Mamre, it is said, He planted a grove there, and called upon the name of the LORD the everlasting God (Gen. xxi. 33.), and doubtless that was the place to which the patriarch and his family resorted for public worship.'

But at length these hills and groves of the heathen idolaters, as they were more retired and shady, became so much the fitter for the exercise of their unholy rites, and for the commission of the obscene and horrid practices that were usually perpetrated there. (See 1 Kings xv. 12.; 2 Kings xxiii. 7.) In many passages of Scripture it is recorded of the Israelites (who in this respect imitated the heathens) that they secretly did the things which were not right, that they set up images and groves in every high hill, and under every green tree, and there burnt incense in all the high places, and wrought wickedness to pro voke the Lord, as did the heathen. (2 Kings xvii. 9-13.) On this account, therefore, God expressly commanded the Israelites utterly to destroy all the places wherein the nations of Canaan, whose land they should possess, served their gods upon the high mountains and upon the hills; and to pay their devotions and bring their oblations to that place only which God should choose. (Deut. xii. 2—15.) Nay, to prevent every approach to the idolatrous customs of the heathens, they were forbidden to plant any trees near the altar of the Lord. (Deut. xvi. 21.) Hence it is clear, that after God should fix upon a place for his public worship, it was entirely unlawful to offer sacrifices upon high places, or any where else but in the place God did choose; so that after the building of the temple, the prohibition of high places and groves (so far at least as concerning the sacrificing in them) unquestionably took place. And it was for their disobedience to this command, by their sacrificing upon high places and in groves, even after the temple was erected (2 Kings xv. 35.), and for not destroying the high places of the heathens, where their idol gods were worshipped, which by that command and in many other places of Scripture (Numb. xxxiii. 52.), they were expressly appointed to do; that the prophets with so much holy zeal reproached the Israelites. We have, indeed, several instances in Scripture besides that of Abraham, where the prophets and other good men are said to have made use of these high places for sacrificing, as well as other less solemn acts of devotion, and which are not condemned. Thus, Samuel, upon the uncertain abode of the ark, fitted up a place of devotion for himself and his family in a high place, and built an altar there, and sacrificed upon it. (1 Sam. ix. 12. 19. 25.) Gideon also built an altar and offered a sacrifice to God upon the top of a rock (Judg. vi. 25, 26.); and the tabernacle itself was removed to the high place that was at Gibeon. (1 Chron. xvi. 39. and xxi. 29.) But all this was before the temple was erected, which was the first fixed place that God appointed for his public worship; after which other places for sacrificing became unlawful.

That the Israelites, both kings and people, offered sacrifices upon these high places even after the temple was built, will evidently

Many ancient nations used to erect altars and offer sacrifices to their gods upon high places and mountains. See the examples adduced in Burder's Oriental Literature, vol. i. p. 233.

appear by noticing a few passages in their history; for (not to mention Jeroboam and his successors in the kingdom of Israel, whose professed purpose was to innovate every thing in matters of religion, and who had peculiar priests whom they termed prophets of the groves, 1 Kings xviii. 19.) it is clear that most of the kings of Judah, even such of them as were otherwise zealous for the observance of the law, are expressly recorded as blameable on this head, and but few have the commendation given them of destroying these high places. No sooner had Rehoboam the son of Solomon, after the revolt of the ten tribes from him, strengthened himself in his kingdom, but we read that Judah did evil in the sight of the Lord, and built them high places and images, and groves on every high hill, and under every green tree. (1 Kings xiv. 22, 23.)

Of the exemplary sovereigns, Asa and Jehoshaphat, indeed, it is recorded that they took away the high places and groves (2 Chron. xiv. 3., xv. 16., xvii. 6.); but Jehoshaphat's son and successor, Jehoram, is said to have made high places in the mountains of Judah. (2 Chron. xxi. 11.) And though Joash, one of his sons, set out well, yet in the latter part of his life he was perverted by his idolatrous courtiers, who served groves and idols, to whom it appears that he gave a permission for that purpose; for, after making their obeisance, we are told that he hearkened to them, and then they left the house of God. (2 Chron. xxiv. 17, 18.) Nor was the reign of Amaziah the son of Joash any better, for still the people sacrificed and burnt incense on the high places (2 Kings xiv. 4.); and though Uzziah his son is said to have done that which was right in the sight of God, yet this exception appears against him, that the high places were not removed, but the people still sacrificed there (2 Kings xv. 3, 4.); the same observation is made of Jotham and Ahaz. (2 Chron. xxviii. 4.) But Hezekiah who succeeded him was a prince of extraordinary piety he removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves (2 Kings xviii. 4.) which his son Manasseh again built up. (2 Kings xxi. 2.) At length good king Josiah, a prince very zealous for the true religion, utterly cleared the land from the high places and groves, and purged it from idolatry: but as the four succeeding reigns before the Babylonian captivity were very wicked, we may presume that the high places were again revived, though there is no mention of them after the reign of Josiah.'

