A commentary on the prophecy of Hosea by Edward Pococke.

CHAPTER XII.

V. 1. Ephraim feedeth on wind, and followeth after the east-wind: he daily increaseth lies and desolation, and they do make a covenant with the Assyrians, and oil is carried into Egypt.

IN the preceding words (which are ac∣cording to the division th•••• ours, with the Vulgar Lati•• and others, follow, the last verse of the foregoing chapter; but according to others, the first of this, as we have noted) was declared the wickedness of Ephraim, in that they compassed God about with lies and deceit: in these is shewed their folly, in doing what they did, in that it was to no pro∣fit, but manifest mis••••••••f to themselves, both which are expressed in these words, that meane while, or in doing what they did, they fed on wind, and followed after the east wind, and daily increased lies and desolation; so that in thinking to deceive God, which is impos∣sible, they did indeed deceive themselves. Their folly is, first in that they fed on wind, found nothing more for true satisfaction of their desires, than an hungry man may find for satisfying his hunger by q gaping after the wind, and drawing it in, r which may swell him up and disorder him, but assord nothing of nourishment to him by which he may live. This will be the plain meaning of this proverbial expression, so translated as by ours it is, or as in the Geneva English, feedeth himself with wind. For we cannot but observe another different translation, at least different∣ly understood by some, to be given, viz. that of the Vulgar Latin, which renders, Ephraim pascit ventum, which is in the Doway English translation, Ephraim feedeth the wind, and is as so sounding by s Commentators of great note expounded. The reason of which dif∣ference of interpretations is the ambiguous use of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Raah, to feed, in the H••••brew, and of Pasco by which it is in the Latin rendred, and so of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Syriack, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Arab. which are here used in those versions: each of which being of that nature as that (for instance) t & pecori & pastori tri∣buatur, it may indifferently be spoken both of the sheep and the shepheard. They feed, i.e. they take, he feedeth, i.e. giveth them food, or driveth them to feed. So that when it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Roeh ruach, the notion of that word will bear that it be rendred either feedeth on the wind, or feedeth the wind; and so likewise in Latin, pascit ventum, either way, so that it might as well be rendred by the one, as by the other.

So that it is out of choice, not out of ne∣cessity, that they who so do, should under∣stand it, as if by it were meant, that Ephraim were said to feed the wind, as by their ex∣position they shew themselves to do, and put the matter out of doubt. So Arias Monta∣nus, who by, ventum pascere, to feed the wind, understands as much as to say, se ventorum pastorem profiteri, to profess himself a feeder of the winds, and to undertake, eos regere & compescere certa ratione, to rule and govern them in a regular manner. And in like manner Ribera explaining it, Perinde facere Ephraim, ac si ventum regere, & in modum ovis du∣cere quo velit nitatur, that what Ephraim did was all one, as if a man did endeavour to rule the wind, and drive, or lead it as a sheep whi∣ther he pleased: which they both then look on as a proverbial expression of bestowing their pains or labour in vain, and of following such things as are u vain, and to no profit. So that according to this rendring the scope of the words is the same which it was according to the former, which ours I think do well in following, as the easiest and plainest.

There is another rendring which the words are by w some observed to be capable of, in a different way of construction, viz. The wind feedeth Ephraim, (or on Ephraim,) and the east wind followeth him. This might be looked on as somthing agreeable to what is said Jer. 22.22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Col roeca tireeh ruach, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ruach, the wind shall eat up all thy pastors, and of it so rendred the scope would still be much the same, to wit, that all their intentions and endeavours were, or should be in vain, dispersed, as it were, by the wind, and come to nothing; but the for∣mer construction seems the better and more convenient.

The LXX here go far different from any of these rendrings, in which we read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so the printed Arab. following them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rendred in Latin, Ephraim autem pessimus spiritus,

but Ephraim is an ill spirit; where at first sight appears, that instead of Roeh, feedeth, they read with other vowels, and from another root, Raah, evil; except we should suspect here some error of the Scribe in the Greek. If instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it would agree with the Vulgar Latin, and it is y ob∣served that it is not so regular to place the ad∣jective before the substantive to which it is joined, in the Hebrew way of Syntaxis, R. Salomo, in a different signification of Roeh, as if it were in the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rea, a com∣panion, expounds it, joins himself to things of wind, vain things.

In farther description of their folly he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Verodeph kadim, and followeth after the east wind; which words do not only signify the same which the former imply, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vain things in which is no stabili∣ty, like the wind that passeth away, as R. Tan∣chum speaks, but with an addition of hurt and mischeif, the east wind being not only, as z any wind, vain and unprofitable, but in those parts observed to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(as Kimchi) the roughest among winds, and hurtfull to men; so as that the expression will import that what they did, viz. their worship of the Calves and the like, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did not only not profit them, but was hurtfull to them. To such pernicious effects of that wind in those parts seems respect had in the following ch. 13.15. Gen. 41.6. Jonah 4.8. Ezek. 19.12. and elsewhere. The LXX, in reference to the noxiousness of it, renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin Translator thereof ren∣ders aestum, as likewise the Vulgar Latin hath, the heat, i. e. saith Ribera, Ventum calidum qui corporibus maxime nocet, an hot scorching wind which much hurts the body: The printed Arab. which follows in most things the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifies a an hot wind, whereas the MS. Arab. hath literally according to the de∣rivation of the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the east wind, expressing wind, which in the Hebrew b is understood; the Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whirle∣wind, in which it agrees with the Chaldee Para∣phrast, who here paraphraseth the words, the house of Israel are like to him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 who soweth the wind and reapeth a whirlewind, c which words are the very same which above c. 8.7. are spoken to the same purpose as these here, to shew the folly of Israel's practises and endeavors, and the mischievousness thereof to themselves, and by him therefore looked on as a good expli∣cation of the meaning of these, though dif∣ferent from them, as to the words and letter. All these take the words, as we said, to be a declaration of Ephraim's folly, in that in their rebellion against God, and forsaking him and his service, they followed and prosecuted such things as were not only not profitable, but manifestly for mischief to them; the great∣ness of which their folly is aggravated by their constancy and perseverance in so doing as they did, and a farther expression of the ef∣fects thereof, that as it follows, he daily in∣creased lies and desolation.

He daily increaseth lies and desolation.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 col hayom, daily, d omni die, or quotidie, every day, or e tota die, (as the Vulgar) all the day, or all the day long; and so the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at all times, alwaies. This, either way, denotes their per∣tinacy, and perversness in their doing as they did, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cazab veshod yarbch, the last word is first in the constru∣ction, and so by ours agreeably to the pro∣priety of our language put, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yarbeh, he increaseth, or multiplieth. The word is in Hebrew of the future form, and so might properly signify shall, or will multiply; but that form, it is well known, is used for the present tense, of which the Hebrews have no proper or peculiar form, but usually ex∣press it by the participle, or the future, which then is observed to include consuetudinem & repetitionem actionis, a custom or frequency of the action, and so will be here the same as to say, f multiplicare confuescit, accustometh, or useth to multiply; which force that it here hath, the addition of the words, daily, or all the day long, sheweth, (to wit) as is subjoined 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a lie, or lying, i. e. as ours, lies and desolation, i. e. such things as are but as lies, deceiving the hopes of such as rely thereon, and prove false to them, and farther, are an occasion of desolation and destruction to them. Cazab, a lie, or lying, will signify fal•••• speak∣ing, false dealing, false opinions, false wor∣ship, false pretences for colour thereof, false hopes, or relying on things that will deceive; and all these, and the like may seem under it here comprehended, Ephraim being in all these kinds guilty at that time, and adding one sort of lying to another. The meaning of these words together is not ill given by

Kimchi to this purpose, That they did not repent of their wickedness, and return from it, but did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 every day increase lying, or lies, (to wit faith he) the worship of the calves, and so increase (or multiply) desolation and destru∣ction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which cometh as a punishment for their worshipping of them. Thus he well gives the order of the words; otherwise that which is called a lie, or lies, and desolation, seems expressed in the next words to be that they did make a covenant with the Assyrians, and oyl was by them carried into Egypt, which is an instance of their lying, while at the same time that they made a league with the Assyrians, they sought to Egypt for help against them; which was their crime of which desolation was the punishment, as Grotius notes.

But this Kimchi takes in (though in som∣thing a different way proceeding in his ex∣plication) as consequent on their Idolatry, which he thinks primarily meant by their lies, and the chief cause of desolation to them. Notwithstanding, saith he, he doth not under∣stand, neither return from worshipping the calves to the worship of the blessed God. But what do they do? When the enemy oppresseth, them they make a league with the Assyrian to help them, and so also with Egypt, one while with one, and one while with the other. According to him the cause of their folly, by which they de∣ceived themselves, so as to bring mischief on themselves, was their forsaking God to wor∣ship their Idol calves, and their thinking to uphold themselves in their Idolatry, and standing out against God by their relying on the help of men, and seeking to make them their friends who were indeed their enemies; and the one therefore the more their enemy, and the more labouring to do them mischief, because they sought the others friendship. But whatever they might hope for, or ob∣tain from them, while by running after, and relying on, them, they still put God the far∣ther from them, all was vanity, and no more able to do them good, than the wind to sa∣tisfy an hungry man, as a mere lie, a deceit∣full thing, for no profit at all to them; yea on the contrary noxious and destructive, as the east wind, a cause of certain desolation to them. By the wind, and the east wind, at the beginning doth Lyra understand those na∣tions, the Assvrians and Egyptians here men∣tioned, and following the Vulgar translation, pascit ventum, and so understanding it, he feedeth the wind, his giving tribute to the proud Assyrian, who was puffed up as with wind, or rather, was no more profitable to him than the wind; and by his following aestum, the hot wind, his seeking to Egypt, which, saith he, was fouth in respect of the land of Israel, & sic in calidiore regione, and so in hotter climat, as king Hosea did, who sent thither to obtain help against the Assy∣rians, and so take off that tribute; by which means he did multiply to himself lies and desola∣tion, by lying to the king of Assyria, to whom he had first sworn to pay tribute, and so pro∣voking him to destroy him and his kingdom. This exposition of his is, perhaps deservedly, looked on as not so well agreeing to the place, as if he had understood the expression to mean, as by others it is said to do, feeding on the wind, but mean while tends to the same purpose, to shew that they spent their labour, and im∣ployed their endeavours all in vain, yea not only so, but for hurt to themselves. In these words also are by g some, the LXX thought to have read otherwise than is now read, viz. not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shod, which is desolation, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shau, which signifies vain, in as much as they render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hath multiplied empty and vain things. Some think they fol∣lowed therein the sense, rather than the letter of the word. The printed Arab. hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath multiplied novitates & vanitates, novelties and vain things, as if he had read in the Greek not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And with that seems to agree an expression of Abarbinel, who by feeding on wind, and fol∣lowing the east wind, and multiplying lies and desolation, thinks may be meant lies that they spake to magnify their condition, and to per∣swade that their power was great, and that their enemies were afraid of them, as people usually when they have wars with others do, when it is hard with them, framing lies, and giving out false news to strengthen the heart of their people.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shod, which we render desolation, the Chaldee renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bezza, which Drusius renders rapinam, robbery; the usual Latin translation, praedam; and Petr. à Figuiero, de∣praedationem, prey, preying, or spoiling; the Syriack by the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bezto, which the Latin translator likewise renders, rapinam, and the MS. Arab. by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is of the same signification. According to these it should rather signify wrong and injury by them done to others, agreeable to what follows v. 7. than wrong, spoil, or desolation brought on them. And so Oecolampadius thinks in the first place by vastitatem (as it is in the Vulgar Latin translated) to be meant perse∣cutionem piorum, persecution of the godly, and cruelty; although he say that otherwise by it may be understood, quod populus sibi ipsi

author fuit vastitatis, that the people, multi∣plying lies, brought on themselves destruction. And indeed this way of interpreting the word of such destruction and desolation (which in the first place we gave according to most Expositors) seems more agreeable to the following words, which seem to express by what means they multiplied to themselves, or brought on themselves, not on others, that which is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shod, desolation, viz. in that they made a covenant with the Assyrian, and oyl was carried into Egypt.

They do make a covenant, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yicrotu, rendred, they do make, is in the In∣terlineary rendered, excident, they will cut, as the word literally signifies, but joined with the word covenant or league, is well rendred by making, or striking, having obtained that use from that ancient custom of cutting into parts some living creature for the ratifying of a solemn league, as appears by what we read Gen. 15.9, 10. and Jer. 34.15. It is there likewise rendred in the future tense, as being of that form in the Hebrew, but well by ours and others in the present, and by others also in the preter tense, they have made, according to the promiscuous use of the tenses, but even now and else where taken notice of. In the same verb is also h observed a change of num∣ber, it being in the plural, whereas the other before it is in the singular, both being indiffe∣rently used of Ephraim, one people consisting of more persons. As for the history of their making a covenant with Assur or Assyria i. e. the Assyrian or Assyrians, the king or people of that country, we have above respect had to it in this Prophet, as c. 5.13. where it is said that Ephraim went to Assyria, and c. 7.11. c. 8.4. The story is given us 2 Kings 17.3. where it is said that Salmaneser king of Assy∣ria came up against Hosheah king of Israel, and Hosheah became his servant, and gave him pre∣sents.

The next words, and oyl is carried into Egypt, shew that as they did with the Assyrian, so they did likewise with the Egyptians, seek∣ing to make them also their friends and to be in covenant with them. That I take to be the import of the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Veshemen lemitsraim yubal, and oyl is carried into Egypt: so sounds the verb in Hebrew as a passive. The rendring it as an active by the author of the Vulgar Latin, ferebat, he did carry, as likewise in the Chaldee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mo∣bilin, they carry, and in the Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they carried, makes no difference in the meaning, what was carried, he, or they, did carry. A question of more import is for what end it was by them carried. In Ezek. 27.17. we read that Judah, and the land of Israel traded in the market of Tyrus among other things with oyl and balm, and so perhaps might they trade therewith into Egypt. The LXX may seem so to have understood it, while they render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin translator of them renders, & oleum in Aegyptum mercabatur; but the La∣tin translator of Cyril, & cleum in Aegyptum pro merce inferebant, they trassiqued with oyl into Egypt, which yet the printed Arabick, which follows the Greek, in more general terms expresseth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and went with, i. e. carried, oyl into Egypt, which i a modern expositor also seems to understand as meant, saying, intelligit commercia Israe∣litarum cum Aegyptiis, he understands the Israe∣lites commerce by way of merchandise with the Egyptians; yet doth he withall say, oleum etiam voeat munera & honoraria quibus tum regis, tum principum animos reddebant delibutos, i. e. he calls also oyl those gifts and presents with which they procured to themselves the favour and good will of the king and princes; and though the other may be probably true, that otherwise they carried thither oyl for merchandise, yet doth the latter seem here more peculiarly meant, viz. that they carried it thither by way of a present, for the fore mentioned end, and foedus in••un∣dum, or ad foedus, for making a league. Oyl seems to be named as a thing very acceptable in Egypt, where it was a k scarce commodity, and for which the land of Israel was famous, as appears from the forecited Ezekiel 27. as being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Erets zeit shemen, a land of oyl olive, Deut. 8.8. But under that name of one signal kind may seem comprehended such other precious liquors, or l oyntments, as m Balsam, the plant of which in those times there grew, and n other good things which the land afforded, any acceptable things of which they made their presents for obtaining, as we said, o the favour of the king of Egypt, and making a covenant with him. So the Chaldee in more general terms gives it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and they carry gifts, or presents into Egypt. Of their seeking to gaine the friendship & help of the Egyptians we read in the same place where we have their cove∣nant with the Assyrians, as above c. 7.11. and the forecited 2 Kings 17. where v. 2. we read that Hoshea king of Israel became servant to Salmaneser king of Assyria, and gave him pre∣sents, or tribute; and v. 3. that at that very time while he was in covenant with him, he sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and brought no presents to him as he had done year by year,

by which means provoked, the king of As∣syria took him, and shut him up and bound him in prison, and proceeded to take Sama∣ria: which fact we have seen by some looked on as peculiarly referred to, as that whereby they did increase lies, and thereby pull on themselves destruction. It was certainly an undoubted instance of their false dealing, and it did end in destruction and desolation to them. But the expression, that they did daily increase lies, or multiply lies, argues that this was not the only thing in which they dealt falsly, but that they had in more ways done so, all which concurred in pulling on them destruction.

Abarbinel looks not on their falseness in that particular of rescinding their league with the Assyrians, by making a new one with the Egyptians; but rather on their folly in making both to no profit, but hurt to themselves, and in that they made a covenant with the As∣syrians, and oyl was by them carried into Egypt, whereas they were their enemies, and hated them, but with Judah which were their bre∣thren had quarrels and made war, and with God also, whereas it had been more fitting for them to have made a covenant with Ju∣dah their brethren, and to have carried oyl to the house of God, to prepare the lamps there. We may to this add that p the most of the leagues which they made with other nations, were against their brethren of Judah, to strengthen themselves against them, and that they might distress them, and bring on them destruction: which was in them great folly, and such as proved pernicious to them∣selves.

But a plainer way, I suppose, of under∣standing the words, will be more generally to look on them as a declaration of their false dealing with God, with breach of cove∣nant with him who had obliged them to cleave stedfastly to himself, and on his protection alone to rely, which if they had kept close to him, he would certainly have afforded them; but they forsaking him, and giving his honour to Idols, thought to maintain them∣selves against him, and his threatnings and judgments, by making leagues with other Idolatrous nations, the Assyrians & Egyptians, for which they are deservedly taxed, and de∣rided, as guilty of the greatest folly that may be, which is expressed by saying, that they fed on wind, and followed the east wind, and in∣creased or multiplyed lies and desolation, that which they necessarily procured to themselves by relying on their Idols, or those nations, being not only not profitable, but pernicious to them, all along deceiving their hopes, and ending in utter destruction to them, even by the hand of those to whom they sought for help; God so making them instruments of executing on them those his judgments, against which they thought by their help to have been secured.

By the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shod, by the Vulgar La∣tin rendred vastitatem, and by those of Doway englished wast, q some take to be understood their wasting and exhausting their wealth by those chargeable presents with which they purchased the favour of those forraign kings and nations, which must needs be so. Yet can I not think that that is all here meant, but after all that in vain done by them, the ut∣ter destruction by those nations, into whose hands God provoked by such their dealings, gave them up, the effect being contrary to what they expected, brought upon them, and there∣fore that the word is by ours aptly rendred desolation, or as the Geneva English hath it to the same purpose, destruction.

V. 2. The Lord hath also a contro∣versy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; accordingly will he recompense him.

The Lord hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his way, &c. In the last verse of the preceding chapter we had honourable mention made of Judah with commendation of him, as one that when Ephraim dealt altogether falsly with God, stood right with him, ruled with him, and was faithfull with the saints; here again he returns to mention him, but according to this reading of the words which we follow, with far dif∣ferent respects, viz. as the Lord had just cause to find fault with him, and will call him in question for it.

This seems to give grounds for a question how these things can well consist together, and the same person be at once pronounced righteous and judged as guilty. The ordi∣nary solution of this doubt so raised, is, that these so much different things, though spoken of the same person or people, yet are spoken in different respects of them, and so both truly said of them. In the first, respect is had to their way of worship and religion, which as yet they retained sincere and entire, according to the rule of God's law; in the second, to their manners which were too corrupt, and not agreeable to their profession: and there∣fore in the first respect he commends them, but in the second finds fault with them, and saith he will call them to an account, and pu∣nish

them (though the seed of his beloved Jacob) according to their ways, and recom∣pense them according to their doings, as well as their brethren of Ephraim, or Israel. This will be the meaning of the whole verse, if with r some of good note we take by the name of Jacob, to be understood his whole posterity, all the twelve tribes. Of the use of the name of Jacob may be compared what hath been above said on c. 10.11. But if with others we take by that name to be un∣derstood the ten tribes, the same that by E∣phraim as distinct from Judah, then will the last words be somthing differently expounded, as by s those who so take that name, they are, viz. that he is purposed severely to punish, or take vengeance on the ten tribes; and this force of argument they will have to be in them, that if God will call to account Judah who continued faithfull in his service as to the publick way of worship, and chastise them for their other sins, it must needs seem just that he should much more severely punish the other tribes, who besides their other wicked doings had fallen off from him to Idolatry, and be expected that he should so do, and he declares therefore his purpose of so doing. He hath a controversy even with Judah, there∣fore (that so the conjunction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ve, and, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may have the force of an illative) will he punish Jacob, i. e. much more will he punish the other Idolatrous tribes of Jacob.

For punish, in the text, is in the margin of our Bibles put Heb. (i. e. literally according to the Hebrew) visit upon. That is the general notion of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 paked, viz. to visit, and it is of indifferent signification, whether for good or bad, as we have t elsewhere shewed; so that for the meaning it must be ordered by the scope of the place. Here being manifestly for ill, it is by some looked on as denoting not only punishment, as in general it might do, but such as is in the highest de∣gree, u extremum supplicium, or w utter destru∣ction, so as to stand in opposition to what is said, that he hath a controversy with Judah, as if that denoted that he would not let them go untaken notice of, x but this, that with these he would deal with greater rigour and severity.

The word here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 liphkod, being the in∣finitive mood with the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 l prefixed, doth literally signify, visitare, to visit, or ad visitandum, for visiting. For making out the construction and meaning therefore in other languages into which it is translated, it is somthing differently rendred, or expounded, though much to the same purpose. The Chal∣dee indeed literally renders it only by an infi∣nitive, without addition or alteration for shewing how it should be construed or under∣stood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and to visit on Ja∣cob; and so the LXX also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to avenge Jacob, which may amount to what the printed Arab. gives for the meaning of it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that he may take ven∣geance on Jacob: some for adjusting the con∣struction make that which is said in the for∣mer clause, that the Lord hath a controversy, to have influence on this also, viz. that as he hath a controversy with Judah, so also with Jacob to visit them &c. So Kimchi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Lord hath a controversy and quarrel with Judah, and with Jacob to visit upon them according to their doings. So y Vatablus, & cum Jacob est lis ad visi∣tandum eum, and with Jacob a controversy to visit him, as much as to say, that both king∣doms had sinned, and should be punished. The Vulgar Latin puts it as in force a noun, (as the z infinitive mood in Hebrew is som∣times put) Judicium ergo Domini cum Juda, & visitatio super Jacob, which the Doway renders word for word, the judgment therefore of our Lord with Judah, and visitation with Ja∣cob according to his ways &c. So also the MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and for visitation on Jacob, with expression of the prefixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for, which the Vulgar takes no notice of.

Others look on it, as a defective speech, in which is wanting, and to be supplied either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 atid, or some such word which a may signify paratus, or accinctus est, is ready, or prepared to visit, which is that which ours ex∣press by only putting it in the future tense, and I will punish, or visit Jacob according to his ways; as likewise the Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and he will take ven∣geance on Jacob according to his ways, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as his ways deserve, as the MS. Arab. hath it, which farther explaining he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cemaallau yashib lo, according to his doings will he recompense him; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and as his condition requires God will render to him, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 will recompense him, saith the same Arabick, with expression of the name of God, which in the Hebrew is but only understood, or included in the verb of the third person.

The same expression we have above c. 4.9. and as we understood the words there, so do we here, and need not say therefore more as

to the signification of them than was there said. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 maallau, rendred by ours, his doings, and by others somthing equivalent, as by the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the Vulgar Latin adinventiones, his inventions, Do way, b by o∣thers studia ejus, c opera ejus, or d actiones ejus, as the Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his works, or doings, is indeed such, as may be, indifferently used for actions, inten∣tions, or doings, good or evil; yet being often used in the worst sense, and so being both here, and in c. 4. generally taken, I cannot well understand why the Chaldee should here put in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 secundum opera sua recta, as in the ordinary Latin translation, or as Mercer, proque recte factis ipsius, and ac∣cording to his right doings; for so it would be as a reward for good, whereas the scope of the place rather requires that it be understood of a punishment for evil.

By him to whom that punishment is threat∣ned we cannot but understand the last fore∣mentioned Jacob, whether with some, as we have seen, we understand it of the whole po∣sterity of Jacob, both Judah and the other ten tribes; or as, with others, of the ten tribes as distinct from the kingdom of Judah. That, in the one way or the other, Ephraim, or the kingdom of the ten tribes should be taken in, seems plainer, (and even necessary) ac∣cording to the scopeof the place, than that Ju∣dah alone, of whom alone ••erom and e others seem to take these words, & some other verses following, to be spoken, should be meant, as if to say, he hath a controversy with Judah and with Jacob, were all one.

According to all these, however else they differ, in the former part of the verse the Lord is said to have a controversy with Judah, and so is intimated to be in them also mis∣demenors for which he would call them to an account, whom before he had commended as standing right in his sight. We have seen how they look on these things as consistent, and how that difficulty, which might seem thence to arise, is solved. But there are others who choose rather so to expound the words, as to take away any ground for the raising any such difficulty or question at all, than to be put to solve it being raised, and will not have the words so to sound, as to taxe Judah at all as guilty. In this way R. Salomo going, giveth for the explication of these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 f 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he declares to them the words, or matters of his controversy, which their brethren the house (or sons) of Israel made (or raised) with him, that they should not wonder that he vi∣sited upon Jacob according to his ways. The con∣struction of the words according to him, I suppose, must be thus made out, and there is a controversy to the Lord with Judah, v••z. which is known, or made known to Judah, and he hath, i. e. that he hath, for what to visit upon Jacob according to his ways. Abarbin••l citing this without either censure, or approbation, or exposition of it, as likewise the opinion of those, who making the forementioned question, and so solve it, as we have seen, himself that he may wave it, looks on the words, preceding and following, all as God's controversy with Ephraim, and gives two expositions of them, as, either that they may sound that Ephraim is at controversy g with the Lord, and with Ju∣dah, for that Israel had a controversy with the Lord, in that they declined the service of his sanctuary, or temple, and with Judah in that they make war with them; so that the im∣port of them should be, that the Lord together with Judah is in controversy, viz. with Ephraim, or else that the controversy which Ephraim had in contending and making war with Judah was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the Lords cause, seeing because the children of Judah clave unto the Lord, and to the service of his temple, the Israelites set up calves to themselves, and contended, and fought with the children of Judah: so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and a controversy to the Lord with Judah, should be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and there is a controversy for the Lords cause to Ephraim fore∣mentioned with Judah. Such a construction of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 im Jehudah, with Judah, appears to have been more ancient than he, by what we have seen in Aben Ezra, who saith that by some, Judah, who was before said to be faithful, is looked on as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he that should reprove, or have a quarrel: it being not said that God hath a controversy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 al, against, but Im, with Judah, that the mean∣ing should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that God and Judah had a controversy with Ephraim, which he looks on as an expo∣sition not going on good grounds, in as much as Judah is also elsewhere looked on as blameworthy, as appears above c. 5.13. and c. 10.—11-13. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 im, with, is used also elsewhere in that sense as against, as in saying to quarrel with, as Gen. 26.20. and Ex. 16.12.

Among the Latines, Lyra also that he may wave the forementioned scruple, takes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 im, with, to import here as much as for, ex∣pounding cum Judah, with Judah, by pro Ju∣dah, for Judah; so that the meaning should be

that God had a quarrel with Ephraim for Judah, and that he would punish them for their works, in their persecuting of Judah, and setting up the calves: which exposition of his is by h one censured as aliena ab hoc loco, not agreeing to this place, and that in the He∣brew dialect, to have a controversy with one, imports against him, and not for him; so that he looks on the first exposition, which we gave, as most convenient, as likewise Aben Ezra doth, By all these that we have named the name Jacob is taken not for him in person, but for his posterity, called by their fathers name, though with that difference which we have seen. But Cyril on the contra∣ry takes i•• for Jacob himself, so understanding the forecited rendring of the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as if it sounded, not to take vengeance of Jacob, but to revenge Jacob, i. e. to avenge Jacob of his degenerate posterity, who had done him great injury in forsaking his ways, and so disgracing their pious Ancestor, which wrong he will repair to him, by punishing them according to their own wicked ways. It seems the much plainer way to understand here by his name, his posterity so called from him, however from putting here that name, occasion be taken of speaking of him particu∣larly (according to the most usual ways of exposition) in the next verse, without again repeating it: the words thus run.

V. 3, 4, 5, 6. He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God: &c.

He took his brother by the heel in the womb. &c. He, that must be according to the usual way of speaking the person last before spoken of, so it is here as far as to the name; Ja∣cob was the last named, and Jacob here again understood, but not the same numerical per∣son, but in the first place must necessarily be understood the people to whom that name is derived from their forefather first so called; here that single person, he from whom that name was called on them. It cannot be said of him, that God in the precedent words threatned now to punish him for his evil doings, for he was always faithfull with God, besides he was long since dead; nor of them, that they did what he that is here, and in the following words meant, is said to have done, it being the relation of facts done long before they were. They do then only partake in the name, but far differ in nature and qualities, and are for different respects named, though both tending to the clearing of God's justice, because they would be called Jacob, and glo∣ried in that name, but would not do according to his deeds. God's threatning them to pu∣nish them according to their ways and doings, argues them to have been wicked: how un∣worthy therefore of such as have the name of Jacob, and how unlike him: whom being called by his name they ought to have re∣sembled, is farther manifest by such passages concerning him, partly of God's dealing with him, and that for the sake of his posterity, which ought to have obliged them therefore in gratitude to him; and partly of his beha∣viour towards God, which ought to have been an example to them, by following which they should have approved themselves his true seed, as, taking occasion from the men∣tion of him, in the following passages he re∣cites.

The first is what he saith here, that he took his brother by the heel. This refers to that story of him which is recorded Gen. 25.21, 24,—26. that when Rebekahs days to be deli∣vered were fulfilled, behold there were twins in her womb, which it is said, strugled together within her, the first of which that came forth, they called Esau, and after that came his bro∣ther out, and his hand took hold on Esaus heel, and his name was called Jacob. What is there said in more words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 veyado ochezeth beakeb Esau, and his hand held, (or took hold on) the heel, is here in one word said by a verb from that noun akeb, signi∣fying an heel, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 akab, which according to several uses or significations, of supplanting or deceiving, which it hath, is here by some du∣biously rendred; as by the Greek i 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the Vulgar Latin supplantavit, which are used both for tripping up the heels, and decei••ing; by others in the notion of deceiving or dealing cunningly and fraudulently with, as by the Sy∣riack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to which notion Esau would refer his name, Gen. 27.36. but certainly the relation of what was done at his birth, Gen. 25.26. justifies as most convenient that rendring which ours here follow, expressing that fact from which he had his name, as there in the story appears. A story it is full of miracle, reporting a fact which is different from, and above the ordi∣nary course of nature, that an infant yet in the womb should have strength, much less discretion to do what he is said to have done. It must manifestly be k from God both in∣abling and directing, and so a signal act of his providence, pointing out some great matter which he had to do on, or in this child, which might give occasion not only to Rebekah,

sensible of the strugling of the children with∣in her, to ask, if it be so why am I thus? Gen. 25.22. but to all to say as those at John Baptists birth, Luke 1.33. what manner of chila shall this be? What was imported and portended by it is expressed in that answer of the Lord to Rebeka••, that there being two people in her womb, the one should be stronger than the other, and the elder should serve the younger, Gen. 25.23. Thereby was foreshewed, that though Esau came first out of his mothers womb, yet Jacob should strive with him for the right of primogeniture, and obtain the priviledges thereof, and he be more in esteem with God than his brother, and the people descending from him be su∣periour to those that descended from his bro∣ther; which was accordingly fulfilled, if not so visibly in his own person as in mans ac∣count, yet evidently in his posterity. The Chaldee therefore here explains the words, was it not said of Jacob before he was born that he should be greater than his brother?

For what end this story of what ••e so mi∣raculously did at, or before, his birth is here mentioned, and of what concernment it was at present to the persons spoken to, to take notice of it, we shall see, after we have added that no les••, if not more miraculous story of what he did when he was grown to be a man, in the next words subjoined, and by his strength he had power with God, yea (as v. 4.) had power over the Angel, which story likewise is recorded Gen. 32.28. and the following verses.

The word translated, he had power, in the text in our Bible, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sarah, is in the margin, as plainest for the meaning according to the more literal sound of it in Hebrew, rendred, was a prince, or behaved himself prince∣ly, as it doth in that language sound, as like∣wise 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sarar, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sur, whence is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 far, a prince. Accordingly it is by most others rendred, as by the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which agrees with what Drusius renders, de principatu contendit; the Chaldee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by some in Latin, l prae∣valuit; by others, d••minatus est, m egregie de∣micavit, princeps fuit, principem se gessit, de principatu contendit, n tanquam dux exercitus o certavit, strove as a captain of an army, (which seems more to respect the story than the signification of the words.) All these, though in different terms, have respect to the same root, and the same signification of having, or shewing power and dominion; whence it is in the story expressed, thu•• his name was changed from Jacob to Israel, because as a prince he had power with God and men. But the Vulgar Latin seems more to differ from them all, reading, directus est cum Angelo, which the Doway English renders, he was airected with the Angel; the Author thereof seems to have looked on it as signifying the same with p 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yashar, which signifies, to be right: yet in Ge∣nesis, where the same word is used, doth he render it, fortis fuisti, thou hast been strong against God, as those of Doway english it, and Ribera and q others would have no other to be the meaning of, directus est, he was directed, in this place, than that he r stood firm, and would not be overcome, but ra∣ther got the mastery. So that there will be no need to think that he either did read, or placed the words (as Cappell sup∣poses he did) otherwise than they are in the Hebrew.

As far differing from most other versions is the Vulgar Latin, in what concerns the next word, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Elohim, by ours rendred, God, and so by the Greek, Syriack, both Ara∣bick versions, and most of the Latin, perhaps all but Pagnin, who hath also, cum Angelo, with the Angel; and so indeed hath the Chaldee also. Because in the next following words, where the same thing is repeated, he is named 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Maleac, an Angel, I suppose they did, for avoiding ambiguity, and to shew that the same person is in both places meant, think best to translate this noun, which pro∣perly signifies God, by Angel, observing that name to be elsewhere also given to Angels.

This will then, before we proceed, put us on the question, who is he that is in the first place called Elohim, and in the second Ma∣leac, according to them an Angel in both places, whether properly and merely a created Angel, or what kind of Angel. He is called in the forecited Gen. 32.34. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ish, a man, viz. as appearing in the assumed form of a man; but the calling him here both, Elohim, God, and, Malcac, Angel, shews that he was not merely and properly a man, an Angel he must be at least: and that according to some is as much as is necessarily convinced from those names given him, in as much as Elohim, God, (or properly Gods) is known to be elsewhere given to Angels, yea to men of great dignity also, of whom he saith, that they are Gods, and not peculiarly attributed only to the true God. But this being sup∣posed, what Angel shall it be? To take him for an evil Angel, as s some seem to do, seems altogether absurd: from such a one Ja∣cob would not have asked a blessing. To say it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(as R. Solomo speaks)

the prince of Esau, or t Esau's guardian Angel, is altogether groundless; and to say that it was peculiarly Michael, as Kimchi saith some of the ancient Jewish Doctors do, is that which cannot be I suppose proved. If it be taken only for a created Angel, as much as can be proved, and that which may suffice, will be to say, that it was one of the good Angels which God was pleased to imploy on that business, viz. in a body for that occasion assumed, and not u only in a phantasm or appearance, to meet ••acob and prove him, and to try him in such a manner as he did for good ends to him, and this Angel, only because he w repre∣sented God, to be called God; and this do x many contend to be the utmost that the giving him that name of Elohim or God doth import. But others think there to be more in it than so, and that name to require more to be granted in him with whom Jacob strove, and had power, viz. that it was God himself, and not only one that represented him, in as much as it is given to him here in such a manner as is peculiar to him, and not common to his Angels, being in the form plural spoken of one, whereas it is not so attributed to one An∣gel at any time, but so as to denote more of them, Ps. 8.5. and there being in the God∣head three persons, they do not look on it as y comprehending here the whole Trinity, but more particularly denoting the second person, z Christ, the Son of God, one true God with the Father, who by reason of a his Mediator∣ship is also called an Angel, as here, so else∣where, as Malachy 3.1. The Angel (or Mes∣senger) of the Covenant: and by reason of the form of a man, or body which he assumed, even then under the old Testament before his incarnation, as occasion required, and ap∣peared to those holy men of old, as to Abra∣ham and Jacob, in, called a man, as in the story here referred to in the forecited Gen. 32.24.

To him will well agree this name Elohim in its proper and strictest no••ion of one God, and those appellations also which follow v. 5. Je∣hovah, and Elohe Hattsebaoth, the Lord, the God of hoses, which are proper to God alone, and not communicable to any created Angel, which seem also to be spoken still of the same person that is here meant; and therefore, by understanding him here meant to be Christ, no scruples in this kind arising from the signifi∣cations of the word and names, which may be made if we understand any mere created Angel, doth this opinion seem to many the most satisfactory, and we may rest in it.

