought that fire would be perpetually burning on the Altar to no purpose.) But Gods complaint seems to be about the free-will offerings, that they ceased, and that none made oblations of their own good will. Nor let any think it strange that the Prophet, and after him the Proto-martyr counts up the time in that round sum of forty years, when it was indeed but eight and thirty and an half, for so doth God himself, Numb. XIV. 34.

VERS. XLIII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

And ye took up, &c.

THE word in Amos is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which if we might render with R. Sol. in the future tense, And ye shall bear your Idols with you into captivity, as burdens laid upon your shoulders, it would take off a little of the difficulty that otherwise seems to lye in this pas∣sage (for it might be very reasonably questioned, whether the Israelites ever did this in the wilderness) but then this is directly contrary both to the Greek Version in that Pro∣phet, and now to the Holy Ghost in this place, and to the very scope of the Proto-martyr in quoting it. For he speaketh of God as giving up the people to worship the host of heaven, and straightways suggests that they first desisted from serving God, and then ad∣dicted themselves to the worshipping of Idols. But the question is, whether the discourse in this place is concerned in the Idolatry they committed in the wilderness, or that in after-times. That it doth not point at the Idolatry in the wilderness, these following ar∣guments seem to confirm.

I. Because there is no mention of any Idolatry committed in the wilderness after the Golden Calf, besides that with Baal-Peor. And it is hardly imaginable that Moloch and Baal-Peor were the same, and that Moloch and Remphan were not two different Idols. Nor is it probable at all that the Sacred Historian would have past over such a piece of wickedness without any taking notice either of the fault or punishment; especially when as every where else the History of their Idolatry is related so very accurately. But not to multiply arguments,

II. If Stephen refer this Idolatry of the Israelites to the times after those in the wilder∣ness, and in that sense interprets the Prophet, he speaks the same thing that was common∣ly known and received amongst the Jews, viz. that the punishment of that sin of the Gol∣den Calf descended and was derived to following generations. l 1.31 R. Oshaiah saith, that to the times of Jeroboam the children of Israel suckt of one Calf, (the Gloss is, viz. that Calf they made in the wilderness) but from that time forward they suckt of two, and of a third too. (The Gloss is, those two of Jeroboam's, and the third of the wilderness.) R. Isaac saith, there is not any instance of vengeance that comes upon the world, wherein there is not a twenty fourth part of a pound of the first Calf. According as it is said, In the day that I visit I will visit their sin upon them. Exod. XXXII. R. Chaninah saith, after twenty four generations (the Gloss hath it in the Reign of King Zedekiah) this verse was accomplisht, as it is said, He cried in mine ears with a loud voice, the visitations of the City draw near, every man having his destroying weapon in his hand, Ezek. IX. 1.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The Tabernacle of Moloch.

The Prophet Amos hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lat. Interlin. Et portastis Siccuth Regem vestrum, i. e. Ye carried Siccuth your King. So R. Sol. and Kimchi, Siccuth is the name of an Idol. For my part I am at a stand in this matter, as also in what words the Chaldee Paraphrast hath rendred this clause. For in the Books publisht amongst us, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when as the Aruch citing the Targumist in this place saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Siccuth Malchechem with the Targumist is Succuth Pethachrechon. Ob∣serve Pethachrechon, not Pathcumarchon. And that it was so originally written in the Targumist, I do very much suspect, however Kimchi owns only the other reading. For,

1. It is not easie, I may say not possible to give 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that propriety in this place that it bears in Ezek. XIII. 18. and Chap. XVI. 16.

2. Whereas the same Paraphrast renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Isa. VIII. 21. by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Zephan. I. 5. by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is the more probable that he may render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which word it should seem he useth for some Idol, or heathen God, because when he would express a King taken in its proper sense, he always retains the usual word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If therefore according to the Copy quoted by the Aruch, it should be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 then the Chaldee Version falls in with the Greek, and shews that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be ren∣dered your Moloch; so that Moloch signifie an Idol, and Succuth not an Idol, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the tabernacle of Moloch, which seems the more likely from the agreement of the two clauses, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Tabernacle of Moloch, and Star of Remphan.