II. From the preceding facts and remarks, however, we are not to conclude, that the prohibition relating to high places and groves, which extended chiefly to the more solemn acts of sacrificing there, did on any account extend to the prohibiting of other acts of devotion, particularly prayer, in any other place besides the temple, the high places and groves of the heathen (which were ordered to be rased) only excepted. For we learn from the Sacred Writings, that prayers are always acceptable to God in every place, when performed with that true and sincere devotion of heart, which alone gives life and vigour to our religious addresses. And therefore it 1 Home's Hist. of the Jews, vol. ii. pp. 161-166. Croxall's Scripture Politicks, pp. 90

was that in many places of Judæa, both before and after the Babylonian captivity, we find mention made in the Jewish and other histories of places built purposely for prayer, and resorted to only for that end, called PROSEUCHE or ORATORIES.

These places of worship were very common in Judæa (and it should seem in retired mointainous or elevated places) in the time of Christ; they were also numerous at Alexandria, which was at that time a large and flourishing commercial city, inhabited by vast numbers of Jews: and it appears that in heathen countries they were erected in sequestered retreats, commonly on the banks of rivers, or on the sea-shore. The proseucha or oratory at Philippi, where the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, that she attended unto the things which were spoken by Paul, was by a river side. (Acts xvi. 13, 14, 15.)1

It is a question with some learned men, whether these proseucha were the same as the synagogues (of which an account will be found in the following section), or distinct edifices from the latter. Both Josephus and Philo, to whom we may add Juvenal, appear to have considered them as synonymous; and with them agree Grotius, Ernesti, Drs. Whitby, Doddridge, and Lardner2; but Calmet, Drs. Prideaux and Hammond, and others, have distinguished between these two sorts of buildings, and have shown that though they were nearly the same, and were sometimes confounded by Philo and Josephus, yet that there was a real difference between them; the synagogues being in cities, while the proseucha were without the walls, in sequestered spots, and (particularly in heathen countries) were usually erected on the banks of rivers, or on the sea-shore (Acts xvi. 13.), without any covering but galleries or the shade of trees. Dr. Prideaux thinks the proseuchæ were of greater antiquity than the synagogues, and were formed by the Jews in open courts, in order that those persons who dwelt at a distance from Jerusalem might offer up their private prayers in them as they were accustomed to do in the courts of the temple or of the tabernacle. In the synagogues, he further observes, the prayers were offered up in public forms, while the proseucha were appropriated to private devotions: and from the oratory, where our Saviour spent a whole night in prayer, being erected on a mountain (Luke vi. 12.), it is highly probable that these proseuche were the same as the high places, so often mentioned in the Old Testament.3

1 Josephus has preserved the decree of the city of Halicarnassus, permitting the Jews to erect oratories, part of which is in the following terms: "We ordain, that the Jews who are willing, both men and women, do observe the sabbaths and perform sacred rites according to the Jewish law, and build proseuchæ by the sea-side, according to the custom of their country; and if any man, whether magistrate or private person, give them any hinderence or disturbance, he shall pay a fine to the city." Ant. Jud. lib. xiv. c. 10. § 23. 2 Philo de Legatione ad Caium, p. 1011. Josephus de Vita sua, § 54. Juvenal, Sat. iii. 14. Grotius, Whitby, and Doddridge, on Luke vi. 12. Ernesti Institutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti, pp. 363, 364. edit. 4ta. 1792. Lardner's Credibility, book i. c. 3. § 3. Dr. Harwood's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii. pp. 171-180.

3 Dr. Hammond on Luke vi. 12. and Acts xvi. 13-16. Calmet's Dict. voce Proseucha. Prideaux's Connection, part i, book vi. sub anno 444. vol. i. pp. 387–390. edit. 1720.

I. THE SYNAGOGUES were buildings in which the Jews assembled for prayer, reading and hearing the Sacred Scriptures, and other instructions. Though frequently mentioned in the historical books of the New Testament, their origin is not very well known; and many learned men are of opinion that they are of recent institution.