But there ariseth again another question from what is said, that Jacob by his strength had power with God, yea had power over this Angel and prevailed b 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beono, with his strength, i. e. his own strength, how it should be that Jacob should be able to do this. This question will not be put off, by saying that any thing was here done c simulatorie, or by way of dissimulation, on the Angels part, that he did only make a shew of striving with him, or sleightly skirmished with him, and seem'd to yield to him; or that it was on Jacob's part by way of imagination only, and d that he seemed in the night to have done what is said he did; or by interpreting 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eth Elo∣him, with God, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 el Maleac, with the Angel, as if he had him for his assistant, and so together with him did prevail against an∣other which assaulted him, viz. some evil Angel. The words do manifestly require it to be understood, as against, viz. that he him∣self strove against him, that is mentioned, and not jointly with him against another, and they do plainly shew, as likewise the history re∣corded in Genesis, that there was a real and a stout strugling between them. The question then is, how Ja••ob could perform what he did, how his strength could hold out against such an antagonist. Had it been but an ordinary created Angel that he had to deal with, it had been a strange thing that he should have been able to have resisted him, much more to have power over him, and prevail. One Angel smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand, 1 Kings 19.35. how should Jacob in a single combat be able to prevail against such a one? much more it being granted that his antagonist here was not only such a one, one of God's ordinary mini∣sters, but God himself, against whom how little strength of himself Jacob had, appears by that putting out of joint his thigh by a touch of his. Whence then had Jacob that strength whereby he had power to prevail, and conquer in the combat? We may answer in the words of St. Jerom, Ejus benedictione quem vicerat confortatus est, he was strengthened by the blessing of him whom he overcame. He who for e such ends as he would manifest in, and to, him, put him to that hard trial of his faith and constancy, gave him strength to overcome in it, for assurance to him that he would make

good his promises to him in his person or seed, against all that might be thought could, or should endeavour to hinder them, and that he should prevail against them all, and over∣come f in all trials, according to that inference which we have in the Vulgar Latin translation Gen. 32.28. Si contra Deum for is fuisti, quanto magis contra ••omines praevalebis? If thou hast been strong (or hast had power) against God, how much more shalt thou prevail against men? which ours and others more literally according to the Hebrew render, as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

The strength by which he did this, was God's strength, as well as that by which God contended against him, yet is well called his, as being by God given him. It being given to him, was his, g no title making a thing to a man more juitly his own, than that which is made his by right of donation. So that whilst Jacob wrestles with God by that ex∣traordinary strength given him from God, he is said by his strength to prevail with God; God so ordering it, that that strength which was in Jacob exerted it self with greater force, than that which was in that assumed body which he made use of for that occasion, as his instrument, whereby in that manner to deal with Ja••ob; and we may look on God mean while as bearing h two persons, of a comba∣tant with Jacob and an assistant of him, shew∣ing in the second regard greater strength than in the other, fighting, i as it were, against him with his left hand, and for him, or in defending him, with his right, and to that putting greater force. And mean while we are not so to look on Jacob's bodily strength of the outward man as his spiritual of the inward man, viz. the firmness of his faith.

He going to Padan Aram to avoid mischief intended to him by his brother Esau, had by the way (at Bethel) in a dream a promise from God that he would give that land to him and to his seed, and that he would keep him in all places whither he should go, and would bring him again into that land, and that he would not leave him, until he had done that which he had spoken to him of Gen. 28.13-15. And afterward being in Padan Aram, he had a command from the Lord saying, Return unto the land of thy fathers, and to thy kindred, and I will be with thee, c. 31.3. Ac∣cording to which he returning, met with this encounter here mentioned, by the brook k Jab∣bor, c. 32.24. in which that which made him to behave himself so valiantly that he could not be prevailed against, we cannot but think to have been his l confidence in that word of God, those commands, and those sure pro∣mises that he had received from him of carrying him in safety to the place whither he directed him to go, and that he would be with him and not forsake him, and would bless him and his seed. On these relying he assured himself that no creature could be able to do him hurt, or to hinder him from obtain∣ing those ends which God had directed him to, and that God himself would not, having engaged his word to him. This therefore made him that he would not, through faith in him, yield to him that seemed now to oppose him. By vertue of which faith, though it were God himself that wrestled with him, it is said not only that he would not, but that he could not prevail against him, there v. 25. he could not do against his own good word towards him that so firmly without wavering relied on it. He tried his faith and constancy, but would not overthrow it, and therefore could not prevail against him; only by that touch which he gave him in the hollow of his thigh, he made him sensible of the power of him whom he had to deal with, if he would farther have exerted it. Now he only doth it so far as by a little weakning his body, to add strength to his faith, and to shew him who he was, and give him farther assurance that he was not his adversary, but his friend in whom he might continue to trust: which it appears Jacob perceived in that he would not let him go∣except he blessed him. And that he knew who it was from whom he sought & obtained that blessing, appears by what follows there in the story, v. 30. That Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, i. e. (as in our margin) the face of God, for, saith he, I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. It is here given us farther to observe hat the instruments which his faith made use of for exerting its strength, were not so much his armes or thighs, one of which, we are told, for ever after failed him, as tears and prayers. So it follows here, though in the story in Genesis not expressed, in the next words according, I think, to the plainest way of construction, He wept and made supplications unto him.

Who he is that wept, it being not expresly named, but only pointed at in the pronoun he, in the verb included, it makes it necessa∣ry to look back to some person before named: and we have two named, the Angel and Ja∣cob, and the verb is so placed as that it may be indifferently referred to, or construed with either of them. Whence Interpreters take occasion of differently referring it, some to the Angel (called also God,) others to Jacob. The former way take some (I may

say most) of the Jewish Expositors, as Aben Ezra, and David Kimchi, though they do a little seem to mollify it; the one putting 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he did almost weep and supplicate to him that he would let him go; the other, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as if the Angel wept, or the Angel did as it were weep, and supplicate to Jacob to let him go, as it is written, and he said let me go, for the day breaketh, beyond which time Aben Ezra thinks he would not stay, least Jacob should be affrighted by the sight of him in the light. R. Tanchum plain∣ly saith that the affixe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lo, to him, (in, he made supplication to him) belongeth to Jacob, and that understood in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bacah, he wept, to the Angel, and refers to what he said, let me go, for &c. The Jewish Author of the MS. Arabick version seems to agree with them in it, rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and he had power with him, so that he wept and made supplication to him.

The same take some among m Christians also of good note, and Mercer justifies the Jews in that their way, against such Christians as think otherwise, Humano more de Angelo lo∣quitur, saith he, Nostri fletum & rogatum ad Jacob referunt, sed Hebraeos rectius sentire puto, i. e. he speaks of the Angel after the manner of men (or, as if he were a man, as in Genesis he is called, and having assumed a body, might express in it such passions as are usually in men found, as weeping, &c.) ours, i. e. Christians, refer the weeping and supplication to Jacob, but I take, saith he, the Jews to think righter in it. Why should, saith he, Jacob weep, seeing he had the superiority? &c. We may on the other side aske, why should the Angel weep, what hurt or good could he receive from Jacob? Was it because he could not overcome him? He could not because he would not. Most Christians therefore go the latter way, which is more easy to be conceived, viz. that Ja∣cob wept and made supplication to him that is called the Angel.

It being asked why Jacob should weep who was the conquerour, and might rather command than beg any thing of him over whom he had power, I think it will not be convenient to answer with n some that it was by reason of the hurt that he received in his thigh. This would be below the manliness of Jacob, a man used to hardships and labours. We may rather say that by that touch, and the other management of the combar, he o per∣ceived who it was that he had to deal with; not barely a man, though as so appearing, (and so therefore called) no nor an ordinary created Angel, but Elohim, God himself, and therefore out of amazement and wonder that God should condescend so to deal with him, and in an awfull respect to him, and out of his earnest desire of a blessing from him, might well with tears poure out his supplication, and p implore that his blessing, by which he might be secured from the present fear of his brother Esau, and all other enemies for whom he might think himself too weak with∣out special assistance from God. q Vehement desires and earnest petitions frequently pro∣voke tears, and are accompanied with them. The strength by which he had power with God, &c. we may in good part ascribe to these.

The word rendred strength, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on, which besides the signification of strength, hath also others. r As 2. of falsness, trouble, labour, complaint: and 3. of mourning. In the first as by ours, so by most it is generally rendred; but the LXX take it in the second, rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or as in s some copies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the printed Arabick follows, having 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in his labour, or labours, which seems t not so plain a meaning. Cyril ex∣pounds it of those labours and trouble with which God exercised him, in all which he continued constant in his hold, and love to God, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, fainted not, and so pre∣vailed against him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not so much as fighting with God, but rather as obeying him, and so becoming, as it were, superiour by fulfilling what was com∣manded him, God seeing fit so to try him with labours, that keeping, even in afflictions, his sincere love to God, he might worthily be admired. But the other meaning seems plainer. In the other verbs they vary the number, and the person in the pronoun, for, he wept and made supplication unto him, rendring, they wept and supplicated unto me, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

In description of what passed between God and Jacob he adds, he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us. In the expounding of which words there is as much variety between Interpreters as will easily be sound in any place; the ground of which will be soon per∣ceived by casting an eye on the words singly. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yimtsaennu, he found him, the verb is, as to the form, of the suture tense, but looked on by many as having here (as elsewhere it not seldom hath) the signification of the pre∣ter, or some of those tenses, which denote what is past, not what to come, and so by them rendred and expounded. So notes Kim∣chi that it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 atid, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the fu∣ture in place of the preterperfect tense; and so

R. Tanchum both of it and the following verb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yedabber, that they are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The future instead of preter tenses ac∣cording to the custom in many of the prophecies, and therefore to be rendred as in the same tense with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bacah, he wept, going be∣fore. Others will have the proper notion of the future (viz. he will, or shall find) to be retained, as R. Salomo, and Kimchi's father. Concerning the persons likewise finding, and found, there is like variety. He found him, that is, say u some, Jacob found God, or the Angel; w others, God found Jacob. The con∣struction is ambiguous, both God and Jacob having been before named, and he and him referbile to either, and nothing therein to de∣termine it on either side, and it may seem to be much one which we take, the result of each being that which the Chaldee gives us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he, i. e. God, or the Angel, was re∣vealed to him, which is made true by their meeting mutually together, which soever of them may be said to meet, or to be met; and Expositors have no other rule to guide them in it, but their own conjecture, as they think it will best agree with the other words.

As for example, Calvin, who therefore thinks it best to understand it, God found Ja∣cob in Bethel, because he thinks it manifest that, he, in the next words, there he spake with us, cannot be attributed to any other person but God; although Rivet think that not to be a necessary argument, but that the words may on the other side sound as well, Jacob in Bethel found God who spake with us there. On the contrary side R. Tanchum draws an argument to prove that it must be under∣stood, that Jacob found God in Bethel, be∣cause the pronoun is, he thinks, referred to El, signifying God, the last syllable in that compounded name of Bethel, i. e. to say the house of God, put on that place by Jacob from his meeting God there, saying of it, this is none other but the house of God, Gen. 28.17. and therefore he called the name of that place Be∣thel, v. 19. for brevities sake, he thinks the name of God included in that name of the place, is not repeated, but pointed to in the affixe, him, which if it be true, as there is no reason I think to say it is not, then will ap∣pear not to be apposite here the ordinary reading in the LXX, which read for Bethel in this place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, at the house of On, which answers to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beth Aven, above men∣tioned c. 4.15. and c. 5.8. and 10.5. signi∣fying, the house of iniquity, and looked on by most to be a name given by God to Bethel by way of scorn, after their setting up there the Idolatrous worship of the Calves, as abhorring that his name should be any more called on an house of Idols.

But it was not so called by Jacob, nor if so called, can the pronoun him, be referred to On, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aven, iniquity, or vanity. It was God that Jacob met with, and so it appears they thought, while they render, they found me, as if God spake of himself, who certainly was not found there after it became Beth Aven, or On. And therefore more convenient seems another reading which some copies of them, and the printed Arab. sollowing them have, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in my house they found me. But in this also there is a wide variation in them from the Hebrew reading, and what all others follow, b•• their change of persons, from, he found him, to, they found me, for which I know no reason.

Bethel being named as the place where it is said they found one the other, or God ap∣peared to Jacob, gives occasion of a question, of what meeting of God and Jacob there he here speaks, seeing that in the history of Ja∣cob in Genesis it appears that they twice there met; as first when he fled for fear of his bro∣ther Esau to Padan Aram, as he went from Beersheba towards Haran, Gen. 28.10. where in a dream he saw a ladder reaching from earth to heaven, on which the Angels of God ascended and descended, and the Lord standing above it, who there spake to him and said, as there follows v. 13, 14, 15. things concerning good to him and his seed, which as before we said caused him to call the place, Bethel, because of God's shewing himself to him there pre∣sent; secondly, as he returned, God warning him so to do, after he had long dwelt with Laban in Padan Aram, into the land of Canaan again, Gen. 35.9. &c. There it is said that God appeared unto Jacob again, and spake with him likewise such words as are there recorded, concerning him and his seed, and there confirmed to him again the name Israel, which he had before given him, c. 32.28. as Jacob also from this second appearing of God to him in that place confirmed to it the name of Bethel, which he had before given it, c. 28.19. from his first appearing to him there. Now to which of these two meetings of God and Jacob this spoken doth refer, is not agreed on by all. Some refer it to the first, so x R. Tanchum expresly among the Jews, and so y more than one among Christians. Calvin in respect to it would have the preceding verb to be rendred, invenerat eum, he had be∣fore

found him, as if that were it that added courage and strength to him by which he had power with God, and prevaited over the An∣gel, because God before had there appeared to him, and promised to be with him in all places, and bring him back again in safety to that land, and that he would give it to him and his seed.

But z others seeing this is mentioned after the mention of his contention and victory ob∣tained with God, think it more agreeing to the order of the words and history, to refer it to that second meeting, or appearance of God to him, which was after that wrestling between him and the Angel, Gen. 32. and that so the construction is clearer by referring the pro∣noun him, to the person immediatly mentioned before, with whom he, i. e. Jacob prevailed, and to whom he made supplication. But in the words themselves there is nothing to deter∣mine them to the one or to the other, viz. the first or second meeting, but it must be de∣termined by their agreeing more commodious∣ly with either the preceding, or following words: and from the preceding we see one draws an argument for their bearing respect to the first, another to the second. And why may we not think them to have respect to both? That which passed between them in both, of God's blessing Jacob and his seed, is much alike, even the same, as it is re∣corded in the forecited Genesis 28.13. con∣cerning the first, and c. 35.9. &c. concerning the second; to either, or both of which indif∣ferently, the following words seem also to al∣lude, which are, and there he spake with us, which seem necessarily to imply a meeting be∣tween persons speaking and spoken to, as in both these passages of the story concerning Jacob going to Syria and returning from it, there was, so that this also may equally seem to bear respect to the one, or the other, or both. Yet how to either seems questionable, seeing in both there seems in those places of Genesis, where they are recorded, mention made only of two persons, viz. of him, called God, or the Angel, and Jacob; but here ex∣presly of more. It being said in the first place as of one, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yedabber, he spake, or will speake, the verb, as we before intimated, being of the future tense, though by most taken to be understood of what was past; in the second as of more, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 iamanu, with us: which necessarily suggests again an enquiry who are those persons, the one single person, and the mores, poken to; which question it is strange what variety of expositions among Interpre∣ters it hath caused. It will be in vain to seek to reconcile them, I shall rather choose, if it may not seem too tedious to the Reader, to set down the chief of such as I meet with distinctly, that so he may judge of them.

R. Salomo so expounds them as if they were the words of the Angel with whom Ja∣cob strove, and the part of his supplication to him, by which he takes to be meant what is Genesis 32.25. let me go, and those words here added by Hosea to have been then like∣wise spoken by him to perswade Jacob to dis∣miss him for that time, in regard that was all that was then to be done, but the conclusion intended by God is, saith he, that he will appear to thee in Bethel, and there he and I will agree in confirming to thee the blessing with which thy a father Isaac blessed thee. With him much agrees the father of D. Kimchi, as his son relates, viz that the meaning is, that the A••gel said unto him, that in Bethel God also himself would find him, that is, would there appear to him, and call his name Israel, as he now had done. In this way of R. Salomo there is this bars••ness of putting the second person for the third. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall find him, he puts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tim•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nu, thou shalt find him. According to him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with us, must be, with me the Angel, and with thee Jacob. This is by Calvin censured as frigid.

R. Abraham, Aben Ezra, and R. D. Kim∣chi will have them to be taken as the words of the Prophet, telling them that there God also spake with him and the Prophet Amos, viz. in Bethel, because, saith the first, the Angel appearcd twice in Bethel, behold that place was the gate of heaven, therefore Hosea and Amos prophesied against Jeroboam in Bethel, which was the place of his kingdom. The second, the words of the Prophet are, there in Bethel, saith he, he speaks with me and with Amos, that we should reprove Israel for the worship of the calves, as Amos c. 5.5. whether we understand in him, with us, for to us, or by us, as b some. Thus he in this place, and in his Dictionary in somthing dif∣fering words, saith that they are the words of the Prophet, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with his companions, as if he should say, now at this time he speaketh with us there in the place in which he spake with him, as if ••e should say that there did yet remain some excellency in that place.

The same Kimchi relates another exposi∣tion as from R. Saadiah, which doth not re∣strain what is said, with us, to those Prophets only, but extend it to all Israel, and make the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 immanu to sound as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for us, or concerning us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as if he said, of, for, or concerning the seed of Israel, in that he saia to him, be fruitfull and multiply, a nation, and a company of nations shall be of thee &c. Gen. c. 35.11. Much one with this is that way

which c most Christian Expositors take, viz. so as that, with us, is by them understood to im∣port not only, with Jacob, but with us all, the Prophet joining himself with the rest of the people, as one of them who were then in his loins: with us, i. e. quae ad nos pertinebant, such things as belonged to us his posterity, saith Drusius, according to an Hebrew proverb, Quae patribus acciderunt signum sunt filiis, those things which happened to the fathers are a sign to the children and pertain to them. To this purpose the most: yet as concerning the person speaking to them, which they generally look on as God, or the Angel, are there d those that differ, taking it to be Jacob, who then might be said to have spoken with them, or to them his posterity, when (Gen. 35. fore∣cited, verses 2, 3.) he said unto his houshold, and to all that were with him, put away the strange gods that are among you, &c. and let us arise, and go up to Bethel, and I will make there an altar unto God, &c. There, according to them, he spake in those of them that were present, to all his posterity that should come of them, to ingage them to follow and adhere only to that one true God, whom he had found help from, and would therefore then at Bethel bui••d an altar to, and constantly serve, re∣jecting all strange gods. But besides that this seems not so plain in the course of the words and sense, if we shall stand on niceties, that which Jacob spake then to his houshold, was not there at Bethel, but at another place from which in his journey he went to Bethel, as he saith, let us arise and go up to Bethel, and then, they journied and came to Luz, v. 5, 6. But here Bethel is first named, and then it is said, and there he spake with us.

Abarbinel doth as to the signification of the last word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Immanu, well agree also with R. Sandia, joyning to it in explication of its si∣gnification, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 alenu, saying 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. those ap∣pearances (i. e. God and the Angel in those two appearings) did in truth speak with us, and concerning us. But, otherwise, in giving the scope of the words, not only of these last, but those preceding also, from v. 2. viz. and will punish Jacob according to his ways, &c. in dependance on one another, he takes another way from those other Jews whom we have named, having seen them, and considered them. Whereas they look on the words as spoken by the Prophet from God, and put∣ting them in mind of such passages in the sto∣ry of Jacob for such use as he intended; he looks on them as by them spoken, and made use of in defence and justification of themselves: so that according to him the meaning should seem thus to be, That the Prophet upbraiding them should say, that they for sheir quarrelling with their brethren of the chief tribe of Judah, perhaps would alledge that they did imitate the deed of their father Jacob, who took his brother Esau by the heel, and by his strength had power with God, in wrestling with the Angel, and ye, saith he, that you may go in his way, make a quarrelling and war with your brethren the children of Judah, as he took by the heel (or supplanted) his brother, and make also war with the Lord, and would overcome him also, while ye say, that he should return and seek to you first, as Jacob your father had power with God: and then he personates the Prophet as saying, O my Brethren do n••t do evil, and do not err in this, for that Elohim, (or he that is called God,) with whom your father Jacob strove, was an Angel, and he had power against the Angel, and prevailed, but not against the Holy Blessed God; and besides that strength that Jacob there had, he did not acquire but by weeping and making supplication to him, viz. to God, to whom he mentions that he made suppli∣cation, that he would save him from that Prince (or guardian Angel) of Esau: and, saith he (with a new interpretation of the words, he found, or shall find, him in Bethel) the Prophet saith, although a man cannot find the supplication of Jacob in that section of Scripture which concerns the Angels wrestling, yet in Bethel, i. e. there where what happened at Bethel is recorded, he that considereth it, shall find it in the vision of the ladder that Jacob saw, and shall see that there Jacob made his supplication where he said, if God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, &c. and there it is said, and he called the name of the place Bethel. Behold in that vision you shall find Jacobs prayer and supplica∣tion. It appears also from the second vision which he saw in Bethel, where he saith, let us arise and go up to Bethel, and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in my distress; and this answering was to his supplication, and because in that section Jacob said, put away the strange gods that are among you, therefore the Prophet here saith, and there he spake with us, i. e. those visions spake in truth with us, and concerning us, whether in the first, in that he saith, and behold I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whether thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land, to shew that we were not worthy (or obtained not) that he should keep us, or of in∣heriting the land, but by his being with us, and our cleaving to him; or whether in the second, in that he saith, a nation and a company of na∣tions shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loyns, wherein he prophesied that of his children should be several nations, and diffe∣rent kingdoms, as now there were, &c.

This long and intritate exposition of these words and the preceding gives he. His words in their own language being too large here to insert, I suppose I have given a faithfull account of the meaning of them, and this he, rejecting such as were by others given, re∣commends to us, as that which seemed most convenient to him, and agreeable to the te∣nour of these words; yet I know not whe∣ther some may not look upon some of the other as more eligible, and he himself seems not peremptory in asserting it, whilst he brings also another, saying that these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bethel yimtsaenu &c. may be other∣wise interpreted concerning Ephraim fore∣mentioned; for that after he said that his fa∣ther Jacob had power with God, and pre∣vailed with the Angel, wept, and made sup∣plication to him, or, that the Angel wept and supplicated to Jacob saying, let me go, for the day breaketh, as our Doctors say, viz. that he saith, shall Ephraim now be worthy of ought like this? Shall he so find an Angel in Bethel, whether he goeth to worship the calves? Shall God there speake with us by the mediation of the calves, as he spake to Jacob twice in Bethel? Without doubt thou shalt not find any such thing, but in the house God and his holy temple, where is the God of Hosts, whose memorial is the Lord.

I will not compare these his two exposi∣tions one with the other, nor with those of others; that which I observe at present is, concerning the reading of the last word, that in all of them hitherto mentioned it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 immanu, and rendred, with us, however they differ in assigning the persons by the affixe us, pointed out. But there be who looking on Jacob singly as designed by it, choose rather to render it with him. So R. Tanchum, his saying 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Immanu, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in place of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Immo, i. e. with him, referring to Jacob, he that spake being God, and it re∣ferring to what he said, I am the Lord the God of Abraham thy father. Kimchi e also relates it as the opinion of R. Adonim, and R. Jo∣nah (who is Abuwalid) that it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as Immo, or the same in signification with it. So doth the Author of the ancient Syriack transtation render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with him; and among the more modern Castalio, cum eo, with him. L. Cappellus thinking it so to make much a more convenient meaning than the other, viz. with us, that he might make it sure would for its sake have the reading in the Hebrew changed, and for Im∣manu, which properly and according to the usual rules by Grammarians given is looked on to signify with us, to be readd Immenu, which he thinks would signify, with him. But in this there are who severely censure him, as Cocceius and Buxtorf. First, because out of mere conjecture he is so bold as to change the received reading in the Hebrew, with∣out any pretence of authority, besides his own. The LXX indeed he observes to render that which others render with us, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to them, with change of the number and person; but that is not as he would have it, nor justi∣fies him. And secondly, because he substitutes instead of it, a word of an unusual & unknown form, the Hebrew no where expressing with him, by Immenu, but by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Immo. The Jews whom we mentioned as so rendring it by, with him, do not suggest to us any such change of the reading, but only say that Immanu here, they suppose to signify the same that Immo; they thought perhaps that it might an∣ciently be so used. It is indeed different from the new ordinary known rules of the Hebrew tongue, but whether they give the whole use of the ancient language, may be doubted.

Cocceius having not only thus censured Cappellus, and vindicated the ordinary read∣ing, but rejected those expositions of that also which we have before mentioned, him∣self gives this, that by him, of whom it is said, he spake, should be understood Jacob; and by those expressed by, with us, as spoken to, God the father the first, and his son Christ, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, who is meant here by the Angel. Jacobus Bethele locutus est cum Deo Patre & Filio, saith he, Jacob spake in Be∣thel with God the Father and the Son, and he thinks this place an evident argument for plu∣rality of persons in the Deity, as the pronoun here in the plural number he takes to argue. With us, i. e. mecum & Angelo, with me and the Angel, as Christ speaking of the Father and himself, saith in the plural number, we will come unto him, viz. Pater & ego, my Father and I, John 14.23. which place, saith he, plane est ex praesenti loco expressus, is plainly expressed from this. The words he saith, are all along the words of God himself, and though he speak of Jehovah in the third person, this argues not the contrary, for this is done propter mysterium Dei & Mediatoris quod explicatur versu quinto, by reason of that mystery of God and the Mediator which is de∣clared in the fifth verse.

This is the latest exposition that I meet with, and the learned Author thinks it un∣doubtedly the true, and prefers it before any other: if it be not as so accepted, I think we may safely have recourse to that most ancient and plain one above mentioned, and by most Christian Expositors embraced, viz. that he, i. e. God, spake with us, that is, with the po∣sterity

of Jacob, then in his loins when God spake with him, with whom the Prophet joining himself as one of them, saith, with us. That we may not think this an unusual way of expression, that what is done to, or by the Fathers, should be said to be done to, or by, their posterity, it is f observed what is said Psalms 66.6. They (our Fathers) went through the floud on foot, there did we (their posterity) rejoyce in him; and we may add what is said Hebrews 7.9, 10. Levi also who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham, for he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him: so were these then in their father Jacob's loins, when God met him. And indeed the things then spoken concerned his posterity as much or more than him, and were to be made good in them, many of them, which were not so evidently made good to him in his single person. Whatever exposition any shall follow, who it was that so ordered things to Jacob, and whom he dealt there with, and with whom they are to know that they have now to deale, and in dealing with whom they ought to have taken example from Jacob and his behaviour, and have done amiss in not doing so, is declared in the fol∣lowing words, that it was even the Lord God of Hosts, the Lord is his memorial.

The first word in the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lite∣rally is, and Jehovah, or the Lord God of Hosts &c. The conjunction, as is well known, in the first place, and properly, signifies, and, and is so by many here rendred, as by the Vulgar Latin, & Dominus, and the Lord &c. Others render it, as it may be taken also, by g atqui, or, autem, but the Lord; and others, ac sane, (altering the construction of the next word) and certainly, h Domini, of the Lord, the Lord of Host, Jehovah, or, the Lord, is the me∣morial. The Geneva English hath, yea the Lord God of Hosts himself is his memorial. Piscator renders it, Jehovah is the Lord of Hosts. However any of these may be justi∣fiable, I think none doth more happily, for giving the connexion of these words with the preceding, (in which the most agree) render here that particle of conjunction than our last translation, even the Lord &c. to shew whom he, between whom and Jacob the things men∣tioned did pass, declares himself to be. The LXX, and the printed Arab. following them, changing, as we said, the person in the for∣mer words, and rendring them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and then it was spoken, or said unto them; or as other copies have it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the printed Arab. follows 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and there it was said unto him, seem to make this to be that which was there said by God unto Jacob.

But to proceed according to the guidance of our own apposite translation to a view of the words in which God declares of himself who he is, and how he will be acknowledged. He saith first, that he is Jehovah, by this name he made himself known to the Children of Israel Exod. 3.15. of it he saith there c. 6.39. that by it he was not known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but by the name of God Almighty: yet that Abraham knew that name of his, it appears by his naming that place where he offered that ram substituted by God instead of his son Isaac, Jehovahjireth, Gen. 22.14. and Gen. 15.7. and Gen. 26.24, 25. he is called by it, what passed between him and Isaac, and in what passed between him and Ja∣cob Gen. 28.13. And these words here in∣timate as much, being joyned with such things as are spoken of what was done by Jacob, and how God appeared to him, and was by him acknowledged, that he was by this name known unto him.

To take away what difficulty might arise from those words Exodus 6.3. compared with these other passages, i some learned men would have them readd interrogatively, & in nomi∣ne meo Jehovah non (vel nonne) cognitus sume is? and by my name Jehovah was I not known to them? which would then be an assir∣mation that he was by that name known of old to those holy Fathers, and not a denial that he was by it before now known. But because the more received way of rendring them is without an interrogation, as if God did in them say, that he was not known to them by that name; other ways of solving it are brought; k some think it to be done by understanding and supplying the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lebad, i. e. tantummodo, only, or alone, I was not known to them by that name Jehovah alone, but also by the name of El Shaddai. Abarbinel with alteration of the construction makes it out thus, I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of God Almighty, and the name (i. e. by the name, the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be, in, or by, being here taken in l as well as with the former name) of Jeho∣vah, but notwithstanding all this, I was not known to them, in as much as they did not prophecy (or received their prophecy) face to face, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the hand of Mediators, (or some intermediating,) not immediatly from the first cause, as he talked with Israel face to face, Deut. 5.4. and knew Moses

m face to face, Deut. 34.10. and spake with them mouth to mouth, Numb. 12.8.

n Buxtorf explains it thus, yet was I not so made known to them, for though they heard this name, yet they did not so well understand the force and efficacy of it, nor attained to so clear and per∣spicuous a knowledge of God. And so, to omit o∣ther several ways that are given for reconciling this difficulty, a plain and received way is, not altering ought in the construction of those words, that he saith, he was not known to those of old by that name, that in as much as though he did reveale himself by it to them, yet he did not so fully make known the import of it, which was to declare that he was not only an eter∣nal being of himself, but such as gave being to all other things, and would certainly give being to all his promises by actual perfor∣mance of them, and as so he was not actually and experimentally made known to them. Abraham received the promise of the land of Canaan, yet gave he him no inheritance in it, Acts 7.5. They received not the promises, but saw them a far off, and only were perswaded of them, and embraced them Heb. 11.13. They knew God by his name Jehovah so as to believe him to be faithfull in promises, and able to perform them, but o had not that full knowledge and experience of the efficacy of that his name, which now to those their po∣sterity should be manifested by actual re∣ceiving the things promised, and having it made good to them by real possession, and en∣joyment of what the other had but expe∣ctation.

This name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by such as express it according to its proper letters in other lan∣guages written Jehovah, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his proper name, to him alone attributed; whereas the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Elohim, here fol∣lowing, is p 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a name communi∣cated to others with him, but as for this name (as Kimchi here speaks) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 none partakes with him. It is so formed from the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hayah, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Havah, signifying, to be, or exist, as to comprehend all circumstances of time, q the past, the pre∣sent, and all to come, and so in one word expresseth what is in more Rev. 1.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he which is, and which was, and which is to come. Several epithets are given to it, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shem haetsem, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hahavyah, the name of substance, or essence; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hammephorash, nomen r distincte expositum, explicatum, s separa∣tum, the distinctly expressed name, the separate name. It is usually known by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shem shel arba otioth, the Tetra∣grammaton, or name of four letters, and is stiled Deut. 28.55, 58. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shem hanicbad vehanora, the glorious and fearfull name. The Jews out of a pretended awe and reverence abstain from pronouncing it as it is written, and in lieu of it read usually 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Adonai, which signifies Lord, or in such places where Adonai is joyned with it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Elohim, God; and this custom seems to be not of late original. When it came first up, and the pronouncing the sacred name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehovah, began to be abstained from, I think cannot certainly be determined from all that can be collected from the ••ewish writers. The learned Buxtorfe concludes, circa vasta∣tionem templi secundi & urbis, aut paulo post plane intercidisse, that about the destru∣ction of the second temple and the city of Jerusalem, or a little after it was altogether left off, or be∣came unknown; for that in the time of the first temple the right pronunciation of it was well known and used, he thinks, none can doubt, and he produceth proofs out of the sewish writers, that under the second temple it was likewise so known, yea and after the destruction of that temple also, for some years that it was to some particular men known, though not in frequent use, nor thought fit to be made publick, in so much that when one of their Doctors undertook to discourse publickly of it to the people, a certain old man silenced him with, occultandum est, it is to be kept secret.

But that the abstaining from the proper pro∣nouncing of it, and substituting the word that signifies, Lord, in place of it, is of no small antiquity, appears by plain matter of fact, in as much as the LXX Interpreters, who were some hundreds of years before Christ, in the text of their Greek do not at all express it in any sound that might agree to it, but instead of it put 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is the signification of the forementioned Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ado∣nai, to wit, Lord. Meanwhile in the margin, it is observed that to shew that the name ex∣pressed in the original (and I suppose to move reverence in the reader) was not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Adonai, as their rendring it might make some think, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehovah, which out of re∣verence they abstained from expressing in their own characters, they wrote in their an∣cient copies in Hebrew letters that name, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which afterwards some that understood not the Hebrew, nor knew their letters, taking them for Greek, and so reading as the Greek, not as the Hebrew do, turned it into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pipi, which as a learned Arab. writer, in his preface to his translation

of the Law into that language observes, was cause of a foule errour both to the Greeks and Syrians, and such Christians as spake Arabick, in making them take Pipi for a name of God, that which the Greek, and they in such versions as they make out of that, render by a word signifying, Lord.

For the antiquity of it is made an argu∣ment, from that in the New Testament also where any place in which that proper name of God is put in the Old, is cited, it is not ex∣pressed as according to the Hebrew letters and vowels it would sound, but rendred by Lord. So in what is by Christ himself cited out of the Old Testament wherein is the name Jehovah 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is not expressed, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Lord, put in stead of it: as in Matt. 4.7. that taken out of Deut. 6.16. where in the He∣brew it is with this name expressed, ye shall not tempt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Eth Jehovah, your God, is in the Greek with a translation, not expression of it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God; and again that Matt. 22.44. out of Ps. 110.1. where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehovah said unto my Lord, as cited in the Greek, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Lord said unto my Lord. Neither is it any where in the New Testament expressed according as written in Hebrew. It cannot sure be said that this was because that name could not at all be pronounced, nor be said without blasphemy, that Christ who knew all things, yea to whom himself as God that name doth belong, knew not the right pro∣nuntiation of it. Nor can it be hence proved he did not use at all to pronounce it. That he knew how to pronounce it, and that he did pronounce it, the blasphemous Jews confess, while to his knowing and using it they de∣nying his Divinity, (who is God blessed for ever, and communicates with the Father in this his name) affirm that only by the know∣ledge, and use of this name he did all his miracles; as likewise they affirm Moses to have done. But to leave their blasphemous follies and fables, that custom of the New Te∣stament concerning this name in substituting 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for it, may indeed have some shew of an argument, that it was t a general custom then so to do, and the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not usually read, or pronounced according to its own proper letters and vowels; but I think it not convincing either that the pronuntia∣tion of it was not known then among the Jews speaking in their language, or that Christ speaking in their language, (whether we call it, as at that time, either Hebrew or Syriack, it seeming to be mixed of both) did not pro∣nounce it. For the Gospel which recites his words, and gives the true and full meaning of them, so that they may be, and are to be reckoned the very same thing that he spake as to that, yet being written in another lan∣guage than what he spake in, cannot give the same syllables and words which came out of his mouth: and indeed the expressing in that kind that glorious name of which we are speaking in the Greek, (which is the lan∣guage of the Gospel, interpreting and giving us to understand what it was that Christ spake in that other language) is a thing so difficult, nay we may well say so impossible, by rea∣son of the difference of the sound of their let∣ters from those of the Hebrew, that the Greeks might well as they do, for that, call it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ineffable, or, that which could not be pronounced by them, viz. in, or according to the rules and known sounds of their own lan∣guage, though it were not so in that tongue to which it did belong, or to any that should speak according to the use of its letters. This made it to them even necessary to sub∣stitute some translation or other word for it, as it likewise doth to change or omit the let∣ters in any proper name which any where oc∣curs, beginning with those letters which sound Jeho, or Yeho. They could not so sound them as the Hebrew doth, and are forced to make some change, which it seems out of reverence and respect to this sacred name they would not presume to do, but rather chose to sub∣stitute in place of it the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Lord, as denoting him in ordinary language who was expressed by it.

Out of like reverence, I suppose, did others in other languages also, which yet could have expressed those same letters with the same sound that the Hebrews did, abstaine yet from the pronouncing that name. The an∣cienter Syriack done not out of the Greek, but long before (as we may with them think) out of the Hebrew, taketh that way, instead of that name putting also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Moryo, the Lord, as both here and in the forecited Ex. 6. and where else it occurs. The ancient Vulgar Latin also here, and frequently elsewhere, Do∣minus; but in that place in Exodus, as Judeth 16.16. Adonai, the Hebrew word so signifying, but no where according to the Hebrew letters of the name, and what other, any thing ancient, translations we shall look into, we shall find them to have gone in the same steps, as if they accounted still this name, as we said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ineffable, not so much because they had not letters and vowels of their own where∣by to express it, as out of reverence to it, and religion. So the Arabick version, both out of the Hebrew and Greek, substitute for it

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arrabbo, Lord. But of latter days we shall find divers to have done otherwise, and looking on Jebovah as a right and lawfull pronuntiation of it, to have admitted it into their translations, and some most constantly to have used it, as Junius and Tremellius; others, somtimes where they thought its Emphasis in the place to require it, but at other times putting instead of it, as they saw them who went before to have done, and so to have made it familiar to men, the Lord. So among u others our last Translators, whom Drusius, I know not with what good reason, blames for it, and saith they should have constantly used the one or the other. The w bringing into use the pronuntiation hath caused no small contention among learned men, some being against it, as thinking the right pronuntiation of the name to be utterly lost, and so they follow the Jews way in reading for it, Ado∣nai, or as the place requires, Elohim; others looking on it as genuin, and not only lawfull, but convenient to be used, I suppose, as striking into mens minds by the hearing of it higher apprehensions of God's awfull majesty, than any other word that may be used in its place.

