Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible · Acts Kapitel 7

Acts 7:2. And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers,— Dr. Benson has illustrated this speech of St. Stephen in a large and very judicious manner, to whom we shall be frequently obliged; and the following introductory remarks from Dr. Ward's 39th Dissertation will serve to shew its general propriety. The charge brought against Stephen, says he, consisted of two parts: that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy the temple where they were then assembled, and change the rites of Moses, Ch. Acts 6:14. The foundation of this charge seems to have been, that Stephen, in disputing with them, had plainly proved, that Jesus was the Messiah. Hence his accusers inferred their charge, fixing upon him their own consequences as his affections, and that with a design to take away his life, for which reason they might justly be called false witnesses, Acts 7:13. But though Stephen had not directly asserted these things, yet were they true in themselves, and might be inferred from the law and the prophets (Deuteronomy 15:0.). He could not therefore deny them; and to have owned them in express terms, would have been to give himself up to their rage and fury. The method therefore which he takes in his defence is, first, to shew them, from theirwritings, that all their former dispensations were to issue in that of the Messiah; and he begins with God's calling Abraham from his country and family, and promising to him and his posterity the land of Canaan for a possession; and it is remarkable, that he does not call it an everlasting possession, as it is called Gen 17:8 which might have seemed not so consistent with their forfeiture of it upon their rejecting the Messiah. Then he observes to them, how their fathers rejected Moses, after the clearest proofs of his mission, and that they were punished for it in the wilderness; and this he does, to prepare them to consider what they might justly expect upon rejecting Christ. He reminds them likewise, that Moses himself had declared to them, that another prophet was to arise, like him, whom they were ordered to hear. This was the Messiah; and his being like to Moses must consist in his bringing in a new dispensation, and confirming it with miracles, as Moses had done. This seems to respect the latter article of the charge;—and thus farthey heard him patiently. He then proceeds to speak of the temple, which relates to the former part of the accusation: and here he uses such depreciating expressions, as, though taken from the prophets, could not be agreeable to them, and very probably inflamed their minds; but when he came to charge them with the murder of Jesus, calling him the Just One, that is, the Messiah, they could no longer bear with him; but their passions rose to such a height, that they gnashed their teeth at him, and very probably made such a disturbance, that he could not proceed in what he designed to say further; though we find that Peter had twice before taken the same method, and charged them as expressly with the death of Jesus, Ch. 2: and 4: but Peter had, in both cases, the advantage of a present miracle to support him, and give weight to what he said; and we find that the council were deterred by that from proceeding to extremities, Ch. Acts 4:16. The Jewish rulers, before our Saviour's death, were apprehensive that he designed, by gaining over the populace, to set himself up for a king; and that, in consequence of this, the Romans would come and destroy their city, John 11:48. This they hoped to prevent, by taking him off; but, after his death, finding that the apostles not only went on to propagate the same theme of religion, and support it with miracles, as he had done, but also charged them with murdering him, whom his followers asserted to be the Messiah, they seemed now to be more immediately concerned for their own security. However, at first they endeavour to prevent the spreading of this doctrine, and to deter the preachers of it by less severities, as in the case of Peter and John; but when they found that those would not do, it is not improbable they might resolve upon greater; and thinking Stephen a proper subject for their purpose, might determine, if possible, to take away his life; which seems more likely from Ch. Act 5:33 where it is said, that the Jewish senate took counsel to slay the apostles, as if they had not been dissuaded by Gamaliel. However, as that could not have been done judicially, and in form of law, but by a trial before the Roman governor, who might not think their charge against him sufficientto put him to death, there might be a particular design of Providence thus to honour himwith being the first martyr for Christianity, and permit him to be taken off in such a manner, as drew no civil disorders after it. For we do not find that any notice was taken of this fact by the Roman governor; though one would think that he could hardly have omitted to make some inquiries about it. But it was easy for the council to allege in their excuse, that indeed they did call that man to an account for some offences against their law, who was so far from clearing himself, that he persisted in them with blasphemy, which was a crime of so heinous a nature with them, that they could not restrain the mob from dragging him out, and stoning him immediately. Upon such a representation, the governor might think it more advisable to drop any further inquiry, than by proceeding in it to inflame so turbulent a nation. Upon the whole, this speech of Stephen, so far as it goes, seems to be a proper reply to the charge laid against him; but what he would have added further, if he had not been prevented, may be difficult to say. By the methods taken to bring about this charge, and the behaviour of the Jews at the trial, it seems probable, that the council designed, if possible, to take away his life, as a terror to others; and Divine Providence, for wise ends, thought fit to permit them to accomplish their desig

return to '

