And secondly, the originall Stories of the Old Testament, whence they are taken and whereto they referre; as first, that in Gen. Chap. 23. Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver which he had named, in the audience of the sons of Heth, foure hundred shekels of silver, currant money with the Merchant. And the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field, and the cave which was therein, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in all the borders round about, were made sure unto Abraham for a possession, in the presence of the chil∣dren of Heth: And the field, and the cave that is therein, were made sure unto A∣braham for a possession of a burying place, by the sonnes of Heth, v. 16, 17, 18. & 20.
Secondly, that in Chap. 50. vers. 13.—his sonnes carried him into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a possession of a burying place, of Ephron the Hittite, before Mamre.
Thirdly, that of Joshua, Chap. 24. vers. 32. And the bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem in a parcell of ground which Jacob bought of the sonnes of Ham••r, the father of Shechem, for an hundred pieces of silver; and it became the inheritance of the children of Joseph.
To which we may adde (and it will helpe to solve the doubt) a passage out of the Gospel of John, Chap. 4. vers. 5. Then cometh he to a citie of Samaria, which is called Sychar, neer to the parcell of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.
Out of which we will first gather up what is without controversie: secondly, we will set downe the severall doubts which arise out of the seeming contra∣diction of one Text to another: thirdly, we will endeavour the resolution of them, so as may be with most securitie to the credit, and authority of the Scripture.
First for the first, It is cleare that the field, and burying place which Abraham bought, Gen. 23. from v. 16. to the 20. & Chap. 50. 13. is not the same which Jacob bought, Gen. 33. 18, 19. & Josh. 24. 32. For they were divers in respect of ••ame situation, or place, of use, of price, and of persons.
〈…〉〈…〉. For the name; that of Abraham was called the field of Machpelah, that of Jacob had no such name, but was called a parcell of ground which be bought of the sonnes of Hamor, Josh. 24. 32. which he gave unto his sonne Joseph, Joh. 4. 5. and which became the inheritance of the children of Joseph, Josh. 24. 32.
〈…〉〈…〉. For place; the field of Abraham was before, or over against Mamre, or Hebron, in the Tribe of Judah; that of Jacob was neer the City Sichem, or (as it was corruptly called in our Saviours time) Sychar, Joh. 4. 5. a Citie of Samaria, in the tribe of Ephraim, at about the distance of 22. miles, accounting for a mile as much in length as takes up an houre in ordinary travaile.
〈…〉〈…〉. For price; that of Abraham cost foure hundred shekels of silver, Gen. 23. 16. that of Jacob cost but an hundred pieces of silver, Josh. 24. 32. Heb. an hundred lam••s, or an hundred silverlings, stamped or marked with the representation of a lambe.
〈…〉〈…〉. For use; the field of Abraham was bought for a burying place at first, and there Abraham and Sarah his wife, Isaac and Rebekah his wife were buried, there (saith Jacob) I buried Leah, Gen. 49. 31. and there Jacob bespake his own buriall place, vers. 29, 30. Chap. 50. v. 5. and there was he buried, Gen. 50. 13. but the field of Jacob was bought for another purpose, and was first used, not for a buriall place for man••, but for an Altar for God; Gen. 33. 20. although afterward the bones of Joseph were buried there, and it is probable also, the re∣mainders of the other Patriarchs.
Fifthly and lastly, they differed in persons, both buyers and ••ellers; for Abra∣ham bought his field of Ephron the Hittite, Gen. 23. 17. Jacob bought his field of the sonnes of Hamor, Josh. 24. 32. Act. 7. 16.
Secondly, It is manifest, that these two purchases, being so distinct in them∣selves, seeme to be confounded in the speech of Stephen.
Thirdly, That though that were granted, and therewithall that Stephen erred, that cannot impeach the truth and authoritie of Saint Lukes relation, for a true Historian may write that which is not true, in the name of another; for there may be an Historicall truth, where a morall truth is wanting; as where Moses writeth that Jacob saith, I am Esau thy first borne, Gen. 27. 19. 24. and Ezra, Jeremiah▪ or Hezekiah, or who ever was the penman of the first book of Kings, wrote an historicall truth, Chap. 13. v. 18. where we read, that the old Prophet said to the young, that an Angel had spoken to him, to bring him back to take refreshing at his house, though in him that spake it, it was a morall lie.