It will not be here convenient to trouble the Reader with their disputes and arguments on either side; by all it is concluded to be a name including so much of God's Essence, Majesty and Veracity, and other his glorious Attributes, as cannot by men be sufficiently conceived nor expressed, and in that regard worthily stiled stil, ineffable, and that therefore it ought whenever mentioned by God to strike into the hearts of men awfull thoughts and reverence of him, and attention to him: and for that end, that it may have such effects on them, may we think it here put into the Pro∣phets mouth, and likewise to make the greater impression on them, another title of his (more intelligible perhaps to them) added to it, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Elohe hatsebaoth, the God of h••sts, where the first word Elohe, God, taken by it self, is communicable to others besides the one only true God; as for instance to Angels, as Psalm 8.5. thou hast made him a little lower 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Meelohim, than Elohim, which in the New Testament is expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Heb. 2.7. and both here and there by ours and others, by, than the Angels, to omit other places: to x others also of whom God saith, that they are Gods, as, I have said ye are Gods, Psalm. 82.6. cited by our Saviour John 10.35. and explained, that there he called them Gods to whom the word of God came, viz. to Princes, Rulers, Judges, and such as act by commission from God, or are in his stead; yea to Idols also and false Gods it is often attributed, as Ex. 22.20. where he saith, he that sacrificeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Leelohim, to a God (any God, as ours render it) save 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unto Jehovah, he shall utterly be destroyed, where it is plain that they are called by that name El him, which are not Jehovah. But the joyning here that other word Tzebaoth, ap∣propriates it to him, and sheweth it of him alone to be spoken. In that regard none among the Gods is y like unto him, nor par∣takes with him in the name, or thing signified. The best and greatest among them (as the ho∣ly Angels in chief) may be parts of his hosts, z Captains therein and Princes, but none of them is the God, or the Lord of Hosts, but he only who is also Jehovah, by a name commu∣nicable to no other. Who are then his hosts? and what doth the so stiling him, the Lord of hosts, import? In the history of the Creation Gen. 2.1. we read thus, The heavens and the earth were finished, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vecol tsebaam, and all the host of them, in the singular num∣ber, as if all things in the heavens and the earth were one host of God's, yet by reason of the multitude and variety of them are they in the plural number called also after, hists; and that either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tsebaim, in the mas∣culin gender, Psalm 103.21. bless the Lord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 col tsebaau, all his hosts, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tsebaoth, in the feminine gender, as here, and elsewhere oft, even as oft as the word God, or Lord, is joyned with it, or goes before it: which form is also retained in the Greek of the New Testament, as Rom. 9.29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Lord of sabath, as ours also and others in other languages, retaining it, render: and James 5.4. are entred into the ears 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Lord of sabaoth.

These his hosts the Jews distinguish into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tsebaoth maalch, exercitus su∣periores, his superior hosts, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tsebaoth mattah, exercitus inferiores, his infe∣riour hosts. His hosts he hath above in heaven: as we read of the host of heaven, & by that meant either the Angels and heavenly Spirits, as 1 Kings 22.19. standing (as he there saith) on the right hand, and the left hand of the Lord sitting on his throne, & where Luke 2.13. we read that there was with the Angel that appeared to the shepheards to bring them the glad tidings of Christ's birth, a multitude of the heavenly host. Again such are reckoned, the sun, the moon and stars, as making up the host of heaven, Deut. 4.19. and Acts 7.42. where it is said, God gave them up to worship the host of heaven. And that in earth he hath his hosts as well as in heaven, the forecited Genesis 2.1. shews, and such are all things that are therein, all

things above it, on it, or under it, all being at his command, as the Centurion says of his souldiers Luke 7.8. if he say to any of them go, they go; if ome, they come. Even those that seem to have no king, as Solomon speaks of the locusts, Prov. 30.27. have him for their Commander, and at his word go forth in bands, and even those he calls his great camp; for so a Joel 2.11. it is usually and probably understood of them, and also the most unruly things, as dragons, deeps, fire, hailc, snow, va∣pour, and stormy wind fulfilling his word, Psalm 108.8. are of his hosts as well as those his Angels mentioned v. 2. or those other things in the following verses there named. Job calleth those afflictions which God sent upon him, his troopes, c. 19.12. In a word all things both in heaven and earth being at God's command, and being ordered by him for good, and defence, and if need be for correction of his children, and for making good all his good purposes and promises to them, and for punishment to, and executing his judg∣ment on the wicked, his enemies, are all stiled his hosts, and he, the God of them, none else having that power and command over them; even those hosts of men which they think they have at their command, and oft fight against God and his children with, even they, the Commanders themselves, and their armies are his hosts. The children of Israel are called the host of the Lord, Ex. 12.41. and, his ar∣mies, c. 7.4. No marvel at that in respect of the relation that they had to him, but no less were even the host, of their and his ene∣mies so too, as all (however they thought not so) not being able to prevail against him, but fulfilling his will. So it appears by what he saith of the b Assyrian, that he was the rod of his anger: and the staff in their hand was his indignation, and that he sent them against an hy∣pocritical nation, and the people of his wrath &c. Howbeit he meant not so, nor thought so, but it was in his heart to destroy and cut off nations &c. and therefore it should come to pass, that when the Lord had performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, he would punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his proud looks. So that however he thought that by the strength of his own hands he had done what he did, he was in∣deed but God's instrument, & his hosts God's hosts, at the ordering and disposing of him to perform his work, and what they thought to do more, turned but to their own destru∣ction. See Isaiah 10.5. &c. and c. 27.26. &c. where for his ascribing to his own power what God by him did, and his opposing himself against the Lord whose instrument once he was, by the destruction of that great army wherein he trusted and boasted, by one Angel of the Lord, one of the heavenly host sent out by him, smiting therein together an hundred and fourscore and five thousand, God is mani∣festly shewed to have been the God of both those hosts, the heavenly of which the Angel was, and those on earth, the most potent of them, as that of the Assyrian then was. So that there are c two manifest reasons for which he is so to be called, and acknowledged the God of hosts. 1. Because he hath absolute power of all things in heaven and earth to imploy them at his command, and order them as he pleaseth what they shall do, and how far they shall go. 2. d Because though any hosts or armies be never so strong in the opinion of men, he can at his pleasure dissi∣pate, overthrow, and bring them to nothing, nor can any of them by their great strength pre∣vail to do any thing good or bad, but by his order.

The hosts here understood in God's calling himself the God of hosts, Kimchi will have to be the hosts above, viz. Angels, and the hea∣venly orbes with their stars. Abarbinel in one explication takes them likewise for the Angels, but in another saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Perhaps he calls his armies Judah and Benjamin, because they clave unto his service, as for like reason he called all Israel of old, saying, I will bring forth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mine hosts (or armies) my people the children of Israel, Ex. 7.4. But this seems here to restrain too much that more general title of God; it rather seems convenient here to take it in its greatest extent and comprehension, that from an apprehension of his infinite power and absolute dominion, e cui militant omnes creaturae, at whose beck are all creatures to perform his commands, for good to them to whom he will do good, for evil to those whom he will punish, they may rightly con∣ceive of him whom their father Jacob had to deale with, and they have now to deale with, and so judge of their own condition according to their behaviour towards him.

The more to raise in them such awfull appre∣hensions there is farther yet added to the men∣tion of this his title a repetition of that dread∣full name before mentioned, with a signal re∣mark set upon it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehovah zicro, the Lord, that glorious name, Jehovah is his memorial. That is the name by which he will always be known, acknowledged, and re∣membred f by all his, and distinguished from all other that are falsly called Gods. So that the pronoun his, is referred to him, spoken

of, and called before by that name, and de∣clared to be the God of hosts. Of the same name, he saith Ex. 3.15. This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations; which place much illustrates this, and shews that which we have given to be the true exposi∣tion of it, though there be that think the pro∣noun rather to be referred to Jacob before spoken of, as if this his memorial should sound, that he was he whom Jacob always had in mind, though of, acknowledged, and re∣membred. So Castalio rendring it, Jovah Deus Omnipotens erat ejus commemoratio, and explaining it by this note, Jovam in memoria habebat colebatque, he had Jehovah in his me∣mory and served him. So Gualtherus thinks it, commodius ad Jacobum referri, that his, is more conveniently referred to Jacob, to shew that his mind was wholly addicted to God alone, that he always meditated on him, in all his thoughts remembred him, his promises, and will: and so others ancienter than they: so Theodoret, so Lyra, his memorial, that is, ipsius Jacob, Ja∣cobs own, quia habuit Deum semper in memo∣ria, g because he had God always in remem∣brance, and saith he, for another reason, quia nomen Dei super Jacob memorabatur, because the name of God was remembred, or called upon Jacob, in as much as he was called the God of Jacob, so that he looks on the words as the words of the Prophet rehearsing to them the righteousness of their father Jacob, that they might imitate him.

Cyril seems to take the meaning of the word another way, as if it imported that God had Jacob always in remembrance, ex∣plaining it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for he is preserved, saith he, in the memory of God, and hath everflourishing glory, for God glorifieth them that love him. Neer to which seems to be in meaning the Syriack translation, which is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Lord the mighty God remembred him. But sure among all the explications, that which is in the first place is most punctually agree∣able to the word, and most plain for the meaning. A memorial is that by which a thing is called to mind or remembrance; God's saying that his glorious name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehovah, was his only memorial, may suggest to us that men were apt to pretend to make to themselves other memorials of him, such as they might think serviceable to them∣selves for putting them in mind of him, and that having them before their eyes, their thoughts might thereby be directed to him, and which might keep them from forgetting him. Such probably were formerly in Jacob's family, those strange Gods which were in their hand, and those ear-rings which they had in their ears: and so did probably the Israe∣lites now pretend to be those golden Calves which they set up to themselves, that in them set before their eyes they might have God represented to their minds and thoughts. But what he here faith, that only, his proper pe∣culiar name by which he is distinguished from all other called Gods, and that which puts them in mind of what he, and he alone, is, is his memorial, sheweth that all such things, however pretended for honour to him, are things that he will not be remembred by. They indeed necessarily lead mens minds from him, not to him, and cause them to for∣get him, or to think wrong and mean things of him, not to conceive a right of him, who cannot by any such low things be represented, either to the eyes, or mind. And therefore Ja∣cob that he might keep entire and unpolluted this sacred memorial of God, caused his fa∣mily to put away all those false memorials that were among them; and so ought they too their golden Calves, that were not a true memorial of God to them, but led them to lies and errors, and caused them indeed to for∣get him, and to think false things of him, and to pollute his holy name. If the pronoun therefore should be referred to Jacob, as we have seen some would have it, the meaning must be that this was the only memorial that Jacob retained of God, and would have all his from that time to retain of him.

We may here observe that this name of God which he saith is his memorial, is not as it is in the Hebrew repeated in the Greek, and some other translations; the LXX in the Greek rendring, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but the Lord God Almighty shall be his memorial; and so the printed Arab. fol∣lowing them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, In them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the God Almighty, an∣swers to, the God of Hosts, in the Hebrew, as it is also rendred elsewhere by them; but there is nothing that answers to the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehovah, only that here is the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shall be, clapt in, which is not in the He∣brew, and that Cappell thinks to have been put in the place of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehovah, they read∣ing in stead of it, yehyeh. But may it not be as well thought they left it quite out, and sup∣plied the verb as necessarily understood, though not expressed in the Hebrew, which usually leaves verbs substantives to be un∣derstood, as we see the Syriack also clean omit the repetition of that name? For what reason, I know not, nor shall farther inquire. It is manifest that in changing it, or omitting it, they loose most of the Emphasis which its being repeated in the Hebrew and such trans∣lations

as literally follow it, it carries with it; which also is much lost in the Chaldee Pa∣raphrase by the omission of it in some copies which read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and as it was said by Mo∣ses, his memorial is to every generation, and generations, or to all generations. But in other copies, as in a manuscript copy of Kim∣chies Commentary cited, it is expressed, as likewise in one printed at Pezaro, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Lord is his memorial to all generations. R. Salomo will have the import of the words to be, as I was from that time, so am I now, and if ye had walked in sincerity with me, as your father Jacob, I would have dealt with you as I dealt with him. That which h a modern Author gives for the meaning of this, that from that time the place was called Bethel, in perpetuam coelestis ap∣paritionis memoriam, in memory, or as a me∣morial of that heavenly apparition, seems not to reach to the Emphasis of such high expressions. From this being spoken of Jacob and his be∣haviour towards God, and God's dealing with him, and of God's nature and essence, he in∣fers in the next words:

V. 6. Therefore turn thou to thy God: keep mercy and judgment, and wait on thy God continually.

Therefore turn thou to thy God, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 veattah, & tu, and thou, so the Vulgar and others literally according to the most usual signification of the conjunction: but that hath also the force of an illative, and so seems here most conveniently taken, and so by others quamobrem, ergo, and by ours therefore; and so taken shews a dependance of these words on those that went before, and gives us to look back, and consider for what occasion, what is said concerning Jacob and concerning God, is spoken, and how it so concerned them as that this exhortation should be thence in∣ferred to them. As to those things which are mentioned as concerning Jacob, they were manifestly so ordered by God, as to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(as Kimchi speaks on verse the third) a sign to his sons, or posterity after him, and more evidently to be fulfilled in them than in him. What was done by him shews what ought to have been done by them, that they might approve themselves to be his genuine seed; what was by God done, or spoken, and promised to him, what he would certainly do for them, and make good to them, if they so approved themselves, which if they did not, they shewed themselves to degenerate from him, and to be ungratefull to God, unmind∣full of his goodness to Jacob, and in him to them; and if they did not enjoy, or were de∣prived of those blessings to him, and in him to them promised, that to have been through their own default, if i forsaking their own mer∣cy, not through any failing on God's part, who still continued the same, able and willing to make good all his promises, even the Lord God of Hosts, whose memorial, by which he will still be known, is the Lord.

Those things which were spoken of Jacob R. Tanchum observes to be spoken of him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to shew forth his dignity and excellency, without doubt, not for reproof to him or his posterity, for any thing that he had done. They being therefore spoken after what he saith verse the second, that he would punish Jacob according to his ways, and recompence him according to his doings, which denotes that he would punish his posterity, the im∣port according to the meaning must be, that he will punish them for their ways, which were not like the way of their father. Among whose k digni∣ties were such and such things; and so it is for reproach to them, because they did not resemble his ways, by which he attained to those l dignities, and it is as if he said that he would recompense them according to their doings, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Because they walked not in the ways of their father who in the womb took his brother by the heel.

Those passages which relate, or allude to what Jacob did, and how he behaved himself towards God, shew how they in imitation of him ought to have also behaved themselves in a constant adhering to him, as their father did, and using all means for obtaining that blessing of which he by his strugling & striving by tears and supplications got a promise for himself and his feed, from him the Lord, who is God of hosts, whose memorial is the Lord, and so was able to make good to them all his promises, and would certainly, if they did not faile on their parts, and forfeit them, and make themselves uncapable of receiving, or retaining and enjoying them: and to have con∣stantly served him, to whom he their father erected a pillar in Bethel, in token of ac∣knowledging him for the only true God that he would serve, Gen. 28.21, 22. and 34.7. That which is declared concerning God's dealing with Jacob, how he of his free grace elected him before he was yet born, and preferred him in his love before his brother Esau, and gave him afterwards power to prevail with, and against him, and obtain his blessing, and all those great pro∣mises from him, who is faithfull in his pro∣mise, and every way able to perform it, and

that not for his own person only, (or so chiefly meant,) but for his posterity, if as they came from his loins, in which they then were, they should walk in his ways, and by their imitation of his vertues shew themselves his genuine seed: that, I say, shews the great obligations that were on them to in∣gage them by way of gratitude to him, and for preserving to themselves their interest in him and those his promises, constantly to cleave to, acknowledge, and obey him, as their father, for whose sake, and in whom those gracious promises were made to them, did. But alas by what is by this and other Prophets, and the history of the Scripture de∣clared of them, all things, as to their beha∣viour, appear quite contrary to that of Ja∣cob. They forsake that mercy which he with such constant endeavours sought, and obtain'd; they put God from them, and wilfully make forfeit of his promises, even in that place where Jacob met with him, and acknow∣ledged him, and avouched him for a God to him and his posterity, and in token thereof erected a pillar to him, turning even that place, which he in such respects called Bethel, the house of God, into Bethaven, as God in contempt calls it, the house of iniquity. There God spake with Jacob, and with them in him; and Jacob worshipped God, but there they set up to themselves dumb Idols, which can∣not speak with them, nor do good to them: so degenerate are they from Jacob, so un∣gratefull to the God of Jacob. In vain will it be to pretend that they did worship him in those Idols, as representing him. He will have no such thing done in memory of him, only his glorious name Jehovah is his memorial, and they cannot, doing these things, look on his power, who is the Lord God of hosts, with comfort, so as to confide in it, for making good to them those promises made to Jacob, and his seed which they in vain pretend to be, but only with terrour, as such whereby God will certainly revenge their great ingratitude. It is not enough to say they are Jacobs seed ac∣cording to the flesh, and so have right to those promises made to him and his seed, and how∣ever they behave themselves, though never so unlike him, to think they belong to them. No: m they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, the children to whom the promise by God made to Jacob belongeth, but those n who walk in the steps of the faith of that their father.

Things being thus at present with Israel, clean contrary to what they ought to be, so as that they could not have any ground to ex∣pect that the promises made to Jacob should still be made good to them, and God should bless them, and shew them his power in de∣fending them and doing good to them, what can be so properly urged on them, as that they should return unto the God of Jacob by repentance, and get to be reconciled to him, by walking henceforth in the ways of Jacob? Hence then in consideration of those passages expressed, or suggested, is, according to that translation which ours follow, neces∣sarily inferred, this as an exhortation proper∣ly following, Therefore turn thee to thy God, &c.

So according to that rendring of the word which ours give, viz. Therefore turn thee to thy God, is there a proper connexion between these and the preceding words, and we have no reason to doubt that it is a perspicuous and proper rendring of both, the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ve, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 veateh, by therefore, and the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beloheca tashub, turn thou to thy God. Yet are there who differ con∣cerning both, and so, in making the conne∣xion, as by viewing some of them will ap∣pear. As to the conjunctive (or as ours make it, illative) particle, the Syriack ren∣ders it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dein, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Latin Translator ren∣dring, tu itaque convertere ad Deum tuum, makes it wholly to agree with ours, but that particle being usually put in the signification of moreover, or but, if it should be so taken, here would make a little different reading, moreover, or but, ( o quare & tu &c.) or and, do thou also turn unto thy God, which will be the same with, therefore do thou also turn, viz. as Jacob did; which will be still an exhortation to the same duty, and inferred from the example of Jacob, that they might be like him, and ob∣tain like favour, to which the particle there∣fore, may also refer, as well as to the consi∣deration of their present unlikeness to him, and with that so rendred will agree that of Castalio, tu quoque ad Deum tuum redeas, and thou also. That also of those who render it, autem, but, will be to much the same pur∣pose. R. Tanchum explains it by, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with all this, or, yet notwithstanding, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notwithstanding, the cure of this malady, (viz. the ill condition which you have brought your selves to by your evil doings) is in your hand, which is that you turn unto God, which in this agrees with our ren∣dring, in that both imply, that the only way for them to escape God's judgments is repen∣tance, and by that they may yet hope to ob∣tain God's favour.

The particle and, by which it is by many rendred, will be indifferently taken in any of these senses, according as the verb following shall require. That verb is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tashub, which is of the future tense; but by ours rendred, as that tense in the Hebrew is oft used, in the signification of the imperative mood, turn thou &c. And so it is by others, as we have seen in the Syriack, by others in the future, & so in the Vulgar Latin as most commonly readd, con∣verteris, which the Doway accordingly en∣glisheth, and thou shalt convert to thy God. But p some observe it by others to be readd, conver∣taris, or convertere, be converted; and q others say, it is however so to be understood, ex∣horting them so to do, that they may be like their father Jacob.

Others look upon it as telling them what they ought to do; so Arias Mont••nus ob∣serves the form of the future, ad officium per∣petuo faciendum accommodari, to be used to de∣note a duty that ought perpetually to be done; and so this here to shew that it was the duty of the Israelites faithfully to cleave unto God, and serve him, whom they had found hitherto to have taken care of them by his providence, and as they would desire he should still take care of them. In this way the Arab. MS. reads it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and thou oughtest to return unto thy God. These all, however they differ a little as to the con∣nexion, yet as to the signification and constru∣ction of the words agree that by them is de∣noted a turning unto God, so that the pre∣fixe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beeloheca, should signi∣fy the same as if it were the letter or par∣ticle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 le, or some other particle signifying to, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 el, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ad, with which that verb when it imports turning to God by repen∣tance is usually construed, whereas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be, other∣wise more usually and properly signifies in, or with, and that is by R. Tanchum here noted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 r the letter b in the word beeloheca is in place of l, for that the meaning is, turn, or thou shalt return, to thy God; but it being not com∣monly so used, others think it to be taken in its more usual signification, and so ought to be rendred, and thou turn thee in thy God: so the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Latin Translator renders, tu ergo per Deum tuum convertere, do thou therefore by thy God turn, more literally it would be, and do thou re∣turn in thy God. Cyril also saith it is as much as, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by God, i. e. thou shalt do it by him, i. e. by his chastisements brought to return to him, though otherwise thou wouldest not; which makes necessarily something a different meaning, as s Mercer thus explains it, i. e. ope Dei, by the help of thy God, as much as to say, si resipisce∣re coneris &c. if thou shalt endeavor to repent, God will not fail thee of his help, but will be with thee to reduce thee to himself. And the same he takes to be the mind of Aben Ezra expounding it, if thou wouldest return to thy God he would help thee to reduce thee to himself. R. Sa∣lomo seems much after the same way to under∣stand it, though he mentions not the word God, thou maiest rely on t his promise, and his (staff, or) support, in which he hath bidden thee to confide, and thou shalt return to him, only keep mercy and judgment &c. Him, I suppose, Drnsius follows, when he says, forte per beth fiduciam innuere vult &c. i. e. perhaps by the letter, or particle be, he intimates trust or confi∣dence, as if he should say, fretus Deo tuo redi ad eum, relying in, or on, thy God return unto him: but Kimchi goes farther, and doth not only change the construction of the words, by reason of that particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 b, signifying in, being joined with the noun governed by the verb, but looks upon it as probably requiring the verb it self to be taken in a different significa∣tion from what the others give, viz. not of turning to, (though he saith it may be also so rendred) or turning by the help of God, but of resting, that it may be rendred, and thou shalt rest in thy God; his explication of it being, thou which art the seed of Jacob if thou wilt rest in thy God, on this condition maiest thou rest on him, and shalt not fear any enemy, if thou keep mercy and judgment &c. The Chaldee seems to favour it, rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the ordinary Latin translation, (as in Bibl. Pol.) renders, tu autem in cultu Dei tui confortaberis, that is, but thou shalt be strengthened in the worship of thy God; but others render, fortis, or firmus esto, be strong, or firm, or persist in the worship of thy God. Both these doth the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shub signify, viz. to return, and to rest, and both make here a good meaning. The particle signifying in, joyned to it may seem to favour Kimchies opinion, which Abarbinel also in one exposition follows, but the u following words seem rather to agree with the notion of turning by repen∣tance, the words being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chesed umishpat shemor, keep mercy and judg∣ment, the doing of which is a proper note of conversion, or turning to God by repentance, and effect of it, and so withall (that the other meaning by Kimchi given may at once be ta∣ken in) a cause of finding rest and quiet in him, which they that will find, must keep them.

Cocceius takes the words in yet a different signification, rendring, & tu in Deum tuum

verteris? and wilt thou turn against thy God? alledging for like use of the word Lam. 3.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 against me is he turned. In this way will the scope be the same, viz. a calling on them to turn to God, and not against him: but this way that ours take seems the plainest.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shemor, keep, so the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Chaldee and Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tar, both Arabicks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Vulgar Latin and w others custodi, x others serva, or y observa, all to the same signi∣fication with our keep; in which word z some place an emphasis, as if it were more than if he had barely said, do mercy and justice, viz. that it seems to require not only a doing of them slightly, or at a some times, but with dili∣gence and constancy attending to the things named, so as nothing belonging to them be omitted, which things are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chesed umishphat, mercy and justice.

Concerning the signification of the first word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chesed, we have elsewhere spoken, as on c. 2.19. where it is rendred loving kindness, and c. 4.1. where it is rendred mercy, and c. 6.4. where it is rendred goodness in the text, but in the margin mercy, or kindness, and v. 6. where it is again rendred mercy, as likewise c. 10.12. From what hath been said on those places, and more especially on c. 6.4. it ap∣pears that the word as it is more usually spo∣ken of mercy and kindness from God to man, or man to man, so that it may be taken also for piety of men towards God, and there be who think it may be so rendred here, viz. & pietatem, that so it may denote as well piety towards God, as kindness towards men. The MS. Arab. seems so to take it, rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 addin, religion. Castalio doth render it pieta∣tem, and Drusius saith it may be so rendred, piety, ut ad primam tabulam referatur, judi∣cium vero quod sequitur ad secundam, that so it may comprehend the duties of the first table, and judgment, which follows, those of the second table, and so both together injoyning them to keep all their duty to God and men. But others, as he also observes, taking it in its more usual notion of mercy, refer it to the duties of the second table, all which they will have to be noted out by these two, viz. 1. chesed, mercy, which then will comprehend both bowels of mercy, b inward compassion and tender affe∣ction, love, kindness & gentleness towards men, and also all outward acts of beneficence and charity in doing good to them, even above what strict justice might require, c pardoning their faults, bearing with their weakness, re∣lieving their necessities, doing to all as we would they should do to us; and 2. mishphat, judgment, which imports doing right in all kinds, rendring to all their due, so as not only to concern that equity which is by those in place of publick judicature to be observed in their passing sentence, but also that which every private man in his dealing with others ought to heed to, giving to all their due, not defrauding, hurting, or oppressing any, to omit other things as perhaps not so much pertaining to this place, which under this name also may be comprehended, viz. giving to God his due, and being also just to themselves, and judging themselves impartially for their sins, and du∣ly reproving others, as we have shewed on Micah 6.8. where both these words likewise occur in his saying, what doth the Lord require of thee but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 asoth mishphat, to do judgment, i. e. as ours there render it, to do justly, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 veahabath chesed, to love mercy. From the joyning these here toge∣ther Lyra observes that they are both together to be heeded to, so as one be not defrauded of its due exercise under pretence to the other, that we do not pretending to mercy omit to do what is just, nor pretending to strictness in judgment transgress the bounds of mercy and charity, quoniam misericordia (saith he) sine judicio pusillanimitas est, & judicium sine mi∣sericordia crudelitas, because mercy without judgment is pusillanimity, (or shews want of courage,) and judgment without mercy is cruelty. Both these doth God himself exercise together, I am the Lord which exercise 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chesed mishphat utsedekah, loving kind∣ness, judgment and righteousness; for in these things I delight, saith the Lord, Jer. 9.24. As he himself delighteth in exercising them, so doth he also delight in seeing others to exer∣cise them, and requires those that understand and know him, so to do. That these here may shew themselves truly to turn to him, he com∣mands them to keep and observe them.

These words so understood do indeed plain∣ly comprehend all the duties of the second table, our whole duty to man, and d those that go that way that we are speaking of, look then on those that follow, and wait on thy God continually, to respect the duties of the first table containing our duty to God, looking on the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kavveh, which ours render wait, others spera, hope, as the Geneva En∣glish do, others fide, trust, as e comprehending whatsoever the love of God requires from us, in iis quae ad Deum immediate spectant, in those things which immediatly respect God, uno sperandi verbo, under the one word of hoping. For, saith Rivet, he that adheres to God and is in∣tent on him, or depends on him, in vero Dei cultu omne tulit punctum, hath reached to the ut∣most

point in the true worship of God; for hope in God cannot be without faith, from which ariseth invocation, and then necessarily follows thankfulness; so that under this word by a synecdoche is comprehended all the worship of God. But then, why the duties of the second table are put here in the first place, they think this a plain reason, because men may deal hy∣pocritically in their pretence to the duties of the first table, pretend much interest in God, to acknowledge him only as their God, to be zealous in his service and of his honour, and mean while neglect their duty to men; yea colour the breach thereof, their wrongs and injuries to them, under the pretence of pro∣moting his glory, whereas this can be no true piety. That requires that f he that would ap∣prove himself to love God, love his brother also, and exercise mercy and judgment to him, and by these fruits is his piety made visible, and to be judged of by men; and therefore do the Prophets frequently, inverting the or∣der of the commandments, urge these in the first place, as that by which the truth and sincerity of their respect to the other may be discerned, and is made manifest. So they ob∣serve that Micah, c. 6.8. useth the same or∣der, saying, what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? putting first their duty to man, as that whereby the sincerity of what they shew of duty to God will be discerned, and that our Saviour Christ himself, Matt. 19.17, 18. to him that asked him what Com∣mandments he should keep that he might have eternal life, answereth, these, thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steale, thou shalt not beare false witness, honour thy father and thy mother, and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self, which are the Com∣mandments of the second table, here compre∣hended under keeping mercy and judgment, with∣out expresly mentioning the Commandments of the first, which no doubt he would profess himself to observe, but except he kept these, could not approve himself to men so to do.

But although this which they say be unde∣niably true as to the matter, yet I doubt whe∣ther it be a necessary proof that the Prophet here useth that method that they say he doth, of putting first the duties of the second table in these words, keep mercy and judgment, and then after them those of the first in these fol∣lowing, and wait on thy God continually. For why may we not as well think the foregoing words, viz. turn thou to thy God, to respect the Commands of the first table, and to require the due observance of them, which all certainly the turning unto God in reality and truth, or (ac∣cording to the other reading) the acquiescing in him as their God, doth necessarily compre∣hend? And then will these last words fol∣low as a farther exhortation, calling on them to attend on God in constant performance of those duties, or else as a motive to urge it on them, from the benefit of so doing, and the happy condition they shall then be in, of se∣curity in God, and confidence for depending and relying on him in all occasions and condi∣tions, as if they sounded, then wait, hope, or trust; or the LXX have it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, approach, or draw neer to thy God continually.

g For such use hath the imperative mood not infrequently, so as to infer what shall follow on the doing somthing before injoyned, as Gen. 42.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this do and live ye, i. e. do this, then you may live, or shall live; and Prov. 4.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 keep my commandments and live, i. e. then shalt thou live, with other like examples in which it doth not so much injoyn the doing of a thing, as shew they shall be in a capacity of doing it. So here, in this way, will the words im∣port, turn to thy God, and keep mercy and judg∣ment, and then shalt, or mayest thou, securely wait on thy God continually. h This way Gro∣tius seems to take, his note being, non est quod ipsi diffidas dummodo tu officium tuum ficias, there is no cause that thou shouldest distrust him, if thou do thy duty. So Brenn. sic semper spem tuam in Deo colloca••e poteris &c. so ma••est thou still place thy hope in God. And that I take to be the meaning of R. Salomo, keep mercy and judgment, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and thou hast confidence given thee to hope for his salvation continually.

Kimchi seems to take these words as an ex∣plication of the former duty, while for ex∣plication of them he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for this is righteousness, and right (or just, and meet) that thou wait continually on the Lord; which way others men∣tioning seem to approve of: So Capito, haec tua justitia, haec tua aequitas, ut indesinenter speres in Dominum Deum tuum: alias per spem devergens, iniquus atque injustus &c. this is thy justice, this thy equity, that without ceasing thou hope in the Lord thy God: turning aside thy hope any other way thou shalt be inju∣rious and unjust: so Drusius, quod aequum est ut hoc facias, nam ab eo omnia manant, it is just that thou so do, for all things come from him; and Petrus à Figuiero saith, that judicium, & justitia, & rectitudo mentis est id quod sub∣jicitur, judgment and justice, and rectitude of mind is that which he subjoins, viz. in the next words, wait on the Lord always. Thus they make out the connexion or dependance of these

words with the former, but the former way may seem plainer.

By what we have spoken of the connexion of these latter words with the foregoing may sufficiently appear the scope of them; yet may we add somthing concerning the signification and force of them singly. By the different, but equivalent rendrings of the first word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kavveh, which we have mentioned, wait on, hope in, trust in, appears the signification of the root of it, which is, according to Abuwalid, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hope, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wishing for, desiring, or expecting; and according to Kimchi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hope and expectation, waiting on or for. The learned i Nic. Fuller comparing it with another signification that the same theme hath of gathering, or flowing together, thinks this may be taken from that, in as much as, ad eum quem expectamus confluunt vota nostra, & assidue fertur animus vehe∣menti desiderio, to him whom we expect, or wait for, our desires flow together, and our mind is continually carried with vehement desire; which will not ill fit the purpose here, where is ma∣nifestly required a setting the whole inten∣tions of the heart on God, with a confident dependance on him, and patient hope and k expectation of good from him, which how constant, firm, and sincere it ought to be, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tamid, continually, joyned to it, shews. That word hath no small weight in it, shewing with what circumstances, or pro∣perties their waiting, or hope on God, and trust in him, ought to be attended; as that it ought to be on him alone, on him always, with∣out doubting, fainting, failing, intermission, or ceasing, in all occasions & conditions that may befall them without exception of time: even in their adversity, quantumvis res videantur desperatae, although they may seem in a desperate condition, saith Rivet, that they may not there∣by be driven to hope in any other, or to look after any other but God alone, who can and will deliver; to which purpose the Chaldee, expect the deliverance of thy God always. In their prosperity, saith Kimchi, although thou enjoy much prosperity and wealth, and riches, as pro∣fessing all to be from him, oughtest thou to be mind∣full of him, confessing all to be from him, as in the Law it is said, that they should not say in their heart, my power and the might of my hand hath gotten me this wealth, but thou shalt remember the Lord thy God, for it is he that hath given thee power to get wealth, Deut. 8.17, 18. not as they at present, who said, v. 8. I am become rich, I have found me out substance. To the like purpose Aben Ezra, and hope in him, or wait on him, and rely not on thy wealth, or on thy strength, for from him is to thee thy strength, and and also thy wealth.

Others look upon it, as having respect to their present sinfull condition, that notwith∣standing they had turned from the Lord they should yet hope in him for pardon of their sins, and deliverance from those evils that their sins had brought on them. So Zanchi, he teacheth that although they be immersed in many sins, yet with confidence and hope in God they should still lift up their heads towards God, and though he should seem to be wroth with them, and become their enemy, yet they should never despair of his mercy, but hope in him, and wait on him always, as Job, who saith c. 13.15. though he slay me, yet will I trust in him; for there is no time in which, nor any sin so great for which, we should cease to trust in God. Consonant to this is what we have Psalm 45.5. Wherefore should I fear in the days of evil, when the ini∣quity of my heels shall compass me about; and Psalm 130.7, 8. let Israel still hope in the Lord, for with the Lord is mercy, and with him is plen∣teous redemption, and he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.

This particular doth Abarbinel also seem to refer to, giving for explication of the words in his sense, in cleaving to the Lord thou shalt be at rest and quiet, although thou hast committed much sin, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he will not hinder from thee the ways of repentance, this is that which he saith, hope in, or wait on, the Lord always. But without limiting this that they are bid to do, to any particular, there is no case, or condition can be put to which this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tamid, l continually, will not ex∣tend it self, and be appliable.

In like general terms have we the same du∣ty, though in different words, exhorted to, Isaiah 26.4. trust ye in the Lord for ever; and the reason why they should so do added, for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength. Which reason we have here also in the pre∣ceding verse, the Lord God of hosts is his memo∣rial•• from his being so is inferred this ex∣hortation, therefore wait on thy God continually. That certainly is the reason for which they may without doubting, and ought so to wait on him, yet it being not immediatly joined with it, but after other duties of, turning to their God, and keeping mercy and judgment, in∣tervening, plainly shews that there is a due qualification required in them, that they may be fit, and have confidence so to do, viz. that they first turn unto their God, and keep mercy and judgment, viz. by repentance and doing good draw neer to him, and then they may also

with good assurance draw neer to him (as the LXX not amiss to the meaning, though not so strictly to the signification of the word here, renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) in waiting and relying on him, not doubting but in due time he will do what they wait on him for, when and how it shall be best for them. This inseparable connexion is there between these duties, and one requires necessarily the other. First they must turn to God, and keep mercy and judgment, then must they, to shew their right thoughts that they have of him, that they know and remember him by his memorial Jehovah, wait on, hope, or trust in him, and then may they boldly, and confidently do it, not fearing any disappointments, he being such, and no change or failing in him. If otherwise by neglect of those duties separating themselves from him, and putting him from them, they shall pre∣tend to wait on him, and fail of being regarded by him, they are not to say that they are in vain bid to wait on him: we have an answer for them in what is said Isaiah 59.1, 2. Be∣hold the Lords hand is not shortned that it cannot save, neither his ear heavy that it cannot hear, but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. Why? Not that he is not the same that he was then, when he bad them to wait on him, but that they were not such, or so qualified as to be fit to wait on him, nor such as he bad so to do. So where the same confidence is given of trusting in the Lord, is added as a necessary qualification in them that will so do, and do good, Psalm 37.3. They that will commit their souls unto him as unto a faithfull Creator, must do it in well doing, 1 Pet. 4.19. So do these duties here exhorted to, depend one on another, and that they may be fit to perform this latter conti∣nually, they must continually perform the other: that word, though joined to this and expressed in it, is necessarily supposed and understood in the others also. A failing in them will cause an incapacity of doing this effectually, but they being heeded to, nothing shall make this ineffectual, or not to obtain its proper end, and be a constant comfort to them, that m nor tribulation, nor distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword, nor death, nor life, nor Angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate them from the love of God. No failing can ever be on his part, let them not fail themselves by omitting their duty to him, but constantly do that, and then may they with confidence wait on him, and that continually, they shall never fail of what shall be good for them.

Other words also in this verse are there which besides their ordinary signification have here an Emphasis in them, and imply more than is expressed, as the first word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 veattah, and thou, or and do thou also turn &c. The calling on them particularly with this word coupled to the preceding by its con∣junction, or illative, and, or, therefore thou also, intimates that at present they were not so as he, to whom respect is had, was, viz. their fa∣ther Jacob, and so taxeth their being degene∣rate from him, and altogether unlike him. He clave stedfastly to God, and would not on any terms let him go. Their being called on that they should return to that God, shews that they had not so done, but had let him go, or turned away from him, and therefore that they might approve themselves to be of the same mind with Jacob, and to be like him, and obtain that blessing which he did for him∣self and them, must turn again to God, lay fast hold on him, and cleave to him: till then they shall in vain boast of their relation to him, and call themselves by the name of Jacob.