Acts 7:4. And from thence; when his father was dead, &c.— See Genesis 26:32. Abraham was not Terah's eldest, but his youngest son; though, by way of honour and distinction, Moses has mentioned him the first of the three, as being the great patriarch of the Jewish nation. For Haran was Terah's eldest son, who died in Ur of the Chaldees, his native country; and who left a daughter, called Milcah, old enough to be married to Nahor. When therefore Terah was seventy years of age, then was Haran born, being his eldest son; Nahor, his second son, was born some years after; and Abraham, his youngest son, was born sixty years after his brother Haran, and when his father Terah was one hundred and thirty years of age. Now seventy-five added to one hundred and thirty, make up two hundred and five, the age at which Terah died in the land of Charran. See Archbishop Usher's Annals, A.M. 1948

return to '

Acts 7:5. And he gave him none inheritance in it, &c.— Probably Canaan was not at that time so universally given to idolatry as Chaldea; for there Abraham met with Melchisedech, who was a worshipper of the true God; and as he was a king, very likely his subjects were not idolaters; but in Chaldea idolatry must have had a large spread, when Terah's family, nay, and most likely Abraham himself, was infected; for St. Paul calls him, Romans 4:5. τον ασεβη, an ungodly person, or an idolater; for that is the word by which he usually intends to signify an idolater. Therefore the calling Abraham into Canaan at that time, was a likely method to preserve him from the further infection of idolatry, as it removed him from his kindred, who would have been apt to have tempted him more than strangers;—and as he was directed to a land where idolatry had not then spread so much. Nay, yet further to deter Abraham, God intimated to him, that in some future generations that very land of Canaan should become notorious for idolatry, and then God would take it from the inhabitants, and give it to him for a possession, even to his seed after him; for so the sentence should properly be read. It is plain that Abraham had not a foot of land in Canaan; for he bought a burying-place to bury his dead.

return to '

Acts 7:6. Sojourn in a strange land;— Some think that this is said in opposition to their sojourning as strangers in the land of Canaan, Heb 11:9 which was not a strange land, but theirs by divine promise. But God himself teaches us otherwise, Exo 6:4 where he calls Canaan the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they, that is, Abraham and his descendants, had hitherto been strangers; for they were not as yet possessed of it, though they had a good title to it. This is proper to be taken notice of, in order to explain what immediately follows. See the note on Genesis 15:13.

return to '

Acts 7:8. And he gave him the covenant of circumcision:— St. Stephen, the reader may observe, draws no inferences. If he had denied the charge laid against him, as there were two witnesses who swore against him, he had been condemned immediately. If he had owned the charge, he would likewise thereupon have fallen under immediate condemnation. If he had gone about directly to have defended the truth of what the witnesses had alleged, the Sanhedrim would not have had the patience to have heard him. As it was, he proceeded in the only possible way to be heard so long as till he had vindicated himself; that is, by laying down the premises, and leaving them to draw the proper inferences from what he said: just as our Lord, in like cases, had often spoken in parables. Now the inferences to be drawn from what was thus far said, are plainly these: 1st, That in different ages and circumstances positive and external rites have been different; and holiness was not originally confined to one particular place; as appears plainly from the history of Abraham, and from what follows concerning Moses: 2nd, That temporal prosperity, and the favour of the multitude, are not always the lot of the people of God, as appears from the cruel treatment of righteous Abraham's more immediate descendants:3rdly, That the divine favour is not confined through all ages to the observation of any one sort of positive institutions;forAbrahamwasinthefavourof God before circumcision was instituted.

return to '

Acts 7:9. Moved with envy, sold Joseph— The plain inference to be drawn from hence was, that they might learn from this example, to abate their hard thoughts of Jesus of Nazareth, whom they, in like manner, through envy, delivered into the hands of strangers, who dealt cruelly with him. Further, from the treatment which Joseph met with, they might see how holy and good persons may be treated in a cruel and unjust manner by men, and at the same time be highly in the favour of God: and therefore, in the present case, it behoved them to examine carefully, and to judge with candour: and hence too they might learn, that holiness and acceptance with God are not confined to any one particular country. For God shewed favour to Joseph in Egypt, amongst an idolatrous and wicked people.