But who or what kind of God this Moloch should be, I will not spend much time to find out, this having been the business of so many Pens already, only this I cannot but ob∣serve, that both Moloch and Remphan were certain figures that represented some of the Coelestial Luminaries, because he saith, He gave them up to worship the host of Heaven, &c. And that it is generally supposed that by Moloch was represented the Sun, partly because of the Kingly name, and partly upon the account of the fiery form and shape of the Idol, and the fiery rites of its worship. It is also called Baal, Jer. XXXII. 35. They built the high places of Baal to offer their sons to Motoch. Which whether it be the same Idol that Ahab brought in upon Israel, might not be unworthy our considering. There may be some colour and hint of that bloody worship in what the Priests of Baal did to themselves, 1 King. XVIII. 28. They cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets till the blood gushed out upon them.

Moloch (as the Jews describe him) was an Image of brass, having the face of a Calf, his hands open, like one ready to receive something brought him from another. And so Diodorus Siculus describes Saturn of Carthage, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They had an Image of Saturn made of brass, stretching out his hands, extended towards the earth, so that a child being put into them was thrown and rould in a great gulph of fire q 1.32. There we have also this passage out of Philo concerning the History of the Phoenicians, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Sa∣turn therefore whom the Phoenicians call Israel, having governed that Country after his death, was made the Star called Saturn. Of his wife Anobret he had one only begotten Son, whom therefore they call Jeoud, that being the term for an only begotten Son amongst the Phoenicians to this day. Upon the breaking in of a very destructive war upon the Country, he takes his Son, and having decently adorned him, and prepared an Altar for him, sacrificed him on it. This Israel by name was Abraham by the character, from whom whether they derived by direful imi∣tation this horrid usage of sacrificing to Moloch, is no place at present to dispute; the que∣stion rather might be, whether the Israelites did act any such thing themselves in the wil∣derness; whether with the Tabernacle of the Lord they also erected a Tabernacle to Moloch too; whether having slighted the way of sacrificing beasts they instituted the of∣fering up of their own children. Which how unlikely it was that Moses should either suf∣fer it to be done, or having been done, should pass it by in silence, and make no mention at all of it, any one may judg. I shall conclude with that passage in Porphyrius quoted by the same Eusebius, worth our taking notice of: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. That these sacrifices of men were abolisht almost every where: Pallas tells us, who wrote excellently well concerning the mysteries of Mithra, under Adrian the Emperour.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And the Star of your God Remphan.

In Amos it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chijun; in the Seventy, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan. I would not in this place heap up what learned men have said in this matter; upon these two hinges the whole dif∣ficulty turns: First, to reconcile the Septuagint with the Prophet Amos, and then to re∣concile St. Stephen, or St. Luke with the Septuagint.

I. Forasmuch as the Heb. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chijun is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan in the Septuagint, I would not look for any thing Gigantick in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan, but something rather weak and infirm. Any one knows that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifie weak and weakness; and from thence perhaps the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan, may take its original, and not from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Giant. And so the same thing might be done by the Interpreters in this name, that had been done by the Jews in the name of Beelzebul, viz. invented the name for meer contempt and re∣proach. The naked and native signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chijun, is firm, upright, stable; and therefore is rendered by some in that place Basis, or foundation; a name indeed most un∣fit for an Idol, which is a lye, vanity, nothing; this the Septuagint being apprehensive of, might translate it by a word perfectly contrary, but more agreeable to the thing it self; viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan, that is in Hebrew, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 weakness, infirmity. If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan, does not denote Saturn in the Coptick language, as Kircher tells us.

II. But how 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan, should be changed into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there have been various, and those not impertinent conjectures. The Syriack and Arabick retain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which as to the sense we have mentioned sound properly enough to Eastern ears. And what if St. Luke or our Martyr, that they also (as much as might be) might sound the same thing in the ears of the Greeks should pronounce it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Remphan, where the sound of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies wandring, or tottering, might be included.