In the second place we may observe much the like, in that the affix of the second person 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ca, in Eloheca, being of like use, of parti∣cular designation, and restraining or appropri∣ating the subject spoken of, in some particular respects to him that is spoken to, which it hath not to others in common. It being here twice joined (viz. in respect to a double or re∣peated duty) to the name of God, appro∣priating or limiting him (as it were) to E∣phraim, so as if he were by some peculiar in∣terest and relation theirs more than he is others, or ought so to be, doth not obscurely tax them both for defection from God, and great ingratitude to him. Thy God, not so on∣ly as to others, being God of all, but so as to note peculiar right in him to thee, and in thee to him; for so God, although God of all in common, yet had still such to whom in a pe∣culiar manner he owned himself as such, and chose those from among others for his pecu∣liar people. So St. Peter calls those believers in Christ, who were brought by those means into a neerer relation to God than formerly they were, and from n lo Ammi became Ammi, a chosen generation, a peculiar people, 1 Pet. 2.9. whom he teacheth to call God, his God, and their God, John 20.17. Such of old before Christ's calling in others to that great privi∣ledge, were more particularly Israel above all other nations. God had avouched them for his peculiar people, and they him alone for their only God, Deut. 26.17, 18. He in so doing promised them to make them high above all nations in praise, and in name, and in honour, that they might be an holy people unto the Lord

their God, v. 19. This priviledge he had vouch∣safed to them while they were yet in their fa∣thers loins, as he promised to be a God to Abraham and to his seed after him, Gen. 17.7. They in avouching the Lord to be their God had obliged themselves to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice, not to serve any other God but him.

How the Lord made good his word to them, the history of Scripture all along sheweth, as in preserving them in Egypt, and raising them up to be a great people notwithstanding all the indeavors of Pharaoh and the Egyptians for destroying them, Ex. 1. so from the land of Egypt, which he in particular mentions here v. 9. as that goodness whereby he shewed that he was the Lord their God, so that all the world could not but confess that there was no nation so great that had God so nigh unto them, as the Lord their God was to Israel, Deut. 4.6, 7. But how they most ungratefully on their part brake covenant with him, as all the many sto∣ries of their rebellions in the Scripture shew, in departing from him, and denying by their deeds (what in words they would profess) that they acknowledged him to be their God, contrary to the example of Jacob their father; so do these words plainly intimate by bidding them turn unto thy God, and wait continually on thy God. This shews that in that condition they were at present in, they did not so, and in∣deed that which they are always in this pro∣phecy taxed for, is their forsaking God to run after their Calves, and Baals, and other Idols, as acknowledging them the givers of good to them, and for, instead of depending on God and putting their trust in him alone, their looking for help to maintain them in their rebellion against God to the Egyptians and Assyrians: so that in speaking to them in this language, thy God, which in it self contains the greatest dignity, and greatest priviledge and happiness that can be to any nation, as happy are that people whose God is the Lord, Ps. 144.15. he doth indeed rather shew forth their dis∣grace, and reprove them, in that he that had all along been so, and ought to be so, and would be so for his part, was by their default for∣saking him in falling from him, made not so.

And so these words, while they shew what they ought to be, and exhorting them to be so, do at once tax them for not being so, and shew that now in stead of these great privi∣ledges which they might expect from the Lords being their God, there was no reason they should look for any thing from him, but what he saith Amos 3.2. you only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I pu∣nish you for all your iniquities. How contrary also they were to what they are in this verse shewed that they ought to have been, and are e∣horted to be, the next words likewise ex∣presly shew.

V. 7. He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand: he loveth to oppress.

He is a merchant, the ballances of deceit are in his hand &c. so we have in the text of our translation, but our margin hath, or Canaan, re∣taining the same word that is in the original untranslated; and so doth the Geneva English in the text it self, he is Canaan, which gives us to take notice of a double use, or notion of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Canaan in the Hebrew tongue. One as it is a proper name, and that we find it to be of a person, of a people, and countrey. By that name was called a son of Ham, Gen. 19.18. and 10.6. cursed together with his posterity by Noah, c. 10.25. From him those his posterity the Canaanites, and the countrey wherein they lived also, the land of Canaan, had their name, and it may be indif∣ferently taken for either of them. Here if it be retained, it is manifest it must be under∣stood of that people, or one of that nation, or countrey. A second notion is the signification of a merchant, not form any thing in the root of the word that directeth to that signification, but because the Cananites seem to have been men much given to that emploiment, and skil∣full in it, so that others, though not of their nation, yet of that profession with them, were called by that name, turned from the name of a nation to the name of a profession. And so it is elsewhere in the Scripture used, though in different forms, so Job 41.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among the merchants; and Isaiah 23.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 her traffickers, or merchants: and Prov. 31.24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 laccenaani, to the merchant; and thence merchandise, or wares called Jer. 10.17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cinathec, thy wares. Betwixt these two notions are Interpreters divided in their rendrings and expositions of the expression, though all agreeing as to the scope, to wit, that it is spoken by way of reproach and reproof, and not without indignation, of Ephraim, as will easily appear by looking on it in either way. Some therefore take it, as we said, for a proper name, and without farther rendring it, read it as so, Canaan. So the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & the printed Arab. following them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Vulgar Latin also Chanaan, and so divers also of the more o modern Translators, some putting Canaan, some Cananaeus, a Cananite: and as so it will import according to the note in the Geneva

English, he is more like the wicked Cananites than godly Abraham or Jacob, noting that they were so unlike Jacob their father before mentioned, that they were not to be reputed his genuine seed, but as if their birth and their nativity were of the land of Canaan, their father an Amorite, and their mother an Hittite, as he up∣braided Jerusalem, Ezek. 16.3. Consider what sort of people the Canaanites were, a cursed generation from a cursed father, so overcome with wickedness that God devoted them to destruction, and to be cut off from that good land which they possessed, that he might place Israel therein, Israel the seed of blessed parents, whom therefore for their fa∣thers sake he loved, and entailed his blessing on, and for that end framed them for a pecu∣liar people to himself, and that they might so be, and continue, gave them such holy laws by observing which they should be so, and he be still their God to bless them, and they be his blessed people; and for God then to call them, which called themselves Israel, and were so according to the flesh, not Israel, but Canaan, or Can anites, (by way of indigna∣tion) what greater reproach could be possi∣bly cast upon them? What is it less than a reversing of, or a curse contrary to, that bles∣sing to Jacob, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel, Gen. 32.28. and 35.10. while here is as much as said, Thy name shall be no more called Jacob, or Israel, but Canaan, as not having right to the blessings belonging to Israel, but heir of the curse belonging to Ca∣naan? So by way of the greatest reproach that could be given, in the history of Susanna doth Daniel say to the wicked Elder, O thou seed of Canaan, and not of Judah, v. 56. To name them Canaan, shews them not to be worthy of the name of Israel, nor to deserve to inherit longer that land given to Israel, and to enjoy those priviledges and blessings pro∣mised to them, but to be cast out of it as the Canaanites were, for their wickedness like to theirs, and which made them to deserve to be called by their name, and to be reckoned for one with them.

This will the words suggest to us according to the way of those who take Canaan here as a proper name, or name of that people whose land, God having dispossessed them, gave to Israel the right and possession of, without looking to what follows, in respect to which Ephraim is more particularly compared to them, viz. because the balances of deceit were in their hands, and they loved to oppress, or deceive. That is added to shew wherein Ephraim more particularly resembled them: and that being a sin more particularly incident to Merchants, as the Canaanites generally are taken to have been, makes, as we said, others changing (as ours in the text do) the proper name of a nation or people into a common name of a profession, to render it Merchants. So the Chaldee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 merchants. So the MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a merchant. So R. Tanchum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This Canaan, (or Canaan here) is a merchant. R. David Kimchi also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Canaan, that is a merchant; and so R. Salomo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and you are merchants, and so among p modern Interpreters several. To be a merchant simply is in it self no reproach, but then there must be looked to what follows as an epithet, the ba∣lances of deceit are in his hand, he loveth to op∣press, and that will make it so, viz. to be such a merchant as the Canaanites (from whom mer∣chants, because they are oft too like them in the way of their dealing, borrow that name) usually were. It may seem so, not only by what is pointed out here, but from what they were infamous for among other nations, viz. that they were q 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, cove∣teous and deceitfull, using any unlawfull ways of cheating, whereby they might gain to themselves. This certainly will make them odious and wor∣thy of reproach, as particularly that here men∣tion'd of using false balances, which to be a thing forbidden by God, and which he abominates and those that use them, we may learn r Deut. 25.13.—16.

If Canaan then be taken as a proper name, the following words then give a reason why they deserve so to be called, viz. because guilty of those ill qualities, of fraud and oppression, which were a known property of that people: if appellatively, so as signifying a merchant, then do they describe what sort, or like what sort of merchants they were, not honest fair dealing ones, but such crafty, deceitfull ones, who intent on their gain, stick not on any means whereby they may compass their ends, false in their dealings, in their weights and measures, and not abstaining, if it lay in their power, even by force and violence to take what they have a mind to. So do the former words, the balances of deceit are in his hand, seem to denote what is done by fraud; the later, he loveth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ashok, to oppress, or deceive, what is done by force or violence, as the LXX here render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he hath loved, opprimere per potentiam, (as the Latin trans∣lation hath it) to oppress by power; or as the Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that he may prevail, viz. by any means get what he would; the Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to oppress, or defraud. The MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 loving injury, or oppres∣sion.

The Vulgar Latin render, he hath loved, calumniam, calumny, which though it may seem to signify somthing else, yet is s from Jerom noted in this place, and elsewhere in that translation, to signify, opprimere homi∣nes per potentiam, to oppress men by power, or oppressionem, oppression. t Under these two heads seem all unjust and injurious ways, by which wrong is done, comprehended, and so Israel accused of them, shewed not to do what in the foregoing verse it is shewed they ought to have done by being called on to do, viz. to keep mercy and judgment. We may add, it shews them to have been altogether unlike their father Jacob, whose example they have in this chapter both in the preceding and fol∣lowing verses set before them, and from whom they would be called still Israelites, of whom it is said Genesis 25.26. that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ish tam, a plain man, a man without guile, and so therefore them not to be Israel∣ites indeed: a right description of which we have from our Saviour in his commendation of Nathaniel, to be such in whom is no guile, John 1.47.

the words then are a sharp reprehension of them for being otherwise than they ought to be, and the expression in which it is urged, full of vehemency, which it will not be amiss to take notice of. It appears by the abrupt∣ness of it, a sign of no small indignation to∣wards them for their doings, as unworthy of them that would be called Israel, or looked on by God as his people. The words in the original are only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Canaan, in his hand the balances of deceit &c. or in the other signification, a merchant in his hand &c. without any more words, for making the sound of which more plain, ours supply, he is, writing it therefore in other letters, to note it is a supply, and not expressed in the Hebrew: and so Junius and Tremelius, mer∣cator est, to which Piscator making it to de∣pend on the foregoing words premised, sed, but he (viz. Ephraim) is a merchant. Of this Drusius saith, durum mihi videtur, that it seemed to him an harsh translation, and he would rather have to be understood, notam similitudinis, some note of likeness, that so the clause may better agree with what follows, that it might run, ut mercator, as a merchant having in his hand a deceitfull balance &c. so Ephraim said, certainly I am become rich. And some others to give the meaning of it, do likewise express a note of similitude, as Pa∣gnin, who renders, instar mercatoris in cujus manu statera dolosa opprimere dilexit, as a merchant in whose hand is a deceitfull balance he loved to oppress. Munster also, though som∣thing differently, Chananaeo assimilaris in cu∣jus manu est statera dolosa cupiens vim in∣ferre, thou art like a Canaanite in whose hand is a deceitfull balance desiring to do violence. R. Tan∣chum to make the words not to sound abrupt∣ly takes another way, viz. by making Canaan, or merchant, the vocative case, supplying the particle of calling to, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 O, and the meaning to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 O he who is a merchant in whose hands are the balances of deceit, seeing he u hath loved oppression and wrong. The Sy∣riack Translator avoids the abruptness by a different placing of the words in the constru∣ction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the balance of deceit is in the hands of Canaan, and he loveth to oppress, or defraud. w Some think the name absolutely put, and to import as much as, quod ad mer∣catorem, vel Cananaeum attinet, as for what concerns the, or this, merchant, or Canaanite.

Any of these ways give us well the mean∣ing of the words, but there seems to be a greater Emphasis, and passion, or earnestness in them, if the first word be by it self uttered, as we said, in x an abrupt way, as to say, Ca∣naan! or Canaanite! or merchant! as it is in the Hebrew, and so also in the LXX, and the Vulgar Latin, and in the printed Arabick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Canaan, and in the MS. Arabick y 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a merchant, without any thing sup∣plied or added to it; so doth it import greater indignation at him who is so spoken to, or of, implying that they were not what they should be, viz. Israel, nor worthy to be called by that name; but were such as they ought not to be, viz. Canaan, mere Canaanites, or Merchants, and deservedly so called by that name, than which nothing could be more re∣proachfull to them, shewing them to have no∣thing in them which might shew them to be allied to Jacob, nor to have any thing of him in them, or any thing whereby they might shew themselves to be related to God as his peculiar people, and then the following words, in his hand are the balances of deceit &c. shew why they are deservedly so called, & why God conceives such indignation against them, as even to scorn to speak to them in fair language, or call them by their ordinary and usual name.

Such reproach and reproof of them for what they did, cannot but include, or imply a prohibition to them from continuing to run on in so doing, but to warn them to the con∣trary; and therefore the Chaldee taking his

liberty of giving what he takes to be the scope and meaning of the words, not a literal rendring, thus paraphraseth them in that way 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. be ye not like to mer∣chants in whose hands are balances of deceit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they love to do violence. Such ad∣monition certainly ought they to have taken from God's reproof of them for their ways, and the declaration of the odiousness of them in his sight, and his indignation against them; but how contrary their behaviour was, ap∣pears from the next words, which shew that instead of taking notice of the errors of their doings, and acknowledging them, and re∣penting of them, they applauded, and justi∣fied themselves in them, as if there were no∣thing in them liable to reproof.

V. 8. And Ephraim said, yet am I become rich, I have found me out sub∣stance: in all my labors they shall find none iniquity in me, that were sin.

And Ephraim said, yet I am become rich, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and, (or, z attamen dixit Ephraim, notwithstanding) Ephraim said, I am rich, &c. Yet, attamen, or atqui, Calvin; ve∣runtamen, tamen, Vulg. Pag. but, yet, notwith∣standing; and so the Geneva English, but yet notwithstanding, as the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; certe quidem Cocc. others, utique, (Jun. Trem.) or profe∣cto, Tig. certainly I am become rich, the particle indifferently admitting either of these signi∣fications. Capito reads, quomodo sum dita∣tus? how am I become rich? as if it signified the same that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The MS. Arabick renders the particle by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifies, peculiarly, or especially, taking, I suppose, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ac, in that notion that it hath of, tantummodo, only, as if this only were that which made him liable of being taxed. The Syriack reading it, and Ephraim said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that I am be∣come rich, and have found, seems to make it (as we have seen others to do) a note of asseve∣ration, although the Latin Translator thereof render it otherwise, viz. cum ditatus sum, in∣veni mihi &c. when I became rich, I found to my self &c. And so the printed Arabick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 equidem factus sum dives, I truly am become rich. In the next following words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 matsati on li, I have found me out sub∣stance, there is difference betwixt Interpreters concerning the signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on, which ours render, substance, & in that do many others agree, taking it to be here all one in sense with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hon, which differs from it in the first letter; for of such promiscuous use or change of these letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there are other ex∣amples, as in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 heic, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eic, either indiffe∣rently signifying, quomodo, how: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 amon Jer. 5.2. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hamon, a multitude; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 asheim b put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hasheim, ma∣ne surgiendo, rising early, Jer. 25.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hon therefore with the letter h, signifying sub∣stance, wealth, sufficiency, or abundance, (as Prov. 30.15. where ours in the text put, it is enough, and in the margin wealth,) here do ours and other modern Interpreters take 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aleph in the like signification, rendring it by what imports wealth, c opes, d divitias, e facultates, f sufficientiam, and ours substance. Nor is it so taken only by such modern Chri∣stian Interpreters, but by divers of the chief of the Jews also is that exposition taken notice of and commended, as by Kimchi (from whom, I suppose, they might take it) g who saith that it may well so be taken, also Job 20.10. where ours render it, goods. And be∣fore him it is taken by Abuwalid, and so by R. Tanchum also, who looks upon its follow∣ing properly the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 asharti, I am become rich, as equivalent to it, to be a good proof for it. Abarbinel also more late than they, gives it the first and chief place in his exposition. Yet is there another rendring of the word by all of them also mentioned, so as to leave it almost indifferent to the Reader which to take, which is strength, a known significa∣tion of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on, as here written. And by this doth R. Salomo expound it here, by saying that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 coach, strength; and the MS. Arab. so renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I am become rich, I have found to my self power. Several likewise of mo∣dern Interpreters so translate it. And Abu∣walid, doth so seem to prefer the former, as yet to retract his saying, and equal the second to it, his words after that of strength, among the sinigfications of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on, being, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. but the better way (or the best) in the words, I have found to me 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on, is to take the first letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a, as by change put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 h, of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hon, wealth, which is found in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The rich mans wealth is his strong city, and an high wall in his own conceit, h Prov. 18.11. which appears by what he saith before, yet I am become rich, except it be said that his strength is by reason of his riches; and if it be so said or understood, as according to that by him cited out of that place of the Proverbs it well may, rich men accounting their strength a

and power to consist in wealth, and that by that they have power above other men, and to do what they list, and to defend them∣selves; or again, if we shall by power under∣stand ability to get wealth, as if they should say, they had in themselves power to get wealth, as it is said Deut. 8.18. It is he that giveth thee power to get wealth: and again that strength or power of wealth may be perhaps in the Hebrew as well as in other languages used for abundance of wealth, as Arias Montanus here notes, vim, streugth, to be put, pro fa∣cultatibus & copiis, for abundance of wealth, as in Latin it is said, ingens auri atque argenti vis, great power of gold and silver, i. e. plenty, then will it be much one which word we here use, wealth and substance, or strength and power, and indifferent as to the meaning here, what∣ever difference otherwise be between the words when distinguished. Their saying that they found this to themselves 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 matsati, as by i some observed, is as much as to say, I have obtained, or attained to, or gotten (the word so signifying) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 li, to my self &c. Ours well render it, I have found me out substance, i. e. found out to my self, which imports more than if they had barely said, I have found sub∣stance, as namely, that what they had obtained was not by chance, or by any other given them, but by their own labour, and seeking after the ways of getting it, acquired, and so their having it to be imputed to themselves without thanks to any other. Which also is by some observed to be implied in the fore∣going word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 asharti, I am become rich, viz. that they do not simply say, dives sum, I am rich, but, ditatus sum, or, ditavi me∣ipsum & opes paravi mihi, I have made my self rich, I have gotten to my self wealth; it is Zanchies observation.

And this being by the way observed con∣cerning the import of these verbs here used, as conducible to the making out that meaning which we shall see the words to have, to re∣turn to the noun which we were speaking of, to wit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on, the LXX render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rest, I have found rest to my self. This though seeming to differ in sound from either of the former signi∣fications mentioned, and being not usually given to that Hebrew noun, yet may well be reduced to that former of substance, or wealth, that being that which worldly men usually ac∣quiesce, and rest in, or upon, and comfort themselves with, according to that which a rich man is in the parable Luke 12.19. repre∣sented, as saying, Soul thou hast much goods laid up for many years, take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. Except we may think that rest, and ease, or quiet, were also among the an∣ciently known significations of that noun in Hebrew, which we may have probability to do, in as much as in the Arabick tongue of nigh affinity to it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aun hath, that significa∣tion, being, commoditas, quies, tranquilli∣tas, commodiousness, conveniency, rest or ease, quiet or tranquillity.

The Vulgar Latin renders it, Idolum, an Idol, Inveni Idolum mihi, I have found an Idol to my self. Which may likewise be referred to the same notion of wealth, the word not proper∣ly signifying an Idol, but the riches, or wealth of worldly minded men, being by them so usual∣ly made to themselves, & as so ador'd, having their chief service and worship, and their con∣fidence placed therein. And this reason k Je∣rom himself seems to give why it is so trans∣lated, and l others who follow that transla∣tion seem to justify it by. In that regard we know the covetous man is by St. Paul called an Idolater Eph. 5.5. and coveteousness, Ido∣latry Coloss. 3.5.

There is another known signification of the word whereby it denotes grief and sorrow, which the Syriack here takes, rendring it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and I have found to my self sorrows, in which he seems to go wide from any others of those named, and why he should take that notion will not be easy to say, it seeming not so well to agree with the scope of the place; except he should make this their meaning, that they had gotten riches, not by any easy way, or God's gift to them, but had been saine to put themselves to pains and trouble, and vexation to get them. The Chal∣dee rendring it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ones, which the ordina∣ry Latin translation renders, rapinam, rapine; Mercer, vim, i. e. we have gotten to our selves ra∣pine, violence, oppression, or force, may seem to have respect to either of those forementioned significations of wealth, or strength, or force, in an ill sense, or to both together, as Mercer explains it, opes per vim, wealth gotten by force, and that such was theirs by which they were become rich, appears by what he before accused them for, that the balances of deceit were in their hand, and they loved to oppress. But that a word of so ill sound should be used of their own doings where they glory and speak good of them, is not so probable, and therefore I think the same Mercer doth not ill add his note, as agreeable to that rendring of the Pafaphrast, ex mente Prophetae hoc dicitur, this is spoken according to the mind of the Prophet, viz. as the Prophet thought that their wealth to be, not what they themselves would call it; as if they should say, we have found, or acquired that

which you call rapien and violence, but we wealth by our lawfull industry gotten. And m some think that the Prophet did therefore use such a word as is of dubious signification, signifying as generally wealth, and substance, and strength, so also rapine, violence, to note out what theirs which they boasted of, really were, and how by them used, glorying that they had gotten them to themselves, (inveni mihi n in meum commodum,) for their own ends to use, or abuse as they list.

This being spoken of the signification of the words, the scope of them, according to the several translations, thus far is manifest, viz. to declare the strange pride, and insolence of Ephraim, and their obstinacy in their ways, refusing to return from them, or forsake them, but pleasing, and applauding themselves in them as such as by experience they sound to be good and profitable to them. They are called on to return to God, and to wait, or depend on him as the Author of good and prosperity to them. This admonition they seem to reject, as boasting that they can be without him; for they of themselves are be∣come rich without seeking power from him to get wealth, contrary to that caution given them, Deut. 8.11.—17-18. saying, my power and the might of my hand (by the pains which I have been at, if we take in the Syriack) hath gotten me this wealth, which Idol (if it be so called) is sufficient to supply all my wants, and give ease and rest to my heart without need of further waiting on God. So Kimchi gives the dependance of these words on those, this, saith he, is contrary, or opposed to what is before said, and wait on thy God continually. He doth not wait on God, nor confess that he hath given him power to get wealth but saith, my power and the might of my hand hath gotten me this wealth, and so forgets he God which hath given him power so to do. This is that which he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 asharti, I am become rich, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 meatsmi, of my self. Before him R. Salomo looks on it as a like description of their pride and denial of God, and any ne∣cessity of depending on him, thus expounding it, concerning your riches, you say, surely I am be∣come rich, and wherefore should I serve God? R. Abraham Ezra also, the sense is, God hath not given me wealth, I 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 meatsmi, of my self, or by my own means, am become rich.

But, it not being denied that they are rich, yet this will not take away from them the ne∣cessity of depending on God. For if their wealth be not by his blessing and means pleas∣ing to him gotten, but by fraud and oppression, as theirs appeared by what in the foregoing words they are likewise taxed for, as that they had in their hands balances of deceit, and loved to oppress, what good will it do them? That it may be well with them, they must, forsaking such evil ways, turn unto him, keep mercy and judgment, and in those ways wait on him. Against any such objection to them they (as Abarbinel speaks) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 very impudently oppose an assertion of their own innocency, as if there were no other fault in them but only their being rich, and using industry, not any unlawfull means, to be so, as if we should read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ac, only, I am become rich &c. I have nothing else to be accused of in my getting riches. Such justification of themselves seems to be the plain import of the next words, which as readd in the text of our Bibles, are, In all my labours they shall find none iniquity that (or as in the margin, which) were sin. In the text I say, for in the margin they put another reading not a little different, and which will necessarily suggest another meaning, viz. in∣stead of those words mentioned, these, All my labours suffice me not, he shall have punish∣ment of iniquity in whom is sin. Their putting this in the margin gives us to wit that they thought the words in the original indifferently capable of either of these rendrings, though seeming very different in sound and meaning. And if we look into others, we shall find yet more difference in their interpretations, what through their different supplies of what they think understood, or acception of some of the words, or the distinction, or construction of them, that we may almost wonder at the di∣versity of mens conceits and opinions, and must of necessity have recourse to the original, that we may perceive the grounds of them, or be able to judge of them: for which end, I suppose, the plainest way will be in the first place to examine the words as they are in that singly, and see what in themselves they signi∣fy, and how they may conveniently be joined one with another, and what is to be under∣stood, or supplied in other languages into which they are translated, to make out the meaning of them.

The first words then in the Hebrew are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 col yegiai, all my labours. So doth the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yagia, signify, labour, and also that which is gotten by ones labour, as Deut. 28.33. Ps. 78.46.128.2. and elsewhere. And so here R. Tanchum explains it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 my gettings, or gainings, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that which one is put to pains in ac∣quiring. It seems by some anciently to have been taken to signify such as labour, or are wearied by labour, but that R. Salomo disap∣proves; for then, he saith, it should be writ∣ten 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yegaai, without an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 g. Yet doth Cocceius of late seem to take it, rendring,

omnes qui lassantur in me, all that are wearied about me. Before these words there is no∣thing in the text which may signify in, in ours therefore and others by whom it is put in their translation, it is supplied as by them thought necessarily to be understood, but in the marginal reading of our Bibles is left out.

The next words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lo yimtsau li, in our text rendred, they shall find none in me, in the margin, suffice me not. The most ordi∣nary and known signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from which this is the future, is, to find, or obtain, as we before had it; from which doth not far recede what R. Tanchum here explains it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is in Arab. characters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall make ready, or shall pro∣duce, or bring forth: but it is observed to have also the signification of sufficiency, as Num. 11.22. and elsewhere, and therefore by some, as in our margin, so rendred.

In the form that it is here, if it be taken in the first signification, it may be referred ei∣ther to the noun, labours, it self going before, and be governed of that; or else if, in, be sup∣plied, to those denoted by it, who are pointed out by the third person necessarily understood and included in the verb, those who shall look into and judge of those labours, and so the verb be governed by the influence of the pronoun, they. In either way the verb being transitive, will govern the following word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 avon, by ours rendred, iniquity, and take that joined to it into the same clause with it self. But if it be taken in the notion of sufficiency, then will it necessarily be limited to the word, my la∣bours, and by it be governed, but it self as in∣transitive, not govern the following noun, but with the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 me, or to me, end the clause, and what follows will be a new distinct clause beginning with the word avon.

As to the notion of that word, it is known to signify both iniquity and punishment for iniquity, & of these the one is by some taken as in our text, and the other by others as in our margin. As to what follows 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 asher chet, in our text, that were, (or according to our marginal note, which is) sin, and according to that other marginal reading, in whom is sin, we may observe, first of the pronoun or par∣ticle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 asher, that it is of different signifi∣cations and uses, among which those that may concern our present purpose, made use of by Interpreters, seem these, which, qui, quod. 2. He who, or that which, ille qui, illud quod. 3. Certe, truly. 4. Et, and; or 5. vel, or; to omit the rest which are not here made use of.

Of the following word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chet, the known signification is, sin, & so it is much alike to the preceding word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 avon, iniquity. As to the differences betwixt them, Kimchi ob∣serves that chet, sin, is less than avon, iniqui∣ty. According to the roots from which they come, we may look on avon as denoting the obliquity, pravity, and the guilt of the fact; chet, the errour, and transgression of it.

That which we have said of these words singly, will discover the grounds of those ma∣ny different rendrings, and expositions, which are given of them jointly, and enable us to judge the better of the meaning by them.

To take therefore some view of them, and to begin first with our own in the text, and compare others with it: in all my labours they shall find none iniquity in me, that were sin. Here we see they supply in, as several o others do. And the same is likewise supplied in the Geneva English, where are the very same words here that are in our newer and gene∣rally approved translation, but with a great deal of difference, in as much as they refer these words also to the former clause, viz. I have found out riches in all my labours, and then put as a distinct clause, they shall find none iniquity in me; in which way of distinguishing, if it be not from a fault in the p printer, I know not with whom they agree, all that I have met with agreeing in this, that the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 col yegiai, all my labours, or in all my labours, do begin a new clause, and not end a former.

By labours we may understand either the ways, and means, and pains they took for getting their riches, as their false balances &c. or else the q riches themselves, which they thereby got. By they, (or the persons pointed to in, they shall find,) those, qui scrutabuntur opera mea, to wit, all that shall look into my doings, (as Vat. notes to be understood) or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ^r men, as Aben ezra; or the Prophets, or any other that found fault with them. This being not expressed in the Hebrew, as neither the preposition in, others, as we said, make the inquiry needless, by making the noun labours, to be the nominative case, and to govern the verb, yet retaining in it the same signification of finding, or what is under that notion com∣prehended. But then still, in this way, as in the former, somthing must be governed of that verb, and that according to the most, is also, as was in that, what follows, viz. iniquity. This way the Vulgar Latin takes, rendring, omnes labores mei non invenient mihi iniquitatem quam peccavi, which the Doway renders, all my labours shall not find me the iniquity which I have sinned. It would have been plainer and more agreeable to the Latin rendring, if they had put, in me iniquity which I have sinned, or committed.

Him in rendring these words do many s other more modern Translators follow, as to the construction of the first words, and the sense of the whole, though with some verbal difference in their expressions, especially in the last words, as we shall anon see. Among the Jews also do some go the same way. So the MS. Arab. version 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all my labours shall not find to me a fault, or iniquity, which is sin. The same way appears R. Tanchum to take, who thus explains himself in his note, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, their trust in riches, and desire after them causeth them to say that their labour for them doth not acquire to them, of unlawfull ways, fault nor sin, or all their labours for it in unlawfull ways doth not acquire to them (i. e. make them guilty of) iniquity nor sin. Both these ways make but the same meaning, for so do some of the chief Expositors of the text, according to the rendring of the Vulgar, explain what is in it readd, omnes labores &c. all my labours shall not find in me iniquity, by in all my labours, in rebus studiisque meis, in my affairs and ways, as Ar. Mont. In omnibus divitiis quas meo labore acquisivi, non apparebit iniquitas ulla quam fecerim, as Ribera, in all the wealth which I have gotten by my labour there will not appear any iniquity that I have committed. It is all one to say that men shall not find in their labours (whether by it we understand the pains or means that they use for getting that wealth, as the balances be∣fore mentioned, and their oppression) or that the riches themselves by such means gotten shall not find in them iniquity, the meaning of both being that, non t invenietur in laboribus meis iniquitas, iniquity shall not be found in my la∣bours; but that they are clear from all these, u look into them who will, their waies just, their wealth justly gotten. What to understand by finding, in the latter way, we may learn from Diodati, in a quarto edition of whom is, all my riches are not come to me by iniquity which were sin; in one in folio, have not occasioned in me ini∣quity which may be sin. Nor do they much re∣cede from this who think it may be rendred, omnes meae opes non invenient mihi w poe∣nam, all my wealth shall not find to i. e. occasion to me, or bring upon me punishment, propterea quod peccatum sunt, because they are sin, i. e. were gotten by unjust means, in as much as punish∣ment supposeth iniquity. This doth not, I say, much recede from the others as to the first words, but in the latter they do, as we shall see when we shall have more particularly looked into them by themselves. They being according to these which we have seen a far∣ther explication of what they justify them∣selves from, are very differently rendred by those who otherwise agree in the construction of the words according to either of those ways which we have seen, into which we shall therefore a little look, that we may see whe∣ther they alter the sense, or all concur in one meaning, though given in divers expressions.

The words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 asher chet: ours render them, that, or which, were sin; the Vulgar renders them, as we have said, quam peccavi, which I have sinned, of which trans∣lation Tremellius saies, ex nomine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chet, tam Graeci quam Latini verbum faciunt, that both the Greek and the Vulgar Latin do make of the noun chet, sin, a verb, the first rendring, which he hath sinned; the second, which I have sinned. Of the Greek, which Cappell thinks therefore to have readd otherwise than it is now in the Hebrew, we shall after speak; as for the Latin we do not think that they other∣wise readd, or otherwise took the word in the original than it is now commonly readd & taken, viz. for a noun, only that they thought the meaning would be more perspicuous, if expressed by the verb: which we have good reason to think, while we see others that we are sure embrace the ordinary reading, for the better explaining it to make the same use of the verb. So among the Jews Aben Ezra, in all my labours men shall not find 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shechatati, that I have sinned. Kimchi in one exposition (for he gives more, without pre∣ferring one before another) explains it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in which there hath been sin to me, repeating 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to me, that went before, and saith that it is as much as to say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in which I have sinned, for if any wealth have come to my ha••d by iniquity and rapine, it was not by my knowledge, so as that I sinned in it, and did by iniquity (or wrongfully) take it knowingly.

Among Latin and more modern Expositors also Zanchi, following Aben Ezra, commends this as the meaning of the words, in all my la∣bours, i. e. divitiis meis labore partis, my wealth gotten by labour, non invenient (sc. ho∣mines) mihi iniquitatem quam peccaverim, i. e. quam admiserim, they, i. e. men shall not find to me, i. e. in me, iniquity which I have committed, i. e. none shall find that I have com∣mitted any iniquity in getting to my self wealth by my labour. So he in his exposition, though in the translation of the text he have, non in∣venient mihi iniquitatem & peccatum, they shall not find in me iniquity and sin. The Tigu∣rin

version also in the rendring of the text useth a verb, though in a different form and constru∣ction, viz. iniquitatem quae peccet, iniquity which sinneth, or may sin, i. e. I suppose, which may be an occasion of sinning, or else a sign or effect of sin to me. That these did read and take 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chet for a noun there is no doubt, yet they chose for giving the meaning of the clause, to render it by a verb; and therefore we have no reason to think the author of the vulgar Latin did otherwise, or alter any thing in the text. Others, as it is a noun in the Hebrew, so choose, adhering more in the letter, to render it by a noun, sin, but then differ in rendring the pteceding word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 asher, some taking it as a pronoun, signifying which, and so making it the relative to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 avon, iniqui∣ty, as they who render it by a verb do. So the MS. Arabick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a fault, or iniquity which is sin. And so among Latin Interpreters some x Quae peccatum, or pravitatem quae fit peccatum, iniquity which is sin.

But against this may be objected that all iniquity is sin, and in all iniquity sin, so that ac∣cording to this rendring there will seem no∣thing added in the last words to what is said in the former, whereas the later seem not added in vain thereto, but to give some em∣phasis to it, or to make it clearer. This obje∣ction will be taken away by taking the pro∣noun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 li, to me, going before, to have its in∣fluence on these words also, and to be under∣stood with them too, thus, which is a sin to me, as we have seen Kimchi to do, as much as to say, in which is sin to me, or from sin in me, which falls in with the former expression by the verb, or else by a supply which Kim∣chi also in another exposition different from his forementioned gives, viz. by understanding after iniquity, nor any thing, that the whole passage may run, they shall not find in me ini∣quity, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nor any thing in which is sin to me, the same still with, in which I have sinned. That supply doth Mun∣ster also take into his translation, iniquitatem vel quicquam in quo sit peccatum, iniquity or any thing in which is, or may be, sin. In these words according to this way there is doubt∣less a great emphasis, but I doubt whether by some rightly placed; for they place it in this, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chet, sin, should be some greater sin than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 avon, iniquity, by which then should be understood some small tricks and deceits, which did not deserve to be called sin, y at most were, peccata venialia, venial sins. So Tarnovius, non invenient in me ini∣quitatem in qua sit grande scelus seu pecca∣tum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sic dictum, they shall not find in me iniquity in which is great wickedness or sin, so called by way of eminency: whereas on the contrary, as we have seen from Kimchi, chet, sin, is of a wider and lighter sound than avon, iniquity: and so therefore he emphasis seems to be on the other side thus, they shall not find in me iniquity which is so much as sin, that is, nei∣ther great iniquity, nor so much as any light ordinary sin. Though in all sin there be too much of iniquity, yet where these words are compared one to the other, that of avon seems to have the greater weight, and to denote sin of an higher degree. And before we leave this way, wherein 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 asher is taken as a pronoun, why may we not consider whether the words may not be rendred, shall not find in me iniquity of that which is sin, i. e. shall not find me guilty of any sin? To put these words in such respect one to the other agrees with that joining them so together Ps. 32.5. thou hast forgiven 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 avon chatati, the ini∣quity of my sin, and the sense will be the same with that of the precedent rendring. But this being by the way proposed, to proceed.

Others take it not so much for a pronoun as a particle, and some in one signification, some in another. Kimchi again (for taking, it seems, the words to be indifferent y capable of more rendrings, he doth not confine the Reader to one, but gives him his choice of three) saith it may be used in the signification of a conjunction copulative, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ve, and rendred by, z and: which use of it he also proves by an∣other example, viz. Eccles. 5.17, or 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tob asher yapheh, which he saith is all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tob veyapheb, as ours there render it, good and comely. So doth also Pagnin render it, iniquitatem & peccatum, iniquity and sin. In which way, two words of much like signification (only that the later seems of greater latitude) put together seem as to make for confirmation of the thing spo∣ken, so to enlarge the comprehension of it, as much as to say, no sort of sin greater or less, nothing of that nature or that comes under either of these names by which it is known, shall they find in me: which is as much as to say, they shall not find in all my labours, aliquid inique acquisitum, any thing unlawfully gotten, as Pet. à Fig. saith, i. e. in all the wealth gotten by my labour. a Others to much the same pur∣pose render it by vel, or. In this sense seems R. Tanchum to take it, while he explains it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 neither iniquity nor sin, which is all one as to say, iniquity or sin. So Capito, neque iniquitatem, neque peccatum; so Ar. Montanus, nihil fraudis neque peccati, nothing of fraud or deceit, or sin, nothing of any sort in that kind. Mercer in his first notes renders it vel iniquitatem vel peccatum ei∣ther iniquity or sin; but in his later notes by

ubi, where, or wherein, which falls in with what we had above out of Tarnovius, in qua, in which is sin.