return to '

Acts 7:14. Threescore and fifteen souls.— See the notes on Genesis 20:18.

return to '

Acts 7:16. And were carried over, &c.— It is not improbable, that the bones of the other eleven patriarchs might be carried along with the bones of Joseph, when the children of Israel went out of Egypt, Exo 13:19 and be afterwards buried along with his bones, when Israel came into Canaan. There was the same reason for them to desire to be buried there, as there was for Joseph; that is, their firm belief, that God would in due time fulfil his promise, in giving Canaan unto Israel for a possession;

(Comp. Genesis 50:25.Hebrews 11:22; Hebrews 11:22.) and accordingly some of the ancient Jews affirm that the bodies of the patriarchs were carried and buried along with Joseph's; and St. Jerome asserts, that the twelve patriarchs were buried at Sychem. It seems, that St. Stephen, rapidly running over so many circumstances of history, had not leisure, nor was it needful where they were so well known, to recite them all distinctly. Therefore he here contracts into one, two different sepulchres, places and purchases, so as in the former history, to name the buyer, omitting the seller; in the latter, to name the seller, omitting the buyer. Abraham bought a burying-place of the children of Heth, Genesis 23:0. There Jacob was buried. Jacob bought a field of the children of Ha-mor. There Joseph was buried. We may observe here how St. Stephen contracts these two purchases into one. This concise manner of speaking, strange as it seems to us, was common among the Hebrews; particularly when, in a case notoriously known, the speaker mentioned but part of the history, and left the rest, which would have interrupted the current of his discourse, to be supplied in the mind of the hearer.—The first land which these strangers, these patriarchs bought, was for a sepulchre. They sought for a country in heaven. Perhaps the whole sentence, Act 7:15-16 might be rendered thus: So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he and our fathers, and were carried over to Shechem, and laid by the sons (that is, descendants) of Hamor the father of Shechem, in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money. The reader will find much on this subject in Chais's note on Genesis 23:16. Houbigant on Genesis 33:19. Biscoe's Lectures, p. 607. Whitby, L'Enfant, Sir Norton Knatchbull, &c.

return to '

Acts 7:18. Another king— Probably of another family.

return to '

Acts 7:19. So that they cast out their young children,— By causing their infants to be exposed. Heylin and Doddridge.

return to '

Acts 7:20. Was exceeding fair— 'Αστειος τω Θεω, fair to God; or divinely fair: for we have had occasion frequently to observe, that the word God is often made use of in the Hebrew as expressive of the superlative degree. Concerning the beauty of Moses, see the note on Exodus 2:2.

return to '

Acts 7:21. And—Pharaoh's daughter took him up,— All these extraordinary circumstances relating to the birth, preservation, education, genius and character of Moses, serve to aggravate the crime of Israel in rejecting him when he offered himself to them as a deliverer under so many advantages, and when the providence of God had so wonderfully interested itself in his favour.

return to '

Acts 7:22. Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,— Where the wisdom of a man is spoken of, that which is characteristic of it must needs be meant; where the wisdom of a particular man, that which is peculiar to his quality and profession. St. Stephen in this place speaks of both: in both, therefore, he must mean civil or political wisdom; for in that the Egyptian nation was principally distinguished; and in that the true character of Moses, whether we consider his rank, his education, or his office, was eminently comprised. He became at length the leader and lawgiver of a numerous people: but more than this, St. Stephen is here speaking of him under his public character, and therefore must necessarily be understood to mean, that Moses was consummate in the science of legislation. The words indeed are, all the wisdom of the Egyptians: but every good reasoner knows, that where the thing spoken of refers to some particular use, (as here Moses's to the conducting the Israelites out of Egypt,) the particle all cannot mean all of every kind, but all the parts of one kind: in this restrained sense, all is frequently used in the sacred writings. But further, the concluding part of the character,—and mighty in words and deeds, will not easily suffer the foregoing part to admit of any other interpretation. Mighty in words and deeds, was in a natural sense the precise character of the ancient chiefs, who, leading a free and willing people, needed the arts of peace, such as persuasion and law making—the words; and the arts of war, such as conduct and courage,—the deeds. Hence it is that Jesus, who was the prophet like unto Moses, the legislator of the new covenant, as Moses was of the old, and the conductor of our spiritual warfare, is characterized in the same words, A prophet mighty in deed and word, before God, and all the people. Luke 24:19. This wisdom, therefore, in which Moses was said to be versed, we conclude was the practical part of philosophy, in contradistinction to the theoreticalor speculative. This is the interpretation which Bishop Warburton gives in his Divine Legation, book 4: sect. 6. Several eminent commentators, however, suppose that a general erudition is referred to. Dr. Benson gives the following paraphrase of the verse: "By this means Moses had a most liberal education, being instructed in all the learning of the Egyptians; which were then the most learned people upon earth; and, though he could not speak fluently, he became mighty and powerful both in word and deed; that is, his speeches were solid and wise, and his actions virtuous, honest, and brave." Several ancient testimonies to the extraordinary learning of Moses may be seen in Philo de Vit. Mos. lib. 1: p. 470. Justin Mart. Quaest. ad Orthod. 25: Orig. cont. Cels. lib. 3: p. 139. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 1: p. 343.