Fourthly, If Stephen (making a long speech on the sudden) did mistake, and misreport somewhat of the Story of the Old Testament, that cannot prejudice ••ither the truth of Scripture, or the holinesse of Stephen, or that assistance which he had from the holy Ghost, though it be phrased [he was filled with the holy Ghost:] for that doth not import a perpetuall, and infallible guidance of the Spirit in all particulars, as hath been observed in Annot. on Chap. 46. v. 27.
Secondly, These propositions premised, the doubts to be discussed are partly generall, partly particular.
First, The generall doubt is, how it can be said, that Jacob, and the fathers, (whom Stephen calleth our fathers) were carryed into Sichem, and there buried; Act. 7. 16. since we read onely of the buriall of Josephs bones in that place, Josh. 24. 32.
Secondly, For particulars, the doubts are two; First of Abraham, How the fa∣thers can be said to be laid in the sepulchre which Abraham bought of Hamor, when Abraham bought his burying place of Ephron, Gen. 23. 16. and Jacob purchased the field of Hamor, Josh. 24. 32.
Secondly, Of Hamor, whereof there are three scruples. First, whether he were the father, or the sonne of Sichem. Secondly, whether the father of Ephron were called Hamor.
Thirdly, Why Hamor is said to be the father of Shechem, rather then of any other of his sonnes.
Thirdly, For resolution of the doubts; To the First (how it may be said that Jacob and the Fathers were buried in Shechem, when we reade only of Jo∣sephs bones that they were brought thither, Josh. 24. 32.) it may be said, First, That the affirming of Joseph, is no denyall of the rest. Secondly, Though it be not mentioned in the Scripture, it might be revealed to Stephen; as the names of Jannes and Jambres, the enchanters of Egypt, though we find them not in the Book of Exodus, nor in any other of the old Testament, S. Paul knew and wrote their names, 2 Tim. 3. 8. and Jude knew of the prophecy of Enoch, whereof there was no mention in the old Testament, Jude v. 14. Thirdly, It is very probable that what Joseph required concerning his bones, was done by the rest in conformi•••• to his example.
But the greatest doubt is concerning Jacob, who was certainly buried in the sepulchre of Abraham, as the rest were not. Whereto the Answer is divers.
First, Some say, that they were buried at Shechem, but were removed to Machpelah by the Shechemites, as not enduring them to lye in their soyle, out of a malignant remembrance of that which was done by Simeon and Levi against their people & city; but it is not probable, that they that liked the so little, would honour them so much, as to bring them so far to an honourable burying place.
Secondly, Some conceive the words may be distributively taken; for as there be two sorts of persons spoken of, and two places of buriall, the one, that is, Ja∣cob, might be buried in Abrahams buriall place, the rest at Shechem; but the words seeme rather to be spoken of one buriall place, then of two.
Thirdly, That there is no necessity of either of these answers, for though Jacob and the rest be joyned together in a state of mortality, Act. 7. 15. yet the 16. ver. of their burial may be confined to them, as the next Antecedent, without taking him into their number, as touching the buriall in Shechem, though he, and none but he, of those that dyed in Egypt were buried in the sepulchre of Abraham.