Calvin not so well approving the rendring it by, vel, or, renders it by, quia, because: thus, non invenient mihi iniquitatem quia scelus, they shall not find to me (or in me) iniquity be∣cause (it were) wickedness, which rendring, though at first sound it seem not much dif∣fering from those before mentioned, yet as by himself explained somthing do, while by it he will have to be meant, that they detested that any should find iniquity in their labours, for as much as this were a heinous crime, viz. to have iniquity found in their labours, or to be found guilty of iniquity in their ways of getting wealth; they abhorred to be so wicked. This then plainly differs from the former rendring, in that they refer to the last words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 asher chet, which is sin, or and sin, or or sin, to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 avon, immediatly going be∣fore, as together with that declaring what it is they say shall not be found in them; but this refers them to the whole clause. viz. in all my labour they shall find no iniquity in me; or to that spoken of it, to wit, the having iniqui∣ty found in their dealing. To have iniquity found in them, that is it which they confess to be a wicked thing.

Different yet from this, as from the others, is that which we above mentioned, propterea quod peccatum sint, because they are sin; for this, as to that word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 asher, though making it to sound as Calvin doth, viz. be∣cause, yet refers it not to iniquity found in their labours, but to the labours themselves, understanding by them, the wealth thereby gotten, so as to deny them to have any thing sinfull in them, which might deserve punish∣ment, which by iniquity he will have to be meant, and makes so no obscure meaning. There may be yet another way of rendring, which though as to the scope not differing from these, as making them Ephraim's de∣nying of themselves to be guilty of the sins which they are taxed for, yet doth give ano∣ther way of construction as to the former words, not taking all my labours, to be either in the ablative case with some, viz. in all my labours &c. or in the nominative case with others, all my labours; but in the accusative as the noun governed of the verb thus, all (or any of) my labours they shall not find to me to be iniquity or sin; or according to any rendring of these last words.

The reverend and learned L. de Dieu having considered the different interpretations given of this verse, proposeth to the learned to be con∣sider'd of this as new, And Ephraim said, profecto dives factus sum, & inveni robur mihi, nulli labores mei invenient me (nempe) iniquitas quae peccatum est, i. e. truly I am become rich, I have found strength to my self, none of my labours shall find me (to wit) iniquity which is sin; so explaining it, as if they did acknoweldge their labours to be full of iniquity of sin, but did notwithstanding comfort themselves against punishment, which is expressed by their saying, none of my labours shall find me. And whence take they this con∣fidence? Because they were become rich and had found strength, by which they could defend themselves:

and so, saith he, the be∣ginning of the verse shews their pride, the middle their security, the end their impu∣dence, in that they do acknowledge them∣selves guilty of iniquity and sin, and yet do mean while fear nothing.

Or else, saith he, the latter words may be thus expounded, nulli labores mei invenient mihi iniquitatem quae peccatum sit, none of my labours shall find to me iniquity which is (or may be) sin.

In which sense together their security and hypocrisy they declare, in that they think all their la∣bours to be so free from iniquity and sin, that their labours themselves cannot find in them any iniquity, and therefore they may justly be secure, both because they have found wealth and strength, and also because no iniquity can be found in their labours.

To this purpose he.

The learned Cappellus follows his way of construction, but gives a different rendring of the first words, putting that in the b preter∣perfect tense which others do in the future, according to the form of the verb in the He∣brew, omnes labores mei non invenerunt me, all my labours have not found me, explaining it in c one place, I have not felt, nor suffered any trouble for all those things in which I have la∣boured in getting of wealth; and in another, in all my labours by which I have gotten me that wealth, I have not sinned, neither hath God there∣fore punished me; for then is iniquity said to find a man, when he is punished for it: for so do wicked men flatter themselves, when they see things go with them according to their mind, they thence conclude that they are godly, and righteous, and acceptable to God. As for the last words in another place he thus renders them, as a di∣stinct clause by themselves, iniquitas illud est quod est peccatum, that is iniquity which is sin, without explaining his meaning, or shewing the connexion of them with the preceding. I suppose the meaning of them so taken must be thus, Ephraim justifies himself as not guilty of iniquity in his labours, which might make him obnoxious to punishment, because he had not sinned in those his labours, and so did not fear punishment due to iniquity. These learned men would give us somthing new and dif∣ferent

from those thatwent before them, and so they do, in that they make 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 li, me, to be the accusative case governed of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yim∣tsau, shall find, or as the other, have found; for which construction they give no example, viz. that that verb should govern an accusative case with the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 l. prefixed, which usually is a sign of the Dative, for which Drusius, meeting with the like rendring in a French translation, dislikes it, and for that reason thinks that therefore the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 matsa, being here (as he thinks) construed with it, must have another signification than that of finding, viz. of sufficing: but otherwise as to the scope of the whole verse, and the signification of the words, they give nothing different from what the others whom we have mentioned do, nor make any plainer meaning than any of them do, if so plain. If it be de∣manded which among them we would prefer, I think we may say it will be indifferent, they all tending to the same purposeand meaning, and that which seems to make it most perspicuous, we may take, the words well bearing all. That which our Translators, by whose judgment we may well be guided, choose to follow, seems to be that we have seen to be Calvin's, or in sense to agree alto∣gether with it. He renders the last words, quia scelus, because it is wickedness, viz. to have iniquity found in them; ours, though not rendring the word, because, yet in rendring it that, give us to understand it, they shall not find iniquity that were sin; what is that other than to say, because that, viz. that they should so do, were certainly sin in me, sin to have ini∣quity found in me. To make their meaning plainer, they put in the margin, Heb. which, i.e. that that which is rendered that, doth in the Hebrew signify which, and that they would have the word that so here, as oft it is, to be taken. This is well by them put, in as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 asher, doth not signify, illud, that, in another sense, viz. for, illud, that, alone, but rather as, quod, which, or, illud quod, that which. And that they refer it (with Calvin) to the clause, not find in me iniquity, to shew that to be a thing which they would confess to be sin, viz. to have iniquity found in them, and not to the word iniquity only, as if it were a description of iniquity by its being sin, appears by their putting for a supply, were, which sounds, quod esset pec∣catum, which thing would be sin, and not is, as some do, iniquity, quae est peccatum, which is sin. All these whom we have mentioned do, we see, agree in this, that they take the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yimtsau, shall find, in an active sense, and to govern somthing after it, and to have the notion of finding, or somthing under it com∣prehended, and all the words to be the words of. Ephraim standing on their innocency, and justifying themselves as clear of iniquity in their dealings, for which they are taxed as guilty, and therefore we have thus put them together. In respect to that signification of the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 matsa, viz. finding, we may also join with them the LXX, though other∣wise far differing from any of them in the rendring of the whole clause, before we pass to consider such other significations of that verb, as is given by others, and in our margin.

The rendring therefore of the LXX is thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and of the printed Arab. following them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all his labours shall not be found to him, for the iniquities which (or in which) he hath sinned. Here we see the no∣tion of finding given to the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yim∣stau, though what is in the Hebrew in the active form, is by them expressed in the pas∣sive. For, my labours shall not find, here is put, my labours shall not be found, which makes Cap∣pellus to conjecture, that instead of yimtseu, the active form, they did read, yimmatseu, the passive. But if this were all, and the other words were agreeable, this would be no co∣gent argument to prove that they so read, in as much as, as before we intimated, the mean∣ing of what is expressed by the verb active, may be, and is by Expositors given in the pas∣sive, it being a received rule, that in the Hebrew tongue verbs active do somtimes as∣sume the signification of passives, and among others d this very place is brought for an example, that, non invenient mihi iniquita∣tem, they shall not find iniquity to me, is the same with, non invenietur mihi iniquitas, ini∣quity shall not be found to me.

But here in the Greek are other differences besides that which concerns this verb, which being by reason of this verb fallen on, it will be convenient to consider, and to compare not only this one word, but the whole clause, in which there is remarkable this, that what in the Hebrew is in the first person spoken as by Israel of himself, as, my labours, and find in me, is in the Greek expressed in the third, as if some other spake of them, his la∣bours, and shall be found to him, and then, which he hath sinned, instead of the noun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chet, sin, in the Hebrew. This makes the learned L. Cappellus to conjecture that instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yegiai, which sounds, my labours, they did read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yegiau, and instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 li, to me, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lo, to him, and that instead of chet, sin, chata, he sinned. The first sound of their words as usually translated, omnes labores ejus non in∣venientur

ei propter iniquitates in quibus peccavit, makes it probable that they did so read; pro∣bable, I say, yet not necessary, in as much as possibly they might give themselves a para∣phrastical liberty of expressing what they thought to be meant, and would have been said, if the Prophet had spoken of them, and to shew how vainly they flattered themselves with a conceit of their own innocency. That which may give us occasion so to think, is be∣cause we see the Chaldee Paraphrast so to take the words, at least the first of them, while he looks on them as not so much what they said, as what the Prophet was to say to them, reading the whole clause, O Prophet, say unto them, all your wealth shall not remain stable to you in the e day of recompence for your wicked∣ness.

But perhaps the Greek may yet be brought neerer to the Hebrew by a little different un∣derstanding their words from the ordinary Latin translation thereof, thus, Ephraim said, I am become rich &c. [and said] that all his labours shall not be found to him [to have been] for iniquities which he hath committed, i. e. he shall not be found to have intended sinfull dealing in his labours, or directed them there∣to: or else if labours be understood for what things he gained by them, as in the Greek the word signifies both, as well as in the He∣brew, then, that all his wealth gotten by his labours was not found to be by unjust dealings which he had used, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by them supplied, signifying with an accusative case, somtimes, f as well, per, by, as, propter, for: and then have we no other difference, but the change of persons in the affix, which in giving the meaning may be done in a translation with∣out altering the reading in the original; and so in this place find we it done by a modern Latin Tanslator, Castalio, Dicitque Ephraim se ditatum, invenisse sibi facultates, nec ullum inventum iri in omnibus suis laboribus crimen in quo peccatum sit, that is, and Ephraim saith that he is enriched, that he hath found to himself riches, and that in all his labours shall not be found any crime in which is sin. Here all along by him is the person changed from the first in the Hebrew to the third in the translation, and yet the meaning not altered, and Ephraim still taken as speaking of himself. And why might not the LXX do in part of the verse, what he doth in the whole? But if it be con∣tended that the LXX did read otherwise in the Hebrew than we now do, then will it be questionable whether they read better, or no; and considering what harsh interruption such a reading makes in the tenour of the words, not easily granted.

This being said, the words in respect to ours in the text, and other translations which render the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yimtsau, in the notion of finding, it will now be convenient to take into consideration that other reading of them, given in our margin, All my labours g suffice me not, he shall have punishment of iniquity in whom is sin. The taking of the verb in that notion of sufficing is not only put by ours as indifferent, or equally eligible with the other, but by others preferred. Drusius thinks that the construction of it with the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 l, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 li, manifestly shews that it signifies to suffice, and that the words sound, opes labore partae non sufficient mihi, i. e. the riches gotten by my labour do not suffice me: and so Junius and Tremellius take it to do, and render just as ours in the margin do, omnes labores mei non sufficiunt mihi. But the taking it in this signification is not a novel thing. R. Salomo so expounds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lo yimtseu, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lo yasphiku, shall not suffice. And the MS. Arab. also, besides the rendring of it which we have seen, saith that it is in∣terpreted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 h 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lo yacphi li, in that signi∣fication which it hath in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jos. 17.16. where the Arab. hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 non sufficiet nobis mons, and in our English, the hill is not enough for us.

But if the word be taken in this significa∣tion, then have we yet difference between those that so take it, both concerning the meaning of it, and the connexion of it and those preceding it, with those that follow, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 avon asher chet, and the rendring also of those, all my labours will not, as Jun. and Trem. or do not, as Drus. suffice me. For what? They seem to understand, for my needs, necessities, and use, or for the satis∣fying my desires, (for so doth Piscator explain it, as if they said, we regard not the reproofs of the Prophets, we will still endeavour by our merchandise to get yet more wealth) and then the following words the same Jun. and Trem. render, iniquitatis poena est illi cui peccatum est, which ours in the margin, we see, punctually follow, he shall have punishment of iniquity in whom is sin, (taking avon so here to signify,) which then, as the same Piscator inlarges on it, is an argument by them used to prove that the means by them used for the getting of wealth, and their industry deserves not to be taxed, and there was no reason why they should leave them off, as not having any thing sinfull, or displeasing to God in them; for if it were

so, they would not so thrive with them, and therefore they thus reason, to him in whom (or to whom) is sin, there is also to him punishment, but we have no punishment, and therefore there is no sin in the means that we use. Ex eo facile patet me non esse peccati reum, quod mihi bene est, nam qui rei sunt, eos Nemesis im∣pune abire non sinit, which are the words of Jun. and Trem. hence it appears that I am not guilty of sin, because it goes well with me, I am rich &c. for such as be guilty, vengeance suffereth not to escape unpunished. Thus they both ex∣pound the word, and give the connexion. But Drusius, though in the rendring of the first words he agree with them, yet as to the rendring and connexion of the last, which he also, making them a distinct clause from the first, and to be the words not of Ephraim as the other make them, but of the Prophet re∣buking them, renders, iniquitas haec est quae sit peccatum, this is iniquity which is sin, i. e. saith he, Idolatry, i that being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or by way of eminency, somtimes called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chet, sin; for such, saith he, serve k Mammon instead of God, and make riches their end, and therefore think they have never sufficient of them, or are never satisfied with them. Moreover all the hope of their life, which they ought to place in God, they place in riches, and therefore the co∣veteous man is called an Idolater, Ephes. 5.5. This meaning of his Rivet thinks not inconve∣nient, but his abrupt change of persons to be harsh.

This which we have said they understand by not sufficing, but the Jews who take, as we said, the verb in that signification, yet much differ in assigning the end for what their la∣bour, or pains will not suffice. R. Salomo (or he by him cited) taking these not to be the words that Ephraim said, but such as the Prophet saith they ought to have said, thus expounds the clause, It had been good that thou hadst said in thine heart 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all my wealth will not suffice to expiate for mine iniquity which I have committed, and he would have us to think that that was the meaning of Jonathan the Chaldee Paraphrast, whose words we have above seen. Abarbinel also explaining the words according to this notion of the verb for sufficing, (for he explains it also in the notion of finding) and pretending to be guided by the Paraphrast, gives for the meaning, as if they were the words of the Prophet upon their saying, I am become rich, I have found me out substance, replying to them, truly all my labours, and all my wealth will not suffice me for one iniquity which is sin, and how will (or do) you boast of your wealth, you being wicked, and sinners against God? But I will not farther insist to examin these meanings, it seeming the plainest way to take the verb in the notion of finding, and all the words for Ephraim's words, justifying himself against that accusation for deceit and fraud, or op∣pression laid against him, in that, though he were become rich, there was not any iniqui∣ty or sin to be found in him, or in those ways by which he grew to that wealth and great∣ness; and (that we may take in somthing of the other notion) his so prospering in his doings, and upon his industry, was a proof that God did not find iniquity in them, and men could not, or would not find fault with him, who had wherewith to uphold himself against any, according to what seems to be Je∣rom's way of expounding them. Gain and all that thereunto tends with them is Godliness, their being rich an argument that they are good enough, that God is well pleased with them, and men can, or will find no fault with them, why then need they be called on to turn to their God, to keep mercy and judgment, and to wait on their God continually? as v. 6. why taxed as Canaanites for their using false ba∣lances and oppression? v. 7. what need they de∣pend on God, who by their own power are become rich, and have found out substance? But what strange ingratitude to God is this? What great forgetfulness of God, yea plain denial of him, who had done so great things all along for them and their fathers as he had done, and would still do for them, if they would cleave to him? He did give to their fathers power to get wealth, and would still have given to them by lawfull means, that they should not have need to use such un∣lawfull ones as they did, by which though they had gotten great riches, they were such, however they trusted in them, as should not be stable to them in the time of remunera∣tion, or when he should call them to account for their doings, but provoke God to de∣prive them of them, and to send his judg∣ments on them, as the next words are by some looked on to declare: and so would there be a plain connexion between these and them. But before we can well judge and determin of the connexion, it will be necessary to consi∣der what meaning may be fastned on them, among many and various that are given, and the very different opinions of Expositors con∣cerning them. They are,

V. 9. And I that am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt, will yet make thee to dwell in tabernacles, as in the days of the solemn feast.

10. I have also spoken by the pro∣phets,

and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

And I that am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt, will yet make thee to awell in tabernacles, I have also spoken by the prophets &c. l A learned Expositor notes concerning this, and the foregoing verse, that they are diffe∣rently taken by Interpreters, and that the dif∣ferent construction that they give of them, applicationem reddit ambiguam & difficilem, makes the application ambiguous and difficult. The verbs in them being some of the future, some of the preterperfect tense, some he ob∣serves to be m who render all by the preter∣perfect tense, n others who render all by the future, o others, some by the preterperfect tense, (we may add or p the present tense,) some by the future; it being a known thing that these tenses in the Hebrew language somtimes are used one for the other. We may add that some put them in the Indicative plainly affirming, some in the Potential mood with an interrogation, as Jun. Trem. or with∣out, as Stokes. Again he saith, in tanta sen∣tentiarum & interpretationum varietate quid sit sequendum, non est adeo definire promptum, cum praesertim ex illis nullae sint quae fidei ana∣logiam labefactent aut in eam impingant, in so great variety of opinions and interpretations it is not so easy to determin which is to be followed, especially when none of them are any way prejudicial or con∣trary to the analogy or rule of the faith. Some take them as miratory, saith he, some as promising good, some as consolatory, some as mixed of consolation and expostulation, containing an exhortation to re∣pentance, as if things were not yet desperate with them.

It will be convenient therefore to take no∣tice of some of them, that we may see which may seem most agreeable to the order and scope of the words, and to give the plainest meaning of them; for which end it may be convenient first to cast an eye on the origi∣nal it self with some strictures on the words in it, and so by parts to take in the several rendrings and expositions of them, and the grounds of them. The first words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 veanoci Jehovah eloheca meerets mitsraim, which literally sound, and I the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt, as the Vulgar Latin punctually renders them, & ego Dominus Deus tuus ex terra Aegypti, as q others also. From which others differ in rendring the first particle, or conjunction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ve, and, rendring it at, or autem, but; as the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but I, and so likewise r others, as Pisca∣tor, I render, saith he, at ego sum, but I am; so Zanchi saith that it is here, loco particulae adversativae autem, instead of the adversative particle but. The Geneva English renders it, though; and so Diod. pur non dimeno, although, or notwithstanding. The Syriack clean omits it, rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. These different acceptions of that particle argue different opinions as to the connexion of the following words with the preceding, and the meaning of them, as will appear in the view of them. It follows, the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt. Ours to make the meaning plainer, after I, supply that am, there being no word in the text ex∣pressed that so signifies, so taking these words to make with the following, will yet make &c. one clause, as they also, who render it bare∣ly according to the Hebrew, do. The LXX make them a clause by themselves, but I the Lord thy God brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, by adding, brought thee up, explaining what they think meant by, thy God from the land of Egypt. The Syriack likewise make them a clause of themselves, rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I am the Lord thy God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, explaining in like manner, from the land of Egypt; as also the Chaldee Paraphrast doth, though not making it a clause by its self with∣out the following words, and I the Lord thy God which brought thee forth of the land of Egypt. But the expression, from the land of Egypt, may not be restrained only to the act of bringing them out of Egypt, but s comprehend both his preservation of them there amidst so many means by which Pharaoh and his people sought to destroy them, and his bringing them out thence by working many wonderfull signs, and with a mighty arm, with the destruction of the Egyptians that pursued them to fetch them back, his leading them through the red sea, and his preserving them so many years in the wilderness, then giving them his law, and then bringing them into the promised land, and then raising them to that height and power of a kingdom that he did, and all other great benefits by which from that time of de∣claring them to be his people, he approv'd him∣self to be their God, a God to them in a more peculiar manner than to other nations. All these benefits and the like doth this ex∣pression necessarily call to their mind. What occasion there was of God's using this pre∣face to what he farther saith to them, is mani∣fest by looking back to the foregoing words, in which is shewed that Ephraim had wil∣fully forsaken God and their relation to him

and dependance on him, trusting in their Idols, and in the abundance of their ill gotten riches, by reason of which they thought they had no farther need of him, and were as if they had clean forgotten him, or that they were any way beholding to him. To make them there∣fore to give regard and attention to what he shall now say to them, seasonable and even necessary must such a preface appear to be, which by setting before them what he had been to, and what he had done for, them from of old, should evidently convince them of their great ingratitude in so doing, and the great wickedness thereof, and at once mind them of his power of still doing them good, and of his mercy, and in remembrance of his covenant made with them of old, if they would hearken unto him, or of punishing them in his justice and according to their deserts on breach of co∣venant if they should continue in their rebel∣lion against him. What influence this preface hath in these kinds on the following words, will appear in the view of them, according to the different expositions of them.

After this description of himself, by God premised, to shew what regard ought by them to be had to what he shall speak, that which he farther saith to them, is, according to our translation, will yet make thee to dwell in ta∣bernacles as in the solemn feast. The verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 oshib, is in form the future tense, and so doth no doubt properly signify, I will make to dwell, and so in rendring it do many agree with them, both ancient, as the t LXX, the u Vulgar La∣tin, w Syriack, x both the Arabicks, and others more modern; yet in giving the meaning of the expression, to make to dwell, or sit in taber∣nacles, Expositors who follow this way of rendring, do much differ one from another, as likewise concerning the other words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cime moed, rendred, as in the days of the solemn feast, some taking all as a promise of good, others as a threatning of evil. For per∣ceiving the ground of these differences, and such others, also in them, who (as we shall after see) do otherwise time, or render the verb, it will be necessary to take some view of the words.

Tabernacles, we know, were movable houses, (that we may so speak,) and proper to such who had no fixed habitation in one place, as they who live in houses properly so called, and in towns and cities, have, but as their occasions required, removed from place to place. In such at this day dwell the y Ara∣bians of the desert, therefore called Scenitae, or inhabitants of tents, and the Turcomans, and other wandring people, who fixe not long in one place, but with their portable dwellings change their seats for conveniency of provi∣sions or other occasions. In such of old lived their forefathers Abraham, I saak and Jacob, Heb. 11.9. and in such the Israelites them∣selves for fourty years together in the wilder∣ness dwelt, after their departure out of Egypt, finding no city to dwell in, Ps. 103.4. z To which dwelling so of theirs the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 od, rendred, yet, or again, may seem more par∣ticularly here to refer, intimating as if they had formerly so dwelt.

Such dwelling in tabernacles will evidently note, first an unstable or unsettled condition, as theirs after their departure out of Egypt at the time of their journeying through the wil∣derness, was, till they came into the promised land, the place of rest and fixing themselves in cities, where they changed their taber∣nacles into goodly houses, which their poste∣rity now spoken of as yet enjoyed. So doth the Apostle make the dwelling of those Pa∣triarchs a sign that they lived as strangers and pi grims on the earth, in the forecited Hebrews 11.13. That the Rechabites might so do, their father commanded them to dwell in tents, Jer. 35.7. But yet withall was the Israelites then so dwelling in tabernacles in the wil∣derness a token that they were then at liberty and in a secure condition, freed from the house of bondage, and out of fear of the Egyptians. Besides this, there were yearly set days, where∣in they dwelt in tabernacles, or booths, in imi∣tation of them, by command in the Law, that their generations might know that God made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt, Lev. 23.42, 43. which time they were to keep with rejoycing and gladness, as shewing that their fathers had been in a wandring condi∣tion, but they were now at ease and liberty. It may be also observed that from that ancient custom of living in tabernacles, or tents, that name is also transferred to signify any houses in which men dwelt, as Ps. 132.3. the taber∣nacle of my house, and so by a some here ex∣plained.

As to the other words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cime moed, by ours rendred, as in the days of the solemn feast, they are by the Septuagint according to some copies rendred, b 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the days of a feast; according to c others, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

as in the day of a (or the) feast; which the printed Arabick seems to follow, rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as in the day of a (or the) feast, or as in a seast day. The Vulgar Latin and In∣terlin. sicut in diebus festivitatis, as in the days of festivity. The Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as in the days of a feast, the Latin Translator rendring him, ut diebus solennibus. The Chal∣dee Paraphrast 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as in days of old, and so the MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as in ancient (or former) time. Among the more modern, some, d sicut diebus constitutis, or, e tempore constituto, as in the appointed days or time. Munster, secundum dies (olim) con∣testatos, according to the days of old assigned, or appointed. The Tigurin version, ut dies stati [testantur,] as the set days [witness.] Calvin, ••icut f diebus conventus, as in the days of con∣vention; Jun. Trem. ut diebus solennitatis, as on days of solemnity; and Castalio, ut diebus solennibus, as in solemn days. Zanchi it seems, not thinking one word expressive enough to give the meaning of the Hebrew, retains that it self, putting, secundum dies moed, according to the days of moed, with these words for ex∣plication added, id est, temporis solennis, quando congregabantur Jehudaei in deserto statis temporibus ad audiendum verbum & Deum colendum, that is, of that solemn time, when they the Jews (Israelites rather) were ga∣thered together in the wilderness at set (or ap∣pointed) times for hearing the word and worship∣ing God. We cannot but perceive by these, and the like several rendrings, that there ap∣pears to them some difficulty in the under∣standing what is meant by the days of moed, which makes it necessary to enquire into the signification of that word moed.

It doth therefore, first, signify in general any set or appointed time from its root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yaad, to appoint, or assign, as time or place, or other circumstance, as Gen. 1.14. the lights of heaven are appointed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for seasons; & Jer. 8.7. the stork in the heavens knoweth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 her appointed times. Then, more espe∣cially, it is used for some solemn festival time, appointed to be celebrated by the meeting of the people together in a solemn manner, for the observing thereof: and by that name are those feasts in the Law by God's command at certain times to be solemnly kept, called. So above in this Prophet c. 2. 10, 11. and c. 9.5. So Lament. 1.4. the ways of Zion do mourn be∣cause none cometh to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 moed, the solemn feasts; and so c. 2.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 moed ve∣sabbat, the solemn feasts and the sabbaths. Such were the feast of Passover, of Weeks, and that of Tabernacles, which above we men∣tioned, commanded to be observed by all the males in Israel, meeting to appear before the Lord, and that not empty, in the place which he should choose, Deut. 16.16. Then far∣ther it is used for the place of such solemn meetings, Ps. 74.8. they have burnt up all 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 moade el, the synagogues of God, as ours render it.

It is also used for the meetings themselves, whence that tabernacle, which while the Isra∣elites dwelt in tabernacles in the wilderness was consecrated and set apart for God's use, that there Moses and the people might seek, and serve God, and find his more special pre∣sence, was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ohel moed, the tabernacle of congregation, or of convention.

The same name is also given to such sacri∣fices as were at such holy meetings or ap∣pointed times offered, as 2 Chron. 32.22. they did eat 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hammoed, the feast, that is, saith Kimchi, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the sacrifices of the feast, though ours there render, throughout the feast.

Besides this observed of the noun moed, it will be requisite to our purpose not to let pass un∣observed concerning the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 c, prefixed to the word going before it, viz. in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cime, rendred, as in the days, that as it signifies sicut, or the like, as, according to &c. so among other uses of it, it is also g 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a particle serving to the designing of time, and so might be rendred at, or in, the days, or according to the days, not to note a likeness and comparison of the days spoken of with such which were formerly or be∣fore them, but to denote the space & duration of the days appointed for their being made to dwell in tents, or the time when they shall be; while those days should be, or when those days should be.

By what hath been said of the terms singly are laid open the grounds on which the dif∣ferent expositions, which are given of the words, are founded; we have therefore first h some who look on those words as wholly mi∣natory, or a threat of evil to them. He that ever since the bringing them out of Egypt had hitherto shewed himself their God by doing great good things for them, bringing them through the wilderness in which they dwelt in tents in perpetual motion, finding no city to dwell in, and placing them in a good land, wherein he gave them great and goodly cities, which they builded not, and houses full of good things, which they filled not &c. Deut. 6.10, 11. and where they built goodly houses and dwelt therein, and had all good things multiplied to them. Deut. 8.12, 13. all of his free mercy, will now in justice, provoked by their ingra∣titude, forgetting these his benefits, and cast∣ing off their sole dependance on him to trust

in Idols, and their own power and the might of their own hands which had gotten them great wealth, and found them out substance, and they thought should still so do, he will now deal with them in another method, he will cast them out of those their cities of habitation, their well built houses wherein they thought themselves securely fixed, and bring them again to their tabernacles, such a moveable con∣dition as their fathers were in of old, when they wandred in the desert; yea a worse; for their fathers, though not yet fixed, yet moved still towards a place of rest; but they shall move to places where they shall have no cer∣tain abode, made to go captive into their ene∣mies land, and to be dispersed among strange nations. i So Tremellius gives for the meaning of the words, in which he saith God seems to terrify those ungratefull, and forgetfull ones with a denouncing of punishment to them, Vos in pristinam servitutem retraham, vosque ex∣pellam ex domibus sumptuose extructis, ut pere∣grinantium more in tabernaculis agatis, i. e. I will bring you back to your ancient servitude, and drive you out of your sumptuously built houses, that you shall live like travellers in tabernacles, and then the last words which he renders by, sicut die∣bus constituti temporis, as in the days of the appointed time, he explains by saying, that he understands thereby the time of the fourty years which God designed for taming the con∣tumacy, and rebellion, of the Israelites of old. As, saith he, those k obstinate rebels were con∣sumed in their wandring in the desert, so doth he here pronounce their posterity to be wor∣thy, as exiles from their country, to spend their lives in wandring up and down in a mi∣serable condition to the last.

In the same way doth Arius Montanus take these words, as a threat of punishment from God, who had hitherto been so gracious unto them and their fathers, ever since his bringing them out of Egypt, to them who had so un∣gratefully forgotten those his benefits, to make them know whether by their own labours, and by lawfull means they had gotten to them∣selves those things which they possessed. By the expression of dwelling in tabernacles, he thinks to be denoted that state, and that con∣dition in which the Israelites now are, who dispersed up and down in the world have no certain possessions, no fixed habitations, no goodly houses that they can call their own, but are as men that expect a removal; which saith he, is to dwell in tabernacles: and no greater explication, saith he, do I think these words to require than the event it self, and the present state of the affairs of the Israelites, which punishment he here foretels shall so long last till the days of the time appointed be fulfilled, the number of which Prophets had foretold, and others should foretel. That time called the days of moed, he saith, are those (or that time) by God appointed, in which the Israelites should be in such calami∣tous and miserable condition, and the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 c, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cime, denotes not quality or like∣ness, but quantity or space of time, i. e. not the likeness of those days to others to which these are compared, but the duration of these.

Much like is the way that Abarbinel among the Jews takes, viz. that these words are a threat to Israel, of punishment that shall in God's appointed time take hold on them, his words being to this purpose, seeing thou art forgetfull of, or ungratefull for, my benefits, I will take from thee all thy riches, which thou gloriest that thou hast gotten to thy self, and thou shalt go in captivity, naked and barefoot in a long way; wherefore, he saith, I will make thee to dwell in tabernacles, viz. in banishment in the tents of Edom and the Ismaelites, Moabites and Ha∣garenes. And if thou say when shall this be? Be∣hold it shall be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cime moed, at the days of moed; and the letter Caph here is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 such [a particle] as designs time, de∣noting at the time wherein I have designed and de∣termined to punish thee, thou shalt go in tabernacles.

These three all, we see, agree in this, that the words are minatory, a threatning of pu∣nishment, and that dwelling in tents imports a wandring unsettled condition, and in that moed signifies at large, an appointed time. As to the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 c, they differ, that the first seems to take it as denoting likeness and compari∣son, sicut, as; the others as denoting time, though the former take it as signifying, l while it shall last, the other, when it shall be. He also looks on as alluded and referred, to the history of the Israelites dwelling those fourty years in the wilderness in tabernacles; they do not seem particularly to refer to it, al∣though the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 od, adhuc, yet, do seem to have respect to somthing of like na∣ture formerly done among them, as so the Chaldee and Arab. MS. take them plainly to do.

But others, who retain the same way of construction, rendring as they 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 oshib, I will make to dwell, as of the future or a thing to come, take a clean contrary way, and look on the words, not as a denouncing of evil, but a promise of good to them, that he that had shewed so great kindness to them in their fathers, when, and after, he brought them out of the land of Egypt, would not∣withstanding their great ingratitude and rebel∣lions against him, for which he would cause them to be carried into captivity, yet again being mindfull of his covenant formerly made

of his free grace with them, would make them to dwell in tents; taking that expression as de∣noting, although not an yet fixed, yet a free and secure condition, as that was of old to their fathers. Yet in different ways do these go, some looking on it as a prophecy or pro∣mise of restoring them from such captivity as they should again be brought to for their sins and forgetfulness of him, whom they ought to have known by what great good he had done for their fathers, when he brought them out of Egypt, and to them, while they heark∣ned to his voice. So Kimchi, So will I bring you forth out of that captivity wherein you shall be, as I did when I brought you out of Egypt, and fed you in the wilderness, and made you to dwell in tabernacles, so will I 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 od, yet, when I shall bring you out of the lands of the people, make you to dwell in tabernacles in the wilderness in the way, and shew you wonderfull things, till you return to your own land in peace; for which he cites Isaiah 41.18. I will open ri∣vers in the high places &c. and by, as in the days of moed, he understands the time of their going out of Egypt. When this prophecy was fulfilled, or to be fulfilled, he doth not men∣tion; but m others, who take the same way of expounding the meaning, say it was ful∣filled in those Israelites, who joined themselves to the Jews in their return from the Babylo∣nish captivity: but sure those were so few and inconsiderable, as that a prophecy concerning all Ephraim cannot be thought to have been fulfilled in what concerned so small a part of them. As for the whole, it cannot be affirmed of them, that they ever yet passed together through the wilderness in tabernacles, and fixed themselves in quiet in their own land again; and to say that they ever so shall, is more than seems to be any certain ground for.

Others, as Jerom, look on it as a promise with a condition, viz. that it should be so to them, if they would repent and do such things as ••e commanded, n which they not doing forfeited the promise, and had it not made good to them. According to this way, dwelling in tabernacles, would be understood of their so dwelling and rejoicing in them, as they were wont to do in the feast of tabernacles. To say with o some that this is a promise to Judah, that though the ten tribes should be cut off, that he would yet forbear him, to see if he would repent, seems not agreeable to the tenor of the words, but interrupts it; Ephraim plainly being the person here, as in the former verses, spoken to. Ribera therefore thinks it a promise to Ephraim of deferring their punish∣ment for some years, that he would suffer them yet to dwell in their land, and keep their feasts, to see if they would repent.

Others seeing this was never so fulfilled in Israel, and thinking it never will be, un∣derstand it not of a temporal, but a spiritual deliverance, from a spiritual, not carnal, bond∣age, and to be a promise of calling them into the p kingdom and Church of Christ, a spiri∣tual restitution of the elect Israelites in Christ notwithstanding that captivity which should seize on them together with the rest, q made way to by the mention of that former delive∣rance of their fathers from the bondage of Egypt, which was a type of this: as much as to say, though all Israel for the generality be so wicked, and destruction be threatned to them, and shall seize on them, yet I who formerly redeemed Israel out of Egypt, being mindfull of my ancient covenant, will again by the same power and mercy in due time restore my elect people among them, wherever they be, out of their r spiritual Egypt and thraldom, and make them to dwell in tabernacles, i. e. joyfully, safely and securely, or in s particu∣lar Churches, as in tabernacles in the way to the heavenly Canaan through the desert of this world, and give them joy and comfort, as in a feast or time of solemn rejoycing, t like those feasts under the Law, and particularly that of Tabernacles. This way of exposition of these words Rivet saith, that, omnibus di∣ligenter expensis, after all things duely weighed and considered, he prefers before others. What is here said will according to it, well agree with what is said above c. 2.14, 15. that she should there sing as in the day when she came up out of the land of Egypt. And this way do several others embrace, among them is reckoned Vatablus, and so indeed he doth in u some editions, in which are these words, Haec particula, adhuc, videtur pertinere ad tempus Christi, the particle, yet, seems to re∣fer to the time of Christ, as if he should say, beneficia in te contuli & adhuc conferam, I have conferred benefits on thee and will yet confer, and the time, saith he, of freeing them out of Egypt he calls, dies solennitatis, days of so∣lemnity, as if he said, as I did in the time when I brought thee out of the land of Egypt. But in w other additions those first words, the time of freeing &c. are all wanting, and another note after the rest added, viz. quidam referunt hoc ad futuram captivitatem &c. some refer this to the captivity to come, as if he should say, obli∣tus liberationis ex Aegypto &c. forgetting the deliverance out of Egypt, I will make thee to re∣member, not that past deliverance, but one to come; for I will lead thee away into a captivity, from

which I will again bring thee back, and deli∣ver thee: unde memoreris &c. from whence thou shalt be mindfull and restore the feast of ta∣bernacles, in memory of this future deliverance: praedicit & captivitatem & liberationem, so he foretels to them both captivity and deliverance. This later note much agrees with that of Cal∣vin, to wit, that Deus hic oblique dicat opus esse nova redemptione, ut populum magis sibi devin∣ciat, i. e. God doth obliquely (or by the by) say to them that there is need of a new redemption, as if, saith he, he should say, I see that you are unmindfull of your redemption of old, and, pro nihilo ducere ac si esset obsoleta, set no va∣lue on it, as if it were an obsolete thing, so that I have lost my labour, except the memory of that ancient benefit be renewed: therefore will I again make thee to dwell in tabernacles; for, necesse est ut &c. x it is needfull that I again cast thee out of thy land, and then again restore thee, & quidem insolito & minime expectato modo, and that in an unusual and unexpected way, that thou mayest perceive me to be thy Redeemer: thus he again repeats the like in other words. He seems to me not to give any clear meaning of the words, not to tell us what redemption he means, temporal and carnal, or spiritual, and so saith, but much the same as above we saw Kimchi to do. Rivet doth find fault with him, (viz. Calvin) in that he makes this here said an amplification of their fault, which was in the former words declared, but is not here mentioned; and in that he makes the words to intimate that there was need of a new re∣demption which should make them remember the former which they had forgotten, where∣as he rather mentions that, only to give them assurance of this other which he now pro∣miseth.