return to '

Acts 7:24. And seeing one of them suffer, &c.— See Exo 2:11 where the word is מכה meche, which sometimes signifies to smite so as to kill; and the Israelite is here represented as καταπονουμενω, subdued in a struggle, and in immediate danger of his life: so that Moses had no occasion for a divine impulse in order to his doing this action; for, (not to mention, that God most probably would have supported him afterwards, and he needed not to have fled for it,) as the Egyptian had got the Israelite down, and was, as appeared by all circumstances, just going to kill him; Moses only defended the injured, and vindicated the innocent when oppressed; a thing which any person may lawfully do at any time, or in any place for a stranger, and much more for his own friend: nay, the thing was in itself so far from a crime, that it was highly laudable and praise-worthy; and what Moses might, with great reason, have done to the Israelite, had he been going as unjustly to kill the Egyptian. It is true, that justice could not be then had in the Egyptian court in behalf of the Israelites; and therefore some may think it was in those circumstances imprudent. But it must be remembered, that, according to the history, Exodus 2:12. Moses used all proper precautions, and looked every way to see whether there were any Egyptians in sight, before he ventured to rescue his brother from the hand of the oppressor, and from death: and had not the Israelites themselves discovered it, it is highly probable that Pharaoh would never have known it. So that it is easy to vindicate the justice and prudence of this action of Moses. See the notes on Exodus 2:0.

return to '

Acts 7:25. He supposed his brethren would have understood— It appears from this passage, that Moses had received some immediate revelation from God, that he was the person who should deliver Israel: besides, knowing that there was a divine promise of deliverance made to, and retained in the house of Israel; that he himself had been extraordinarily preserved and educated, and that the time of their deliverance was approaching, he shewed himself willing to run all hazards and dangers with the people of God, rather than continue in the splendor of the Egyptian court; and that when the time should be fully come, he would cheerfully join and head them in order to rescue them from their bondage and cruel slavery.

return to '

Acts 7:26. Set them at one again,— And would have persuaded them at peace. Acts 7:27. Thrust him away, &c.] It is plain, that the speech of this single person is represented, Act 7:35 as expressing the sentiments of the whole body of the people; as their slowness afterwards to believe the mission of Moses, when attended by miracles, seems evidently to shew that it was. See Exodus 5:20-21.

return to '

Acts 7:30. And when forty years were expired,— This circumstance might have been handed down by tradition, or received by immediate inspiration, as the express time of Moses's continuance in voluntary exile isnot mentioned in the Old Testament; and no doubt many other circumstances respecting that great legislator, which are not related in that concise history, were handed down either by tradition or by some writings then extant. Respecting the subsequent circumstances, we refer the reader to the notes on Exodus 3:0.

return to '

Acts 7:35. This Moses, whom they refused,— As the terms of high respect, in which St. Stephen, through the whole of his discourse, speaks of Moses, tended to shew how improbable it was, that he should have spoken contemptibly of him, as the witnesses pretended; so this circumstance of the Israelites having rejected him whom God had appointed to be a ruler and redeemer, plainly adverted to their usage of the Lord Jesus, whom they had lately rejected, but whom God had constituted a Saviour by the divine determination.

return to '

Acts 7:37. A prophet shall the Lord your God, &c.— Concerning this prophesy, see the note on Deuteronomy 18:15; Deuteronomy 18:22.

return to '