To the second Doubt (how the Fathers can be said to be laid in the sepulchr•• which Abraham bought) divers answers are given: First, Some conceive there is some misprision in the transcribers of the Scripture, who mistook the name of Abraham for Jacob; but that is not like to be true, nor safe to admit: not the first, because all, or most copies have it so, not the second, for if the originall, wherein so many copies are concurrent, should be corrupted, it would extenuat•• the authority of the holy Text. Secondly, Some rather think (and it is more like▪ and lesse dangerous) that Stephen mistook the name of Abraham for Jacob. A∣gainst which answer, if it be said, that his adversaries, if he had been so mistaken, would have taken him with it, and reproached him for it. The reply may be, that their rage against him was so great, that it might be they took no notice of his error in a matter of no great moment; or if they did, it might be omitted in this historicall narration. Thirdly, Some conceive they avoid the inconveniences last mentioned, by saying that Abraham is not here to be taken in the Nominative case, but in the Genitive, understanding Jacob, the grand-child of Abraham, for the word son or grand-child may as well be understood, as the word brother, 2 Sam. 21. 19. where Elhanan is said to slay Goliah the Gittite, that is▪ the brother of Goliah, as the word is supplied, 1 Chr. 20. 5. or as the word sister, 2 Sam. 21. 8. where it is said, he took the five sons of Nichal, that is, the sister of Michal, for shee had no children, 2 Sam. 6. 33. or as the word mother, Mark. 15. 40. as is noted afterwards; all which words, mother, brother, and sister, are omitted by a figure called Elleipsis, or Eclipsis; which is clearer in the Greek, by the article of the Genitive case, then in the Hebrew, which hath no such distinction by various ter∣minations of cases, as the Greek tongue hath. Or as others, the name Abraham may be taken in the Nominative case, and so they say, that the name of the pa∣rents, or progenitors, is sometimes put for the posterity, as the name of Israel or Jacob, is put for his off-spring, many degrees of descent distant from him: So the name of David is put for the Messiah, the descendent of David, Jer. 30. 9. E∣zek. 34. 23. So Joseph is put for his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, Gen. 48. 15. and so David is named where Rehoboam is meant, 1 King. 12. 16. and Abijah the son of Rehoboam, is called Rehoboam in the report of the warre betwixt Jero∣boam and him, when Rehoboam was dead, as will appeare by comparison of 2 Chro. 13. 3. with 1 King. 15. 6. Now by such an exposition though Stephens speech (if that were his meaning) might be free from error, yet if he were not understood in such a sense (which is not obvious to an ordinary apprehension, and hardly light upon without study) he might by the hearers be thought to fal∣sifie, in putting one name for another; therefore some endevour to remove the doubt by that which followeth.
Thirdly, The answer to the third Doubt, which is concerning Hamor; where were three scruples: First, whether he were father or son to Shechem. Accord∣ing to the vulgar Latine, and the Geneva, it is the son of Shechem; others say the father of Shechem; the originall saith neither, but t•••• Sichem, that is, of ••echem, which in respect of Grammar may be either; but the originall story, Josh. 24. 32. (whence the word must be supplied) saith the father of Shechem: the like construction we have Matth. 1. 6. & 10. 2, 3. & Luke 24. 10. where we reade Mary of James, which is made up by addition of a word, Mary the mother of James, Mark 15. 40. The second, Whether the father of Ephron were called Hamer, so some say, that Zohar Ephrons father, with whom Abraham bargained for the field of Machpelah, cap. 23. 17. was called also Ham••r; and so they think the dif∣ficulty of this place is best cleared, making the buriall place to be that of Abra∣hams, not that of Jacobs purchase: But this is yet too short to reach home to the removall of the Doubt; for though it be true, that it is not strange in Scripture for one man to have divers names, yet it doth not appear to be so in this case, no•• that this Hamor had a son called Shechem, as that Hamor of whom Jacob bought his portion of ground had; where we are to answer to the third scruple, which is, Why Shechem only of Hamors sons is mentioned, when others, and not he, made the sale of the ground which Jacob bought. Answ. Shechem was amongst his sons of chiefe note, and accompt; for it is said, he was more honourable then all the house of his fathers, Gen. 34. 19. and since he is named, the rest not mention∣ed, it is most probable that he had most to do in this businesse, and that the rest consented to his transaction.
The summe of all is, that whatsoever contradiction may seeme to be betwixt the report of Stephen, and the records of the story of the old Testament, Luke relating only what Stephen said, is a true Historian▪ though Stephen were not. Secondly, that by the second Answer to the second Doubt, a sodaine slip of me∣mory in Stephen may be confessed without inconvenience, or avoyded by the third Answer. And if (as some say) the father of Ephron had two names, and Hamor was one of them (which some learned men think the readiest way to resolve the doubt) that may sway the resolution for Abrahams purchase, as the other Answer, that is to say, the third Answer to the second Doubt doth for Jacobs.