threescore and ten] (Exodus 1:5. &Deuteronomy 10:22.) This is made the totall summe of all the house of Jacob which came into Egypt; and to make up that number, Jacob, as head of the family, is one, and Joseph, (though he were in Egypt before) is another, and Josephs two sonnes born in Egypt are reckoned with them, and all foure added to the number of sixty sixe (noted, vers. 26.) are just seventy: so that this number consists wholly of Jacob, and his off-spring, whereof all but three came with Jacob into Egypt; of those three, one was Joseph who came before, and two came not at all, being borne there; yet they that came with him are said to be seventy, the totall taking its denomination from the greater part, but without any appearance of errour or fraud, in that the story setteth downe plainly, not onely who came with Jacob, but who came not, 5: 12. and in this vers. In this place there were no great difficultie, but that Acts 7:14. Stephen addeth five more to these seventie, saying, Then sent Joseph and called his father Jacob unto him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteene soules: The Seventie Interpreters, though they keepe the just number of seventie in their Translation of Deu 10:22. yet in this verse, and Exodus 1:5. they make the number to be seventie five, which five are Machir the sonne, and Gilead his sonne, and nephew, or grandchild of Manasses, and Sutalam and Taham two sonnes of Ephraim, and Edom his grandchild by Sutalam; which they seeme to have taken as a supplement out of 1 Chron. 7. 14. 20. though neither the names nor number well agree; and to the five forenamed, they adde two more, vers. 29. So that by their account, if they reckon right, they should give in for the full number not seventy five, but seventy seven. But for that Translation of the Septuagint, which was not free from errour, when it was at the best, but now is much more corrupt then it was at first, there needs no more adoe, but to correct it by the Hebrew text in this vers. which must be the Standard to all Translations, and Testimonies. For this matter that which is more considerable, and questionable is, how it cometh to passe that Stephen speaking of the number, and Saint Luke writing of it, both set down no fewer then seventy five, Acts 7:14. The Doway Translators (in Augustines name) making the doubt insoluble, give it up as a mystery to meere silence; and this the rather, because they would have the Scripture conceived to be so hard, that it is not fit to be read by Lay people: and they that answer the Objection, either endevour to cleare the greater number from errour, or else confesse it with Caution against inconveniencies, that may ensue upon it: For the first, the reconcilement is endevoured by some, by saying, that to make up that number there is use of the figure called Anticipation, whereby they are put in, as then brought into Egypt, who were not borne untill afterwards; who yet might be said to come in with Jacob, because they were once in his loines who came thither, though not then when he came in, their father being both borne, and in Egypt also before the time of Jacobs removall; so Levi is said to pay tithes to Melchisedes in Abraham, Hebrews 7:9. though Levi were not till at least an hundred and fiftie yeares after their time; as Leah is said to beare unto Jacob 33. sonnes, and daughters, vers. 15. of this Chapter, and Zilpah to beare unto Jacob sixteene soules, vers. 18. whereas they were not all their immediate children, but many of them grandchildren, for which they never groaned, for they had other mothers, both to conceive and beare them; and of those who are reckoned for the children of Benjamin, who are of the number of them that make up the seventie that came with Jacob into Egypt, Naaman and Ard, named, vers. 21. were grandchildren to Benjamin, the sonnes of Bela, Numbers 26:40. which were borne after Jacobs coming into Egypt, for Benjamin was then too young to be a grandfather, when Jacob came thither; and there is this relation betwixt the progenitors, and their off-spring, that as the children are included in their parents, so the parents are sometimes included in their children; as where God cheering up Jacob concerning his journey telleth him not onely that he will goe downe with him into Egypt, but that he will bring him up againe into Canaan, vers. 4. which is principally to be understood of his posteritie: See Annot. on vers. 4. Object. But if these five be added, because they were virtually in the loines of Jacob, there might be added as well five thousand, yea sixe hundred thousand to which the Israelites increased, as hath beene noted on vers. 3. for all these are virtually included in Jacobs loines. Answ. That will not follow: First, because the scope of this genealogie was to distinguish the Tribes, and to shew from how small a number they increased to so great a multitude. Secondly, that being the purpose it must be confined to a certaine number, and that number made up of such as either were, or might be, of one family; as the father, sonne, and grandchild, and great grandchild, which Jacob might see before he died. And of these the most being such as he brought with him out of Canaan, they might all in reference to Jacob be sorted to his company. Some conceive that besides Jacob, and those that are reckoned as descended from him, there might be added five women of his company, who were wives. If this doe not satisfie, the other answer is the confession of errour, and that is diversly applied. First, to the Seventie Interpreters. Secondly, to those that copied out the Scripture at the first. Thirdly, to Stephen. Fourthly, to Luke. First, for the Seventie Interpreters of the Old Testament, though divers Popish Doctors hold they were inspired by the Holy Ghost (and so make it of unquestionable authoritie) yet it is, especially as now it is extant, very erroneous, and in this point in question contradictory to it selfe; for in Deuteronomy 10:22. and this place it translteth (but according to the Hebrew Originall) threescore and tenne, or seventie; and