A commentary on the prophecy of Hosea by Edward Pococke.

CHAPTER. X.

VERSE 1. Israel is an empty vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself: according to the multitude of his fruit, he hath increased the al∣tars, according to the goodness of his land, they have made goodly images.

IN this Chapter he proceeds to set forth the great wickedness of Israel, and de∣nounce his judgments against them for it. Israel is an empty vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself, &c. (or as it is in the margin) a vine emptying the fruit which it giveth. These two differing rendrings, one by our translators put in the text, the other in the margin, shew that the words are of something doubtful in∣terpretation; and we shall have reason so to think, if we look on the many other rend∣rings and expositions which we find given, of which some are harsh and obscure enough: so many and so different are they, that a man would scarce imagine that they should all be from, or belong to, the same words; and I scarce know to what method to reduce them. The plainest way of proceeding I think will be to give the reader a view of several of the chief of them, and leave him to his own choice and judgement. Yet before we so do, it may be convenient to set down, and say something of those words about which the difference is, which are first, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gephen, a vine, to which Israel is elsewhere compared, as Psal. 80.8. Isa. 5.2. first, a noble, then a degenerate vine, Jer. 2.21. 2^dly. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bokek, by ours tran∣slated, empty. 3^dly. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yeshaveh, by them translated bringeth forth, or as in the margin giveth. As for the first, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gephen, by all it is agreed on, that it signifies, a vine, the difference is concerning the Gender whether it be alwayes feminine, or as well masculine, as here; and then concerning the Case, whe∣ther it be the nominative or accusative: As for the second 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bokek, whether it be transitive or intransitive, and whether, as to the lignification, it have the notion of empti∣ness alone, or else may import on the contra∣ry abundance; for in both we shall find it by them taken. If we search for it in this form, in other places of the Scripture, to see how it is there taken, we shall scarce there find it but taken transitively, and in the notion of emptiness, or emptying, as Nah. 2.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ci bekakum bokekim, for the empti∣ers have emptied them out, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bokek haarets, Isa. 24.1. Maketh the earth empty, as likewise in the Preterperfect tense, Jer. 19.7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ubakkothi eth at∣sat, And I will make void the counsel of Judah, nor is there elsewhere any example produced in which, in this form, it is used intransitively, or in any other (at least a contrary) notion but by such as here so take it. As for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yeshaveh, the root thereof shavah be∣ing used (in several forms at least) in the seve∣ral notions of putting, bringing, or making pre∣sent, or of being equal, or convenient, or profi∣table, or of being false or vain ( a as if it were the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) which of them is most congruous to this place; and then again, as to the fruit here spoken of, whether it be meant of b spiritual fertility, a∣bounding or failing in graces and good works, or temporal, as abounding in wealth, chil∣dren, and outward prosperity. From the dif∣ferent opinions of Interpreters as to these things, are the grounds of these so many dif∣ferent rendrings as we meet with; as by in∣stancing in some of the chief of them will ap∣pear. To begin with some of the antientest, reserving our own to be considered in the last place, to which the reader, if it seem te∣dious to him to take a view of the rest, may passing over them, please to direct his eyes.

The LXX. render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Israel is a vine of fair branches, the fruit thereof is abundant. So Je∣rome reads it, and thinks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to sound, bonas habens propagines. But other copies have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 c having many branches, and some, as appears by many copies, prefer the d former of these readings, e others the latter. Both of them fall in together as to this, that Israel is a vine that sent forth many fair branches; to which agree also those other Greek rend∣rings which Jerome mentions, as that of Sym∣machus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, woody, full of wood or bran∣ches, and of Aquila, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 f full of water or sap, (though that Jerome takes to signify in ill part, watery or bringing out wine that hath no savour or relish in it. The LXX. are

by the printed Arab. followed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Israel is a vine that shooteth out well, (or fair branches) whose fruit is plentiful. The Syriac to the same purpose 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Israel is a vine of branches that hath brought forth fruit. With them also doth the vulgar La∣tin well agree, which is, vitis frondosa Israel, fructus adaequatus est ei, which the Doway English, Israel a vine thick of branches, (full of leaves, they might have rendred it) the fruit is made equal to it. And what else will that sound, but that the fruit thereof is plentiful and abounding? viz. as the branches or leaves are, g one agreeable to the other, though Lyra ex∣pound it was equal, i. e. did suffice, Quan∣tumcunque populus crevisset, &c. How much soever the people increased, the fruit of their land sufficed to sustain them, but this abundance was to them a cause of departing from God according to what is said, Deut. 32 15. Jesurum waxed sat and kicked, which Petr. à Figu. censures as not apposite to this place, it denotes emptiness of fruit, or we may say, empty fruit, such as from a vine shooting all into branches might be expected. Which significa••ion therefore of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shavah viz. to be equal, may per∣haps the other likewise seem to have respected, while they expressed the meaning of it in the place, though not the literal signification of it; or else to have taken that other significati∣on of it, as it denotes, to put, or make pre∣sent, or produce; it will come much to one pass.

As to the first word Bokek these all manifest∣ly agree, viz. in the notion of plentifulness, in that kind spoken of, contrary to that of em∣ptiness and defect, which as we say is usually given to it in other places of Scripture; in which those also give it such significations as may be reduced thereto, rather than to this, which they here give it; thinking it seems the sense here to require that it be so under∣stood, and having received and learned by such helps as they then had, that it did so also signify, though in a notion almost contra∣ry to the other. And that it so did and was known so to do, is made, if not manifest, yet certainly very probable, by the use of the same theme or word in the Arabick tongue of so nigh affinity with the Hebrew, that, (as we have elsewhere said) the learneder Rabbins when any doubt occurs to them concerning the signification of some more unusual Hebrew word, have usually recourse thereto, to expe∣dite the matter to them: and in that the theme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bakak or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bakka, is according to an usual notion of it known to denote to bring forth plentifully, or in abundance, for so of the heavens it is said, h 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bakkat as∣samao, the heaven poured out much rain, and of a fruitful teeming woman, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bakkati ilmarato, she is fruitful in children, or hath brought forth many children, and such a woman is called i 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 albakkato, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aliso is to spread in greatness, and spoken of a plant, to budd or spread forth, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bakkak is a man of many words, a great talk∣er, and the like words have they including the notion of plenty and abundance: so that whereas k a very learned modern divine saith, that if it could be proved that the word Bokek had such signification, the interpretation of the LXX. and such as follow them, should very well please him. I suppose that which we have said may serve in good part to take a∣way all scruple of that.

That being granted, the exposition of the place would be, that Israel hitherto was as a flourishing and fruitful vine, prospering and abounding in plenty of all good things, in wealth and multitudeof children, and had made very ill use of such of Gods blessings, as in the following words is described, according to the multitude of his fruit he hath increased the altars, &c. viz. abusing all the plenty which God had given them by expending it on Idols, and their service, so that these words will be as a rea∣son of what was before threatned, c. 9.16. that Ephraim was, or should be smitten, and their root dried up, and that God would sub∣tract his blessings from them, namely, because when they abounded in all outward good things that might make a nation happy and flourishing, they with great ingratitude made so ill use of them; or, without looking back to those words they will shew Israels great in∣gratitude to God, and how ill they deserved to have his blessings continued to them, but were worthy of those heavy judgments, for the future denounced to them, or which al∣ready began to seise on them. To such pur∣pose do Cyril, and Theophylact, and Jerome also expound the words, and l and some looke on its being called (in such rendrings as so read) vitis frondosa, a vine abounding with leaves, not as being a commendation of it for ftuitfulness, but as a discommendation as m running out into leaves, and spending its sap in them, so far as that its fruit should be little better than leaves, not good to eat or be put to other use, however the notion of abun∣dance is still retained. But others, as we said, embrace a different notion of emptiness, seem∣ing to sound clean contrary to the former: al∣though it may be considered whether both

may not concur in a more general way of em∣ptying, in as much as the sending forth in plenty, or making plentiful one thing, seems to imply an evacuation of another, or empty∣ing it self or being emptied of that of which it causeth or produceth that plenty in the other, although scarce in that sense in which some of them take it. Among these in the first place, are some of the Jewish expositors, whom many more modern do follow, though in the expounding the following words, and making out the meaning, they much differ between themselves. So Aben Ezra ex∣pounds, Gephen Bokek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 empty in which is no strength to bring forth fruit, nor is there fruit in it, and then the following words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yeshaveh, lo, he expounds, He thinks that he shall produce his fruit (but) he shall be like the vine that is empty, be∣cause when I multiplied his fruit, they multiplied altars. This exposition seems obscure enough; yet Zanchi prefers it before others. Kim∣chi as to the first word, in the like manner 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an empty vine in which is no moisture; but then differently ex∣pounds the following 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Peri yesha∣veh lo, by in serting an interrogation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. And how shall he bring forth fruit to himself, seeing he is an empty vine? for the ene∣mies have spoiled him and made him as an empty vessel; how shall he prosper any more, and in∣crease in children and wealth? Then the other words will in this way also follow as a cause why it is, or shall be so with them, because according to the multitude of his fruit, i. e. be∣cause when I multiplied his fruit and caused him to prosper in wealth and children, he multi∣plied altars to Baal. Abarbinel likewise ex∣pounds that first word in the same way that he doth, that it signifies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 empty, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without strength and without moi∣sture, but in the other word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which he rendreth shall put, or bring forth, differeth, though rendring it likewise interrogatively 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and how shall it be possible, that fruit should be profitable or good to him, seeing as his sons and daughters multiplyed, he multiplyed al∣tars to idols, teaching his children to commit ido∣latry at the altars of the calves? and this he makes as a judgement denounced against them, for n spiritual fornication, as the for∣mer words in the last c. viz. They shall bear no fruit, &c. v. 16. for corporal, their wicked∣ness in both kinds deserving a like punishment. Another exposition also he gives to this pur∣pose, The fruit is good or bad according to the tree which brings it forth, and so shall the chil∣dren (among them) be like the fathers; and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bokek here, he saith is in that notion according to which it is said (Nahum 2.10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bukah umebukah) where ours render it, She is empty and void, and he there explains it, void and destitute of wealth.

As to the same (viz. the meaning of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bokek) do Abuwalid, and R. Tanchum, say much the like, R. Tanchum explaining it in Arabick by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cor∣rupt, wast, unmanured, (or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in which is no good) barren, empty, according to the signification it hath Isa. 24.3. and Nah. 2.2. but then as to the following word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yeshaveh, he makes it to be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yeshave, with the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a and expounds it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whose fruit shall lie, i. e. fail from, or, in her, in the same sense that is before said, v. 2. the new wine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall lie, i. e. fail in her, which I suppose he took from q Abuwalid, who gives the same interpretation, and saith he was the first that gave it, and shewing that he did on good consideration do it, saith that it cannot be convenient to render it otherwise than in this signification, and it being so ren∣dred, saith it will have a good connexion with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gephen Bokek, an empty vine; and withall that so in the following words there is given a cause 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of their being frustrated of what pro∣visions (or fruits) they might expect to have, in his saying, according to the multitude of his fruit, he hath increased altars; and he thinks this interpretation of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yesha∣veh, to be confirmed in what is again and a∣gain spoken in this prophecy to the same pur∣pose, as c. 8.7. They shall sow, (or have sown) the wind, and 9.2. The floor and the wine∣press shall not feed them, and the new wine shall fail in her, and v. 16. Ephraim is smitten. He saith also that what some would have it to sig∣nifie, as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 maketh, or bring∣eth forth, is not to the purpose. The mean∣ing which he saith they then give, is that Israel was at first an empty vine, but when he came to bring forth much fruit, he made use of it for multiplying altars, which is, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a slender mean∣ing and weak interpretation. Yet doth Kimchi (as we have seen) take and seem to prefer that signification of the word yeshaveh; for though he were aware of that other which Abuwalid gives of it, and saith that some so interpret it, yet he puts this of putting, giving, or bringing forth, in the first place as his own, but with another meaning of his own too, namely o p

that which we have before put, (different from what Abuwalid saith others make) by reading it interrogatively, can he, (or how should he) bring forth fruit? for there is no need of adding, to himself, as if any thing more were by it signified, when we say, ponit sibi fructum? which makes the same sense with what Abuwalid would have, without making any alteration in the word, as if it were writ∣ten otherwise than usually with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 h for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a, and the next words will then follow as a rea∣son (as Abuwalid also would have it) why by Gods judgement they should be brought to that poor condition, viz. because when they had abundance they so vainly and wickedly abused it to Gods dishonour, in the worship of Idols. The MS. Arabick renders as R. Tanchum, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bokek, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which as we have seen may well be rendred fruitless, wast, or unprofitable; but then the other word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yeshaveh, he renders by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(as the vulgar Latin doth) is equal or like to it. We may likewise well enough add to these R. Solomo Jarchi, who thus ex∣plains it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(MS. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Israel are like a vine that casteth her good fruit (or all whose good fruit falleth off) so they (or as the MS. because they) have forsaken me who am fruit good and profi∣table, or convenient to him. And then by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Peri yeshaveh lo, he again saith to be meant fruit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which shall profit and do good to him. Another way of exposition he also gives, thus, Israel is a spoiled (or robbed vine) the fruit of his works 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath caused (or produced) to him. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. which Mercer renders, looking on it (I think) as a distinct clause, Prodest ei ut sit vacua, quia fecerunt altaria & profuerunt congregationi suae in malum, It is profitable to them to be empty, be∣cause they made altars, and they were helpful to their congregation to evil. Which seems very r ob∣scure, perhaps it would be plainer to take it in a continued sense thus, hath caused to him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(i. e.) Fruit that helps forward to (or promotes their being empty) because they have made altars, and they promoted or put forward their congregation (or their congregating them∣selves) for evil: and this he saith, is that which the Targum or Chaldee Paraphrast saith. By viewing which therefore, his obscure mean∣ing will be better guessed at, but the view of that I shall defer till I have set down some other rendrings, for some reason which will then appear, mean while we may observe that these Jews all agree in making 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bokek, empty, to be an epither to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vine, and all of them (except perhaps R. Solomo) take it to be (as Abuwalid s warns to take it) for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or intransitive, that shews how it is in it self, not what it causeth to any other.

Having thus seen what the Jews think, we shall yet among modern interpreters find more variety. And first in this, that there are some who taking exceptions against that way which those that we have hitherto seen take, in making 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bokek to be an epithet to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gephen a vine, because this Nown, they think is alwayes of the Feminine gender, whereas Bokek is in the Masculine; again in that they render Bokek intransitively, where∣as elsewhere, where it occurrs in Scripture it is used transitively, to empty. They there∣fore make it as an epither agreeing with Isra∣el, and t so render it as joyned with what fol∣lows, Vitem evacuat Israel, fructum ei poneb••t Deus, Israel emptieth the vine, God did give him fruit, according to the multitude of his fruit he hath multiplied altars, so making the state of the Common-wealth of Israel to be likened to a vine planted by God; and shew∣ing that they themselves corrupted their state, and so (as it were) emptied that vine. God indeed gave them fruit of that vine, i. e. blessed their Common-wealth abundantly, but the more they were blessed, the more altars did they build to Idols. Cocceius commend∣eth the way of de Dieu in making 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to sig∣nify transitively, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be the Feminine gender, and to be governed of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so far agrees with him as to the construction, but then differs in the meaning, rendring, Vitem ablaqueavit Israelem, fructum ponit ipsi, He (i. e.) God mentioned in the last v. of the foregoing c. hath dugg about the vine Israel, he maketh him fruitful, i. e. he hath laid open the root and purged it from the unprofitable sprouts, and thinks the word is used in the same sense elsewhere. u Another, following the same way of construction, Israel emptieth the vine, it laies up its fruit to it self, viz. not using it to Gods glory, but to his own Idolatrous uses. w Others not taking exceptions against the Gender of Gephen, yet do it as to the form or signification of Bokek, and render Vitis evacuans fructum quem ponit ei, Israel is a vine Which emptieth the fruit which He (i. e. Deus God) giveth him. Without supplying God, it might in the same way be rendred, emprying the fruit which it bringeth forth. x Others in∣verting that constr••ction, the vine emptieth Is∣rael, viz. makes him good for nothing, vacuum & amentem, as it is said c. 4.11. Wine and new wine take away the heart.

But the exceptions by these made are not of great validity; for, that the Nown 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ge∣phen, vine, y 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is as well masculine as feminine, is not only affirmed by the Jewish Lexicographers, but manifestly proved by another example out of Ezek. 17.6. where Affixes of both genders are attributed to it, and why the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bakak may not be as well here intransitive as transitive elsewhere, seeing there are many other Verbs confessedly so, and used either way, there is no reason to say, at least it will be made up by z understan∣ding se, it self, and so made empty as forced to give a great summ of money to Pul 2 Kin. 15.20. say a some, though I know not how ap∣positely it may be here applied or restrained to that particular story; other many wayes there were by which they were emptied and spoiled of their fruits. Others therefore not∣withstanding them, keep as to the constructi∣on, with the ancient Interpreters and Jewish Doctors which we have seen, though in other things differing from them and among them∣selves, as to the meaning. As for the first words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gephen Bokek, though in different terms, b as vitis vacua, c inanis void, d spoiliata spoiled, e inutilis unprofitable, or the like, they all give but to understand the same thing, an empty (or emptied) vine; but in the next words they do not so far agree, while some render f fructum aestimaverit ei quispiam? should any think it can have fruit? g Others, fructus aequabitur (or aequalis, or similis est ei) that is, the fruit shall be equal (or is equal or like) to it: others render it by ponit or ponet, and that some take in an improper sense for imponere, to imp••se upon or deceive. So Schindler imponet illi, fallet spem ipsius, shall impose upon him, shall deceive his hope. h Others in a more proper sense of putting or bringing forth, and some of them ponit, doth, some ponet, shall bring forth, and some with an interrogation, doth or shall (or i should) it bring forth? Others without an interrogation it k doth, or l shall. Calvin takes notice that some render, fructum sibi aequabit, vel fructus aequatus fuit ipsi, It shall equal its fruit to himself, which he looks on as not making a clear sense: he takes notice like∣wise that it is by some rendred, shall lie to, or deceive, which he saith would make a pro∣bable sense, Israel being as a spoiled, or robbed vine. It is not likely the enemies that so spoiled them would leave them any hope of fruit; but, for all that, he preferreth the plain notion of ponere, to bring forth, which then be∣ing read with an interrogation would sound, shall it bring forth fruit for it self? But he thinks it better to read it affirmatively, shall bring forth, and the sense to be, that Israel should bring forth fruit after it hath been robbed and emptied, impoverished and afflicted, by Gods many chastisements and judgements, which for reducing them to his obedience, if they had been corrigible, he sent upon them, that he might not be forced utterly to destroy them, and that after such judgments Israel had formerly by Gods mercy and blessing re∣covered like a Vine, which being emptied of its grapes one year, yet doth another year bring forth more, but to what purpose was this? For when they again were prospered ac∣cording to, &c. To this purpose he, and in this notion the Translators of the Geneva Bible seem wholly to follow him, while they render, Israel is an empty vine, yet hath it brought forth fruit unto it self, and according to the multitude thereof he hath increased the altars, &c. and thus explain their meaning in a marginal note, (an empty vine) where∣of though the grapes were gathered, yet ever as it gathered new strength, it increased new wickedness; so that the correction which should have brought them to obedience, did but utter their stubbornness.

The reverend Diodati explains it much to the same purpose; Israel hath been a vine spoiled (or made waste) yet for all that hath again brought forth fruit, according to the a∣bundance of his fruit, &c. As if God said, m af∣ter they have been robbed (or made desolate) or preyed upon by their enemies, or spoiled of my favour, and brought as it were to a desert: I have again restored them in part and made him to prosper, but the more I blessed him, the more Idolatrous he became.

But our latter and more approved and now generally, and deservedly, followed En∣glish, restrains us not to this sense, but very literally according to the signification of the words which the Translatours took, render it (in the Text) Israel is an empty vine, he bring∣eth forth fruit unto himself, though something differently in the margin, literally also with∣out supply or alteration, according to a diffe∣rent acception of one of the words; of both it will concern us to take notice in respect to their deliberate choice, and authority in re∣commending them to us. And first as to that in the body of the Text, that we may have a conve∣nient meaning of it, it will be convenient that we make it appear not obnoxious to that ob∣jection which n some make, viz. that it seems at the same time to make Israel like to an em∣pty

vine that hath no fruit, and to a vine that hath fruit, which is inconsistent. We there∣fore need not so understand it as if it positive∣ly affirmed those contrary conditions to be in Israel at the same time, but by saying Israel is an empty vine, and he bringeth forth fruit to him∣self, not that Israel was really empty, or spoil∣ed of all good things in which he might glory, as wealth or the like, but that it was as bad with him as if he were so, in regard that what he had he made not use of as he ought, for Gods glory, or any good uses, but squan∣dered it away to Gods dishonour in his own inventions, and idolatrous wayes, and served only himself with it, and so by bringeth forth to it self, will be meant, putteth his fruit to his own use, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 point sibi, will well bear it, which seems the intent of Junius his Note, who rendring the Text much as ours do, Vitis vacua est Israel, fructum reponit sibi, se∣cundum multitudinem fructus sui, &c. glosses it by, nemini est fructuosa; si quid profert, eo toto in libidinem suam abutitur, &c. A vine which is fruitful to none; if he bring forth any thing, he abuseth it all to his own lust, as in the follow∣ing words is declared. Or else if we under∣stand the Present tense for the Future, is, for shall be, to shew the certainty of what shall speedily befall them, (of which use of speak∣ing we have before had examples) o then may it be understood, Israel shall be brought to that pass that he shall be as an empty Vine, be∣cause now that he hath abundance of fruit he maketh use of it for himself, only to those bad ends which follow. And (by the way) seeing some take liberty of putting in an interrogati∣on, if we should so do in this way of rendring, putting one after Is Israel an empty vine? which hath the force of a negative, then would the following words be a reply, No; for he bring∣eth forth (or hath fruit) but to himself, and for ill purposes, makes use of it, which would be all one in sense with what the LXX. (as we have seen) have. Or what if it be, according to that in our Text, thus understood, That Israel is an empty vine, it did bring forth fruit, i. e. formerly did abound in plenty of all good things, but is now emptied of them: and then the next words are a reason why by Gods just judgments she is, i. e. shall be de∣prived of them. As for the marginal reading in our Translation, wherein 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bokek is taken Transitively, Israel is a vine emptying the fruit which it gives, it gives a clear sense and plain connexion with the following words, which shew us what to understand by their fruit, to wit, that abundance which by Gods blessing they enjoyed, and how they emptied it, and made it no way profitable but hurt∣ful to themselves, so that they had even bet∣ter been without it. These our learned tran∣slatours, by their putting both these wayes and so not determining which we should take, together with the several different judgments of others of good account, which we have seen, seem to leave us in like condition to one who being in a place where many wayes open themselves to him, is in doubt which of them to take, that he may come whither he would go. But the best is, that all these (whichso∣ever a man shall take of them) concurr at the last in one, tending to the same scope, which is to describe the ill condition that Isra∣el was then in, and should certainly and sure∣ly, by Gods just judgement, be in, by rea∣son of their great abuse of his benefits which he had bestowed on them, and their imploy∣ing them to idolatrous uses, most contrary to that end for which he had given them to them.

For understanding of these several exposi∣tions aright, it will be to be considered what is meant by that fruit which Israel is, accor∣ding to some, said to be empty of, by others to have, whether of inward graces and spiri∣tual good things and works of piety, or else, of the good things of this life, wherein they might seem to glory, as abundance of wealth, multitude of men, fruitfulness in children, or any thing belonging to outward prosperity? There are among the interpretations that we have seen, some which rather seem to under∣stand them of spiritual good things and gra∣ces; but the learned Rivet cautions against those Qui vacuitatem vitis & fructus quos po∣nit sibi, referunt ad sterilitatem bonorum ope∣rum, who refer their emptiness of fruit, to their barrenness in good works: and seeing in the following words that according to the multitude of his fruit he increased altars, fruit is by the common consent of all understood of abundance of temporal good things which they of old enjoyed by Gods blessing, thinks it ought so in these first also to be taken and and must necessarily be so, except in one and the same verse it should be taken in different senses, which would make the construction very hard, and as he thinks very unlikely, yet in their doing so as they did, and by their abuse of those outward good things, can we not but be put in mind of their want of grace and religion which was the cause of their do∣ing so.

In the latter words of this verse there is no∣thing difficult either to the words or meaning: for though the ancient Interpreters different∣ly render some of the words as the LXX. rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, p

according to the multitude of her (or his) fruits he hath multiplied altars, according to the good things of his land he hath built statues, whom the printed Arabick exactly follows, whereas the MS. Arabick hath, according to the good∣ness of his land, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they have made good (or fair) altars, more literally an∣swering to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which some li∣terally render by q benefecerunt, some by a made word r bonificaverunt, and the Syriack only by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 have s built altars, and the Latin as to the latter clause, Juxta ube∣rtatem terrae exuberavit simulachris, According to the plenty of his land he abounded in idols, (as the Doway English hath, and several modern translatours either more or less literally, accor∣ding as they thought, laboured to express the meaning of that word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Hetibu, which none I think more appositely do here than our English do, They have made t goodly images; yet do all concur in this that it is a describing of the profuseness of Israel, in lavishing their wealth in making and adorning Idols and ser∣ving them, according to what they are tuxed for above, Chap. 2 and 8. and 8.4. And there is nothing that gives occasion of suspicion but that they read all the words as we now have it in the Hebrew. Yet doth Capellus from the Chaldee take occasion of conjectu∣ring a various reading in this verse, to wit, of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yeshaveh, and saith that sure the author of that Paraphrast read instead of it, in the copy that he followed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••ishbeh, seeing he paraphraseth the Verse thus, Israel is a wasted or spoiled vine, who was a well planted vine, while he observed the Law, the fruits of his works 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 have caus∣ed (or been a cause) to them that they should go into captivity; when I multiplyed to them plenty, they multiplyed service to their altars, when I brought (or gave) good to their land, they did good to (or beautifyed or adorned) statues or ima∣ges. Now, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies, To be led into captivity, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and therefore saith he, he read not that, but this, (as if he would have the Hebrew sound, his fruit lead∣eth him into captivity.) But Buxtorf thinks, and any man which considers the Paraphrasts words may well think, that he neither read, not intended so, for plainly it appears that he rendred the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yeshaveh by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 geramu, have caused, as appears by what we have said to be R. Solomo's judgment, which well agrees with the notion of ponere, to put, which may be understood for, to cause, or produce, which we have seen many to look on as the proper signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yeshaveh. And that what he adds after fruit (viz.) of their works, and after, have caused, (viz.) that they should be carried captives, he puts in by way of paraphrastical liberty, to express what fruit he thought to be meant, and what that was of which they were cause to them. We have been forced to be long on this v. through the many different opinions of Interpreters and Expositors, more yet different perhaps may the Reader meet with, but they will, I suppose, be reduced to some of these already mentioned, and I have been already too tedious.

V. 2. Their heart is divided: now shall they be found faulty: he shall break down their altars, he shall spoil their images.

Their heart is divided, &c. or, as in the margin, he hath divided their heart, &c. Whe∣ther we take these words as declaring u the cause of what in the foregoing they are said to have been, or to have done, or of w the ill con∣sequents of those doings, or as an x exaggera∣tion of their wickedness in that, they bestow∣ed not only their wealth, but their hearts also on their idols, will not be much material. Of the words themselves we find different inter∣pretations and expositions; the different read∣ings in our English, given in the Text and the Margin, warn us that all do not agree in one opinion. The ground of which chiefly, is in their different opinion concerning the first word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Calak, concerning which they all so far agreeing, as that it is here in the notion of dividing, yet then differing concerning the use of it in the form in which here it is, whe∣ther it be only Transitive, and signify actively, to divide, as in our marginal rendring, or may be taken y Intransitively in a passive significati∣on, and so signify the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 neche∣lak, as Kimchi saith it here doth, to be divided, they necessarily differ in the order of the con∣struction, and in the meaning, at least in the first sounding of it. Several take it in the first way, yet they so far agreeing, differ also a∣mong themselves in the construction, as whe∣ther 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Libbam their heart, shall govern the Verb as a Nominative, or be governed of it as the Accusative; which will appear by instancing in some of them. The ancientest, the LXX. render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and ac∣cordingly the printed Arabick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They have divided their hearts, understanding Israel, as the Nominative to the Verb and their heart as the Accusative governed of it. So

also the Tigurin, z Divisit cor suum, He hath divided his own heart. a Others otherwise, Di∣visit cor eorum, He hath divided their heart, (to wit) understanding, Deus God, for the Nomi∣native, and making 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Libbam, their heart, the Accusative governed, which ours in the margin follow: as if he sent a spirit of divisi∣on among them. Others, Impertitur animus corum, Their mind imparteth (this comes also under the notion of dividing) to wit, Sacrifi∣cia idolis, Sacrifices to idols, as Piscator, or as Junius himself who with Tremellius is the author of the Version, Isti ex animo suo im∣pertiuntur idolis quicquid habent, They from their mind (or heart) impart all that they have to Idols. This note I put in, because without it, I should not understand what they meant; in this way heart is made the Nominative case, and so is it in that rendring which c some give, Divisit se cor eorum, Their heart hath divided it self, or d separavit se, hath separated it self. But this, as to the meaning, falls in with that other which as we said others make, by tak∣ing the Verb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chalak in an intransitive or passive signification, to be divided. Among these is the Chaldee paraphrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Syriack also in the very same words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all sounding the same which the vulgar Latin hath, Divisum est cor eorum, Their heart is divided, whom several e others of the more modern Interpreters also follow in it, as ours also, f deliberately choosing to put it into the body of the Text in their translation: That of the Greek and the Tigurin, they have, &c. or he hath divided his heart, fall in with it as to the meaning, though differing in the constru∣ction.

But besides the difference caused by the construction, we shall find more in giving the the meaning, even among those who accord, as for what may concern the signification and construction of the words, while they do not concur in their declaring how, or in what regard it is said, Their heart is divided, or they have divided their heart. The Chaldee paraphrast expresly saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 From the Law, viz. their heart is divided from the Law. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 From me, that is, from God, saith R. Solo. Kimchi. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 From the fear of the Lord and from his law, and with those agree g several modern expositors, supplying some nempe à Deo, i. e. from God, h others à Lege, from the Law, 2. Abarbinel recites it and explains it, as Aben Ezra's opinion, that the division mentioned is their being divided about their Idols, whilst some of them would worship one idol, some another, according to what is said, According to the number of thy ci∣ties are thy Gods, O Judah, Jer. 2.28. and 11.13. In Aben Ezra himself are only these words in the copies that we have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Because there is not to them, (or they have not, or take not) one part, which (as it seems to a i learned man) may be otherwise taken than he takes them. He himself gives as ano∣ther meaning, to take the words as a prophe∣cy of their destruction, and that at that time, they shall lay to heart that the calves which they worshipped are vanity and work of er∣rours; and therefore should divide or sepa∣rate their heart from them, &c. He and o∣thers also understand it in another way, of such divisions of heart and dissentions as were among them themselves; and k he with some others go so high as to apply it to those which appeared in the ten Tribes, departing from Rehoboam to set up Jeroboam king, and di∣viding themselves from the other two, so as to be thenceforward two distinct kingdoms, and setting up the calves in stead of God. l Others of such as were between the people and their last king, Hosea m against whom (they say out of some Jewish traditions) taking away all im∣pediments and permitting, yea exhorting them to go up to worship God at the temple, they stood out and would still adhere to their Idols there. n Others, of such dissentions and divisions as were between them themselves, God having taken away from them the spirit of peace and concord, and given them over to divisions, factions, and frequent murthers of kings (or princes) which is the note of the re∣verend Diodati; or divisions between them and the Assyrians their associats, according to the French of Geneva, which the learned Boo∣tins (and I think not without reason) disap∣proves. That which he thinks the best, and we may well think so, is another exposition by o others given, viz. that their heart is said to be divided, in regard that they did, as it were, divide themselves between God and Idols, pretending to worship God, in, or to∣gether with idols, not cleaving in sincerity to him, nor giving him their whole heart, as they ought to have done if they would be ac∣cepted by him, but halting between him and idols, 1 Kin. 18.21. And to this purpose he thinks the forecited words of Aben Ezra may b

be understood. It is the exposition of R. Tan∣chum among the Jews 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Their mind and understanding, and opinion is divided, while they associate others with God (or joyn others in their worship with him) and so by the heart to be understood, Voluntatem, affectum aut a∣morem, The will, affection or love, is by p o∣thers look'd on as a thing known and granted. And this indeed seems the most full, appo∣site, and satisfactory exposition; it takes in both the first and the second, and includes much of the following also as necessarily con∣sequent thereon.

Their heart being thus divided, and things standing as they did with them, necessarily fol∣lows, as by q way of punishment, what is in the next words said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Attah yeeshamu, which ours render, Now shall they be found faulty, and so several others to the same purpose. So the Chaldee paraph••ast 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Now shall they be (or be made) faul∣ty, or guilty, so the Syr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 exinde rei sunt, or rather, Henceforth shall they be made guilty, or condemned as guilty, and the MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so many mo∣dern Interpreters read, r Culpabuntur, s culpae obnoxii facti sunt, t uunc peccati convincentur, or u convicti, or scelerati erunt, Shall be convin∣ced of wickedness, w crimen commissuri, being a∣bout to commit a fault, or wickedness, or x jam rei sunt, y or erunt, now are they, or shall they be guilty. Abarbinel taking the same significa∣tion, in one exposition explains it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They shall condemn themselves, or say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 We are faulty, acknowledg∣ing their folly, as men repenting of what they had done. These all well agree with that of ours, Now they shall be found faulty, being understood in that latitude as to denote that they shall not only be so, but z shewed or con∣vinced or convicted to be so, by the ill conse∣quents of their being so. They all take the same notion of the Verb, and whereas some render it as the Present tense, some as the Fu∣ture, that makes no great matter of difference, the word being in the form of the Future, which is applicable, as we have seen, to ei∣ther, and in prophetical language signifying oft the same thing, yet I think, the Future is well chosen by ours to express it in, that the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Attah now (as much as a brevi shortly) being joyned with it, may shew, that though it be not already so, it will very suddenly and certainly be so.

But others not a few do differently render it, and those too both ancient and modern. The LXX. render it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the prin∣ted Arabick following them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they shall be destroyed or taken away, the Vulgar La∣tin to the same purpose, nunc interribunt, now they shall perish, and so several b more modern nunc desolabuntur, or vastabuntur, shall be laid Wast, or destroyed, and this is by divers of the Jewish expositors also preferred. So saith Aben Ezra 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yeeshamu, is in the signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shemamah, desolation, and so A∣barbinel explaining that interpretation of his saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The meaning of it is, that they shall be laid wast and destroyed, and so Kimchi explains it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ere long they shall be destroy∣ed, and saith that its signification is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 laying wast, or desolation. The reason of these different rendrings is manifest, viz. because the Theme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Asham, doth more ordina∣rily signify, being guilty, or faulty, but is ta∣ken also sometimes to signifie, to be made deso∣late, or laid wast, or be destroyed; as among other places, in that both by Aben Ezra and Kimchi cited, namely, in this prophecy c. 13.16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Teesham shomron, where Ours also translate it, Samariah, shall become desolate, and they twice together in that no∣tion render it, Psal. 34.21.22. (as likewise Ezek. 66. Isai. 24.6. and Joel the 1.18.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yeeshamu, shall be desolate, though in the margin putting, shall be guilty; and of this signification of it we have above spoken on c. 5.15. so that the word being looked on as having these two different significations, have these several Interpreters gone their several wayes, according as they thought best suited to the place. Ribera thinks the latter way best to do it, but Calvin taking notice of both, gives his opinion for the first, the word Asham, saith he, is referred tam ad culpam quam ad poenam, both to the fault and to the punish∣ment, but that in his opinion they do best who render it, Nunc convicti erunt, i. e. nunc erunt scelerati, now they shall be convicted, that they are faulty; and this, we see, our translatours though well aware of the other use of the word and elsewhere taking it, pre∣fer to commend to us. These however diffe∣ring in words, do in the thing well agree, the one bringing on necessarily the other, the guilt the punishment.

Having thus spoken of what concerns the literal meaning of the words, give me leave yet before we proceed to mention a Jewish descant on them, by R. Solomon put in his notes. It is, to gather hence an argument for shewing the danger of divisions among peo∣ple, with great stress laid upon the particle c

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 attah now, to this purpose, d Now they being divided, Satan hath occasion with open mouth to accuse them, and they shall be con∣demned, whereas while they were at good a∣greement together, though in worshipping of idols, he could not take that advantage against them, as they gather from what is said, c. 4.17. Ephraim is joyned to idols, let him alone: on which words we have already mentioned this their idle playing on the words, and do not a∣gain here mention them for any thing good or to the purpose in them, but because we find S^t. Jerome here to mention it, as then anciently in his time used among the Jews as an inference from these words, saying, Tra∣dunt Hebraei hujusmodi fabulam, &c. The Jews deliver such a story, which they think is con∣firmed by the Scriptures, viz. that as long as the kings and the people of Israel did toge∣ther worship the golden calves, and were at agreement between themselves, though in ini∣quity, the captivity came not on them, but when in the time of their last king Hoshea, of whom it is said, that He did evil in the sight of the Lord, but not as the kings of Israel that were before him, 2 Kin. 17.2. (whence they gather that he did not forbid the people to go up to Jerusalem to worship as those others had done, but permitted them so to do, but they being wedded to Idolatry contradicted him, and there arose a division of hearts between him and the people) then straightway venit interi∣tus, destruction came upon them, and they were delivered into captivity. I cannot think that Jerome thought this to confer much to the true meaning of the words; yet a e learned expo∣sitor saith of him, Tamen quasi ea contentus, nullam aliam literalem adducit, i. e. Yet as if he were therewith, contented he brings no other literal exposition. For his sake therefore, and to give some light to what he faith, though the thing be in it self frivolous, have we put it down as from the Jews themselves also we receive it.

It follows further in description of such punishment as shall befall them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hu yaaroph mizbechotham, &c. He shall break down their altars, he shall spoil their images, &c. How hateful to God altars and images (or statues) erected to idols were, Israel could not but know out of the Law wherein they had received a command not to make any graven image or the likeness of any thing in heaven, or the earth or the waters, nor to bowe down to them nor serve them, Exo. 20.4. to make to themselves no Idols, nor graven image, &c. Levit. 26.1. and that cursed was he that should so do, Deut. 27.15. and if they should find any altars or images erected to Idols among the nations which they should conquer, that they should destroy their altars, break their images, (or statues) Exo. 34.13. Deut. 7.5, & 12.3. But they had now so far forgotten the Law of the Lord, or so far slight∣ed it, as not only not to do what that com∣manded them for destroying such abominable things, but themselves set them up in great abundance, and laid out the wealth that God had given them in adorning them, as in the preceding v. and before c. 8.3. and after again c. 13.2. This will not God longer bear with, but because they have multiplied altars to sin, therefore shall their altars be unto them to sin, (as he saith, c. 8.11.) they shall pull Gods pu∣nishments upon them; and that it may appear for what God was so displeased at them as to send on them those punishments, he will pu∣nish them in f those very things wherein they sinned, and wherein they so much delighted, and probably confided for safety and prote∣ction, by destroying those very things, and so shewing how in vain all their cost upon them, all their devotion toward them, was, yea how sinful. g And no marvel that God should so destroy those abominable things consecrated to Idols, when even those holy things, his Temple and Altar erected to him∣self and with his own order and approbation, when they were not rightly used to his ho∣nour, but the people through confidence in them, h forgat him the Lord of them, and took liberty of sinning against him, and his house which should have been i an house of pray∣er was become a den of thieves, he delivered even them up to be destroyed.

As to the meaning of these words in gene∣ral it is plain, yet in rendering some of them is there some difference betwixt Interpreters. The greatest is concerning the first word or Pronoun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifies, he, or it, viz. whom or what it is referred to, which it is said shall beat down their altars, and spoil their images. Aben Ezra, and Abarbinel af∣ter him, saith it is to be referred to their k di∣vided heart before mentioned, or else, as Abar∣binel, to that division which was among them, that it should occasion it to be done when the enemy should come upon them: according to either of these wayes it would be rendred, it. This the Syntaxe in the original will admit of; yet do others as Kimchi and l many modern expositors, as more anciently Jerome (I think with good reason) rather refer it to God, not as yet mentioned in this chapter, yet of whom it is said in the last verse of the preced∣ing c. My God will cast them away, and it be∣ing

as a title well agreeing to m him by way of excellency. He (saith Kimchi) from whom their heart is divided, it is he that shall break down their altars which they multiplied, and spoil their images which they made so gay, and this shall he in the time of their destruction. n O∣thers, ipse hostis Assyrius, He, i. e. the Assyri∣an enemy. But this falls in with the former; for what God did in this matter he did by the hand of the Assyrian, who was his executio∣ner and instrument, and what the Assyrian did, he did by Gods permission, and imploy∣ing him to do it; and therefore Cyril and Theophylact make it indifferent to under∣stand either God or the Assyrian king (for so they must be understood (though they say, Rex Babylonius) and the Chald. Parap. takes in both, I will now (or shortly) bring upon them an enemy, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yechazzer kedalhon deagorehon, &c. o Which shall wrest off the necks of their altars, and spoil their statues.