R. Salomo, among the Jews, is by y some looked on as in the number of those who take the words as belonging to the time of Christ, his exposition being, I will cut off from the midst of thee deceitfull merchants, and will make thee to dwell in tabernacles; I will place in the midst of thee disciples studious in the law as in the days of moed, i. e. according to the days of the first appointed time, when Jacob was a plain man dwelling in tents, Gen. 25.27. Some also think z Kimchies words, which we have above seen, reducible to this way. These different ways do they take who concur in rendring the word in the future tense, I will make to dwell &c. those who take it in some other tense or mood, (as many do,) must of necessity give other meanings, and so they do.

Junius and Tremelius changing both the mood and tense, do by way of interrogation so read the words as spoken by way of in∣dignation, and including a threat, And I the Lord thy God even from the land of Egypt, ad∣huc facerem ut sedeas in istis tentoriis ut die∣bus solennitatis? should I yet make thee to dwell in those tents as on festival days? which, saith he, are, indignantis verba peccatum superius ex∣aggerantia, words of one that is in indigna∣tion, and such as exaggerate the sin before spoken of; and by ut diebus solennitatis, understands, festive & laete ut fit in solennitatibus impe∣ratis lege, merrily and securely as in the solemn feasts appointed in the law, as if God did in them deny that he would any more do them good, as he had formerly done. But this Piscator mislikes, as not well (in his opinion) agreeing with that preface, I am the Lord thy God from the laud of Egypt, which shews the impulsive cause of this which follows. For the same cause also Rivet dislikes it, and thinks that preface cannot well be taken but as an introduction of some good. He like∣wise seems not to like so many interrogations as they here put together: yet doth Grotius take that way, facerem? saith he, should I do it? est interrogantis, it is spoken by way of in∣terrogation. After so many wickednesses of thine should I yet suffer you to live in quiet in your houses (which ob veterem morem, in respect to the ancient custome, are called taber∣nacles) laete & tranquille merrily and quietly as in feast days? and a others following him, interrogatio emphatica est, qua indicat statu∣tum sibi esse propediem eos punire, it is an emphatical interrogation, whereby God shews that he had determined ere long to punish them.

Others taking this verb in the same mood and tense, read it without an interrogation, as affirming what he could and would have done, if they had behaved themselves grate∣fully towards him. So D. Stokes paraphra∣seth the verse, But is it no fault, O Ephraim, that I should be so served? I that am the Lord thy God, that delivered thee out of the land of Egyptian bondage, and would have made thee still to awell as securely and chearfully in all thy habi∣tations, as ever thou wert in the days of the solemn feast of tabernacles. And this seems to be the mind of Aben Ezra, whose explication of the words is to this purpose, The meaning is, dost thou not remember that I brought thee out of Egypt with much riches, for which thou didst not labour, and sustained thee in the wilderness when thou wert in tabernacles? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so can (or could) he do also to thee as in the days of the time of thy coming out of Egypt: so that in the words so understood by a commemoration of God's former benefits and power still, and willing∣ness, to do the like for them, would be made

manifest how strange and unreasonable a thing it was, that they forgetting that they had such a one to depend on, who could and would supply them with all things good for them and in a good way, should leave their de∣pendance on him, and by unlawfull means seek to uphold themselves.

Others take the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 oshib as in the preter tense, did, or have, made thee yet to dwell; or in the present tense, do yet make thee to dwell: and so Cyril would have the Greek also to be understood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I will &c. to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for, I do make to dwell, as making it strange that they should forget and forsake him, who had done not only so great things for their fathers, but had all along, and did still continue to do for them, which ought to have made them still mindfull of him, and with confidence on him, and him alone, to have depended. Pareus takes this as giving the best connexion between these and the foregoing words, and others who take other ways not well to attend to the scope of the words, nor to make any good co∣herence, which he saith is that God refutes here the false boasting of those who said they had found riches to themselves, shewing that whatsoever wealth they had gotten, they ought to have ascribed to him, who had been their God, and ever since their bringing up out of Egypt had made them to dwell in ta∣bernacles as on feast daies, i. e. joyfully and prosperously, as the Israelites did in the week of the feast of tabernacles. The mention of Egypt comprehends all the benefits which from that time they enjoyed, and shews them to have proceeded from God. He therefore (saith he) complains that those false ones, im∣pudently sacrificing to their own net, did not only defraud him of his due praise, but were wickedly ungratefull.

Against this way of his Rivet excepts, not thinking him to say well, that God complains that they did not ascribe to him their ill gotten wealth as his gift &c. Yet Tarnovius, who had seen them both, doth preferre this of Pareus above all others. Yet there seems to be in Ri∣vet's objection somthing of moment, I think for taking away which, we may say that God expostulates, or complains of them, not for not ascribing to God as his gift that their wealth which was by unlawfull means gotten, but because leaving their dependance on him, they did fly to such unlawfull means, where∣as they had, by what he had done for them in bringing them out of Egypt, and ever since preserving them in prosperous state in the good land which he had seated them in, assured pledges, that if they had adhered to him and served him, he could, and would still have so blessed their lawfull endeavours, as that with∣out using any wicked or unlawfull waies, they should have found sufficient of all good things, in such manner as was best for them, and I think the connexion so made out would be as clear as any.

Among these waies, ours choose to go with those who put the verb in the future tense, I will yet make thee to dwell &c. and by their rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cime moed, as in the daies of the solemn feast, plainly seem to agree with them who look on it as a promise of good, not a threat of evil. And though there be nothing in the words expresly li∣miting their meaning, I doubt not but that they would have it understood, not of a tem∣poral deliverance by restoring them to their own countrey, and living there in tabernacles, i. e. in their own houses, or else, then in festi∣val manner keeping again their feasts and times of rejoycing, as particularly that of ta∣bernacles, but of deliverance from spiritual bondage by Christ, and being called into his Church.

The Geneva English, both translation and note seems to me not so plain, their rendring of the text being, Though I am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt, yet will I make thee to dwell in the tabernacles, as in the daies of the so∣lemn feast; and their note, seeing thou wilt not acknowledge my benefits, I will bring thee again to dwell in tents, as in the feast of taber∣nacles which thou dost now contemn. Their lan∣guage seems plainly to make the words to sound as threatning evil, and a time when it shall be brought on them; and if so, I think they do not so appositely to the thing render cime moed, as in the daies of moed, by the days of the solemn feast, viz. that of tabernacles, which was a time of mirth and rejoycing, but should rather have rendred it some other way, as those above do, whom we have seen to un∣derstand it of evil to them. If it be understood of a happy condition which they shall be brought to under Christ in his Church, (as others we have seen understand it, and I sup∣pose ours to mean,) then may this promise (as Rivet observes) seem very seasonably mingled with such accusations and reproof of them for their sins, and threats of punishment to them, and exhortations to repentance which before and after we have, for making them speedy and serious in their repentance, and ani∣mate them to it, and not to despond, as if it were to no purpose to put it in practice, by shewing that there is yet a door of hope opened to them in Christ, and mercy to be found from him who is God and not man, that he should suffer his covenant made with their fathers in the least point to faile, if they will duly seek it and lay hold on it, in Christ of∣fered to as many as shall believe and hearken

to his call: by which benefit he will oblige them to himself more than he did their fathers by his redeeming them out of Egypt, and give them uew occasion to be perpetually mindfull of him, and constantly to adhere to him, and depend on him.

By the exposition of this verse are we to be guided and directed in the exposition of the next, such connexion is there between them, and dependance of one on the other, that ac∣cording to the different explications of this, that also, that it may be applied to them, is diversly rendred and interpreted.

v. 10. I have also spoken by the prophets &c.

There are in this verse three verbs, the first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dibbarti, rendred, I have spoken; the se∣cond, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hirbeti, I have multiplied; the third, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 adammeh, rendred, used similitudes. The two first are in original of the form of the preterperfect tense, and so rendred by ours, as we see. The third 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 adammeh, of the future tense, and so would properly signi∣fy I will use similitudes, not, I have used, yet by ours rendred as in the preter tense, used, i. e. did use, or have used: and if they be so taken, and the preceding words being taken, as we think them by ours to be taken, for a promise of good to them, they would, I sup∣pose, joyned to what God before declares of himself, that he was their God from the land of Egypt, be a farther declaration of such means whereby he had shewed himself all along so to be, viz. in that he had instructed them by all means which for that end might be used, con∣cerning his will, how they ought to seek him, and how to behave themselves, that they might retain his favour, and obtain his blessing, and thereby evidently shewed that he desired and meant still to do them good, so that they had no reason to forsake him, and fly to, and depend on other things, but wait only on him: or else an assurance will it be that he would make good to them that promise which he made, as that which he had before in sundry ways by his Prophets made known to be his purpose.

But b others who so take these former words, viz. for a promise of future good by calling them in Christ, think a plainer mean∣ing made by rendring the verbs all in the fu∣ture tense, I will speak to them by prophets, I will multiply visions, and I will use similitudes, viz. use sundry ways and divers manners of teach∣ing, whereby they may be taught what they ought to know concerning him: so that this may follow on the preceding as a farther de∣claration of what benefits they shall enjoy in his Church under Christ, such as are also pro∣phecied of as priviledges of that time, Joel 2.28, 29.

If with others, who take the former words as a threatning of evil, the foregoing words be rendred as in the days of Moed, and that be understood of that time wherein the Israelites dwelt in tents in the wilderness, and so that which is said shall now again be done, to, or by, these, likened to what was then done to, or by, their forefathers, the verbs being all taken in the preter tense, as by c some, as we have seen, they are taken, they will shew the great∣ness of their wickedness and their folly, in that they did what they then did, and made it necessary that God should use this method which he threa••ens to do towards them, not unawares, and because they knew not better, but through meer obstinacy and pertinacy; God having used all possible means to in∣struct them by his Prophets to know better, and earnestly called on them to do better, but they refused to give ear and receive ad∣monitions. But Abarbinel, rendring those words, at the days of moed, i. e. at the time by me appointed, and then rendring the two first verbs (as we have likewise observed) in the preter tense, I have spoken, I have multiplied, &c. and the third in the future, I will use, or propose similitudes, makes out the meaning, that if they should ask when he would make them so to dwell, it should be at the time by him determined, and that he had already declared and given warning of that time by some of his Prophets before Hosea, and would yet far∣ther give notice of it by others of them to come after, that so none could be igno∣rant of it, nor pretend to be surprised una∣wares, and that if they had had any certain notice of it, they would by their repentance and coming in to God have prevented it. To the same purpose doth Arias Montanus also explain it, who saith that God saith that he thus had declared, and would declare what concerned that time by his Prophets, ut quam testatissima omnibus res esset, nec ad casum, neque ad fortunam referri à quoquam posset, that the matter might be most evident to all, and could not by any be attributed to chance or for∣tune.

d Those who render the former verse with an interrogation, do so render this also, and put these verbs in the same mood and tense that they did them there, and should I speak any more by prophets to them? should I yet multiply visions? and use similitudes by the hand of the mi∣nistry of my prophets? and so do they set forth the desperateness of their condition, as past hopes of recovery, when God seeing it in vain to work upon them by any ways of perswa∣sion, will no longer use any such kinder means as words, visions, and similitudes and figures, but speak to them per res ipsas quas sentient,

by the things themselvos which they should feel ana suffer.

According to e those who look upon the former words as a declaration of what great good things God had done all along, and still did for them, these also (the verbs being all rendred in the preterperfect tense) will be a farther declaration of his great goodness to them, in that he had never ceased to call upon them, and in sundry ways to instruct them by his Prophets, that so they might not through ignorance err; which makes manifest that they did out of meer wilfulness forsake him and his ways, and so wilfully pull on themselves such evils as they shall suffer: and so according to Calvin's way are they an am∣plification or aggravation of the sins of that people, in that they could not in excuse of them pretend error or ignorance, having been not only by the Law, but by the Prophets continually admonished to do otherwise, and could not without contempt of the Prophets, and God's message by them, have done as they did. They are hereby left f without all excuse, God having used all ways to make them know and do better. Cyril looks on it as a reproof of them for seeking to Idols and their false prophets to know what con∣cerned them, whereas they had God's pro∣phets to instruct and inform them of what it concerned them to know.

According to Jerom's way of taking the former words as a conditional promise of doing good to them if they would do as he required of them, these would be as a reason why they should not think strange either of the promise or the condition, viz. because it was that of which he had all along, and that in divers ways, given them notice by the Prophets, viz. that he was desirous that they should be converted and live; and for that end used all along those means by the ministry of the Prophets which he mentions.

So are these words by Expositors, according as they understand the foregoing verse, diffe∣rently rendred, applied, and referred, by some to what was past, by others to what was to come. The expressions that we have in them, though tending to one end, are dif∣ferent, shewing, according to some, in what divers ways at sundry times he spake in time past unto the fathers by the Prophets, (to use the Apostles words Heb. 1.1.) according to others, such as he would use likewise under Christ, to whose time S. Peter notes them to be referred, and accordingly in them to have been fulfilled that prophecy Joel 2.28. wherein are expressed likewise sundry ways by which God would reveal his truth and will to men, for instructing and bringing them in to his obe∣dience.

As for the terms by which those ways which God said he had used, as some, or would use, as others, are here expressed; they are first, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vedibbarti al hannebiim, they are by ours rendred, I have also spoken by the prophets, well, I think, ac∣cording to the meaning, although Drusius seems to taxe Tremellius for so rendring it, per prophetas, by the prophets; because he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 al will scarce be found in that signifi∣cation of per, by. Himself renders, loquar ad prophetas, I will speak to the prophets, as the LXX also do, and notes that it may be rendred, cum prophetis, with the prophets, as the Chaldee renders it, and so also the Sy∣riack. The Vulgar Latin, super (as that par∣ticle usually signifies) prophetas, which the Doway literally englisheth, I have spoken upon the prophets, which rendring to g some seems here very proper, as denoting that the words which the Prophets spake were not of them∣selves, but came upon them, or to them, from above from God. Which being not so clear an expression, h some that follow the Vulgar, ob∣serve by, super, upon, to be meant, ad, to. i Others, cum, with, as Kimch•••• also notes it here to signify. The MS. Arab. renders as ours and others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by. But that ex∣ception of Drusi••s I look on but as a nicety, for besides that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in other cases will be found to k signify, per, by, all these will be coinci∣dent, and give but the same meaning, to express by what means God communicates his will to men, by his inspired instruments the Prophets, into whose mouths he put his words which they should declare; which the Apostle Heb. 1.1. calls his speaking by the prophets; and S. Peter expresseth by saying that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost 2 Pet. 1.21. The Spirit of God was in and upon them, he put his words into their mouths, directed and moved them to speak it to whom he would; so that speaking to, or speaking with the prophets, was to that end, that they might speak to others, and accord∣ingly they spake. To say he spake to the pro∣phets, supposeth and comprehends all these as concurring in that act which he here mentions.

Abarbinel taking it to sound that he spake 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the prophets, notes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and this in a dream, viz. that it imports his revealing his word to them in dreams, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dibbur, speaking, being in this kind, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 appropriated to dreams, ac∣cording to what is said Num. 12.6. If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make my self known unto him in a vision, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

bachalom adabber lo, I will speak unto him in a dream. The same is likewise by others noted. So Drusius, per somnium scilicet, to wit by a dream, and that usually by night. And Rivet likewise takes it after him. But here is nothing to limit the word only to dreams in the night, but that it may com∣prehend any way by which God is any where in Scripture said to have spoken to the Pro∣phets, amongst which may be reckoned also what in the next place he here specifies, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chazon, vision; for so it is said Psalm 89.19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 then thou spakest to thy holy one in vision.

He, saith he, multiplied visions; this we may understand by what is said Heb. 1.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and so Zanchi saith to be understood by multiplied visions, such as were diverse, & numero & specie, several for num∣ber and kind, many and different, l condupli∣cavi visiones, I redoubled visions, sent m visions after visions, n so continuing in that kind to instruct them, both by the several Prophets, and by the same at several times. Vision seems to be somtime taken in as large a sense as pro∣phecy in general, as where it is said Prov. 29.18. where there is no vision, the people pe∣rish. Of old a Seer and a Prophet were sy∣nonymous. But here it is put as a particular kind of it different from that before called speaking, which taught, o apertis ac dilucidis verbis, with open and perspicuous words, and from that which follows also, which taught by using similitudes. Vision therefore in that notion of the word in which it is here used, was a way whereby God did make known to his prophets and instruments such things as he would have them declare concerning things to come, or any part of his will, by repre∣senting them to them as plainly as if they saw them with their eyes and bodily senses, in such resemblances which did make them known to them, that they might discover them to those whom he would have to know them: whether that vision were p corporalis, imaginaria, or intellectualis, as they distin∣guish them; corporal, when some appearance was represented to their bodily eyes; or ima∣ginary, when such forms were deeply im∣pressed on their imagination; or intellectual, by some intelligible image of the thing repre∣senting clearly to the understanding that which was to be revealed; and whether any such images q were, in somnio, in dreams or trances, or, extra somnium, without dreams.

A third way of Gods revealing things, and instructing men by the Prophets is added, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ubeyad hannebsim adammch, and uses similitudes by the ministery of the prophets. For what ours render in the text, by the ministery, is put in ••he margin, by the hand, noting that in the Hebrew it is so. So doth indeed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beyad literally sound, in the hand, or by the hand of the prophets. So the Vulgar and r others render in manu, others per manum. But what else are these but to say that he did it s opera & ministerio pro∣phetarum, by the work, or means, and ministery of the prophets. Ribera saith he would rather understand it, per locutionem & verba pro∣phetarum, by the speaking and words of the pro∣phets, than, per ministerium, by the ministery. But this distinction, I think, is but nice, and the word mi••istery includes what he would have, viz. the speech and words together with the gestures and actions of the Prophets, all ways, all that they did or said for making God's will known. Others think it sufficient to express it by, per, by, alone without men∣tioning distinctly any thing that may answer to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yad, hand, as if that with the prefixe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be, made up but one particle so sounding, viz. per, by. And that also may sufficiently comprehend all that the Prophets did or said, as moved and directed by God. And that here spoken of, God saith he himself did or would do, making use of them as his instruments, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 adammeh, I used, (as ours and others in the preter tense) or will use (as the verb is indeed in the Hebrew in form future, and as we have said is by others rendred) similitudes.

But besides that difference betwixt Inter∣preters concerning the rendring this verb as to the time or tense, there is farther difference, as either it is rendred as a verb active, or a passive. The LXX and Vulgar Latin seem to have taken it as of a passive signification, the Greek rendring it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the printed Arab. following it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tashabbahto, and the Syriack also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ethdamit, all which are expressed by that of the Latin assi∣milatus sum, which those of Doway English, in the hand of the prophets I have been resembled; which makes t Cappellus positively say of the LXX, legerunt, they did read otherwise than is now readd, viz. not adammeh, which is active, but eameh, or eddameh, which forms have the passive signification. But I look upon it only as a conjecture of his, which it is not necessary to assent to, there being an easier way of reconciling their translation here with the ordinary Hebrew reading, given by u such

as follow the Vulgar Latin, and expound ac∣cording to that, viz. that the Author thereof (and so we may think of the rest) thought adammch, being of the active voice, and signi∣fying assimilabo, I will liken, or as put for the preter tense, assimilavi, I have likened, to require to be understood after it, me, my self, which will then be all one with I will be, or I was likened, or was represented, and chose therefore so to render it passively, denoting that he was represented, i. e. did represent himself by the Prophets, speaking and doing what they spake or did as in his person and so likewise in their expositions of the expression they fall in with those who should render it actively. So Petrus à Figueiro, Assimilatus sum, hoc est, per Prophetas proposui similitudines, exempla, & parabolas &c. I was likened, saith he, that is, by the Prophets I propounded, or set before you similitudes, examples and pa∣rables, accommodated for your instruction, and suitable to your capacity and understanding who do more easily perceive and understand spiritual and hidden things under the representation of bo∣dily things. The Hebrews, saith he read it actively 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 adammeh. i. e. assimilav••, I have likened, subaudi me & Ecclesiam meam, understand my self and my Church, that is, I have set forth spiritual things under similitudes and parables, from things obvious to the sense; as when ••srael is compared to a vine, and the Lord to a vine ••resser, Is. 5. and as Jonahs being three da••s and rights in the depth of the sea and then cast up did prefigure the death and resurre∣ction of Christ. Which Jerom also instanceth in as an example of what, according to the Vulgar, God saith, assimilatus sum, I have been resembled; All the Prophets, saith he, made up allmost all their prophecies of figures and si∣militudes; which manner our Lord also observed in teaching the people, fullfilling what was said, I will open my mouth in parables, Psalm 77.2. Much to the same purpose Christophor••s à Castro; God, saith he, shews himself to have used all diligence, that he might reduce Israel to himself by his Prophets: by words hortatory, minatory, (or threatnings,) and promissory, by appearances and visions, Gods manner of dealing with the people, and the peoples with him was set forth; and also by similitudes and parables, in that the Prophets did liken God to many things, one while to a father, another to a friend, ano∣ther to a shepheard, to a judge, a lamb, a lion, and the like, that they might shew how he was affected to the people. By divers figures also did they foretell the acts of Christ, and promise the many good things by him to be brought to them, that so by them set as present before them, they might be the more moved to serve God. A simi∣litude, saith he, is, cum certis proverbiis, aeni∣gamtibus, aut ostentis res futura praefigura∣tur, when by certain proverbs, (or parables,) riddles, (or dark sayings,) or strange sights, (or apparitions,) somthing that is to come is fore∣shewed. What else, but things to this pur∣pose can be said for expounding the word taken actively, than these say for explaining it as by the Vulgar Latin taken passively? so that according to them, assimilatus sum, I have been resembled, is all one with, assimi∣lavi me, I have represented my self, or caused my self to be resembled and likened, by the sayings and actions of the Prophets; and if the meaning of both rendrings be one and the same, what reason is there to disturb the pre∣sent reading of the text, and to say that those ancient Translators did read otherwise than we now do?

Taking it therefore so to have been readd from the beginning as it now is, and to be a verb active, signifying, I likened, or I used, or w set before them similitudes, there is not need to say more than hath been said of it as rendred passively: his using similitudes being by those who render it actively, expounded of his setting before them the lively draughts of things, concerning himself and them, which he would have them to know, x propositis ima∣ginibus & picturis, as it were, by images and pictures set before them, in quibus doctrinam ad vivum depictam oculis suis intueri possent, in which they might behold with their eyes that which he taught, drawn to the life, that so there might be nothing that they could pretend for excuse of themselves, nothing that they could accuse of defect in him which might keep them from being convinced by all, and by their own consciences, of affected ignorance and willfull contempt, if they did not take notice thereof. And therefore doth the learned Mr. Lively not ill explain it by, diserte, fa∣miliariter, & perspicue docebo, I will teach them expresly, familiarly, and perspicuously; so, ut quod per praeceptum teneri non potest, per similitudinem teneatur, as that that which would not upon bare precept be taken notice of, may be retained by the intervening of a similitude, according to those words by y some cited from S. ••erom, who observes that to have been a way of teaching familiar to those of Syria and Pa∣lestine, viz. to teach for that end by parables and similitudes. To omit many other in∣stances of similitudes in that nature, z we have one at the beginning of this prophecy, where∣in Israel is compared to an harlot c. 1.

These three ways of teaching here by God mentioned, do comprehend all possible or pro∣bable ways which could be used to make known to men things which God would have them to know concerning him, and concerning

themselves, a quis, quantus, qualis, who, how great, what a one, or of what nature he him∣self is, what he would have or required from them, and what is due to him. So frequent, and multiplied, are all these ways both in the old and new Testament, that none under either dispensation could, or may be, except willfully, ignorant of those things which they ought to know concerning God, his will and purpose, and their own duty. If the words be taken in the preterperfect tense, as of what was past, they will then more particularly concern the Israelites to whom the Prophet then spake, and by declaring what means God had used for their instruction leave them without excuse; yea argue and aggravate their great wickedness, b notwithstanding their justifying themselves, that in all their labours none should find any iniquity, in that they did things contrary to what he had by several means accommodated to their capacities, di∣rected them to, and made known to them by his Prophets.

Those means, saith R. Salomo, he used for reproving them, and reducing them to good. R. Ab. Ezra, that they should warn them to to leave 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lying words, Kimchi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to put you in remembrance, or ad∣monish you. To say with Abarbinel that he used, and would continue to use those means only to make known to them those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yeme moed, days of moed, or the appointed time, in the preceding verse mentioned or threatned according to his exposition of those words, which we have seen, I think is too much a re∣straining of the words, which seem rather to extend to all things that God saw fit by the Prophets to make known to them for their good, which he did by so many ways make plain to them, that by being neglectfull of them, they c did shew themselves worthy of severe punishments: no ignorance could ex∣cuse them. For there was nothing that could befall them by which, except they willfully shut their eyes and ears, they could be sur∣prised, God doing nothing but he revealed his se∣crets to his servants the Prophets, and by his Prophets to them in some of those ways, Amos 3.8. so that they had warning of it, and time for repentance. If they be taken in the future tense, then will they refer to the times of the Gospel, as a promise of such plain and plentifull revelations which God would then give of himself and his will, which ac∣cordingly have been so given, as to leave without excuse those who neglect so great sal∣vation, by continuing ignorant of, or disobe∣dient to, him and his will set so evidently be∣fore their eyes.

The Chaldee rendreth the last word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 adammeh, by a more general term, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I have sent; but his meaning we may under∣stand by Kimchies exposition of the words, having, I suppose, an eye to him, because by their hand he sent to them similitudes and parables.

d A later learned man renders the first words, I spake, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 al hannobiim, far differently from any of those whom we have mentioned, viz. loquar contra Prophetas, I will speak against the Prophets, as if he meant false Prophets. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 al, doth somtimes signify against, as well as, upon, to, with, or by, there is no doubt, but why it should be here so rendred, I see no reason. It may per∣haps so rendred fit better with that mystical way of exposition which he gives us, wherein we cannot see it convenient to follow him: but certainly any other of the significations as proper to it as that, and as frequent, will better agree with the plain literal meaning which we take, and with the scope and cohe∣rence of the words according to that, and therefore we have no reason, forsaking all others, to follow him alone.

V. 11. Is there iniquity in Gilead? surely they are vanity, they sacrifice bullocks in Gilgal; yea, their altars are as heaps in the furrows of the fields.

Is there iniquity in Gilead? surely they are vanity, they sacrifice bullocks in Gilgal &c. This verse hath by e several Expositors a re∣mark of difficulty set on it, by reason of the conciseness of the language of it. It contains manifeslly an exprobration to Israel of gross Idolatry, and withall according to some, of the mischievous consequents thereof: by in∣stancing in two places amongst them, viz. Gi∣lead and Gilgal, which were then in that kind very infamous, as appears by what is before in this prophecy said of them, as of Gilead c. 6.8. Gilead is a city of them that work ini∣quity &c. which the Vulgar renders (as we there said) operantium Idolum, which works Idol, as the Doway literally English it, taking there, as here also, avon for an Idol, which ours and others in both places take for iniquity: and of Gilgal c. 4.15. Though thou Israel play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend, and come not ye to Gilgal, and c. 9.15. all their wickedness is in Gilgal. I shall not here repeat what was on those places said of them and their situation, only as to the present purpose take notice, that it thence and here appears that they were places in which Israel did

much exercise Idolatry, which is the thing here urged against them, as so evident that it cannot be without great impudence denied. In that all agree, though in applying the words to that purpose, and giving the mean∣ing of them, they much differ.

A great occasion of the difference between them is their different acception of that small word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 im, in the beginning of the verse, by ours and others made a f note of interro∣gation, is there? as also in their acception of the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ac, by ours and others rendred surely, by others otherwise; and then from their different distinction of the words, some joyning those words, they are vanity, to the preceding words, some to the following; and the different significations given to some of the words, and the different supplies made. By these means is there variety of rendrings, and more of expositions, for discerning between which it will be convenient to set down di∣stinctly some of them. The Vulgar Latin taking the first particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 im, in its most usual signification of if, and then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aven, by ours rendred iniquity, for Idolum, an Idol, (as it doth likewise c. 6.) and severing the next following words from them, reads, si Ga∣laad Idolum, erga frustra er ant in Galgal bobus immolantes, which the Doway englisheth, if an Id••l in Galaad, then in vain were they in Gal∣gal immolating with oxen. In which rendring they seem to follow such ^g copies as readd, si in Gilead, whereas others have not, in, or else they supply it as necessarily understood. In∣stead of ergo, also which they render then, some copies have tamen, yet, and whereas they render, bobus, with oxen, (which will best agree with those that understand it of their sacrificing oxen,) according to h Jerom himself and others it would be meant, to oxen. Jerom also notes, that at that time when these words were spoken, Gilead in regno de∣cem tribuum erat, & Galgal sub imperio dua∣rum tribuum quae appellabantur Juda, Gilead was in the kingdom of the ten tribes, and Gil∣gal under the two which were called Judah; and therefore saith, both the two and ten tribes were equally guilty of Idolatry, and both their altars as heapes of stones, or sand, and this makes i others following him to think, the latter words spoken of Gilgal to concern Ju∣dah, as taxing them also of Idolatry. But what is here said may seem rather to be spoken of Ephraim or the ten tribes, and as we above on c. 4.15. saw, some affirm Gil∣gal to have been belonging to the children of Joseph, others that it was on the con∣fines of the ten tribes; and here ••anchi after Calvin saith, Gilgal de qua habet Pr••pheta, in regno fuit decem tribuum, ubi & tem∣plum erat & altare celeberrimum, Gugal of which the Prophet speaks, was in the kingdom of the ten tribes, where was likewise a temple and famous altar. k Lyra seems to take it as if though they had Idols in Gilead, yet they passed over Jordan to Gilgal, there also to sacrifice.

These things being by the way observed, as to the meaning of this rendring, they who follow it, do scarce well agree in ex∣pressing what they would have it to be. To this purpose l some make it with supplying what they think to be understood, If Gilead worship an Idol, (or if in Gilead be an Idol) and yet could not be preserved by its Idols, but was before other places destroyed by the Assyrians, therefore are they in vain, or do they loose their labour, which in Gilgal sacri∣fice to oxen; for neither shall they, whereas Gilgal lies obvious at hand to the Assyrians passing only over Jordan, be preserved, nor it be more defended by its oxen and Idols then Gilead was; for their altars also shall be as heaps on the furrows of the field, viz. be over∣thrown and ruined, as those of the Gileadites were. This way go several of them. It is by m others observed that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aven, which he (i.e. the Author of the Vulgar Latin) reads Ido∣lum, is taken also for, nihil & vanitas, no∣thing and vanity; nor do they more in this name agree, than they do in the nature of the thing it self: an Idol being nothing in the world, (1 Cor. 8.4.) and therefore do n some here take Idolum, Idol, in that sense as signi∣fying as much as nihil, nothing, by what he renders si Galaad Idolum, understand, if Gi∣lead be become as vain a thing as an Idol, i. e. mere nothing, if it be in nihilum redacta, brought to nought, then were they in vain who sacrifice to oxen in Gilgal, i. e. in vain went they to Gilgal to worship the calves, not con∣tent to worship those Idols in their own city, but that they would worship them also in Gilgal a city of Judah, o wherein their priests set up calves like those in Dan and Bethel. If it should be taken in this sense, p it might agree as to those words, with the ordinary reading and understanding of the LXX, which is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 q 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 r 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin i

Translator renders, si non est Galaad, ergo falsi erant in Galaad principes immolantes, if Galaad be not, i. e. be clean brought to nought &c. which rendring of theirs makes some to con∣jecture that instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aven, they read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ein, which signifies non, not. But if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aven also signify nothing, what need of that conje∣cture, or any alteration in the reading? But besides, others make void that conjecture by another understanding of those words in the Greek, wherein 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be only the note of an interrogation, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not signify, if it be not, or, nothing, but, is not? So we have rea∣son to conjecture that it was by divers un∣derstood, and that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in it did not answer to aven in the Hebrew, but there was some other word in that translation, which if it was not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is now left out in the ordinary copies, by what we read in the printed Arab. which in these books is manifestly done out of the Greek, (or perhaps some Syriack that was done out of them,) in which we find the words rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Latin Translator renders, verum Galaad est maledictio, mendaces erant in Aad principes sacrificantes, but Gilead is a curse, the princes sacrificing, or which sacrificed, were liars in Aad. He reads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ella, and renders it, ve∣rum, but; but I think it s plain that he should have read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ala, and rendred it annon, is not Gilead a curse? that so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek may be an interrogation also; and then he taketh the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the signification of a curse, which in the language it hath, with only some difference of accent, that so it may answer to the Hebrew aven, and not to be a particle signifying therefore, as others ordina∣rily take it. By 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mendaces, liars, or false, in the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I suppose he means such as were vain, or no better than a lie, mere vanity or nothing. Whereas he saith in Aad, instead of in Gilgal, may argue that the copies from of old were here confused in the setting down of this name, some of the Greek having here instead of Gilgal, Gi∣lead, also as in the beginning of the verse, which is taken notice of as an error of the scribe, as t also that in some copies on the contrary Gilgal is put in the beginning in∣stead of Gilead.

Whereas what the Vulgar renders, bobus immolantes, sacrificing to oxen, (or u with oxen, so that it may be the same as if he said, boves, oxen) the Greek and Arab. render, princes that sacrifice, ^w some conjecture that instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shevarim, which signifies oxen, they did read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sarim, which signifies princes: but perhaps there is no need to say that: as Israel is compared above to an heifer, so perhaps they might take the chief and greatest among them to be called bulls or oxen. But I more wonder why they took it for the nominative case, whereas it more plainly seems to be the accu∣sative.

The Vulgar takes it according to most as the dative, to oxen, which makes Cappellus to say that the Author thereof did read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 leshurim, with the addition of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 le, a sign of the dative case, which now is not found in the Hebrew copies. Buxtorf an∣swers that there is no necessity to say they did read so, but that they looked on it as understood: but if we should take it as we have seen those of Doway do, rather in the ablative case, and render it, with oxen, and as others, bobus mactatis, there would be no place for such conjecture, and it would be equivalent to boves.

The LXX and Vulgar both rendring what is in the Hebrew the preterperfect tense 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 zibbechu, they have sacrificed, by the participle, the one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the other im∣molantes, sacrificing, Cappellus again saith that they did read in the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 zo∣beche, in the participle likewise. For this Buxtorf again answers him, that they so rendred, not because they did read otherwise in their copies than is usually readd, but that they thought it so to be well expressed, and that they did it because they joined those two verbs fuerunt, immolarunt, they were, they sacrificed, in one clause, which in their lan∣guages would have been harsh, and therefore changed one into a participle. And Ribera in∣sists on it, and brings examples to prove that the preterperfect tense is elsewhere used for, and to be rendred by the participle.

The following words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gam mizbechotham cegallim al tal∣me sadai, which the Vulgar renders, nam & al∣taria corum quasi acervi super sulcos agri, (ad∣ding, nam, above what is in the Hebrew) which the Doway Englisheth, for their altars also as heaps upon the furrows of the field. The LXX read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin renders, & alta∣ria corum quasi testudines super desertum agri, as the printed Arabick also following him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and their altars are as tortoises on the ground of an untilled field. There seems to be a dif∣ference between them in rendring the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gallim, one rendring it heaps, the other tortoises, a known living creature which te∣studines

properly signifies, and which Jerom thinks them to have here meant, and so Theo∣doret also; but that difference Cyril takes away, by saying 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he calls them chelonai, but not the living creatures so called, do not so think, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. but hillocks raised up for the conveiance of water to higher places, such as are made any where by the diligence of husbandmen, so that according to him they also took it for heaps, or hillocks.

There being no verb here expressed nei∣ther in the Hebrew, nor either of these trans∣lations, but left to be understood, leaves it ambiguous whether there shall be supplied a verb of the present or preter tense, to note that they were so, or else of the future, to note that they should be so. According to the first way it will import, the mu••titude of them every where erected; according to the second, it will be a prediction that they should be thrown down, and made as rude heaps of of stones, which husbandmen gathering out of their way, that they may not hinder their plowing throw up together.

Thus have we at large examined these two ancient translations, the Vulgar and LXX, and compared them one with another, and both with the Hebrew; if we look to others, we shall find them generally to differ from them, whether of such Christians who had the sight and use of them, but seem not satis∣fied with them, or others; and the Jews who perhaps did not look on them, in giving an account of which I shall use no other method ordistinction, than the putting them together, or severing them as they agree or differ as to their understanding of the first particle in the words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 im.

