Works

VERS. I.

WE have spoken already of this Captain of the Temple in Notes upon Luke XXII. 4. and told you that he was the Captain of all those Priestly and Levitical Guards and Watches that were kept in the Temple. He is termed in the Talmudists 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Man of the mountain of the House; or the Ruler of the mountain of the Temple.

VERS. V.

IN Jerusalem, admits of a double construction. Either as the City may be set in opposition to the Country: or the Town itself to the Temple.

I. If we admit the former and that these had gathered themselves from the adjacent Towns to meet in Jerusalem; then we may suppose them assembled rather upon the account of some Solemnity of the day, than merely to take cagnizance of the cause of Peter and John. It is a question whether they all knew of their Imprisonment which was done the Evening before, and probably while they were absent, their commitment was made and that act done by some chief of the Priests, the Captain of the Watches, and by the Sadducees, not by a just Sanhedrin.

If we will grant therefore that the lame Man was healed that day in the Afternoon, on which the Holy Ghost had been poured out upon the Disciples in the Fore-noon, then on this very day it behooved every male to appear before the Lord in the Temple with some oblation or other. For, whereas the day of Pentecost fell then on the Jewish Sabbath, and this day (that being supposed) was the second day after that, it was the day 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of appearing in the Temple, which probably might occasion these Rulers and Elders meeting together in the City at this time.

II. But if we take Jerusalem in this place, in opposition to the Temple, it remembers us of the Tradition concerning the Sanhedrin's removal from the Temple to the City, which Jewish Authors tell us of. The Sanhedrin removed from the Room Gazith to the Taberne, and from the Taberne into Jerusalem, &c. Where we may observe the same contradistinction between the City and the Temple: For in the Temple was both Gazith, and the Taberne, or Shops. This removal happened forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Forty years before the destruction of the City, the Sanhedrin removed—For when they observed the strange increase of Murderers amongst them, that they grew too many to be called in question, they suid 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is best for us to remove from place to place. Upon which very words it is best for us to remove, I cannot but remember that passage in Josephus, On the Feast which is called Pentecost, the Priests, according to custom, entering into the inner Temple by night, to perform the Service, perceived first, as they said, a certain motion and crack, and then a sudden voice, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , let us remove from hence. Which words whether they agree amongst themselves, and fall in with the time now before us, let the Reader himself consider and judge. That passage in Chap. V. 25. gives some hint that the Sanhedrin at this time sat in the City and not in the Temple; which the Reader may all •• consider.

III. I hardly believe any one will doubt but that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Rulers, Elders, and Scribes, must be understood the Great Council: but to distinguish these particularly, I can hardly say whether it be more nice, or more difficult. We might say that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rulers, might be meant Gamaliel the President, and Simeon his Son, the Vice-President: By the Elders, the rest of the body of the Sanhedrin; by the Scribes, either the two Registers, or those wise men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 who judged before the Sanhedrin, or both. But I wave being too curious.

VERS. VI.

IF we may render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the Vulgar, ex genere sacerdotali, and especially with the Syriac and Arabic, of the stock of the Priests; I would without any stickling conceive this John here mentioned to be no other than Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai, because at that time there was not any one more famous throughout the whole Nation, and he was of the stock of the Priests.

Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai the Priest, lived an hundred and twenty years, &c. He sound favor in the eyes of Caesar: From whom he obtained Jasneh, and his wise men, and Physicians that cured R. Zadok. — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 From the time that he died, the glory of wisdom ceased. About that very time which we now have under consideration, we have this passage related concerning him. Forty years before the destruction of the City, when the Gates of the Temple flew open of their own accord, Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai said. O Temple, Temple, why dost thou disturb thyself? I know thy end, that thou shalt be destroyed, for so the Prophet Zechariah hath spoken concerning thee, open thy doors, O I ebanon, that the fire may devour thy Cedars.

He saw the flames of the City and of the Temple: and having obtained from the Emperor Titus, that the Sanhedrin might be settled at Jabneh, he presided there two or five years; for the certain number is not agreed upon.

All that can be objected against this Johanan ben Zaccai being the John mentioned in this place, seems to be this, that if this was an Assembly of Priests leavened with the leaven of the Sadducees (as may be conjectured out of Chap. V. 17.) then this Johanan ben Zaccai ought not to be reckoned amongst them, for he both lived and died a Pharisee, at least not a Sadducee. But if the whole Sanhedrin is to be understood here, wherein the Priests as much as they were capable would strengthen their own party, then would I look for no other John than this Son of Zaccai.

VERS. XI.

THE words are taken out of Psal. CXVIII. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The stone which they rejected, &c. And are these things said of the Messiah? Surely the Jew will hardly believe his pompous Messiah should be rejected, and set at naught by his own Country-men. And therefore doth St. Peter the more vehemently inculcate it. This is the Stone. Our Savior had said before, Matth. XXI. Did you never read in the Scriptures, the Stone which the builders rejected, &c. yes, they had read and read it again, and oftentimes recited in their great Hallel, but you shall never persuade them that these things were spoken of their Messiah, but rather of Jacob, as some ; or of David, as others ; or of the Congregation of Israel as Ibn Ezra, &c. but by no means of their Messiah. For they dreamt of such a Messiah that should come so according to their heart's desire, that it was incredible any Jew should ever reject or despise him.

VERS. XIII.

ILliterate and Uulgar persons also. For it is supposed in Joma , that even the High Priest himself, may be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unlearned, when yet he was by no means a vulgar person, no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Plebeian. They say unto him, Lord High Priest do thou read thyself, out of thine own mouth; perhaps thou hast forgotten, or perhaps thou didst never learn. And so vice versa. There are some called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , who were not so unlearned. There are three Kings that have no part in the world to come, viz. Jeroboam, Ahab, and Manasseh, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and four common persons, Balaam, Doeg, Ahithophel, and Gehazi.

But these Apostles were unlearned, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , men of no degree or quality, but vulgar persons, and of the common people. So 1 Sam. XVIII. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a poor and vile man. The Targumist reads, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A poor man and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or vulgar person. And Chap. XXIV. 14. After a dead Dog, after a Flea? Targumist, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 After one feeble wretch, after one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 common person.

VERS. XVII.

I. THIS incessant and implacable enmity, and stubbornness, the Sanhedrin had against the Doctrine and Miracles of the Apostles in the name of Jesus, (of which this was the first specimen) did betray a most particular spite and ill-will they had toward Jesus above all other men. Let us only compare the case of Jesus with that of John the Baptist. All men esteemed John a Prophet, Matth. XXI. 26. Nor did they so much oppugn his preaching. And why should they so unanimously set themselves against the preaching of Jesus which was signalized with so many, and so great miracles beyond that of John the Baptist?

II. We conceive in our Notes upon John XI. 48. that the Fathers of the Sanhedrin had either a down right knowledge, or at least a suspicion that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, and hence arose their hatred against his person and doctrine. It is much disputed and questioned concerning the testimony which Josephus gives concerning Jesus, whether it was Josephus his own, or whether it had not been foisted and thrust in by some Christian. And yet in it (excepting the last clause) you will hardly find anything, but what the very Rulers of the Jews either owned or at least suspected if they would speak out. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . About this time there was one Jesus a wise man (if it be lawful to call him a man) for he wrought strange works. I suspect, that Josephus in those words [ if it be lawful to call him a man ] did not set the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Man, in opposition to God, but in opposition to Prophet, in some such sense as this; if it be lawful to call him merely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a wise man [Heb. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] and not to call him him a Prophet; for he did great miracles. He goes on: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . This was the Christ, Matth. XXI. 38. The Husbandmen seeing the Son, said among themselves, this is the heir come let us kill him. Now if the rest of that Parable agree with the actions of the Rulers of that Nation, in persecuting the Prophets and even Christ himself, which any one may discern; then why may not this clause be accounted to agree so far with them too, as that when it shows that they said amongst themselves this is the heir, &c. it may intimate, that the chief of the Jews who Condemned and Crucified the Lord Jesus knew him to have been the Messiah.

To proceed in the Historian, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He appeared to them (his Disciples) having revived the third day. Let us but consult Matth. XXVIII. 13, 14, 15. and see if there can be any doubt whether the Priests and Fathers of the Sanhedrin were not convinced and persuaded, that Jesus had indeed arose from the Dead, when they did so knowingly and industriously devise a tale to elude his Resurrection. Thus far therefore Josephus (if it was he indeed that was the Author of that passage) hath uttered nothing but what the Rulers themselves were conscious of, if they would have spoken out: but what is added in him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The divine Prophets having said these and a thousand other wonderful things of him. This I confess is so noble and ingenuous an acknowledgment of Jesus, that I would hardly expect it from Josephus, and much less from any of his Countrymen. But however, be this passage Josephus his own or no, yet,

III. That which we assert seems confirmed by that of Joh. XI. 47, 48. The Chief Priests and Pharisees said, what do we? this man doth many miracles, if we let him thus alone, the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation. Who does not here see, that they that speak this, had their eye upon that of Daniel, IX. 26, 27. where the Prophet discourseth about the Messiah, that he shall be cut off; that he shall cause the Sacrifice and the oblation to cease, that the people of the Prince that shall come [i. e. the Romans ] shall destroy the City any Sanctuary? Whence it may very probable be argued, that they both from the agreement of times, and from the miracles and Doctrine of Jesus, did more than suspect, that this was the Messiah of whom the Prophet had there discoursed, and that they were in great doubt what to do with him.

Object. But do we not meet with such passages as these? And now Brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as also did your Rulers, Acts III. 17. For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their Rulers, because they know him not, nor yet the voices of the Prophets, &c. Chap. XIII. 27.