As to the next word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yaaroph, our Translatours mind us of different ways of rendring it, while they put in the Text break down their altars, and in the margin, behead, noting that it is so in the Hebrew. To give the ground of which I shall choose to set down the words of Abuwalid and R. Tanchum, because they are plain and the authors not printed, they are much the same, and in R. Tanch. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He shall throw down and lay wast, by a comparison from striking on the poll, (or hinder part of the neck) which throws (or beats down) the body. And for proof of the proper signification of the word cites that in Deut. 21.4 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which ours render, And shall strike off the heifers neck there. The Noun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Oreph, signifying the poll, or, hinder part of the neck, the Verb may seem properly to note the smiting on that part, or doing violence thereto. And therefore the MS. Arab. seems to choose a word which may more literally answer to the signification of the word by rendring it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Noun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Arabick signifying the same that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Oreph, in Hebrew, the hinder part of the neck, and so the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to smite on that part, kill, or throw down by there smiting. Yet though according to this, our marginal reading be the more literal ren∣dring, that in the Text seems in plainer terms to give the meaning, and therefore I think is there well put. And so other Hebrew exposi∣tors content themselves with saying the mean∣ing here is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall destroy, (as R. Solom.) or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 throwing down and breaking, as R. Kimchi. Here may seem to be an q allusion to their idolatrous sacrificing at those altars; that as they there formerly used the beasts which they destroyed, so now should both their altars and idols be all used, all be destroyed.

As for the following Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yeshoded which ours well render, He shall spoil (as like∣wise the Syr. and MS. Arab. shall spoil, or, rob, perhaps for the gold, &c. on them) their altars, the putting R. Tanchums words also may save us the labour of reciting what o∣thers say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. The root of the word Shadad (or its primary signification) is to spoil, but it is translated to signify pulling down and demolishing. So therefore here it is by others taken, and by Kimchi said to signifie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Breaking and destroying. The Vul∣gar Latin here inverts the order of the words, putting simulacra, images, in the first clause, and aras, altars, in the last. And the LXX. render the latter verb in a passive significati∣on, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the printed Arabick following them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Their statues shall be afflicted, or in ill condition. But here is still the same mean∣ing, and no suspicion given of any different reading, the Syriack here renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. Images or Statues by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as he s like∣wise doth v. 1. and his Latin translatour ren∣ders it, aras, altars; it otherwise signifies Sacrifices, but that will not so well fit here, and perhaps he might by it understand erected statues, things lifted up, agreeable to the root of the word, and in Bar Bahluls Lexicon it is rendred as well 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 t statues, as sacri∣fices lifted up on high upon the altars.

V. 3. For now they shall say, We have no king, because we feared not the Lord; what then should a king do to us?

For now they shall say we have no king, &c.] For now. Others, therefore now. Others, certainly now. In either of these wayes may the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ci, (as we have elsewhere seen) be used. If it be used in the first way r

as ours take it, it seems to infer what is said that they should say as consequent on what was before said, should come upon them; and what they should thereby u be forced to say or is w a declaration of what their condition then was which should expose or make them ob∣noxious to that, and then it would require to be rendred, For they now do-say, as Ju∣nius and Tremellius render it, nunc enim di∣cunt. And in this way 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 attah, Now, will de∣note the present time, whereas otherwise it will be understood for shortly, as in the foregoing v. or x tunc, then, (viz.) when the threatned evils of destruction come upon them which shall sud∣denly be, Then they shall say, and in both ways is that particle often used. And according as it is here taken, and the Verb following it put either in the Present sense, do say, or the Future, shall say, are suggested, and are by expositors taken, different meanings and expositions of the words, some looking on them as the proud and insolent speech∣es of the people at present, others as such wherewith they shall bewail their calamity or miserable condition, when now shortly it shall come upon them. They who take the first way think the insolent people re∣presented thus speaking in contempt of their king, yea of God himself, at least so be∣having themselves, as to make it appear that they y thought, and were as if they did so speak, viz. that they did not stand in aw of their king, nor would by him be curb'd from doing what they list. For they feared not God himself, and what should a king do to them? they would z rule him as they list, and not be ruled by him.

But the other way is by ours followed, as by many a others, and seems the best, which is, that however they had hitherto consided in their having a king and his forces to defend them, yet now it should shortly come to pass that, punishment over∣taking them, and the enemy prevailing a∣gainst them and their king, or depriving them of him, and all hope of help from him, b as despairing men rather than true pe∣nitents, they shall be forced, at least their condition should dictate to them, to say, we have no king, or c are as if we had none, none that can save us, d he being taken and not able to save himself; and deservedly is this happened unto us, because we feared not the Lord, we have forsaken him and made him our enemy, and what good then shall a king do, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lanu, to us? this seems plain meaning.

Some of the Jews look here back to the history of their first desiring a king, and afterwards again to their rejecting a king of the house of David, and making Jero∣boam king, e (after which time they chang∣ed them almost as they pleased) So Kim∣chi whose words sound, When they shall go captives out of their countrey, they shall ac∣knowledge and say, We have no king, i. e. We are as if we had no king, because he hath no strength to deliver us out of the hand of our enemies, as we thought when we asked a king which should go before us, and fight our battels, 1 Sam. 8.19. The Lord was our king, and we had no need of another king, and he did deliver us out of the hand of our enemies while we did his will, but since we feared not the Lord and have forsaken his Law, what shall the king whom we have asked do for us? Behold he hath no power to deliver us, since God is angry with us, because we have sinned against him. This shall Israel confess at their banishment, (or being led into captivity.) Thus he. And R. Salomo's words are to the same pur∣pose: Abarbinel, At the time of destruction they shall say, We have no king, for if we had a king of the house of David, according to the will of God, it would not so have happened to us, but now that we have no such king, and have not feared God, what shall this king that we now have, do to, (or for) us? Aben Ezra dif∣ferently, as if the words were rather spo∣ken in contempt of their present king, and as a threat of rejecting him, to this tenour, When their heart was divided, they would not have any king to be over them, neither did they fear the Lord, therefore there was to (or in) them, no fear at all, and they every one did as he listed. This comes near the first way of exposition that we mentioned; but the second seems plainer. Lyra takes these words to declare what some few good men who were left among them spake, but is not liked by f others.

V. 4. They have spoken words, swea∣ring falsly in making a covenant: thus judgement springeth up as hemlock in the furrows of the field.

They have spoken words, swearing falsly in making a covenant, &c. These words are by g some looked upon as spoken by way of irrision of them and their false prophets; but seem otherwise to be a declaration of their folly and ill behaviour, and the ill consequents thereon. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dibberu, they have spoken, S. Jerome (or the vulgar Latin)

altering the tense and person renders loqui∣mini, which the Doway renders, you speak, (as if the Person only, not the Mood or Tense, were altered) but h others look on it as the Impe∣rative Mood, speak ye, and so S. Jerome him∣self expounds it, Dicite quid vultis, Speak what ye will, and then for the next words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Debarim aloth shav, (which ours well render, Swearing falsly) puts Verba visionis in utilis, Words of unprofitable vi∣sion, which to reconcile to the Hebrew, (in which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aloth, signifies either to swear, or curse, or Gerundially, in or by swearing, if it be taken as the Infinitive Mood, or else oaths or curses, if as a Nown of the Plural number) Ribera saith to be rendred by Jerome by visionis of vision, well, according to the mean∣ing, though not according to the letter, in re∣gard that the oaths meant, were oaths which their false prophets sware, to confirm and give credit to those false visions which they repor∣ted to them, and the vain promises of good which they made to them, and therefore those visions might be expressed by the name of oaths, or by oaths meant the prophesies by them confirmed, and he thinks it should be read rather visiones inutiles, unprofitable visions, than inutilis visionis, of an unprofitable vision, because in the Hebrew it is in the plural num∣ber.

The LXX. also, in the rendring both these words mentioned, differ from the Hebrew, for instead of, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dibberu, they have spo∣ken, they read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 speaking, so referring it, as may seem, and as it is taken by some of the Greek fathers, not to the people but to their king, whom before they spake so contem∣ptuously of, as if he were such a vain person, who did so as is here described, viz. Speak false words, and make vain promises; for to that purpose do they also render the following words (which with us according to the Origi∣nal are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aloth shav caroth berith, Swearing falsly in making a covenant) by this joyned with them, and as joyned to the preceding 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin tran∣slation renders, Loquens verba occasiones menda∣ces, disponet testamentum; but the printed Ara∣bick (better I think) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Loquitur verbis ratio∣nes mendaces, foedus pangit, i. e. Which speak∣eth in words false pretences, maketh a league. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is k observed not only to be used for a Will or Testament, but also for a Pact or Covenant, the same that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and also for a Promise by the LXX. in their version of the old Testament. Ribera that he may re∣concile this of the Greek to that of the vul∣gar Latin, would not have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here in them to be taken in its usual signification of pretences or excuses, (which if it were, then he saith, it would denote the lies of the false prophets, who promised to them prosperity, which gave to them a pretence for continuing in their sins, or whereby to excuse their sins, pretending their doings not to be displeasing to God, seeing by the prophets, happy things were prophesied to them) but rather to signi∣fie predictions, prophesies or visions, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to predict or foretell, except as he saith it should be written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, previsions or prophesies. If either of these were granted, then would there be no occasion for Capellus his facile conjecture, who supposeth the LXX. instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is now read, in the Hebrew and signifieth swearing or oaths, to have read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Odoth, which would signifie causes. But withal, if we take 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in its ordina∣ry signification of pretences or occasions, I do not think that it is necessary to suppose a dif∣ferent reading, in as much as the meaning may be given by that notion, seeing oaths are the utmost pretences or reasons, whereby any man may think to bring over another to be∣lieve what he saith or would have him to give credit to; and the Syriack also whom we doubt not to have read in the Hebrew as we do, ren∣ders it by the same notion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Loquuti sunt verba rationum falsarum, They have spoken words of false causes or reasons, which will be backing their words with false oaths.

What hath been hitherto said makes only to the clearing of the reading, and rendring of the words, and the justifying of our tran∣slation, not giving much of the meaning of them but that, this being premised, we shall with less interruption enquire into: for what difference of rendring is betwixt those who agree as to the reading in the Hebrew, is not of much moment, as we shall see by taking the words in order. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dibberu de∣barim, They have spoken words; what words must be gathered from what follows. Evil words it may be well thought they were, and not only many words, or long confabulations and conferences to no purpose, l as some think and will have the chief import of speaking words, to be, as the same expression is m used, Isai. 8.10. though no such Epithet be expres∣sed; yet the Chaldee paraphrast takes liberty of adding one, calling them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 words of violence or oppression, viz. as n Mer∣cer notes, De vi inferenda & aliis opprimen∣ndis ultro citroque sermones conferunt, They i

confor among themselves of doing violence and of oppressing others. Yet Calvin takes them for such words as they spake, promising to God repentance, but giving him only empty words, though he saith others understand, bold, inso∣lent words.

Swearing falsly in making a covenant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aloth shav ca∣roth berith, the first word Aloth, ours rend∣ring, swearing, appear to take it in the Infi∣nitive Mood as it hath the force of a Gerund, by which others, as ours, express it as o deje∣rando, or p jurando, in or by swearing (or as o∣thers) q execrando, in using execrations or im∣precations, as the word is used in both signi∣fications, as properly denoting so to swear as to confirm the oath, by an execration or curse of himself if he swear falsly. In which signi∣fication the MS. Arabick seems to take the word rendring it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is in the Law used in the Arab. version in this kind for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so it comes all to the same pass. And that it is to be here so looked on as the Infini∣tive Mood (as the following Verb Caroth is) is by Kimchi said, and then may well enough as to the sense be expressed by the r Participle swearing falsly, &c. but R. Tanchum observes that it may be either so taken, or as a Noun of the Plural number, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Alah, the singular; and so would it sound with the o∣ther, They have spoken words, s false (or vain) oaths. And as a Noun seems it taken in the forecited Arab. MS. though put in the Singu∣lar number 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They have spoken words of execration and falshood, in making a covenant, as, more lately, Grotius expresseth it by a Noun, and of the Singular number, Loquentur verba ju∣ramenti falsi, cum pangent foedus, They will utter words of an oath falsly, when they shall make a covenant. But all this while, we have no great difference made in the meaning, all taxing them as guilty of perjury or false swearing, or at least vain: (for Shav may be either way rendred.) Neither is there much difference made as to the signification con∣cerning the next words, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Caroth berith, in making a covenant, joyned by ours and several others in one clause with the former, by others in a distinct. However, the last word shav, will have influence on them, and therefore the Chaldee adds also to them as necessarily to be understood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 frustra in vain, or de re vana, as Mercer, concerning what is vain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cutting, i. e. making a covenant. Why both in Hebrew and Chaldee, &c. cutting should be used for ma∣king, when spoken of a covenant, is well known, viz, from the ancient custom in ma∣king a league t of cutting in two some crea∣ture, v to signify that he that broke it should be, or was worthy so to be, cut in pieces.

But now in assigning the matter concern∣ing which they spake words, and sware falsly, or vainly and made a covenant, there is great variety of conjectures; some understanding them of their covenants made w with their kings and confirmed by oaths of fealty, which yet they neither did nor meant to observe; x some, of those made and by oath confirmed between them and their first king Jeroboam (or others after) whereby they bound them∣selves not to return to Jerusalem and the Temple, and so not to submit any more to the kingdom of the house of David, but to maintain with all their power their new king∣dom, and new idolatrous worship, in which way by, by swearing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shav, will rather be meant swearing vainly and wickedly; in re∣gard it was against God, and their former co∣venant entred into with him, than falsly in re∣spect to their present oaths and covenant which they did contrary to their duty to God, too religiously observe; y Some, of their leagues with, and oaths to, forreign kings, either for ma∣king truce or alliance with them, which they observed no longer than they thought to be for advantage to them, as it may seem they dealt, both king and people in their league made with Shalmaneser, 2 King. 17.3, 4. z Others, of their professions made to God of turning to him, and renewing and observing their cove∣nant with him, when they neither really in∣tended nor performed it. These and the like conjectures have we from expositors as they pitched on any circumstance in the history of that people in the book of Kings which sug∣gested it to them. What was pointed to, in the expressions used, was no doubt well un∣derstood when the words were spoken by the prophet, but there is no particular circum∣stance mentioned which may direct us to the application of them singly to it, and we may therefore I think, safely understand them in a greater latitude, as taxing them more gene∣rally guilty in more than one kind of swear∣ing vainly or falsly, while they sware by false gods, and bound themselves either to what was needless, or not in their power to do, or unlawful and wicked, or brake such promises as they ratified by oaths, which a all will come under 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aloth shav, vain or false swearing, and either of which ways would make them guilty of what is here objected, and have such bad effects, as by most are thought to be in the next words put as con∣sequent oon their being so guilty.

But probably they were guilty in more of them, and so doth Munster, I suppose well, ex∣pound the words in more general terms with∣out bringing them to any one particular fact of theirs, Multa, inquit, dixerunt & promise∣runt, sed nihil praestiterunt, semper mendaces & foedifragi inventi sunt coram Deo & hominibus, necest veritas in o••e eorum, atque ideo in sulcis agrorum ipsorum, &c. i. e. They spake and pro∣mised many things, but performed nothing, they have alwayes been found false and covenant-breakers before God and men, neither is there truth in their mouth, and therefore in the fur∣rows of their fields, &c. And so would there be a fair passage to the following words, which are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ʋparach carosh mish∣phat, &c. which are by ours rendred, Thus judgment springeth up as hemlock. The Con∣junction or Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 u, which they render by, thus, in its simplest signification denotes, and, and by it is by many rendred, as by the Vulgar Latin, and the Syr. and the MS. Arab. (for the printed Arab. following the LXX. quite omits it) and several b modern; but c o∣thers as we have seen Munster to do, render it by therefore. To either ours may be redu∣ced; for, thus, being taken for as much as to say, by this means, will agree with the latter, if taken for, in this manner, with the first. Therefore, also may be accommodated to either, as it shall be used either for, by this means, or for, for this cause. The use of the particle in both significations is frequent and well known, yet this little difference I think fit to take notice of, though of no great moment, because it hath if no great influence on the meaning, yet on the connexion between the preceding and following words, which are as we said, judgment springeth up as hemlock, &c. For if we take this latter, viz. therefore, as it signifies, for this cause, then will the follow∣ing be inferred from the former, as an effect of them or consequent on them, if the first, viz. and, or thus, or therefore, i. e. in this man∣ner, or, by this means, as distinct from, for this cause, then will they be as a farther de∣claration of their condition or present beha∣viour. We shall the better judge of the mat∣ter, when we shall have seen the meaning of the following expression; judgement springeth up as hemlock in the furrows of the field.

The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mishphat, I think all a∣gree in rendring by that which signifies judge∣ment, in that language in which they render it, which is the primary and known significa∣tion of the word, (except Castalio who ren∣ders it by poena, punishment) as taking it for granted that that is the meaning of it here. But then in telling what is here by judgement meant, they do not agree; which will make it convenient to take notice that there are diffe∣rent uses of that word, d among which (and for what concerns our present purpose) are, first, That judgement is sometime taken for what men judge, determine, or do, as to things or persons, and according to which they behave themselves, and frame their words, purpo∣ses and actions, their whole carriage, where is place for right or wrong. 2. For that sentence which is passed in any thing in question, and withall the sentence of punishment which is by him that executeth judgment, passed on any that he takes for a delinquent, and the punishment it self, and the execution of it: so the king of Babylon, spake judgement with Zedekiah 2 Kin. 25.6. A necessary requisite in judgement in either way taken, is that it should be just and right, that things may go in good order; they will otherwise be out of frame, and ill con∣sequents necessarily follow.

Now accordingly there be according to these different acceptions of the name of judg∣ment, some that take it in one way, some in another; some look upon it as the peoples judgement, or their behaviour, and that ei∣ther in their behaviour towards God and his worship, or in things one between another, either in their behaviour one towards another, in any matters or dealings between them∣selves, or in cases of judicature: others as Gods judgement, viz. that punishment which he will bring upon them for their wickedness, and accordingly as for either of these it is ta∣ken, must the following words be accommo∣dated to it, viz. that it springeth up as hem∣lock in the furrows of the field; into the signi∣fication of which words also it will be conve∣nient to enquire, before we give the scope of the whole, or may judge of the difference be∣tween expositors concerning it, or the right meaning of our translation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 uparach, thus springeth, or and springeth up. Concern∣ing the signification of the Verb, as that it sig∣nifieth either to spring, to put, or sprout forth, to flourish, to break forth, to extend, spread, and enlarge, or propagate it self, and the like, there is no great question: we shall rather observe that by some it is rendred in the Present tense, as by ours, and e others, springeth up, or flou∣risheth; by the Syriack in the Preter tense, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & germinavit; hath sprung, by others, and those the most, in the Future as the Lxx. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Vulgar, and so more generally mo∣dern Latin translations germinabit, shall spring up. it is in it self in the form of the Preterper∣fect tense, but by vertue of the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 u prefixed to it, hath according to the known

rule of Grammar the signification of the Future given it and stands for it, and then that tense is likewise frequently used to express as well what is present as what is to come. This, though a small matter, it will be convenient to observe, in as much as it hath considerable influence on the meaning to be given to the words.

It follows 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Carosh, which ours ren∣der as hemlock. The Interlineary Version, as by Arias Montanus interpolated and altered, renders here sicut caput, as an head, whereas Pagnin had put it, sicut venenum, as poyson, much more intelligibly; for what shall we understand by as an head, except something be understood and supplyed, as in the Chal∣dee Paraphrast it is, in which both here and elsewhere is read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the heads of hurtful serpents, which will then agree with venenum poyson, better than simply ca∣put, an head, as denoting some noxious poy∣sonous thing. Known it is that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rosh, doth primarily signifie an head, but as manifest that it is sometimes in the same manner written, used to signify some other thing, as peculiarly, poyson or some hurtful poysonous thing, (which notion whether it be deduced from the first signification, in regard that the serpents poyson is in his head, or his head poysonous, as those that give f the ety∣mologie usually-make it out, we need not en∣quire.) So it appears in several places in which it is in such signification used, as Deut. 29.18. a root that beareth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rosh ve∣laanah, where ours render it, gall (and put in the margin, or a poysonful herb) and worm∣wood, and so again c. 32.32. (though there written with the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 u) gall, and in the 33. v. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rosh pethanim venome of serpents, and Psal. 68.21. they gave me, rosh gall, for my meat, and Jer. 8.14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 me rosh, water of gall, (or as in the margin, poy∣son) as likewise cha. 9.15. and cha. 23.15. in which last place, Montanus likewise substi∣tutes (as here) capitis, head, instead of fellis gall. As also Deut. 29.18. and c. 32.33. though in the other he leave it, and Lam. 3.5. he hath compassed me, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rosh, felle, with gall and travel, and v. 19. the wormwood and rosh, the gall, and Amos 6.12. ye have turned judgement 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into gall, (the Inter∣lineary in venenum, into poyson.) In all these places as in the present, it is manifest that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rosh signifies something other than an head, though in some of them Arias Monta∣nus, as we said, give it to no plain sense, nor proper meaning of the words certainly.

And this being generally taken for granted, they who enquire into the signification of words, do according as the scope of the place where it occurrs, and the words which they found joyned with it, suggest to them, give divers significations of it, though for the most part tending to, or derived from one notion, viz. of poyson, and the qualities of noxiousness and bitterness usually ascribed to it, as we may see in their rendring it in this and those other places where it occurrs: some here rendring it by the general name of poy∣son, so the MS. Arab. version g 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cas∣sommi, and so R. Tanchum saith that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rosh here is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sommo poyson, and so Pagnin and h others venenum, Jerome ama∣ritudo bitterness, some i fel gall, some k ab∣synthium wormwood: I know not whether so appositely, in regard that it is in other pla∣ces joyned with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 laanah, which is thought to signify wormwood, so that it should rather seem a different herb, if it be taken for an herb, which makes them in such pla∣ces to give it another signification, viz. of gall, l fel & absynthium. m Others therefore rather make it another herb accounted poysonous, viz. cicuta hemlock, although ours, Amos 6.12. render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also, by that. The LXX. so also taking it for an herb, render it by n 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which Jerome describes at large, for an herb very apt (if it be not carefully pluck∣ed up by the roots) to overrun fields, and to mar them, and make them as if all over∣grown with thorns; according to which no∣tion the Syriac renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which o the Latin Translator renders, ut vepretum, as a thicket of brambles or thorns. S. Jerome not knowing, it seems, what proper name to give it in Latin renders it by a more general name of gramen grass, or weeds; p some also in general terms render it out of the Hebrew her∣ba venenata, a poysonous herb, a particular design∣ing of which might require a knowledge of the countrey, and what herbs or plants grow in it.

By this variety we see that the significati∣on of the word is not so well fixed as that all agree in it. By the word before it, viz. that it springeth up, and those after it, in or upon, the furrows of the field, it is made probable that it is meant of some plant, q herb or grass, and among them r none perhaps with more reason than that which is by our Translators put, viz. hemlock. To it, whatever be under∣stood, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mishphat, judgment, the judg∣ment

here spoken of compared as likewise that spoken of in the forecited Amos 6.12. (for there the word is the same, though by ours there rendred gall) is likened and compared. It is here said that it springeth up like that in the furrows of the field, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Al talme sadai, concerning which words also there is variety of Interpretations 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Al talme sadai, in, or as others to one pur∣pose, super, upon, or per, every where in or on, the furrows, or more literally, the ridges; for that so it more s peculiarly signifies, appears by its being put as distinct from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which properly denotes the furrows Psal. 65.10. where ours render, thou waterest, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Telameha, the ridges thereof, thou settlest 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gedudeha the furrows thereof, though here they take it more generally as signi∣fying both the furrow as well as the ridge raised by making thereof, as they do else∣where, as c. 12.11. and Job c. 31.38. and c. 38.10. as it may well comprehend both, except where there is a distinction made. Here is joyned with it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sadai, of the field, which being else where written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sadeh, hath made some to think the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i as it oft serves for an affixe of the first person, so to be here also, that it should be rendred my fields, (as Junius and Tremellius here) and again c. 12.11. (where also ours render only fields) agrorum meorum, as if God called their fields his fields, as be∣fore the Lords land, c. 9.3. But against so doing both Aben Ezra and Kimchi cau∣tion, saying that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sadai, here is no more than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sadeh, and indeed there are else where examples of its being so writ∣ten in that simple signification and no more, as Psal. 8.7. and 80.14. The beasts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sadai of the field. And Psal. 96.12 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yaaloz sadai, (where Junius and Tremelli∣us also themselves render, Exultabit ager) Let the field rejoyce. And Lam. 4.9. The fruits 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sadai of the field, though there also they render, of my fields, with several other places. Their so doing, I think, doth but rather make more obscure than explain the place; although what influence they would have it to have, we shall anon see. Mean while we may observe that the pro∣phets using this expression of the furrows of the field, makes some to think that thereby is denoted cultivated fields, and to note that in t such, such weeds or herbs are more apt in greater abundance to spring forth and grow up; others do by it rather under∣stand such as are unmanured and ly wast. So the LXX. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 super desertum a∣gri, and the printed Arab. following them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on the ground of an untilled field, to which the Syriac agrees with a little other placing of the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in a field of untilled land, and to the like purpose the MS. Arabick hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ala atlamissahraa, On the furrows of a field that lieth wast, for so rather I read it, than of the desert as the word otherwise signifies, but I think it not not here very proper. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Talme furrows, joyned with it, requires that it be at least land that hath been plowed; though the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sadai having no epithet ad∣ded to it signify any field as v well such as lies wast, as such as is tilled, and perhaps the difference between these may well e∣nough be reconciled by understanding a fal∣low field, which is not at present new plow∣ed and sowed, though it hath been so and is again to be so, in which by its being in the mean while neglected weeds at present spring up, yea, the more because it hath been formerly loosened by plowing, grow in abundance.

That such fields may be looked on as proper places for thorns and weeds to grow in, appears by that allusion to them, Jer. 4.3. Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns, where a heart neglected and not carefully looked after is compared to fallow ground, which is supposed will be overrun with thorns, and unfit for good seed to be cast into; and so such an heart sup∣posed will be so possessed with wickedness, as to be unfit to receive any good, till it be (as it were) broken up by repentance, and cleansed from that rubbish which will choak all good seed that any shall endea∣vour to sow in it. And so those words may well be compared with these in the first way of the meaning given to these, as we shall by and by see. But however the words here used in the comparison, being so pla∣ced in the Hebrew, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Uparach carosh mishpat, Thus springeth up as hemlock judgement in the furrows of the field, as that they seem referred in the con∣struction to judgment, as well as, yea ra∣ther than, to hemlock, seem to import an a∣bundant spreading of that judgement which is so compared; as the naming of hemlock for that which it is said to grow like, doth

withall the noxiousness of it, both toge∣ther shewing that it is ill for quality, it shall be bitter as hemlock, much for quan∣tity, it shall overrun their whole nation, as hemlock, or what is called Rosh, doth fields. The same will be inferred from those tran∣slations which instead of hemlock, have gall or poyson, but with this difference that the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Parach springeth up, can then, only be attributed the Nown Mishpat judgement, which is for the quality of it compared to some such noxious thing, and that in a meta∣phorical sense as by springing and growing is denoted, to extend, or spread abroad, or put forth it self, and not to the thing to which it is compared, v because of that it cannot be said, that it springeth or groweth; but then the ad∣ding of, on the furrows of the field, necessarily infers the extent or commoness of it. And in the same manner with them may well be under∣stood the Chaldee paraphrase, which is, Now I will bring upon them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the head of evil serpents, the judgement of (or for) their lies, upon the bounds of their fields, if by it we understand, their fields all over, to the outmost bounds thereof (which perhaps might be limited or set forth by fur∣rows cast up.) Yet doth R. Solomo seem to take his last words in another sense, saying that Jo∣nathan the Parap. expounds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Al talme sadai, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for their wickedness in that they removed the bounds of the fields; (see c. 5.10.) and himself gives ano∣ther, viz. the furrows of the field, because there (or where) they made their altars, as it is said, c. 12.11. Their altars are as heaps in the fur∣rows of the fields, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there shall spring up against them the judgement of (or for) their iniquities. There are also w some that seem to take the grievous∣ness of the judgment to be denoted not only from its being compared to some bitter herb, but from this also that is said in the furrows of the field, inasmuch as it is a thing much more grievous or unpleasing to have such grow in a plowed field prepared for the cast∣ing in of good seed, than in an untilled field or lay ground.

Having thus spoken of the words and their meaning singly, we may now easily recollect and summ up what may conduce to make out of them put together, such meanings as they are thought capable of: and those will accor∣ding to what hath been already hinted, be chiefly two, differing one from another as grounded on a double acception of the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mishphat, judgement, as by some ta∣ken for such as was in and among them in re∣spect to their behaviour either towards God, or one another between themselves, or others, that they had to deal with; by others for that which should be on them by way of punish∣ment from God. In the first way the meaning will be, and or thus, or therefore, they taking no care of what they swear and what cove∣nants they make, all their promises to God or men, all their purposes and contrivances, all their dealing one with another, all judgement among them in cases of right and wrong, or whereby x magistrates govern those that are under them, or any thing that may come un∣der the name of judgement, are, instead of being good, corrupt, as noysom, as offensive in the sight of God, and hurtful in their effects to men, as hemlock, or any bitter poysonous weeds that grow in the furrows of the field, and withall as common among them as such weeds, which overspread whole fields and fill all the furrows or ridges thereof, so that there was no piety or sincerity, no honesty or ju∣stice at all among them, but on the contrary, wickedness and y hypocrisy, fraud and inju∣stice, which produced every where fruit as bit∣ter as hemlock, looking perhaps fair, but be∣ing a mere poyson. These we put together; the name including all, and the inference hold∣ing a like to all, though some may think re∣spect more particularly had to one of these, some to another, and we look on them there∣fore as all taking one way. This way takes R. Solomo in the exposition which he gives, viz. Every covenant which they make one with a∣nother, they transgress, and judgement spring∣eth up as, Rosh, on the furrows of the field, i. e. as Rosh, which springeth up on the furrows of the field, which is a bitter herb, so their judge∣ments spring up (or spread themselves) and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bitternesses (or bitter things) grow up to the poor and needy, according to what he saith in Amos 5.7. Who turn judgement into worm∣wood. Aben Ezra likewise, thus, He speaks comparatively of judgement which is of it self sweet; but is turned into bitter, as it is said, Which turn judgement into wormwood, and it springeth up as Rosh, wormwood (to wit) their judgement which is not right. So R. Tan∣chum saith, that by comparing judgement to poyson, he means 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 oppression, and injustice. The same take also z many of the modern Interpreters and Expos••tors, and ours will well be reckoned among them in their rendring, thus judgement springeth up as a hemlock, whether we take the particle thus to import, in this manner, viz. while they swear falsly, &c. or, by this means, viz. by reason that they take no care of their words, oaths, and covenants, there is nothing sacred, nothing justly and honestly done among them, a with their tongues they have usea deceit, and

adders poyson is under their lips, their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, destruction and mi∣sery are in their wayes, The bitterness of hem∣lock in all their doings, the way of peace have they not known. But if that particle, thus, be so understood, viz. as by this means, therefore, or for this cause, it would rather agree and be suitable to another meaning, which as we in∣timated, is given to the words. That mean∣ing is founded on that second acception of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mishphat, not for that judge∣ment which was in, among, or from them, but for that which seemed to be upon them, by way of punishment from God, viz. That there∣fore because they have been so wicked, dealt so fraudulently with God and men, among themselves, and with others, his judgements on them should be severe and bitter, as hem∣lock, yea and general also, seizing suddenly on them all throughout their whole countrey, where they might least expect it, as that bit∣ter herb soon overspreades whole fields pre∣pared for better uses. This way take very ma∣ny both ancient and modern, both Jews and Christians; so the Chaldee Paraphrast in those words of his which we have already seen, ex∣pounding it of such judgements as God would bring upon them. So Jerome, amaritudinis judicium, so Cyril, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sentence of de∣struction; Theophylact, Meum judicium, & calculus noster justus citra ullum obstaculum prodibit, My judgement and just sentence shall go forth without any obstacle. So among them Jews, R. Solomo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The judgement of chastisements and punishments, and Kim. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This is a comparative expression of the evils that shall come upon them for a punish∣ment of this which they do, (or in this punishment.)

Among the many modern that so take it, Castalio is so confident of it, that he tran∣slates it by poena punishment, and joining it with the Rosh going before it, fellea poena, punishment like gall, or bitter as gall. And Zanchi brings one translation in which it is ren∣dered with a supply, judicium Dei, the judge∣ment of God, which is the same, as in a note he explains it, with judicium ultionis, the judgement of revenge: and b there is who lookes on the words as to imply a description of a particu∣lar act or effect of that punishment, viz. that their fields though already plowed shall not be sowen, but be left for hemlock or the like to grow in it, by the peoples being carried a∣way into captivity; but though this way make a very good sense, and be backed by the authority of so many embracing it, yet are there c others, very learned men who up∣on due consideration of both, think that use of the same expression in the forecited Amos, of their turning judgement into Rosh (gall as we read there, or hemlock as here) is a mani∣fest argument, that the former is the more genuine and proper to this place, which seems likewise to have been the opinion of our tran∣slators here: otherwise if they had understood it of judgement of punishment, probably they would have rendred not springeth up, but shall spring up, because that judgement was not yet come upon them; except we make it out by saying that it was already in spring∣ing, or growing up, and should suddenly put forth. But that the authors of the Geneva English, did so think as we say, is manifest by their note on the Text, which they read wholly as our latter doth, which is Thus their integrity and fidelity which they pretended, viz. in making a covenant to be faithful to God, as they note on the preceeding word, was no∣thing but bitterness and grief. Yet if we do take that former, that will give us ne∣cessarily to infer the latter as necessarily consequent on it, bitterness of punishment from God, on the bitterness, or griev∣ousness of their evil doings. This is the root from which necessarily springs the other, it prepares the furrows for that to grow in; d Quemadmodum noxiae berbae in agro culto co∣piosius germinant, ita copia suppliciorum germi∣nabit in Israel; qui in agro cordis sui duxit sul∣cos impietatis. Abarbinel seems to leave us in doubt which meaning he takes, whiles he makes it as an acknowledgement from the Isaelites, seeing the calamities that befell them, that the words, the oaths, and the cove∣nant which they made concerning the divisi∣on of the kingdoms, are vain, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They are sprung up as hemlock and wormwood, though he seems rather to un∣derstand it of the calamities than the sins. Cyril adds to this v. the following words in the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as if the bitter judgement mentioned before were threat∣ned to take hold on their calf as appears by what follows, it should: but the sense is plainer in following the usual division, which places these words in the next verse, which is,

V. 5. The inhabitants of Samaria shall fear, because of the calves of Beth-aven: for the people thereof shall mourn over it, and the priests thereof that rejoyced on it, for the glory there∣of, because it is departed from it.

The inhabitants of Samaria shall fear because of the calves of Beth-aven, &c. Here have we a farther explication of Gods judgements on those Idolaters, by shewing what e shall become

of their vain hope, and those Idols which they trusted in for defence. As for the words there is no small variety in the rendring and interpretaion of some of them, which for the justifying and understanding of our tran∣slation it will be convenient to take notice of; as first and chiefly the different acception of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yaguru, which ours render, shall fear. That the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gur (of which this is the Future tense) doth signify to fear, there is no doubt, and it is in other places so rendred f by those who here render it other∣wise, yet hath it also g other significations as to come as a stranger to a place to dwell, and sojourn in it; and also to gather, and be ga∣thered together, to assemble or come together, and these do others, especially the more an∣cient, choose here to put. So the LXX. ren∣der it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(morabuntur, Lat.) shall dwell, stay or sojourn with the calves. The Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shall be as strangers, or sojourners, (which the Latin Interpreter ren∣ders peregrinabuntur ad, shall go as pilgrims to and not much unlike the printed Arabick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Latin likewise renders peregrinabuntur, the MS. Arabick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) which signifies to draw nigh (or make ones self neighbour to) to put ones self under the protection of, or draw near to for defence, and also h to stay in a temple or reli∣gious place for devotions sake, in which sense it will well agree with what Theophylact gives for explication of the LXX. Sedebunt apud simulacrum aurcae vaccae, they shall re∣main by the image of the golden cow, or Asside∣bunt tum cum invaserint eos pericula, opem inde requirendo, they shall draw near it when dangers are come upon them, for seeking help from it. But Cyrill, who (as we have observed) se∣vers the words, to the calves of Beth Aven, from these, making them the end of the former Verse, and begins this with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 takes this Verb, in respect to the same, in the notion of peregrinari, or coming to (or being in) a place as a stranger, and explains it (understanding it of the calves that were then there) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they shall remove, or be remo∣ved to another place, or to a new dwelling, there to reside. The same notion Calvin ob∣serves some taking to render here, exula∣bunt shall go in banishment, which rendring he likes not; but Mercer makes up the sense thus from it, That the inhabitants of Samaria shall be punished with perpetual banishment, or captivity, for their calves, or idolatry. These all seem to take the notion of commoration, or sojourning, or peregrination, and all retain the Future tense, but the ancient Latin hath, co∣luerunt, they have worshipped, which i some think backed with the authority of the Chal∣dee, which paraphraseth the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because they worshipped the calves in Bethel. But I doubt that the Chal∣dee is ill called in here for a witness, his words sounding as to that whole clause, Because that they worshipped the calves in Beth∣el, a king with his armies shall come up against them, and carry them into banishment, or capti∣vity, they shall take from them the calf of Sa∣maria (which perhaps he understands, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the inhabitant of Samaria) for his people mourned over him, &c. If we take away that which by his paraphrastical liberty, he adds, I suppose his words, Shall carry them into banishment, and they shall take from them, &c. will rather answer to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the notion of exulabunt, which we have seen from Cyrill, &c. than to coluerunt in the Latin, and the other words, because, &c. will shew what he meant by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for their calves. They who follow the Latin, and think the Chaldee to a∣gree with it, will have it indeed to be (as it were) the same with timuerunt, they feared, but in another sense than it is in ours and others taken, viz. for an awful reverential fear, which well agrees with, yea is necessarily required to, adoring and worshipping: except we may think he had respect to the signification of gathering together and assembling, which by them being done in worship of their calves, he might think to be well expressed by say∣ing, They worshipped; as on the other side Drus. observes by some who render it congregabun∣tur, shall be assembled, to be understood, cul∣tus causa, for worshipping as in processions, and the like, so that it will be equivalent to, colent, they shall worship.

That signification of the Verb, viz. of ga∣thering together or assembling, is among the Latin translations had respect to also in the Tigurin, in which we read, Ad vitulas Betha∣ven concurrent, They shall run together to the calves of Bethaven; but for what ends he means, whether for worships sake, in proces∣sion, and to implore help for fear of their calves, or for defending them, and consulting what to do for that end, or for bewailing them, or any other like end according as they should be in that hurry affected, the author thereof doth not express: yet shews that he did upon choice and deliberation put that in∣terpretation, by a note which he adds in the margin, Alii legunt, Propter Bethaven pave∣bunt, Jaguru, viz. That others render Ja∣guru by pavebunt shall fear for the calves, &c. and so do very many take it, and that, not, as

we have noted some to think, and Lyranus doth the author of the vulgar Latin to do, with ti∣mor reverentiae fear of reverence, but with fear as it imports sollicitousness and anxiousness for any thing, and fear of evil to, or from it, or in respect of it. The Jews here lead the way, R. Solomo explaining it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yireu, and Aben Ezra and Kimchi by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yiphchadu, shall fear, as also Abarbinel, and R. Tanchum by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yiphzau, in Arabick, in the same notion that (as he saith) it is in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lo taguru miphne ish, You shall not be afraid of the face of man; and this way do most of modern expositors follow them in, rendring k pavebunt, or l formidabunt, m or timebunt, n territi sunt, or o horrescent, and ours following them, shall fear, which seems to give the plainest meaning, as we shall better perceive by considering who they are that shall so do, and in respect to what they shall so do.