Acts 7:38. This is he, that was in the church— When this clause is quoted, as it has been by some great men, to prove that Christ was the person who brought Israel out of Egypt, gave them the law, conducted them through the wilderness, &c. (which is undoubtedlymost true)the argument drawn from this passage is certainly inconclusive: for he—ουτος — here evidently answers to the word ουτος, Act 7:36 and to the words ουτος ο Μωυσης, Act 7:27 and the following clause, which expresses his being with the angel, plainly proves that angel to be a different person. The doctrine itself, that Christ was the God of Israel, the angel or messenger who appeared to Moses, is a great and certain truth, capable of being evinced from many passages both of the Old and New Testament; and from the passage before us in particular, though not from the clause. The word εκκλησια, rendered church, would more properly be rendered here assembly, as it is Act 19:41 because it refers not to their being incorporated into one church, in the appropriate sense of that word, but to their being assembled round the mountain on the solemn day, when the law was given. See Exodus 19:17; Exodus 19:25.

return to '

Acts 7:39. To whom our fathers would not obey,— This is observed by Stephen more than once, and he insists upon it largely, that they might see it was no new thing for Israel to rebel against God, by rejecting deliverers sent from him. See on Acts 7:35.

return to '

Acts 7:40. For as for this Moses—we wot not, &c.— We know not. This is the phraseology both of the LXX and of the Hebrew; (Exodus 32:1.) and has been called putting the nominative case absolute; accordingly Dan 12:2 may be thus explained: As to the multitude who sleep in the dust of the earth, they shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. So Daniel's words would appear to be a prophesy of the general resurrection of mankind, which does not fully appear in our common English translation. Many other texts might be explained, by observing that this phraseology is used. Both Beza and Grotius have represented it as a Hebraism; but Raphelius has shewn that it was made use of by the best Greek writers. The plain inference from all this was, "You are not the first who have rejected the laws which came from God, but evidently approve yourselves the children of your wicked forefathers."

return to '

Acts 7:44. Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness— As St. Stephen had been accused of blaspheming the temple, he now proceeds to speak with peculiar propriety, and with due reverence, of their sacred places, as raised by special direction from God; and yet corrects that extravagant regardfor them, and confidence in them, which the Jews were so ready to entertain.

return to '

Acts 7:45. With Jesus— With Joshua. The word εθνων, rendered Gentiles, would more properly be rendered heathens in this place.

return to '

Acts 7:55. And Jesus standing on the right hand of God.— See the next note. It has been well observed, that Christ is generally represented sitting, but now as standing at God's right hand; that is, as risen up from the throne of his glory, to afford help to his distressed servant, and ready to receive him. It seems a very just conclusion of Mr. Addison's, that other martyrs, when called to suffer the last extremities, had extraordinaryassistances of some similar kind; or frail mortality could not surely have endured the torments under which they rejoiced; and sometimes preached Christ to the conversion of the spectators, and, in some instances, of their guards and tormentors too. See Addison's Evid. of Christianity, ch. 3: sect. 5.

return to '