Answ. They knew not indeed, the person and office of the Messiah; they were ignorant of his Godhead, and as to his office dreamt of nothing but Earthly and Temporal things; but then, this doth not hinder but that they might know Jesus to be the true Messiah: whom when they found falling short of the expectations and conceits they had framed of the Messiah, and that his Doctrine tended to the subversion of Judaism, they had rather have no Messiah than such an one: And let himself and his Gospel perish with him, rather than their Judaism.

VERS. XXVII.

AND then follows in some Bibles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . In this City. So Beza, the Vulgar, the Syriac, and the Alexandriam MS. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . In this City of thine. Which might be therefore the rather allowed of, because the Jews do remove the insurrection that should be made against the Lord and his Christ, so far from their own City. It is a thing they will not believe, that in Jerusalem or amongst the Jews, any rebellion against the Messiah should ever be moved or fomented: these things, they say, were spoken concerning Gog and Magog that rose up against Israel: Or concerning some other (heathen) Country rebelling against the Messiah.

VERS. XXXVI.

WHereas there were two very noted Joseph 's; for distinctions sake (as it should seem) the one was Joseph Barnabas, the other Joseph Barsabas. The Apostles gave the name of Barnabas; it may be questioned whether they did the name of Barsabas or no: Because there is a Judas Barsabas also in Acts XV. 22.

It is uncertain whence the name Barnabas derives its self, and so much the more, because it is uncertain what the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should signify in this place. It is generally interpreted, The Son of Consolation. In the Syriac, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whence by a long deduction they would make 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Naba. I contend not, but when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 equally signifies Exhortation, as well as Consolation and the Apostle expressly distinguisheth it from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Consolation, 1 Cor. XIV. 3. it seems more probably to take its original from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Prophesy, under which word everyone knows Exhortation is comprehended in the first place, and according to this signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , we find him behaving himself, Cap. XI. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. He exhorted them all that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.

So the two Apostles of the Gentiles have Gentile Countries for their native soil. Paul in Silicia, Barnabas in Cyprus. Where he also sold his Land, for it is a question whether he could have sold it in the Land of Israel; as also whether he being a Levite, was capable of possessing any Land that had not belonged to the Cities of Levi, which could not be sold in the same manner that other Lands were. Nay, It was not lawful for an Israelite to part with the Land of his inheritance, unless constrained to it by his poverty, according as it is said, if thy Brother should become poor and sell his possession, &c. Here Lands are sold, not so much upon the account of their own poverty, as the poverty of others.

VERS. II.

DIDST thou not remember O Ananias what things had been prophesied concerning the Spirit of the Messiah? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Spirit of the King Messiah, viz. a spirit of Wisdom and understanding, &c. Isai. XI. 2. He shall make him quick of scent in the fear of the Lord. Rabba saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He smelleth and judgeth. Not after the sight of his eyes doth he judge.—Bar-Cozbi reigned two years and an half; and said to the Rabbins, I am the Messiah; they reply upon him, it is written of the Messiah, that he smelleth and judgeth: let us see if thou canst do so also, &c. The Gloss is, He smells out a man whether he be guilty or innocent.

By what apprehension of things Ananias was so deceived, as to think to have deceived the Holy Ghost, is not easy to conceive or guess. He might understand by the instance of Gehazi, how quick and • agacious the Spirit of a Prophet is, in detecting all cheats and tricks; and did he not suppose the Apostles endowed with a spirit as capable as the Prophet's was? whatever it was that had blinded him to that madness, or hardened him to that daringness in sin, he abides as a dreadful monument throughout all ages of the indignation of God upon all those that shall contemn and vilify his Holy Spirit: whom if he did not blaspheme within his heart, how near was he to that sin! such mischiefs can Hypocrisy and Covetousness bring about!

It is not to be searched out of what degree or quality this Ananias was. There is some probability he was not of the mere vulgar sort, but of some higher rank, because the mention of him falls in with that of Barnabas; and there are more things that do in some measure persuade us. For what hinders why he should not be supposed to have been one of that number upon whom the Holy Ghost had been shed? What Judas was amongst the twelve, that might he be amongst the hundred and twenty: endowed with the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and yet a Devil. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , may have something more in it, than lying to the Holy Ghost. Perhaps it may be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 falsifying the Holy Ghost, and making him a liar.

VERS. III.

WHether St. Peter derived the Authority of sentencing this man to an immediate death from those words of our Lord, whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained, Joh. XXI. or whether from some immediate revelation, or both; he gives a notable instance of his own repentance, and recovery after his fall, whiles he who by a lie, yea even perjury itself, had denied his Master, doth such severe execution upon another for a lie he was guilty of.

VERS. VI.

THEY having no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 burying Cloths at hand, do bind up the dead man in what fashion they can, and carrying him out of that place commit him to the earth.

VERS. VII.

SO long a space of time being spent for interring the deceased, doth seem to hint something as to the distance of the burying place; which in the Cities of the Levites we have thus described: The Suburbical Lands for the Levitical Cities are defined in the Law, to be three thousand cubits from the wall of each side outward. According as it is said, From the wall of the City and outward, a thousand cubits. And it is elsewhere said, ye shall measure from without the City, on the East side two thousand cubits. The thousand cubits are the Suburbs of the City, and those two thousand which they measure beyond those, are for Fields and Vineyards. Now they assign the burying place for each City, beyond all these bounds, because they do not bury their dead within the limits of the City. The burying place from a Levitical City was above a mile and an half distant. Was it so in other Cities that belonged not to the Levites? doubtless burying places were at some distance from all Cities, but whether so far, may be inquired, but must not be the matter of our present search.

Hence probably we may gather the reason why the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , They wound him up, is added. Had the deceased been carried to his own House or Lodgings, by them who brought him out of the Chamber where he fell down dead, to fetch burying cloths, his Wife could not have been ignorant of what had fallen out: but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , They wound him up, as well as they could in his own Cloths, and so carried him out and buried him.

VERS. XIII.

WHO should these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , rest be? those certainly that were of the number of the hundred and twenty, excepting the XII Apostles. Of this number I presume Ananias might be one; and the rest being terrified by the fate of one of their own order, conceived so great a dread and reverence for the Apostles, that they durst not join with them as their equals.

VERS. XV.

AND why the shadow of Peter more than the rest of the Apostles, who shared an equal authority and power of miracles with himself, ver. 12? 1. It must be supposed that the sick were not brought out in their beds into the streets, unless they had first seen Peter, or were assured that he must pass by. 2. It is a question whether they that brought out their sick, knew any other of the Apostles besides Peter. They had heard him speaking, they had seen him doing, while the rest were silent and sat still. And that which these believers here do, doth not so much argue his preeminence beyond the rest of the Apostles, as that he was more known and noted than the others were.

VERS. XX.

THERE is no necessity that these words should beget any difficulty: if we will observe that ver. 17. there is mention of the Sect of the Sadducees. So that the words of this life are words that assert and prove this life (that is, the resurrection) which the Sadducees deny. For the controversy was about Jesus his resurrection.

VERS. XXXIV.

THIS was Rabban Gamaliel the first, commonly and by way of distinction called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rabban Gamaliel the old. He was President of the Council after his own Father Rabban Simeon, who was the Son of Hillel. He was Saint Paul's Master, and five and thirtieth Receiver of the Traditions; and upon this account might not improperly be termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Doctor of the Laws, because he was one that kept and handed down the Cabbala received from mount Sinai; only that the Rabbins of an inferior degree, enjoyed also the same title. He died eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem, his Son Simeon succeeding him in the chair, who perished in the ruins of the City. Whereas he doth in some measure apologize for the Apostles, one might believe, he did favor Christianity. But he died a Pharisee, and if he was not the author, yet did he approve and recommend that prayer entitled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a prayer against the Heretics, Samuel the little being the Author: and who they meant by Heretics is easy enough to apprehend. The Counsel therefore that he giveth here seems to be of that nature that had all along been practiced between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, one Sect always wishing and looking for the destruction of the other.

VERS. XXXVI.

JOsephus makes mention of one Theudas an impostor, whose Character indeed agrees well enough with this of ours, but they seem to disagree in time. For Josephus brings in his Theudas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when Fadus was Governor of Judea, about the fifth or sixth year of Claudius: and Gamaliel brings in his, before the times of Judas the Galilean.

Those that are advocates for Josephus, do imagine there might be another Theudas besides him that he mentions; and they do but imagine it, for they name none. I could instance indeed in two more of that name, neither of which agree with this of Gamaliel, or will afford any light to the Chronology of Josephus.

I. We meet with one Theudas a Physician, in Bab. Sanhedr. where there is a dispute upon no mean question, viz. where Daniel was at that time that Nebuchadnezzar's image was set up and worshipped, that he should all that while come under no examination nor have any the least harm f • ll to him; And it •… g answered amongst other things that he was then sent into Egypt to fetch some sw •• e thence: it is objected 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Is it so indeed? but this is the tradition: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Theudas the Physician saith that neither Cow nor Sow come from Alexandria of Egypt.

II. There is mention of one Theudas a Jew living at Rome. The Tradition of R. Jose saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Theudas a man at Rome, taught men (i. e. Jews) at Rome 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that on the Passover nights they should eat whole kids roasted; the Gloss is, the trotters, legs, &c. The Wise men sent to him, threatening excommunication, because he taught Israel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to eat holy things without, i. e. the Passover at Rome, which it was not lawful to eat but at Jerusalem; for, as the Gloss hath it, whosoever should see kids so roasted, would conceive they were consecrated for Paschal Lambs. I am very apt to believe that the procoenium or meal before the Lord's Supper, Cor. XI. 21. might be some such thing as this.