And first, the persons that are said shall so do are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shecan shomeron, which ours render the inhabitauts of Samaria, as o∣thers also p habitatores, q or incolae, or to the same purpose, r qui vicini habitant, they who dwell neighbours to Samaria, or s Samaritani, the Samaritans, all in the plural number, and these agree with the Jews, among which R. Solomo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 its neighbours which are in Samaria, and Aben Ezra 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they that dwell in Samaria, as like∣wise Kimchi, although the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shecan in the original be in the singular number, and, R. Tanchum saith it is for that which should be regularly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shocene shomeron in the plural, and the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yaguru shall fear, governed by it, we see is in that number. And the LXX. do also so put the Nown, as also the Vulgar Latin, with most o∣thers; but others, respecting it seems more the sense than the Grammar, in other langua∣ges also, that they may come as near as they can to the letter, endeavour to retain the same number in their translations. The in∣terlineary therefore as by Arias Montanus, ordered pavebunt habitator Someron, and Capi∣to renders it territi sunt habitator Samariae. Junius and Tremellius endeavour to salve both the letter and the Grammar by a sup∣ply, rendring Formidabunt quisque habitator Shomeronis, Every inhabitant of Samaria shall fear, that so, the inhabitant, though in the sin∣gular number, being taken as a Nown of mul∣titude, including more, may be equivalent to a plural in its construction with the Verb. To the like purpose tends that of t others, who explain it by, vicinia, i. e. the neighbour∣hood of Samaria, which also under a term sin∣gular includes more persons; which is the same way that they follow who render it, in∣habitants, to wit, looking on it (as we say) as a Nown of multitude. u Another salves it by altering the construction, Ob vitulas Betha∣ven formident, O vicine Samariae, the word sig∣nifying both an inhabitant, and a neighbour. Munster avoids this difficulty by making 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Verb of the Infinitive mood, Pro∣pter vitulas Bethaven timebunt habitare in Sa∣maria, because of the calves of Bethaven they shall fear to dwell in Samaria; but we keep to the more ordinary received way of constru∣ction. However these differ in making out the Grammar, they all agree in one meaning, viz. That the persons spoken of, or who are said, shall fear, or do what is said they shall do, according to any of the translations, are those that dwell in Samaria, or the parts a∣bout it, under that name comprehended.

But secondly then, in respect to what shall they fear? It is expressed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Leegloth Beth Aven, because of the calves of Bethaven. Above c. 8.5, 6. we had mention of the calf of Samaria, and there we shewed what by that is thought to be meant, nor do we much doubt but the same is here meant, though here it be spoken as of more in the plural number, and as of females in the Fe∣minine gender, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Egloth, heifers or cow-calves, and the place where they are said to be, not Samaria but Bethaven, which name we have also above c. 4.15. and the 5.8. and there seen what place is thought to be deno∣ted by it. In this place (as likewise c 4.15.) the Chaldee put Bethel for it, and that most others, Jews (as we there noted) and Chri∣stians think to be meant by it, as being not thought worthy of that name which signifies the house of God, but of this which signifies the house of iniquity or vanity, w after that that vain Idol of the golden calf was there set up by Jeroboam, and by the people forsaking God, worshipped.

But this being supposed, why doth he then say calves, as of more, whereas the history speaketh but of one, by Jeroboam there pla∣ced, and another at Dan? whether it be be∣cause both of them are here meant, though one place only be mentioned, which is (as is sup∣posed) Bethel, the other may be thought in∣cluded with it, x that being the more known and famous, and where the chief service (e∣specially by them of Samaria, it being nearer to them) to the calves, was performed, (and indeed the name Bethaven, in that import of it, which we have seen, may well agree to either of them, and comprehend both) or whether besides that one calf which was by Jerobo∣am

set up at Bethel, y other also were by others there set up, for the like idolatrous ends; or whether it be z a change of numbers only and one put for another, the plural for the singular, any of these may perhaps serve for answer. But there is another way sug∣gested by the learned Lud. de Dieu which will take away occasion of making any such que∣stion (viz.) by taking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 egloth in the fe∣minine form of the plural number, not to be put to signify many calves, but one famous one, of great and chief esteem among them, such as was that at Bethel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or by way of eminency so called. And for the confirmation of his conjecture he gives examples of like use of other words, as of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wisdoms put for summa sapiertia, Prov. 9.1. Wisdom (not wis∣doms) hath builded her an house, and of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Behemoth, beasts, put so as to signify only a great or noted beast, as Psal. 73.23 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beasts have I been with thee, which he takes to be for ingens bestia, a great, or notorious beast, and ours render it in the singu∣lar, I was as a beast before thee, and the same word Job 40.15, 16. put to signify the elephant or some signal great beast, under the name of beasts, which is manifest from its being there joyned with Verbs and Pronouns of the mas∣culine gender, as if it were so in a form as it is in meaning; which is the case likewise of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Egloth here.

This observed will help also to answer some other questions concerning it, as why it is put in the feminine gender, whereas it is other where, when put in the singular number, b of the masculine, and why being so put here as it is, the Pronowns referred to it are of the singular number and masculine gender. For its being in the feminine gender, the answer by most given is, that it is by c way of con∣tempt or scorn and derision put in that gender of the weaker sexe, to argue their great folly in worshipping and confiding in them; or (as d others) because in those figures or idols they observed not distinction of Sexe, they being but heads or parts of figures, and because in Egypt whence they are thought to have taken pattern for their calf worship, e Males were sacred to Osiris, Females to Isis, and so by them figures of either sexe, or neither, were promiscuously used: which promiscuous use of them among the heathen may seem alluded to, in Deut. 4.16. where they are warned not to make to themselves the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female. If we take de Dieu's way as that the one calf was so cal∣led by way of excellency, any question of this kind will be needless, and (as indeed accor∣ding to either way) in respect to the thing signifyed (viz.) one calf, no marvel that the construction in the relative Pronowns or af∣fixes should proceed, as if that had in its usual form, number and gender, ordinarily denot∣ing that, been expressed.

Because of those calves, (or great and fa∣mous calf) the inhabitants of Samaria shall fear; the inhabitants of Samaria f the chief city of the kingdom, and g so the other Israelites zea∣lous worshippers of the calves, though they were placed not in Samaria but in Bethel and Dan, shall fear, or be in great consternation for them, for what shall become of them whom they adored and confided in, and on whose safety they looked on their own and their whole kingdoms as depending, when they see them now like to fall, or already fal∣len into the enemies hand. So R. Tanchum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They shall be much moved or tremble, for what shall befall the calf to whose worship they ad∣dicted themselves, to wit, because he shall be removed from his place, and carried away and presented to king Jareb; or else, h for what shall now become of themselves, being deprived of their tutelar gods, and the enemy which had taken them and the places where they were, having now nothing to i hinder him from coming to fall on them themselves in Samaria it self as they did; those calves k not be∣ing able to defend their own place Bethel, it is not likely shall be able to defend them of Samaria. The former way seems to have plain∣er coherence with what follows (though both made good in the history or fact) for the people thereof shall mourn over it, &c.

But before we pass on to those words we may take notice of another way of interpre∣ting these former, which some seem to have re∣spect to (viz.) because of the calves of Bethaven, i. e. because they committed idolatry with those calves as conscious that thereby they provoked God, seeing now his judgements ready to seize on them. Thus the Chaldee paraphrast, whose words we have seen, seems to have taken the words, because of the calves, to import, while he renders, because they wor∣shipped the calves in Bethel, and so Munster seems also to have understood them, who tran∣slates the words, Propter vitulas Bethaven pa∣vebunt habitare in Samaria, and explains them by this note, hoc est, Propter vitulum quem co∣luerunt in Bethel, nullus audebit habitare in Sa∣maria,

tam crudelis devastatio accidet in pro∣vincia illa, that is, Because of the calves of Be∣thaven they shall fear to dwell in Samaria, That is, because of the calf which they worshipped in Bethel none shall dare to dwell in Samaria, so so cruel a depopulation shall happen in that pro∣vince. I suppose he means that destruction which was brought on them by their lewd Ido∣latry, in worshipping that calf, shall be so great and grievous that they shall be afraid to dwell in the country, which they had thought should have been secured by that worship, and the protection of that calf. This being ob∣served, to proceed to what follows, For the people thereof shall mourn over it, &c.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For] According to that reading which in our translation we follow, this particle may be so taken in its ordinary signification of for, as a reason of their just cause of fear, in as much as that joy and hope which they formerly conceived from that calf as their tutelary god, which should have protected them shall be now turned into mourning, when they see it now taken and destroyed, broken and car∣ried away, not able to defend it self, much less them. Those that follow the Vulgar La∣tin in his rendring, coluerunt, they have wor∣shipped, cannot so properly take it in this sense as a causal, and therefore look upon it as either Expletive o ad ornatum tantum, and for making the sentence to sound more grace∣ful, without regard had to it in giving the sense, or else p as Adversative, verum, ve∣rumtamen, tamen, but, notwithstanding, or else for a meer affirmation, and asseveration of the thing; in all which wayes it is elsewhere to be found. q Others who render the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the notion of fearing as ours do, render it quum when, when they shall mourn; r another quin, moreover, explaining it, yea which (is more) they shall not only fear for their calf, lest he should be taken by the enemy, but shall mourn over it for its being taken. This falls in with what we said is the import of for in our translation.

The people thereof, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ammo, his people, whose people? to whom or what is the Pro∣nown affixed to be referred, it being so pla∣ced as necessarily to be referred to something before mentioned, without particularly ex∣pressing to what? Some therefore referr it to Samaria, s the people of Samaria (it might be as well said of t Bethaven). Others (to much the same purpose) to u habitatoris Samariae, of the inhabitant of Samaria. But it is more generally liked that it be referred to the calf of Bethaven, (though called w calves, and that in the Feminine gender, as agreeable to the thing signified, though not the form of the Noun, or gender and number in which it is expressed) they who were while they ser∣ved God the people of God, not being now thought worthy of x any other appellation than the people of the calf, to whose worship they addicted themselves, as for the same reason y they who worshipped, Chemosh, are called the people of Chemosh, Num. 21.29. Such were now not only the inhabitants of Bethaven and Samaria; but even all the ten tribes of Israel become, and if the affixe be here referred to it, much more manifestly in the following words will it be. This people, he saith, shall mourn over it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Abal alau, word for word, hath mourned over it; for the word is in the form of the Preterperf. tense, and so rendred by the LXX. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. the Syriac also, They have sate in sorrow, and both Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath sorrowed, and the vulgar Latin, luxit, which yet divers that follow it say is to be ta∣ken for lugebit in the Future, as ours also with many others, shall mourn over it, that is to say, as certainly as if that for which they should mourn were already come to pass, though not yet actually done; namely because it shall be taken, and shamefully used and dishonoured, as the following words shew.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Alau, over it, or for it, z super eum, a de eo, or propter eum, and the like, viz. the same calf, All to the same purpose, to shew it was the cause of their sorrow. This shall ge∣nerally the people do, and in particular, the priests thereof that rejoyced over it. Whereas in the body of the Text in our translation is put priests, in the margin is set, or Chemarim, as if it were a proper name or title of those priests. The Hebrew is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cemarau, the Ce∣marims thereof, which word is, I think, not found elsewhere in the the Hebrew Text, but only in 2 King. 23.5. where ours put in the Text, the Idolatrous priests, and in the margin Chema∣rim as here, and Zephan. 1.4. where they put in the Text it self, the Chemarims, it being there joyned with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 im haccohanim, with the priests, as if there were some diffe∣rence betwixt them and the priests, which yet conceiving to be but little, and their office to be much alike, they do, we see, in the other two places where it comes alone, render it by priests. So R. Tanchum notes on that last place that either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 priests, is put 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as synonymous or of like signification with the o∣ther, or else that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 perhaps they were two kinds, betwixt which there was some

difference. And as to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ce∣marim that they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ministrants to Idols; but on 2 Kin. 23.5. in more words, that they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 overseers or curators of the worship of idols, and such as ministred in the places where idols were worshipped; and on this place to the same purpose that they were b 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 such as did attend on the wor∣ship of idols, as those called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cohanim priests, on the service of the true God, and that the Chaldee paraphrast doth explain some∣times 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cohanim by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cema∣rim, or as it is in their dialect 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Comarin, or Cumraya, though per∣haps only c where are meant, Idolatrous priests, as Jud. 17. v. the last, and 18.30. and Gen. 47.26. Yet it is manifest that in d Syriack it is spoken of the priests of the true God also, as in that version, Psal. 90.6. Psal. 110.4. Heb. 2.17. e Some think the name Camil∣lus among the Romans, hence taken for one that waited on the chief priest in his office, and the latter Jews by the name of Comerin, (by way, I suppose, of contempt) call Monks amongst Christians.

Concerning the derivation of the word there is variety of opinions, f some taking them to be so called from their black habits, as the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Camar hath among others the notion of blackness, or being black, whence g some ren∣der it here Atrati. This Calvin rejects, and thinks it more probable that they were so called from another notion, which that root hath, of h making a noise, resonare, viz. because of their great noise and howlings that they made in their invocations of their Idols, like those prophets of Baal, 1 Kin. 18.27, 28. i Elias Levita thinks them so called from a∣nother notion which it hath in the Chaldee tongue, of hiding or shutting in, or up; because they lived secluse or cloystered up together: Capito from another k of being ardent or burning, from their burning affection or ardent zeal, as Bigots or Zealots in the service of their Idols. We may allow to any of these their conjectures; it is indifferent, as long as it is by all agreed that by this name are under∣stood the priests of those Idols or such as were in some office of that kinde about them, and therefore by such terms as express that, by them rendred (except by the LXX. and such as follow them, as we shall after see) as by the vulgar Latin aeditui, which the Doway ren∣ders, his temple wardens, others generally sa∣crificuli or sacerdotes, as by ours, priests, say∣ing, and the priests thereof that rejoyced on it, according to which reading, there will be af∣firmed that as the people thereof should mourn over it, so should also the priests thereof now mourn over it, in contradistinction to what they did before, which was to rejoyce on it, for mak∣ing out which meaning l they supply the par∣ticle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that or which, as if it were under∣stood in the Hebrew; for in it it is not ex∣pressed, but only said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ʋce∣marau alau yagilu, And the priests thereof rejoy∣ced, or shall rejoyce, (the word of the Future form being capable, as we have elsewhere seen, of being rendred in either tense) and so the words without that supply would describe a different behaviour of the priests from that of the people, viz. that while the people mourn∣ed, the priests rejoyced, and so doth the Vul∣gar Latin render it, without any supply, Et aeditui ejus super eum exultaverunt in gloria ejus, which the Doway render, and his temple-war∣dens rejoyced upon him in his glory; which words some that follow that translation, do think to admit of, yea to require a supply, of that par∣ticle also: so n Ribera explaining it, Qui olim exultaverant, cum ipse ab omnibus coleretur, i. e. Which heretofore rejoyced, when he was worship∣ped of all, &c. saying it is usually understood in Hebrew. In this way the meaning is the same which ours and others give, but that Je∣rome understood it not so of what they had done, but of what they should do, is manifest by his question, Si autem luxit populus, quare aeditui ejus super eo exultavernnt? If the people mourned, why did the priests rejoyce upon him? for solving which he brings a story, as by traditi∣on from the Jews, viz. That the golden calves were by their priests stolen away, and brazen ones, only guilded, put in their places, and therefore when the people mourned in time of necessity and distress, and because their king gave among other presents their golden calves to the kings of Assyria, and especially to Senna∣cherib, the priests rejoyced in that their fraud was not discovered, but that it being afterward detected, was by letters to the king of Israel signified; and so by that means they did, by that wherewith they thought to have gained favour from the king of Assyria) more dis∣please him, and brought greater confusion and shame on themselves, he looking upon it as a trick put upon him by their kings, and not knowing it was done by the fraud of the priests. And after this story told, he gives us the ex∣plication of the words, according to them who look on it as so done, Aeditui ejus, i. e. vituli super eo exultaverunt in gloria populi, h. e. m

in vitulo quem habebant pro gloria, quia migras∣set ab eo, i. e. à populo & translatus esset ad As∣syrios, i. e. the priests thereof, i. e. of the calf which they esteemed their glory, because it was departed from him, i. e. from the people, and transferred to the Assyrians. which words and exposition, seem obscure enough how∣ever the story were granted to be true, but of that it self there may be much reason to doubt. Lyranus rejects it as probably ficti∣tious, and not acknowledged by the Jews, neither agreeable to the care they had of their calf, nor likely to have passed undis∣covered by the colour, weight or otherwise, else he supposeth R. Solomo would have mentioned it. Ribera reprehends him for being too peremptory in his denying it, on no other ground than such a mans omission of it, yet himself looks on it, as in it self uncertain, and that it need not to be taken notice of, seeing the Text may be well ex∣plained without it. In Capito's opinion it is fabula ineptior quam quae sit recitanda, & verbis prophetae repugnat; a fable so foolish that it deserves not to be repeated, and such as is not consonant, but rather repugnant to the words of the prophet: yet doth Grotius look upon it as true, and confirmed by not only the authority of Jerom, but found also in the writings of the Jews, viz. in the book Se∣der olam rabba (or the great Chronicle) part 4. of which yet we may doubt, except we knew what edition he used, and could there find it) and on it as granted so to be, grounds his exposition of the words which is, Quia luxit super eum populus ejus, Because his peo∣ple mourned over him, that is, lugebit saith he, shall mourn. Ad Salmaneserem, &c. to Salma∣neser, with whom the Jews often confound Sena∣cherib, were the two calves sent, which the peo∣ple thought to be those very golden calves which Jeroboam had made. Then, Et aeditui ejus su∣per eum exultaverunt, that is, Sacerdotes de eo laetabantur, The priests did rejoyce concern∣ing him: nempe, Quia pro aureis supposuerunt aeneos deauratos, to wit, Because instead of the golden ones, they had put guilded ones of brass. Thus that learned man. And D. Stokes fol∣lowing him, whose paraphrase on the whole V. is, Near these times great fear shall fall upon the inhabitants of Samaria, about sending the calves of Bethel anà Dan (as a present to Salmaneser) For the people (taking them for the very golden calves) shall be much grieved and troubled at it; but the idol priests shall be mer∣ry, (and applaud their subtile arts) of sending brazen and guilded calves, instead of those, that were all of gold. This shall be the several deport∣ment of the priests and people, when the riches and glory of their idol shall bee bus carried into another land, as a forerunner of their captivity. Yet do not these authorities put the matter so far out of doubt as to make the story cer∣tain, so as that we may make them any clear ground for the o true exposition of the place, and therefore I think it will be safer to take the former exposition.

But that being taken, yet by reason of dif∣ferent constructions that the words are ca∣pable of, and different punctations or di∣stinctions in referring them one to another, is there place for starting some little questions; as first, whose glory is here meant by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cebodo, his glory, whether suam or ejus, the glory of the people, or of the calf. p Some take it for the first, as if the calf were by those idolatrous worshippers of him looked on as their glory: (as the true God is called the glory of true Israel Psal. 106.20.) but others (the most) for the second, to wit the glory of the calf, which consisted both in the great honour done to it being worshipped as a god, and the rich donatives and much wealth with which it was by them endowed, and ador∣ned, and the like. These ours in rendring, the glory thereof, plainly appear to follow.

Secondly, whether this word, the glory thereof, be to be referred to the Verb imme∣diatly preceding, rejoyced on it, viz. that they were said to rejoyce on it by reason of its glory that it was then in; so the Vulgar in gloria sua; or to the former Verb, shall mourn over it, for the loss of its glory, which is now departing or departed from it, being now spoiled, as the following words declare, because it is departed from it; so ours with many more appear to take it, and therefore q Jun. and Trem. render it, Propterea quod gloria ejus migravit, Because its glory is de∣parted from it, and note that it is according to the Hebrew, Propter gloriam ejus quod migraverit, For its glory because it is departed; but that is trajectio a trajection of the word, but these and like niceties we need not in∣sist on, seeing the meaning will be the same. viz. That the people which worshipped the calf r (or calves) and especially the priests who lived upon them and gained most by it, how∣ever they rejoyced in them while they were reverenced and honoured should now have great occasion of sorrow, by seeing them de∣prived of all their honour, contemned, taken down, and carried away, yea broken in pieces whether before or after their carrying to the king of Assyria, and so no more looked on as gods, which is that which is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ci galah mimenu, because it is departed from it, and it taken away from them.

This meaning is also looked upon by most of the Jews who take the glory mentioned like∣wise for the glory of the calves (as well as by s most of the Christian Interpreters it is look∣ed upon) as proper and satisfactory; yet is there another by t some of them suggested to us, which deserves to be mentioned, and if it can be proved, perhaps to be preferred before it, and that is by rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yagi∣lu, not as we do did rejoyce, but, shall be much troubled, so saith, R. Tanchum v on the place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the meaning of yagilu here, is, shall be sorrowful or grieved for it; for saith he, The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gil is spoken of, (or used for) both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 joy, and the contrary 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sorrow, being of a like nature to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tarb, in Arabick, by which it may be well rendred, which signifies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 any commotion either through joy or sorrow. In the first signification of joy or rejoycing, it is used Prov. 23.24. The father of the righteous gil yagil, shall greatly rejoyce, and elsewhere frequently. In the se∣cond (as he saith) Job 3.20 in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hassemachim elai gil, which ours (as others commonly) render, which rejoyce exceedingly, but he, which (by reason of their misery and bitterness of soul that they are in which he describes in the 10 v.) rejoyce at sorrow, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at, or, when the time of sorrowing, or mourn∣ing for them is come, i. e. when they see they shall die; and are glad when they can find the grave, as there follows. The same doth Abuwalid, stiled the prince of Hebrew Grammarians, affirm of this signification of the word, and for another example produ∣ceth Psal. 2.11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which ours ren∣der by rejoyce with trembling; but as they would have it, Be moved with trembling. And a Jew, whether R. Saadiah or any other, who translated the Psalms out of Hebrew in∣to Arabic, renders it according to the like notion also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Fear him with trembling; and in a note by him added con∣firms his translation by like use of the word in this place of Hosea and the forecited of Job, and that in the Psalm; saying that it agrees in signification with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the A∣rabick, which is applyed also to fear (and any commotion from it) as well as to joy, and that he therefore thought that it so ought to be rendered in those places. The MS. Arabic version out of Hebrew, doth indeed here render it by that word, but I think rather in the signification of rejoycing, than grieving or, being moved with fear or sorrow, his words being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Be∣cause his people are grieved over (or because of) him, and his ministers which did rejoyce over him (as I suppose the sense requires it be so rendered, rather than did grieve) because of his glory which is departed from him. This is quite the same with ours; but according to the other which we have named, it would be, And his priests shall be transported with sorrow, or moved, or grieved for, or over it, for the glory thereof, &c. which is clean a different meaning, and certainly much plain∣er, if that use of the word for commotion through grief and sorrow may seem sufficiently proved, on the authority of these whom we have named (which for ought I know, is as good as of any other of the Jews) be received; yet Kimchi having heard of that way, doth not seem to assent to them, for though he doth not censure or contradict it, yet thus saith, w There be who interpret those words, and his priests, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall mourn over him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but there is no need so to do; but it may be taken as usually it sounds, in the signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 simchah joy, that so it may be interpreted, for the people thereof mourn over it, and the priests thereof 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Which rejoyced over it heretofore, but now mourn (or shall mourn over it.) Yet are there lear∣ned men who, we may think, would wil∣lingly have embraced it, as not seeming sa∣tisfied with that exposition which he looks on as satisfactory. So Drusius, having na∣med, that to wit, Qui de eo exultare sole∣bant, Which were wont to rejoyce over it, adds sic interpretes, sed videndum an sit ex ••is verbis quae contrariam significationem ha∣bent, i. e. So do interpreters expound it; but it would be considered, whether it be not among those verbs which have contrary significations. And so Rivet also, having recited that or∣dinary exposition adds, Nisi futurum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yagilu, exultabunt, per Antiphra••n accipia tur pro lugebunt, Except the future yagilu, shall rejoyce, be taken by an antiphrasis for, shall mourn, for so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying to bless, is taken in a contrary signification. Yea how little satisfied he is with the or∣dinary way, he shews by adding, That per∣haps it would be no absurd meaning to take that which is said of their rejoycing or ex∣ultation, as spoken by way of Irony, Thus

The people of the calf shall mourn, and its priests shall exult, i. e. shall now leap about as the priests thereof use to do. These we see were well disposed for entertaining the notion of sorrowing or mourning by those whom we have named, given. I have set both before the reader, and leave him to his own judg∣ment and choice, seeing according to both he will have a good sense.

Thus having spoken of the words as they are in the Hebrew read, and such mean∣ings as they are according to that reading thought capable of, we may reflect on that rendring which we find in the LXX. and such as follow them; which differs from all the rest. In the Greek therefore we have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as some read) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and in the Latin translation 'tis thus rendered Et sicut irritaverunt illum, gaudebunt super gloria ejus, quia translata est ab eo. Where instead of what is in the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ʋcemarau, and rendred and the priests there of, we see is put 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and like as they exasperated (or grieved him) and in the printed Arabick likewise follow∣ing them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and as they x angred him. Some therefore think that instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cemarau, they did read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 y cemaru or cemarayu, as from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(as it is in that signification sometimes used) as they made bitter, or grieved, taking the word in an active or transitive signification, where∣as it is elsewhere intransitive to be bitter, and making the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 c a note of simili∣tude signifying, as; others, that they read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cemarau, as if it were a participle sicut exacerbantes, as they were grievers of it, still 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 c signifying, as. But why may we not by the same liberty, of making of an intransitive a transitive without any al∣teration, think that they only took cemarau from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 camar (in which that letter is radical) to signify, making sorrowful, or grie∣ving, in the Syriac notion of the word as it signifies to be sad or sorrowful, for then it would be the grievers thereof, and that may well enough be expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as they grieved it; but Tremellius his censure on that different reading which they would have the Greek to give, is, Nullus potest elici sensus ex eorum interpretatione, That no sense can be drawn from their inter∣pretation; and indeed it were to be wished that they who find out so many different readings by reason of what they read in the Greek, by which they would have the He∣brew to be examined and judged of, would in several places give us some good mean∣ing from the Greek, that they might not expose to such harsh censures any passages in the Scripture, which certainly have al∣wayes good, and great sense in them, if interpreters do not marr it.

The sense of that reading in the Greek, according to Cyrill and z other Greek fa∣thers is, that as they had grieved (or pro∣voked) the thing spoken of, i. e. done what might justly have grieved it, if it had been a thing capable of grief, or a god as they thought it to be, sensible of his honour (as it was not, being a dead senseless image of a calf) by their taking it from its place where it was worshipped, and giving it in∣to the hand of the enemy: so they should or did rejoyce in its glory, as thinking that by this means it should be more honoured than hitherto, set up in a more stately tem∣ple by the Assyrians, and adored by more nations; whereas they were much deceiv∣ed in their expectation, their calf instead of being worshipped being by the Assyrian king broken in pieces, and as some will, found to be but guilded brass, and so cau∣sing him to deride the folly of the Ephrai∣mites. This exposition of his seems groun∣ded on an opinion that one of the calves was by a Menahem king of Israel, want∣ing other gold, given to Pul king of Assyria (to whom we read 2 King. 15.19. that he gave a thousand talents of gold) and so carried away before either Bethel or Samaria were taken. This seems a confounding of stories and times, and it is by b Ribera noted, that what some Jews say that the golden calves were before sent for a present to the king of Assyria, Ne∣que ex scriptura probare possunt, neque verum est, i. e. Can neither be proved out of Scripture, nor is true; and that they were not carried away before the captivity of the people he thinks proved from c. 8. v. 5. But we need not farther enquire after such mean∣ings, brought for justifying the Greek read∣ing, having from the Hebrew what is much plainer. We may observe that Cyril here ends this verse, and referrs the following words because it is departed from it, to the beginning of the next, in which is likewise great confusion in the Greek, as will in its place appear.

V. 6. It shall be also carried unto Assyria for a present to king Jareb: Ephraim shall receive shame, and Isra∣el shall be ashamed of his own counsel.

It shall be also carried unto Assyria for a present unto king Jareb, &c.] The first word in the Hebrew Text is the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gam, signifying, also, which shews that here is re∣spect had to something which was before said, or which was spoken of, or under∣stood, and that besides what was there said should be done, this also now spoken shall be added and done, which what it was viz. what to be understood as before spoken of, if we enquire we shall find different opinions: as, 1. That that which is meant is the car∣rying away of the people captives, as if it were said, c not only the people shall be car∣ryed away captives; but, more than so, their idol calf shall be carryed into Assyria, alluding to a custom of old (as d some observe) of con∣quering nations to carry away in triumph, the Images or Idol gods of the conquered, together with the people. 2. That it hath respect to what is in the words next before said of the calf, That its glory should depart from it, viz. That it should not only be taken down, and devested of its glory where it was, but should also be carryed away into Assyria to be given to king Jareb. So Kimchi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

This note of addition to, or multiplication, hath respect to the glory before mentioned, as much as to say, That, as its glory shall depart from it in its place, by their breaking of it, so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 its body also or the mass of it, viz. the gold in it, after the figure of it was broken, they should carry away into Assyria, to give it as a present to king Jareb.

To the same purpose likewise Abarbinel. 3. e Others think it spoken of the calf in Bethel and re∣spect to be had to the other calf which was in Dan, supposing that that was before car∣ried away, to shew that this also should now shortly be taken away. f Others think both the calves to be here spoken of. To whate∣ver respect be had in that particle, manifest it is that here it is spoken to shew what shall at last become of their adored calf, to which they gave honour, and from which they ex∣pected protection; it shall it self be carried unto Assyria for a present to king Jareb: whe∣ther by the g king of Israel, as sent for obtaining favour from the king of Assyria (as some seem to think, which at least is doubt∣ful, and perhaps not very probable) and car∣ryed to him h by the Israelites themselves: or whether carryed by the army that took it, i as no small part of their prey, and a witness of their absolute conquest over that people, whose gods they had taken; and whether by them then, when they took it, k broken in pieces, or carried to be broken, is not much material, the main thing declared being that it should be taken and carried into Assyria as a present to the king described by the name or title of king Jareb, which the Vulgar Latin renders, regi ultori, which the Doway render, to the king revenger. Agreeable is that to what the Chal∣dee hath, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the king that shall come, punitum eos, to pu∣nish them, as the ordinary Latin of it hath, or, qui ut eos ulciscatur venire solet, which was wont to come to revenge them, as Mercer, or, qui venit ad vindicandum eos, (as Pet. à Fig) which came to revenge them, and they might hope still would, having formerly sued to him that he would, but now certainly rather l to take ven∣geance on them, for the wrong done by them to God and him; and Jun. and Trem. regi propugnanti, the king that used to defend. The MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the king that contended. But others ge∣nerally look on it as a proper name either of some place, as the Syriack, who renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 temal∣co deyorob, to the king of Ja••eb, or of a per∣son, as ours with others, to king Jareb. But of this name, title or epithet we have more at large said on c. 5.13. what may there be seen, and it will not be need here to repeat, it being sufficient here to observe that by him thus described, is generally agreed to be meant the king of Assyria; to him shall their calf be carried; which certainly cannot but be both great grief and shame to them, in that they saw what they placed their trust in to be now taken from them, and for that they were so stupid as to trust in that which could no bet∣ter defend it self nor them. It is subjoyned therefore, Ephraim shall receive shame, &.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Boshnah Ephraim yikkach. In rendring these words m others also follow the same construction as ours do, making Ephraim the Nominative case and shame the Accusative. n Others invert it, Shame shall take Israel, the sense will be the same, but that which justifies the constructi∣on which ours follow, is that the Verb Yik∣kach is of the Masculine gender, and so bet∣ter agrees with Ephraim, than with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 boshnah, shame, which is of the Feminine. This shame they shall receive by being o de∣prived of their calf that they made their god, or as R. Tanchum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Confusion and shame shall seize on them, because they must put away the god which they worshipped and destroy him with their hands.

It follows, And Israel shall be ashamed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of his own counsel, viz. which he took of for∣saking the worship of the true God, and setting up calves to worship instead of him. We read 1 Kin. 12.28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vayiva∣ats hammelec, and the king took counsel. viz. the king Jeroboam, what he might do to esta∣blish the new kingdom over the ten Tribes who revolted from Rehoboam and ••he house of David, which was of setting up of two calves, the one in Bethel, the other in Dan, which the people might look upon as their gods which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and not go up to Jerusalem to worship the true God in his temple there; for his fear was, That if they should go up to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, their heart would turn again unto their lord Rehoboam king of Judah (or the house of David) and forsake him, and so their new erected kingdom would be dissolv∣ed. In this counsel the people generally assen∣ted to him, and of this counsel may we well with p many Jews and Christians think this spoken, that they should he ashamed, as seeing now to what a shameful issue it is come, end∣ing with destruction to them.

Piscator thinks by this counsel, meant their conspiracy with the king of Egypt against the king of Assyria (2 King. 17.4.) which fail∣ing, should end in shame to them. q Grotius looks upon it as to be spoken of their coun∣fel they took in thinking to put a cheat upon the king of Assyria in substituting brazen cal∣ves guilded for the golden ones, according to the story above mentioned out of Jerom: which fraud being detected, should light in shame and confusion upon them. But till we can have better assurance of that story than we have, we cannot rely on this exposition for true, but may content our selves with the first, comprehending with it all their vain counsels against God and his true religion and their devices and means used for upholding themselves in their false worship, and to be safe in their rebellion against him, which all shamefully failed them. The Vulgar rendring it what ours and others render counsel, accord∣ing to its proper signification, in voluntate sua, in his own will, gives us the same meaning in different words.

r Some take notice here of a question that may be made, how this should be looked on as an argument of the vanity of the calves, and the folly of Israel in setting them up and worshipping them, and a just cause of shame and confusion to them, that their calves were taken, broken and destroyed, whereas Gods own ark was taken, his altars pulled down, his temple destroyed, and other things by his own appointment consecrated to him and used in his service, taken away. But, besides that those things, though they were tokens of Gods presence, s were not looked on as God himself as those calves were by Israel called their gods, it is easily answered, t the case being also otherwise far different. That which happened to those things pertaining to God did not at all make to the dimi∣nution of his majesty, power and glory, but to the greater illustration of it as by his appointment done for the punishment of those who had abused them, as more trust∣ing in those outward priviledges bestow∣ed on them for incouraging them in his ser∣vice, than taking care to serve him in and by them. When they relying on them as a security to them in sinning and rebelling against him, dishonoured him under vain hopes of protection from them, he more asserted his honour in taking them from them, that they might know, That it was the God of the ark, the God of the al∣tar, and the God of the temple, and not the ark, altar, or temple that they were to confide in, thinking it enough to cry out, The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, are these, with those, Jer. 7.4. and mean while polluting by their evil dealings that temple, and causing his name by which that was called, to be blasphemed. His honour now was vindicated by depriving them of that which they thought was a necessary sign of his presence, and an obligation on him to protect them in their evil ways: and all nations seeing it could not but more ac∣knowledge both his holiness and his power in so doing, while they should not say, The Lord could not defend his temple, but on the contrary, Why hath the Lord done this un∣to this land, and to this house? and answer themselves, Because they forsook the Lord their God, &c. therefore hath the Lord brought up∣on them all this evil, as the Lord himself said he would do at the first building of the temple, though he had promised before, That he had hallowed it to put his name there for ever, and that his eyes and his heart should be there perpetually, 1 Kin. c. 9.3. and v. 8.9. So that certainly if they had used it as they ought, no enemy, without his permission, could ever have destroyed it, and if any ene∣my did at any time do what they did in

despight to him, and with contumely to his name, he shewed that as he made them in∣struments of his justice on others, so he had judgments for them where in executing it they behaved themselves proudly against him. We know he punished the Philistines for insulting over the ark, though he suffer∣ed them to take it, 1 Sa. c. 5. And though he gave up his temple to be destroyed by the Babylonian, yet seeing he exalted himself in it, to the contempt of God, we hear God threatning him (what was to the full made good) with his vengeance, the vengeance of his temple, Jer. 50.28. and c. 51. And Nebu∣chadneser though he had by his forces de∣stroyed i••, yet we hear confessing that he was still a God mighty in wonders, whose kingdom was an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion from generation to generation, Dan. 4.3. and c. 7.14. He did not think that Gods glory was lessened by the destruction of his temple built by mens hands. And we read likewise what befell his son Belshazzar for his abuse, with contempt of God, of those vessels which his father had taken out of the temple, Dan. 5.2.3.23.30. So that even by the confessi∣on of his enemies, the executioners of his judgements, who might seem to have prevail∣ed against him, in prevailing against those things that belonged to him, and were called his, and it might be therefore thought that his honour consisted in defending of them, his ho∣nour was not by any thing that they had done diminished but increased, and more manife∣sted, he still remaining in his holy place, un∣touched, and with glory inviolated, and rea∣dy to be found by them whom he had thus bereaved of those tokens of his more visible presence, if the•• should by sincere repentance turn again to him, and to give them better signs, if not the same, of his favourable pre∣sence with them, whereas here was all con∣trary in the calves which those foolish idola∣ters called their gods. These, by themselves alone, made gods, were not only deprived of that glory which they neither had in them∣selves nor were any way capable of, but had it only by their worshippers who attributed it to them, given, by being taken and carried a∣way, but of being even what they were, so much as calves, being broken into pieces, and made other things, whereby all disgrace that they were capable of, and indeed real dis∣grace, was done to them, and confusion to those who were so foolish as to adore them, and put confidence in them, so that here is re∣ally no ground for any such question.

Here is (as we above intimated no small confusion in the several copies of the LXX. as to the rendring of this verse, caused mani∣festly by error of some scribes anciently, ra∣ther than by the translatour or translatours. Which if it might be rectified, there would be found a translation very consonant to the Hebrew. Their words as given in the Lon∣don Polyglot following the Roman edition out of the Vatican copy, are, joyning the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the former v. and not to this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: of which the Latin transl. is, Et ipsum in dissyrios ligantes tulerunt munera regi Jarim, in domo Ephraim suscipiet, & confundetur Israel in con∣silio suo, which rendred into English will scarce make any intelligible sense, And bin∣ding him to (or for) the Assyrians (viz. to de∣liver him to them) they have carried it as pre∣sents to the king Jarim, he shall receive Israel in an house (or Israel shall receive in an house) and Israel shall be confounded in his counsel. The printed Arab. which follows the Greek some∣thing differently, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Latin translator ren∣ders, Et vinxerint eum ad Assyrios, efferent mu∣nera regi Jarim, affer••t Ephraim donum & erubescet Israel in consilio suo. In which he differs from the Latin translation of the Greek that whereas that renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by in do∣mo, in an house, he renders it donum, a gift, and certainly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a gift, an house being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so some observe it in some copies to be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Here is likewise to be ob∣served that in other copies and editions after the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shall receive, is put 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shame, (which answers well to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bosh∣nah in the Hebrew, to which otherwise there is nothing in the Greek to answer, except we shall say that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth (which how it will be brought to do, I know not) and then one of the two would be superfluous. No∣bilius therefore conjectures that, In domo & confusionem, videri possunt d••••ae interpretationes, May seem to be two interpretations of the same word. And Drusius saith that some think 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ought to be blotted out ut germonum glossema, as a meer gloss. If it be retained, then according to him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also ought to be re∣tained, and the meaning to be, Ephraim shall re∣ceive shame for his gift, viz. because he gave gifts to king Jareb. But I think the matter will be clearer made up, by taking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be in∣deed a diverse interpretation or gloss, but not for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or confusion, but for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or pre∣sents, and being by a former scribe put in the margin, and by some following clap'd into the Text, and then by translators put as to

the construction in a wrong place, viz. after Ephraim, whereas it should be an end of a clause before it, was the cause of this con∣fusion. For if it were aright placed in the construction and distinguished, the sense would be, And binding him (which they add for explication sake) to (or for) the Assyrians, they have carried him for presents (or other∣wise, for a gift) to king Jarim; Ephraim shall receive shame, Israel shall be ashamed of his counsel, which will then agree with the He∣brew, and all be distinct. If this be not liked, then it must be looked on as a mere addi∣tion, and the plainest rendring of it be that in Jerom, who however placeth it as we would have it placed, in the construction, ending the clause, with in domo, and begin∣ning a new one Ephraim suscipiet confusionem, Ephraim shall receive shame.