Be it therefore that Molech is the Sun, and Remphan or Chijun should be Saturn; we read of the Introduction of Molech into the land of Israel, but of Chijun not at all, only in the Prophet Amos, and here in the mention of Remphan.

When I read that in 1 King. XII. 30. That all the people went to worship the Calf in Dan. And observe further that Dan was called Panias, I begin to think that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Phan, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Remphan, may have some relation with that name; and that Dan is mentioned rather than Bethel, because the Idolatry, or Calf of that place con∣tinued longer than that of Bethel.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

I will carry you beyond Babylon.

But the Hebrew words of Amos are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beyond Damascus, so the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, beyond Damascus.

I. Nothing was more usual in the Schools and Pulpits of the Jews, than for the Reader or Preacher to vary and invert the Text of the Scripture, to adapt and accommodate it to his own sense. Hundreds of times we meet with this phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Talmudick Writers, and the Jewish Expositors, don't read this or that word so, but so, or so. Where forsaking the proper and genuine reading, they put another in the stead, that may better fall in with the matter they are upon. Not that they reject or vilifie the original Text, but to bring what they alledg more ingenuously to their own purpose. I have known this done in some words wherein they keep indeed to the same letters, but make the variation by the change of vowels. Which shews in the mean time that this was neither any strange thing amongst them, nor accounted any crime, but received rather with applause, to ali••nate the words of the Hebrew Text from their native and original reading, to deduce something either true in it self, or at least smooth and ingenious. And if Stephen here af∣ter the usage of the Schools, quoting this passage of the Prophet Amos 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be∣yond Damascus, had magisterially said as they were wont to do, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 don't read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beyond Damascus, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beyond Babylon, it would have gone down well enough with his auditory, both by reason of the usual custom of the Nation, and principally be∣cause what he said was true. For,

II. Let us consult another place in the same Prophet, Amos IV. 3. And ye shall go out at the breaches one against another, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and ye shall cast them into the palace. Where the Targum and Syriack, They shall carry them beyond the mountains of Armenia. And the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Unto the mount Romman. R. Sol. upon the place tells us, that Jonathan paraphraseth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beyond the mountains of Horman, they are the mountains of darkness. m 1.33 Alexander King of Macedon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 went to the King of Cazia behind the mountains of darkness. Let me add one passage more. n 1.34 Israel went into three Captivities, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one was within the river Sanbation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the other was to D••phne of An∣tioch. The other where the clouds did descend upon them and covered them o 1.35.

VERS. LI.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Stiff-necked.

VVE have a like phrase, and a story not much unlike in Shemoth rabba p 1.36, when the people in the absence of Moses were urgent with Aaron to make them Gods that should go before them, Hur resisted them, and said to them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ye short necked, do you not remember what wonderful things God hath done for you? Immediately they rose up against him and slew him.

VERS. LIII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

By the disposition of Angels.

I. I Would not render this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Angels, as the Syriack and Arabick Interpreters have done; but by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 messengers; so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Angel, or messenger of the Church. The Jews have a trifling ficti∣on, that those Israelites that were present at mount Sinai, and heard the Law pronounced thence by God himself, should have been like the Angels, that they should never have be∣got children, nor died, but for the time to come should have been like to Angels, had it not been for that fatal and unfortunate crime of theirs in the matter of the Golden Calf q 1.37.

If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might admit of this passive construction, that men might be dis∣posed into the same predicament or state with the Angels; then I should think our Blessed Martyr might in this passage remember them of their own opinion, and the more smartly convince them of their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, transgression of the Law, even from what they themselves granted. As though he had said,

Ye have received a Law which you your selves confess, would have put men into an Angelical state, and yet you have not obser∣ved it.