Can we suppose now, that Gamaliel could have either of these Theudas in his eye? Indeed neither the one nor the other have any agreeableness with that Character that is given of this Theudas about whom we are enquiring. That in Josephus is much more adapted; and grant only that the Historian might slip in his Chronology, and there is no other difficulty in it. Nor do I indeed see why we should give so much deference to Josephus in this matter, as to take such pains in vindicating his care or skill in it. We must (forsooth) find out some other Theudas, or change the stops in the verses, or invent some other plaster for the sore, rather than Josephus should be charged with the least mistake; to whom yet both in History and Chronology it is no unusual thing to trip or go out of the road of truth. I would therefore think that the Theudas in Josephus is this same in Gameliel, only that the Historian mistook in his accounts of time, and so defaced a true story by false Chronology.

VERS. XXXVII.

IN Josephus it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 • udas the Gaulonite, and yet in the title and inscription of that Chapter it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 concerning Judas of Galilee, which hath elsewhere occasioned a question, whether some part of the Country beyond Jordan went not also under the name of Galilee: but I shall not repeat it here.

VERS. I.

FIRST let us consider who these Hebrews were.

I. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Hebrew admitted another kind of signification under the second Temple than it had before and under the first: because in the Old Testament it had reference to the original and Language of that Nation; in the New Testament, to their T • avels, and their Language. Abraham is first called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. XIV. 13. an Hebrew. So Symmachus, the Vulgar, and others: But the Greek Interpreters render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Passover. But this Version need not concern us much when it is plain the Interpreters have rendered the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the common use under the second Temple, and not according to the primitive and original use of it. For the same reason the Rabbins incline the same way.

R. Nehemiah saith, Abraham is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Hebrew, because he was of the posterity of Heber; • ut the Rabbins say, he is so called, because he came from beyond the river. And they add withal (which deserves some enquiry) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And for that he used the Language beyond the River. I would rather have said, he might fitly be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An Hebrew, because even in Mesopotamia and Chaldea, he retained the Hebrew Language in the proper sense. For if he brought over the transfluvian or Chaldean Language into Canaan, as his ow •… families mother-tongue, it is hardly imaginable by what means the Hebrew Tongue strictly so called, should become the native and proper Language of his posterity. I have elsewhere offered another reason, why he should be termed an Hebrew in that place in Genesis, which I still adhere to.

II. After the Babylonish Captivity there was such an alteration of things, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Hebrew Tongue became the Language beyond the River, or the Chaldee Tongue. This is plain from those several words, Bethesda, Golgotha, Akeldama, &c. which are said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be so called in the Hebrew Tongue, and yet everyone knows the words to be mere Chaldee. The old and pure Hebrew Language at that time was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Assyrian Tongue: and the Syriac and Chaldee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Hebrew Tongue or (as themselves interpret it) the Language beyond the River. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the Hebrew Language, i. e. in the Language beyond the River. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Assyrian Tongue, i. e. in the holy Language.

We cannot but observe by the way that the Doctors distinguish betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Hebrew Tongue and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Syriac, in the mean time distinguishing both from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Assyrian, or Holy Language. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Syrian Tongue is sit for lamentation. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Hebrew tongue for speech. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and there are that say, the Assyrian Tongue is good for writing. This distinction between the Hebrew Tongue, or that beyond the River, and the Syrian which really are the same Language; is much such another distinction as between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Syriac, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Aramean. Babbi saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 why the Syrian Tongue in the Land of Israel? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when either the Holy Language, or the Greek should rather be used. R. Jose saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 why the Aramean Tongue in Babylon? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when rather, either the Holy Language, or the Persian should be used. The Gloss is, because the Greek is more elegant than the Syriac, and the Persian than the Aramean.

We see first, how they distinguish here betwixt the Syriac Tongue and the Aramean, and the Gloss upon the place tells us upon what account they do it, in these words. Behold, whereas he takes notice that the Syriac is used in the Land of Israel, and the Aramean in Babylon, therefore he doth it as saith R. Tam, because there is some variation and difference between them: as it happens in any common Language, which they spake much finer in one Country than in another. For as to those words, Gen. XXX. 52. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This heap be witness. Onkelos renders them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when Laban saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But now we must say that Laban spoke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Syrias Tongue, which is so called from Syria. Now Syria was Aram Naharim, and Aram Zobab which David subdued. And because that is nearer to the Land of Israel, the Aramean Language of it, is not so pure. Gloss in Sotah, The Syriac Tongue is near a kin to the Aramean. And I say that that is the Language of the Jerusalem Talmud.

We see secondly, that the Syriac was the Mother-Tongue of the Land of Israel, and the Aramean (which is almost the same) was that of Babylon, rather than the Greek or Persic which were more elegant, nay rather than the Holy Language which was the noblest of all. And that (as to the Holy Language) for a reason very obvious, viz. that it was everywhere lost as to common use, and was generally unknown. As to the two other Languages, why they were not in use, the Gloss gives the reason, which we have also given us elsewhere. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lest the Syriac Tongue should be vile in thine eyes [Bereshith Rabba by a mistake of the Printer hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Persic, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Syriac.] For behold, God doth give it honor in the Law, in the Prophets, and in the Hagiographa. In the Law, for it is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The heap of witness, Gen. XXXI. 47. In the Prophets, for it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Thus shall ye say unto them, Jerem. X. 11. and in the Hagiogropha, for it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And the Chaldeans spake to the King in Syriac. Dan. II. 4.

The Syriac therefore or the Aramean Tongue under the second Temple was that which went under the name of the Hebrew Tongue, that is, the Language beyond the River. Whence they were at that time called Hebrews upon the account of the common use of that Tongue. But whether all to whom that was their Mother-Tongue were called Hebrews, may be a little questioned; and for what reasons it may be so, I shall show, after I have said something concerning the Hellenists.

I. It is not denied by any but that the Hebrews were Jews in their original: whether the Hellenists were Jews too, is called in question by some. Beza upon the place denies it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Lucas hoc loco vocat genere quidem profanos, &c. The Hellenist. St. Luke means in this place, are those who were of a profane stock, but adopted into the Nation of the Jews by Circumcision, called therefore Proselytes. For they are mi •• aken who think those Jews that were dispersed amongst other Nations were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Hellenists. He thinks this opinion of his is countenanced by that of Act. XI. 19, 20. Preaching the word to none, but to the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus, and Cyrene, who when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Hellenists. From whence Beza infers, Cum hoc loco opponi videantur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Judeis, &c. Whereas the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Hellenists seem to be opposed to the Jews in this place—it is plain, that by the name of Hellenists not only the provincial or proselite Jews are to be understood 〈…〉 were here and there dispersed, but even those also of the Gentiles who are elsewhere by St. Luke termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or devout men, &c.

Let it be granted, that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or devout men should be promiscuously understood with the Proselytes, though there is some difference betwixt them, and that very conspicuous: yet I see not by what Law or Authority he should confound the Hellenists with the Proselytes. And if those are mistaken who suppose the Jews that were dispersed amongst other Nations, to be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hellenists, I confess myself willingly to be in that error too. Nor yet would I put all these Jews that were dispersed among the Gentiles, under the name of Hellenists; not those that were scattered amongst the Medes, Parthians, Persians, Arabians, and those Eastern Countries. Nor do I suppose that he would call the Proselytes of those Nations Hellenists, because the very Etymology of the word implies Grecisme.

• 1. Chap. II. 10. we meet with Jews and Proselytes; and in this Chapter we meet with Hebrews and Hellenists. We may most truly say that the Proselytes there are distinguished from the Jews; we cannot at the same time say that the word Hellenists in this place distinguisheth them from the Jews, when we see it only distinguisheth from the Hebrews.
• 2. St. Luke calls Nicolas a Proselyte of Antioch, ver. 5. would we therefore call him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Hellenist of Antioch? we would rather term him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Greek, because his very name shows him to have been originally a Greek.
• 3. As to that distinction in Chap. XI. 19, 20. (for I would rather term it a distinction than an Antithesis ) it doth not conclude the Hellenists not to have been Jews, but intimates the difference only between Jews of a more pure and worthy rank, and Jews not so pure and worthy.

II. There are those that think, and that truly, that the Hellenists were Jews dispersed amongst the Gentiles: but that they were called Hellenists for this reason especially, viz. because they used in their Synagogues the Greek Bible; which whether it be true or no, I question, but will not dispute it at this present; only thus far I will observe.

1. That the Greek Tongue was in mean esteem amongst the Jews, indeed they hated it rather than took any pleasure in it, or had any value for it. When Aristobulus the Asmonean besieged his brother Hyrcanus, and some things had fallen out amiss with them, through the Counsel of a certain old man skilled in the Greek learning, they said at that time, cursed be the man that cherisheth swine, and cursed the man that teacheth his son the wisdom of the Greeks. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the war of Titus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they decreed that no man should teach his Son Greek. The Gloss upon this place, confounds the stories and would have the war of Titus the same with that of Aristobulus and Hyrcanus; but the Gloss upon the former place rightly distinguisheth, and grants there was such a decree made in the days of the Asmoneans▪ but having been neglected in process of time, was revived and renewed in the war with Titus. Let it be one or the other, we may abundantly see what kind of respect the Greek Learning or Language had amongst them. For this passage follows in both. Samuel saith in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel. There were a thousand boys 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in my Fathers School, of whom five hundred learnt the Law, and five hundred the wisdom of the Greeks, and there is not one (of all that last number) now alive, excepting myself here, and my Unkles Son in Hasia.

I rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in my Fathers School, or Family, because of what follows in both places; They allowed the family of Rabban Gamaliel the Greek Learning, because they ware allied to the Royal blood. i. e. they sprung of the stock and lineage of David. They permitted that that family should be brought up in that learning, because it became them for their honor and nobility to want no kind of Learning. But this they did not freely allow others; and if they did not permit the wisdom of the Greeks, we can hardly suppose they excepted the Greek Tongue, especially when we find it in the very terms of the decree, let no one teach his Son 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Greek. Upon what I have already said, I cannot but make these following remarques.