And in the first place before we shew how others vary in the acception of it, we may ob∣serve that the ancient Syriac altogether omits it, rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In Gileade do∣lores & in Galgala vanitati sacrificastis boves, i. e. in Gilead sorrows, and in Galgala you have sacrificed oxen to vanity: in which rendring we see not only that particle omitted, he thinking it perhaps only a note of affirma∣tion, which might without expressing it be well enough understood, but other differences also, as in the rendring the other particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ac, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 u, and, and in the change of the per∣son in the verb, for which neither from the Hebrew, nor any other translation can we easily find any ground, nor shall therefore in∣sist on it; as neither on the Chaldee, who re∣tain the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 im, which may in that language be as ambiguous as in the Hebrew, though usually it be rendred, si, if, but pass on to others, and among them, first to those who render the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 im, by si, if, as the Vulgar Latin, though in other things dif∣fering, we saw, doth. So the Interlineary, as by Ar. Montanus ordered, si Gilead iniqui∣tas, veruntamen mendacium fuerunt, in Gilgal boves immolaverunt, i. e. if Gilead were iniquity, nevertheless they were a lie, in Gilgal they have sacrificed oxen. This differs, we see, from the Vulgar, in that it renders that by iniquity, which that renders Idol. Again in rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ac, which that renders ergo, by, veruntamen, nevertheless, though that also in some copies have, tamen, yet, notwithstanding; but most, in distinguishing the words or clauses, in that this seems to refer the words, nevertheless they were a lie, or in vain, to Gilead, but that refers them to those of Gilgal after men∣tioned. Yet seem these easily reconcileable; for, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aven, which is usually taken to signify trouble, iniquity, vanity, and the like, its no wonder that the Vulgar here, as x else where, renders, Idolum, an Idol, as the chief of iniquities, so by iniquity, may well in this other translation be meant an Idol, or Idolatry. It necessarily appears so to be by his rendring the next particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ac, by ve∣runtamen, notwithstanding, that it may sound, if in Gilead were iniquity, (i. e. Idolatry, or they had an Idol which they worshipped) yet (for all this) they were a lie (or came to nothing.) For if it be not so taken, it will be no good meaning to say, if Gilead were iniquity, or guilty of iniquity, notwithstanding they were a lie; as if they should have hoped that their being so should have saved them from being found a lie, or coming to nothing: but their having an Idol they might think should save them, though, as it is here declared, in vain. And so these words do well make one clause, whereas otherwise that particle must be the beginning of another, and not be referred to those of Gilead, but to those of Gilgal, as ordinarily according to the usual distinction of points in the copies of the Vulgar, it is looked on to do, and the putting the other verb in the participle seems to require. If it were not so, but ergo frustra erant, in that made one clause with the former, this rendring would be all one in meaning with what that hath, and so by Grotius seems it to be made, viz. one clause. His exposition of the words, si in Gilead Idolum, ergo frustra erant, being, if in Gilead there were an Idol, veruntamen frustra erant, they notwithstanding were in vain whoever worshipped that Idol, because they could not by their Idol be preserved from the hand of Tiglath Pilesar, 2 Kings 15.18. Then the other

words making a distinct clause, he thinks for the making up the sense of them, to be understood y cur, why, that it may be under∣stood thus, cur ergo adhuc duae tribus? why do the two tribes (or those whoever they be that are spoken of) yet imitate that worship of calves in Gilgal? By this it appears to be his opinion, that these words, they were vain, are to be referred in the Latin translation to those who worshipped an Idol in Gilead, which others refer to those who sacrificed oxen in Gilgal; so that the distinction of the words (though either way will be to the same scope, for accusing the Israelites of Idolatry) seems very ambiguous, and this ambiguity is in∣deed from the Hebrew it self, in which the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ac shau haiu, surely they are vanity, are so placed, as that it may be doubted to which they are referred, whether to those that precede, or those that follow. So it appears in the opinion of the learned Grammarian R. D. Kimchi, who also is among them that render the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 im, by if. He explaining the first words by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 if Gilead began to commit iniquity, (for, saith he, they first began to do evil, and they were first carried captive) then coming to the next 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 surely they were vanity, he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we may join it with what goes before, so as that it may be meant of Gilead, so as it may be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the same thing repeated in divers words: or else, saith he, it may be referred and joined to Gilgal, although the accent in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 haiu, erant, might seem to direct otherwise; for the accents (or pauses) in interpreting, do not always follow the accents in pointing, as z one renders his words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by Mercer rendred, non omnes sensus expositionum sequuntur sensus punctationis, the sense of the expositions doth not always follow the sense of the pointing, or the accenting.

And having made mention of Mercers name, it may not in the next place be amiss to take notice of his exposition, which is, si Gilead est vanitas, if Gilead be vanity, sane in∣anitas fuerunt in Gilgal, cum iisdem studiis & Idolorum cultui utrique addicti sunt, ubi scil. boves plurimos Idolis mactant &c. surely they were emptiness, or vanity, in Gilgal, they being both addicted to the same courses and worship of Idols, to wit, where they sacrificed very many oxen, and set up altars every where conspicuous like heaps of stones. He adds that others do join Gilgal with the following words to this sense, if Gilead be become vanity, i. e. brought to no∣thing, being quite destroyed, what wonder is it? siquidem, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for they were vanity, re∣bus vanis operam dederunt, they gave them∣selves to vain things, and therefore, vanitas in vanitatem rediit, vanity returned to vanity: in Gilgal also they sacrificed oxen &c. I, saith he, would join Gilgal both with the preceding and following words, as it is oft in Hebrew done, viz. they were vain in Gilgal, and in Gil∣gal they sacrificed &c. where we see he dif∣ferently distinguisheth the words from what others do.

R. Sal. also is among these that render if, and makes this sense, if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a breaking and violence be come on Gilead, they themselves were the cause of it, because they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ac shau, only vanity, and sacrificed to Idols oxen in Gilgal. According to him all that is spoken is referred to those of Gilead, as done by them in their own place, and in Gilgal also.

With these we may reckon also the MS. Arabick, but the supplies which he brings for the making out the meaning of the other words are different, his words being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 b if the people of Gilead have wrought c deceit, (or wickedness,) particularly (or only) that which is absurd (or vain) are they become, and wor∣shipped in Gilgal they have sacrificed bulls, or oxen; there being no verb in the Hebrew be∣twixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gilead and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aven, he supplies it from c. 6. v. 8. where it is said that Gilead is a city 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 poale aven, of them that work iniquity, which he there renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so he here by in Gilead iniquity, takes to be understood between them have wrought; he adds also above what is in the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 veabadu, and have served, or worshipped. And he adds a note that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which by ours is rendred vanity, which he renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which ordinarily signifies that which is impossible, vain, or absurd, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is that which is worshipped, or the Idol it self. So that his meaning appears to be that, besides what they in Gilead did, they were wholly given up to Idolatry in Gilgal, where they sacrificed oxen &c.

Abarbinel likewise in the notion of the particle agreeing with them, yet as to the other words goes a different way.

He thinks the words to be an answer to what above they said, that none should find iniquity in them, proving the contrary by saying, if Gilead ini∣quities, surely they are vanity, as it was above said, Gilead is a city of them that work iniquity, therefore they in truth became vanity, in that the enemies came and carried Gilead captive, when the Reubenites & the Gadites were removed to the land of e Gilead, Jor∣dan being between them, & they made altars to Idols, and offered sacrifices. His punish∣ment argues his deeds, for so also was Gil∣gal destroyed with those cities which were on the other side of ••••••dan, because it was nigh unto them; or else in the second captivity, when he lightly afflicted the land of Zabu∣lon and the land of Napthali, and if so these altars were de••••oyed with all the land, which is that which he saith, also their altars are as heaps on the furrows of the field. If then things were so, the punishment of these which we have seen with our eyes, doth shew and prove that there were many iniquities among you, and how do you say they shall not find iniquity?

This is a verbal translation of his words, which seem somthing harsh, if there be not some mistake of the printer in them: but the scope of them is apparent, which Arias Montanus, taking the same way, gives more perspicuously, viz. that in these words,

Ephraim who justified themselves, are by the example of these two places convinced. The Inhabitants of Gilead, who were of the stock and family of Israel; that these were guilty of iniquity is made manifest by God's decla∣ration, who saith of them, that they were a city of them that work iniquity, and by the event or punishment that seized on them. They were carried captives with those tribes which were on the other side of Jordan, Reuben, Gad and half Manasse; but not they alone were hurt by superstition or Ido∣latry, but their neighbours of Gilgal, being guilty of the like fault, were seized on by like punishment, as their overturned and ruined altars wi••nessed; whence follows, that Ephraim, who followed the same courses that they did, were guilty of the same fault, and should undergo the same punishment. The Gilgalites were separated from the Gi∣leadites by the river Jordan only running be∣tween them, they might easily receive the infection of superstition from them, and for that cause was certain and continued ruin to them both; for they were both carried cap∣tive together, and if any remained, yet they were utterly carried away out of their place with Zabulon and Napthali which were next unto them.

Thus he, and more to the same purpose, giving at last as a proper rendring of the words according to the He∣brew, Si Gilgal iniquitas, certe vanae fuerunt, in Gilgal boves immolaverunt, etiam altaria eorum sicut acervi super sulcos, if Gilead ini∣quity, surely they were vain, in Gilgal they have sacrificed oxen, also their altars were as the heaps on the furrows of the field, explaining it,

If then there were iniquity in Gilead, neither there alone, but in Gilgal also was vanity done, whereas oxen were there sacrificed, as the great number of their altars left like a multitude of heaps shew; it follows that Ephraim doth falsly boast of, and defend, their integrity and innocency.

Several others also are there who in the rendring that par∣ticle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 im, do agree with them, though in some other things differing, as from them, so among themselves. The Tigu∣rin version thus hath it, Si in Gilead va∣nitas fuit, utique vani facti sunt, in Gilgal boves sacrificarunt &c. If in Gilead there were vanity, certainly they became vain, in Gilgal they have sacrificed oxen, and their altars are &c. Castalio thus, Si Galadus est nefarius, profe∣cto nequam sunt qui Galgalis boves immolant, quorum etiam tot sunt altaria quasi tomuli su∣per sulcos agri; If Gilead be wicked, certainly those are so who••s ••crifice oxen in Gilgal, whose al∣tars also are as many as the hillocks on the furrows of the field. Capito, S. Gilead molestiam, quando∣quidem frustra fuerunt, in Gilgal boves mactave∣runt, etiam altaria eorum sicut acervi lapidum super sulcos campi; for the rendring which words into English it will be necessary to understand some verb after, si Gilead, if Gilead, which may govern the following word, molestiam, trouble, which if we shall take from his anno∣tations will be, tulerit. suffered, and so his sense will be, if Gilead suffered trouble, for as much as they were in vain, in Gilgal they sa∣crificed oxen, also their altars &c. The mean∣ing according to him, viz. Capito, is, that if Gilead (which he saith was, mons antiqui∣tus sacer, a mountain sacred from of old, for the memory of that mystical league betwixt Jacob and Laban, and God's deliverance of them &c.) suffered such hard things as it did, neither should any priviledge of the holi∣ness of the land wherein the Israelites dwelt, defend them, nor the multitude of their Ido∣latrous sacrifices offered in Gilgal (to which, he saith, the mountain Gilead did pertain) and on those altars without the city, which they built on the bounds and furrows of the fields, so that they every where appeared like heaps of stones, profit any thing, but make them worthy of great punishment.

Oecolampadius gives the first words, as they are in him, si Gilead molestiam, and supplies as he doth, tulit, if Gilead suffered trouble, but then differs, reading the next words, quomo∣do vanum fuerunt, in Gilgal boves immolave∣runt, etiam altaria eorum &c. as they were in vain, in Gilgal they have sacrificed oxen, also their altars are as heaps on the furrows of the field, and of the words so rendred gives this for the meaning, if Gilead suffered trouble, valde vane habuit ipse, he was very vain, that is, nullam utilitatem habuit ab Idolis suis, he had no profit from his Idols; likewise if oxen were slain in Gilgal and no profit arose to them, and their altars were as dispersed heaps of stones, cer∣tainly neither shall your Idolatry profit you: or else he saith that for, molestia, trouble, may be put, iniquity, and then a plainer sense would be, if their iniquity who worshipped Idols in Gilgal was not unpunished, neither shall yours be. Almost to the same purpose doth a later Annotator give the meaning, If Gilead be iniquity, that is, if the iniquity of the Gileadites were found out, i. e. punished (by Tiglath Pileser 2 Kings 15.29.) veruntamen mendacium fuerunt, i. e. certainly they of the two tribes were vain, who have sacrificed oxen in Gilgal.

Tremellius takes here to be a comparison betwixt the two places named, and the like destruction threatned to them, If Gilead be iniquity, as certain it is nothing but vanity, in Gilgal they sacrifice oxen, as if he should say (using substantives for the greater emphasis) all the worship in Gilead is mere iniquity and wickedness before God, although seeming to men never so holy; but what then is to be thought of Gilgal? I grant there is great pomp used, and great, or f costly, sacrifices offered, nevertheless yet are they in the same esteem with God as those of Gilead; both of them being without any com∣mand or promise of God, in which faith and obe∣dience are founded, without which all performances and intentions of men, what ever be pretended for them, are wicked and vain, and in respect of Gods worship execrable sacrifices, by which true religion is overthrown, and Gods name wickedly profaned. Some, faith he, think Gilead to be mentioned, because the citizens thereof with their neighbours were first carried captives, 1 Kings (15.) and that therefore that late example was brought to ascertain the judg∣ment that should come on the rest, and they think that the Prophet spake this not long after the destruction of that city.

We may add to these Cocceius, who ren∣ders the words, si Gilead vanitas est, temeritas extiterunt, Gilgale tauros mactaverunt, etiam al∣taria eerum ut tumuli super sulcos agri, which, I think, according to his meaning is, if Gilead be vanity, they were rashness, (it is, as he explains himself, quia temere fecerunt, because they did rashly,) they killed the bulls in Gilgal, also their altars are as hillocks on the furrows of the field. Besides what we note of his agreeing with all those before in rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 im, by if, we may observe that he differs from them all in rendring of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shau, which they all interpreting either by the notion of a lie, or false or vain thing, or in vain, which are equivalent, he renders by, temeritas, rashness, which though it may be better for that mysti∣cal way of exposition which he takes, inter∣preting all as spoken of our later times, and concerning what was done in these parts of the world about matters of the Roman reli∣gion, looking on Gilead to be Germany, and by the bulls that were killed understanding Huss and Jerom of Prague, yet do the other better agree to t•• plainer literal way which others follow.

All these which we have mentioned, and perhaps many more, agree in the rendring the first particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 im, by if, as a condi∣tional, however in other things they differ, and especially in distinguishing the clauses, by reason of the ambiguous placing of some of the words in the Hebrew, as above we ob∣served and must remember in our view of others also, and there is none of these ren∣drings from which they that follow them, do not make out a probable meaning. Yet others not satisfied with any such meaning as they would make from it so rendred, do rather choose some other way of rendring it, which they find it to admit of, as si also in the Latin will admit of them, and that yet differently. Some render it by, quia, because; so Munster, quia in Gilead conversi sunt ad vanitatem, uti∣que vani facti sunt: in Gilgal boves obtule∣runt, & altaria corum sunt sicut acervi in sul∣cis agrorum, because in Gilead they are turned aside to vanity, surely they are become vain: in Gilgal they have offered oxen, and their altars are as heaps in the furrows of the field. The mean∣ing, he saith, is taken to be, si loci celebri∣tas &c. if the dignity of the place did nothing avail those in Gilead, and Gilgal did worship Idols, but they suffered due punishment, neither shall it avail to dwell in the land of promise, and to provoke God with false worship. By the same doth Flaccius Illyricus expound it, si in Gi∣lead vanitas, i. e. quia in Gilead est Idolatria, utique vani facti sunt. In Gilgal boves obtule∣runt &c. because there is Id••latry in Gilead, surely they are become vain. In Gilgal they have offered oxen &c. The Interlineary Gloss ex∣plains it by, quamvis, although, and then the

other particle, ergo, in the Vulgar, by, tamen, yet, thus, although Gilead worship an Idol, yet the men of the two tribes were vain sacrificing to calves.

Others take it as a note of affirmation, and render it by, but; as g Mercer, sed in Gilead est iniquitas, but in Gilead is iniquity, for they are become vain in Gilgal &c. i. e. notwith∣standing what he had done for them, and his warning them by his Prophets, yet it was thus with them. Others by, certainly, surely, or the like. So Drusius, certe Gilead iniquitas, utique vanitas sunt &c. surely Gilead is iniqui∣ty, (i.e. the Gileadites are workers of ini∣quity) surely they are vanity, in Gilgal they sacrifice oxen &c. saying that he takes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 im to denote here the same that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ve∣re, certe, profecto, truly, certainly, surely, though he saith it may be rendred, si Gilead iniquitas, utique vanitas sunt in Gilgal, if Gilead be iniquity, surely they are vanity in Gil∣gal, as if he had said, they are no better than these, but rather worse; for they do iniquity, but these worship false gods, viz. calves. This way of rendring it by an affirmative is also embraced by others, as by Diodati and the Dutch in their new translation, which from a worthy learned friend I receive thus englished, surely Gilead is iniquity, they are mere vanity, at Gilgal they sacrifice oxen, yea their altars are as stone heaps in the furrows of the fields. But this way is more ancient than so. R. Tanchum gives it, who noting that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 im here is in the significa∣tion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 emma, in the Arabick, which signifies, but, truly, as for, &c. and then that between Gilead and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aven, iniquity, is to be understood and supplied 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 have followed after, or the like, and that by iniquity, is to be understood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the wor∣ship of Idols, saith the meaning is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but truly, or as for the people of Gilead they have followed Idols, and have gone aside after that which is altogether absurd, or vain, which he saith is the meaning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ac shau hayu. Then he saith the people of Gilgal do also worship them by offering sacrifices, saying, in Gilgal they sacrifice oxen, and have made their altars for multitude like heaps on the furrows of the field.

The first particle being taken in this sense, as it is by the Hebrew h Grammarians ac∣knowledged, and by examples proved to signi∣fy, this exposition is so clear, and without any scruples or exceptions, that I know no rea∣son why we might not readily embrace it, and acquiesce in it, were it not that our Transla∣tours, to whose judgment we willingly sub∣mit, chose to take another way, as many others do, in taking that particle as a note of interrogation, and that either, an? or an non? whether so? or whether not so? as it appears also in other places to be. Among those that so take it, there is again no small difference; i some looking on the words as spoken Ironi∣cally, not as the words of God or the Pro∣phet speaking in his own name, but the words of the people by him recited, who justifying themselves against him for saying that Cilead was a city of them that work iniquity, should say, is, or is there in, Gilead iniquity? as de∣nying it so to be, to which his answer is, sure∣ly they are vanity, which is furt er proved by their multitude of altars every where as fre∣quent as heaps of stones, which husband men for clearing the land which they are to plow, cast together in the field, & by the many oxen that they sacrificed. This they might pretend as a token of their piety, in regard of their multiplying places for their devotion, and the great and willing expence they are at in of∣fering many and costly sacrifices. But it is clean contrary, whether those altars were erected, and the sacrifices offered to Idols, or pretended to be to God himself, in as much as they were contrary to God's prescript and command, who had then appointed one altar, and one place, where such sacrifices as he would accept, should be offered to him, all others, as a breach of his command, are ini∣quity and vanity.

Others looking on the words as Gods own or his Prophets from him, rather render it, nonne? whether not? or is there not iniquity? So Pagnin, nonne Gilead incepit iniquita∣tem? did not Gilead begin iniquity? surely they were vanity. In Gilgal they have sacrificed oxen. In this way it imports an affirmative, that surely Gilead did so.

Junius and Tremellius taking likewise the words as spoken from God, give the mean∣ing yet another way, without adding the ne∣gative in the question, by a supply of, tantum, thus rendring, an in Gilead iniquitas, tan∣tummodo vanitas fuerunt? In Gilgale tantum boves sacrificant? Etiam altaria istorum sunt tanquam acervi per sulcos agrorum, is there iniquity in Gilead? were they only vanity? (or as Pisc. explains it) an Gileade tantum iniquitas est, an ibi tantum vanitas fuerunt? is there ini∣quity (i. e. false religion or worship) in Gi∣lead only, were they there only vanity, i. e. vain in their worship of God? do they sacrifice oxen in Gilgal only? also the altars of these are as heaps on the ridges of the furrows of the field: so as they make here to be an accusation or con∣viction of the Israelites of general Apostacy and Idolatry, as if he should say to them, do

ye think the Gileadites only, who were car∣ried away captives by Tiglath Pileser, were guilty of Idolatry, but that ye your selves which remained then untouched by the Assy∣rians, are free from it? Nay the very en∣trance of your country, viz. k Gilgal is so full of Idolatry, that (according to the proverb) the lion may be known by his claws. But withall are the entrance only of your country or some noted places polluted with Idolatry? Nay there is no place among you, which is not most fouly polluted, even among you who dwell on this side Jordan, as your altars as nu∣merous as heaps of stones among the ridges of the fields do testify. To this purpose do they themselves explain their meaning. The same, I suppose, would be made out without the in∣terrogation in the second place thus, is there iniquity (i. e. l Idolatry) in Gilead only? viz. in that place on the other side of Jordan, where by reason of their distance from the ta∣bernacle, and their frequent commerce with their neighbour heathen nations, they more easily might, and more credibly did, contract the infection of Idolatry, even before the golden calves set up by Jeroboam, and were infamous in that and other kinds, as appears c. 6.8. surely they were vain in Gilgal, which was within Jordan, and m more properly in the holy land of promise: there also they sa∣crifice oxen, and set up altars as numerous as heaps of stones in the fields.

Much the same may be made out also with∣out the addition of, tantum, only, thus, is Gi∣lead iniquity, or is there iniquity in Gilead? as much as to say, it is a thing confessed that there is: surely then they are vanity in Gilgal also, [that is as manifest, for there] they sacrificed oxen, and every where set up altars in abundance: and this may be a probable meaning of the words according to our translation, although if we take it from the marginal note in the Geneva English, which have the same ren∣drings, that seems to make it the same with that of Calvin and others above mentioned, who look on the first words, is there iniquity in Gilead? as the words which the people would say in their own defence, the note being, the people thought that no man durst have spoke against Gilead, that holy place; yet the Prophet saith, that all their religion was but va∣nity. And thus also the Dutch, who render the text as we have seen, do in their notes look on as probable, saying, these words may be taken thus, Is Gilead iniquity? as if they ob∣jected to the Prophet, dare you affirm that? To which the Prophet answers in what follows.

As for some of the latter ways, wherein the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 im, is rendred as an interro∣gation, they are easily reconcileable with some of those, who render it by the conditional, if, it being all one, as Rivet observes, to say, is there iniquity in Gilead? then surely they are vain in Gilgal, who sacrifice oxen, and to say, if Gilead be iniquity, then they who do so in Gil∣gal as they did, sacrifice oxen, and reare up un∣lawfull altars, are vain; and in either way by instancing in these places, is shewn, that there was no place where the Israelites dwelt, either in the one or the other side of Jordan, that was free from Idolatry, which both by iniquity and vanity is denoted.

There is yet another meaning made by rendring the words interrogatively, which seems as plain as any among them, which is to take them not so much to taxe them of Idola∣try and the generality of it among them which was manifest, as for the indignity of it ag∣gravated by the circumstance of the places where it was exercised. So L. de Dieu laies the Emphasis thereon, who renders and ex∣plains them, An in Gilead mendacium, quin∣etiam vanitas i. e. Idola fuerunt? in Gilgal bo∣ves sacrificaverunt? Have there been in Gilead a lie, and moreover vanity i. e. Idols? have they sacrificed oxen in Gilgal? He asketh by way of admiration, is it possible that they should proceed to that height of ingratitude and impiety, as to profane with Idolatry those two places where they had received so great benefits, viz. Gilead where God defended Jacob from the violence of Laban, Gen. 31.20. and Gilgal, where by circumcision he had rolled from them the reproach of the nations? Jo. 15.9. and then, saith he, follows the pu∣nishment, etiam altaria eorum tanquam tu∣muli erunt in sulcis agrorum, even their altars shall be as heaps on the furrows of the field. Wherein he observes to be an allusion to the Etymon of the name Gilead, which is n the heap of witness, because they prophaned the heap of witness with their altars, their altars shall be made heaps: as well may he allude also unto the name o Gilgal.

The like Emphasis seems Kimchi to lay on the places named, particularly on Gilgal, though he read them without an interroga∣tion, whose words in explication of these words, they sacrifice bullocks in Gilgal, following his explication of the former which we have seen, are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.

for the children of Gilgal were neighbours to the land of Gi∣lead, only Jordan being between them, and they learning their works, began to serve Idols as they did, and to do iniquity & vanity, and sacrificed bullocks to Idols, p in that place where they had erected an altar to the Lord, and where they had pitched the tabernacle at the beginning, after they had passed over

Jordan, there now they sacrificed bullocks to Idols; also their altars were as heaps on the furrows of the field. They were not satisfied with the altars which they made in Gilgal to an Idol, but also built without the city many altars, which appeared, or which were every where seen, as heaps of stones on the furrows of the field.

He plainly seems to look on it as a great aggravation of their wickedness, in that they did it there, viz. in a place which by what was formerly done in it, seemed consecrated to God, and could not q but put them in mind of his great favours and their obligations to him. That Idolatry, which had any where been a great sin, could not but by being there committed, be yet greater and much heightned.

What hath been said concerning the dif∣ferent expositions on this verse, more re∣specting the former part there of than the latter words, which are, yea their altars are as heaps on the furrows of the field, although they have have been often mentioned, as they serve to make up the meaning according to those dif∣ferent expositions of the former, it may be convenient to say somthing of them further in particular. That which already appears concerning them in general is, that they are by many so taken as to note the r multitude of those altars, being as frequent as heaps of stones, which were by husbandmen thrown up on every land that they would cleare for better plowing it, and so to shew their profuseness in their superstition and Idolatry, and their zeal in it, which one or few altars could not con∣tent: by others so as to denote the ruin and demolishing of their altars, that they were not, or should not be left standing as they had at first been artificially and orderly built, but become as rude heaps of stones, or rub∣bish thrown together at random, which is also elsewhere an expression used to set forth ruin and destruction, Jer. 26.18. Zion shall be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps; and so will it declare what mischief or pu∣nishment had, or should, come on them for their Idolatry. Such destruction even on their altars would be s a certain token of mischief brought on those that worshipped at them, and of disturbance to their worship and religion. Either of those expositions will the words bear, and are chosen either the one or the other by Interpreters, as will best fit what they conceive of the meaning of the fore∣going in conjunction with them, as we have already seen in citing their expositions.

As for the particular words in several, here may be first enquired whose altars are here meant by, their altars, whether the Gileadites or the Gilgalites, both having been before named; and if those of Gilgal, then whether of the two tribes, those of Judah &c. or the ten tribes, Israel and Ephraim, in regard to the situation of Gilgal. And concerning these things is there difference of opinions. The altars of the Gileadites say t some, viz. whose altars so ruined might have been a warning to those of Gilgal of the two tribes not to have been Idolaters as they were, least their altars should come to the same end: and if so, then will the verb supplied (for in the He∣brew there is none expressed) be of the pre∣sent tense denoting that punishment which had already come upon them. But by u others appears to be understood by altars, those by them of Gilgal, or those, w cis Jordanem, within Jordan, which were not carried captive, when those of Gilead were, set up. The mul∣titude of which if the word be to express, then will the verb understood be also in the present tense, are. And so also if with x some by their being as heaps, be denoted the despi∣cableness of them, that there is no holiness in them, no more then in heaps of stones ga∣thered up in the field. But if this be taken as denouncing of judgment and ruin to them, y then will it be rather in the future tense, crunt, they shall be as such: and so taken ei∣ther of those ways for those altars at Gilgal, the construction seems plainer. Yet still I suppose will it be more proper to understand them of such as were set up by z Ephraim, or those of the ten tribes, than such as were by Judah or the two tribes there erected, the Pro∣phet here speaking to Ephraim, who justified themselves, v. 8. and not numing Judah.

These altars, he saith, are, or shall be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cegallim, as heaps. In that known signification of the word do all which we have seen agree, except the LXX, according as their word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(as we said) is by Jerom, and the Latin Translators, and the printed Arabick rendred, testudines, tortoises. We may add to them the Syriack, according to the Latin translation of that also, who ren∣ders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gole, which is in it, testudines, tortoises, as a learned Syrian, a Gregorius also

takes it to signify, and expounds, that they shall be destroyed as tortoises that died for want of water, but I suppose without any necessity; for we find in the Syriack b 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 golo deciphe, for, congeries lapidum, an heap of stones, as well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 golo, a tortoise. So that Cyrils caution above mentioned for the Greek, that it should not be taken for tortoises, but for heaps or hillocks, may, I think, here justly also take place, as to the rendring of the Syriack, whose word golo, may well enough seem taken from the Hebrew gal, and to signify any round heap of stones or earth, an hillock; and a tortoise may from his round arched or rising back resembling such an hil∣lock, be well enough so called, but not so well thought there properly to be understood, though by way of similitude it may.

As to the next words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 al talme, by ours rendred, in the furrows of the field, we have the same above c. 10.4. Talme, which they render furrows, sulcos, as many others, c some, as we have seen, render, porcas, the ridges betwixt, the furrows: and so it may seem more properly to signify, as there we noted, yet seems sometimes d promiscuously used, and which of them be here put will not much matter as to the sense and scope of the place, nor will that be altered by the rendring of the LXX or the printed Arab. or Syriack, on desert and uncultivated land; nor by what the Chaldee hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on the bounds of the fields, though not literally trans∣lated by them, in as much as all of them seem to describe such places in which heaps of stones are frequently found.

The last word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sadai, Kimchi in the for∣mer place (namely c. 10.4.) noted to be the same with e 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a field, which is the usual form of the singular number, which occurs here in the next verse. But here he would have it taken for the plural 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sadim, fields, as he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chalonai is the same that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chalonim, windows, Jer. 22.14. He calls in for confirmation the Chaldee Para∣phrase, who renders it as we mentioned, on the bounds, or borders of the field. Of those which we have seen, some render it in the sin∣gular, which Drusius thinks best to do. Others, among which are ours, in the plural, fields. Junius and Tremellius not only so as a plu∣ral, but look on the last letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i, as an affixe of the first person, and render, agrorum meo∣rum, of my fields, as if there were in that word also f an Emphasis for the aggravating of their sins, in that the fields which they de∣filed with their Idolatries and superstitions, were his fields, his land, as he calls it, the Lords land, c. 9.3. and should therefore have been looked on, and used as holy to him, and as he directed, and no otherwise.

After this tedious inquiry into these seve∣ral rendrings and expositions of this verse, the scope and meaning thereof, according to what will be by any one of them suggested to us, and what by them all is jointly given, is, that there in Israel, they who boasted of their own integrity, and had been by several ways of teaching better instructed, are taxed for gross Idolatry, and that much aggravated by the generallity of it, and their superstitious zeal in it, and the great ingratitude to God, with which it was accompanied, and warned of the great mischiefs it should bring upon them. By instancing in Gilead on the one side of Jordan, and Gilgal on the other side, places signally famous for the exercise of it, he shews that in all the places of their habitation they were guilty of it, and that it was a general crime. The mentioning of their sacrificing bullocks and multiplying altars, shews their great zeal in prosecuting and advancing it. By the same mention of those places, places which ought to have minded them of their great obligations to God, and incited them to have been zealous of God's glory, and to have continued faithfull to him, who had there approved himself so good a God to them, is shewn great ingratitude in them, that even there they should so highly disho∣nour him. And the very setting these their so great wickednesses before their eyes, and God's shewing how he takes notice of them, cannot but include a threatning of punishment to them continuing in such evil courses, though the words should be looked on g as some will have them only as so, viz. as a de∣claration of their guilt, and not an express denunciation of their punishment, as many others think, and the words will well bear.

Gilead probably had suffered before these words were spoken by the Prophet, how shall those in Gilgal and elsewhere in Israel, but by being accused as highly guilty and in the same kind as they, but look upon themselves as threatned with the like condemnation, both themselves and their many altars, wherein they did offend God? Those being set up against God's one altar, however they pleased themselves in multiplying them, (for which they are likewise reproved c. 10.1.) and of∣fering many and costly sacrifices on them, under what pretence of devotion soever it

was, were in God's esteem no better than rude heaps of stones, yea worse, even an abo∣mination in his sight, and therefore shall ne∣cessarily be destroyed and become such heaps, no one being left in order on another. It cannot be but by this curse laying upon them, it should be so brought to pass: and so will the expositions of those who look on the words as an expression of the number of them, and of those who look on them as a denouncing ruin to them, be well recon∣cileable.

V. 12. And Jacob fled into the coun∣try of Syria, and Israel served for a wife, and for a wife he kept sheep.

13. And by a prophet the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved.

And Jacob fled into the country of Syria, &c. As to the signification and literal meaning of the words in these verses there is no great dif∣ficulty, but as to the coherence of them with what preceded, and the scope or intention thereof, there is difference between Exposi∣tors. These two we put together, because by the one is to be judged of the other, and to be discerned, why after a long interruption by what intervenes, he returns again to the hi∣story of Jacob, which he had mentioned v. 3, 4. and, as it were after a h parenthesis, resumes what he was speaking of. So R. Salomo makes it, who thinks, that for introduction to these words somthing is to be understood, and saith the expression is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. as of a man who should say, let us return to the former things which we spake of above, as particularly, and he had power over the Angel &c. and now goes on, and this moreover did I do for him, he was forced to flie into the country of Syria, and ye know how there I preserved him. So that the sense according to him will be to put them in mind of former favours shewed to their fa∣ther Jacob, and in him to them, and so include a reproof of their unthankfulness to God, in their not keeping them in mind and laying them to heart, so as thereby to acknowledge themselves bound to continue in constant and faithfull obedience to him. The minding them of which seems also to Ab. Ezra and Kimchi to be the scope of these words. So Ab. Ezra, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ye ought to have considered that your father Jacob was in a poor or afflicted condition, when he fled into Syria, as appears by what he saith, if God will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on Gen. 28.10. and for a wife he kept sheep, and I enriched him, and also by a prophet (i. e. Moses) I brought up his children, but Israel forgot all these things. Kimchi also explains the words by adding before them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. and they do not remember that good that I did to their father: for he fled from before his brother Esau into Syria, and when he was there was forced to serve Laban for a wife in keeping his sheep &c. and I am he that was with him, and blessed him, and thence he returned with riches and wealth. These all seem to agree as to the connexion of the words, viz. that they are a resuming of the history of Jacob, which he had broken for a while off, to put them in mind of what they ought in thankfulness to have remembred, but had ungratefully for∣gotten.

R. Tanchum, with some little difference from these, but going on the same grounds, as to the coherence of these words with those above, saith, that these are to upbraid them, for that they had departed from Jacob's manner of be∣haviour, as if he said, your fathers ways were not like those of yours, which have been mentioned; for he flying the converse and habitation, or company, of wicked men, sought such things as might agree with his disposition of doing good; neither did he as you do, desirously set himself to heap up riches, especially by unlawfull means, as it is said in the description of their manners, he loveth to oppress, v. 7. but was so abstinent (from such things,) that he left his country, having not any of the things of this world with him, as he saith, with my staff I passed over this Jor∣dan, Gen. 32.10. but got himself a convenient consort, by serving Laban, and keeping his sheep, which is what he saith, and Israel served for a wife, and for a wife he kept sheep. The scope of the words of this verse according to him, is to shew their great degeneracy from him, in their descent from whom they prided them∣selves.

Abarbinel in a far differing way looks on them as a check to the insolency of the ten tribes, in their opposition and hatred of their brethren of Judah, boasting and justifying themselves by the example of Jacob, who took his brother by the heel, as above v. 3. as if he did retort upon them this example, as not being to their purpose, but shewing that the ill consequences of it should have made them beware of quarrelling with those their bre∣thren, in that Jacob gained nothing by that, seeing for that cause he was forced to flie to Padan Aram, and to serve Laban seven years for a wife, viz. his daughter Rachel, and for another wife also to keep his sheep, in all fourteen years; all which happened to him through no other cause than the hatred of his brother Esau. In which exposition he seems to intimate, they ought not to boast in their

ill dealing with their brethren of Judah, but rather to fear that some evil should come upon them for it. This exposition of his seems far fetched, and I know not any that follow it, nor see any reason why we should. These expositions of the former verse (leaving what we have to say of the second till after) we have from the Jews, which I have the use of. If we come to Christians, we shall find among them variety.

Junius and Tremellius thinking the i men∣tion of Gilead and Gilgal in the foregoing verse to have been the only occasion of his re∣suming the history of Jacob in this verse, and the adding that other which is alluded to in the next, thus differently from others render this verse, Illuc fugerat Jacob ex agro Syriae, cum servivisset Israel propter uxorem, &c. thether had Jacob fled out of the field, or country, of Syria, when Israel had served for a wife, and for a wife, custodivisset gregem, had kept a flock; then the next verse, Huc quoque per pro∣phetam adduxit Jehova Israelem ex Aegypto cum &c. hither also (i.e. to Gilgal) by a prophet (that is, say they, by Joshua) the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt, when he had been preserved by a prophet, (i.e. by Moses.) Then for explaining the meaning, they give their exposition com∣mon to both verses, that there is an exaggera∣tion of their forementioned sins from the benefits of God before conferred on them, which in the very place, where they were received, Israelitae obscurabant, the Israelites did obscure, as if he had said, it had certainly been an impious thing that Gilead should be prophaned by sacrilegious iniquity and vanity, (the place) which God had made as it were an asylum, or refuge to your father Jacob returning from a miserable servitude, and flying from Laban, Gen. 31. but how im∣pious a thing is it that Gilgal should by you be prophaned with sacrifices and altars, which (place) God under Joshua your leader had con∣secrated for the purging of your ancestours, and whither he sent your ancestours at first to possess the land. Thus they lay the emphasis for ag∣gravation of their wickedness from the places where it was committed, on the words here, which I think was more opportunely by some laid on the words of the preceding verse, where the places were expresly mentioned.