II. But if this clause will not bear that interpretation, it is doubtful in what sense the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be taken; and whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unto the dispositions be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the dispositions, or disposition. That expression in Gal. III. 19. agrees with this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ordain'd by Angels; and in both these places it would be something harsh to understand by Angels, those heavenly spirits strict∣ly and properly so taken; for what had they to do in the disposition of the Law? They were present indeed at Mount Sinai when the Law was given, as many places of the Holy Scriptures do witness; but then they were but present there, for we do not find that any thing further was done or performed by them. So that the thing it self makes it necessary that both in this and in that place we should understand by Angels, the messengers of God's Word; his Prophets and Ministers. And the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may retain its own pro∣per force and vertue, that the sense may come to thus much, viz.

Ye have received the Law unto the disposition of messengers, i. e. that it should be propounded and published by Ministers, Prophets, and others, and that according to your own desire and wish, Exod. XX. 19. Deut. v. 25. and XVIII. 15, 16. and yet ye have not kept the Law. Ye desired Prophets, and ye had them, and yet which of those Prophets have not you persecuted?

VERS. LVI.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.

CHRIST frequently calls himself the Son of Man, but it is rarely that we find him so called by others. But St. Stephen in this expression recites that of Dan. VII. 13. I saw one like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of Heaven, and coming to the ancient of days, and they brought him before him. I would hardly have expected from a Jew what R. Sa••diah ••aith upon this place, like to the Son of Man: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This is the Messiah our righteousness; but is it not written of the Messiah, poor and riding upon an Ass? For he shall come in humility.—And they brought him before the Ancient of days, this is that that is written, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand.

The Doctors in Sanhedrin r 1.38, talk much more out of the way, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If they are worthy (i. e. the Israelites) then he shall come with the clouds of Heaven; but if they are not worthy, then he will come poor, and riding upon an Ass. The Proto-martyr de∣clares he saw that of Daniel fulfilled now in Jesus; to which that in Isa. VI. 1. is some∣thing parallel.

VERS. LVIII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And casting him out of the City they stoned him.

s 1.39 I. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the place of stoning was without the Sanhedrin, according as it is said, bring forth him that hath cursed without the Camp, Levit. XXIV. 14. It is a Tradi∣tion 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the place of stoning was without three Camps. The Gloss tells us that the Court was the Camp of the Divine Presence, the Mountain of the Temple, the Camp of the Levites, and Jerusalem the Camp of Israel. Now in every San∣hedrin in whatever City, the place of stoning was without the City, as it was at Jerusalem.

We are told the reason by the Gemarists why the place of stoning was without the San∣hedrin, and again without three Camps, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If the San∣hedrin go forth and sit without the three Camps; they make the place for stoning also di∣stant from the Sanhedrin, partly lest the Sanhedrin should seem to kill the man; partly that by the distance of the place there may be a little stop and space of time before the Criminal come to the place of execution, if peradventure any one might offer some testi∣mony, that might make for him. For in the expectation of some such thing,

II. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

There stood one at the door of the Sanhe∣drin having a Handkerchief in his hand, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and an horse at such a distance as it was only within sight. If any one therefore say, I have something to offer in behalf of the condemned person, he waves the Handkerchief, and the horse∣man rides and calls the people back. Nay if the man himself say, I have something to offer in my own defence, they bring him back four or five times one after another, if it be any thing of moment that he hath to say.

I doubt they hardly dealt so gently with the innocent Stephen.

III. If no testimony arise that makes any thing for him, then they go on to stoning him:

The Crier proclaiming before him, N. the Son of N. comes forth to be stoned for such or such a crime: N. and N. are the witnesses against him, if any one hath any thing to testifie on his behalf, let him come forth and give his evidence.

IV.

When they come within ten cubits of the place where he must be stoned, they exhort him to confess, for so it is the custom for the malefactor to confess, because every one that confesseth hath his part in the world to come, as we find in the instance of Achan, &c.

V.

When they come within four cubits of the place, they pluck off his clothes, and make him naked.

VI.

The place of Execution was twice a mans height. One of the witnesses throws him down upon his loyns; if he roul upon his breast they turn him upon his loyns again. If he die so, well: If not, then the other witness takes up a stone, and lays it up∣on his heart.

If he die so, well; But if not, then he is stoned by all Israel.