V. 7. As for Samaria, her king is cut off as the fome upon the water.

As for Samaria, her king is cut off as the fome upon the water.] Or on the face of the water, as in the margin, literally accor∣ding to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 al pe∣ne maim. He proceeds in describing the heavy judgements which shall fall on Ephra∣im, or the kingdom of the ten tribes of which Samaria was the Metropolis, which being named may include all the rest. In the preceding words, he shewed what should become of their false gods, their golden calves or idols; here, what shall become of their king who they might expect should defend them, and so (as v necessarily comprehended) the people, and their kingdom, The king of Samaria is (or is to be) cut off as the fome upon the water, i. e. is a thing of no validity, easily dis∣persed, so that no remainder of it shall ap∣pear; he shall not be able to subsist or pre∣serve himself or his kingdom. The Geneva English hath it, Of Samaria, the king thereof is destroyed, as, &c. The sense is the same, but our present reading, the clearer language. And neither of the translation, nor the mean∣ing need be made farther question. Yet seeing others do give different constructions of the words and different significations of some of them, it will not be amiss to take a more pe∣culiar view of them. In the Hebrew they be thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which literally are (supposing at pre∣sent those significations of them which ours, well I think, give) Is cut off, Samaria her king, which placing of the words our language not well admitting, necessarily requires them to be placed thus, Samaria her king is cut off, which though it self would be intelligible English, yet do ours for simply Samaria, to make it yet clearer, put As for Samaria, (to which answers in the Geneva, of Samaria) to shew that they look on it as a Noun w ab∣solutely put, not it self having influence in construction on the other words, nor by any of them governed, but as that which what is spoken doth concern. Which way of putting Nouns is x very usual, unless it be here ex∣cepted (which perhaps is of no great mo∣ment) that then usually the Noun is put in order before the other words, whereas here it is put in the Hebrew after the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nidmeh, is cut off. Others therefore in o∣ther ways make out the construction. R. Tanchum saith, That the words placed as they are may be understood, either as if it were said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sama∣ria is cut off (or perished) and her king, by sup∣plying the copulative 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ve, and; or else 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Samaria her king is cut off. Against the first of these may perhaps be z ex∣cepted, because the Verb nidmeh which should then agree with Samaria is of the masculine gender, whereas Shomeron Sama∣ria, is of the Feminine, as the affixe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 malcah her king, sheweth. But that objection as may perhaps be well enough taken away, in asmuch as one of the Nouns, viz. Melec the king, is of the Masculine. The latter way is the same that ours take, which is no more than to say, Samarias king is cut off. Aben Ezra thinks that the Verb ought, though but once expressed, yet to be twice understood in gi∣ving the sense, as if it were said, Nidmeh Shomeron, nidmeh malcah, Samaria is cut off, her king is cut off. Kimchi thinks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be in, to be understood as if it were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Besho∣meron, i. e. In Samaria her king is cut off. We may take in his observation also concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nidmeh, is cut off, that it is the Par∣ticiple of the present tense, signify is cut off, which signification many likewise here take; yet the word hath other significations also, as to be silent, and to be like, and these do others take. So R. Solomo renders it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is brought to silence, and so also the MS. A∣rabic renders it Samaria a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is made silent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with her king, as fome up∣on the face of the water, and then he requires we see 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be, or something like it, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with, to be supplied and joyned not with the Noun Samaria, but with Malcah her king. But Abarbinel saith he thinks it best to take it in the notion of likeness, that it may sound y b

(understanding the Preposition in to be joyn∣ed with Samaria as Kimchi did, following the other signification) In Samaria her king is like scum upon the face of the water, viz. Shall not long remain in her, but shall speedily go out thence as some, which swimming on the top of the water, continues but a short∣while.

Others give that Verb yet other significa∣tions, The Chaldee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Samaria is made ashamed, astonished, or confoun∣ded, with her king. Supplying and joyning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signification may well be reduced to that of being brought to silence. The LXX. render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, projecit Samaria regem suum, Samaria hath cast off her king, which not only the prin∣ted Arab. (which we know in this book fol∣lows it) agrees with, rendring, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the same word for word with it, but in this place also the Syriac having 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shedoth Shomerin Malcoh, the very same: which makes c some to conjecture that the LXX. read not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nidmeth with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 d, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nirmeh, with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 r, because the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ramah, hath the signification of casting away, or casting down, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 damah, or any form from it usually taken; but if it should be so supposed, we must ei∣ther find out some other alteration in the form of the word, or else we shall be still troubled about the construction, it being a Verb passive, and they rendring it Actively here, although below v. 15. they do it pas∣sively, as in the Hebrew it is, in the same notion. If they took here the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 r for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 d it appears they often else where also did it, where they render it by the same word (or some form from it) that they here do, which Tremellius taxeth as an oscitancy in them; but I know no reason to think they so did, the notions of casting off or away, and cutting off, or giving to be destroyed, being not so different, but that the one may be used for the other, or reduced to it. Their rendring that actively which is as to the form passive here, may be to add more weight to the ex∣pression, by intimating together with their calamity or punishment, that it proceeded from themselves. They by their wickedness whereby they provoked God to give up their king to be cut off, may themselves well be said to have cut or cast him off. For the same cause, may we think that the Vulgar Latin also instead of the passive form put the active, translating it, Transire fecit Samaria regem suum, &c, Samaria hath made her king to pass as froth upon the face of the water, (as the Doway English hath it) to make or cause to pass, I suppose may still be an ex∣pression of cutting off, or being caused to pe∣rish.

Having thus spoken of the ancienter in∣terpretations of the first words especially, of this verse, we shall the easier judge of any more modern, who do generally take the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nidmeh in the signification which ours do, of being cut off or being destroyed. In the making of the construction there is some little difference, d some supplying in before Sama∣ria, Succisus-est in Samaria rex ejus, In Sama∣ria is cut off her king. e Others with, before king; Excisa est Samaria cum rege suo, Sama∣ria is cut off with her king, f others and, exci∣sa est Samaria & rex ejus, Samaria and her king is cut off. g Others leaving out the af∣fixe and without any supply, abolebitur Sama∣riae rex, the king of Samaria shall be destroyed, or retaining it, h succisus est Samariae rex suus, or i ejus, which may be rendred, of Samaria her king (or the king thereof, as the Geneva) or perhaps plainer, at Samaria her king is cut off, or exscindetur ipsius Shomeronis rex, the king of Samaria it self shall be cut off. All these make but one meaning, and that the same which our translation doth. That by some the Verb is translated in the Present tense, as it is, by others in the Future as meant by it, though k for the certainty of it so expres∣sed, according to such promiscuous use of tenses, which we have more than once ob∣served, likewise makes no difference. As for the king spoken of, I suppose it is most generally understood properly of their king, who was then Hosea the son of Elah, spo∣ken of 2 Kin. 17. under whom and with whom Samaria was destroyed. For what l some think that by their king is meant their calf, whom they worshipped, is by m others censured as an improper meaning.

Of him it is threatned to express the sud∣deness of his destruction, That he shall be cut off as the fome upon the water. The word in the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ketseph, by ours (I think) well rendred, fome, not occurring, I suppose, elsewhere in Scripture in that sense which the place here requires, is by interpreters diffe∣rently rendred; by the Chaldee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 froth or fome caused by heat or ebullition, and escume in French, scum, as R. Sol. and n Kim. in respect to this word, R. Tanchum also by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(as the Arabick also doth) froth, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bubbles that arise on the top of the water, and as likewise Abu∣walid) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the estuati∣on and boiling thereof, and will have it to be derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifies o heat of anger; whereas p some on the contrary would have that of foming, or ebullition, to be the primary signification, and that of anger (boyl∣ing and foming anger) to be from it, the incen∣sed mind being like an heated q caldron, ca∣sting up fome and scum to the top of the water in it.

This notion of fome or froth doth the vul∣gar Latine take, rendring quasi spumam, and the same most other of the modern, and thence r some make an observation that the king of Samaria is compared to it in re∣spect to the king of Judah: viz. that as that fome on the top of the water though it swimme uppermost and be in the highest place, yet is but an excrement; so the king∣of Israel though he were (after the revolt from the house of David to which the king∣dom was first given) got uppermost and appeared more eminent, was yet really but as an excrement or scum raised up by the tumultuous rage of the people. We may allow them their opinion, but that which is by the comparison primarily intended, is certainly to shew the weak and unstable condition of him, by comparing him to a thing so easie to be taken away or disper∣sed without ability of resisting; which how it was performed on their last king Hosea, appears, 2 Kin. 17.2. The LXX. give it another explication, rendring it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cre∣mium, signifying any little light spriggs or s sticks, or dry herbs or straws, such as are used for kindling of fire, as Jerom expounds it, and the printed Arab. to the same pur∣pose 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kasshaton, and the Syriac 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gelo, which is likewise any little stick or straw: which signification of our word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ketseph is also confirmed from the use of the Arabic tongue, in which t 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signi∣fies to break, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kasif the same that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 v any thing broken from a tree; any little sticks or shivers of wood or dry herbs, or straws, any dry, frail, or shattered things. Kimchi, something, though not very much, differently explains it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the bark or peel of a tree, in which w some modern interpreters also follow him. He thinks his interpretation confirmed by what is said Joel 1.7. and my figg tree, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lik∣zaphah, to be barked, though others there o∣therwise render it; which it will not now need to examine, it being manifest that he means by it the bark, as we said, or peel of a tree.

This varietyseems caused by their not having otherwhere any proof for the pre∣cisely proper notion of this word, but mean∣while all agreeing in this, That it must sig∣nifie some very light, and easily moveable thing on water, easily removed, taken a∣way or dissipated, they render it according to their several conjectures of some such thing, and look upon as thereby denoted a sudden destruction of the the king of Sa∣maria not by any power that he had to be at all resisted or escaped. To how mise∣rable a condition he was then reduced, by comparing these words, with those above, v. 3. which shew all want of power in him to defend himself or the people, and with those below v. 15. determining his utter excision, will appear. These things in this and the foregoing verses spoken of, viz. the destruction of their idols and their king, in which they might seem to place their glory and their hopes, will necessarily be accompanyed with other ill circumstances to them; and such in the next verse, he proceeds to describe.

V. 8. The high places of Aven, the sin of Israel shall be destroyed: the thorn and the thistle shall come up on their altars; and they shall say to the mountains, Cover us, and to the hills, Fall on us.

The high places of Aven, the sin of Israel shall be destroyed, &c.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bamoth, the high places; so signifieth, and so useth to be rendred, that word in the Hebrew, as like∣wise in the Chaldee. The Greek here ren∣ders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so like the Hebrew in let∣ters and sound, that x some think it to have its original from it. That usually in Greek signifies altars, and is sometimes also used for temples. And so the printed Arab. takes them, it seems, to mean, rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

temples, and the MS. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So also the Syriack here renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Idols chap∣pels or smaller temples.) Those may all well be comprehended under the name of high places, viz. the hills or eminent places on which they built chappels and altars to their Idols, and there worshipped them. So Pi∣scator puts them together, luci & altaria in excelsis collibus posita, the groves and altars placed on high hills, and so Zanchi, nomine Bamoth veniunt altaria & sacella, and that not only in Bethel but Dan also. These are called the high places of Aven, by y which name is probable, and by most thought, to be meant the same that by Bethaven, v. 5. and c. 4.15. and by both, as the Chal∣dee paraphrast hath, Bethel, which being by reason of the great wickedness there com∣mitted, so unworthy of its first name, the house of God, is in contempt, first called the house of iniquity, and now iniquity it self in the abstract, this being the signification of Aven. The author of the Vulgar Latin takes it for the idol it self, rendring it ex∣celsa idoli, which the Doway gives in En∣glish harsh enough the excelses of the idol: and indeed it well deserves so to be called in the worst signification that Aven can have. Take it how you will, the matter will be still the same.

These high places of Aven have this as an epithet bestowed upon them, that they are the sin of Israel; both the places and the things there having been occasion of sin to them, and deserving that note which God set upon them when Jeroboam first erected them, that they became a sin, 1 Kin. 12.30. even to all Israel, which is here, though not there, expressed, and on him for erecting them was this brand set, that he did sin, and made Israel to sin, there c. 14.16. What for this sin God threatned to them from the begin∣ning, in that and the preceding verse is, now, it appears, coming upon them, and of those things which then and ever since they made occasion to themselves of sinning, it is said, that they shall be destroyed, yea 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nishmedu, they have been destroyed, as certainly as if already. Those places accoun∣ted sacred by them and frequented with great devotion, and no doubt kept beautifed and adorned, shall now be so neglected, laid so wast and desolate, that the thorn and the thistle shall come up on their altars them∣selves: an expression denoting certainly that they were now altogether neglected and made no use of. The like have we above c. 9.6. where to express the desolation of the places spoken of, it is said, That net∣tles shall possess them and thorns be in them, as elsewhere also words to the same pur∣pose though not precisely the same, yet all tending to the same end, are used, as we have there observed. And this desolation of the places and things therein cannot but at once give us to conceive some great evil to the people themselves also. For had they been in that condition in which they for∣merly were, when they increased altars and made goodly images (as v. 1.) those zealots in Idolatry would not have been so neglect∣ful as to have suffered things so to be; the being of them so must needs argue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as Abarbinel speaks, The want of mens coming thither, either through defect of people, or their being detain∣ed by something extraordinary befalling them.

This we might well conceive though nothing more were said, than this concerning the place; but here is expresty added what concerns those evils which should befall the people, also, and hinder them from frequenting and visit∣ing, as formerly, those high places and altars, and taking such care of them as formerly, viz. such anguish and tribulation as should make them say to the mountains, Cover us, and to the hills, Fall on us. No pleasure shall they have more in going up to those high places; they could rather wish to be buried under them, or any other mountains and hills. Great must be their anguish and per∣plexity of mind, who shall so wish for death rather than life; for no less than that do those words manifestly import. We read that the Israelites upon imminent dangers from the incursion of enemies, made to themselves dens and caves in mountains to hide in, Judg. 6.2. and to such custome respect seems to be had Isa. 2.10. Enter into the rock and hide thee in the dust, and v. 19. &c. And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth for fear of the Lord, &c. in which place in the mar∣gin is noted this here as parallel to it, as here, that: and to that custome y some think respect to be had in this proverbial ex∣pression: and Grotius seems to think that which they shall desire to be, latere velin abstru∣sissimis speluncis, that they might be hid in the obscurest caves. But certainly here is more meant than so: even that they might be overwhelmed and crushed to death by the fall of any such things, rather than to live in such misery as is now come on them to the scorn and derision of their enemies, or the like. The like expression is used in the New Testament also, as by Christ Luke 23.30. to describe the misery that the Jews

shall be brought to at the destruction of Je∣rusalem. And Rev. 6.15.16. where both hiding themselves in dens and rocks, and wishing, as here, are joyned in respect to the same, as z some, or to the last judgment as a others; not that Hosea here prophesied of those things there spoken of, (as b some think but by c others are censured for it) but particularly of what should befall Israel, which for the likeness of the calamities are made use of to express what should befall others, causing them through anguish and despair to wish rather to be taken away by any sudden or unusual death, than to live in such miserie as they are in.

It seems a little strange that Aben Ezra cites out of one R. Moses that these words and they shall say to the mountains, &c. should be referred to the altars (as supposing them sensible of the neglect now had of them, and the disgrace done unto them) as if they should wish to be covered and no more appear: but he presently cites the opinion of Ja∣pheth referring them to the worshippers of them, who should so say by reason of their great affliction. He passeth not his censure on either of them, but I suppose looks on the second as the righter, as it is generally ta∣ken to be: so that we have in the Verse, both what respects the places of their Ido∣latrous worship, and them the worshippers. to the places and things being threatned de∣struction and desolation, to the persons such calamities as shall make their life tedious to them and worse than any kind of death; so that they should wish to die rather than live as they do. These punishments shall their idolatry, and these sins of which they have been all along taxed, bring on them: which for clearing Gods justice, are in the next words farther aggravated.

V. 9. O Israel, thou hast sinned from the dayes of Gibeah: there they stood: the battel in Gibeah against the chil∣dren of iniquity did not overtake them.

O Israel thou hast sinned from the days of Gibeah: there they stood, &c.] Divers and very diffe∣rent expositions of this verse are given; though it be by the most agreed that respect is had to the history of the war by the rest of the tribes undertaken against the Benja∣mites, who defended that foul fact of the inhabitants of Gibeah in their abuse of the Levites concubine, which is recorded in the 19. and 20. chapters of the book of Judges. In which war is remarkable, as to the Israe∣lites, that they were twice smitten by the Benjamites; then, as for the Benjamites, that they were utterly overcome and destroyed except six hundred men which escaped. Now some will have what is here spoken to be referred to what concerns the condition of the Israelites at that time, others to what concerns that of the wicked Benjamites. A∣gain as to the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 me rendred by ours from, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mime Hagibeah, from the dayes of Gibeah, d some will have it to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mim, a particle pointing out time, that so it may be an aggravation of their sin from their long continuing in it, ever since the time spoken of: e others to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mim, taken for a note of comparison or excess, denoting more than, and so it will be an aggravation of it by comparing it to a∣nother great and notorious sin, and affirming it to be greater than that was. And their difference concerning this, is a chief occasion of their giving different meanings of the o∣ther words, as in reciting some of them we shall see.

Both of those accpetions have their abet∣tors, both among Jews and Christians anci∣ent and modern. Among such as take it to signifie, from, we may reckon the Chaldee: though the time which he refers it to, be not that which (as we have said) is more gene∣rally agreed on; he referring it to the time of their electing Saul king at Gibeah, and so rebelling against God, for which cause they were not acocunted worthy to have the kingdom continued to them, but were in∣vaded by (or, there came up to them) men of war who slew the fathers with the chil∣dren. But in this he is not approved by the Jews themselves, who otherwise have him in great esteem, but censured for an exposi∣tion no way apposite to the purpose. A∣mong them also are the LXX. who render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the time that the hills were, and so the printed Arabic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ex quo fuerunt colles. By which time, what time they mean is not so easie to say. Cyril and Theoph. understand it of those f high places set apart for idolatrous worship, by Solo∣mon before the calves set up by Jeroboam, but perhaps considering how Gibeah though a proper name, is else where rendred by the LXX. according to its signification of a hill, as in this prophecy c. 5.8. and 9.9. though they put it in the plural number, hills, or a hilly place, it may be particularly meant by them of the place peculiarly so called, as if from since the hills, may sound since the fact of what was done at the hills viz. Gi∣beah, as it is likewise by the Syriac rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; romtho, the hill, and so the time de∣signed

to be the same which is by many modern here taken to be understood by the dayes of Gibeah, viz. the time of that war a∣gainst the Benjamites the inhabitants of that place; so that what is objected against the Israelites is, That from that time they sin∣ned, or were then guilty, and ever since con∣tinued so to be. Their putting it in the third person, Israel hath sinned, as likewise the Vul∣gar Latin puts it, peccavit, though in the He∣brew it be in the second, O Israel thou hast sinned, makes no difference as to the mean∣ing.

These things I note by the way, that they may not interrupt us in our proceeding. That which at present we intend by mention∣ing them is to shew that they take the particle forementioned to signifie from, and to denote the time since when they are said to have sin∣ned; so doth also the Vulgar Latin, and ma∣ny modern take it, and among the Jews R. Salomo and Kimchi; but those that in this agree, and generally, that by the dayes of Gibeah is meant the time of the war there as we said, yet in the farther expounding of the words, do wonderfully differ among them∣selves. As for the sin that they are taxed of, while he saith, O Israel thou hast sinned, it is as by S. Jerom and several g Christian ex∣positors, so by R. Salomo and Kimchi, thought to have been the sin of idolatry, which while they punished the lewd fact of the men of Gibeah, they countenanced among them∣selves in suffering the Danites to set up the graven image which they had taken from Mi∣cah, and continued it all the time that the house of God was in Shilo, as appears Judg. 18.30, 31. This seems to have ground for it, but that of some who agreeably to the Chaldee would have it to be meant of their choosing Saul king at Gibeah, h by some ci∣ted and censured, seems to have none.

We may with i others look on the words without particular inquiring into the sin, as an accusation of them more in general, to have been even then in the time, and ever since the time of that war against Gibeah, guilty of hainous sins, as hainous as that of the men of Gibeah, and that they continued to grow and increase in them, so to declare that it was not of late only that they became guilty of such crimes as deserved those judg∣ments that God now threatned against them, though he had hitherto in great mercy spared them, and to shew how justly they deserve these punishments for their so long and per∣tinacious continuing in their sins and not re∣penting of them.

What follows 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sham amadu, there they stood, is also very differently inter∣preted, the change of the person from the se∣cond spoken to, O Israel thou hast sinned, to the third, and that in a different number, they stood, makes place for a question, whe∣ther he who is in the second clause the person spoken of, be the same that in the first is spo∣ken to, and expressed to be Israel, or some other. And different opinions there be about it. k A learned man thinking it not to be the same, viz. Israel who made war against Gi∣beah, but Benjamin who defended it; and of them understood some will have it to import with the following words, That there the Gi∣beonites stood, that is, stood to it, or in defence of their fowl fact stood in battel against the rest of the Israelites, and did twice obtain the victory, slaying of them who came against them fourty thousand. They were indeed at last overcome and slain most of them, yet so as there remained of them some, (viz. six hun∣dred) whom the war against those wicked ones did not overtake, as which reliques of them he looks on these Israelites now, not in person but in wickedness even the same, and saith that as yet, any such war hath not overtaken them, i. e. they have not yet been punished for their sins as the other whom war destroyed, and this after a profession that he had taken great pains in finding out the me∣thod and meaning of the prophets words be∣ing very obscure, he saith, Sine dubio genuina est sententia versus noni, Is without doubt the meaning of the ninth verse; although I think what he gives is obscure enough. In like manner do l others also look on it as spoken of the Ben∣jamites, to declare how it was with them in that time, and intimating what ill use the present Israelites made of it for hardening themselves in their sins by hope of escaping still as those did then, though vainly as the following words will shew.

But the way more generally taken, is to un∣derstand them not of the Gibeonites, but the Israelites, that there stood. But what is meant by their standing there, is not so easily agre∣ed. There they stood, i. e. say some, in their evil courses. There Israel m repressit gradum, ne ultra ambularet in viis Domini, stood or stop∣ped themselves from walking in the wayes of the Lord, and therefore war shall not overtake them, or captivity seize on them n for Gibe∣ahs sake, (seeing in that they did well viz. in punishing those sinners) but according to my desire will I chastise them, &c. saith Jerom. o There (or then) they ceased to walk in the wayes of the Lord, p or (which is but the same in other terms) persisted ever since in their idolatrous courses as pertinaciously as

the Gibconites in defence of the lewdness act∣ed among them. Which last expression is that which q Calvin also approves, Ab eo tempore fuerunt pertinaces in suis sceleribus, From that time were they pertinacious in their wickedness: though he mention two other expositions, viz. one of some who understand it as if it were meant, That there they (viz. the other tribes of Israel) stood, i. e. would have de∣sisted from war, because they did not at the first prevail against the Benjamites, as faint∣ing in their hearts through incredulity, and thinking they had been deceived by God who incouraged them for undertaking that war, and so not giving due honour to God, for which they justly deserved reproof. A se∣cond, as if by their being put to a stand there, and not presently getting the victory, were intimated that even then and there God by that means had warned them that they were as great sinners as the Gibeonites, though they did then execute the judgement of God upon them; but he prefers that which we in the first place named, and he in the last, of their pertinacious standing or persisting to go on in their wickedness, so that they were come up to the highest degree of it. Accor∣ding to him the meaning of the following words, The battel in Gibeah against the chil∣dren of iniquity did not overtake them, will be either that they are said, to shew that this, viz. that God then so severely dealt with the Gi∣beonites, and spared them, ought not to make them confident, because that war did not o∣vertake them to their utter destruction, that he would still spare them; but that if not such a war, yet a worse, tending to their ut∣ter destruction, should overtake them, seeing what was then done brought them not to re∣pentance, though he had deferred it hitherto; or else (which he prefers) that the war of Gi∣beah 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lo tassigem, did not ap∣prehend them, viz. did not work on them to take due notice of it, and to be brought to re∣pentance, by the example of Gods severe judg∣ment on the Gibeonites. But (though he ci∣ting it also do not so much approve it) I think with r others, that if their standing be so un∣derstood, it would be the plainest way to read the last words with an interrogation, And shall not such a war as that in Gibeah overtake them? viz. to consume them as that did the Benjamites. Equivalent to this seems that of Kimchi though without an interrogation, with a little supply of thinking, or they do think.

They, though by reason of their like wic∣kedness, and their obstinate persisting in it without repentance, they may seem to have stood, or been in those times as Gibeah,

yet do think that such a war shall not overtake them, as did then the Benjamites, and that they shall not be destroyed by the sword of the enemy. As it did overtake those then, so shall it overtake these now. Let them not think that it shall not. This is the scope of his words.

But s others make the meaning of standing to be otherwise, viz. That they stood in bat∣tel, fought it out, and though twice beaten for punishment of the t idolatry and other sins that were among them, yet remained the most part of them, and were at last conquerours, v as being then punishers of sin, viz. of the lewdness of the Gibeonites.

But then they who in this meaning of that word agree, differ in the rendring and ex∣pounding the following words, some rendring (as ours) The battel in Gibeah against the chil∣dren of iniquity, w did not overtake them, x others, shall not overtake them. The reason of which difference is because the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tassi∣gem, being in form of the Future tense, doth indeed properly signify, will, or shall overtake them, but by reason of the promiscuous use of that Tense, which hath been formerly ob∣served, may be as the sense shall require ren∣dred either in the Preter or Imperfect, hath overtaken, or did overtake. If it be taken in this latter way (as by ours it is) it is but a far∣ther explication of what is meant by the for∣mer words, there they stood, viz. remained and were not quite destroyed. If in the former, viz. as the Future, then will it be a negative expression including an affirmative; the ne∣gative, The battel in Gibeah, viz. such a bat∣tel as was there against those lewd sinners whether understood of the Benjamites, or Is∣raelites, shall not overtake them, which though it there consumed most of them against whom it was, and many of those that waged it, yet did not totally destroy either of them; the affirmative included and inferred, but y a worse shall now overtake these, viz. such where∣in they shall all be taken away by the Assyri∣ans, and not be able to resist. z Others in this way supply, thinking or saying, that that war should not overtake them, because they had a just cause which would bear them out, and give them the victory; or if it be so rendred in the Future tense, here also would well seem to be place for an interrogation, but though they then stood, and God saved them then, shall not now such a war overtake them obstinately persisting in their idolatrous cour∣ses? So doth the Syr. (as the Latin translatour of it, I think, well takes it, though it it be no interrogative particle expressed) since the days

of Romtho (the hill or Gibeah) thou hast sinned O Israel, should they there stand, and the war in the hill not overtake the wicked children? though the interrogation so put have influence on more of the words than in the former way, taking in those, should they there stand, also as well as the following.

Cocceius gives a different rendring from any of these, A diebus Gibeae peccasti Israel, ibi qui steterunt, non attinget eos in Gibea bellum contra filios injustitiae vel elationis, i. e. From the dayes of Gibeah thou hast sinned, O Israel; those that there stood, the war in Gibeah against the sons of wickedness or of height shall not over∣take them. This rendring of his is made up with an easie supply of qui, in qui steterunt, those that stood, and might receive a literal ex∣plication to a good meaning; yet because it is by him directed to a mystical one, which I think, is by none but himself followed, I shall not insist on it, only I shall take occasi∣on from his double interpretation of these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bene alvah, filios injustitiae, sons of wickedness, & clationis, sons of height or pride, to speak something of that word, ac∣cording to what others also say of it, and make use of in their translations and expositi∣ons.

It is therefore by most said that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 al∣vah is by transposition of letters the same that a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 avlah wickedness or iniquitie, or per∣verseness. There are examples of like transpositi∣on of letters in words without alteration of the signification, as in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zaavah, Deut. 28.25. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zavaah, in Isa. 28.19. commotion, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 falmah and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 samlah, both a garment, &c, This is by most b both Jews and Christians taken for granted, and there∣fore it is usually referred to the Theme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aval, signifying to be evil, or do what is evil or perverse. Yet do others look on it as from a different Theme, and of a different significati∣on, to wit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Alah, to ascend or be on high. So manifestly the Chaldee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whe∣ther it be taken for a Verb, they ascended, as in the Latin translation, or for a Nown (as by c Schindler) ascensionis of height; and so R. So∣lomo renders it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 height or pride, by which he saith are meant the Benjamites 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Who made them∣selves high, or, uppermost, and hearkened not to the voice of their brethren to deliver to them the Gibeonites. Among modern writers, Lud. de Dieu is also of that opinion, who saith that the obstinacy of the Gibeonites seems here described, who refused to hearken to their brethren, as thinking they had no need to fear any danger from that war, by reason of the confidence that they had in viris suis d excelsis & sublimibus, i. e. their tall stout men, As for those words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lo tussigem ba Gibeah milchama, ren∣dred, the war in Gibeah did not (or, shall not) overtake them, R. Solomo also seems to give different construction, which may sound, The war in Gibeah against the sons of height (the Benjamites) did not succeed to them. In a dif∣ferent manner Drusius also, Non assecuti sunt filios iniquitatis, They did not overtake, or, prevaeil against the children of iniquity in the war which they made with the Benjamites.

All this hath been said for illustrating such meanings as they give who render, From the days of Gibeah, which seems the most obvious way of rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mime ha Gi∣beah. But there are (as we said) others of good authority, and those both of Jews and Christians also, who prefer to render it, more than the days of Gibeah, that is, more than in those dayes, supplying in. In this way the dayes of Gibeah will seem to be a e proverbial expression for setting forth of great and enor∣mous wickedness, as great as that which was by the Gibeonites, in that story of them said to have been committed. And so it may seem to be, by what is above said c. 9.9. They have deeply corrupted themselves as in the days of Gibeah. This way of rendring, among the Jews Aben Ezra takes, by explaining it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yother, more than, and then giving for the meaning of the following words, that he speaks of the sinners of his generation, as if they had stood with the Benjamites which were sons of iniquity, yet did not now fear that war should overtake them, as it overtook the Benja∣mites, from the other tribes. R. Tanchum also saith, that the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mim or m here prefix∣ed hath the signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Arab. i. e. more than, and expounds the whole, That their sins are increased, and are now more than the sins of the tribe of Benjamin in Gibeah, yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for all this they remain, and war hath not over∣taken them, as it overtook those wicked ones of the children of Benjamin. Which is spoken as looking on it as a strange thing that they should be so long forborn. And he saith that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Al in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Al bene alvah (by ours and others ren∣red, Against the children of iniquity) is as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 im with. With his exposition much agrees the MS. Arabic translation which is (as written in Hebrew letters, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which as the words in him lie, literal∣ly sound, Plus quam dies (or in diebus) Gibeah

peccasti, O Israel, ibi steterunt, non assecutum est eos bellum in Gibeah cum populo injuriae (or, cum injuriosis) i. e. More than the dayes (or in the dayes) of Gibeah, hast thou sinned, O Israel, there they stood, (there) overtook them not in Gi∣beah war with the people of iniquity. But he notes withall, that it may be rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the time of Gibeah.

Abarbinel likewise, as to the first words takes the same way, viz. Thou hast sinned more than in the dayes of Gibeah, as looking on the other way of rendring, since the dayes of Gi∣beah, not to be so probable, seeing it is not probable that in the dayes of Samuel, Saul and David there should have been found idolaters in Israel, that they should be now taxed for continuing all along, since those times of Gi∣beah, in that sin. And so taking the first words to signifie, More than in the dayes of Gibeah, to make out the meaning of the following words he adds in the next a supply of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 im if, making 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sham amadu, to be as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 if they had stood there, and so the following words with them to sound, had these people of Samaria and Ephraim stood there, (or been there) at that time, the war against those children of iniquity (viz. the wicked Benja∣mites) would not have overtaken them (or con∣cerned them) i. e. none of them would have un∣dertaken that war, as being themselves guilty of greater sins and so probably would not have been zealous of punishing them, whose evil deeds they did imitate or surpass. Of this exposition Jacob Abendana f saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that it is right, or convenient, and indeed if we allow of his supply, which is but easy, it makes a plain and good meaning, as compa∣ring these now more wicked people, with those of their progenitors who had so much goodness and righteousness in them as moved them to seek to revenge that lewdness, in o∣thers which these now approve of and outdo in themselves.

Among Christians who do so look on the words as sounding more than, we have the Tigur. Version, which renders thus, Plus pecca∣sti, O Israel, quam isti in diebus Gibeah, Thou hast sinned more, O Israel, g than those in the dayes of Gibeah, and then reads the other words with an interrogation, Ibi steterunt, non apprehendet eos proelium in Gibeah quod erat contra filios iniquitatis? i. e. There they stood, shall not the war in Gibeah which was against the children of iniquity overtake them? Rivet also, who looks on the first words as to be compa∣ratively taken, and makes the meaning of the whole to this sense, that Israel was now guilty of greater sins than those in the times of Gibeah; then (at that time) they (i. e. Israel) stood though at the first, twice beaten, and loosing many men, yet were at last conquerours; but now there shall over∣take them, not such a war, but a more severe one, wherein they shall be totally overthrown, and all either slain, or taken away captives. These I look on as chief of the many different ren∣drings and expositions of this Verse, and such as any other which we shall find may be redu∣ced to. If any shall ask why we reckon up so many, I must say by the way of apologie, that which one of them in the same case useth for his doing the like, That it was ut quisque in obscuro loco sequatur quod placet, that every one in so obscure a place may follow what liketh him best. Our translatours choose to render the first words, Thou hast fi••ned from, i. e. in, the days of Gibeah, and ever since, and the meaning of the whole according to them seems to be, That the Israelites were even in and from those dayes great sinners, guilty, many of them, of idolatry and other hainous sins, yet then, and hitherto they stood; and though many of them then fell, yet were they not totally destroyed, in that war against the wicked Benjamites: intimating that they now thought it should be so still with them, but that these were vain thoughts; for there should a worse war overtake them, which should utterly take them all away. That it was Gods purpose now ere long to bring such a de∣structive war upon them, the next v. declares.

V. 10. It is in my desire that I should chastise them: and the people shall be gathered against them, when they shall bind themselves in their two furrows.

It is in my desire that I should chastise them, &c.] It is by most looked on as the scope of this verse, that though God had hitherto spared them, and they thereon grew insolent and se∣cure, yet he now declares his determinate purpose of punishing them, and shews by what means and where or why he would so do. But as for the particular meaning and signification of some of the words, there is very much difference amongst interpreters, the occasion or ground of which we shall best perceive by going over them in order. The first words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beivati Veesarem, which are rendred, It is in my desire that I should cha∣stise them, taken in that signification which ours take them sound literally, h In my desire and I will chastise them, which in ours and o∣ther languages making but an imperfect meaning, is by translators made more plain, in the language which they write in, as they think most agreeable to the sense. By ours so as we see, by the Vulgar Latin, Juxta de∣siderium

meum corripiam eos, According to my de∣sire I will chastise them, and by others both Jews and Christians to the same purpose; most agreeing in this that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ivati sig∣nifies my desire, or my will, or purpose. Only the Chaldee though to the same mean∣ing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i Bimemri, By my word I have brought on them chastisements. The Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In increpatione mea erudiam eos, In my rebuke I will chastise them. But the most difference is in the Greek by reason of some confusion in the copies thereof, in some of which is k nothing at all that may answer to it, and the next word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is joyned to the end of the preceding verse, did not o∣vertake them to chastise them, but in other co∣pies is, l 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(or m 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) it came to chastise them, viz. that war, as n if it were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 baah came, where if in stead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as others) we should think was written at first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he desired, or rather 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I desired, or willed to chastise them, it would answer to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beivati, it is in my desire, and so there would be no need of what is in o some copies added, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to my desire; which being taken, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 would be redundant. The printed Arabick which follows the first of these readings, hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The war against the children of iniquity came that it might chastise them. It is manifest that through difference, or mistake among the Scribes or copiers, there is a confusion made in the Greek copies. It will not be to our purpose farther to examine them, or to judge between them. Our way will be to follow that meaning which the Hebrew (the word being in that signification as we said) and o∣thers following it, give, which is as we have seen, It is in my desire, or it is my purpose, or in my will, to (or that I may) chastise them, or ac∣cording to my desire, or, p according to my will and pleasure, I will chastise them, or q valde cupide, very desireously. Which expression will sound as if God should say that provoked by their sins he did even thirst after revenge upon them, and would satisfie the thirst or desire of his wrath by chastising them (according to what is said, Deut. 28.63. that as he rejoyced over them to do them good, &c. so he would re∣joyce over them to destroy them, which must then be understood of God r in the language of men, or as they would speak among themselves and one of another, and judging of the cause by the effect, for that in God is no such passion as thirst after revenge and pleasure in taking it or desire of doing evil to any, but his pur∣pose of executing justice on them according to their desert is thereby expressed.

And in this way the chastisements which he threatens to bring upon them seem to be s such punishments as he will bring on refra∣ctory impenitent sinners, not such as out of love he sendeth on his children when they err from the right way, to reduce them to it. Yet of these last doth R. Tanchum seem to under∣stand them, who saith they are thus interpreted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 t Because of my desire (or good will) to them I will chastise them. If it be so taken, then may it be doubtful whether it may be compared for directing us in the sense with what is said, u Whom the Lord loveth he correcteth, Prov. 3.12. or with what he saith Amos 3.2. You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore will I punish you for all your iniquities. Except we should rather understand it according to the promiscuous use of tenses often before mentioned, of w such punishments as God had before or did at present inflict on them, in hope of, or respect to, their conversion (I did or do chastise you) than of a final destructi∣on threatned to them, as having filled up the measure of their wickedness and past hope of recovery. And indeed as those which we have mentioned do interpret the words of what should befall them, so are there others who interpret them of what had been already done; so as we have seen the Chaldee to do, and so the MS. Arabick, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In my desire I did chastise them, and the people were gathered against them, and so R. Solomo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 According to my will I have continually chastised them, from judge to judge, and delivered them into the hands of them that spoiled them.

Among Christians also, Capito, Per cupi∣ditatem meam, & castigavi eos, & congregati sunt contra eos populi, &c. Thus giving the meaning, Earnestly and acording to the purpose of my mind, by which I threatned in the curses, heavy things to the transgressours of the law, I suf∣fered

them not freely to transgress, but that *I might put from them hurtful security, I joyned pu∣nishment to their sins, and chastised them not only by the words of the prophets, which yet I sent be∣fore my punishment as friendly monitors; but also endeavoured to deterr them from confidence in men by enemies gathered together for destroying them. But the former way of understanding it of punishments yet to come, may, as by the most it is embraced, so seem plainer. Mean while as to the first word, as these named and also x Lud. de Dieu do agree, so do also many o∣thers, who yet as to the second do differ from them, rendring it, that I should bind them: the ground of which is that y some take the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 veesarem, to be from the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yasar, to correct or chastise; others from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Asar, to bind, and this do z ma∣ny of good authority take. But though be∣tween them be some difference as to the strict signification of the word, and the Grammar or grammatical form of the word, which ac∣cording to either is something a irregular, yet as to the scope both concur as a description of punishment to them, which according to the first is more general, according to the second, restrained to the manner or nature of it, that it should be his binding them, or delivering them to the enemy by him to be bound and carryed captives, which we may well think to be meant.

The next words declare the means by which that punishment shall be brought upon them, in what he saith, And the people shall be gather∣ed against them, whether the Conjunction ve be rendred as it is by ours and others and, as it most usually sounds, or as by others b therefore, and by others c for, or d because, it makes no dif∣ference; any of them shewing what is said in these words to depend on and to be inferred from what was said in the foregoing concern∣ing his purpose of punishing them; and so will it be also if the Verbs be taken in the Pre∣ter tense, as by some we have observed them to be. How will I chastise them? by the hand of the people which shall be gathered against them (saith Aben Ezra) It is in my will or desire to chastise them. Because they receive not chastise∣ment from me, by my prophets who in my name re∣buke them, I will chastise them by the hands of the people which shall be gathered together against them (Kimchi). Such are the means by, or manner in, which he will execute his purpose of chastising them. As all the other tribes were gathered against Benjamin at Gibeah (as in the former v.) to destroy them, so (though that war did not overtake them) now shall against them (i. e.) the children of Ephraim (or the ten tribes) divers people and nations be gather∣ed to destroy them, saith Abarbinel, God though he then and hitherto spared them, ha∣ving now in his desire or purpose no longer to bear with them, but to punish them, and that e not by wars among themselves so as that the conquering part should still remain, but by forraign nations, as the Assyrians and others, who should come against them all without sparing any, and this not by chance, but by f Gods directing, ordaining and sending them.

When or why things shall be so with them the next words declare 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beofram lishte onotham, which ours render in the Text, When they shall bind themselves in their two furrows; but in the margin put two other different rendrings, 1. When I shall bind them for their two transgressions. 2. When I shall bind them in their two habitations. Which variety by them noted intimates the words to be of something doubtful interpretation. And indeed when we consider what other dif∣ferent rendrings and expositions of them we meet with, we shall have occasion so to think. As for the first word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beosram, ren∣dered, When they shall bind themselves, there is the same difference which we vaw concerning the former Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 veesarem, some taking it in the notion of chastising, some of binding, as if the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Asar and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yasar, were of promiscuous signification, and so that word here might literally be rendered, as it is by some g in corripere (or in corripiendo) eos, in cha∣stising them (i. e. when I shall chastise them, or they shall be chastised) or in vincire (or in vin∣ciendo eos) in binding them, or their binding, when they shall be bound, or when they shall bind.