Acts 7:56. Behold, I see the heavens opened,— The reality of Stephen's seeing this vision, as he described it, appears from the improbability of his being guilty of any design to deceive, as well as from the authenticity and certainty of divine revelation. He was a man of great note and eminence in the church, and held the first place among the seven deacons. He justified the Christian faith against all opposers with singular wisdom. He confounded all those with whom he disputed. When false witnesses were suborned, and he was brought before the Sanhedrim to be tried, his judges saw that he was so far from being daunted, that there was a sparkling majesty in his countenance, like that of an angel. This emboldened him to speak without reserve to the council, and to reprove them for resisting the Holy Ghost; which enraged them to the highest degree. But Stephen, still full of the Holy Ghost, and undaunted at what he foresaw he must suffer from an exasperated mob, cast his eyes toward heaven, from whence cometh help, and bade them take notice that he saw the glory of God, and Jesus shining at his right hand, in far greater glory than they had seen in his face. If he had not been sure that he beheld him whom they crucified, a person of his wisdom would have been more cautious, than to follow him in that bloody path, to which this assertion of course led him; especially as his silence might have preserved him from danger. But so visible was the majesty of our Saviour, that he could not but proclaim it, though he knew they would call it blasphemy, and punish him for it with death. He was willing to suffer for the honour of his Master, who, by this vision, demonstrated to him that he was the Son of the Highest, and able to reward all his faithful servants with immortal glory. If it be asked how he could see the glory of God, (Acts 7:55.) and how he knew the person who appeared at God's right hand to be Jesus? in answer to the first question, we may reply that he saw God's glory in the same sense as others are said to have seen God: he beheld some very bright appearance. Thus Moses was afraid to look upon God, Exodus 3:6. Such a glory it was that Stephen beheld; a glory more pure and refulgent than the light of the sun; a glory, which was the symbol of the presence of the divine majesty, who used in this manner to make men sensible of his transcendant invisible glory. In this divine presence he saw Jesus in the most high and most exalted place. Stephen indeed saw him standing; which might refer to his priestly office;—standing being the posture of those who ministered in the temple at the altar. This posture, therefore, might imply his officiating in the heavenly places, for the comfort of all Christians, as well as of Stephen himself; or rather as ready to come to take vengeance upon the implacable enemies who had killed him, and now persecuted his servants. As to the second question, how he could know that it was Jesus whom he saw, it is easily replied to;—he appeared in the same form as upon earth; only more shining and resplendent: and therefore, when Stephen says to the Jews, "I see the Son of man standing," &c. he means that very Person who used to call himself the Son of man. And if we follow the scope of his speech, he seems to say no less than this; "That very Person who called himself the Son of man, whom you have crucified, I now see so exalted, that I had rather die as he did, than not confess him to be the Son of God." Stephen saw him risen up from his throne, as if he was coming to be avenged of his enemies, to succour all his servants, and to welcome this martyr to immortal bliss. That Stephen was fully confident of this is evident from his resigning up his soul to Jesus with the same confidence, (Acts 7:59.) and almost in the same words, with which Jesus gave up his to God the Father. The last words of our Saviour were, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit!" Luke 23:46. Stephen, in the extremity of his sufferings, called upon God, and said, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit! he died with these and the following words in his mouth, crying again with a loud voice,—Lord, lay not this sin to their charge! In which he expressed as much charity to men, as in the other sentence he did faith in Christ. Now, as in this awful period he displayed such piety and goodness, such candour and humanity, and was so utterly void of all rancour, when he had the highest provocations from his enemies; we may conclude (besides the certainty of the fact as declared in the canon of Scripture) that it is utterly improbable he could be guilty of a lie to deceive others; and we may be assured that God would not suffer so extraordinary a person to be deceived, to the ruin of himself, and to the sacrificing, if not calling away, so precious a life.

return to '

Acts 7:57. Then they cried out, &c.— "This declaration and reference provoked them to such a degree, that crying out with a loud voice that they might drown that of Stephen, they stopped their own ears, as if they could not bear to hear such blasphemy as they conceivedhe had spoken, and furiously rushed upon him with one accord."

return to '

Acts 7:59. And they stoned Stephen,— While they stoned Stephen, he prayed, and said, &c. Literally, They stoned Stephen, invoking and saying, &c. There is nothing for the word God in the original. A solemn prayer, like this to Christ, in which a departing soul is thus committed into his hands, is such an act of worship as no good man would have paid to a mere creature, Stephen here worshipping Christ in the very same manner in whichChrist worshipped the Father on the cross. This stoning seems to have been an act of popular fury, like the stoning of St. Paul at Lystra, ch. Act 14:19 and exceeding the power which the Jews regularly had. The Jews were more than once ready to stone Christ, not only when by their own confession they had not power to put any one to death, but when nothing had passed which had the shadow of a legal trial. How far they might now have formed those express notions of what the rabbies called the judgment of zeal, is uncertain; but it is plain they acted on that principle, and as if they had thought every private Israelite had, like Phineas, who is pleaded as an example of it, a right to put another to deathon the spot, if he found him in a capital breach of the divine law; a notion directly contrary to Deu 17:6 which requires at least two witnesses in capital cases, where there is a legal process. The manner of their stoning persons was this: a crier went before him who was to die, proclaiming his name, his crime, and those who were witnesses against him. When they were come within two or three yards of the place of execution, they stripped the criminal naked, except a small covering, for decency, about his middle. The place of execution, from which they threw down the malefactor, was above twice the height of a man, upon which he was made to ascend with his hands bound. When he was ascended, the witnesses laid their hands upon him, and then stripped off their upper garments, that they might be fitter for going through the execution. From that high place one of the witnesses threw down the criminal, and dashed his loins against a great stone, which was laid there for that very purpose; if that killed him not, then the other witness threw from thesame height a great stone upon his heart, as he lay on his back, and was stunned with the fall. If that dispatched him not, then all the people fell on him with stones till he died.

return to '