• I. What an effectual bar they laid in their own way against the reading of the New Testament when they so renounced the Greek Tongue; which God had now honored beyond their Syriac, though they will have that so much graced both in the Law, Prophets, and holy writings.
• II. That even those who understood little else but Greek, would very hardly admit the reading of the Law and the Prophets in their Synagogues in the Greek Tongue; in that it was so very grateful to their Countrymen, and the Decrees and Canons of the Elders did either require, or at least permit an Interpreter in the reading of the Bible in their Synagogues.
• III. How probable a thing is it that those Jews, who having lived amongst the Gentiles, understood no other Language but the Greek? for that very thing grew the less valuable with their own Nation that had retained the common use of the Hebrew Tongue; and were had in some lower esteem than others.

2. If therefore they stood so affected toward the Greek Learning, what value must they have for the Greek Tongue? Grant that it were in some esteem amongst them, because indeed most of the Learned Rabbins did understand it: yet what account must they make of those Jews that knew no other Language but the Greek? Surely they must be looked upon as in the lower, yea the lowest degree of Jews, who were such strangers to the Language so peculiar to that nation, that is, the Hebrew. Such are those whom we find mentioned in Hieros. Sotah.

R. Levi ben Chaiathah going down to Cesarea heard them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 reciting their Phylacteries in Greek, and would have forbidden them, which when R. Jose heard, he was very angry, and said, if a man doth not know how to recite 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Holy Tongue, must he not recite them at all? let him perform his duty in what Language he can.

Cesarea Philippi is the seen of this story, a City that the Rabbins make very frequent and honorable mention of in both the Talmuds. This being one of the Cities in Decapolis, which were all under the Gentile or Greek jurisdiction, it seems there might be some Jews there that understood Greek but not Hebrew. Otherwise they would doubtless have said over their Phylacteries in the Hebrew, though they could not do it in the Holy Tongue.

3. There were many Jews in several Countries, and those very probably to whom both the Languages of Hebrew, and Greek, were their Mother-Tongues. The Hebrew in their own Country and the Greek among the Grecians. The Hebrew in the Families and Synagogues of the Jews; the Greek amongst their fellow-Citizens the Gentiles. Such was Paul of Tarsus a Greek City, and yet was he an Hebrew of the Hebrews, Phil. III. 5. And such those of Cyprus and Cyrene seem to be who are mentioned Chap. XI. 19, 20. who in Cyprus, Phenice, and Antioch itself preached the word of God amongst the Hebraizing Jews (though perhaps they might also speak the Greek Tongue) and at length to the Hellenists in Antioch, i. e. the Jews who understood nothing but Greek, to whom the Hebrew Tongue was perfectly unknown. For so I would distinguish the Hellenists from the Jews in that place, and not oppose them to the Jews, as if they were not Jews themselves. And let me crave the Readers leave to give my judgment of these Hebrews and Hellenists in these following particulars.

I. That the Hellenists were Jews dwelling among the Gentiles, and not at all skilled in the Hebrew Tongue. The Apostle in that division of his which he so oftentimes useth, of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jews and Greeks, meaning by Greeks all other Nations excepting the Jewish only, speaks chiefly to the capacity of the Vulgar, to whom by reason of the late circumjacent Empires of the Greeks, that way of expressing the Gentiles was most known and familiar: nor perhaps was it so very safe at that time to have brought in the Romans in that Antithesis.

But may the word Hellenist be taken with that latitude on the other side, that the phrase may be applied not to the Jews only who understood nothing but Greek, but to all the Jews also that did not understand Hebrew? Perhaps the strict Etymology of the word may make something against it; but should it be granted, it would not be of so absurd a consequence, if we do but except the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and the rest of those Eastern Countries, who were not of the Greek or Macedonian, but the Persian and Babylonish Captivity or transmigration. For the very word Hellenist, especially as it is opposed to Hebrew seems to intend some such thing; viz. that those who are called Hebrews should be those who were of the Captivity and dispersion beyond the River; and those that go under the denomination of Hellenists, are those who after their return from this Captivity, have suffered some other removal or scattering among the Greek or Western Countries, and understood no other Language but of those Countries only, having lost the use of what was originally their native Tongue, viz. the Hebrew or Chaldee.

II. As to the Hebrews, I suppose there are hardly any will deny but that all in general might be so called, that used the Hebrew as their own Mother-Tongue, nor can I imagine for what other reason Paul of Tarsus should go under the denomination of an Hebrew, but because the Hebrew Tongue in his Fathers family was his Mother-Tongue, and the Greek was the Mother-Tongue of the place where he was born. But that we may inquire a little more strictly into the peculiar propriety of this title and denomination, let us propound this question, viz. to whom that Epistle of Saint Paul to the Hebrews was particularly written?

I would say to those of Palestine, for to them it is that the name of Hebrew doth of greatest right belong, which these two particulars (if I mistake not) will make very plain. 1. That it seems most proper that they should be termed Hebrews who use the Hebrew Tongue and none else as their natural Language, rather than they who use the Greek and Hebrew Tongue indifferently. 2. Indeed the Mesopotamians used the Hebrew only as their Mother-Tongue, and ought in reason to be accounted amongst the Hebrews in general, but they went commonly under the denomination of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Captivity, because they dwelt still in the place whether they had been led captive, and had not returned into their own Land. But those of Palestine who had returned thither were the most properly called Hebrews, because they had past over from beyond the River, and had brought the transfluvian Tongue along with them.

And as to what concerns this present matter, viz. the murmuring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews about an equal distribution of the common Charity: it may be made a question whether any other besides those of Palestine had as yet sold their Lands and Patrimonies. For, omitting that by reason of the distance of place, they could hardly yet be capable of doing it; that concerning Barnabas selling his Land in Cyprus, seems to hint some such thing, and that it was a thing very extraordinary, and that had not deen done elsewhere. But our enquiry is chiefly about the Hellenists not the Hebrews; and what we have said concerning both, is ingenuously submitted to the candor of the judicious Reader.

VERS. III.

I. THIS office of the Deacon (to whom the charge and care of the poor was entrusted) was translated from the Jewish to the Christian Church. For there belonged to every Synagogue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 three Deacons with whom that care was deposited.

II. As to the number Seven, I would not be curious, the multitude of the poor, and the increase of the Church made it necessary that the number of the Deacons should exceed the number that were allotted for every single Synagogue: why they should be just seven, let him that hath confidence enough, pretend to assign a particular reason. Only from the number and character of the men. I cannot but call to mind the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seven good men of the City frequently mentioned by the Rabbins: and I would suppose them chosen both out of the number of the CXX mentioned Chap. I. 15. and also by them only, and not the whole Church in general.

VERS. V.

I. WHereas this Nicholas only is termed a Proselyte, it makes it evident that all the rest excepting himself, were Jews, however they might be known by Greek names. Nor yet would I call them Hellenists, but Hebrews rather, who understood Greek indeed (and for that reason the care of the Hellenists was committed to them) but yet the Hebrew was their own Mother-Tongue. For it is hardly supposable that Stephen when he pleaded his cause before the Sanhedrin and the whole multitude, would plead it in Greek though he understood it well.

II. It is so constant an opinion of the Ancients that the most impure sect of the Nicolaitans derived their name and filthy doctrines from this Nicolas, that so much as to distrust the thing would look like contradicting antiquity. But if it were lawful in this matter freely to speak ones thoughts▪ I should conjecture (for the honor of our Nicolas ) that the name might take its derivation from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nocola, Let us eat together, those bruits animating one another to eat things offered to Idols. Like those in Isai. XXII. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let us eat flesh and drink wine.

VERS. VI.

WE read of this or that Rabbin constituting Deacons in this or that Synagouge, but not a word about laying on of hands in that action: and no wonder, when even in the promotion of their Elders, they commonly used only some form of words, and not this rite or ceremony; which we observe in notes upon Chap. XIII. The Apostles in this place and elsewhere retain the ancient usage 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of imposition of hands. At other times frequently, that they might in ordaining any to the ministry impart to them the gift of the Holy Ghost; here, that they might ordain persons to the office of Deacons without the gift of the Holy Ghost; For these seven had been so endowed already, verse. 3.

VERS. VIII.

LIbertines i. e. servants that had received their Freedom, called in the Jewish writings 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which

I. Must be understood of Servants that were of the Jewish Nation, for this was a rule amongst them b 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is not lawful to make a Canaanite (or Gentile) Servant free, and if any one doth make such an one free, he transgresseth the Law 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they shall be your bondmen forever, Levite. XXV. 46. but if any one do make him free, he is made free. There is a dispute about this matter in Sotah, R. Ishmael saith, there is only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Licence granted (if you have a mind) of keeping a Canaanite as bondman forever. But R. Akibah saith, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a binding command, that everyone who hath a Canaanite Servant is bound to keep him in his service, and never to make him free. If it should be granted what R. Ishmael would have, that a man might, if he please, make a Gentile Servant, free, yet is it not likely there could be an whole Synagogue of such, so made free.

II. Those therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Servants that had their freedom, whom the Talmudic writers so frequently speak of, they were certain Jews who had either been sold into bondage by the Sanhedrin, for theft, or who had sold themselves for mere poverty, and had now regained their freedom anew. Exod. XXI. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If thou buy an Hebrew Servant. If thou buy him from the hand of the Sanhedrin, who sell him for his thieving: or if he have sold himself through mere necessity.

In the servitude of these there were these differences. It is a Tradition. He that selleth himself is sold for six years, or for more than six; He that is sold by the Sanhedrin, is sold but for six years only. He that selleth himself, is not bored through the ear with an awl. He that is sold by the Sanhedrin is bored through. He that selleth himself, they provide no viaticum for him: he that is sold by the Sanhedrin, they do provide for him. A man that selleth himself, his Master cannot give him a Canaanitish handmaid to wife. To him that is sold by the Sanhedrin, he may.