Exodus 1:5. it addeth five more. Secondly, for those that copied out the Scripture in the New Testament (being ignorant in the Hebrew) they might either corrupt the Greeke Originall, by conforming it to the Text of the Septuagint, which was in much use and account in the Primitive Church, even in the time of our Saviour; or might mistake the word Pente, five, for Pantes, all; and this if it were their errour, was very ancient, else it could never have beene so generall; nor would the Syriack Translation have seventie five; (as the Septuagint Greek hath) and that for the New Testament is so ancient, that in time it came very neere the Originall, and is thought by some to have beene made in the time of the first Antiochian Christians. Thirdly, for Saint Stephen, some conceive he related the story of Jacobs coming into Egypt, according to the Edition of the Seventie Interpreters, which was in much use and estimation in his time, and which brings in the number with variation, for it twice reckons seventie five, and but once seventie; which whether it may be imputed to his ignorance of the Hebrew, as some say, or (confessing that he understood and spake Hebrew at that time, as others, both by conjecture onely) to his unwillingnesse to contradict a Translation so accounted of by the beleeving Greeks, or to such a meaning of the words of addition, as hath beene formerly set downe, is not easie to resolve; and in case he should mistake the Translation for the Originall Text, and so be in an errour (which is the worst that can be made of the collision, or opposition betwixt this place, and Acts 7:14.) the matter is not so dangerous, as some conceive it; for though Stephen were said to be a man full of the Holy Ghost, Acts 6:5. &Chap. 7. 55. yet that is no more then was required for qualification of all the seven Deacons, Acts 6:3. Nor was he an inspired Penman of the Scripture, more then any of the rest of that rank; nor were the Apostles alwaies, and equally inlightned by the Holy Ghost, though the same phrase be used of them, which was applied to Stephen (as of Peter, Acts 4:8. and of Paul, Acts 9. 17.) and that in a sense importing more infallible assistance; for Peter who could tell by the Holy Ghost, that Ananias, and Sapphira told a lye, Acts 5:3. was not told by the Holy Ghost, what businesse the men had with him that came from Cornelius, Acts 10:21. Nor did he know the meaning of the vision of the vessell like unto a sheete, when it was shewed unto him, vers. 17. and when God spake to him to kill, and eat of that which was presented to him, he answered (not by the instinct of the Holy Ghost, but rather as resisting it) not so Lord, vers. 14. Nor was he so guided by the Spirit as Paul was, when he deserved such a sharpe rebuke, as Paul gave him to his face, Gal. 2. from vers. 11. to the 15. Nor was Paul alwaies in the same sort assisted by the Holy Ghost, and therefore he distinguisheth betwixt direction given by himselfe, and that which cometh by inspiration from the Lord, 1 Cor. 7. vers. 10. 12. See Annot. on Chap. 40. vers. 14. It is not necessary then to beleeve that Stephen was infallibly assisted in all hee said in his Apologie to the Councell; and if he did either not know the Originall Hebrew, which saith seventy soules; or cited the erroneous Greeke of the Septuagint not knowing it to be erroneous in a matter of so small moment as this (which in effect is of no great weight for faith, or manners) since he was neither an Amanuensi, or Scribe to the Holy Ghost; nor delivered that number of seventie five, as a Dictate of the Holy Ghost, the misprision is no prejudice at all to the truth of Religion, or to the Authoritie of the holy Text, on which we are bound to ground our beliefe. Fourthly, and lastly, for Luke, (though some think him as ignorant of the Hebrew Text in this Chapter, and Exodus 1:5. &Deuteronomy 10:22. Or as complying with the times, wherein the Greeke Edition of the Seventie was in great reputation) I doubt not but without any such excuse as binds to the impeachment of his authoritie, (as this doth) we may say, that though Stephen were mistaken he was not; for as an Historian, he was bound to make the report according to Stephens speech; which be it good, or bad, true, or false, must in historicall truth be related, as it was; and so we need not conceive there was any corruption of the Sacred Text, whereof we ought to be more chary then of Stephens credit, when it is no more concerned or impeached, then in the premises hath beene shewed; for to say that it is erroneous, generally erroneous in all, or in most of the Copies in this place, is to bring the whole Bible under doubt, and suspition of errour, and so to shake the foundation of our faith; and if the transcribers of the New Testament might justly here be suspected, so generally to have mis-written this Text, Acts 7:14. it had beene requisite by the Hebrew Originall in this place to have corrected it how ancient soever had been the errour, whether of the Syriack, or any other Language whatsoever. But supposing Stephen to have spoken (as hath beene noted) and Luke to have truly written what he spake, there can be none inference made from that, which we may not safely acknowledge without diminution of due respect to; and with reservation of infallible assistance in the holy Scripture. Object. If it 〈◊〉 said, that God promised such assistance of his Spirit to those, that should be called in question for his Cause, (as Stephen was) that they should not need to take any thought for what they should say, Luke 12:11. And so what they said must be taken not for an humane, but for a Divine answer; and consequently must of necessitie be free from errour. Answ. Those words are no generall promise to every one that is drawn to the Barre of an unchristian Tribunall, but to the Apostles, as is plaine by Matthew 10:19. And though God might, and doubtlesse did, many times inspire apologies into the hearts of other holy witnesses of his truth; yet this promise in regard of persons, and of perpetuitie, was the peculiar priviledge of the Apastles.