VII. All that are stoned are hanged also, &c. These things I thought fit to transcribe the more largely, that the Reader may compare this present action with this rule and common usage of doing it.

1. It may first be questioned for what crime this person was condemned to die. You will say for blasphemy: For we have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. But no one is condemned as a blasphemer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unless for abusing the Sa∣cred name with four letters, &c. Hence is it that although they oftentimes accused our Saviour as a blasphemer, yet he was not condemned for this, but because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he used witchcraft and deceived Israel, and seduced them into Apostacy t 1.40 And those are reckoned amongst persons that are to be stoned, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that evilly perswades, and he that draws into Apostacy, and a Conjurer. u 1.41

2. It may further be questioned whether our Blessed Martyr was condemned by any formal sentence of the Sanhedrin, or hurried in a tumultuary manner by the people, and so murdered: It seems to be the later.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

At a young man's feet.

Phil. vers. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being such an one as Paul the aged; by which we may compute, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, here denotes mere youth, and not rather strength, and stoutness, 2 Sam. VI. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Every chosen man of Israel: where the Greek hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, every young man of Israel.

VERS. LX.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Fell a sleep.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He slept, than which nothing is more common in the Talmudists.

Notes

• g 1.1

  Beresh. Rabba▪ fol. 32. 3.
• h 1.2

  Ib. fol. 48. 1.
• i 1.3

  Ib. fol. 66. 1.
• k 1.4

  Antiqu. lib. 1. cap. 8.
• l 1.5

  Lib. 2.
• * 1.6

  Fol. 42. 2.
• m 1.7

  Sanh••dr. fol. 69. 2.
• n 1.8

  A•…•…▪ lib. 1. cap. ••.
• o 1.9

  Antiqu. lib. 2. cap. 4.
• p 1.10

  Ibid. cap. 5.
• * 1.11

  Lib. 9. ca. 28.
• * 1.12

  † Vid. Gen. 46. 27. & Exod. 1. 9
• q 1.13

  Targ. in Cant. 2. 7.
• r 1.14

  Sanbedr. fol. 92. 2.
• s 1.15

  Gloss in Ze∣vachin, fol. 2. 1.
• t 1.16

  Hierosol. So∣tah, fol. 17. 3.
• u 1.17

  Gloss in Bava kama, fol. 92. 1.
• w 1.18

  See also Beresh. rabba, fol. 115. 3. Gloss in Mac∣coth. 11. 2. R. Sol. in Exod. 13. 19.
• x 1.19

  Antiq. lib. 2. cap. 4.
• y 1.20

  Sotah, fol. 13. 2.
• a 1.21

  Sotah, fol. 13. 1.
• b 1.22

  Fol. 89. 1••
• c 1.23

  Sotah, fol. 32. 1.
• d 1.24

  Ibid. fol. 33. 2.
• e 1.25

  Beresh. rabba, fol. 115. 3.
• f 1.26

  Vid. Et She∣moth rabba, fol. 118. 3.
• g 1.27

  Sotah, fol. 12. 1.
• h 1.28

  Antiq. lib. 2. cap. ••.
• i 1.29

  Shemoth, rabb. fol. 118. 3.
• k 1.30

  Fol. 6. ••.
• l 1.31

  Sanhedr. fol. 102. 1.
• q 1.32

  Apud Euseb. Prepar. Evang. lib 4. cap. 16.
• m 1.33

  Beresh. rab. fol. 35. 4.
• n 1.34

  Hieros. San••e•• fol. 29. 3.
• o 1.35

  Vid. & ••emid. rabba, fol. 268. 1.
• p 1.36

  Fol. 156. 2.
• q 1.37

  Vid. Avod. Zarah, fol. 5. 1. & Hor. Heb. in Joh. X. 3••.
• r 1.38

  Fol. 98. 1.
• s 1.39

  Hieros. San∣hedr. fol. 23. 1, & Bab. Sanhed. fol. 42. 2.
• t 1.40

  Sanbedr. fol. 43. 1.
• u 1.41

  Ibid. fol. 53. 1.