III. In what manner these are made free, either by paying a price, or by the year of Jubilee, or by the seventh year, or upon any other occasions, having a writing of their freedom given them, Maimonides treats largely in Avadim; and the Talmudie writers in the place already quoted, and elsewhere.

I question not but the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Libertines in this place were such, and that our Historian doth by this phrase render the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 than which nothing was more commonly known in that nation, or more commonly mentioned in Jewish writers. And if so, then may we see what dregs of people, what a lowsy tribe (if I may so speak) rose up against our most blessed Martyr. Such as had been formerly either beggars, or thieves, afterwards slaves, and were now little else but a pack of knaves.

What Cyrene that was from whence these Cyrenians are so called, St. Luke points to us Act. II. by its neighbourhood to Libya, which whether the Interpreters rightly understand when they render Kir by Cyrene, let us consult themselves and see. So the Vulgar, and the Alexandrian M. S. in 2 Kings XVI. 9. The Vulgar and Targum in Amos, I. 5.

Whether these Cyrenians mentioned by St. Luke here and elsewhere, took their denomination from the City Cyrene, or the Country of Cyrene is hardly worth our enquiring. Strabo describes the City, lib. 17. and Pliny the Country, lib. 5. cap. 5. but neither of them say anything of the Jews dwelling there. However Dion Cass. in the life of Trajan speaks it out, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. In the mean time the Jews who dwelt about Cyrene, under the conduct of one Andrew, fell upon both Romans and Greeks, tear their flesh, devour their entrails▪ besmear themselves with their blood, and cover themselves with their skins. They sawed many of them in sunder from the Crown of the head, they threw many to the beasts, and forced several of them to fight one with another. So that they destroyed at least two hundred thousand men. It must surely be an infinite number of Jews that could commit so great a slaughter; (the like the Jews did in Egypt and Cyprus ) It might be a wonder how so vast a multitude of Jews could be got together in those Countries. But this is not our present enquiry.

That which is rather to be discust is, what Language the Cyrenian Jews used. I would say Greek; for that was the Language of Cyrene, the City having been built by the Grecians, and the whole Country under the Government of the Ptolomies, as Strabo tells us in the place before quoted. I would reckon them therefore among the Hellenists to whom the Hebrew Tongue was strange and foreign; unless that this Synagogue having been conversant at Jerusalem, might perhaps have learnt the Language there.

We met with a Synagogue of Alexandrians in Jerusalem, mentioned in the Jewish Writers, There is a story of R. Eliezar ben Zadoc that he took 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Synagouge of the Alexandrians, that was in Jerusalem, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and turned it to his own use: word for word, Did in it all his business. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 All his pleasure.

There is a dispute in the place newly quoted, whether it be lawful to alienate a Synagogue from its sacred to a common use: and it is distinguished betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Synagogue of one man, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a public Synagogue. And upon permitting that the former may be alienated but the later not, there is this story which I have newly quoted, objected to the contrary, and this passage further added 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Alexandrians build that Synagogue at their own charge, which doth both attest to what our sacred Historian mentions of a Synagogue of Alexandrians at Jerusalem: and argues that they were divers Synagogues here spoken of, one of the Libertines, another of the Cyrenians, and so of the rest, which may be so much the more credible, if that be true which is related in the same place, viz. that there were CCCCLXXX Synagogues in Jerusalem.

Saint Paul seems to have been of this Synagogue, but of the School of Gamaliel, for the Jewish youth sent out of far Countries to Jerusalem, for education, being allotted to this or that Synagogue chose this or that Master for themselves according to their own pleasure. Saint Paul had been brought up in a Greek Academy from his very childhood, viz. that of Tarsus: I call Tarsus both an Academy, and a Greek one too, upon the credit of Strabo, who speaks thus concerning it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Tarsus was built by the Argives that wandered with Triptolemus in the search of 10. And a little after, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. They of Tarsus had so great a love to Philosophy, and all liberal Sciences; that they excelled Athens, Alexandria, and if there were any other place worth naming, where the Schools and disputes of Philosophy, and all human arts were maintained. Hence is it so much the less strange, that Saint Paul should be so well stocked with the Greek Learning, and should quote in his discourses the Poets of that nation, having been educated in so famous an University from his very youth.

VERS. XV.

GOD himself by a miracle bears witness to the innocence of this holy man and shows he had done no wrong to Moses, when he makes his face shine as Moses 's had formerly done, and gave him an Angelical countenance like that of Gabriel, for if he had said that Jesus should destroy that place, &c. he had but said what Gabriel had said before him.

VERS. II.

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 〉 out of my Mesopotamia, and its Companious, come and give light to me in the Land of Israel. Whether or no it be worth the while to inquire why God should term it my Mesopotamia, as also what should be the meaning of 〈 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. O seed of Abraham my friend I took thee from the ends of the Eurth; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 viz. from Mesopotamia and her Companions. Who is he among you that feareth the Lord? This is Abraham: who walketh in darkness. Who came 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of Mesopotamia and her Consorts, and knew not whither; like the man that dwelleth in darkness. It is written indeed 〈 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 itself 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 Chaldea; So in Ptolomys fourth Table of Asia to omit other authors, 〈 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 according 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 〉 from the other side of the flood, he hath rendered 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, 〈 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 us 〈 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 〉 my Mesopotamia, is Charran, where the worship 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 〉 her Consorts Babylon, and Chaldea; for in what other signification 〈 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 before 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 worshipped the true God even while his Father Terah worshipped Idols; bur further, that Terah was so zealous an Idolater, that he delivered his son Abraham to Nimrod to be cast into a fiery furnace. We have the tale in Bereshith Rabba, ridiculous enough.

VERS. III.

I Would not confound this passage with that in Gen. XII. 1. For Stephen and indeed the thing itself 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 Chaldeans; 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.

HERE ariseth a difficulty, and upon that a controversy, which we may take in in the words of R. Solomon upon Gen. XI. And Terah died in Charran, that is, more than threescore years after Abraham had left Charran, and had settled 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 named, before or beside that of Terah. Where by the way we may take notice of the boldness of the Greek Interpreters, who to everyone of those persons have annexed, 〈 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 show, that Abraham did not remove 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 Abraham's removal? viz. lest the matter should be made public, and men should say, Abraham did not give that honor 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, because 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 〉 there is no first and last in the Holy Scripture, i. e. the order of the story does not necessarily determine the time of it. And the Gemarists themselves, however they suppose 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 〉 perhaps Abraham was the youngest of his Brethren; which they also confirm out of the order observed in numbering the sons of Noah, where Sem is first in the Catalogue, though he was younger than Japheth.

It is commonly received amongst the Jews, that Sarah Abraham's wife, was the daughter of his brother Haran, and that not without reason 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jecah (say they) is the same with Sarah, and Josephus, speaks it out, as a thing of ancient tradition. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Haran leaving one Son, Lot, and Sarah and Milcha two daughters died in Chaldea. If therefore Sarah who was but ten years younger than Abraham was Harans 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 Terah, but Haran rather, unless we will trifle with some of the Rabbins, and say that Haran 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 〉 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 join the story. Terah died in Charran: Then said God unto Abraham, &c.

VERS. XIV.

THE Hebrew Copies have it everywhere but threescore and ten. So also Josephus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. He came to Egypt with his Sons, and all their Sons, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they were in all threescore and ten. Again elsewhere 〈 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. 〈 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 itself in Deut. X. 22. 'Ev 〈 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 〉 threescore and fifteen. We may easily discern that Saint Luke here follows that Version, that adds five Grandchildren 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 Sutelah, and Tahan and Eden, because it is said, Joseph saw Ephraim's Children unto the third genera •• on. Where, by the way, I cannot but think it strange, why the Greek Interpreters 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 〉 , &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 satisfy those who would pretend 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 account 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 Gittites. But that they came to life again with those whom Ezekiel raised from the dead, Chap. XXXVII.

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 wondering 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 quoted the passage already) And St. Jerome in his questions upon Genesis, witnesseth that the Septuagint so writ it. Alii codices, &c. Other Copies have 〈 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 rendered of it, but that Moses is here introduced speaking to the people of Israel, who very well knew the certain and true number; but elsewhere, where it is rendered 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 rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gaphthoriim, or as it is in M. S. Alex. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Caphthoriin; but in the Book of Deuteronomy, Chap. II. 23. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cappadocians.

VERS. XVI.

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

I. It was very commonly and without any kind of doubt received amongst them that the bones of the Twelve Patriarchs, as well as those of Jacob, were carried out of Egypt into Canaan . It is written I will go down with thee into Egypt, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and even in going up I will make thee to go up, Gen. XLVI. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What are we taught by 〈 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 〉 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 〉 , unto the end.

The bones of all the Patriarchs were carried 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.

II. Thus far therefore Stephen speaks with the consent of that Nation, viz. that the bones of the Patriarchs were conveyed 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 received 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 .

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 restored him to sychem again . 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 Shechem at the distance of a Sabbath-days journey, lies a village called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Belata, where Joseph the just of blessed memory lies 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 honor for the Samaritans, that the Patriarchs bones should lie 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 Shechem; but it is very grievous for them to acknowledge that all the other heads of the Nation and Tribes should lie there where the apostasy 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 mentioned 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 . And if so, where were they buried? If we do but consider how the great charge and care of public affairs was committed to Joshua, who was of the stock and lineage of Joseph, and from that very relation had a particular concern with Shechem, probability itself 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 Shechem, 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 solicitous, at least do not boast so much of the heads of the other Tribes.