The sormer of these notions take those an∣cientest interpreters, the LXX. and the Vul∣gar Latin, the Greek rendring, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which in the Latin is rendred, Quan∣do correpti fuerint, when they shall have been cha∣stised; by the printed Arabic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That they may be chastised. The Vulgar Latin cum corripientur, and the Syriac in the same notion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 When they are, or shall be chastised; and so some more modern viz. the Interlineary as we have seen, and Oecolampadius Corripiam eos. By most others whether Jews or Christians it is taken in the notion of binding. So by the Chaldee, and

Abuwalid and R. Tanchum interpreting it in the same notion as it is used in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sam. 6.7. And tie the kine, and so h by other Jews, and as for modern Christian in∣terpreters by the most of them. But sup∣posing the word may (according to these au∣thorities) be in either of these wayes indiffe∣rently taken, which of them will give the most convenient meaning we shall not be able well to judge, till we see what is also the meaning of the following words which this is applyed to, or joyned with in construction, of which if the meaning were clear and certain, it were perhaps easie to reconcile those who concerning this so far differ as we have said. But now things so far differ as to that, as to make it very difficult, if possible, to settle any sixed meaning in which all shall agree. So ma∣ny and so wide are the significations which are attributed to the following word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by ours rendred furrows, as that applying to them the word in either of the notions men∣tioned will make such variety of senses as will make it very doubtful how to state a certain meaning. Besides those already mentioned from the text, and from the margin in our tran∣slation, viz. of furrows, transgressions (or iniqui∣ties) habitations, there are also others given, as eies, and plowing heifers, of which while some prefer one, some another, and differ in other circumstances, necessarily follows such variety of rendrings and interpretations, (the author of every one thinking himself rightest) as that a reader cannot easily settle his judge∣ment among them. That we may afford the best help we can to him, I think the plainest way will be, first, to see of what sort they are, and then to see what is the ground of the difference between them, particularly as to the last word which is the main occasion of all this variety.

Some, therefore, render, When they shall be chastised i for their two iniquities, or transgressi∣ons, as ours in the margin. For understanding what they mean by those two iniquities, Je∣rom, as likewise Cyril, cites out of Jerem. 2.13. My people have committed two evils, they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns that hold no water; though those words be there spo∣ken of k the Jews rather than of Israel hither∣to here meant. That, though he give others, which he seems to look on as best, is to un∣derstand them of the two calves in Dan and Bethel, and that is here liked by l most who render the word by iniquities or transgressions, m others by two iniquities think meant idolatry and whoredom, fornication spiritual and car∣nal, wherein they exceeded the Gibeonites who were guilty of carnal only. By two, n others mean many transgressions. 2. Others retain that signification of the Noun but not of the Verb before it, as in our o margin, When I shall bind them for their two transgressions, or they shall be joyned to, or for, two transgressions, as the Tigurin note hath it. When they have, or seeing, or as, they have, bound and joyned to themselves, i. e. bound and joyned themselves to, their two transgressions, i.e. their two calves, as Abarbinel, or tunc vincientur propter duo pec∣catae sua, as Grot. or alligando eos, by binding them, or cum vinciente eos, i. e. the people shall be gathered against them, with a captain that shall bind them to carry them into captivity, and to an hard bondage for their two sins, as Rivet, or cum suis utrique criminibus constringerentur, as Castalio, though referring the words not to those which others do, viz. the Israelites of the present generation, but to the Gibeonites, and those of that time, as if they were to be joyned with those of the preceding verse, so as to make the sense of both to be, From the time of Gibeah thou hast sinned, O Israelite, where they stood, not to be overtaken at Gibeah by the war against the wicked men, whom p I willing, or of my will, so punished, that the people were q gathered to them, when, or seeing, both were bound with their sins. But I think the constru∣ction of the words will not well bear this on any grammatical examination.

3. Others, with a different signification of the Noun also, and these differently, some ta∣king it to signify furrows; which by r some hardly censured as ineptum inconvenient, yet do many (the most I may say) choose to fol∣low, and among them ours who render it, When they shall bind themselves in their two fur∣rows, or as the Geneva hath it, When they shall gather themselves, explaining it in their note, that is, when they have gathered s all their strength together: and so do many others take it in that signification, yet to the making of dif∣ferent meanings, accordingly as they different∣ly understand the persons who it is said shall so bind them. Ours we see understand it of them themselves, When they shall bind themselves, so Munster, Quod coadunaverint, or colligaverint se in duobus sulcis suis, understanding it of Judah and Ephraim, who joyned themselves in the way of iniquity together, as two heifers who are coupled in one yoke, for making furrows and plowing, as in his note he explains it, al∣though

he saith, others conceive it to be spoken only of the t Israelites, Qui soliti fuerant in u∣tramque claudicare coxam, and so we may sup∣pose to leap or incline from furrow to fur∣row. He seems in what he saith in the first place, to follow Kimchi, who saith that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 onoth signifieth furrows; and that he likens v Judah and Ephraim to two hei∣fers, and that he bid them to plow well, but that they plowed ill, and bound themselves together and associated themselves to do that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, and adds, that they thus bound themselves in (or to) their two furrows, when Josaphat contracted affinity with Ahab king of Israel, and Joram his son did evil in the sight of the Lord, &c. Vatablus also follows him, as to the last part, expounding it of Judah and Israel's making affinity, and joyning in their idolatrous worship of the two calves, and so saith Aben Ezra, he saith two furrows, because of Judah and Ephraim. w Some by the two fur∣rows understand the two calves which the Is∣raelites worshipping were as husbandmen plowing, and their serving them, as drawing two furrows.

But others understand by him that shall bind them, either, the Lord, or the enemy by his appointment. Therefore some render, Cum ligaro illos in duobus sulcis suis, When I shall bind them in their two furrows, as it is in Mer∣cer, with this explication added, Mihi eos subjiciens non secus ac par boum in duobus sulcis arantium, i. e. Subjecting them to my self (or bringing them under) no otherwayes than a pair of heifers, plowing in two furrows are. So Tar∣novius, postquam ligavero, when I shall have bound, to wit, ipse Deus, God speaking of him∣self. Others rendring, Alligando eos ad duos sulcos, by binding them to their two furrows, un∣derstand it as to be done by the people gathered against them, i. e. their enemies y w••o (be∣cause they were as refractory heifers, as they are compared c. 4.16. and kept no right even way, but disturbed the furrows running from one to another) should bind them with a straight yoke that they should not go aside, but keep to their way, and go on in their right furrows; or they should be kept under an hard yoke of servitude by the Assyrians, as heifers forced to plow in their furrows, and do hard work. So that it may be a de∣scription of their servitude, which seems to be the sense of the Chaldee paraphrast, who expounds it, They have exercised dominion over them, in like manner as a pair of heifers are tied to their two furrows. This explication Pareus thinks to be of all the rightest. Yet z others think it not so, looking on that expression of ligari ad sulcos, tying or binding to furrows, a as an uncouth and unusual phrase, or way of speaking; yet if the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be granted to signify furrows, I know not why it should be so harshly censured. We find those that take it in that signification, here to ren∣der it either in duobus sulcis, b in their two fur∣rows, or ad duos sulcos suos, to their two fur∣rows, or (which Drusius thinks most conve∣nient) inter duos sulcos, between their two fur∣rows, all these seem but to be the same, all signifying no other thing than that they should be bound together for plowing or making two furrows, i. e. drawing together as heifers, ty∣ed together in a yoke that they may so do, c or each of them to his furrow, and if the word were (as we said) put and understood in the notion of furrows, it was perhaps in those dayes when the prophet spake, an expression usual, and perhaps proverbial, which was to be understood by looking what was done to heifers when they were to plow, and what they did, or how they went, and behaved themselves for the making of furrows, which was their work, so that to bind them to their fur∣rows, is nothing else, but to bind them or yoke them together, for the making of two fur∣rows.

Next to these we may put those learned Rabbins Abuwalid and R. Tanch••m, as com∣ing nearer to them than any others, while the words which they render their two furrows, these will have to signifie their two plowing hei∣fers which made furrows, as so called from that work. They render, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 When they bind d their two plowers (or plowing heifers) Abuwalid giving the reason why he renders it plowing heifers, because making fur∣rows comes under plowing, and R. Tanchum saying that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 e two plowers is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an epithet for two heifers: and that which is by this signifyed they both say is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 their pertinacy or perseverance in two wicked wayes, i. e. say they, the way of Judah and of x

Ephraim in rebelling, whose joyning together for that matter he likens to the condition of plowing.

f Others give a signification far from either of these in sound, viz. in duabus habitationibus ipsorum, i. e. in their two habitations, as if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Onah g signifyed the same that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 maon an habitation, and by their two habitations, will have to be meant the land of Judah and the land of Israel. This rendring also do our trans••atours give us in the margin, as thinking it probable. It differs much, we see, in sound from that of furrows, which they put in the Text as most probable. Yet are there some who seemingly would reconcile them, Quae∣nam enim sunt habitationes ligatorum vel jugo conjunctorum boum inter arandum? sulci utique; saith Tarnovius, For what are the habitations of heifers bound and coupled together in one yoke, but the furrows? that, h saith another, may be pointed at under that Metaphor of furrows. How properly this may be said I enquire not, it is plain from their note, saying the land of Judah and Israel be meant, that they from whom we have this translation, did nor so mean. This translation also Mr. Lively mis∣likes, as giving to the word a signification in which it is not found.

Others yet far differently interpret it by i binding them by (or over) their two eyes, viz. by putting on them the yoke which cometh up and down about, or to their eyes, or the like, as R. Solomo, or as (Mr. Lively) before their eyes, i. e. openly, which is an aggravation of the punishment, which he saith gives so pro∣bable a sense that he thinks this rendring of the word not to deserve that censure which Mercer gives, that it is ineptum, or altogether improbable. k Others when I shall bind them cum duobus oculis suis, with their two eyes, or l ob duos oculos suos, for their two eyes, i. e. the two calves, which they loved as their eyes, or which they set their eyes and love upon. But the learned Lud. de Dieu later than any of them embracing that notion of the Noun, ren∣ders otherways the other words, viz. Conspi∣rantes in ambos oculos ipsorum, referring it to the people before mentioned, that the meaning may be, That they were gathered against them binding themselves and joyning in a league to deprive them of both their eyes, quod extrema est miseria, which was to bring them to the greatest misery.

The reverend Diodati having in the 4^to edi∣tion 1607. rendred the words according to the ancient Latin, and those in the first place men∣tioned, when they shall be chastised, (or as in his note, bound and led into captivity) per le lor due iniquite, for their two iniquities, i. e. saith he in his note, for the two calves which they wor∣shipped, in the edition in fol. 1641. puts, when they shall be chastised, a lor due termine, and gives his note that it relates to the two inva∣sions of the king of Assyria mentioned 2 Kin. 15.29. and 17.3. and that because the Assy∣rians were, as it were, the lovers of the chil∣dren of Israel (as above c. 8.9.10.) therefore he useth a word which signifyeth an appointment for some unchast meeting, so that he appears to take the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Exod. 21.10. there render∣ed by ours, marriage duty, and in the Rabbins often used in a sense different from any other of those mentioned.

This great variety in the rendring and ex∣position of the word we have, and may almost wonder at it, if not be much distracted by it. It may be convenient to enquire something into the ground and occasion of it, and that is manifestly from the unusual, and we may say irregular, writing of the last word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which as it is written cannot be well read or pronounced as to the first part of it, viz. the two first letters, the first which is the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(Aiin) having either no vowel at all, or else the second letter, yod, if that have, and so not well joyned with it, in a dipthong making a very unusual, or not at all known, form: and this puts interpreters to several conjectures what vowels they should use, and how read the word. Some willing to retain the second letter as it is, viz 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or yod, take the point over it, which would be the vowel Cholem or o, to be superfluous, and put to the first such a vowel as might regularly agree to it if the se∣cond had none and make of it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ein∣otham, which they render eyes, as if it were from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ain (or Ein) an eye, although that is a form (••iz. that plural) no where else found in the signification of eyes, but of fountains. Others therefore think rather that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yod orletter i in this place is to be looked on as a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vaw, which differs from the former only in that it hath a longer stroke or tail, and they have the authority of the Masoreth in the margin, which notes that it is to be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the letter vaw though it be written with a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yod. But then as to the vowels leaving it un∣touched (which to me seems an argument that the vowels were ancienter than the Ma∣soretical notes, in regard that they seem there∣by to be governed in judging of the conso∣nants) and by this means it comes to pass that others thinking the vowel to belong to that letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 u as with it making the syl∣lable 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vo, thought it necessary yet to add to

the first letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a vowel sounding a which they suppose to be omitted and to read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Avonoth, transgressions; but others thinking it enough to lengthen the stroke of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i, and make it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 u look then on it as a vowel cholem sounding o (as it is called vaw cholem, mak∣ing a long ô) which was to make a syllable with the preceding consonant, having no o∣ther vowel, and so read it Onoth. But then as to the signification they differ so as we have seen, every one, seeing the word is not in this form, as here it hath, elsewhere found in Scripture, grounding his conjecture on the signification that such other words as they take it to be of nearest affinity to, have. Hence some looking on it (as we said) to be of affi∣nity with the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 maon habitation, ren∣der it so also. m Another as we have seen ren∣ders it set times, because he takes it it seems to agree with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which he takes so to do. Others because n 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in which are the same radicals found that in this, think this also so to signify, and others that therefore the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must signifie to make furrows, and thence this word to be an epithet of heifers that plow and make fur∣rows. Among all these which shall be taken with rejection of others, every author being confident of his own way, some finding fault with others, and themselves being by others found fault with? Our translators we see, not willing to be too positive, do in the Text and margin give us choice of three; that they thought best of that which they place in the text, their putting it there argues; and that hath many abettors as we have seen, and so hath also that more ancient which we put in the first place: so that if we take either of those two, we have more on our side than in fol∣lowing any of the rest. The meaning of all as by the authors intended we have already seen. If we adhere to that of ours in the Text, we may joyntly consider that of Abuwalid and R. Tanchum, they will both concur in that gene∣ral meaning, that they are a description of their obstinacy and perverseness in their wic∣ked wayes with joint consent incouraging one another to go on therein, which should pull on them Gods severe judgements.

V. 11. And Ephraim is as an heifer that is taught, and loveth to tread out the corn, but I passed over upon her fair neck: I will make Ephraim to ride: Judah shall plow, and Jacob shall break his clods.

And Epraim is as an heifer that it taught, and loveth to tread out the corn, &c] It is u∣sually here by expositors taken notice of what S. Jerom saith by way of apology, for what he shall say concerning these words, if it be rather found only probable than manifestly true, Locus iste, imo omnia quae hoc capitulum se∣quuntur magnis obscuritatibus involuta sunt, &c. This place, yea all that follows this chapter, is wrapt up in great obscurity. He might well have put this note sooner, at least before the preceding ver. This obscurity as to the present verse is rather increased than cleared up, by the different rendrings and expositions that are given of it. Between which that we may the better judge, and discern which is most probable, it will be convenient in the first place to look into the signification of such of the words, singly, as they took their ground from in so doing, or differ about. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And Ephraim is an heifer that is taught. And] so ours retaining the most usual signification of the conjunctive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ve, whereas others render nam for, autem but, quidem, surely, or the like; and o others quite omit it as having no great influence on the meaning. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eglah, an heifer, that is as an heifer as ours well supply the comparative particle, which both in the Hebrew and any translations in which it is not expressed, the sense requires to be understood. p That is taught 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 melummadah. That the word doth so signify is no doubt, and in the same sense is it taken by those that render it q assue∣ta accustomed. So Piscator looking on them as indifferently taken and making to one pur∣pose, edocta sive assueta, taught or accustomed, to wit, ad agricolationem, to husbandry, as in the note in the Tigurin version. R. Salomon, and after him Lyra, saith, that according to the Hebrew it signifies properly stimulata, goaded, or pricked with the goad, as if the sense were, that she though pricked with the goad yet would not leave her place of treading out the corn, nor be brought under to plow. That so the word may signify from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a goad, I question not, but certainly the former signi∣fication is as, or more, proper and plain; and therefore I know not who else takes the latter. But it being taken in the former is by others looked on as signifying not so much that is taught, as which is docile or apt to be taught. So Grotius, vitula docilis a docile heifer, i. e. visa est mihi bene edoceri posse, which seemed to me apt to be taught, and loveth to tread out the corn. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ohabti ladush, loving to tread, &c.

Of the notion of the first of these words, viz. that it hath the signification of, loving, there is no question made, but as to the form of it there is; the most take it to be for, (or the same with) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ohebet, a Participle in the Feminine gender with the letter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i, ad∣ded in the end. Of which form though less frequent and irregular, yet other examples are given, as r 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 oyabti, hating or being an enemy, Micah 7.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 stollen Gen. 31. for genubat, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 meleati, full, for meleat, Isai. 1.21. &c. That this is so here to be looked on is by divers Jews affirmed in ex∣press words, viz. that the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yod is s 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yetirah redundant, or t 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ad∣dititious. Or, as others in Arabic to the same purpose express it v 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and as so the Syriac omits it, rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which loveth, and the MS. Arabic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 she loved. In the Chaldee also is no regard of it, and as so 'tis manifest the LXX. and the author of the Vulgar Latin looked on it, while in their translations they take no no∣tice of it as having any influence on the sense, however they took the word in which it is, either as a participle, or as a Noun governed of the preceding word with which they joyn it, or otherwise, rendring it by an Infinitive mood, taught to love. But some more mo∣dern look upon it not as redundant, but as ha∣ving signal influence on the meaning, though in different wayes. Grotius taking it as it may seem, for a sign of the first person of the Verb, (though the other Vowels will not then regularly agree to it) renders it Dili∣gebam, I did love, viz. what follows in the next word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by which he thinks signi∣fyed, ruris proventum qui est in tritura. Lud. de Dieu looking on it as an affixe of the first person and the word to which it is affixed as a participle, as the others did, Ephraim vitula edocta, amat me, Ephraim being as an heifer that is taught, loveth me, viz. for that end which is in the next word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 la∣dush, to tread, expressed, viz. that by her I should do it, or use her for that end. But our translatours follow that way which the Jews and most others, as we said, do, and we may well follow them in it.

The next word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ladush, expressing ac∣cording to ours and those many others, what Ephraim is said to love, is by ours, and most of them rendred, To tread out the corn. That that word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth properly and usually sig∣nify the getting, or beating, out of corn by treading, according to the use of those places, where, as in our countrey it is done by w threshing, they did it by leading beasts, especially heisers or oxen, which drew after them dented iron wheels, or planks having sharp flints driven in∣to them, over the corn made up in sheaves and laid in order in a floor, that so the corn might be troden or forced out by the hoofs of the oxen, and the straw broken as into chaff by those wheels or flints, and both laid up in their repositories for the use of men and cattle, there is no question. We may well suppose the word to signify more generally trampling or treading upon, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dasa, in Arabic and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dosh in Syr. yet it is more peculiarly used in the Scripture for the treading out of corn in that manner which we have said, so frequent∣ly that there can be no doubt of it; and there∣fore by the most here so translated, and in other places by the LXX. to that purpose; yet here is it by them, according to what is read in some copies, rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin version thereof renders contentionem, contention: which makes x some to conjecture that they did not read as we now do 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ladush, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ladun, from the Theme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dun, which may signify as to judge, so also con••endere, litigare, to contend and wrangle. In other copies it is read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by which they understand victory. These the printed Arab. follows, rendring it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sheloveth victory, and so doth Cyril also and Theophylact take it and and accordingly ex∣pound it, and this might as well as the other suggest a various reading; and that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ladun, also, as that word in its properest signi∣fication denoteth judging, which imports pow∣er and superiority. But I think neither of them necessarily requires any such thing, but the word dush, as it signifies treading out corn, may figuratively be rendred by either; the stirring and moving the corn well enough answering to the former of contention, and the latter of having power over being elsewhere expressed by treading on or threshing, as Micah 4.13. &c. There is no need therefore of doubting of the reading of the word, and I think it will be best with most to take it in its plain meaning, as it denotes that service which heifers were put to by them, of treading forth the corn, though the whole expression be figurative.

Of this service, we may observe that it is the last of those to which in respect of the harvest the heifer is put: so that it may give us to look back on those which go before, as plowing, harrowing, carrying in the corn, which are before to be performed by her, and so may be included with it. It is likewise usually observed that of all the work which the heifer

underwent among them, this was both the easiest, and most beneficial, and so even de∣sireable to her, in regard that in the perfor∣mance of it she had, among the Jews, all a∣long liberty of feeding her self to the full, ac∣cording to that priviledge indulged to her by God in the Law, commanding, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn, Deut. 25.4. by which means it came to pass that the oxen or heifers were not worn out by that labour as by others, but through their free feeding grew fat and frolike, which ma∣ny think alluded to Jer. 50.11. Ye are grown fat, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sicut vitula triturans, as Schindler renders it, as an heifer that treadeth out the corn, though others whom ours there follow, render it, as the heifer at grass, as if it were from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 deshe grass. But R. Tan∣chum looks on that as y an errour, and Kim∣chi also in his roots seems to z prefer the other, though both there, and in his Commentary he mentions both.

The next words are (according to our tran∣slation) but I passed over upon her fair neck (or literally, as in the margin, the beauty of her neck. They are in the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Abar properly sig∣nifies to pass over, there is no doubt; but what the meaning of the phrase, that he pas∣se•• over on their fair neck, is, it is not so easie to determin. S. Jerom here (as likewise on Amos 5.7.) notes that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Abar to pass over, when spoken of God, denotes b evil or punishment. But there are examples to the contrary where it notes passing by or over, i. e. not punishing, or not taking notice of to punish, but couniving at, as Amos 7.8. and Micah 7.18. These different significations of it, some reconcile, by saying that when it is construed c with the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be it denotes evil, when with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 l or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 al, otherwise. But then the rule of S. Jerom will not hold in this place, that it should necessarily import evil, it having the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 al after it. But however those observations will hold, the word seems to be of a d middle signification indifferently appliable to good or evil, and is here by some taken to denote the one, by others the other. And though divers by his passing over upon her fair neck, do agree in this, That they understand his e causing his yoke to pass (or come upon) their neck, his putting his yoke thereon, as for instance, the Geneva English Bibles explains the word by them rendred, I will pass by her fair neck, by I will lay my yoke upon her fair neck, which is agreeable to the MS. Arabic version, which renders the Text it self 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And I passed with my yoke over the goodness of her neck) yet do they then differ, f some taking it for an ex∣pression of severity, as if he had used means, or now threatned, to tame them, and bring them under by force; g others for an expres∣sion of clemency, as if he had so put on his yoke, or had, or would put on them such a gentle yoke which should not be grievous to them, which might rather be termed a passing over than a hard binding or pressing of them. h Others by passing over, &c. seem to under∣stand, not having as yet put her to any hard∣ship, nor used any means to break or tame her, but left her to her self. The LXX. by a general term render it, I will come upon the fairness of her neck. Bochartus will have his saying that he passed over her neck, to be an Hypallage (or taking the words as inverted) as much as to say that her fair neck passed under his rod (according to that expression Levit. 27.32.) i. e. Ego pro mea agnovi & in armen∣to meo recepi, I acknowledged her for mine, and so received (or reckoned) her in my herd. But I suppose without any such figure or in∣version of the words the same meaning almost that he would have will be had, by taking the Verb in a little other notion, by which it is here by some taken, viz. for consideravi, as Vatabulus very well, I think, explains it, I took notice of, or considered the fairness of her neck. This notion of the word, I suppose may be well confirmed by the use of the same Theme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Abara, in the Arabic tongue, wherein as it signifies, as in the Hebrew, to pass over, so also it doth to i weigh, or consider, to prove, or examine, to take due notice of. So that I think the words might well be rendred, I considered her fair neck, which may include his taking notice of, and his handling of, it, to bring it to be tractable, and make her gentle and willing to take on the yoke, as an husband∣man for such ends gently stroking and pas∣sing his hand upon the neck of a young fro∣lick heifer, but now to be tamed, and brought willingly to take on the yoke.

The next words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ar∣cib Ephraim, by ours as several k others rendred, I will make Ephraim to ride, or in the Preter tense l equitare feci, I have made to ride, a

no doubt the words may be properly and li∣terally so rendred. The root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Racab sig∣nifying to ride, this Conjugation, viz. Hiphil, of which the word is the Future tense will re∣gularly signify, to cause or make to ride; yet is it by others taking it in that notion, rendred simply as in the first Conjugation m Equitabo, I will ride, or to the same purpose usurus es∣sem ad equitandum, I meant to use for riding on, or as Grotius Vectus sum Ephraimo, I rode on Ephraim. Yet is not the word restrained only to the proper and particular notion of riding, but in something different senses used, and so by others here rendred. The LXX. render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ascendam, I will get up upon. Some copies have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 imponam, I will put upon. Jerom renders it, supponam, o as if he read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The printed Arabic which usually follows them, using the same word which is in the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arcabo Ephraim, as likewise the MS. Arabic in this place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 leaves it doubtful, the word in that language being of like use and latitude as it is in the Hebrew. The Vul∣gar Latin, ascendam super Ephraim, I will ascend upon Ephraim, the Tigurin version Fe∣ci gestare Ephraim, I made Ephraim to bear, Pagnin, Imponam ergo ipsi Ephraim jugum, I will therefore put upon Ephraim, viz. a yoke, as he supplies. That the word hath that more general notion of putting a thing on another, appears by the use of it, 2 Kin. 13.16. where the Prophet Elisha saith to king Joash 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Harceb yadeca al hakkesheth which ours well translate, Put thine hand upon the bow, and it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vayarceb ya∣do, and he put his hand upon it, for the Inter∣lineary translation, Equitare fac manum tuam super arcum, & equitare fecit manum suam, Make thine hand to ride upon the bow, as ours also in the margin, and he made his hand to ride, is manifestly uncouth, too literal, and too much restraining the signification of the Verb. And this sense is agreeable to what Abuwalid and R. Tanchum note as to the signification of it in this place, that it denotes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a putting on of an yoke on the head of a pair of plowing heifers, that so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aracib, may sig∣nifie, I will (or did) put the yoke upon, or har∣ness Ephraim, although both of them would, I think, without necessary reason, have it to be used for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yarcib, in the third person, and so to be rendred, Ephraim did put on the yoke. These significations are by interpreters here given to this word, to omit others, as of conjunction, insertion, or insition and the like, which may be also given it, as not much per∣taining to our present purpose.

The next words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yacha∣rosh Yehudah, Judah shall plow, or as p others Aret, let (or saying, q Let Judah plow, or as others, Arabat, did plow, not standing on the promiscuous use of the tenses, if the sense re∣quire, though the form be Future. A known and proper signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 charash, is to plow, as of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Haratha in Arabic, and is therefore here given to it, as by the Jewish expositors, the and MS. Arab. so by the Vulgar Latin, and generally other more modern interpreters either in Latin or other languages. But among the notions attribut∣ed to the word is that also of silence, as it hath likewise in Syriac viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be si∣lent (Psal. 39.2.) and in Arabic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be mute or dumb. And to that do the LXX. here have respect, though with alte∣ration of the form and Syntaxe or constru∣ction, rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I will be silent of Judah, as in the Latin it is rendred reticebo Judam. And the same notion the prin∣ted Arabic respects 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which as it is printed sounds, Asceto Jehuda, silere fa∣ciam Judah, I will make Judah silent; but why they should in this place take to this no∣tion, though to the root of the word agreeable, the other being so much more convenient, I know not.

Much the like shall we have to observe con∣cerning the next word which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yesa∣ded lo, Jacob, in our translation, and others, Jacob shall break his clods. The Vulgar hath, Confringet sibi sulcos Jacob, Jacob shall break the furrows to himself, the Interlineary Agri∣colabit sibi; s others, Occet ei Jacob, Let Ja∣cob break the clods to him, t others, Confringe∣bat ei glebas, did break the clods to him. It be∣ing a known and usual signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sadad, to break the clods, when after plowing, the husbandman goeth over the ground again 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to break the clods, as v Kimchi explains it, and make it even that it may be fit to be sown, or as R. Tan∣chum w here explains it, to make trenches with the plow in the ground, that the water may sink 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 deep into it, which is a sort of plowing also. They both agree in this that what is described is a part of the husbandmans labour when he soweth a field.

n r

But the LXX. give a far different notion 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin (or S. Je∣rom) translates, Roborabitur sibi Jacob, Jacob shall be strengthened to himself. That the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sadad might have this signification also, seems confirmed, as Schindler notes, in that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shadda in Arabic hath it, though in the one language the word be with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sin or s, in the other with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shin or sh, as if they were but one and the same letter: as the Syriac translator also seems to have taken them to be, while he also differently renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and judah shall tread out (puttting treading out corn for plowing) and Jacob shall spoil, tritu∣rabit Judah, & Jacob diripiet, That the word might have either of those significations I shall not so much question, as for what reason they should give them here to it, neither of them seeming so well to agree to the scope of this place as the other forementioned. In inqui∣ring thus into the meaning of the words the Chaldee paraphrast by reason of the liberty he takes to himself of giving at large his mea∣ning without keeping close to the letter, af∣fords us not much help. In some expressions he seems to go almost contrary to what o∣thers think the words to import, as when by what is said, I passed over upon her fair neck, which some, as we have seen, think to denote the putting on of the yoke, or as x others ra∣ther the saddle, he seems to express by, I took away the hard yoke from their necks. And how in the other expressions he hath no great regard to the literal signification of the words, the reader may judge by taking his paraphrase of the whole verse, which thus runs, The con∣gregation of Israel is like to an heifer which they teach to plow, but she learneth not, loving to go on after her own will, and I freed them from the bondage of Egypt, I took away the hard yoke from their neck, I placed the house of Israel in the strength of the land of the Amorites, which were subdued before them, as for the house of Ju∣dah, I gave them to inherit the possession which I confirmed by oath to their father Jacob.

Who is here meant by Jacob, that shall harrow or break the clods, may be some que∣stion, inasmuch as Ephraim and Judah before expresly named, seem to comprehend all who can be called Jacob. R. D. Kimchi looks on it as a name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that comprehends all Israel, by Ephraim and Judah seeming to un∣derstand the kings of those two kingdoms af∣ter their separation, and by Jacob all the peo∣ple under both. x Others by it, take to be meant such of the people who, though not of Judah, joyned themselves to it, y or Judah it self, z others the ten tribes, amongst which Ephra∣im, as the kingly tribe, was chief. But it will not need nicely to stand on this; it will be sufficient to understand that by the expres∣sion of all these names, all Israel, the whole twelve tribes are shewed to be concerned in what is said hath been done, or shall be done. Neither as to the Pronoun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lo by ours ren∣dred his, (literally to him,) will it concern to be solicitous whether it be best rendred a Ei, to him, as if Jacob were to break the clods, i. e. b af∣ther Ephraim, as some will, or after Judah as c others, or sibi, to himself, which will be as it were redundant, and have no great in∣fluence on the meaning, only to denote that work to belong to him, and as so is by d some omitted in the translating, it being sufficient to understand that among, or between, them were, or shall be, performed what is here set forth under these terms of husbandry, preparatory to the other which follows in the next verse of sowing and reaping.

Thus much I thought convenient tospeak of the words singly and their literal significa∣tion, though they be here figuratively taken, that we might discover the grounds of those different expositions which interpreters in giving the meaning of them as applyed to what they take by them to be figured out, give us. Extremely differing they are between themselves; some thinking them spoken of good, some of evil to Israel, yet every one thinking the words most to savour them, and best appliable to their meaning. e Some by Gods passing over her fair neck, understand∣ing his indulging to them prosperity and ease, do by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will make, (or f I made) Israel to ride, understand his exaltation to the digni∣ty of a kingdom, and that greater than g that of Judah, so that while he did, as it were ride in princely state, Judah and the rest of the people did but as it were plow, and harrow, perform inferior offices, or live in low condi∣tion, h often prevailed upon by Ephraim. O∣thers on the contrary by those words which concern Ephraim, understand Gods threat∣ning to tame them, and that i he will ride them, or k cause them to ride or to be ridden l by the Assyrian, whom he will cause to ascend them and to be hastily carryed away in∣to Assyria, far off from their own place: and in this way Piscator observes riding, or caus∣ing them to ride to denote harder dealing with them, than that with Judah and Jacob, which is said shall plow, harrow, or break clods, sicut minus molestatur bos cum arat & occat,

quam equus cum equitatur praesertim à ses∣sore rigido, saith he, As an ox is put to less trou∣ble when he plows or harrows, than a horse when he is ridden especially by an hard rider. According to these, those words concerning Judah and Jacob denote also such evils as they should suf∣fer; and that, reamining in their own coun∣trey (as Calvin will) or being carryed away captive to Babylon, which captivity yet was a less punishment than that of Israel, seing they had hope and a promise of being resto∣red from it, which Ephraim had not from theirs, as Piscator notes. m Others look not on those words as a threat to, or punishment of Judah, but to import that Judah, and those of Jacob that joyned themselves to them, being warned by what befell Ephraim for their idolatry, should more diligently fall to their work in serving God. These and the like wayes take the Latin expositors.

Amongst the Jewish R. Salomon thus ex∣pounds the words, And I passed over upon her fair neck, i. e. I bring upon them kings that shall take away their strength, if ye will that I shall make Ephraim to ride upon the nations, let Judah plow and Jacob shall break the clods, i. e. he shall inherit their land and their wealth. Abar∣binel sums up the result of what expositors usually give for the meaning to this purpose,

Ephraim is an heifer that is taught, &c. from the dayes of her youth God taught her to plow, by plowing being meant good works, and she loved to tread out the corn, as much as to say that she loved to tread out corn and to eat of the good which God should give her without working; And I passed over the fair∣ness of her neck, viz. did not make heavy her yoke, for a yoke maketh the neck lean and ill favoured, therefore I said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arcib Ephraim, I will put on Ephraim the the yoke of the kingdom; and so Judah shall plow (or plowed) because he alwayes plow∣ed in the commandments, for he was not taught as heifers are, and if the king of E∣phraim, and the king of Judah should plow with well pleasing to God (plowing being the accustoming the people to their work) then should Jacob which is the whole people break the clods to him.

But seeming not to like this he gives us an exposition which he thought better of, viz.

That because Ephra∣im worshipped calves, taught to serve them, therefore he saith, Ephraim is a calf (or an heifer) that is taught, as much as to say, taught to worship calves, as if himself were a fair calf. Yet did he not learn of the heifers to plow as heifers do, but alwayes loved to tread out the corn in a place where he might eat and grow fat, and would not be brought un∣der to plowing: and I seeing Ephraim fit to receive the yoke of the enemies according to his works, which is that which he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And I passed over the goodliness of her neck, i. e. handled her neck, which was good, or fit, for the yoke, and therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arcib, Wil. I cause, (or I cau∣sed) Ephraim to be ridden by the nations which ga∣thered (or shall gather) themselves together against him, as above he said, which should ride upon him, and bring him under in captivity, and when this shall be to Ephraim then shall Judah plow, and return by repentance, and shall serve the Lord in due manner, and not only the tribe of Judah but all the rest of the tribes which shall be joyned with him; which is what he saith, Jacob shall break the clods to him, that is Judah 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall harrow, as it were, or make conformable the sons of Ja∣cob which are with him, and cause them to take away the offence of their iniquity, and return with intire repentance, when they behold the captivity of the tribes, and the destruction of Samaria, for so was it in the dayes of Hezekiah and Josiah, his sons son also, that Judah and those that adhered to them changed their wayes and turned unto the Lord.

This is his exposition which he prefers before such others as he met with, and with him there be o among the Latin exposi∣tors who much agree.

Abuwalid and R. Tanchum taking yet a different way, look upon these words to de∣denote 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That they united together, help one another in doing evil things and rebellion, which is set forth under the similitude of plowing, as if Ephraim put on the yoke and Judah plowed, and the rest of Israel made trenches in the ground by plowing, as if here were a farther declara∣tion of what they were in the foregoing verse taxed for, viz. Their binding ehemselves in their two furrows. That they may make good this meaning, they say that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arcib in the first person, is used for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yarcib, in the third, in which perhaps they make to bold.

If we should embrace the Greek or Syriac reading, they would put us on other wayes of exposition. But I shall not insist on them, neither shall I farther examine the forementio∣ned expositions, to enquire which of them may seem rightest, and so to be preferred be∣fore the rest, as indeed not looking on any of as satisfactory. There is another way plain∣er and easier, and I think more agreeable to the expressions, as likewise having better con∣nexion with the preceding and following n

words which I should choose to follow, seeing no reason to doubt of the truth thereof. In these words therefore we take by God to be set forth under expressions describing how an husband-man useth to deal with such heif∣ers as he seeth fit to be set on work to bring them to it, and fit them for it, Gods deal∣ing with Ephraim or all Israel (understanding here by that name in the first place all of them, as it is elsewhere used, and the express na∣ming of Judah and Jacob afterwards seems to require that they be included, though on∣ly Ephraim to whom the prophet then chiefly spake, be named) when he saw fit to frame them into a people to himself, to be under his government, and imployed in his service, and under terms of ordinary husbandry and such works as those heifers are usually put to, such service and such works as he required that people to be employed and occupied in. Taking the words to sound thus, That E∣phraim was a docile heifer fit and not un∣willing to be imployed, I (saith the Lord) took notice of, and gently handled and laid hold on her fair neck, I harnessed (or said I will har∣ness) or put the yoke on Ephraim, Judah shall (or did) plow, or saying, Let Judah, or Judah shall plow, and Jacob (the rest of the tribes) break the clods, or harrow. By his saying that Ephraim was taught, may be understood that he taught and made him docile, by his gently handling his fair neck, that he put them in good plight, and with loving kindness allured them to his service, and by his putting on his yoke on his neck, the giving to them his law, and by his setting Judah to plow, and Jacob to break the clods, his giving them his several precepts and ordinances which he comman∣ded them to make their study to meditate in and acquaint themselves with, and to set them∣selves to the performance of them, that so they might, as in the next words follows, sow to themselves in righteousness.

That Aben Ezra took this to be the meaning it seems manifest, while he saith that what is here said is spoken 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 figuratively of the law, and expounds the words Ephraim is an heifer that is taught, by I taught him from the beginning to bear the yoke of my commandments. To which purpose Kim∣chi also expounds those and other also of the words agreeably to our meaning, as that plow∣ing with sowing denotes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the doing of works, and by his passing over her fair neck, parabolically (or figuratively) that he did not make heavy to them the yoke of his commands: although he give also a different exposition of some of the words, accommoda∣ting them to the kingdom set up amonst them by Jeroboam, and to such works as the kings of Judah and Israel ought to have called upon the people to do, and they according∣ly would, or ought to, have done, and so pre∣pared their hearts to receive the command∣ments, much according to what we saw sum∣med up by Abarbinel.

That way which we take do also among Christians p some, as to the greatest part, fol∣low, and according to that will be a manifest connexion of this verse, both with the preced∣ing and following: with the preceding, in which God threatned to send on them heavy judgements and punishments, as q clearing Gods justice in so doing, by shewing how he had dealt with them, what he had done for them, and how he had put them in such a con∣dition as that better things, even ready and chearful obedience to him, ought to have been expected from them, and not such great wickedness and rebellion as was found in them. They could not for their miscarryings and evil doings pretend either ignorance or inhability, want of means, or directions, or admonitions. For God setting his love on them, had taught them from the beginning, and they seemed docile and willing to be im∣ployed in his service, service profitable to them, as treading the corn is to the heifer. He had blessed them and prospered them and used all fair means to make them tractable and obedient to him, he had given them his law to direct them, and therein, precepts and commandments to imploy themselves all of them in, by walking wherein they might have been acceptable to him, and enjoyed the con∣tinuance of his favour. If after all this they rebel against him, and forsake him to follow idols, and commit like abominations, it must needs be out of mere wilfulness; r not that they did not, or might not, but that they would not, know and do better: and what are they but like to a s backsliding heifer, which after the husband-man hath well fed her that she may be fat and able to labour, and by gentle means made tractable, and then put on her an easie yoke, and then set her to work in plowing and harrowing, shall grow refracto∣ry and endeavour to shake off the yoke, leap out of the furrows in which she should go, draw back or aside and refuse to go in them, or do the work that she is set about; what u∣sage such a heifer may for such perverseness (though a bruit beast, and void of better un∣derstanding) deserve and expect from her master, and so much more Israel, that should understand better, from God, may easily be judged. Ill every one will confess them to deserve, and not marvell if they be roughly

and severely dealt with; so that, as we said, there is in this regard a manifest connexion between these, so understood, and the pre∣ceding words; the connexion of them also with the following is evident, the 12. v. be∣ing a farther prosecution of the same argument, declaring what God having so dealt with them, and put them in the way of his service, required of them, and what profit it would be to them to do as he required, with a repeated exhor∣tation to them so to do, and a reason why they should therefore so do: and the 13. v. shew∣ing that they did clean contrary to what they ought; all still clearing Gods justice in denoun∣cing his heavy judgements against them.

V. 12. Sow to your selves in righ∣teousness, reap in mercy: break up your fallow ground: for it is time to seek the Lord, till he come, and rain righteousness upon you.