Although sacrifices could only be offered at the holy tabernacle or temple, yet it does not appear that the Jews were restricted to any particular place for the performance of other exercises of devotion. Hence formerly, the praises of Jehovah were sung in the schools of the prophets, which the more devout Israelites seem to have frequented on sabbath-days and new moons for the purpose of instruction and prayer. (1 Sam. x. 5-11., xix. 18-24.; 2 Kings iv. 23.) During the Babylonish captivity, the Jews, being deprived of the solemn ordinances of divine worship, resorted to the house of some prophet, or other holy man, who was in the practice of giving religious instruction to his own family, and of reading the Scriptures. (Compare Ezek. xiv. 1. and xx. 1. with Neh. viii. 18.) At length these domestic congregations became fixed in certain places, and a regular order of conducting divine worship was introduced. Philo1 thinks these edifices were originally instituted by Moses: but as no mention is made of them during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, their origin in Jerusalem is referred to the reigns of the Asmonæan princes, under whom they were first erected, and were soon greatly multiplied; though in Alexandria, and other foreign places where the Jews were dispersed, they were certainly of much greater antiquity.2 There appears to be an allusion to them in Psal. lxxiv. 4. 8.

In the time of the Maccabees, synagogues became so frequent, that

1 Philo, De Vita Mosis, lib. iii. p. 685.
2 Josephus, De Bell. Jud. lib. vii. c. 3. § 3.

they were to be found in almost every place in Judæa; but the Jews were not permitted to build one in a town, unless there were ten persons of leisure in it. Not fewer than four hundred and eighty synagogues are said to have been erected in Jerusalem, previously to its capture and destruction by the Romans. In the evangelical history we find, that wherever the Jews resided, they had one or more synagogues, constructed after those at Jerusalem: hence we find, in Acts vi. 9., synagogues belonging to the Alexandrians, the Asiatics, the Cilicians, the Libertines, and the Cyrenians, which were erected for such Jewish inhabitants of those countries or cities, as should happen to be at Jerusalem.

With regard to the synagogue of the LIBERTINES, a considerable difference of opinion exists among the learned, whether these Libertines were the children of freed men (Italian Jews or proselytes), or African Jews from the city or country called Libertus, or Libertina, near Carthage. The former opinion is supported by Grotius and Vitringa; the latter (which was first hinted by Oecumenius, a commentator in the close of the tenth century) by Professor Gerdes, Wetstein, Bishop Pearce, and Schleusner.

It is well known that the ancient Romans made a distinction between the Liberti and the Libertini. The Libertus was one who had been a slave, and obtained his freedom'; the Libertinus was the son of a Libertus. But this distinction in after ages was not strictly observed; and Libertinus also came to be used for one not born but made free, in opposition to Ingenuus or one born free.3 Whether the Libertini, mentioned in this passage of the Acts, were Gentiles, who had become proselytes to Judaism, or native Jews, who having been made slaves to the Romans were afterwards set at liberty, and in remembrance of their captivity called themselves Libertini, and formed a synagogue by themselves, is differently conjectured by the learned. It is probable, that the Jews of Cyrene, Alexandria, &c. erected synagogues at Jerusalem at their own charge, for the use of their brethren who came from those countries, as the Danes, Swedes, and other nations, built churches for the use of their own countrymen

1 Cives Romani sunt Liberti, qui vindictâ, censu aut testamento, nullo jure impediente, manumissi sunt. Ulpian. tit. i. § 6.

2 This appears from the following passage of Suetonius concerning Claudius, who, he says, was ignarus temporibus Appii, et deinceps aliquamdiu Libertinos dictos, non ipsos, qui manumitterentur, sed ingenuos ex his procreatos. In vita Claudii, cap. 24 § 4. p. 78. Pitisci.

* Quintilian. de Institutione Oratoria, lib. 5. cap. 10. p. 246. edit Gibson, 1693. Qui servus est, si manumittatur, fit Libertinus-Justinian. Institut. lib. i. tit. v. Libertini sunt, qui ex justa servitute manumissi sunt. Tit. iv. Ingenuus est is, qui statim ut natus est, liber est; sive ex duobus ingenuis matrimonio aditus est, sive ex libertinis duobus, sive ex altero libertino, et altero ingenuo.

Of these there were great numbers at Rome. Tacitus informs us (Anal. lib. ii. cap. 85.) that four thousand Libertini, of the Jewish superstition, as he styles it, were banished at one time, by order of Tiberius, into Sardinia; and the rest commanded to quit Italy, if they did not abjure, by a certain day. See also Suetonius in vita Tiberii, cap. 36. Josephus (Antiq. lib. xviii. cap. 3. § 5. edit. Haverc.) mentions the same fact. And Philo (Legat. ad Caium, p. 785. C. edit. Colon. 1613) speaks of a good part of the city beyond the Tiber, as inhabited by Jews, who were mostly Libertini, having been brought to Rome as captives and slaves, but, being made free by their masters, were permitted to live according to their own rites and customs.