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 〉 which I have digged for me, or, which I have purchased for myself, there shalt thou bury me. I will not contend about the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whether it should be rendered, I have digged, as the Greek, Jonathan 's Targum, &c. have rendered it; or whether it should be, I have bought, as Onkelos; the Syriac 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 former sense; for when Abraham had bought the Cave, and digged a Sepulcher in it for himself 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 defense. 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:

II. 〈 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 〉 , of the Sons of Emmor, the father of Shechem. 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 show one Copy, reading it otherwise, and all the Versions follow this reading, in the very words wherein the difficulty most lieth. The Syriac indeed refer the words to Jacob only, rendering it in the singular number 〈 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 lies. 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 . 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, according 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 〉 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 Shechem, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to the high Oak: 〈 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 Gerizim, 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 〉 besides the plains of Moreh.

Let us take the Talmudic Comments upon this place, When the Israelites had passed over Jordan they came to mount Gerizim and mount Ebal, which are in the Country of Samaria, near Shechem, 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 Shechem, to the plain of Moreh. What is the plain of Moreh there? Gen. XII. 6. it is Shechem. And so the plain of Moreh is Shechem here also. Deut. XI. 30. 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 〉 the plain of Moreh which is Shechem. For we confess that the plain of Moreh is Shechem. The Samaritan Text in Deut. XI. 30. hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the plain of Moreh near Shechem; but no such thing in Gen. XII. 6. is added.

If the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the Sepulcher, 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 pitched his Tent, and built an Altar; all which he would hardly have done upon another man's 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 Cattle, and maintained their Families in the land of Canaan. Whether the places and fields they occupied were common, and had no proper owner? Whether Abraham not far from Shechem in the plain of Moreh, in the disposal of himself and his flocks, intruded 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 easy apprehending how Abraham might come by the possession of it, viz. by some sum of money, 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.

THE Martyr speaks agreeably with that whole Nation 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 ministered to Israel. R. Akibah was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an illiterate person forty years; he bent himself to study forty years, and forty years he ministered to Israel .

VERS. XXV.

MOSES was endowed with a spirit of Prophesy 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 〉 good, that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 apt for prophesying . Note by the way how that fiction of Josephus 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 only with this variation, that Moses himself took the Crown from Pharaoh 's head and put it upon his own.

VERS. XLII.

KImchi upon this place of Amos speaks out what the Jewish Schools think in this matter, by a passage taken out of Bab. Chagigah , There is a Tradition concerning the daily sacrifice made in mount Sinai. R. Eliezer saith, that there were rules indeed given concerning it on mount Sinai, but the sacrifice itself 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 wilderness 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 entering the land. But it may not without reason be suspected that though the daily Sacrifice 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 God's 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.

THE word in Amos is 〈 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 lie in this passage (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 Prophet, 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 addicted 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 arguments 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 everywhere 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 wilderness, and in that sense interprets the Prophet, he speaks the same thing that was commonly known and received amongst the Jews, viz. that the punishment of that sin of the Golden Calf descended and was derived to following generations. R. Oshaiah saith, that to the times of Jeroboam the children of Israel sucked of one Calf, (the Gloss is, viz. that Calf they made in the wilderness) but from that time forward they sucked 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.

The Prophet Amos hath it 〈 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 rendered this clause. For in the Books published amongst us, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when as the Aruch citing the Targumist in this place saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Siccuth Malchechem with the Targumist is Succuth Pethachrechon. Observe 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 easy, I may say not possible to give 〈 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 Isa. VIII. 21. by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Zephan. I. 5. by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is the more probable that he may render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place by 〈 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 〉 . If therefore according to the Copy quoted by the Aruch, it should be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 then the Chaldee Version falls in with the Greek, and shows that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be rendered your Moloch; so that Moloch signify an Idol, and Succuth not an Idol, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the tabernacle of Moloch, which seems the more likely from the agreement of the two clauses, 〈 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 observe, that both Moloch and Remphan were certain figures that represented some of the Celestial 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 color 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 〉 . 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 gulf of fire . There we have also this passage out of Philo concerning the History of the Phoenicians, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Saturn 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 imitation this horrid usage of sacrificing to Moloch, is no place at present to dispute; the question rather might be, whether the Israelites did act any such thing themselves in the wilderness; 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 offering up of their own children. Which how unlikely it was that Moses should either suffer 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 judge. I shall conclude with that passage in Porphyrius quoted by the same Eusebius, worth our taking notice of: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. That these sacrifices of men were abolished almost everywhere: Pallas tells us, who wrote excellently well concerning the mysteries of Mithra, under Adrian the Emperor.

In Amos it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chijun; in the Seventy, 〈 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 difficulty turns: First, to reconcile the Septuagint with the Prophet Amos, and then to reconcile St. Stephen, or St. Luke with the Septuagint.

I. Forasmuch as the Heb. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chijun is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rephan in the Septuagint, I would not look for anything Gigantick in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rephan, but something rather weak and infirm. Any one knows that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signify weak and weakness; and from thence perhaps the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rephan, may take its original, and not from 〈 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 mere contempt and reproach. The naked and native signification of 〈 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 unfit for an Idol, which is a lie, vanity, nothing; this the Septuagint being apprehensive of, might translate it by a word perfectly contrary, but more agreeable to the thing itself; viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rephan, that is in Hebrew, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 weakness, infirmity. If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rephan, does not denote Saturn in the Coptick language, as Kircher tells us.

II. But how 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rephan, should be changed into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , there have been various, and those not impertinent conjectures. The Syriac and Arabic retain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 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 〉 , Remphan, where the sound of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifies wandering, 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 〉 , Phan, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rephan, and 〈 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 continued longer than that of Bethel.

But the Hebrew words of Amos are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beyond Damascus, so the Greek 〈 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 the Talmudic Writers, and the Jewish Expositors, donit 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 vilify the original Text, but to bring what they allege 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 shows 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 itself, or at least smooth and ingenious. And if Stephen here after the usage of the Schools, quoting this passage of the Prophet Amos 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beyond Damascus, had magisterially said as they were wont to do, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 donit read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beyond Damascus, but 〈 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 because 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 〉 and ye shall cast them into the palace. Where the Targum and Syriac, They shall carry them beyond the mountains of Armenia. And the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Unto the mount Romman. R. Sol. upon the place tells us, that Jonathan paraphraseth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beyond the mountains of Horman, they are the mountains of darkness. Alexander King of Macedon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 went to the King of Cazia behind the mountains of darkness. Let me add one passage more. Israel went into three Captivities, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one was within the river Sanbation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the other was to D • phne of Antioch. The other where the clouds did descend upon them and covered them .

VERS. LI.

WE have a like phrase, and a story not much unlike in Shemoth rabba , when the people in the absence of Moses were urgent with Aaron to make them God's that should go before them, Hur resisted them, and said to them, 〈 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.

I. I Would not render this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Angels, as the Syriac and Arabic Interpreters have done; but by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 messengers; so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Angel, or messenger of the Church. The Jews have a trifling fiction, 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 begot 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 .

If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might admit of this passive construction, that men might be disposed 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 〉 , transgression of the Law, even from what they themselves granted. As though he had said,

II. But if this clause will not bear that interpretation, it is doubtful in what sense the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be taken; and whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unto the dispositions be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by the dispositions, or disposition. That expression in Gal. III. 19. agrees with this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ordained by Angels; and in both these places it would be something harsh to understand by Angels, those heavenly spirits strictly 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 anything further was done or performed by them. So that the thing itself 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 〉 may retain its own proper force and virtue, that the sense may come to thus much, viz.

VERS. LVI.

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 〉 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 , talk much more out of the way, 〈 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 declares he saw that of Daniel fulfilled now in Jesus; to which that in Isa. VI. 1. is something parallel.

VERS. LVIII.

I. 〈 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, Levite. XXIV. 14. It is a Tradition 〈 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 Sanhedrin 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 Sanhedrin, and again without three Camps, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If the Sanhedrin go forth and sit without the three Camps; they make the place for stoning also distant 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 testimony, that might make for him. For in the expectation of some such thing,

II. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

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

IV.

V.

VI.

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 〉 unless for abusing the Sacred name with four letters, &c. Hence is it that although they oftentimes accused our Savior as a blasphemer, yet he was not condemned for this, but because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he used witchcraft and deceived Israel, and seduced them into Apostasy And those are reckoned amongst persons that are to be stoned, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that evilly persuades, and he that draws into Apostasy, and a Conjurer.

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.

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

VERS. LX.

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

VERS. II.

THEY do not bury (any one condemned by the Sanhedrin) in the Sepulchers of their fathers. But there are two places of burial, belonging to the Sanhedrin; one for those that are beheaded and strangled; the other for those that are stoned and burnt. The reason why such are not to be buried with their fathers is this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Because they do not bury the guilty with the innocent; which they deduce from the story of an ordinary person cast into Elisha's grave, who continued not there but rose again.

The stone wherewith any one is stoned, the wood on which he is hanged, the sword by which he is beheaded, and the halter wherewith he is strangled, is still buried in the same place with him: or at least very near him. That it was otherwise with Stephen, the words now before us do evince; but whether this was from the indulgence of the Sanhedrin toward the condemned person: or, because he was not condemned by the Sanhedrin, let others judge.

The Rabbins go on. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They do not make a lamentation over one condemned by the Sanhedrin, only bemoan him, i. e. inwardly, and in their heart only. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for this grief is not but in the heart. And it was a Vulgar conceit amongst the Jews, that by how much the more sordidly the criminal was handled by the Sanhedrin, and how much the less bemoaned after execution, by so much the more it tended toward the remission of his sins. Whence the Gloss upon the place, They do not bewail him, that so that disgrace of his might turn to his atonement.

This generous and true Christian courage of these good men burying St. Stephen, is deservedly applauded by all: and those that did thus bury him, did thereby publicly explode that ridiculous conceit of expiation by undergoing the greatest disgrace here: for they knew well enough that the remission of this Martyrs sins, flowed from a more noble source.

VERS. V.