Sow to your selves in righteousness, reap in mercy, &c.] Plowing and breaking the clods or harrowing, are preparatory works to sowing; having therefore set them on such works as are answerable to them and by them expressed, he here exhorts to that which is answerable to sowing, or saith, he did command or require of them to sow: for so may we t which many supply, as understood, And I said, Sow, &c. He proceeds in the same figure of language, expressing, in terms belonging to ordinary hus∣bandry, such duties as were required of them in their spiritual husbandry or the service of God, and the framing of their conversation according to his will, and to advantage to themselves, but with this difference, that they who were before compared to an heifer in respect of such parts of work as were pro∣per to her, are here spoken to as the husband∣man, the sower and reaper, it being not unusual in figurative or proverbial expressions, in re∣ference to diverse actions or properties to li∣ken one and the same thing to diverse others, otherwise of different natures between them∣selves. And by the same reason also may they, their v hearts and minds be likened to, and cal∣led the field or ground w which receiveth the seed of Gods Law, and cherisheth and bring∣eth forth to growth and maturity other seed by it produced. This by these and the fol∣lowing words will also be necessarily under∣stood, though not expressed. These acts here mentioned depend one on another, and joyntly compleat, as the ordinary, so the spiritual husbandmans works and his hopes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Plowing with sowing are the doing of works, and reaping (or the harvest) the fruit of the work, saith x Kim∣chi.

The exposition which we give of these words is warranted and made clear by the use of the like expressions in the New Testa∣ment, where we read of Christs yoke, and are exhorted to take it upon us, Matt. 11.29. of plowing in hope, and sowing in hope, 1 Cor. 9.10. of sowing sparingly, and reaping sparing∣ly, and sowing bountifully, and reaping bounti∣fully, 2 Cor. 9.6. of sowing to the flesh, and reaping corruption, sowing to the spirit, and reaping life everlasting, i••asmuch as whatsoe∣ver a man soweth, that shall he also reap, Gal. 6.7, 8, 9. and believers are called Gods hus∣bandry, (or tillage) 1. Cor. 3.9. in which and like places the terms belonging to ordinary husbandry none will think to be, as so, literal∣ly and properly understood, but figura∣tively, denoting acts answerable thereto in what we may call spiritual husbandry, and the comparing what is in those places said with these terms here, will illustrate and con∣firm our exposition of them.

Sow to your selves in righteousness and reap in mercy.] To your selves, saith he. They are commanded to work; and to, or for, them∣selves do they work: y theirs will be the issue according to the work. He doth not therefore simply bid them sow and reap, but with a qua∣lification added to each, to the first, that it be in righteousness, to the second that it be in mercy, by which is to be considered what is meant, 1. That the sowing be in righteousness, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Litsdakah ad justitiam, word for word, to righteousness, and so by some tran∣stated: others, as ours, choose to say in. Both will be to the same purpose, and z some omit∣ting that particle read, Sow to your selves righ∣teousness. This qualification seems necessari∣ly added, in regard that there is a sowing as well to, or in evil, as to good. Sow to your selves. The fruit or seed which the good seed of Gods laws, and precepts which they have recived into their hearts, well plowed, harrowed and prepared, hath produced, they must not keep up to themselves, or let ly unimproved, but must again sow, and disperse abroad in suit∣able actions, to the glory of God, and good, as to themselves, so to others also. By sow in righteousness, some understand sow, largiter, copiose, b largely, plentifully. Certainly in Gods service, or in doing good we ought not to be remiss or sparing, but to do the utmost of our power as much as we can: it is but just and righteous that we should so do, but whether the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tsedakah justic•• a

or righteousness, should here be referred to the quantity, measure or extent of what they are required to do, may be doubted. It is by o∣thers thought more convenient to referr it to the quality, viz. that what they sow should be righteousness (or in, or to righteousness) that is, good and righteous; so that the a meaning will be, that they abound in good works of piety to God, and b charity to men, (both which justice or righteousness will comprehend) that these they express and shew forth in their lives and conversations, and all their actions, the seed of righteousness including c justa ac pia desideria, proposita, opera, righteous and pious desires, purposes, and works. These that they might rightly sow, necessarily was premised (according to the way of husbandry) plowing and harrowing, or breaking the clods of their hearts, the forsaking of unrighteous courses and framing themselves to the Law of God. Bonum esse te oportet priusquam bonum facias, Thou must be good before thou canst do good. Mercer.

2. As ordinarily after sowing follows rea∣ping, so to this command of sowing in righte∣ousness, he adds reap in mercy. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lephi chesed. The Vulgar literally renders it, In ore justitiae, and the Doway, as literally as that reap in the mouth of mercy, and the Interline∣ary much alike, ad os misericordiae. These are harsh expressions at the first hearing, and so far from helping us to the meaning of the Hebrew, as that for right understanding them we must have recourse to that. In that there∣fore we ma•• observe that though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pi do pro∣perly signifie the mouth, yet there are other uses of it in which that signification is not precisely attended to; and such are two which most conduce to our present purpose; one wherein it is used to signify measure, in which way 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lephi will sound, Accor∣ding to the measure; the other wherein with another particle or letter prefixed to it, as here the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 l, is, it doth but make up with it a particle in that signification which the other without it would of it self have, and so is but as it were expletive, as to say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lephi chesed doth signify but as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lechesed without phi, would, and in this way signifies juxta, secundum, according to, or in, (as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Arab. is in) or p ad, to. How this observation is here appliable or most con∣veniently applyed by such expositors as are by it guided, we shall the better see, when we shall have enquired into the signification of the word construed with it, to wit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chesed, rendred, mercy, as to the signification of which, that it may be so rendred, mercy, is no doubt: it denotes (saith Kimchi) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 more than justice, which he con∣firms out of a saying out of their ancients that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the retribution of mercy is more than what is of justice, which he saith they confirm from these words, and else where he saith of it, that it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 good and beneficence which is where law doth not strictly require it. It may be spoken either of mercy of men, of one man to another, to be shewed to men or found from men, or of mercy of God to men be∣yond desert; and some take it here of the one, some of the other. q Some taking it as under∣stood of that to man; do take by reaping in mer∣cy to be understood shewing of mercy, and as by some in righteousness is meant, Incumbite bonis operibus, Set your selves to good works, so by reap in mercy, exercete dilectionem, exer∣cise charity, as if it were a command for far∣ther progress, in doing that good which we cannot but look on as in the former words sufficiently understood as required, and the doing this were as it were a reaping of r the fruit of their former doing, viz. of their faith and inward righteousness, which fruit is ipsa in proximum beneficentia, that very kindness to their neighbour. He that goes this way ren∣ders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lephi, by ad mensuram, according to measure, and takes thereby to be denoted, that in benificentia & pietatis erga proximum operibus praestandis mensuram esse servan∣dam, in works of beneficence and charity, a due measure is to be observed, viz. that they be ac∣cording to our neighbours necessity and our own ability, by which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chesed benignity it self is to be bounded.

But this, though from a very grave author, I cannot think to be the meaning of the words here. If we should follow his way of constru∣ction, perhaps 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chesed might rather be taken more generally for piety and holiness, and the meaning be, abound in fruits of holiness or fulfill all righteousness. It layes more stress on the word mensura measure in rendring the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lephi, than I think it bears, and too much confounds the two Verbs of sowing and reaping, of which one notes the work, the other the reward; although perhaps it may be not absurdly be said, that the doing good (in a greater degree) is its self a reward of doing good: but I look on the reward here to be of something a distinct nature from the work, mercy to be received from righte∣ousness done. And it being so looked on, if it be understood of mercy from men, then will it be a promise that if they do righteously, God will cause that they shall find mercy and kind dealings from men, which accord∣ing

to the promises of the Scripture they may without doubting hope for, for when a mans wayes please the Lord, he maketh even his ene∣mies to be at peace with him, Prov. 16.7. and our Saviour saith, Give, and it shall be given unto you, good measure pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom, Luke 6.38.

But we rather think it to be understood of the measure of mercy, whereby God will a∣bove their desert reward those that sincerely indeavour to do his commandments, and in this way (as likewise in the former) taken, the Verb in the Imperative mood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Kits∣riu, Reap, will not so much import a com∣mand, as declare what shall then, if they so do, certainly be, or be a promise that it shall then be so, viz. that if they sow in righ∣teousness, they shall reap in mercy: and in this way also will it be to the same purpose, whe∣ther it be rendred, juxta, or secundum, accor∣ding to, or after the measure of mercy, as with others the Geneva English, and the MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And reap in (or according to) the measure of bounty, or with∣out mention of the name of measure, juxta, misericordiam, according to mercy, s ad beni∣gnitatem; t secundum misericordiam, the same or v in pietate, or w in misericordia, in mercy, as ours, or omitting the particle, x me∣tite benificentiam, reap hounty. All will be the same thing, viz. to signifie that by the boun∣ty or mercy of God they shall receive a great reward. Nor will they which retain the lite∣rall rendring of the Vulgar, reap in the mouth of mercy, have any other thing by that to be meant, by the mouth of mercy understanding y vo∣luntatem, the will or good pleasure, i. e. as much as mercy will, h. e. most largely, or z rationem, the proportion, or a capacitatem & amplitudinem, the capacity and largeness, of it and by the same reason might we understand by it, the word or promise of Gods mercy; and in like manner sounds, 1 suppose the Syriac 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And reap the mouth of goodness.

All these concur in this that the words are a promise of a large or great reward such as is becoming Gods mercy, and shall, Interce∣dente Dei misericordia, By the mercy of God intervening, (as b another makes the meaning of the Latin expression to be) upon their sin∣cere endeavour to keep Gods commandments be certainly given them, though far above what they could merit; for it is made due to them, not by what they do, but by the largeness of his mercy; so that Kimchi doth not ill expound the words, Sow, &c. do that which is good in mine eyes, and the good re∣ward which ye shall receive of me, shall be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yother far greater than your good works, as he that sowing a bushel hopes to reap two or more, and therefore in the command for sowing, he u∣seth the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 justice, but in the promise of reaping the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chesed benignity, which is more than justice, or what can in strict justice be required.

The LXX. instead of a literal rendring of these words, as they give the measure of what they should, doing as they ought to do, ex∣pect, rather express to us what is the nature of it, translating 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sow to your selves unto righteousness, vindemiate vobis in fructum vitae, (as the c Latin translator renders) gather grapes to your selves to the fruit of life, St. Jerom, vin∣demiate fructum, gather, as grapes, the fruit of life, as if in his copy the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to, were not read d as it is observed in some copies to be wanting, and in that which the printed Arabic followed, it seems likewise to have been wanting in both clauses, while he ren∣ders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. Sow to your selves righteousness, gather the fruit of life, the word which I render, gather, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth indeed in the ordinary use of the Arabic tongue answer to that which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek is ordinarily taken for, viz. more particularly, for the gathering of grapes, yet that notion not so properly agree∣ing with what he had before said of sowing corn, I suppose it would be convenient to ren∣der it in some word of a larger signification of reaping, or gathering any fruit or corn, and so the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 will do, viz. signi∣fy at large e Cereales fructus colligo, To ga∣ther any harvest fruits, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signi∣fyeth them all, though the Verb be usually re∣strained to grape gathering, and the same may be well thought of the Arab. word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by comparing it with the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which denotes more generally any cropping, cutting or pulling off.

But to return from this digression, while the Greek thus render, reap (or, reap to) the fruit of life, they though, as we said, they do not give a literal rendring of the words, yet give a proper meaning of them, that which they shall in mercy, or according to mercy reap, being the fruit of life, and that the main of mercy by God promised, This do and thou shalt live, Luk. 10.18. the end of sowing righ∣teousness, or as the Apostle speaks, fruit unto

holyness, being everlasting life, Rom. 6.22. and f Godliness having the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come; so that we shall have no need to think that they read other∣wise than now is in the Hebrew read, although some might think that instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kitsru reap, they might read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bitsru gather grapes, (which yet Tremellius thinks they did not) and instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lephi, in, according to the mouth, or measure of, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 liphri to the frdit, as Tremellius observes. Though, then, what they should read for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chesed mercy, he saith he would not conjecture; but he might as well think that for that they read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chaiim life. But there is no reason to think either, the meaning they give being so convenient according to what we now have.

But whatever interpretation or exposition of the words we have, according to all, here is Gods method which he prescribeth to men, viz. that if they will hope for good from him, they be diligent in promoting what he commands and requires from them. He ordained man to labour, and leaves none at large to live idely and unimployed, and that in such things as concern both the outward and inward man, their temporal and spiritual estate. What con∣cerns the latter is here set forth by expressi∣ons taken from the usual and known course of the former, and they are directed how to behave themselves in this, from the ordina∣ry carriage of men in the other. There, who∣soever desires to reap a good crop, sets him∣self to work about such things as may give him hopes to find and receive it. He plows, he harrows, prepares in due manner the ground, then carefully sowes good seed, though it be God that gives the increase and he be for that to expect his blessing, yet if he be an ill husband and negligent in doing his work he will not think he hath reason to expect that; but having performed his part he will then not doubt of finding it. So in the culture of his soul, in things concerning the well be∣ing of his inward man, he is also to do his part of plowing, harrowing, of preparing his mind by a due meditating in Gods laws that he may understand all parts of his duty, and then with diligence and sincerity seek to perform them expressed by sowing in righteousness; and then, and then only hope, yea be assured, that he shall receive a plentiful reward, called here reaping in mercy: though he cannot by the de∣sert of his performances reach it, yet mercy intervening shall bring it to him, by the in∣tervening of which, qui mandata in opera ver∣terit, seminat in justitia, & metet ex ea fructus vitae, as Jerom speaks, Whosoever in his actions expresses the commandments of God, is looked up∣on as sowing in righteousness, and shall thence reap the fruit of life; fruit of a nobler nature than what he can sow, yet such which through the abounding measure of Gods mercy (who though he be not profited by ought that they can do, yet will have them to receive profit) he shall gather upon his sincere endeavours. That he may be assured of it, the word is in the Imerative Moode, reap, to shew that there is no doubt in the case, but the reward is set before them as present, and that g there is no∣thing remaing but that they put forth their hand to lay hold on it, and receive it to them∣selves. This may be the meaning of what an eminent Jew saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that soweth 'tis yet doubtful whether he shall eat or not eat, but he that reapeth doubtless eateth, (or shall eat). This expression 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kitfru, reap, leaves no∣thing to be doubted of, but puts him as in a certain enjoyment of the promise.

This, being of the greatest concernment to them, and that in which their only happiness consists, that they may seriously and continu∣ally endeavour to attain to, by doing those things forementioned; necessarily requisite for preparing them for it, he willing their good, repeats his earnest exhortation to them for that end 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Niru lacem nir, Break up your fallow ground, together with which expressed, may be understood what was before also added, and sow to your selves, that so all the duties before named, as neces∣sary to them to prepare them for Gods mer∣cy, may be here also in respect to what fol∣lows in different termes expressed. So Kim∣chi suggests to us, expounding the words, And after ye have mowed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 return again to plowing and sowing. But here is difference between the word here used and that before: there was used 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Charash, which more generally signifies to plow, here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nir which, though it be in the notion of plowing also, and so rendred here by Pagnin, Arate vobis arationem, Plow to your selves plow∣ing, yet is restrained more properly to such plowing as is of ground that hath lain until∣led and is new broken up, i to cleanse it from such weeds and thorns, which while it so lay, grew up in it, that it may be fit to be sowen, as appears by the use of it likewise, Jer. 4.3. where the same word is used, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and ours translate, as here, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns, and so by the Vulgar Latin here, Innovate vobis novale, and there, Novate vobis novale, &c. This being in ordinary husbandry a work prepara∣tory to k another plowing, and harrowing and h

sowing, makes some to say that here is in the placing of thewords l put last that which should be, and must be understood, in the first place, or else (which is equivalent) there must be under∣stood and supplyed before these words, m sed prius, but before, or something like, that so it may be understood, After ye have broken up your fallow ground, then sow, &c. as if this ex∣hortation were precedent to the other, &c. Kimchi looks on it as a new exhortation to their renewing again the like work as before, After ye have reaped, return again to plow and sow, as muchas to say, desist not from your good works all your dayes, which though it be censu∣red by Tremellius to be subtilius somewhat nice, yet seems by n others to be liked.

But what if we look on it as the same ex∣hortation as before, to inculcate to them the necessity of the work exhorted to, and to make them diligent and speedy in their en∣deavours to perform it?

What it is that under this figurative ex∣pression they are exhorted to, it is manifest. They or their hearts, are as a field overgrown with evil weeds, to which the evil affections of their hearts are deservedly compared. He that will sow a field with good seed and have it there to prosper, must break up the ground to kill those weeds, and purge his field from them. If he break it not up, the seed will not be received into the ground that it may take root, and receive nourishment, where by it may grow up; o and therefore necessarily withers: and if he kill not, or take not away the weeds, they growing up, will choke and corrupt it. So they, that the good seed of Gods word may prosper and bear fruit in them, must by repentance break up the fallow ground of their hearts, that it may find earth and take root; they must morify the evil lusts thereof, and purge it therefrom, that they choke not that word sown, which they have received, and make it unfruitful. So R. Tanchum perspi∣cuously on those words, Jer. 4.3. The mean∣ing is, Cleanse your hearts, and make sincere your intentions, remove them (or purge them) from corrupt manners, and evil opinions, that there may be produced to you profit from what you sow of re∣pentance, lest it be again destroyed (or made void) and not bring forth fruit of durable good, as seed is marred when it is sown in ground which is not duely prepaued, but thrown in among thorns. The words in his own language, because the book is not printed, are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And R. Solomo here,

Be studious in the law, and thence you shall learn to go in a good way 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to prevail against your evil concupiscence, as he that breaks up his fallow field, that he may turn up the roots of such weeds as make lean (or draw away the nourishment from) the corn, in the summer time, a good while before seed time.

In New Testament language it will be,

The putting off the old man which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and being renewed in the spirit of their minds, and the putting on the new man, which af∣ter God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Eph. 4.22, 23, 24. Or, Mor∣tifying their members which are upon the earth, fornieation, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetous∣nese, &c. The putting off all these, and and the old man with his deeds, and put∣ting on the new man which is renewed in knowledge, after the image of him that created him. Collos. 3.5.8.9, 10. And the crucifying the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Gal. 5.24. and so a removing of all impediments of carnal affections, that they may into a well prepared heart receive the good seed of Gods word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience, Luk. 8.15. This is p novellare sibi novale. This the repeated com∣mand, or exhortation, urgeth them to be dili∣gent in doing and, (as we said, according to some) to continue with repeated endeavours to do it. So Munster, Docet semper repurgan∣dam terram cordis nostri a pungentibus spinis, & carduis: nemo enim in hac mortali vita tam perfectus est, in pictate in quo non subinde repul∣lulant noxiae cupiditates, veluti zizania in agro bene culto, and so it will give us not only a rule given to those Israelites then, but to all who will rightly serve God.

That they then might with diligence and speed set themselves so to do, there are ad∣ded reasons; as first from the condition of the time, for it is time to seek the Lord, the He∣brew is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 veeth, and (it is) time, &c. the Vulgar, Tempus autem, viz. tempus autem re∣quirendi Dominum, which the Doway English, But the time to seek our Lord, leaving out it is, which in our language must be understood for

making the sense, and adding our, which is not in the Latin. That the Hebrew particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ve may be rendred either, for, or but, or q be∣cause, or r seeing that, as the sense shall require, there is no doubt. Ours well choose with o∣thers to render it for, s some quite omit it; R. Solomo understands after it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Fixe a time to seek the Lord, for the learning or studying of the law, and the like. R. Tan∣chum thus, joyning it with the preceding words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He saith, place (or bestow) this labour in the obedience of God, and set a time for seeking of him, which why they do, I do not so well perceive; it seems rather to denote a time by God set to them for it, than to bid them set it; he had now fitted them for his service, and given them laws and rules for it, and commanded them to be diligent in it, and therefore it was now time that they should instantly seek him, or apply themselves in obedience to him. By his saying, It is time to seek the Lord, viz. by tur∣ning to him by repentance and obedience, t some observe to be denoted, that the reason hath two respects, 1. Giving them good hopes because now is a time, v an opportune time of gracious acceptance, and he offers himself to be found of them, and therefore they ought to lay hold on it. So elsewhere, to day if ye will hear his voice, &c. Psal. 95.8. and Is. 55.6. Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call upon him while he is near, while it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Eth, a convenient, a necessary time of seeking him. 2. To make them fear to neglect or defer their seeking, intimating by saying it was now time to seek him, that it would not alwayes be so; if they continued to run on in sinful courses, the time might slip away, and they either should not have opportunity of seeking, or not find acceptance though they sought, as he saith Is. 1.15. When ye spread forth your hands I will hide my face from you, yea when ye make many prayers I will not hear, and Jer. 11.11. I will bring evil upon them which they shall not be able to escape, and though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them: wherefore the Apostles exhortation is, exhort one another dayly, while it is called to day, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. Heb. 3.13. w With several like expressions shewing the danger of deferring to seek the Lord, while there is present opportunity, some directed more particularly to men as single persons, others to whole congregations of them, as one politique body, which due cir∣cumstance of difference between them being observed, they will indifferently be applyable to both the one and the other. The words here concern the whole body of Israel, as shewing them what God required them to do in refe∣rence to their own welfare.

Sure his command to them were sufficient reason to them to set themselves to do it, and much more when he sheweth that if they now by doing it did seek him, they should not miss of finding him ready to receive them, yet to shew how unwilling he was that they should be slack to their own prejudice, he adds as a farther reason to excite them to it, the be∣nesit which they should in so duly seeking him thereby obtain from him to themselves in the next words, till he come and rain righte∣ousness upon you.

The particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ad rendred till as the MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 donec seemes, to require constan∣cy in their seeking the Lord, that if they do not presently find his gracious presence and the tokens thereof here mentioned, yet they should not leave off and desist till they do find it, as intimating secondly assurance, that if they do persist in seeking, they shall in due time certainly find it. For he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him, Heb. 10.36. &c. Seek therefore and ye shall find, he that (duely) seeketh findeth, Matth. 7.7. Yet is there need of patience to them that have done the will of God, that they may receive the promise. But he that should come will come, and will not tarry, but if any draw back, his soul shall have no pleasure in him. Heb. 10.36, 37, 38. So we find both joyned, the necessity of patience and perseve∣rance in those that seek God, and an assurance to them of finding, Habb. 2.3. The vision is for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak and not lie; though it tarrie, wait for it, because it will surely come, it will not tarry. x There be who do likewise render that particle, not as a limiting of the term of the time, but by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 while he will be found, and come and do what is said. Not much differently from what the Vulgar Latin hath, cum venerit, &c. when he shall come, but the former is the plain∣er and more agreeable to the Hebrew, and that which the Greek also in this follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Syr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the Hebrew, all, till.

But what then is it that they making use of the opportunity and duly seeking the Lord

shall obtain. It is, That the Lord will come and rain righteousness upon them; so in our transla∣tion, and so according to many others. But y others render it, and teach you righte∣ousness, the word, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yoreh, signifying either, and so the Vulgar in that sense, Cum venerit qui docebit vos justiti∣am, reading the conjunction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ve and, by the relative qui which, as others also do, and look on it z as not unusual, that it should be so taken. There is that similitude betwixt, raining upon and teaching, or rain and doctrine, in regard of their operation and manner of in∣fluence, that the one is compared to the other, as Deut. 32.2. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distill as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showres upon the grass. And the same Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Horah is therefore applyed to both, and pro∣miscuously used of both; which promiscuous use causeth here some difference between In∣terpreters, in their expositions of the words, some taking it in the one signification, some in the other, and consequently some difference in their assigning the person who should do this, and likewise in their understanding of what he should do. They seem to be in doubt, and so to leave others, what to follow. R. Solomo Jarchi expounds it, When ye shall la∣bour therein (i. e. in the Law) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he will cause you to understand, that he may make known to you the hidden things thereof in righte∣ousness, but gives also another explication, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and shall rain righteous∣ness unto you, but then this follows on ano∣ther explication of the whole verse, than what we before saw, viz. Break up, &c. i. e. Do good works before affliction come upon you, and this shall cause that your prayer shall be heard in the time of need, and then shall be a fit time for you to seek the Lord in all your needs; for then shall your cry be heard, and he will rain upon you righteousness. By which what he means he doth not explain.

Aben Ezra retaining the figurative expressi∣on, saith only, It is time that ye seek the Lord that he water your seed, then shall come 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the latter and former rain of righteousness unto you: as if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 malkosh were understood and a yoreh were a Noun as elsewhere it is, signifying the former rain, of which see on c. 6.3. but he saith withall that interpreters generally expound it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Seek ye b my law and he will come and teach you, which Kimchi citing improves by adding, what their Doctors say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 c He that comes (or endeavours) to be clean, they help him, i. e. he shall obtain help from God to enable him so to be. But the most perspi∣cuous exposition which we find among the Jews, is that of R. Tanchum as to the latter words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Set you a time (or take the time) to seek him till he cause his light and his providence to descend (or dwell) among you, and direct you in the wayes of righteousness and piety, in which he seems to have respect to both significations of the word, viz. both of raining and teach∣ing. Though he more fully express it, yet do the others seem to mean the same thing, and all (except the latter way of R. Solomo) do agree with him in this, that that which they should by their utmost endeavors in ob∣serving Gods laws seek him for, is, that he would afford them his gratious presence and help and assistance for enabling them to ful∣fill all righteousness, and so water the seed of his Word in their hearts that it might grow up to a plentiful harvest of good works. But Abarbinel takes another meaning saying that this is an intimation of his salvation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that so their seeking him should be that he would deliver them and give their enemies before them up to the sword, which he thinks confirmed by what is said, Ps. 85.11. Truth shall spring out of the earth, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tsedek, righteousness shall look down from hea∣ven; taking it for granted that righteousness there is in that notion. These are the chief explications of the words which we have from the Jews, which I have mentioned se∣parately because some that are given by Chri∣stians well agree with some of them, but o∣thers are far differing, as will appear by rec∣koning up some of them.

Calvin, though he saith that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yoreh doth signifie as well to teach and to cast, as to rain, yet thinks that it ought here to be ren∣dred pluat, till he shall come and rain, and by righteousness conceives to be understood the fruit of righteousness, by raining down which d others understand the giving of prosperity in great plenty; and of others, by the righte∣teousness which he shall rain down, e some understand his benefits in general, f vitam, sa∣lutem, bona omnia apertis quasi coeli cataractis depluet, to wit, he shall rain down upon you life and health, and all good things, as if the windows of heaven were opened for that purpose, or g he shall confer grace upon you which shall increase righteousness in you, as rain which maketh the earth to bring forth fruit.

i Others comprehend under his coming and raining righteousness with his giving grace, his outward benefits also and delivering from evils. To like purpose, others, under the righteousness which is said God should rain down, think is comprehended

Omnis Dei bonitas, tam illa qua nos recipit in gratiam & justificat & regenerat, quam illa qua nos externis etiam beneficiis & tem∣poralibus & aeternis afficit,

All the goodness or beneficence of God, as well that whereby he receives us into favour and justisies and regene∣rates, as that whereby he conferrs outward bene∣fits also, temporal and eternal. These look on the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yoreh under the notion of raining, and there be who taking it in the no∣tion of teaching do not much differ in giving the meaning of Gods teaching righteousness k to be when by the operation of his holy Spi∣rit he frames men into obedience to him, so as diligently to follow what he teacheth to be right, detesting and flying all things con∣trary; and then also when he sheweth him∣self faithful in his promises, and manifests and shews forth his justice among men.

These all give the meaning in more gene∣ral terms, and look on God as he who it is said should rain upon them, or teach them righteousness; but others do more particular∣ly restrain those words. Lyra to Hezekiah, explaining them, that then (as Chr. à Castro explains him) there shall be a time of seek∣ing the Lord when Hezekiah shall come, who shall teach you righteousness, and teach you the true worship of God. But Ribera censures this exposition, as being sine causa, having no reason for it. He, with many more following Jerome, restrains it to Christ, who should teach them the true way of righteous∣ness, which they then looked for in the Law, so that that which is required of them should be that which the Prophets all along requi∣red of them, and indeavoured so to dispose them for, that they should be rightly pre∣pared, Ʋt Christum venientem agnoscerent & susciperent, That they might acknowledge and receive Christ when he should come, (or as Vata∣blus) that they should prepare their hearts for the coming of Christ. And I know not why we should gainsay those that take this way, though l one saith, Non opus ut illud de adventu Christi exponamus, &c. That there is no need that this be expounded of the com∣ing of Christ, it being that which at any time might be made good to them, by the receiving of consolation from the holy Spirit, as if he said,

Let them duly meditate in the law of the Lord till he visit them with his mercy and his Spirit, and teach them righteousness. They shall alwayes find the flesh to be re∣belling in them, and therefore must persist till God shall have taught them righteous∣ness by the rain of his grace, &c.

And m a∣nother saith,

That the prophet Hosea in these words had respect to the coming of Christ,

Nescio an contentiosis Judaeis probare possimus ex loci ipsius circumstantia, I know not whether we may prove to the contenti∣ous Jews, from the circumstance of the place it self. Yet if we take it to have respect thereto, we shall find the words all of them well accommodable thereto. Till he come, even these words will agree to him, whose com∣ing the Patriarchs and holy men all along ex∣pected and desired to see, Abraham saw it in spirit and rejoyced, Jo. 8.56. Jacob longed for it, Gen. 49.18. the Law and the Pro∣phet directed to it, so that all along there were such in Israel as waited for it, as ap∣pears by the example of old Simcon, Luk. 22.25. and Joseph of Arimathea, Mark 15.45. and those many prophets and righteous men whom our Savior speaks of Mat. 13.17. It may seem a known title by which he was pointed out, viz. He that should come, as ap∣pears by that message of John Baptist who sent two of his disciples to say unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for ano∣ther? Mat. 11.3.

As for the following words, however ren∣dred, they are likewise evidently applyable to him. If they be rendred, and rain righte∣ousness, it will well agree to him of whom it was said, Ps. 72.16. that he should come down like rain upon the mown grass, as showres that water the earth; if, and teach righteousness, what will it be less than a manifest descri∣ption of him who elsewhere, according as the words are by many understood, and by ours in the margin expressed (in a word from the same root here used) is prophesied of as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hamoreth litsdekah, a teacher of righteousness, or according to righte∣ousness, (though in the Text it be in the other signification, the former rain,) he being the the Lord our righteousness, Jer. 23.6. and he that was to bring everlasting righteousness, Dan. 9.24. and of whom Nicodemus maketh con∣fession, that he was a teacher come from God. Jo. 3.2. and who was expected, according to that which the Samaritan woman gives as a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whereby he was to be known to be the Messias, that when he came he would tell them all things, Jo. 4.25. so that he was to lighten them that sate in darkness, and guide their feet into the way of peace.

If any think that the word as here spoken do not properly concern Christ, and require of them to prepare themselves for receiving him, yet certainly it cannot be denyed that

among those blessings which they were then to seek after, and propose to themselves in dayly serving God, was in chief place Christ and his benefits and doctrine. And if of him the words be understood, we may without digression observe from thence to be necessa∣rily suggested an exhortation to all Christi∣ans that they be very careful in walking ac∣cording to the precepts of his doctrine, and the way of righteousness by him taught. For if Israel of old were so to order their wayes in expectation of him, and that they might be prepared for his coming who should teach them a plainer way of righteousness than what they had been instructed in, and their neglect of so doing made them lyable to such heavy judgments as are denounced a∣gainst them, how much severer judgement shall they be worthy of, who after his com∣ing and raining upon them the plentifull showres of heavenly doctrine, and abundant measure of his grace and gifts of his holy Spirit, do, for want of breaking up the fallow ground of their hearts, suffer his holy word to be lost on them, as seed cast away by the way side, (Mat. 13 4. &c.) or falling on sto∣ny places, where it can take no root, or a∣mong thorns where it is choked and hin∣dred from bearing fruit? The fearful doom of such unfruitful Christians is set down by St. Paul Heb. 6.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. where he useth expressions much agreeable to those which we have here taken from a field or ground, duly watered with rain, yet instead of good herbs or corn, bearing thorns and briars, and is therefore nigh unto cursing, and Heb. 10.26. &c. where he sheweth the case of those that have received the knowledge of the truth under the Gospel, to be much worse than that of those that despised Moses's his law, which was the condition of the Israel∣ites here spoken to. S. Peter tells us it had been better for such not to have known the way of righteousness, than after they have known it, to turn from the holy command∣ment delivered unto them, 2 Pet. 2.21. It will highly concern us therefore as we have received Christ Jesus our Lord (the teacher of righteousness) so diligently to walk in him, Col. 2.6. worthy of him unto all well pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and in∣creasing in the knowledge of God, there c. 1.10.

But that all those duties couched here un∣der those figurative expressions, required of Israel of old, that they might worthily pre∣pare themselves for Christs coming are as ne∣cessarily required of Christians that they may behave themselves worthy of him being come, and so thankfully shew forth and en∣joy those great benefits in him showred down upon them, there is no doubt. It were to be wished that they were generally careful of their performance, and there might not be objected to them too deservedly what is in the next words to Israel, going clean con∣trary to what God required and expected, Ye have plowed wickedness, &c.

But before we pass to those words, we may take notice of such rendrings and interpreta∣tions as we find in some ancient interpreters differing from those which we have seen. As for the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Niru la∣cem nir vaeth, which ours, with most others render, Break up your fallow ground, for it is time, &c. The LXX. render them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, illuminate vobis lumen scien∣tiae, light to your selves the light of knowledge, and so the printed Arabic following them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 accendite vobis lumen scientiae, and with them, as to all but the last word, the Syriack translation much agrees, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Accendite vobis lucernam, Light to your selves a lamp; but he goes no farther with them, in the rest agree∣ing with the Hebrew. Why, what ours and others render innovate vobis novale they might render by the notion of lighting, is not farr to seek, it being a known significa∣tion of words of that root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nur both in the Hebrew, Syriac and Arabic, to denote a light or lamp, and the like, but why they should choose here to do it, among those terms of husbandry and tillage, as plowing, sowing, and reaping, which are here used, is that for which I know not what reason may be given, as neither why the Greek and Arabic instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vaeth, and it is time, belonging to the following clause, should put, of knowledge, & joyn it with the preceding words, whereas by all other it is most conveniently joyned with the following. o Some think they took it for Daat which signifies knowledge, and had no regard to the accent which should have directed them to have it coupled in the con∣struction, not with the foregoing but with the following words, but they so doing make the following clause thus to sound, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Quaerite Dominum donec, veniant fruges justiti•• vobis. The author of the printed Arabic seems to have followed a different reading and distinction of the words, reading 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Seek ye the Lord till he come to you. And then taking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

in the vocative case, beginns with it the next verse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. O ye Children of justice why do ye, &c.

Why either they or the Greek which they followed should render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yoreh, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fruit, I know not what reason may be given: yet doth Rivet think that their words taken in themselves give a good meaning, if we take the Prophets to have warned them, that while there was a fit time they should not suffer it to slip, but seek and expect till God should rain upon, or teach them righteous∣ness, that is, should shew forth the fruits of that righte ••••ness, to the sowing of which they had exhorted ••hem; and he thinkes righteous∣ness, may be conveniently taken for the fruit of righteousness, or the reward thereof in mercy conferred, as sin is taken for the punishment of sin. In this way Yoreh will not signifie pro∣perly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but include it as its effect, pro∣duct, or result, and so in their translation is put in liew of it, but then the Arabick will be farre wide from that. The Syriack though in the preceeding words agreeing, here de∣parts from them following the Hebrew in the notion of teaching, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 till he come and shew you his righte∣teousness. As also the Ms. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 till he come and direct you to (or in) righteousness. The Chaldee thus pa∣raphraseth this verse,

O house of Israel work to your selves (or do) good workes, walk in the way of righteousness (or the right way) stablish to your selves the do∣ctrine of the Law (or behave your selv's ac∣cording to the rule of the Law) behold the Prophets at all times say to you, return to the fear of the Lord; now will he reveal himself, and bring to you righteousness, in which ren∣dring, though he follow not expressely the letter, to help us in the particular significa∣tion of the words, yet giving the meaning as he doth, he justifieth the way that we have taken, in not making the words an exhorta∣tion directed only, or in particular, to those at that present time to call them to repen∣tance, but rather as a summary report or declaration of the perpetuall doctrine of the Law and Prophets all along to them, shewing what God allwayes required of them, and of what good consequence the observing thereof would have been to them, which seeing these spoken to neglected, he proceeds in the next words to upbraid them with their contrary behaviour and to reprove them for it, and in the following to shew the ill con∣sequents of such their perverse dealing.

V. 13. Ye have plowed wickedness, ye have reaped iniquity, ye have eaten the fruit of lies: because thou didst trust in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty men.

In the like figurative expressions to those by which in the preceeding verse he shewed what they should have done, he here shews what they had done, viz. the clean contrary to what God commanded and required of them; the termes being of themselves of an in∣different nature and applyable to denote ei∣ther good or bad, according to the matter of the things done, or the end for which they are done. The plowing that God then set them about was for good, & that they should be oc∣cupied therein, that which here they set them∣selves about, and were occupied in, is for bad; Ye have plowed wickedness. Which words may sound either that the p field which they plowed, or that wherein they bestowed their labour was wickedness; or that that to which they directed their labour and for what they bestowed their pains, or q the seed for sowing which they plowed, was ini∣quity or wickedness, or, that the result, or that which their labour produced, was wicked∣ness; in which way wickedness also may be taken for the r punishment of iniquity, and signify their punishment, as in the other way their sin. s Some by plowing understand here sowing; that plowing is comprehended and t understood with it we may well think, because it is preparatory to sowing, and here follows reaping which is not without it.

The meaning of the expression according to its most obvious sound will be, that they v rejecting the counsell of God, and contrary to his command, jointly and deliberatly set themselves in their Idolatrous courses to work wickedness. They that would not endure Gods easy yoke, nor do such service as he re∣quired, though tending and directing to their greatest happiness, both for the present and the future, willingly take on themselves the hard yoke of sin, and in the service thereof take such paines as by termes of the hardest labour are deservedly expressed, though to the pulling on themselves the greatest evils both present and future. They have plowed wickedness, w That for rooting out of which they should have broken up their fallow ground that do they plow for to cause it to grow, and they have reaped iniquity. So ours translate it, with most others in the preter perfect tense, and so it is in the Hebrew

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Avlatah Ketsartem, ye have reaped &c. yet do others (according to that promiscuous use of tenses which we have else where seen) taking the preter tense as, to de∣note the certainty of the thing which shall be, put for the future, as if it already actually were, render it in the future as of that which were yet to come, ye shall reap; so Pagnin, and x others, ideo iniquitatem metetis, therefore ye shall reap iniquity: and y others, as if of what at present were, metitis ye ao reap, which though they might all be understood therefore alike, yet there being different expositions concerning the meaning of the words, one ren∣dring (distinction being made between them) seemeth to favour one, the other, another. The different expositions that we mean, are that z some by reaping iniquity, will have to be understood their proceeding and persisting in their evil doings, till they have brought them (as it were) to a harvest and laid up as in provision the fruits thereof, so as to be still a description of their a sins, and with this is most agreeable the rendring in the preter tense, ye have reaped, or in the present, ye do reap, &c. but b others look on it as a descrip∣tion of the punishment of their sin or the reward which they shall reap of their evil doings worthy of them, so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Av∣latah iniquity, may be put also for the c pu∣nishment of iniquity, as d words of that nature denoting sins are often used. To this way it is most agreeable to put it in the future tense, at least so to understand it, whether it be rendred in the preter or present, to denote that it was as certain, as if already, or that they had already had some e tast or expe∣rience thereof. Both these were f necessarily joined, and their ill reward shews that cer∣tainly their doings were ill, and ill doing will certainly procure an ill reward.

Such is also described in the next words, ye have eaten the fruit of lies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Acaltem peri cachash, which words are still figurative, both the verb, ye have eaten, and the words joined with it, the fruit of lies. Ye have eaten, saith he, not that they did properly and really eat, but by eating may be meant, the doing of somthing in hope (or in doing somthing to hope) to find such satisfaction of ones desires, as an hungry man doth by eating: or it will be an expression of such effects pro∣duced by any thing done, as are answerable to those which a man findeth by eating, either for good or hurt, according to the nature or quality of what he eateth. Then by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Peri cachash, fruit of lies, (or a lie) may as Drusius observes, be understood a lie it self as if it should signifie that they used deceit and lies, as he saith, bread of deceit or lying, is taken for a lie it self. They are above accused of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cachesh, lying g c. 4.2, as guilty of it in denying God and following Idols, and the being said to eat it, will be to shew their being much given to it, desiring it as an hun∣gry man doth meat. But, more distinctly, fruit of lies (or a lie, or lying) may signi∣fie h such as is by deceit or lying, any false wayes or ill meanes, gotten, as bread of deceit or lying, Prov. 20.17. probably signifies. To which way I suppose agrees that expression in Kimchi which by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cachush, understands their lying against God, and i denying him, to follow Idols, k to whom they ascribed the good things which they enjoied, as rewards by them given them (c 2.5.12.) in which way the eating the fruit of a lie, will be either their setting their minds on them, and looking on them as things from which they look for satisfaction, or else that they did or should eat such fruit, i. e. bear the ill consequents which such things (which in our Prophets language above ch. 8.9. are certainly l buds which yield no meal or yield bitter and deadly fruits) produce, both all evil works, and the severe judgments of God, which they draw on them, even death it self Rom. 6.22, 23.

Or secondly by the fruit of lies, may be understood (making one noun as an Epithet to the other) fruit that is but a lie, or, lying fruit (as the LXX have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) such as shall deceive the hopes of him that looketh for sa∣tisfaction from it. So will it denote that their hopes, and trust in those things which they did, should doe them hurt, but not profit them at all, nor yield them any satisfaction, as in like sense they are said to feed on wind, cap. 12.1. and those Isaiah 44.20. to feed on ashes, and they will be left at best like the hungry man that dreameth, and behold he eateth, but he awaketh, and his soul is empty Isaiah 29.8.

m The like notion of failing or deceiving is the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cachesh or lying, used in above c. 9.2. where we render the new wine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yecachesh bah, shall fail in her.

These several wayes that the word may be used in, give occasion of several expositions, according to some of which they are also looked on as a description of their sin, ac∣cording to others of their punishment or ill consequents of their sinne; for the j••••d••ing of which we may observe as we did of the fore∣going verb, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Acaltem, though of the forme of the preter tense, properly signifying ye have eaten, yet is differently

rendred in several tenses. Ye have eaten, say ours with the most, both ancient and mo∣derne in the preter tense: So the LXXII 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ye have eaten lying fruit. The Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the vulgar Latin, comedistis frugem mendacii, ye have eaten the fruit of a lie, or, lying, and the Ms. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ye have eaten the fruit of failing, frustration, or lying, to omit others more moderne. n Others, in the present tense, comeditis, ye do eat the fruit of a lie: o Others will have it to be meant as in the future, comedetis, ye shall eat, and so Grot. Pascemini fruge falsā, speciosâ sed non alente, ye shall feed on false fruit, such as makes a fair show but yeilds no nourishment; to which purpose I suppose tends that in the former and lesser editions of Vatablus, laborabit is penuriâ an∣nonae, that of R. Stephens in folio having it not.

Now then if the words be looked on as a declaration of their sin, it will be proper to take the verb in its stricter signification of the preter perfect tense, and by the fruit of lying most convenient to understand (according to what we said) either lies themselves, or such things as they got by lying, or ill meanes, by their denying God, and following Idols which to doe, they made as it were their meat, and with greediness followed. But if we take them as a description of the punishment of their sin, then taking the fruit of lies either for such evils as their lying wicked courses, and false dealing with God, should produce or bring on them, or were deserved by them, worthy of, or due to, them, or else the fru∣stration of all hopes of good and satisfaction which in their wicked rebellious courses they had promised to themselves, then will it be more convenient to render it as in the future, comedetis, ye shall eat, or if in the preter or present tense to understand them as of that which should be as certain to them, as if past or present, or that they had already in part felt it and should more hereafter feel, having no other fruit of their doings laid up in pro∣vision with them, but what was of such false lying, deceivable, unsatisfactory nature; which shall be for hurt, and not profit to them. This way of taking it as spoken in description of punishment to them seemes plainest, and is by most followed. They have the authority of the Chaldee paraphrast also on their side, which though not literally rendring the words yet gives his sense of them by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ye have received the reward of your workes, having rendred the former, ye have thought (or plotted) violence (or rapine or oppression) ye have done wickedness; though p some of great note incline rather to understand all these as expressions of their sins and perti∣nacy therein from the beginning and all along persisting therein, which is expressed by their plowing and sowing under it comprehended, and eating or laying up (as it were) and making use of, these depending one on another, and tending one to another, plowing and sowing, to reaping, and reaping to laying up, eating and enjoying, all of the same kind, and so all consummating wickedness, accord∣ing to the words of Abarbinel in respect to them and the foregoing words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all this is a para∣bolical expression of the evil of their doings, and so, that, ye have eaten the fruits of lies; for the words have relation (or connection) one to (or with) the other, plowing to reaping, reaping to eating.

The words are applicable to either of these wayes, and how according to either they may be understood and applyed we have in part shewed. Whichsoever of them we take, the next words shew the reason why it so came to pass, viz. that they either did so pertina∣ciously continue and go on in their evil courses, or did find such frustration in what they did, or so ill consequences on it, viz. because thou didst trust in thy wayes, in the multitude of thy mighty men: This made them do as they did, and this exposed them to what they did or should certainly find. Had they, as they ought, trusted in God and his waies, and relied on him for help and protection, they would have made his commandments the rule of their actions, and diligently occupied themselves therein, have plowed and sowed in righte∣ousness, and not doubted to have reaped in mercy, and to have found a bountiful recom∣pense of their labours from him; but now having forsaken him and trusting in their own false waies and relying on their own strength and the power and multitude of their mighty men, they plow and sow wickedness, reap ini∣quity, and eat the fruit of lies, give themselves up to run on in all evil waies, make it their meat to do such things, and therein promise themselves satisfaction; or, because they do so plow and sow wickedness through their false trust in their own way and their own strength, they shall reap the punishment of their ini∣quity, and be frustrate in all their hopes and expectations of good from what they do, and find those ill consequents which are farther de∣scribed in the following words: to which we might from these with good connection pass; but before we leave these, we shall speak some thing more of the expressions in them.

Because thou didst trust, &c. Here is on a suddain a change of numbers from ye, to thou which makes Kimchi to think that he turnes his speech from the people to the King Hosea, in whose time Samaria was destroyed and the ten tribes carried into captivity. But it is easily solved, by observing that rule which he and others give elsewhere (as we have seen) that when a people is spoken to, or of, either the singular or plural number is indifferently used, as they are looked on as one collective body or as more persons, and so is it by q others observed here to be, and that the people in general are still spoken unto, and Abarbinel explaines it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and this hath been (or shall be) to thee ô Ephraim, because thou trustedst in thy way &c. By their way wherein they trusted, may be understood either more generally all those evil wayes that they took for saking Gods way, and yet thought to be secure in them, their projects and counsels which rejecting the counsel of God they tooke, their r religion and their policy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith Kimchi, the way of wickedness and wrong belief. Their Idolatrous wayes, worship of those calves which were from themselves (c. 8.6.) and those Idols which they substituted to them∣selves in place of God, as Patrons, bene∣factors &c. ch. 5-12. will necessarily be taken in under that name, and Abarb. more particu∣larly interprets it of the way that they took in going to Egypt and to Assyria (as c. 7.11.) viz. to procure help and forces, not turning to God by repentance, but thinking by their assistance to secure themselves against all evils on their falsifying his covenant by the Pro∣phet threatned, which then will be much the same with what follows, and in the multitude of thy mighty men. viz. s either of those of their own that they had of their own peo∣ple, or such as they hired from other nations, as particularly Egypt whence they sought for help. So Kimchi, and to make up the sense, addes, and hast made flesh thy arme and not trusted in me, therefore art thou fallen, or as Abarbinel, but in truth, all this shall be vain trust, for it shall not at all profit them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before (or against) the enemy. Such trust we know is elsewhere attended necessarily with a curse, Thus, saith the Lord, cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arme, and whose heart departeth from the Lord, Jer. 17.5. yet out of such trust did they de∣part from the Lord, and obstinatly follow their own wayes. How therefore this curse should be executed on them, if the foregoing words, threatning that they should eat the fruit of a lie, do not sufficiently shew, the next words will, therefore shall a tumult arise among thy people, &c.

But before we proceed to those words, we shall yet by the way take notice of a great difference which is betwixt the LXX, and such as follow them, in the rendring some of the words of this verse, from the Hebrew, as by those that we have seen understood and ren∣dred; as first at the beginning of it, for ye have plowed wickedness; they have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quid reticuistis impietatem & iniquitates ejus vindemiâstis? the printed Arab. likewise fol∣lowing them in the signification of the words, though differing in the distinction of them, taking (as above we intimated) the last words of the preceeding verse into this, render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Latin translation ren∣ders, ô filii aequitatis, quare neglexistis impie∣tatem, iniquitates ejus tamen vindemiastis, O ye Children of righteousness, why have ye neglected (so he renders what is in the Greek been silent at) ungodlyness, yet have ye gathered the iniquities thereof? the main of the difference is in their rendring that word which is usually looked on as signifying plowing, by being silent at, (or neglecting, or not taking notice of). By the same signification they rendred the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Charash, above v. 11. where we noted that that root hath besides the notion of plow∣ing, that also, of being dumb or silent (as it signifieth in the Syriack and Arab. tongues) but why, as there, so here, they should choose to take that meaning of it, and not that of plowing, is that of which I know not what good account can be given. Concerning their ren∣dring likewise, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ketsartem, ye have reaped, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which usually is restrained to gathering of grapes, we have also spoken on v. 12. where we have the like rendring, what may suffice. By their rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Avlathah, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, its iniquities itmay be thought that they took the last letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 h to be an affixe fem: of the third person.

The following words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pericachash literally sounding the fruit of a lie, they render (as we have said) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lying fruit, and then the last words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ci batachta bedarceca berob gibboreca, because thou didst trust in thy way, in the multi∣tude of thy mighty men, they render (according to the Roman copy followed in our Polyglot bibles) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because thou hopedst (or trustedst) in thy sins, in the multitude of thy power (as if by their way they took to be meant their t sinful wicked way and so gave the meaning rather

than the word; but other copies have it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in thy chariots, so Jerom. hath it and so Cyril, and so the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quia spem collocasti in curribus tuis, in mul∣titudine exercitus tui, because thou trustedst in thy chariots, in the multitude of thine army; which makes v some suspect as if they looked on it as written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beracheca, which would signifie in thy chariot, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bedarceca in thy way. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of thy power, which they put instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gibboreca thy mighty men, is perhaps well rendred by the Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thy army, it being as Drusius notes not unusual to put 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pro exercitu & copiis militaribus, for an army and military forces, and so will it answer well in meaning to mighty men, though the forme of the noun be different. This we may observe of their words; on their meaning I shall not insist, seeing we follow it not.

We may likewise observe a difference be∣twixt the Syr. & other ordinary translations, though not as to the signification of the words, yet as to the distinction of the clauses of the sentence, he thus reading, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ye have plowed sinne and iniquity, and have reaped and eaten the fruits of a lie, where if the conjunction in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and ye have reaped were omitted all might be regular according to the Hebrew, and the words placed in it as in that. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gib∣boreca thy mighty men, he also renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of your might.

Therefore shall a tumult arise among thy peo∣ple &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vekam, therefore shall arise; others and there shall: the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ve, u∣sually signifying, and, but otherwise used for an illative, and so by w some noted here to be; by some it is quite omitted (as by the vulgar) but then must be understood, (these words declaring such punishment as is consequent on those wicked dealings of them before de∣scribed) because they so behaved themselves therefore shall it now be thus to them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kam, there shall arise; so the LXXII. also and vulgar Latin, with most others of the an∣cienter, and more modern translations render it in the future tense; yet some modern, ex∣urgit, doth arise, others, surrexit, hath risen: but there is not need, I think, of any such alteration, as neither the grammar of the word, so nor the scope of the place requiring it, the words being a prediction of what should follow on their evil doings, which indeed for the certainty of its completion might be said already to be, or have been. A tumult, the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shaon, by the Chaldee, vulgar Latin, and others rendred likewise tumultus, x a tumult, by others much alike y conturbatio, and z sonitus a noise, Drus. expounds it as importing, bellum, war; every battle of the warrior being with confused noise (Isaiah 9.5) there being usually both the voice of those that shout for mastery, and the voice of them that cry for being overcome (Exod. 32.18.) both, of the prevailing party to incourage one another in the pursuit, and to shake terror into those that are beaten, and of them crying out for fear of the enemy one to another 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nusu, nusu, flee, flee, as R. Solomo speaks, and to a one of these more particu∣larly do some apply the words, b others to the other. Both usually go together, and c both may be well comprehended; but the LXXII. render the word by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Syriack also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 abdono, all signifying destruction. But this rendring will well be reconciled with the former by observing what R. Tanchum here notes, that d 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 devastation and desolation according to the use of the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shaah, in Isaiah 6.11. wherein it is twice repeated in that signifi∣cation, and also according to others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a noise and murmuring, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the noise (or crying out) of the armies of the enemies against (or over) them: the one of these is a signe of the other, the noise of the pursuing enemy, of their flight and destruction, and if this be rendred by tumult or noise, with which the verb, shall arise, e seemes best to agree, yet that it im∣ports together their destruction, f destruction accompanyed with noise; it appeares by the following words, and all thy for tresses shall be destroyed &c.

This tumult it is said shall arise 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beam∣meca, in, or among thy people, or peoples: for it is the plural number, which may be put, g because they consisted of several tribes, and so were as several peoples; or h to shew that not any tribe among them should be free from the calamity, but it should extend to all: and it being said that it should be in, or among their people, i some look on it as meant of civil warres, intestine broiles, commotions and tumults among themselves, and the mis∣chiefs

consequent thereon, but those that we have seen and k others, seem rather to respect that which is to be brought on them by the forrain enemy, and l some look on both as included, they being in danger of the enemy, and perplexed for fear of him, dividing them∣selves in their counsels, and falling out at once among themselves to help forward the mischief, which, however we understand these words, as the next words declare, shall be great for (saith he) all thy fortresses shall be spoiled, &c. whether by the hands of such as raised civil broiles at home as we have seen some will, or of the forrain enemy as others, all their m fortresses or such places as they built for their defence, against all enemies and thought to be secured by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(as the LXX.) murata tua thy walled places, which the printed Arab. render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mohassanateca, which may signifie the same, or fenced places. The Chaldee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Sy∣riac 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the same word though the Latin translation of the first renders it n arces tuae thy towers or castles, of the second, urbes tuae, thy cities, though I suppose both mean the same, viz. (as we said) o such places as were fenced, the Ms. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which seemes to signifie, all the middle (or inward) parts of the houses which are usually most de∣fended, though I rather think here is an error of the scribe; and that for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be rather read by transposition of a letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is thy fortresses. How∣ever any translate it the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mibtsareca, seemes plainly enough to signify such places which are so fenced and fortifyed as that they within them, and what they there have, may be secured from such as shall assault them; the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Batsar, signifying (among other things) both munire, to fence and make strong, and also prohibere, arcere, to keep off from, and so the noun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mibtsarim, places so ordered as to secure those in them, and hinder the access or outward violence of others. Such places it appeares they had, and trusted in them for security; but they having forsaken God, the only fortress and secure refuge of such as cleave to him and trust in him, and he having forsaken, and given up them, they all shall nothing avail them, for how strong soever they made them, 'tis said they shall all be spoiled, none escaping 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 col yusshad; the extent of which threat to every particular of them to express, Ar. Montanus nicely renders it p omnes vastabitur, forcing the language in Latin that he may give literally as well the construction as the meaning of the Hebrew. Perhaps it were as well and as ex∣pressive, as to say in true Latin as Pagnin before had done vastabuntur shall be spoiled, or as q others with respect to the word of the sin∣gular number, unaquaeque munitionum tua∣rum vastabuntur, every one of thy for∣tresses shall be spoiled.

Shall be spoiled, say ours and several others. The LXXII render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the La∣tin renders abibit, shall depart, i. e. shall faile, or peribit shall perish (as r the word doth some∣times import.) The printed Arab. which u∣sually followes them in this book, renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall be spoiled, as ours render it from the Hebrew, and so also the Ms. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Chaldee also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Syriac 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which all properly signifie the same; viz. shall be spoiled, or pillaged, but the vulgar Latin, and others, vastabuntur, shall be laid wast, or destroied.

The Hebrew roote 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shadad, (whence is this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yusshad) hath both these no∣tions viz. of preying, or spoiling, or pillaging, and also, destruction betwixt which if other∣where distinction may be made, yet here it need not be made, but the verb taken in such latitude as that which soever be put, the other may be understood with it. And that they shall not only be robbed or spoiled, but utterly de∣stroied, and laid wast (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 every one of their foretresses in which they trusted) by the de∣stroier which should come upon them, as Kim∣chi speakes, the following words declare, in which by comparison to a sad destruction of another place the grievousness of what shall befall them is plainly shewed: for they shall be spoiled or destroied, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ceshod Shalman Beth Arbel, as Shalman spoiled Beth-Arbel in the day of battle. So ours perspicuously render it, and literally enough, except we should more nicely say, s as (or according to) the spoiling (or destruction) of Shalman, or Shalman's spoiling, or destroying of Beth-Arbel, and so the Ms. Arab. word for word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is all one in sense. But several of the ancient interpreters give farre different ren∣drings, or rather paraphrases, of the words as not so literally agreeable to them, so neither so perspicuous as to the meaning. It shall suffice to recite some of them without farther search into them, or their reasons in giving them.

The Chaldee thus paraphraseth it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Latin translation in the Polyglot Bible renders sicut t vastatur pacificus per insidias in die belli, i. e. as a peaceable man is destroied in time of war. And Mercer, with such a destruction, qualis fieri solet cum rebus pacatis derepente per insidias bellum movetur, i.e. as useth to be made, where things being in peace, on a suddain war is made by snares, (or treachery) which is not so neer to the words, as what our ordinary copies read. In this way Shalman and Arbel, are not looked on as proper names (although Petrus à Fig. in his comment put for the first Salma.) But rendred according to the signification which the words otherwise have, without any respect had to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 joined to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and according to this way doth R. Solomo expound them as spoilers which come suddenly on a people that sit in peace by way of ambush, so that they are not aware of them that they might flee before them, but they spoil (or destroy) all. Him I suppose Lyra also follows, in that note which he gives that Shalman it not a proper name but an appellative, signifying pacificum seu quietum, peacable or quiet and that in the Hebrew it is à domo insidiantis, from the house of him that lyeth in wait, so that the literal inter∣pretation is, as she that was peaceable (or at peace) was destroyed by the house of him that lay in wait: and so the sense, as a peaceable and quiet nation, not fearing danger, is destroyed by one lying in waite, and his family, suddenly falling in on a people not aware of it, who thought them∣selves to be in peace and quietness, as it is read of the destruction of Lachish, Jud. 18. Thus he; which he might have said was according to the Chaldee and R. Salomo, but not according to the Hebrew, but the Chaldee hath the li∣berty of a paraphrast. Among those, whose business is more pressely to follow and cleave to the words: the LXX (yet seeming here to take paraphrastical liberty) render according to the ordinary copies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 u 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which reading the printed Arab. also hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as prince Salman, of the house of Je∣roboam in the dayes of warre dashed the mother with the children: where in the first place we may observe that instead of what ours (with others) have, as Salman spoiled (or as Salman's spoiling) they have, as Prince Salman, which makes x some think that instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ceshed as the spoiling, they read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cesar, as the Prince: but then there wants a verb to make full sense, which therefore the Latin translator of the Arab. supplies by putting in Egit, as the Prince Salman did; but there is no story extant of any Prince Salman, that did so in or to the house of Jeroboam: and indeed Je∣roboam seemes to most to be a mistake in the writing for Jerubaal, as other copies have, and anciently had in St. Jerom's time, who takes notice of both, and preferres the latter, looking on them to have taken Arbel and Jerobaal for the same name; and then they referre it to that story recorded Judg. 8. con∣cerning what passed between Gideon and Zebah and Zalmunnah, so that Salman also here, should be the same with Zalmunnah there. And indeed the LXX do there also call him Salmana; but in the Hebrew there is a great difference in the writing betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shalman, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zalmunna, so that it will not be easy to think them the same; yet it is by them supposed, and then the sense according to them will be, that as Salmana the Captain of the Midianites, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did dash against the ground, the mother of the house of Jerubaal (i. e. Gideon) i. e. of the He∣brews with her children, so the Captain of the Assyrians should with cruelty and without all pity deal with them in his war against them, and dash in pieces the mother, with (or upon) her children. So Cyril; and to the same pur∣pose Theophylact, although Cyril say that others take it on the contrary, that not Sal∣mana did so deal with the house of Jerobaal, or those of Israel, but Jerobaal and his com∣pany with the house of Salmana: but he lookes on the former as more convenient. Yet seems the latter preferred by Jerom in the Vulgar Latin, which yet manifestly referres the words to the same story, rendring, Sicut vastatus est Salmana à domo ejus, qui vindieavit, (or as others judicavit) Baal y i. e. as Salmana was de∣stroied by the house of him that revenged (or judged) Baal which is a periphrasis of Gideon, who had his name Jerubaal, as signifying, as he renders it, Jud. 6.32. ulciscetur de eo Baal, let Baal revenge himself of him and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is by him rendred passively, as he was de∣stroied, as it was by the other actively, as he did destroy, which according, as the sense should require might well enough be admitted, the words sounding, secundum vastationemaccor ding to the destroying of Salmana, which as it is dif∣ferently applyed to the persons, may signify as Salmana was destroyed, or, as he did destroy.

To these ancient Interpretations and expo∣sitions I willingly yield that reverence which

is due to them, for their antiquity and au∣thority, yet I must confess that I cannot find satisfaction from them, both by reason of the strange alteration of names in them, and be∣cause there is nothing in the history of Scrip∣ture which may make us think that either by Salmana, or Jerubbaal, was done any such thing as is here spoken of and alluded to, as well known to all. The like must I say of an∣other ancient version, viz. that of the Syriack which renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the spoiling of Shalmo from Bethil (or Bethel) in the day of battle, in which besides the change of the name Betharbel, into Bethel, the sense is left very obscure.

Divers moderne Interpreters therefore, of Christians, not content with those ancienter rendrings and expositions as well as Jews take other wayes of giving the meaning; as first those who by Shalman will have to be un∣derstood, Shalmaneser. Among the Jews Aben Ezra, saith, perhaps Shalman is Shalmaneser, and Betharbel, the name of a place; and so R. Tanchum (whose words because not before printed, that I know of, I put down) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for Shalman it is a proper name, and it is said that it is Shalmanetser, the king of Affyria, and that it is curtailed, and perhaps Shalmanetser is compounded of two names, the one of which is omitted because it was well known, and Beth-Arbel is the name of a country (or town,) and it is said to be the same which is now called Arbel: so that this name is curtail'd in the beginning as the former at the end, but where that place stood he tells us not. That there was a place by them so called is manifest, in that one of their Rabbins in the Mishna is called a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arbeli, one of Arbel, and in some of their b an∣cient authors is mention of linnen clothes that came 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from Arbel. c Dr. Lightfoot tells us that the city here so called is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arbel by Josephus said to be a city of Galilee, and that it was betwixt Zipporim and Tiberias, and that thence was that Misnical Doctor.

Of the same opinion with Aben-Ezra and R. Tanchum, are not a few of the moderne expositors, and as for the name of Shalman that it may be put for Shalmanezar, with the end of it cut of d they produce examples as of Bamoth put for Bamoth-Baal, and of e Ha∣math for Hamath-Dor; and as for Beth-Arbel, that it may be the same with Arbel the be∣gining Beth being omitted, they think proved by Aven, being put for the same with Beth∣aven, v. 8. of this chap. Then as for the place called Beth-Arbel, or Arbel, f some say that it was in the border of Judea eastwards, or a place on the other side of Jordan, g which Salmaneser took in the first year of King Hosea, when he warred against King Hoseah and made him tributary, and that there was another place in a great plain so called. They take notice likewise that 1 Macc. 9.2. there is a place in the Land of Judea called Arbela. But Grotius thinks it there false written, for rather Arbatti, from the Hebr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which mentioned before c. 5.23. is there called Ar∣battis; but there is another place of that name, farre distant, in Assyria (viz. Arbela) famous afterward for the great defeat of Darius by Alexander, and that h some think here meant, as if there Shalmaneser had obtained some great victory and cruelly used the inhabi∣tants. But if there were any example neerer home, as probably there might be, I scarce think the Prophet speaking to the people, would mention, for working on them, a thing done at so great a distance from them: any example neerer home, and better known to them would more move them, and such we may therefore think was some cruel execution done on some town of that name in their own Land or neer them. Our Bibles in the margin for the illustration of this place, re∣ferre us to 2 K. 18.34. where are named Hamath, Arpad, Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah, and Samaria it self, as places taken by the king of Assyria, and so chap. 19.13. where most of the same places are again named. And so do i others also referre us to the same places. But neither is Beth-Arbel (or Arbel) there named, and the words there spoken are not in the name of Shalmaneser but of Sennaacherib who reigned after him. I sup∣pose therefore that all that they would have us to understand from those places cited, for the illustration of this, is, that several places were utterly dest••oied, not only by Sennache∣rib, but by other Kings of Assyria, and among them Beth-Arbel by Shalmaneser.

R. David Kimchies father by him cited, agreeing in the first place with them who think by Shalman to be meant Shalmaneser, yet as to the other name, Beth-Arbel, differs from them thinking it not to be the proper name of some other place but to be meant of

Samaria it self, as if it were so called from the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arab insidiari, to lay waite, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 El God, viz. the house against which God set laiers in waite, and took it, viz. caused it by them to be destroyed by reason of the wickedness of it. But this Abarbinel cen∣sures as no way congruous, inasmuch as he here threatens Samaria with like destruction, which had already happened to the place in∣stanced in; and how shall that be compared to it self as to another thing?

Others, as to that name, do not take it as one compounded word, making one pro∣per name, but dividing Beth from Arbel, ren∣der it k the house of Arbel; or as l others, fa∣num Arbel, the temple of Arbel, whether making Arbel the name of a man, or of an Idol god, or a town, which house or temple Shalmaneser destroyed: and if it were any strong house or temple or place of defence that was so destroyed, then may their for∣tresses to be destroyed well be compared to it. But Cappellus takes Arbel rather to de∣note the place whence Shalmaneser was, than a place that he destroyed, rendring the words, munitiones tuae vastabuntur sicut vastatione Salman domus Arbelis in die proelii i. e. thy fortresses shall be destroyed as by the destruction of Salman of the house of Arbel: and he expounds it as if it were a prediction by the Prophet, m that Shalmaneser the King of the Assyria••s, qui forte Arbela oriundus fuit, who perhaps was from Arbela (or born there,) should destroy them. If this were the meaning, then were here no comparison of one place to another, and there∣fore he taking it so, would not have it read in the Hebrew text as it now is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ceshod, as by the destruction, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beshod, by, or with the destruction, viz. by which Salmaneser the Ar∣belite shall destroy them, affirming that de∣struction should by him be brought on them, not comparing it with such as he had brought on others. But this meaning ought not to be of that value to us, as that for its sake we should change the established and never doubted of reading of the text. By the same reason every one for introducing any where such a meaning as pleased him best, might alter the words as he pleased, of which there would be no end, and it would be a matter of very ill consequence: we must fit our meaning to the words, and not the words to our meaning.

Against the taking of Shalman for Shalmane∣ser Grotius suggests an objection from the time of this prophecy, his words are, Quidam per Salmanam Salmanasarem hic intelligunt, & ei putant victoriam aliquam ad Arbela contigisse; verum haec scripta sunt ante Salmanasaris tem∣pus; si modo notatio temporis initio scripti libri ad totum librum pertinet. Some by Salman here un∣derstand Salmaneser, and think him to have ob∣tained some victory at Arbela; but these things were written before Salmaneser's time, if the date of time at the beginning of the book belong to the whole book. I suppose he means because it is there said that he prophecied in the days of Je∣roboam the son of Joash, without mention of any other King of Israel who succeeded him, whence it may be concluded, and by some is, as there we noted, that most, if not all of Hoseah's prophesies were delivered and written in Jeroboam's time, which was before we find any mention of Shalmaneser: but the force of this argument will be taken off, if we consi∣der how long the Prophet Hoseah lived, as that he did not only foretel of the destru∣ction of Samaria and captivity of Israel, but also saw it accomplished, so that though he began to prophecy, and spake many things in the time of that Jeroboam, yet it is pro∣bable that he continued to preach and to prophecy concerning Israel in the time of other Kings thereof also, even of Hoseah the last of them, so that he might see and speak of things done by Salmaneser. But he seems rather inclinable to take the names for Zal∣munna and Jerobaal, and for taking away that difference which is between the Greek and the Hebrew, while the Hebrew reads only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beth Arbeel, the house of Ar∣bel, but the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the house of Jeroboam (or as other copies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Jerobaal) adding 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of, and by house seem∣ing to understand his army, he thinks it pro∣bable, that for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beth should be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beyad, per, by; by Jerobaal. But it will be too bold for us to follow his conjecture, as before we said, concerning that of Cappel∣lus; if we should give our selves that liber∣ty, we should have in this verse three different readings, one from the Greek in reading 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cesar for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ceshod, another from Cappellus reading for it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beshod, and another from Grotius in reading 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beyad for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beith; and why may not some others by the same authority make others both here or any where else, so that we shall not know where to fixe? It will be the only safe way to keep to our reading as we have it, and to lay any fault or incongruity which we meet with on the Expositions, not on the words read in the Text. If these that we have seen be liable to ex∣ceptions, as we see they are, there is yet an∣other way which seems freer from them, which is, not fastening on either of those fore∣mentioned stories to look on it as another dif∣ferent from them, which though not else∣where in Scripture recorded or mentioned, yet was then well known, and perhaps not

long before done; so taking Shalman to have been n some great man of might, who in ho∣stile manner invading Beth Arbel, (whether we render it the house of Arbel, taking Arhel also for the name of a man then well known, as Kimchi thinks, or Beth Arbel for the name of a place, as o others take it) prosecuted his victory with the greatest extremity of cruelty, signal to a proverb, wherein he nei∣ther spared sex nor age. To this way Abar∣binel also, having considered the others, in∣clines, as several p other more modern Ex∣positors do.

The cruelty shewed in that destruction, and mentioned to bid them expect the like, is set forth in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Em al banim rutteshah, the mother was dashed in pieces upon her (or the) children, or as the Geneva English, and q others, the mother with the children was dashed in pieces, the children being dashed in pieces against the ground, the mothers were also thrown and dashed upon them, or at once with them. The verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rutteshah is as R. Tan∣chum expresseth it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a verb with which the agent is not named, i. e. r a verb passive, and agrees with Em, the mo∣ther, shewing that she should be so used, but not mentioning by whom: but the Greek expresses it by the active, expressing the agent, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) they dashed against the ground the mother upon the children, as the printed Arab. following them, and the Syriack also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the plural number they, viz. Shalman and his souldiers did dash &c. which alters not the sense, but yet gives us a dif∣ferent understanding from that of others, who so interpret it, as if the mother seeing her children lay dashed on the ground and ready to be slain, cast her self also out of anguish with violence against the ground upon them, which interpretation Kimchi also men∣tions. The Chaldee renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the mother was slain upon (or with) the children. In this sense of dashing, as taken in the notion of great cruelty, is the word elsewhere also in the Scripture, as 2 Kings 8.12. Isaiah 13.16, 18. Nahum 3.10. and in this Prophecy c. 13.16. yet are there amongst the ancient Jews, as by Kimchi cited, (and it is found in Baba Metsia c. 3.) who would here have it taken in another notion, viz of leading, parting with, or forsaking, much like as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Natash is used, as if it should sound, the mother with her children was left, or forsaken, viz. by the husband and father, being by the enemy pulled from them. But this seems a more frigid interpretation. The verb is, as by ours, so by most rendred in the signification of the preter tense, of which it is, yet by s some in the future illidetur that shall be dashed. Both tend to the same scope, though in the one telling what was done in Beth Arbel, and bidding Israel in Sa∣maria and elsewhere to expect the like; in the other telling them what should be done in them, for making their destruction like to that of Beth Arbel: and why such severe things should befal them, the next words shew.

V. 15. So shall Beth-el do unto you, because of your great wickedness: in a morning shall the King of Israel ut∣terly be cut off.

So shall Beth-el do unto you &c.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cacah asah lacem Beith el. t Some following here the same con∣struction of the words, render sic fecit vobis Bethel, so hath Bethel done unto you; v others, it a efficit vobis Bethel so doth Bethel do unto you; others as ours, shall do. The verb is in∣deed in the Hebrew of the pretertense, but by x some noted to have the import of the fu∣ture. Such promiscuous use of the tenses in prophetical denuntiations, the thing fore∣told to come being as certain as already done or in doing, we have more than once had example of, and shall not need to insist on it. The meaning according to all will be the same, viz. that what evils had befaln them and the great mischief like that which befel Beth Arbel, that should come upon them, were all from Bethel, ( y taking by a figure the place for the things done in it) i. e. by reason of their great wickedness there committed. Though those evils were sent upon them by God, and by the Assyrian, his instrument, inflicted on them, yet is neither the one nor the other said to do to them what they suf∣fered, but Bethel; their Idolatry and great wickedness there, being the cause that moved God to bring the destroyer on them.

Why the first particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cacah, signi∣fying, and by others as well as by ours rendred, so, should in the interlineary be rendred sicut, as, I know not. Others give another construction, making Bethel the vocative case; so the Syriac 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so z have they done to you, Be∣thel, changing the number in the verb from

the singular to the plural, as if he understood the King of Assyria and his army. But the Greek with change not of number, but per∣son, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the printed Arab. accordingly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so will I do to you, (or with you) ô house of Israel. And this way of rendring Bethel in the vocative case doth Dru∣sius also approve, so far as to seem to doubt which should be preferred, without altering the verb at all, but supplying Deus God, sic faciet vobis Deus, so shall God do to you. The scope in all these will be but the same, for whether we take to be understood as the agent the King of Affyria, and his forces the instrument, or God that set them on work immediatly, it is all one, he is still the prin∣cipal agent. But between these and the for∣mer rendring, wherein Bethel is made the no∣minative case, there is this difference, that in that Bethel is taken for the iniquity or Idola∣try committed in it, to which it was so wholly given, as to give its name to it, if it were all one to say Bethel, or the Calf or Idol that was worshipped in Bethel, the Idolatry and wickedness therein practised: in the other, for the inhabitants thereof, or those who there assembled themselves for that Idola∣trous worship, which being not only the citi∣zens and proper inhabitants thereof, but all other the Israelites from Samaria and all other parts of the land, we cannot but think the meaning well given by the Greek, giving it in a more general terme, of the house of Israel, though only that one town Bethel, where their common meeting for those wicked ends, in which they all conspired, was, be named.

According to both wayes, that which brought on them the mischief threatned, is farther de∣scribed in the next words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mippeni raath raathcem, which ours in the text render, because of your great wicked∣ness; in the margin more literally according to the Hebrew, because of the evil of your evil: others yet more literally in respect of the first word, as the LXXII. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the printed Arab. following them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the vulgar Latin à facie malitiae nequitiarum vestrarum, and the Interlineary à faciebus malitiae malitiae vestrae, from the face of the evil &c. that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mip∣pene according to the composition of the word from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 men from, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 panim face, doth in nicety so signify as it is by them rendred, there is no doubt; but as well known, that it is used also to signi∣fy for, or because of, and we cannot doubt therefore, that it was by them so understood, and that they would be so understood, while they so rendred it, though the expressions which they use, be not otherwise so well known in that sense in the language that they wrote in. And therefore the Doway, which usually renders the Latin very literally, doth here render à facie by because of, as well as it is by a others so expounded. Much the like may be said of the Latin Translator of the Sy∣riac version, which renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 men kedom, which in that language signifies from before, by propter for or because of.

As for the following words, which ac∣cording to the Margin in our Bible literally signify the evil of your evil, that they are well rendred by your great wickedness, we need no farther proof than what R. Tanch. observes ac∣cording to a known rule, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. that they joyne in construction a thing with its like to denote b excess either by way of praise or dispraise, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shir hashirim, can∣ticum canticorum a song of songs, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hebel habalim vanity of vanities; other∣wise the words signify 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the filthiness (or foulness) of your evil deeds: and so therefore the Latin Translator of the Syr. version renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the evil of your evil by pes∣simam malitiam vestram, your most (or very) evil evil. In some Greek copies it is observed that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 raath evil is not repeated as it is in that c which we follow, in which we read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the face of the iniquity of your wickedness, but only from the face 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of your wickednesses, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of your evils: and such a copy the printed Arab. followed, reading 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin Translator there∣of well renders, propter turpitudines vestras for your filthinesses; though it sound as the Greek, à facie, from the face &c. These that so read, though they give the sense, yet by omitting the repetition of the word abate of the weight and Emphasis of the expression; and whereas the Greek, and they that follow them, as also the vulgar Latin put the last word in the plural, nequitiatum, of your wicked∣nesses, which in the Hebrew is the singular 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 raathcem your wickedness, we may sup∣pose them to have done it that they might express more fully the extent and multiplicity of their wickedness, which they thought the repetition of the same word to import, rather than that they did read instead thereof Rao∣thecem in the plural, as d some seem to think. Tremellius, though I suppose liking best e the former interpretation, yet observes that the words may also be resolved, propter mali∣tiam

ipsam vestram, for that your very own wickedness.

That wickedness called the evil of their evil is generally looked on as their Idolatry or worship of their Calf at Bethel, Idolatry being extremum omnium malorum, the very height of all evils. So R. Solomo, all this pu∣nishment 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath the which is calf in Bethel, been the occasion of to you, and by the evil of your evil is denoted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 your sins of presumption: Aben Ezra, Bethel, because there was that calf, which was so, an f evil above all your evils: and so Kimchi, all this hath Bethel been the cause of to you, as much as to say, the calf which ye worshipped there. Because of the evil of your evil, i. e. this was unto you because of the greatest of your evils, i. e. the worship of your calf, and because ye said g these are thy gods, O Israel. Abarbi∣nel by this ingemiration of the words, the evil of your evil, thinks to be intimated both the calf that their forefathers made in the wilderness, and those that they, their Idola∣trous Progeny now worshipped, as an evil sprung from that former evil. These expo∣sitions, according to that distinction of the words, which is by ours also followed, re∣ferre these words to the precedent, as a cause of what is in them threatned, making after them the pause. h There is another way of distinction, putting a pause after the word Bethel, and making them a cause of what is threatned, thus, because of your great wicked∣ness, in a morning &c. It will come all to one pass, the evil threatned being all, parts or se∣veral acts of the same continued punishment, and the causes of them mentioned belonging to them all, as to what went before, so also to what follows, in a morning shall the king of Israel be utterly cut off. This rendring of ours seems well to give the meaning of the words, which in the Hebrew are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bashachar nidmoh nidmah melec Israel, In a morning in cutting off, hath been (is, or shall be) cut off the king of Israel. This doubling of the verb, and putting i the infi∣nitive mood with the preterperfect tense, de∣noting the certainty and the full completion of the thing spoken, which ours well ex∣press by k utterly; and the rendring of the preter tense by the future, being as the sense requires ordinary, as we have before in se∣veral examples seen: and therefore though by others rendred according to the forme of the verb, excisus est, hath been cut off, is, I suppose, l no otherwise by them understood, than that it should suddainly and as certainly so be, as if already done. And the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bashachar in a morning, or m in one morning, (or as it may be also rendred n cum aurora with the morning) may denote the sud∣dainess of it, that it shall be done o statim, cito, presently, suddainly; or as Tremellius, perexiguo tempore, sicut fere momento ex∣oritur aurora, ac lucem suam in totum or∣bem porrigit, in a very little time, as the morning ariseth almost in a moment, and diffuseth its light abroad: and so p several others to the same purpose. q Others, then when in the morning after a night of calamities they might have expected a morning, and little feared so suddain a destruction, as under the reign of King Hosea, who was better than some before him, & might give them hope of better things. By the King of Israel is looked on as meant Hosea, the son of Elah their last King, who may as say r some, be said to be cut off in a (or the) morning, because it was at the be∣ginning of his reign; for though he reigned nine years, yet s from the beginning of his reign was he before brought under by the King of Assyria, so that presently, in the very dawning of his reign might he be said to have been cut off, though not till his last wholly with his people destroyed. Under the name of the King may t the Kingdom, or People, also be comprehended, which were all cut off with him. Thus according to that rendring which ours, and generally modern Interpre∣ters give, is by these words denoted the cer∣tainty, suddainess, and unavoidableness of the destruction of the King of Israel with his Kingdom denoted, which was also by a si∣militude tending to the like purpose expressed above v. 7. that he should be cut off as the some upon the water. And indeed according to all the Translators of the words that we find, is that looked on as the scope of them, though they be some of them so far different from ours and those that agree with it, as that some have thought they did read otherwise in their Hebrew copies, than we now do in those that we have. As for some of them their antiquity and authority requires, that we pass them not by unconsidered.