HAving done with the story of Stephen, who was the first named amongst the seven Deacons: the Evangelist passeth on to the affairs of Philip, who was the second. Whether he betook himself to Sebaste, or to Shechem, or to some other third City of Samaria, might be a reasonable question; because it is said, verse. 14. that the Apostles heard that Samaria had received the Word of God; which seems more agreeably to be understood of some City in Samaria, rather than the whole Samaritan Country. Now what City should that be, which as the Metropolis of that Country, is by way of Emphasis called Samaria? It is certain that Sebaste is that very City, which anciently was Samaria.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sebaste is the same, which was Samaria, where to this day the Palace of Ahab is shewn. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. In Samaria (Herod) fortifying a City with a noble wall of twenty furlongs, and carrying thither a Colony of six thousand men, distributing good land amongst them: and in the midst of the City erecting a goodly Temple to Caesar, and a gr • ve about it of about three half furlongs, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 called the City Sebaste.

Was this therefore the City of Samaria, where Philip now was, because that was once the City Samaria? If we observe, how the City of Shechem was the very heart and seat of the Samaritan Religion, and the Mount Gerizim was as it were the Cathedral Church of that Sect; perhaps to this one might more fitly have respect, when mention is made of the City of Samaria, than any other place.

VERS. IX.

IF this was in Shechem, you will say, what became then of the Shechemites faith which Christ himself had already planted amongst them? Joh. IV. It may be answered (though in so very obscure a thing I would not be positive) that it was some years since the time when Christ had conversed in that City, and when as he had done nothing that was miraculous there, Simon by his Magicks might obtain the easier reception amongst them. But however, grant, it was Sebaste, or any other City of Samaria, that was the scene of this story yet who did this Simon give out himself to be, when he said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that he himself was some great one? And what sort of persons did the Samaritans account him, when they said of him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , this man is the great power of God?

I. Did they take him for the Messiah? It is commonly presumed that Simon was a Samaritan by birth; but should Messiah spring out of the Samaritans? It is no impertinent question, whether the Samaritans, when they looked for the Messiah, (Joh. IV. 25.) yet could expect he should be one of the Samaritan stock, when they admitted of no Article of Faith that had not its foundation in the Books of Moses? Could they not gather this from thence, that the Messiah should come of the Tribe of Judah? A Samaritan perhaps will deny this, and elude that passage in Gen. XLIX. 10. by some such way as this: It is true, the Scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a Lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; but then this does not argue that Shiloh must derive his Original from the Tribe of Judah; only that some Dominion should continue in Judah, till Shiloh should appear. Where, by the way, it is worth our observing that the Samaritan Text and Interpreter in that place, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 reads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without the Jod; and instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from between his feet, that Text reads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from between his banners; and the Interpreter hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from between his Ranks, or Companies.

That figment concerning Messiah ben Joseph, or Messiah ben Ephraim (for he goes by both those names) whether it was first invented by the Jews, or by the Samaritans is not easily determined. The Jewish Writers make very frequent mention of him: but the thing itself makes so much for the Samaritans, that one might believe it was first hatched amongst themselves; only that the story tells us that Messiah was at length slain, which the Samaritans would hardly ever have invented concerning him. And the Jews perhaps might be the Authors of it, that so they might the better evade those passages that speak of the death of the true Messiah.

II. However, it was impiety enough in Simon, if he gave out himself for a Prophet, when he knew so well what himself was; and if you expound his giving out himself to be some great one no higher than this, yet does it argue arrogance enough in the knave. I would not depress the sense of those words concerning John the Baptist, Luke I. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He shall be great in the sight of the Lord: but if we take it in the highest degree, he shall be a Prophet before the Lord Christ; it carries both an excellent truth along with it, and also a most plain agreeableness with the office of John. And when Stephen expresseth Moses to have been a Prophet, in these terms 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He was mighty in words and deeds, perhaps it bears the same sense with what the Samaritans said and conceited concerning this Simon, that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the great power of God.

VERS. XIII.

THAT is, He believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messiah, and so was made capable of Baptism; (as in verse. 37.) and was indeed baptized in the Name of Jesus, verse. 16. And now O Simon, what thinkest thou of thyself, if hitherto thou hadst exhibited thyself as the Messiah? Darest thou after this pretend to be the Son of God? That which is commonly told of him, and which Epiphanius reports without alleging any others: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . To the Samaritans he gave out himself to be the Father, to the Jews to be the Son; betrays not only the blasphemy but the madness of the man, that amongst the Jews he should pretend himself to be the Son of God, when they would acknowledge no Son of God at all.

VERS. XVI.

EPIPHANIUS here very apositely tells us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Philip being but a Deacon, had not the power of imposition of hands, so as by that, to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost. It was the Apostles peculiar Province and Prerogative, by laying on of their Hands to communicate the Holy Ghost, that is, in his extraordinary gifts of Tongues and Prophesy; for as to the Spirit of Sanctification, they never dispensed that.

Peter and John besides the eminent station they held amongst the Apostles, were also to be the Apostles of the Circumcision in foreign Countries. James the brother of John was now alive, who with those two made up that noble Triumvirate, that had a more intimate familiarity with Christ. And one would believe, he ought also to have been sent along with them, but that they were sufficient; and that this was only as a prologue to their future charge and office of dealing with the Circumcision in foreign Countries.

They lay their hands upon some whom the Holy Ghost had pointed out to be ordained Ministers: And by so doing, they did communicate the gifts of Tongues and Prophesy, so very visible and conspicuously, that it is said, that Simon saw how through the laying on of the Apostles hands, the Holy Ghost was given. Amongst the Jews persons were ordained Elders, by three men: But here, this duumvirate was abundantly more valuable, when they could not only promote to the Ministry, but further, confer upon those that were so promoted, a fitness and ability for the performance of their office.

VERS. XIX.

HOW infinitely mistaken is this wretch, if he think that the gifts of the Holy Ghost could be bought and procured by Silver or Gold; and how much more mistaken still, if he think that the power of conferring these gifts to others could be thus attained! The Apostles had a power of imparting these gifts, but even they had not a power of enabling another to impart them. Paul by laying hands on Timothy could endow him with the gifts of Tongues and Prophesy; but he could not so endow him that he should be capable of conveying those gifts to another. This was purely Apostolical to dispense these gifts, and when they died, this power and privilege died with them.

It is easy apprehending what this wily wretch had in his thoughts and design, viz. an affectation both of lucre and vain-glory. Otherwise it might have been abundantly enough for him to have requested, give me also the gift of Tongues and Prophesy as ye have given to these.

VERS. XXIV.

IF he begged this in earnest and from his heart, it is a wonder he should afterward break out into so much blasphemy and wickedness that Church-history reports concerning him, if that say true. And when he did still more and more disbelieve God, and set himself more greedily in an opposition against the Apostles, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Simon the great adversary of the great and Holy Apostles, &c. For him to beseech the Apostles earnestly to pray for him, and yet from thenceforth to oppose them to the utmost of his power? This certainly is the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity.

We have (if we believe the story) St. Peter and this Simon meeting with one another again at Rome, where the Apostle by his prayers tumbles this Magician headlong to the ground, while he was flying in the Air, and so Simon Magus breaths his last. If it had been taken notice of, that (if Philostratus may be believed) it is probable St. Peter and Apollonius Tyanaeus were at one and the same time together in Babylon, doubtless there would have been some such tale as this framed about St. Peters triumphing over him also.

That in Justin Martyr concerning a statue erected at Rome to Simon Magus with this inscription Simony Sancto Deo, To Simon the Holy God, is shewn by learned Men to have been so called by mistake, when it was rather a Statue erected Simony Sango Deo. I fear there is some such mistake concerning St. Peters chair erected in Rome, as there was concerning the Statue of Simon erected at Rome.

VERS. XXVI.

WHO is it speaks this clause [ which is desert ] the Angel or the Historian? Strabo indeed tells us, that Gaza anciently was a noble City, destroyed by Alexander, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and continues desert. But why is this added in this place, and by whom is it so? I would suppose it is added by the Angel, and that for this reason, because there was another Gaza not very far from that place where Philip now was, viz. in the Tribe of Ephraim, 1 Chron. VII. 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shechem with the Towns thereof, to Gaza with the Towns thereof, this was the dwelling of the children of Ephraim. Here is Gaza of Ephraim, but Philip must go to Gaza of the Philistines.

VERS. XXVII.

IN a French Treatise lately published, that bears the Title of Histoire de la haut Ethiopie, pag. 15. all the Ethiopian Kings are named and reckoned up, and Candace not mentioned. But at the end there is this animadversion upon it, Dans cette Chronology i • n'est point parle ny de la R • ine Candace, ny de l' Imperatrice Helene, &c. In this Chronology there is no mention of the Queen Candace, nor of the Empress Helen; The Abyssins no more than the Jews use not to name the women in their Genealogies; a thing very common with all the Eastern Nations.

However, that there was a certain Candace Queen of the Ethiopians, nay that there were several Queens of that name, is so very plain both from Pliny and Strabo, that it would be an impertinent thing to seek for this Candace of ours anywhere else. The head of the Kingdom (saith Strabo) was Meröe, a City of the same name with the Island itself. Now the Country Meröe was made an Island by the river Nile Westward, and the river Astabora Eastward .

If our Eunuch here came indeed from Meröe, then may we call to mind that passage in Zeph. III. 10. From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my suppliants, &c. But from what part soever of Candace's Empire he might come, and what way soever he went; that might be true of him, and a very long journey he must needs take, before he could arrive at Jerusalem. But the Ethiopic Version, cuts the journey much shorter, when it makes him travailing to the City Gaza; So rendering that passage, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not, who had the charge of all her treasure, but who was over all Gaza.