To begin with the vulgar Latin (as most known) that renders, sicut mane transiit (as some copies, or as others, transit) pertransit Rex Israel, which those of Doway English, as the morning passed, hath the King of Israel passed. Here first is observable, that instead of in a morning, is rendred as the morning, which

makes u some conjecture that the Author of that translation read not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bashachar in a morning, as our copies have it, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cashachar, as the morning, the letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 b and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 c are indeed so like in forme, as that in very well written manuscripts it will be hard to di∣stinguish them, as appears by one very fair copy which in this place I consulted, and Buxtorf notes, that in some copies printed at Venice heretofore it was so put in the margin as a different reading. But the Masora shews bashachar to be true reading, by noting that the word is no where else so read but in this place, whereas if it were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 casha∣char, they could not so say, seeing that is elsewhere found, viz. Isaiah 58.8. However this would make no difference in the meaning, yet withal we may say that there is nothing in this version that convinceth; that they did read it otherwise than we do, viz. bashachar in, or with the morning, as will appear when when we shall see how they joyn it with the following words, in the construction of which with he seems also to differ from our way, according to the Doway translation, and or∣dinary expositions given of it, while in ours the repeated verb is referred in both places to one thing, viz. the King of Israel, who should in cutting off be cut off; but according to him is w parted, and in the first place is referred to the morning, in the second to the King; as first affirming the morning to have passed away, secondly that the King of Israel should pass away, and then will seem to be another various reading in the words, namely that in the first place instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nidmoh in the infinitive they read Nidmah also in the preter tense, as it is in the second place, that so it may be construed with the noun, morning, as the other is with the King of Israel. But I suppose there may be an easier way of re∣conciling these seeming divers rendrings, than by either flying to different readings in the Hebrew, or different distinguishing of the words therein. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bashachar signifies as well (as we have said) with the morning, as in the morning; and to say he should be cut off with the morning or passed away with the morn∣ing, what is it but to say, as the morning? it may well be so expressed. If he do joyn the first verb Nidmoh with Bashachar, it will be literally with (or as) the morning in its passing away, and that will be likewise as the morning passeth away. But I suppose there will be no need of so parting the verbs, or distinguishing the words in that translation, which may be otherwise distinguished and rendred, as the morning (or x as in a morning) the King of Israel is passed away, he is quite passed away, which will not differ in sense from, by or in passing he is utterly gone, or passed away. And so Pe∣trus à Figueiro seems to understand them, for having observed the words in the Hebrew to sound excidendo excisus est, he then thus ex∣plains them according to the ordinary Latin translation, Rex Israelis &c. the King of Israel, i. e. Hosea the son of Elah, which was the last of the Kings of Israel, under whom the Kingdom of Israel was abolished, Transiit & pertransiit &c. is passed and passed away, (or is gone, yea clean gone) i. e. without any hope of recovering his Kingdom gone away into captivity, or slain; sicut mane, i. e. quasi dilu∣culum, as the dawning of the day, cito & su∣bito, quickly and suddenly, like as the light of the morning passeth from east to west. In this exposition of his he looks upon the doubled verbs transiit & pertransiit as both referred y to the King of Israel in construction, and not one to mane the morning, and the other to Rex the King of Israel, and so falls in with what we said, and well expresseth and agreeth with the Hebrew, and ours and other transla∣tions that literally follow it: and whereas that translation renders what others render cutting off by transiit, passing or going away, it is again by Tremellius censured, propriam signi∣ficationem non expressisse, for that it giveth not the proper signification of the word, but I think it need not for that be censured. Of the signification of that root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Damah, we have had occasion before to speak, as in c. 4. v. 5, 6. and this c. v. 7. in all which places it is likewise by ours rendred and by several others in the notion of destroying or cutting off, by others otherwise, as may be seen in looking back to them. It may suffice here briefly to say, that that root hath z several significations, which may be called proper significations, as namely these, of cutting off, of being like, and of thinking or imagination, and each of these of that latitude, as that others, equivalent as to the meaning, may be reduced to them. Now if any in rendring any word or form from this root derived, in another language shall render it by some such as shall make a more conve∣vient sense in that language, and be to the same purpose, and give the same mean∣ing, as if he put down the strictest and pro∣perest signification which is attributed to the word, though he do not precisely express that, I suppose he need not be taxed in omit∣ting so to do, for neglecting or not attending to the proper signification of the word, and expressing it, as long as he hath expressed the proper meaning: and this I suppose may

be here said of that Latin version; though transire, to pass, vanish, or be gone away, be not reckoned among the proper significations of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nidmah, as long as to say one, is passed or cleane gone away, will be the same as to say he is cleane cut off. And per∣haps the Author of that translation might choose to use that expression as more agree∣able to the similitude of the sudden vanish∣ing of the morning, to which the speedy cutting off of the Kings of Israel is compared, it being more usual to say of the morning, that it a passed away, than that it is cut off, and the meaning of both the same: so that these things being observed, there will not be any great difference between the vulgar Latin translation and that which ours follow, nor reason to think that the Author thereof did either read, or understand any of the words otherwise, than ours and other moderne Trans∣lators now do.

Somthing to the same purpose may be said of the Greek, of the LXXII. who render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the printed Arab. following them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mane projecti sunt, proje∣ctus est Rex Israel, i. e. in the morning they have been cast away, the King of Israel hath been cast away, of which words Theophylact gives three meanings. 1. that, by in the morning is meant, that when they expected help from the Assy∣rians, that there might appear as it were a morning to them who were in nocte haesitatio∣nis, in the night of perplexity, & in angustia belli, the calamity of war, they were then cast away captives into Babylon. Or 2. that speedily and in a short time after they should be destroyed, the morning or break of day containing no long time, the rising of the sun excluding it, and making perfect day. Or 3. that God, while he forbeareth to punish evil, being said to sleep, when he beginneth to avenge himself seems to rise up, so that it is as if he said, though I did heretofore sleep as in the night, not seeing them, now the morning being come, I awake, and will for the future cast them away. This last way b Cyril also takes. All of them, as to the scope of the words, agree that they import sudden destru∣ction to them and to their King, as according to that rendring which ours and others give they do; but not to insist farther on the scope of them, according to them neither on the con∣struction, in that they referre the verb in the first place to the people, that they should be cast away, in the second to the King; that which we chiefly take notice of, is concerning the signification which they give of the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nidmah, which being by ours and others taken in the notion of cutting off, they render by casting away. This makes some to conjecture, that they read otherwise than we now do, viz. not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nidmah, which signi∣fies to be cut off, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nirmah, which signifies to be cast away; the likeness between the two letters in which the words differ, to wit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 d and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 r, is such as they may be easi∣ly written, or if not so meant, yet easily taken one for the other, and perhaps were in their copy doubtfully written, so that they might take one for the other. If they did so in this place, they did so also in c several others, where the same word is so by them rendred.

But not to digress in looking after others, as to the present we may well say, that their rendring it as they do, doth not necessarily convince, that they did read otherwise than we do; cutting off and casting away of a people or person being so much the same thing, that if a word which strictly and properly signi∣fies the one, be rendred by the other, it can∣not for that be said to be an extravagant or improper rendring: so that we need not bring this as an argument of any force to prove a difference between our copies of the Hebrew text that we now have, and those that the LXXII, anciently had, and so the known no∣tion of cutting off or bringing to destruction, which the verb hath, solves such objections as may be made against our reading and rendring of it as now we do. But there are other versions which seem to give meanings to it not so reducible to that of cutting off, of which therefore somthing must be said to shew on what grounds they take a different way. Such is that of the Chaldee Paraphrast, who interprets it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of which the Latin trans∣lations given, are (as in the Polyglot Bible, confusus est porro & probro affectus est rex Israel) or, as Mercer renders, pudefacto tandem & con∣fuso Israelitarum rege, or as Petrus à Fig. tan∣dem pudefactus est & humiliatus est rex Israel, we may render it, in the end (or finally or in summe) the king of Israel is (or hath been) con∣founded (or amazed,) and brought to shame (or brought low, or humbled,) the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying both these, viz. d deprimi or humiliari, and pudore dejici, erubescere, or e ignominia affici, to be humbled and to be put to shame. But in a Paraphrast it is not expected, that he should literally express the proper signification of the words, but give that which he takes to be the meaning of them in his own words; but from the Syriack who is simply a Translator it should: yet he here

seeming to follow the Chaldee as to the verbs, renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Latin Translator renders, in aurora admiratus est & obstupuit rex Israelis, but ra∣ther I think, in the (or a) morning the King of Israel was (or is) amazed and confounded with shame.

This rendring doth not strictly agree with the notion of cutting off, it falls short of it; they may be brought to shame and confusion, yea brought low, who are not yet cut off, only re∣ducible it is some way to that, as antecedent to it, as caused by the laying open of their sins, and judgment for them threatned to them. But if this suffice not, it will be more easily reduced to that other signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nidmah, of being brought to si∣lence, made mute, or struck dumb, which is the usual effect of consternation and confusion, through the apprehension of some great mis∣chief, foretold or foreseen as ready to seize on men, and that notion also is f reducible to that of cutting off, as being a cutting off from speech. And in this signification, viz. of being made silent or dumb, doth the Author of the MS. Arab. translation manifestly here take the word, while he renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and in the morning hath the King of Israel with being made silent (or dumb) been made dumb; and in the same signification doth he also render it above c. 4.5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. and I will make silent thy mother, where ours with others render, I will destroy (or cut off, as in the margin,) and v. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nidmu ammi, my people are destroyed (or cut off) by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so that my people are made (or become) dumb, (which words I here give in his own language, be∣cause they were in those places omitted) and above in this chapter v. 7. by the same word in Arab. is the same 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rendred by him, as we have there seen. The Arab. word which he useth, hath properly the signi∣fication of dumbness, and the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 damah in the Hebrew is, we know, usual in the notion of silence, in which notion R. Solo∣mo Jarchi seems here to take it in his ob∣scure exposition, which is that which he saith Bashachar nidmoh nidmah, Bashachar in the morning &c. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he is a sleep as if it were in the night, that is to say, he hath no power: he must either mean that he is silent (in the morning) as in the night, or else in another signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nidmah, to be alike, he is in the morning like as if it were in the night.

But Abarbinel, who had seen this and other expositions, of the Jews at least, takes yet a fourth signification of that verb, which we have mentioned, viz. of thinking or imagina∣tion; for having said that Expositors usually render the word Nidmah in the signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ceritah, cutting off, he saith it may be understood, that affliction & distress should be to them as in a night of darkness of clouds & thick darkness, which by the light of the morn∣ing hath all an end put to it, and that which he saith Nidmoh nidmah melec Israel, as much as to say, that his condition is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a thought, fancy, or imaginary thing, in which is no reality or actual substance, but g only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cogita∣tio spiritus, a thought of spirit, a mere fancy; as much as to say he shall be brought even to a mere imaginary thing, a nothing.

Among all these wayes, I know not why we should not adhere to that which our own translation follows; and indeed, however otherwise differing in sound, they all agree in the main scope of the prophecy, that it is a threat of sure and certain destruction to the King of Israel: and indeed which soever of them we take, it will appear to have had its completion in Hosea the son of Elah, the last King thereof, either by his being carryed away captive or destroyed, or in as much as in him there was an end put to the Kingdom of Israel, according to h Theophylact. What is said, this was done in the, (or a morning, will be so understood as we have shewed, ex∣cept some should think this to be referred to the time of the day in which this calamity should come on them. Mercer seems to take some so to understand, I know not whom he means, except perhaps Ab. Ezra, who ex∣pounds it, that they should be wasted in the night, and their King cut off in the morning.

A late i learned man applyes this, not to Hosea the last King of the ten Tribes, but looks upon it as pointing to these later times, to which he in a mystical way of exposition referres most of the things by our Prophet spoken, and thinks this particularly fulfilled in the cutting off of a Christian, true Israeli∣tish King in the morning, on the thirtieth of January 1649. by his own people. A most barbarous fact, and such as cannot without great grief and lamenting the sins of the Na∣tion, which occasioned it, be recounted: but that it was by these words of the Prophet so long before particularly foretold, may per∣haps seem that one learned mans single opi∣nion. His translation of the words is, cum aurora occidit occidit rex Israel.

These words do our Translators and several others referre to what went before, and so

conclude with them this tenth chapter, and the connexion between them and the pre∣ceeding words seems plaine. Yet do others, cutting them off from those, make them the beginning of a new chapter; so the LXXII. the Syriac also and printed Arab. and vulgar Latin; and among the Jews also Solomo Jar∣chi, and Abarbinel seem to joyn them with those following, in which Gods loving kind∣ness to them is declared, as the denouncing of a punishment, the justice of which, that it may be seen they have no reason to mur∣mur at it, is made evident, by that God had deserved better carriage from them to him, than they had shewed: but we follow the di∣stinction by ours and others made, as more plain and convenient, and therefore begin a new chapter with the following words, when Israel was a child &c.

Notes

• a

  Nic. Fuller in cap. conc.
• b

  Chr. à Castr.
• c

  Though these significations in some forms of speech are the same, good and well, being used as well for denoting quantity as quality; so we say, a good deal or quantity, for a great deal.
• d

  Stephanus in his Index to his Thes.
• e

  Ribera.
• f

  Ribera.
• g

  Qualis vitis, taiis fructus, Merc.
• h

  Jau••ari,
• i

  Kamus.
• k

  Rivet.
• l

  Petr. à Fig.
• m

  Like that fig tree having leaves but no fruit, which our Saviour cursed, Matt. 11.13.
• n

  In this Montanus follows him.
• q

  In his Dictionary in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and this signification Oecolamp. takes.
• o

  In Kamus. spoken of a man.
• p

  Rapheleng. out of a Glossary.
• r

  Zanchi at large endeavours to make it plain if it would be.
• s

  In the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so Kimc••i in Rad.
• t

  Schindl. Lexi. in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ••de Dieu, and see Rivet.
• u

  Tarnov.
• w

  Drus.
• x

  Id. see Poole.
• y

  Abuwalid. L. Rad.
• z

  As Rivet observes some to do.
• a

  Pisc. and Dutch notes.
• b

  Pag. &c.
• c

  Munst.
• d

  Calv.
• e

  Ca••.
• f

  Tig. in some copies without an interrogation, in others with it.
• g

  Zanchi, and see Mercer and Riv.
• h

  P••g. Munst
• i

  Trem. fructumne ponat sibi, and Vat.
• k

  Munst.
• l

  Pag.
• Oecol.
• m

  One Italick edition in 4to. hath spogliata, another in Folio diserta, and the other words much differ in them, though to the same sense, I put both together in the note,
• n

  Rivet.
• o

  So Grot. ta••es it as a denuntiation, fore ut terra Israelis sit cultoribus vacua, that their land shall be destitute of such as should cultivate it, as Isa, 6.11.12.
• p

  Other copies have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• q

  Pag. Tig.
• r

  Pare. and see Rivet.
• s

  Agreeably R. Sal. saith the meaning of Hetibu to be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they have multiplied altars.
• t

  The Geneva fair.
• u

  Zanchi. Tarnov.
• w

  River.
• x

  Trem. Dan.
• y

  As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the 1. v.
• z

  Which Oecolamp. thinketh the best rendring.
• a

  Drus. and Lud. de Dieu, who saith the LXX. so render it, he seems to read in them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as in the various readings in the Francf. edition. This Tarnov. censures hardly, yet the Dutch notes prefer it.
• c

  Pagn. see Rivet. and Boot.
• d

  Zanchi.
• e

  Munst. Calv.
• f

  For which they are commended by Boot. animad. l. 4. c. 12. p. 240.
• g

  Calv. Trem. Vat. Zanchi. Rivet. Gene∣va notes.
• h

  Grot.
• i

  Boot.
• k

  Abarb. Mont. Chr. à Castro
• l

  See Jerom. Chr. à Castro. Petr, à Fig. Rivet.
• m

  See above on c. 1, 3.
• n

  Tirin:
• o

  Lyra. Capito. Merc. Oecol. Rivet, &c.
• b

  Jun. Trem.
• p

  Rivet.
• q

  Rivet.
• r

  Capito.
• s

  Tig.
• t

  Mercer in his first notes,
• u

  Calv.
• w

  Castal.
• x

  Jun. Trem.
• y

  Lively.
• z

  Non refertur ad actum, sed potius ad manifestationem. Calv.
• a

  Drus. Rivet. for so it is used also to signi∣fy as well as the present time, now, see in the next verse.
• b

  Pagn. Munst. Drus. &c.
• c

  Mercer.
• d

  It is in Bereshith Rabba p. 23. col. 1, in the Ven. edit. but in words more like those which we have set down on c. 4. v. 17. than these of R. Sal.
• e

  Pet. à Fig.
• f

  Compare c. 8.6.
• g

  See Petr. à Fig.
• h

  See Jer. 7.4, &c. to v. 15.
• i

  Mat. 31.
• k

  So Drus. Deus vel ipsum cor divisum, and see Zanchi and Chr. à Castro.
• l

  Calv. Lively, Pi c. Rivet, &c.
• m

  Tarnov. Jo. Hen. Ursin.
• n

  Lyra. Tirin. and see Chr. à Castr.
• o

  Qui eorum aris cervicem obtorqueat. Mercerstranslation. Others, qui subvertar cacumen altarium eorum, which difference will be reconciled, by seeing what we say of the next word in the Hebrew.
• p

  Abuwalid is only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall throw them down.
• q

  Capito, Zanchi.
• s

  And so Micah. 5.13. and Eze. 26.11. where the Latin translatour renders it Excelsa, elsewhere he renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Koimotho, statues
• t

  For so I supose it may be taken for the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• See Rive••.
• r

  Perhaps for the gold, &c. on them.
• Lyra, Oecol.
• u

  Trem. Capito.
• w

  See Trem.
• x

  Trem.
• y

  As Za••chi observes the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be sometimes sau∣sed.
• z

  Jun. Trem. Daneus and Grot. seeming to take that way.
• a

  Jerome, &c.
• b

  Pare. and see Calv. and Merc.
• c

  Perinde ac si non esset, Kimchi. Drus.
• d

  V. 7. and 2 King. 17.4.
• e

  See Dane.
• f

  Petr. à Fig. and see Tarnov.
• g

  See. Menoch. Tirin. Petr. à Fig.
• h

  Ribera, Chr. à Castro in his paraphrase, Sa. Menoch.
• Cyril, Theoph.
• k

  Steph. Lex.
• l

  Capito, Zan. Chr. Tarn. Rivet.
• m

  Mercer, Capito.
• n

  In his translation of the Chaldee.
• i

  In Bib. Ploygl.
• o

  Munst. Tig. Pag.
• p

  Calv.
• q

  Tig. in marg. Jun. Trem.
• r

  As Castalio, falsum jurantes, foedus ferientes.
• s

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• t

  See Gen. 17.10. and Jer. 34.18.19.
• v

  Ribera.
• w

  Grot.
• x

  Kimchi, Capito, Zanchi, Vat, Drus. Mercer.
• y

  Pisc. Diodat.
• z

  Calv.
• a

  Rivet.
• b

  Tig. Capito, Jun. Tr. Interl.
• c

  R. Sal. Kimchi. Pag. Cast. Tarnov.
• d

  See note on c. 5.1. and 11.
• e

  So Jun. Trem. Floret.
• f

  So Kimchi in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 under which head, he puts it, and so R. Tanchum in his Dictionary, though more frequently written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as here, yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Deut. 32.33. though in the next v. otherwise
• g

  Though it be false written in him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• h

  Trem. Drus.
• i

  See. Calv. and Cast.
• k

  Munst. Tig. Calv.
• l

  Munst. Tig. in Deut. 29.18. Lament. 3.19
• m

  Capito Jun. Trem. Lively.
• n

  which the Arab renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is a sort of sowre herb.
• o

  it signifies some such things as tares or herbs wrapped together; the Syriac Lexicons, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• p

  Zanchi.
• q

  Capito.
• r

  Petr. à Fig. Cap.
• s

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The lines of earth which are between two furrows, which the plowman makes, and so Kimchi rad. and Conc. Heb.
• t

  Riber. Menoch. Chr. à Castr.
• v

  Kimchi. Rad.
• v

  Tarnov.
• w

  Calv.
• x

  Rivet.
• y

  See Tarn.
• z

  Calv. Merc. Rivet. Jun.
• a

  Rom. 3.13. &c. Psal. 140.3.
• b

  Pisc.
• c

  Rivet. and see Mercer. Hutcheson.
• d

  Menoch.
• e

  Dane. Tarnov.
• f

  As Psal. 22.23. by them all.
• g

  R. Tanchum in Morshed.
• h

  Kamus. and see Gol. Lex.
• i

  Ribera Chr. à Castr.
• k

  Pagn.
• l

  Jun. Trem.
• m

  Zanchi.
• n

  Capito.
• o

  Castal.
• p

  Pag.
• q

  Trem.
• r

  Tig.
• s

  Castal.
• t

  See in Zanc.
• u

  Cocc.
• w

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• x

  Kimchi.
• y

  Abarb.
• z

  Enallage numeri, Rivet as on the contrary where, but one calf is named, yet of it is said, These are thy Gods, Exod. 23.4. Lyra.
• a

  Bochartus indeed thinks it is there a singular, part. post. lib. 5. c. 15.
• b

  c. 8.5, 6.
• c

  Jerome, Calv. Trem. Capito, &c.
• d

  Kimchi L. de Dieu. Trem. see Full. Misc.
• e

  Seld. de Diis Syris.
• f

  Kimchi, Drus.
• g

  Trem.
• h

  Kimchi.
• i

  Tarnov.
• k

  Kimchi.
• o

  Ribera.
• p

  Petr. à Fig.
• q

  Jun. Trem.
• r

  Pisc.
• s

  Petr. à Fig.
• t

  Bren, cives B••thel.
• u

  See Rivet. which Lud. de Dieu looks on as the opinion of Jun. and seems not well to like it.
• w

  If it be looked on as meant of more it will be understood, as by Ab. Ezra. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 over every calf.
• x

  Diodati.
• y

  Drus.
• z

  Vulg. La.
• a

  Jun. Trem. Pisc.
• b

  So likewise Abuwalid in rad.
• c

  Buxt. Lex.
• d

  In which language the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to be sad, or sorrow∣ful.
• e

  Schindl. Drus. &c.
• f

  Kimchi in rad.
• g

  Jun. Tr. Pisc.
• h

  Conc. Hebr. Reuc••lin. Nic. Fuller.
• i

  In Tisbi and notes on Kimchi.
• k

  And so Mercer.
• l

  As many others do, and so the Chaldee.
• n

  And so Menoch. Chr. à Castr. Supplendum est relativum qui, &c.
• m

  Exultaverant, Jun. The Syriac renders it in the Future, and puts before it a conjunction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and over him they shall rejoyce.
• o

  Chr. à Castro speaking of such as is grounded on that story, saith, Haec expositio falsa est.
• p

  Jerom, Lyra, and see Drus. Rivet.
• q

  Much like also Munster, Ob ejus gloriam qua privatus est.
• r

  Both that at Dan and that at Bethel, synecdochice, Jun. Trem.
• s

  R. Sal. Ab. Ezr. Kimch, Abarb.
• t

  Abuwalid, R. Tanch.
• v

  As likewise on 2 Kin. 23.
• w

  In his Dictionary rad. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• x

  Though it be usually intransitive, To be angry.
• y

  Schindl. Cap. Trem.
• z

  Theophylact.
• a

  And see Jerom and Lyra.
• b

  And so censured by Capito.
• c

  Calv. Trem. Rivet.
• d

  Diodat. S. H. Ursin. and as Bochart. shwes part. post. l. 2. p. 357. &.
• e

  ••. Saadias. in Kimchi.
• f

  Grot.
• g

  See Calv. Trem. Tarn.
• h

  Drus.
• i

  Rivet.
• k

  As it was certainly to one or other to be c. 8. ••.
• l

  Vindici injuriae tum Deo tum sibi illatae, Tirin.
• m

  Munst. Pag. Calv. Trem. as the Chaldee and Syriack of old.
• n

  Confusio Ephraim capiet. Vulg. and see Tig. Interl. Drus.
• o

  Vat.
• p

  R. Sal. Kimch. Capito, Drus. Riv. Pet. à Fig. &c. Chr. â Cast. in paraphrase
• q

  And so Dr. Stokes
• r

  Dane. Hutcheson.
• s

  Riv.
• t

  See Calv. and Trem. on v. 8.
• v

  Zanchi.
• w

  Rivet.
• x

  Lively on c. 9.8.
• z

  See Drus.
• a

  For so it is manifest it should be written, as in other places as below v. 15. and c. 4.6. though here it be only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• y

  For he explains it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• b

  And Ar. Mont. follows him, and it is found in R. Sol. in a MS. copy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is likened.
• c

  See Trem. Schindl. Cappell.
• d

  Pag. Munst. Capito.
• e

  Tig.
• f

  Trem. Lively.
• g

  Cast.
• h

  Calv.
• i

  Tarn.
• Jun. Trem.
• k

  ••isc. Tarnov.
• l

  See Cyril, Theoph. Pelican.
• m

  Rivet. l. H. Ursin.
• n

  But in a MS. here, and in his Radd. the Chaldee word is written otherwise, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• o

  In the Arab. MS. is noted also that it may be rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 anger, meaning a thing that a man being angry at, casts upon the water.
• p

  Nic. Full. Cap. Conc.
• q

  So Grot. expounds it of water in a pot or caldron. See Jerom from Symmach.
• r

  Calv. Zanch.
• s

  As in ours it is rendred Act. 20.9. where in Arab. it is rendred likewise 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• t

  Kamus.
• v

  Gol. in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by which very word Bar Ali and Bahlul, render the Sy∣riac 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• w

  Capito. Oecol.
• x

  Drus. Riv.
• y

  Rivet. Tarn. I. H. Ursin.
• y

  Rivet. Tarn. I. H. Ursin.
• z

  Hammond.
• a

  Pare.
• b

  Rupert.
• c

  Riber. Rivet.
• d

  Abarbinel.
• e

  See the same.
• R. Sal. Kimc.
• f

  1 King. 11.
• g

  Lyra. Munst. Rib. Calv. Castro. Oecol. Pelican
• h

  Riber. Ch. à Castro.
• i

  Calv. Riber. Mer. Grot.
• k

  Pare.
• l

  Mercer in his former notes. Lively, Tarnov. De Dieu.
• m

  Jerom.
• n

  Pelican.
• o

  Menoch.
• p

  Id. and Tirin.
• q

  And see Geneva note.
• r

  Capito per interrogationem haec particulo legenda est.
• s

  Drus. Jun. Trem. Pisc. Rivet.
• t

  R. Salomo.
• v

  Grot.
• w

  Or, non assequutus est, hath not overtaken them. Jun. Trem.
• x

  Vulg. Lat.
• y

  Sa. Menoch. Tirin. Rivet. Ch. à Castro his paraphrase.
• z

  Merc. Vat.
• a

  As it is in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 2 Sam. 3.34. and 7.10.
• b

  Ab. Ezra, Kimchi, R. Tanc. Abarb. MS. Arab. which ren∣ders it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The people of iniquity, or injurious people.
• c

  In 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• d

  In this way we may compare it with the Arabic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which will concur in signification.
• e

  I. H. Ursin.
• f

  In his notes on Michal Yophi.
• g

  Noting in the margin, that m is particula comparandi, a particle of com∣pariso.
• Tarnov.
• h

  In the Interlineary, In desiderio meo, & corripiam eos.
• i

  Not, I suppose, because he read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beothi, per me, as Capell. conjectures, but that he might not seem to attribute passion or desire to God.
• k

  Polygl. Lond. and so in Jerom Venit ut corrumperet (or rather corriperet, as Drus. observes) and Cyril.
• l

  Ed. Francf.
• m

  Drus. Trem.
• n

  Trem.
• o

  Bib. Francf. and see Drus.
• p

  Pro desiderio & libitu meo, Tarn.
• q

  Mercer.
• r

  Rivet.
• s

  Zan.
• t

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Abuwalid in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of my love and good intentions to them.
• u

  To which Abuwalid thus referrs it.
• w

  So it might suggest this meaning, Hitherto have I chastised you in love expecting your amendment, but now you continuing obstinate I will gather the people against you.
• x

  Quia volui castigare ••os, collecti sunt adversus ipsos populi.
• y

  Ab. Ezra, R. Tanc. Kimchi, who note the first radical ▪i being cast away to be compensated by the Dagesh in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 s.
• z

  Jun. Tr. Pisc. Grot. Dan.
• a

  See Drus. what some, as Trem. and Tarnov. note that the unusual form may denote unusual punishme••••, seems but a nicety.
• b

  Drus. Riv.
• c

  Jun. Pare.
• d

  Tarnov.
• e

  Rivet.
• f

  Calv. Trem. Drus. Riv. Tarn.
• g

  Interlin. or as in marg. dum corriperentur, see in Drus. postquam castigavero eos.
• h

  R. Sal. Ab. Ezra, Kimchi, Abarb.
• i

  LXX. Vulg. Syr. Interl. Lively.
• k

  See Rivet.
• l

  Riv. Montan.
• m

  Lyra. Lively, Grot. Chr. à Castr. Merc. &c.
• n

  Tirin.
• o

  And Mercer.
• p

  Ego volens.
• q

  i. e. Suffered the same with them, as he explains it in a note.
• r

  Merc. Lively, Rivet.
• Among the Jews, Ab. Ez. Kimc.
• s

  Viz. to defend themselves against their enemies, (as Calv.) or to strengthen themselves in their wicked wayes.
• t

  Who halted between God and Idols, not sticking to any certain religion.
• v

  Schindl. in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thinks the two kingdoms to be likened to two furrows.
• w

  Zanchi.
• y

  Or, as they yoked themselves together like a yoke of oxen in the same furrows of idolatry and other sins, so will I couple them by the enemy for punishment, to go plowing under a straight yoke into which the Assyrians should by Gods command reduce them, see Dutch notes.
• z

  Rivet.
• a

  Yea Lively saith it is non solum ineptum, sed locutionis mon∣strum, befide that he thinks ••he word not elsewhere found in that signification of furrows.
• b

  Some render, against their two furrows, i. e. The enemies should bind themselves against their two furrows, Hutcheson.
• c

  Quemque ad sulcum suum, Drus.
• d

  As if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 le, in both Hebrew and Arabic served only to the construction, without other signification.
• e

  As if it were a Participle from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to make furrows.
• x

  in his Latin notes.
• f

  Jun. Trem. Pisc.
• g

  That is I suppose as much as Piscator means, and not that he thought one f••••ese may put by an error of the scribe for the other, as Mr. Pool. thinks he did, and censures him for it.
• h

  Hutcheson.
• i

  Tigur. version, Cum vinxero eos adutrumque oculum.
• k

  See in Drus.
• l

  See in Tarnov.
• m

  Diodati.
• n

  The MS. Arabic rendereth it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 probably made from that word in Hebrew.
• o

  As LXX. Vulg. Lat. Syr. printed Arab.
• p

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 LXX. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Syriac 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 both Arab. docta Vulg. edocta Jun. Trem. &c.
• q

  Pag. Tig. Merc. Capito.
• r

  Buxt. Gram. Amam. Drus. de Dieu.
• s

  R. Salomo.
• t

  Kimchi. Abarb.
• v

  MS. Arab.
• w

  By which therefore this word is elsew. ere by ours rendred, as Micah 4.13.
• x

  Trem. Cappel.
• y

  And so doth Bochartus.
• z

  As he notes R. Jonah also to do.
• b

  Jerom interprets it here plagas ac adversa, and on Amos poenam.
• c

  See Schindl. Drus. on Amos 7.8. Tarn.
• d

  See Beza on Mat. 26.39. of the word transire.
• e

  Grot. transire feci jugum.
• Though the Verb be of the Preter tense, yet it may be so taken as a Future if the sense requires, so Merc. will have it taken.
• f

  Jerom. Calv. Merc. Drus. Pisc. &c.
• g

  Munst. Trem.
• h

  Drus. Tarnov. and see Pare. Riv.
• i

  See Kamus. as a man doth in looking on a book, or try∣ing, discerning and proving gold or money.
• k

  Syr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Pag.
• l

  Munst. Trem. Cap.
• a

  In 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• m

  Pisc. Cast. L. de Dieu, which differences though as to the notion easily reconciled, yet as applyed to make up the meaning, are much distant.
• o

  Ribera.
• p

  Capito.
• q

  Grot.
• s

  Capito Grot.
• t

  Tig.
• v

  In Radd. and in this place.
• w

  And so likewise in his Dictionary Morshed.
• n

  Cyril. Theoph. Kirch. conc.
• r

  Tig.
• x

  Halls paraphrase.
• x

  Halls paraphrase.
• y

  Ribera, è Gloss. Zanchi.
• z

  L. de Dieu, and see Rivet.
• a

  Tig. Capito, and see Pare.
• b

  See Rivet and Tarn.
• c

  L. de Dieu.
• d

  Jun. Trem. Araturus Judah, occaturus Jaeob.
• e

  Rivet.
• f

  Futurum pro-Praeterito. Rivet.
• g

  Munst. Riv.
• h

  Riv. and Pare.
• i

  Sa. Menoch Pisc.
• k

  Calv. Zanch.
• l

  Lyra. Tarnov.
• m

  Ribera, Menoch.
• o

  See Chr. à Castro.
• n

  Non nominauio sed promissio, Zanch. which Rivet likes not.
• p

  Grot. Bren.
• q

  Dane.
• r

  Quoniam non ignoratione peccaverunt. Trem. v. 12.
• s

  See c. 4. and 16. and the note there, why Israel is compared to an heifer.
• t

  Pag. Vat. Rivet. Pare.
• v

  Gualter.
• w

  Matt. 13.23. Luc 8.15.
• x

  On. v. 11.
• y

  In bonum vestrum. Tirin.
• z

  Syr. and MS. Arab.
• b

  Drus.
• a

  See above c. 8. 7.
• a

  Vat. Riv. see Dane.
• b

  For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is as righteousness, so also charity, or works of mercy, as in Arabic like∣wise.
• c

  Tirin.
• p

  Drus. Nold.
• See above c. 2.19.4.1.6.4. and 6.
• q

  Zanchi.
• r

  Hanc beneficentiam fructum esse fidei internaeque justitiae, &c.
• s

  Jun. Trem.
• t

  Pag. Grot.
• v

  Munst.
• w

  Vat.
• x

  Tig.
• y

  Ribera.
• z

  Cast. Sa. Men.
• a

  Tirin.
• b

  Petr. à Figuero.
• c

  In ••ibl. Polygl.
• d

  See notes in Bib. Wechel. Franc.
• e

  Steph. Lex.
• f

  1 Tim. 4.8.
• g

  Rivet.
• i

  R. Tanch. on Jer. 4.3.
• k

  Duplex aratio Calv.
• h

  Kimchi. and see Yalcut. and Talmud.
• l

  Est hysterologia, Trem. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Pare. Rivet.
• m

  Rivet.
• n

  Munst. Merc.
• o

  Matth. 13.7. &c. Luc. 8.6. &c.
• p

  Jun. Trem.
• q

  Capito.
• r

  Trem. Vat. in 8^o Cum tempus sit.
• s

  Tig.
• t

  Calv. Zanch. Rivet.
• v

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Eth, opportunitatem significat commode aliquid faciendi. Riv.
• w

  Prov. 1.24. &c. to 28. Jer. 14.12. Micah 3.4.
• x

  R. Tanch. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 while it is faisible to you to seek him.
• y

  Trem.
• z

  Drus.
• a

  And so some seem to take it, see Trem. and Drus.
• b

  Or as others read his law, so Petr. à Fig. and so Kimchi cites him.
• c

  See J. H. Ursin.
• d

  Drus. Pisc. Trem.
• e

  Grot.
• f

  J. H. Ursin.
• g

  Oecol.
• i

  Rivet.
• Zanchi.
• k

  Trem.
• l

  Oecol.
• m

  Rivet.
• Joel 2.23.
• o

  Trem. Schindl. in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to which others add 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Nobilius observes to be two rendrings joyned in one, they are both so joyned in Bibl. Wechel. Francf.
• p

  Ribera.
• q

  Rivet.
• r

  Trem.
• s

  Riv. &c. Arare, idem est quod seminare.
• t

  Petr. à Fig. Arastis & semi∣nastis from Kimchi.
• v

  Which for shewing this to respect some add sed. But ye &c. Pag. Pisc.
• w

  Mercer.
• x

  Vat. Grov.
• y

  Junius.
• z

  Calv.
• a

  Non de poenae sed de poccatis. Pisc.
• b

  Var. Drus.
• c

  Grot.
• d

  See Trem. as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and generally 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & opus & mercedem operis designant.
• e

  Trem.
• f

  Id.
• g

  Which Abarb compares with this.
• h

  See Rivet.
• i

  Petr. a Fig.
• k

  Pare. Riv.
• l

  Dan.
• m

  Kimchi, Abarb. and see Habb. 3.17.
• n

  Jun. Tr. Castr.
• o

  Pagn.
• p

  Calvin. Riv.
• q

  Menoch. Grot.
• r

  Zanch.
• s

  In thy youth (or young men) & sociis tuis, and thy associats. Grot.
• t

  Nomine viae & viarum signisicantur peccata. Nobil.
• v

  Trem.
• w

  Calv. Grot. Zanch.
• x

  So the Chaldee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies.
• y

  Capito.
• z

  See Jerom. Ar. Mont. Grot. significat hostilem sonitum. Pet. à Fig. Barbaricum, quod eo barbari utantur. The MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• a

  Viz. of the enemy, Jerom. Pet. à Fig. Sa.
• b

  Oecol. Pare. Riv. Tarnov.
• c

  Ribera.
• d

  See Heb. Concord.
• e

  Calv.
• f

  Full. cap. Concord. vastari seu desolari, sed proprie cum fragore, tumultu & repentino impetu ac irruptione.
• g

  Pet. à Fig.
• h

  Trem.
• i

  Dane.
• k

  Kimchi. Abarb. Sa. Menoch.
• l

  Tirin. tam domi quam foris, Trem.
• m

  See ch. 8.14.
• n

  Bibl. Polygl. Mercer. propugnacula tua.
• o

  Munitio, Arx munita, civitas munita & murata, Buxt. Lex. Chald. Rabb.
• p

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Collo in Arab. is indifferently construed with a verb either plural or singular, to the same sense, it being in forme singular, in signification plural.
• q

  Kimch. Jun. Trem. Zanch. Rivet. &c.
• r

  Steph. Lex. Kirch. concord. some copies have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shall be inhabited. viz. by the enemy.
• s

  Drus.
• t

  Diripitur pacificus, Petr. à Fig.
• u

  Or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as in other copies. Drus.
• x

  Drus. Trem.
• y

  Ribera.
• a

  See Maimon. Preface in Zeraim.
• b

  See Buxt. Lexicon.
• c

  Cent. Chorogr. c. 85.
• d

  Lively, Riv.
• e

  See Mas. on Jos. 21. rag. 311.
• f

  See Index of proper names in the Bible.
• g

  Munst. Rivet. Tig. note 2 Reg. 17.3.
• h

  Ush. Annal. veteris Test. p. 94. Jun. Tr. Rivet.
• i

  Jun. Tr. Pisc.
• k

  Pagn.
• l

  Tig. Zanchi.
• m

  Capp. Crit. p. 363.
• n

  Kimchi. Drus.
• o

  Capito. Pare.
• p

  Calv. Pelic. Trem. Oecol. Pare. Ursin.
• q

  Jun. Trem.
• r

  This I note, because in Aben Ezra here seems a manifest errour in the print or scribe, while we read in him that it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shem dabar, which denotes a noun substantive, which here it cannot be.
• s

  Pagn.
• t

  Vulg. Lat.
• v

  Jun. Trem.
• x

  Rivet.
• y

  Jun. Trem. by a Synecdoche, Pare. Rivet. Pisc.
• z

  The Latin Translator renders it facient they shall do, well as to the sense, as we see ours render the Hebrew by the future.
• a

  Ribera.
• b

  See Buxt. Gram. l. 2. c. 3.
• c

  Polygl. Lond.
• d

  Ribera.
• e

  Valet ad amplificationem vocis ejusdem ingeminatio, ac si diceret, quia desperata est vestra malitia. Trem.
• f

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• g

  Ex. 32.48.
• h

  Grot.
• i

  R. Tanch. takes it so to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the infinitive.
• k

  Plane excidetur Jun. Trem.
• l

  Praeteritum pro futuro more prophetico Rivet.
• m

  Calv. Zanch.
• n

  Trem.
• o

  Lively.
• p

  Calv. Merc. Drus. &c.
• q

  Oec. Pag. Drus. Trem. and see Chr. à Castr.
• r

  Grot.
• s

  2 Kings 17.3. Capito. Pet. à Fig. Trem. and see Kimchi and Abar.
• t

  Rivet.
• u

  Trem. Cappell.
• w

  Trem.
• x

  His using the word mane, and not aurora, seems to favour it.
• y

  And so Sa. seems to referre it.
• z

  See Kimchie's roots, though others reduce them to two, of cutting off and like∣ness, Concord. Heb.
• a

  Cum posset dicere sicut mane succiditur, succisus est rex Israel, dixit potius, sicut mane transit &c. quia mane transire dicitur melius quam excidi aut succidi, Ribera.
• b

  Though he saith also that the He∣brew hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c

  See Kircher's Concord.
• d

  Buxt. Lex.
• e

  Schindler.
• f

  Or è converso, cutting off to being silent.
• g

  Eccles. 1.17. it is usually rendred, vexation of spirit.
• h

  Who saith he was carried away to Babylon, he should rather have said to Assyria.
• i

  Cocceius.