I am apt to imagine this devotionist might come to Jerusalem upon the same errand that had brought the Jews from all Countries, Acts II. viz. led hither by the Prophesy of Daniel, which had foretold the appearance of the Messias about this time. And one would wonder, that whiles he was at Jerusalem, he should have heard nothing concerning Jesus. Or perhaps what he heard of him was the occasion of his studying at this time that passage in Isaiah's Prophesy. Where now were the Apostles and the rest of that holy College and company, that so great a person, and one of such devotion should be let go untaught and unsatisfied concerning the Lord Jesus? Is it possible that he could be ignorant of the talk of his Death and Resurrection, abiding in the City although as yet he might not believe it? But his instruction and conversion, is reserved to a more peculiar miracle, that should render it the more famous, and better known.

VERS. XXXII.

THE Text in Isaiah is indeed expressed here according to the Greek Version, but whether the Eunuch used that Version or no, is no unjust question. As also, whether he were a Jew or a Proselyte; whether a Proselyte made, or a mere Gentile; whether an Eunuch in the strict, or in the larger sense. Which things are not to be inquired into, because we can nowhere be resolved about them. The perverseness of the Jews is more obvious, who, to elude these express and plain things about the sufferings of the Messiah, do divert the whole sense of this Chapter to another thing. It goes current amongst them, that the afflicted people of Israel, are the subject of this Prophesy: although there are those that would apply part of it to Jeremy; others, part of it to R. Judah the holy; nay some there are that will allow some part of it to the Messias himself, in the mean time providing that they admit not of his death; it would be very tedious to set down particularly their triflings and elusions in this matter. I rather inquire who it is that the Greek Interpreters apply this passage to? Whether they plainly and sincerely understood them of the sufferings and death of the Messiah? Let those answer for them, who would have them inspired by the Holy Ghost. If they were thus inspired, they could not but attain the true sense and scope of the Scripture, as well as the Grammatical signification of the words, and could not but discern here, that the Prophet treats of an afflicted, suffering, dying, buried Messias, &c.

And if so, how strange a thing is it, that the whole Nation should be carried away with so cursed, perverse and obstinate a denial of the Messiah's death? What? For Seventy two Doctors and Guids of the people, and those divinely inspired too, so plainly to foresee the sufferings and death of the Messiah foretold in this Chapter, and yet not to take care to disperse this Doctrine amongst the people, nor deliver and hand it down to posterity? But if they did do it, how came so horrid an averseness to this Doctrine to seize the whole Nation? If they did not, what execrable Pastors of the people were they, to conceal so noble, and so necessary an Article of their Faith, and not impart it?

In like manner do the Jews commonly apply that famed Prophesy of Christ, Isa. IX. 6. to King Hezekiah; I doubt also the Greek Interpreters lean that way, that clause 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I will restore health, or soundness to him, gives a suspicion of it.

VERS. XXXIII.

THE Hebrew Text is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He was taken from prison and from judgment; which the Seventy read thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If you render the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the same sense with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1 Sam. XXI. 7. Doeg (for devotion, saith Kimchi) was detained before the Lord: then is shewn so much the greater wrong done to Christ. He was snatched from the place of his devotion, and from his work; and he was snatched from the place of judgment, that he could neither be safe in that, nor have just judgment in the other. Any one knows what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies, namely, Being detained upon a Religious account, and what affinity the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to shut up, may have with it, everyone may also see.

That is, who shall declare the wickedness of that age or generation wherein he lived, and by whom he suffered such things? This and such like passages are very usual amongst the Jews. In the generation in which the Son of David shall come, the Synagogue shall be a common stews, Galilee shall be destroyed, and Gablan shall be laid wast.—the wisdom of the Scribes shall putrefy, good and merciful men shall fail, yea and truth itself shall fail, and the faces of that generation shall be as the faces of dogs.—R. Levi saith, The Son of David shall not come, but in a generation wherein men's faces shall be impudent; and which will deserve to be cut off. R. Jannai saith, When thou seest the generation, after the slandering, and blaspheming generation, then expect the feet of King Messias, that is, his coming. While I read the Chaldee Paraphrast, in Isa. LIII. methinks I see a forehead not unlike the faces before mentioned; for he wrests the Prophets words with that impudence and perverseness from their own proper sense, that it is a wonder if his own Conscience, while he was writing it, did not check and admonish him.

VERS. XL.

IF this was done at Gaza or near it, it was from thence to Azotus about two hundred and seventy furlongs; or thirty four miles or thereabout. And Azotus was, as it seems, two miles from Jamnia, according to the computation of Antoninus his Itinerarium. From Gaza to Askalon sixteen miles: from Askalon to Jamnia twenty. We have the mention of one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rabba Philippi, as it should seem, in the Jerusalem Talmud.

VERS. II.

THESE letters were written from the whole Sanhedrin, the head of which was Gamaliel, Paul 's Master, yet they are attributed to the High Priest, he being of a more worthy degree and order, than the President of the Council; that in Acts XXIII. 4. hath a peculiar Emphasis, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , God's High Priest, and hints to us the opinion that Nation had of the High Priest, namely, that he was God's Officer; whereas the President of the Council was only an officer of the People, and chosen by men. The charge of the High Priest was to take care about holy things: the charge of the President was to take care about the Traditions: for he was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the keeper and repository of Traditions.

But the words we are upon do occasion a more knotty and difficult question, viz. whether the decrees of the Sanhedrin were of authority amongst the Jews in Countries abroad? As to Damascus there is the less scruple, because Syria in very many things was looked upon to be of the same rank and condition with the land of Israel. But what shall we think of more remote Countries? For instance, Egypt or Babylon, where the greatest number of Jews above all other Countries in the World did reside?

I. There was no Sanhedrin of Seventy men, either in Egypt or Babylon, or indeed anywhere else, but that at Jerusalem. There were very famous Academies in Babylon, viz. that of Nehardea, that of Sorah, and that of Pombeditha. But a Sanhedrin nowhere. There was a very famous Cathedral Church at Alexandria, wherein were seventy pompous stalls, but it was but a Church not a Sanhedrin .

II. In what veneration the Jerusalem Sanhedrin was held everywhere amongst all sorts of Jews, may be collected from this, that the rule and determination concerning intercalating the year, concerning the beginning of the year, and the appointed time of the feasts, &c. came from it, as also that was esteemed the keeper and repository of the oral Law.

III. The judgment of life and death in the matter of Heresy and heterodoxy belonged only to the Jerusalem Sanhedrin: and it is some such thing that is now before us. The Christians were to be sent from the Synagogues bound to Jerusalem, that if they would not deny their faith, they might be condemned to die. The Synagogues by their three men, might scourge them, but they could not pass sentence of death: And these goodly men conceived there was no other way to extirpate Christianity but by the death of Christians.

IV. Whether therefore, these were mandatory letters, or only exhortatory which St. Paul desired; the Fathers of the Sanhedrin knew the Synagogues were heated with so great an indignation against Christianity that they would most readily undertake, what was desired. Where, by the way, we may make this observation, That the power of Life and Death was not yet taken out of the hands of the Sanhedrin. I have elsewhere given you a copy of a Letter from the Sanhedrin to those of Babylon, and also to those of Alexandria .

VERS. V.

IN Syriac 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . It is well known that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to kick, from Deut. XXII. 15. and 1 Sam. II. 29. nor is it less known what this word kicking in these places means. R. Bibai sat and taught—R. Isaac ben Cahna 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kicked against him.

VERS. VII.

BUT it is said Chap. XXII. 9. They heard not the voice of him that spake unto me. They heard 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Voice, or Sound; but they did not hear 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the words. So we find the Jewish writers distinguishing. There I will speak with thee. The word shall be with thee, but not with them all. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Perhaps they did not hear the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but they heard the voice.

But did Paul himself see him? See verse. 17. Jesus that appeared to thee in the way; and verse. 27. He saw the Lord in the way. 1 Cor. IX. 1. Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? And Chap. XV. 8. He was seen of me also, &c. but did he see his person or his glory only? I would say he saw both; and so had obtained a more illustrious Vision of him than any of the rest, having seen him since he was glorified, which they did not. But whether he saw with his bodily eyes, or as Isaiah, Cap. VI. 1. by Vision only, let those dispute it that think fit.

Concerning Damascus the scene of this history, we may call to mind that of Zechar. IX. 1. The burden of the word of the Lord in the land of Hadrach, and Damascus the rest thereof, &c. where the Targum; Damascus shall be converted, so that it shall be of the land of the house of his Majesty. Kimchi hath it, Damascus shall be his rest: that is, the habitation of his glory and of his prophet, &c. which things whither they have any relation to this place, let the Reader judge. Only I must not let it pass unobserved, that Paul the Converter of the Gentiles, was called to his Apostleship, and saw Christ in a Country, and almost in a City of the Gentiles.

St. Paul himself tells us that this voice which came from Heaven spake to him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the Hebrew tongue, Chap. XXVI. 14. which our Historian doth not mention, nor indeed those passages, verse. 16. 17, 18. which S. Paul there relates.

VERS. XII.

ANANIAS himself adds, verse. 17. that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Could Ananias therefore confer the Holy Ghost? This seemed the peculiar prerogative of the Apostles; could therefore a private Disciple do this to an Apostle? By the imposition of his hands could he impart the gift of Tongues and Prophesy? Will not this degrade our Apostle even below the ordinary Ministers, who received these gifts by the imposition of the Apostles hands, and shall he that is an Apostle take his Commission from the hands of one that is not so himself? It was not ordinary for an Apostle to be baptized by one that was not an Apostle; and it would be strange, if such an one should add over and above greater things to an Apostle.

It may be no needless question, who it was that baptized the rest of the Apostles, when Jesus himself baptized not, Joh. IV. 2. who therefore baptized those that did baptize? Let the Romanists say, who baptized Peter? I would say John the Baptist did. But do you think Peter was rebaptized? If so, by whom, when Jesus himself did not baptize?