Piscator confesseth that this interpretation of theirs, if compared with the Hebrew, may seem somwhat wrested, yet excuseth it by saying that the word, ager, field, (where he fed Laban's sheep, and whither he called his wives to declare to them his purpose of flying, Gen. 31.41.) and the coherence with the preceding verse, wherein is mention made of Gilead, seem to require it. But Rivet, though he look upon it as ingeniously contrived, yet by no means is pleased with it: as first be∣cause of their rendring in the former of the two verses the conjunction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ve, and, by, illuc, thither, in the beginning of the verse, and afterwards by, cum, when, and turns the verbs into the preterpluperfect tense, which others render in the preterperfect; and what others render, into the country of Syria, renders, out of the field of Syria. So also do they in the next verse add, huc, hither, viz. to Gilgal, and after turn 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ve, and, into, cum, when, and deale with the verb as before. They under∣stand likewise by the Prophet in the first place Joshua, which Piscator himself thinks not con∣sistent with the text, which speaks of such a one as brought up the Israelites out of Egypt, which was only Moses, though Joshua after brought them to Gilgal: but here is no men∣tion of Gilgal. Yet Grotius seems much to agree with them, as to the rendring of the words, taking them to sound, that Jacob fled out of Syria to Gilead; the words in the He∣brew he takes literally to signify, fugit Ja∣cob agrum Syriae, Jacob fled the field of Syria, i. e. ex agro Syriae in illam Galaaditidem, out of Syria into that region of Gilead, but I doubt whether any example can be given of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fugit, to flie, so intransitively construed with an accusative case. He taking it so to do, makes the scope of the reciting this history to be to aggravate the indignity of their fault, ex con∣trariis factis majorum in eisdem locis, from the contrary doings of their ancestours in the same places; then further renders or explains the next words to the same manners as they, cum servis∣set &c. when Israel (i.e. Jacob the father of you all) had served for a wife, and for a wife kept sheep, and makes the scope of them to be by the way, by reason of his mention of Gilead, to intermingle another thing wherewith he up∣braids them; as if he said, Jacob for two wives served Laban and fed his sheep four∣teen years, but you will do nothing for God's sake. This Junius and Tremellius take no notice of: the conjunction also and verb in the next verse he, not as they, huc quoque &c. hither also the Lord brought Israel, but, cum Dominus &c. when the Lord by the prophet (Moses,) eduxisset, had brought up Israel out of Egypt; and then in the next verb differently also from them, then by another prophet (name∣ly Joshua) evasit, he escaped, or were safe, viz. Israel out of the desert and came to Gilgal, and there first kept the Passover, Joshua 5. Ex ipsis locis quibus peccabatur, veteres illis de∣promit historias &c. from those very places where they sinned, he takes out ancient histories for them, that he may shew them how much they are degenerated from their Ancestours. By this dif∣ference in his rendring the conjunction in the

first place, cum, when, and in the second, tunc, then, is there also another difference be∣tween him and them, they by a prophet in the first place understand Joshua, in the second Moses; but ••e on the contrary Moses in the first, and ••osnua in the second, although mean∣while their meaning be much the same, and they may be looked on as understanding the words alike.

Arias Montanus gives an exposition which by Rivet is also censured as, non minus coacta, not less forced, so, nec adeo acuta, as less acute than the former of Junius and Tremellius, which as he sums it up out of the larger ex∣pressions of the Author, is, If Jacob your fa∣ther would not serve Laban, unless for his re∣ward he might have Labans two daughters; if for the work of fourteen years, hoc ipsi prae∣mium debuit avunculus, his unkle owed him this reward, quid vos, O Israelitae, non debetis Deo, what do not ye, O Israelites, owe to God, qui vos exemit è tot annorum servitute &c. who hath freed you from the servitude of so ma∣ny years, and preserved you by a prophet, not only fourteen years, but fourty years? The ex∣plication indeed so given, may I think de∣servedly be looked on as very much forced, and with little acuteness. I cannot see how the parts in the comparison are fitted to one an∣other, God's goodness to them seems com∣pared to Jacob's service to Laban; and what they ought to have rendred to God, to Labans reward to Jacob, or else, I know not how things seem not to agree well together. Yet Arias him∣self saith, that in the words God argues by way of comparison, comparing person with person, time with time, things with things. It must then surely be as to the persons rather by comparing God to Laban than to Jacob, and his favours to Labans reward rather than to Jacobs service, and what they ought to have done, to Jacobs service rather than to what Laban gave him as a reward, yet do not his words, though many and flourishing, make to me any clear sense. If we might make from them this meaning, that Jacob on∣ly for two wives did for a long season do willing and faithfull, though hard, service to Laban; but his posterity would not for all Gods great benefits conferred on them, both in their Ancestours and their own persons, do him any service nor be obedient to him, and so be a reproof of their great ingratitude to God, who deserved more from them than La∣ban could from Jacob, and therefore they ought to have behaved themselves toward him as Jacob did to Laban, faithfull in ser∣vice, it would be more to the purpose and scope of the words, and be the same which some others take, as we have seen already Grotius to do, and another following him, thus making the words of the first verse to in∣fer, This did he for two wives, but what have you done in the service of God to win his favour? Whether this might be also Mon∣tanus his meaning, I know not: it is not clear from his words, and the other that is given of them seems not to agree any way with the words of the text.

The reverend Diodati in his folio edition in Italic at Geneva 1641. hath an exposition of these verses, perhaps peculiar to himself, which is, that the mention of these two histo∣ries is by way of caution to them,

as if he did bid them remember the first voiage, which was that of Jacob in extream misery and servitude, and a second which was their coming out of Egypt in a glorious deli∣verance by the hands of Moses, that they might fear least he should cause them to make a third into a wretched captivity:

and in his French edition, as the English Translatour of his Annotations tells us, to the same pur∣pose in different language,

that it seems the Prophet would make a comparison between these two exiles and the third by which God would send away his people captive into Assyria, as if he should say, Jacobs exile which was the first into Syria, was for a blessing, for there he obtained wives, child∣ren and wealth; the second of the people into Egypt was followed with a miracu∣lous deliverance: but this last, which is prepared for the people, shall be with a curse and without any temporal restauration.

Thus far his note. We do indeed find words above in the ninth verse, wherein is, according to some, though not this Author, a prediction of the third illustrated by a mention of the se∣cond; but whether here be any respect had to what was there said, or the former mentioned here, that the last might be understood, I think not so evident as to make us to take this as a clear exposition of those words. I think that a plainer, which the same Author gives us in an Italick edition in quarto Geneva 1607. viz. that by making a comparison betwixt the wretched beginning of the people with their glorious deliverance from their slavery of Egypt, he amplifies the great goodness of God and the ingratitude of the people. This well agrees with what divers others do follow, as we shall an on see, and why he should leave it to take the other, in which I know not whom he follows or who follows him, I know not.

k Another there is that takes the occasion of these to be from the verse going before, viz. the mention of their many altars, viz. to reprove them by shewing them that there was

no necessity for them of making any altar or temple at Gilead contrary to his prohibition, who had commanded that no where but at Je∣rusalem sacrifices should be offered to him, and doth as it were say in these words,

I was propitious to your fathers without such sa∣crifices, and present with them in all their undertakings. Jacob did not use them at that place, nor Laban, when I had enriched them both with cattle and children. When Jacob for fear of his brother fled into Syria to his uncle Laban, and served for his wife Rachel seven years, and kept his father in law's sheep for Lea so many years also, without using rites or ceremonies of sacrifices, your fathers found me all that time, and always, propitious: when also the Lord by the Prophet Moses brought Israel out of Egypt, all the twelve tribes were preserved, the Prophet leading them forth, while as yet there were no obla∣tions or sacrifices any where sacrificed to me. Also when you would sacrifice to me, I did not permit to you many, not twelve, but only one altar.

This also I know not whe∣ther any but the Author take to give the pro∣per scope and meaning of the words, yet may they not unfitly be applied as a reproof of that bold sacrilegious sin in them, as well as of divers others they were guilty of.

After all that hath been hitherto said, the plainest and surest way, and that by most followed, will be to look on these histories produced and mentioned for the reproof of divers sins in Ephraim, the being guilty of which did argue them as most ungratefull to God, so much degenerate from their an∣cestours, whose conditions are here set before their eyes, that they may compare their own with them; which that we may the better perceive, we may consider in the histories mentioned, how the persons, whoever they concern, are described, under what condition; then of what sins the present Israelites, to whom their examples are produced, may by what hath been before by the Prophet spoken, appear to have been guilty. The first person in the first verse is their father Jacob, and he described as a fugitive, in a poor and low condition, without company, without wealth, cast only on God's providence, forced for his livelyhood to put himself into an hard service, and that a mean emploiment of keeping sheep; yet in this condition without murmuring, humbly and contentedly behaving himself, doing faithfull service to his uncle, not de∣frauding him in any thing, nor using any unlawfull means through covetousness for making hast to be rich, nor proposing to him∣self great matters; but willingly for obtaining only a godly wife, (that was not a Canaanitess or an Idolatress,) which he had nothing else whereby to gain, no riches, no honour or other dowry &c. and therefore for obtaining her from Laban, spent his whole strength in his service, as for his concernments relying on God's blessing with constant trust in him. Though all these things be not particularly here expressed, yet from the story of him, the heads of which are in these words briefly summed up, are they apparent, and necessa∣rily included, and to be understood.

The persons in the second of these two verses are 1. a conductor, by whom God brought Israel out of Egypt, and preserved them; and 2. their ancestours Israel, by his ministery brought out thence, and freed from their mise∣rable bondage. The Conductor is set forth un∣der the notion of a Prophet: not a King, which with armies and force should defend them against enemies, nor rule them himself with an iron rod••; but a Prophet, who should direct them by the word of God as his shepheards staff; and he one Prophet, not many Prophets. Israel by their being described as brought out of Egypt by him, and by him preserved or kept, are represented to us as willingly following his conduct, and yeelding, like a flock of gentle sheep, to be ruled and directed by him, as depending on his directions from God for their preservation and welfare, and so willingly submitting themselves to him as God's minister to them for good, and as, by so doing, and only by him, not of themselves preserved. This the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nishmar, was preserved, as ours render, or in a more general term, he was kept, may suggest to us. It is the same root with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shamar, before rendred, he kept, viz. sheep, & being the passive voice from it, signifies he was kept. So that Israel was plainly l 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as a flock of sheep, and their keeper was Moses, here called a Prophet. But they were rational sheep, and therefore R. Tanchums note on the word may well take place, that it implies as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they were cautious & warily kept themselves from (or passively, were made to beware of) disobedience to Gods commands by him, and were kept or did beware of doing such things, as he by that one Prophet for∣bad. Answerable to this is Pagnins transla∣tion of the word by, m custodivit, he kept, or preserved himself, and in this regard perhaps not deserving so severely to be censured, as it is by Rivet, that it is, sine sensu, without sense in it. Drusius we shall by and by see to be of an∣other opinion.

This Prophet is manifestly enough Moses, and it might therefore well enough be rendred

the Prophet; he that was so by way of emi∣nency called, and had the chief conduct. Though elsewhere it be said, that God sent be∣fore them Moses and Aaron and Miriam, Mich. c. 6.4. and that ••e led his people like a flock of sheep by the hand of Moses and Aaron, Ps. 77.20. yet do not those expressions any way thwart this to make it dubious. For Moses still was chief, the Prophet of God, the others subser∣vient to him. God put his word into Moses his mouth, & Moses put it into Aarons mouth, so that he was to Moses instead of a mouth, & Moses to him instead of God, Ex. 4.15, 16. Aaron was Moses his Prophet, Ex. 7.1. and Moses was Gods Prophet, in such an high de∣gree of excellency and dignity, as neither Aa∣ron nor Miriam, nor any one else, as God himself declares, Numb. 12.6, 7. and of him only can it therefore properly be understood here, what is said both in the first clause and the second, that God did by a Prophet. Jo∣shua indeed succeeded him in his charge of conducting them into the promised land when Moses was taken by death from them; and of him therefore do some understand in part what is here said, as if the words did speak of their being brought to Gilgal, of which there is no express mention, we see, made in the words, nor any necessity of understanding it, though so also would be a true and plain meaning of the words, that God did what he did for them by no other means, but by the hand and ministry of a Prophet. But all that is men∣tioned was done of the Lord by the hand of Moses alone, viz. by him the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt, and by him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 serva∣tus est, he, i.e. Israel, was preserved: or that we may add a little to what hath been said of that word (as Drusius observes and wonders that others did not) rather in a less ambi∣guous language, custoditus est, was kept, as sheep are kept by a shepheard, viz. both fed and guided and directed and watched over, as well that they err not or stray not, as that they find good pasture and take no harm: like those sheep, which under the care of a good shepheard, (according to our Saviour's words John 10.) knowing and n hearkning to his voice, and being led by him, are kept safe, so that no wolf catch them or scatter them, and go in and out and find pasture. In this sense Cyril seems to have understood it, when he saith, that he did not only bring them out of Egypt, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but did also keep them; for by his directions they persevered in serving the one true God, which afterwards under their Kings they did not. So that by being kept may be understood, that they were o preserved from running the ways of the Heathen. But let the word be taken in ei∣ther of these significations, and in the largest sense of them, it was made good to them by Moses, while for fourty years they wandred in the desert, in a barren and dry wilderness, in which was no way, no visible good thing. They were suffered to want nothing necessary or conducing to the good either of their souls, receiving continual direction from him how to walk in well pleasing to God; or of their bodies, being preserved in health, finding continual supplies of all necessaries, which at his word God supplied to them; and all this done not by any skill or power in their own hands, nor help of others, save only by the ministry of that one single Prophet of God, whom while they obeyed, they never found any thing amiss with them, that so he might make them know that man doth not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceedeth out of the mouth of God. p Their raiment waxed not old upon them, neither did their feet swell in fourty years, Deut. 8.3, 4. To take in the whole benefit that this word may include, will require to look on the whole history of their conduct by Moses in the Law described, among the benefits of which cannot but be looked on as chief and most conducing to their good and preservation, those right judgments and laws, good statutes and commandments, by the hand of Moses his servant, as he speaks Neh. 9.13, 14. for guiding them in the right way, as well as that he gave them bread from heaven for their hunger, feeding them with manna, and brought forth water for them out of the rock for their thirst, and kept their cloaths from waxing old, and their bodies from taking harm by their continual travel. All these doth the word nishmar, custoditus est, include, as benefits exhibited to them from God by the hand of his Prophet. They were looked after, kept, preserved: whatso∣ever care could be taken of, or good done for, a poor flock of sheep, was taken and done for them. But besides, it may here seem, ac∣cording to what we have seen from R. Tan∣chum and Pagnin, to include somthing as done by them, viz. that they did follow the con∣duct of this Prophet, and yeeld themselves to be guided by him, though prone otherwise to run astray, and often assaying to do it. These histories with these circumstances here alluded to, are manifestly produced as ensamples, by comparing to which their present behaviour and conditions, it may be discerned what just reason there is for God's reproving their ways, and denouncing his judgments against them, as he doth by this his Prophet, in that they went contrary, as to the rule of his command∣ments, so also to the example of their forefa∣thers, who had gone before them in the ways

thereof and so prospered in so doing, as that they might well, and q ought to, have invi∣ted them so also to do, and convinceth them in not so doing, to be not only ungratefull to God and forgetfull of him, who had in their forefathers shewed so great favours to them, but extremely degenerate from those their forefathers, in their descent from whom they gloried, and for whose sakes they accounted that God was still obliged to do good to them.

For discerning these things it will be con∣venient to enquire what were those sins which may, from what our Prophet hath spoken of them, appear then to have been predominant in them, and were contrary to the behaviour of those whose examples are here set down before them. It will be easy to discern in them many complicated sins of that nature, which did all shew them to be, as we said, both ungratefull to God, and degenerate from their ancestours; as not only that comprehen∣sive sin of Idolatry, but together, pride, cove∣tousness, infidelity, diffidence or distrust of God, contempt of his word and Prophets, and their instructions. As for their Idolatry, it is all along in this whole prophecy taxed, and the unreasonableness of it in them shewed. These words were not perhaps particularly directed against that, yet do they afford ma∣nifest arguments to them above all other people against it, and that they had above all others reason to cleave stedfastly to him, and faithfully to obey him; as first by the example of their father Jacob, who in all his way, when he fled into a strange country, yet still kept close to God, as appears by his vow made in his flight, that the Lord only should be his God, Gen. 28.21. and by his willingly serving so long for such wives as should serve the same God, and not mingle with the Idola∣trous brood of the daughters r of Heth, which might bring the worship of other Gods into his family, and by his care of purging his house from strange Gods at his return from Syria, Gen. 35.2. These things the mention of the passages in the histories of Jacob could not but suggest to them. The second history of the Lords bringing forth Israel out of Egypt, that house of miserable bondage by a Pro∣phet, by whose conduct they were guided and preserved, yet more manifestly and ex∣presly sets before them arguments to the same purpose. It hath that in it which in the De∣calogue is immediatly prefixed before the first commandment, that they should have no other Gods but him, as that which laid the strongest obligation possible on them to observe it. And the example of their Ancestours, though too prone to Idolatry, yet being by a Prophet kept in the service of him, should have warned them also, whatsoever inclinations or inticements they had to the contrary, to have hearkned to the many Prophets by God sent to recall and reduce them from that abominable sin. So that even in regard to that sin so often in this prophecy by other arguments reproved, may these histories also seem appositely mentioned; yet may they perhaps more particularly seem directed against some other sin, that they were then guilty of.

s Several of good authority look on the sin, for the reproof of which in them these histo∣ries are here mentioned, to be Pride. Of pride Ephraim is above taxed, c. 5.5. and 7.10. Their pride appeared, in that they were so insolent, being grown to that greatness to which they were now by God's only blessing and no other means or power arrived, as to forget and cast off God and his worship, and the kingdom of Judah, which they should have been subject to. But the pride which those Expositors will have to be meant, is their glorying in their descent from Jacob, in which priding themselves, they contemned all other people, as likewise being proud of their coming out of Egypt with an high hand, and conquer∣ing those nations whose land they possessed. That pride they might seem to have some ground for, from what was above mentioned v. 3, 4. by Jacobs taking his brother by the heel in the womb, and his getting the birth∣right from him, and his prevailing by his strength over the Angel, and having power with God and man, of which the name Israel given him was a perpetual testimony Gen. c. 32.28. But let them look to these other passages here concerning Jacob, how he was fain to flie far from his fathers house into Sy∣ria, and there to become a servant for his subsistence, and had no other way for pur∣chasing a wife, but only by serving for her, even he who was afterwards that Israel in whose name they gloried, and this cannot but quell all high conceits of their original, no∣bility, and any thing they had to boast of ac∣cording to the flesh. All that made Jacob truly noble, was Gods free love and favour to him, who from so mean a condition raised him, and made him father of twelve tribes, now two potent kingdoms, of which Ephraim being one, ought by their thankfull behaviour and humble obedience to him; to have ac∣knowledged him their benefactor. That had been the only way by humbling themselves before him, and acknowledging their own original meaness, to have preserved and in∣creased that honour, which by boasting of, and growing proud on, they do debase, and shew themselves unworthy of, as most un∣gratefull

to God, and most unlike him their forefather, who being by God raised to som∣thing a more plentifull condition, doth in all humility acknowledge himself less than the least of Gods mercies, by whose only good∣ness he confessed it to be, that himself, who with his staff had passed over Jordan, was now become two bands, Gen. 32.10. yet was all the foundation of their greatness from that poor condition of his, their scepter from that travellers staff. The thought and memorial of this laid to heart, could not but lower their pride, and make them, as it did him, to walk humbly with God, and make him and his ser∣vice their only glory, not so much in Jacob making their boast, but in the God of ••acob, not that they were Jacobs off-spring, but Gods sons, and servants, and chosen ones, and in that like Jacob.

The other history affords an argument for quelling of pride, and all high conceits of themselves in them. Their being the posteri∣ty of that people who came out of Egypt, t maugre all that Pharaoh and all the force of Egypt could do to hinder them, might per∣haps puff them up, as thinking that their coming to that height and greatness which they were now at, was from their Ancestours derived to them; but let them look back on the condition that their Ancestours were then in, not only while they were in Egypt where they were wretched bondmen, but at, and after, their going forth thence, not an army of valiant armed men under the conduct of some potent king or valiant general, but as a flock of weak sheep destitute of all things, under the conduct of a Prophet whom God gave as a shepheard to them, and by his sole word kept, guided, and preserved, and pro∣vided for them, so that the greatness which after they arrived to, was not from any thing in themselves or their progenitours, but only from God giving them power; so that to him therefore was all the glory thereof to be ascribed, not to them nor their own strength or contrivance, there was nothing in it for them to brag of or grow proud on, who without Gods great goodness had either re∣mained still slaves in Egypt working by hard labour for their living, or perished in the wil∣derness for want of necessaries.

A second sin notorious in them was cove∣tousness, as appears by what is shewed v. 8. that Ephraim was a merchant, and the balances of deceit were in his hand, and he loved to oppress, making it his glory to become rich, and seeing all his lawfull labours would not suffice him to get as much as he would, using all un∣lawfull means of oppression and extortion. To shew their great wickedness in so doing, they have the example of Jacob, who being in a poor and low condition, u yet used no such unlawfull means to enrich himself, but con∣tented himself with what he could get by his honest labours and endeavours. So Munster, That plain simple man your father Jacob was not so cov••teous as you, neither used such deceitfull ways as you do in your dealing, but honestly kept sheep, patiently serving many years for his wives. Maluit pascere gregem quam dolo aliquem fallere, he rather chose to keep sheep than by craft to deceive any, as Oecolampadius speaks, who also looks on this example of Jacob as op∣posed to their covetousness, through which they used fraud and deceit in their dealings. Against the same sin of covetousness makes also manifestly the other example of their An∣cestours under the conduct of Moses in the wilderness, who gave not up themselves to covetousness for getting of wealth, but going in the way in which the Prophet directed them, for all other things necessary for them depended on God, and were contented with what he gave them, and were so preserved.

A third sin in them was infidelity, or diffi∣dence and distrust in God, which appears in that not daring to relie on God for supply of their wants or for defence, they used, as we said, unlawfull means for getting of wealth, and in their dangers sought for help from others, even his enemies, from helpless Idols, and from the weak arm of flesh, the Egyptians and Assyrians, as it appears c. 7.11. Contra∣ry also are they in so doing to Jacob, who walking in an honest way, durst trust God, and on him alone depended in all occasions and for all things, and to their Ancestours who durst commit themselves to the conduct of Gods Prophet, without doubting for want of other visible probable means, and in so doing were preserved.

A fourth evident sin in them was contempt of Gods word in the mouth of his Prophets, and disregard of them, by whom God saith v. 10. that he spake unto them, and multiplied visions, and by their ministry used similitudes; yet to all those had they no regard. To reprove them in this kind the first example hath not so evident influence, except we shall say that Ja∣cobs giving due heed to those dreams and vi∣sions, from which he took directions to conti∣nue constant with God, as Gen. 28.12. &c. c. 31.11. and otherwhere, ought to have made them to have hearkned to his Prophets in any way or by any means instructing them from him. Whether in this respect or some other I know not, Castalio takes the word Prophet to belong to both stories, thus joining the two verses, that Jacob fled into the field of Syria, and that Israel served for a wife, custo∣divit,

kept sheep, and that the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt, and that he was, custoditus, kept, id omne per vatem factum est, all this was done by a prophet. But the second history is plain for reproof of them in this kind, and to shew how far different their behaviour was to that of their Ancestours who came out of Egypt. They heard Moses a single Prophet, not having more to call upon them, and fol∣lowed him as a flock doth its shepheard: these have many Prophets early and late calling upon them in Gods name, but will not hearken to them to be ruled by them. So doth R. Tan∣chum to this purpose explain the words, Your fathers were not as you are, in that you will not hearken to the Prophets, though there be so many among you, (and by so many divers ways instruct you,) as he saith v. 10. I have spoken by the Prophets, I have multiplied visions and used similitudes by the ministry of the Prophets; and afterwards v. 11. yet is there iniquity in Gi∣lead, as much as to say, I sent many messengers to you, and they did many ways admonish you by preaching, and by speaking in parables unto you, but you for all that conspire in rebellion, contrary to what your forefathers did, whom I brought up out of Egypt by one messenger, whose command they obeyed, and ordered themselves by, and by his hand, or ministry, I gave unto them all my precepts, and they kept themselves from disobeying them, which is that which he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ubenabi nishmar, and by a Prophet he (i. e. Israel forementioned) was kept, i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did beware of what was forbidden, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by that one Prophet, but ye 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notwithstanding the mul∣titude of my messengers to you do persist in rebel∣lion, according to what he saith, I have sent unto you all my servants the Prophets rising up early and sending them, but ye have not hearkned &c. Jer. 7.2. and 25.4. To this purpose he, laying great Emphasis for the reproof of Israels rebellion in this kind on the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Prophet, being in the singular number, and its being understood of one single Prophet. This Emphasis is in great part lost in the Sy∣riack, rendring it plurally 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ubanbie, and by Prophets the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and by Prophets was he kept. Yet if it were so to be rendred, and not only that which the Lord did by the single hand of Moses understood, but what he did also by the ministry of other Prophets, not only to those that came out of Egypt, but to others afterwards, (as that also w some will have here to be comprehended, and by a Pro∣phet to be understood, not only one, but all those Prophets by whom God at any time directed or preserved Israel, as if they were all reputed, unus Propheta, but one Prophet, qui iisdem partibus in plebe Dei gubernanda per successionem perfuncti sunt, who performed successively the same part, or office, in governing the people of God,) yet even so, I say, would this be a reproof to the present Israel for con∣temning and rejecting Gods Prophets, whom God had made instruments of good and pre∣servation to their Ancestours, and whom they of old hearkned to, and by so doing were pre∣served. So R. Sal. in that you despise the Pro∣phets and mock at their words, did not he by a Prophet bring Israel out of Egypt? In all these ways of applying the words of these two verses, hitherto, that which hath been looked on as the scope of them, is a description of the condition of the persons concerned in these histories, viz. of Jacob and of the Isra∣elites that came forth of Egypt under Moses, by comparing which with the behaviour of these present Israelites, they are convinced of great degeneracy from those their Ance∣stours that they gloried of, and their sins which they now commit, are by their contrary examples greatly aggravated.

There is another way in which those hi∣stories may be, and ought to be looked on, and for which end they are by x others taken to be here brought, namely as a commemo∣ration of Gods great benefits conferred on them in those their Ancestours, by vertue of which it was that they were brought to that height that they are now in, and as so con∣vince them of their great ingratitude to God, who had by so high engagements obliged them to his service and faithfull obedience to him, whom they now most ungratefully cast off, and forsake. That from so low an estate as their father Jacob is in the first history de∣scribed to have been in, God should bring them to be so great a people as they were be∣come, and to such great power, wealth and dignity as they were now in, whereas they could not in any humane probability have been otherwise than a race of poor people, servants, and shepheards, or of like base and mean condition and fortune; that, again from so hard a bondage which afterwards their An∣cestours, when they were by Gods blessing multiplied, were in in Egypt, (which the second history puts them in mind of) God should with an high arm, by many signs and wonders deliver them, notwithstanding all the ways that Pharaoh and the Egyptians used to keep them under, and detain them in perpetual slavery, and all this not by any power put into their own hand, but by the

ministry of a single Prophet: and that having brought them out thence, he should still de∣liver them without their own lifting up of an hand in their own defence, except it were the stretching out of Moses his hand, Deut. 14.27. from all the power of Egypt again pursuing them; and after that for so many years toge∣ther guide and preserve them in that great and terrible wilderness, as it is described Deut. 8.15. wherein were fiery serpents and scor∣pions and drought, where there was no wa∣ter, but such as he miraculously brought forth out of the rock of flint; no bread, but what he sent them from heaven; and did keep them from all hurt, not leaving nor forsaking them, till he had brought them into that good land which they now possessed, and had therein y goodly houses, heards and flocks, silver and gold, and all manner of wealth, and the pomp of a glorious kingdom: these certainly were benefits which could not but lay on them the greatest obligations imaginable, in acknow∣ledgment of them to cleave faithfully unto him, to devote themselves wholy to his ser∣vice, and never to depart from it. To do otherwise must needs shew them to be guilty of as great ingratitude as it is possible for any to be guilty of; yea such must it needs be, to let such great benefits slip out of their minds, and not to have them, by due medi∣tation on them, always before their eyes, to keep them constant and sincere in their obe∣dience and thankfulness to him. What God in∣joined to them Deut. 8.6. &c. That the words which he commanded them should be in their hearts, and they should teach them diligently unto their children, and should talk of them when they sate in their house, and when they walked by the way, and when they laid down, and when they rose up, and should bind them for a sign on their hands, and they should be as frontlets between their eyes, and they should write them upon the posts of their houses, and on their gates, lest when the Lord their God had brought them into the land of which he sware unto their fathers Abraham, Isaack, and Jacob, to give them their posterity, and they were full of all good things, they should forget the Lord which brought them out of the land of Egypt, from the ••ouse of bondage, but should fear him and serve him, and not go after other gods. This command, I say, may well be ap∣plied to these here mentioned histories, as necessary so with all diligence to be kept in memory, to make them ever mindfull of their great engagements to him, and keep them stedfast in his fear and faithfull obe∣dience to him, least otherwise his anger should be kindled against them. Certainly such a due remembrance of them both (the first as well as the last, which they are very oft called on to remember in the Law) is enjoined to them, in that form of confession prescribed to them Deut. 26.5. &c. to use when after their coming into the promised land, they offered their first fruits, Thou shalt speak and say before the Lord thy God, A Syrian ready to perish was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation, great, mighty and populous, and the Egyptians evil intreated us, and afflicted us, and laid upon us hard bondage. And when we cried to the Lord God of our fathers, the Lord heard our voice, and looked on our afflictions, and our labour, and our oppression. And the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an out∣stretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs and wonders. And he hath brought us into this place, and hath given us this land, even a land flowing with milk and honey. And now behold I have brought the first fruits of the land, which thou, O Lord, hast given us. See here both the histories that are here cited, joined also together with the main circumstances of them, and they commanded to recite them to make them mindfull of them, and that for that end, that by keeping them in mind, they might be mindfull of their great obligations to God, from whom they had received all the good things that they enjoyed, and might in token of their thankfulness for his great bene∣fits continue constant in his service, and sin∣cere in their obedience to him, who alone had done so great things for them, and made them to be what they are. They from being poor servants and slaves, and having nothing of themselves which might better that con∣dition, are by him raised to that eminency, as to be among the chief of kingdoms and na∣tions. The due thinking of these things would certainly be the greatest motive that could be to make them continually thankfull to God, and obedient to him; and their falling from him, and rebelling against him, argue that they did not bear them in mind, or think of them, as they ought to do, nor were thank∣full to him for them. z Such defection from him, and ingratitude to him, to prevent in them was the recital therefore of those histo∣ries of the condition of their father Jacob, and their deliverance from Egypt, enjoined them at the day of the first fruits, as it is called Num. 28.26. On the other hand, the mention of them here to them after the enumeration of their several sins and defection from God, for which they have been by the Prophets re∣proved, argue that they had forgotten God their great benefactor, raiser and preserver, and convinceth them of great ingratitude to

him; so that after what is expressed in the words which reckon up those great benefits, may seem to be understood, as Ab. Ezra sup∣plies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and, or but Israel hath forgot all these things; or as Kimchi in more words, and, or but they do not remem∣ber all these good things, but prov••ke me with abominations, and with that which is not God. So that they had no reason to boast and say as v. 8. that no iniquity should be found in them, as Abarbinel makes these and the following words to have respect to those, for they did provoke God to anger &c. as the effects of their ingratitude and ill dealing, notwithstanding the examples of their Ancestours which should have taught them, and Gods great favours to them, the memory of which should have ex∣cited them, to do better, are in the next words described. But before we pass to them, we shall a little reflect upon some of the terms or expositions in these former, and add som∣thing to what we have said of them.

It is said v. 12. that Jacob fled into the coun∣try of Syria &c. others, as we saw, say out of it. That which ours choose to follow seems the better, as for what reasons we have already seen, so because this flight is premised to his serving for a wife and keeping sheep, which were after his going into Syria, but before his coming out thence; for, to render the words, after he had served &c. seems too much wrested. The place whither he fled, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sedeh Aram, the field (or coun∣try, as ours in a larger term render it) of Sy∣ria, (for that is Aram taken to denote) and with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 naharaim, i. e. of two rivers, added, is Mesopotomia, as being between Ty∣gris and Euphrates. It is said Gen. 28.5. that Jacob went to Padan Aram, and so in other verses of the same chapter, and elsewhere is the place so called; of which name the learned Bochart observes this here, viz. Sedeh Aram, to be an interpretation, in as much as he after several Rabbins which he quotes, takes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Padan, to be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Phaddan, in Arabick, viz. ager sativus aut compascuus, a field for tillage or pasture ground, that is sowed, planted or fed, and so to denote that fruitfull part of that country, which was fit for, and put to those uses, and so by that name distinguished from the more barren and uncultivated part of that country, as out of Strabo he observes Mesopotamia to be di∣vided into two parts, the fruitfull and the barren. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Phaddan, in Ara∣bick so to signify he proves out of that a adage in that language set forth by Erpenius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. whatsoever thou shalt plant in a Phaddan it will profit thee, plant a man and he will supplant thee. There Erpenius renders it, in horto, in a garden, or orchard. Bochart saith, none can doubt but it signifies, agrum sativum vel consitum, a field that is sowed or planted. The sense indeed requires it, yet I doubt whether the word properly and primarily so signify, and not rather by a Me∣tonymy; for the most authentick Arabick Lexicons give us not that signification, but tell us that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly signifies, a yoke of oxen, or paire of oxen coupled together for plowing, (as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Phadono in b Syriack also doth, and also their instruments) and a plow; and thence, I suppose, it is trans∣ferred first, to signify such, or so much land as may by a yoke of oxen be plowed, a plow land, or an oxegange, the Latine jugerum, called so, as being, c quod juncti boves uno die exa∣rare possunt, as much as a yoke of oxen can plow in a day. Alkaraphi in his notes on the great Arab. Dictionary called Kamus, saith that ac∣cording to the use of the Egyptians Phaddan is a portion of ground, the measure of which is four hundred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 measuring poles, a pole being six cubits and two thirds of a cubit. To which respect is also, I suppose, had in such Arab. writers as tell how much seed a Phaddan will take up of such or such a sort of grain. That is, I suppose, so called by the name of the cattle by which it may in such a time be eared; and thence not improbably by some (as in the adage forementioned) transferred to signi∣fy more at large any arable ground, or that useth to be cultivated. But whether Padan Aram did so denote all that part of Syria in ge∣neral, which was put to that use of tillage, and so Sedeh Aram, the field of Syria, here be the interpretation of it, or whether it were a proper name of some place therein, is yet un∣certain; for so in the Syriack Lexicon of Bar∣bahlul I find 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Phadan Aram said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the name of a town or village, and in an Arabick d Geographical Dictionary that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Phaddan is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a village of the countries of Harran of Mesopotamia, and also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that tel Phadan (or the hill of Phadan) is also in Har∣ran, as if it had its denomination from this vil∣lage. This it may be convenient to take no∣tice of, although as to the present scope of the

words, it will not much make or marre, whe∣ther Padan Aram elsewhere, and Sedeh Aram here be all one in signification, as Bochart would have it, or else Padan there be the proper name of a town or village, and here Sedeh the field or country where it stood. Cocceius con∣jectures Padan, to be the same with the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a field.

It is said, Israel served &c. When he served he was not yet Israel, but plain Jacob: that honorable name was not given him till after he had left serving Laban, and returned from Syria whether he had fled. The putting here that name seems to have great Emphasis, as to the applying the words to such purposes as we before mentioned; as first, to quell their haughtiness and pride in boasting of their noble descent from that great Israel, which name set him forth as a prince that had power with God and with men, and prevailed, Gen. 32.28. and by vertue of, and under shelter of which name they thought they should still prevail, whatever they did, though walking unworthy of it. He was in himself but plain Jacob, an hireling servant and shepheard, and was only by Gods mere grace and favour made capable of, & raised to, that great digni∣ty, and so they through his blessing of, and promise to, him, that a nation and company of nations should be of him, and kings should come out of his loins, and the land which he gave to Abra∣ham, he would give to him and to his posterity after him, Gen. 35.10, 11. not for any right or desert in themselves, did possess the land which they now possessed, and were become a numerous people, and so great a kingdom from so mean a beginning: and so secondly, to convince them of so great ingratitude, who forgetting so great and undeserved favours, did so proud∣ly and rebelliously behave themselves towards God, their, and their fathers great benefa∣ctour, to whose service and obedience they were by so great engagements obliged.

It is again said, and for a wife he kept sheep. The word sheep, though not expressed, yet is necessarily supplied, as included (as we said) in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shamar, he kept. What it was he kept the history of him sheweth. The Vulgar Latin renders it literally according to the more ordinary reading in it, servavit, he kept, without adding any thing to denote what he kept, which perhaps gave occasion to some of reading it, servivit, he served; but that is a repeating only of the same which was said in the precedent clause, Israel served for a wife: here certain is somewhat besides added to shew in what he served, which was in keeping of sheep; and therefore for making the meaning clear, do those that follow that reading of, servavit, note that sheep is to be understood, and look upon the other, viz. servivit, to be a gross errour in the scribe, and the books in which it is so readd to be e corrupt, although f others that pretend to correct editions, do retain it, but certainly without cause, as comparing it with the Hebrew, is made evident from the two different words, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 servivit, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 servavit, therein used. The English of Doway follow the right reading of, servavit, he kept, but then in telling what, by a supply, differ from others, not saying, he kept sheep, but rendring, & in uxorem servavit, by, and for a wife he kept her, viz. the wife he served for; but what reason they had from any copy that had, eam, her, I know not, no such do we see, and as for the word as it is now readd barely, servavit, he kept, it may well suggest (according to the known use of it) to be understood, sheep, and the history will teach us, that these words have reference to a se∣cond wife, for which he kept sheep, not to the former, for which it is said that he served, it was on a new bargain with Laban. Cocceius renders the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shamar, which others render, servavit, or custodivit, by, excubias egit, he kept watch, which well expresseth his care and vigilancy in keeping and looking after Labans sheep, which he himself de∣scribes Gen. 31.40. In the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night, and my sleep departed from me by night. Such custom of shepheards watching over their sheep is described also Luke 2.8. There were in that country shepheards abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by night. Lyra after shamar, he kept, adds, pactum, his agreement or bargain with Laban, and he saith that the Hebrews say, expectavit, he waited, viz. se∣ven years, in which he served before he ob∣tained his wife.

The last word of the thirteenth verse, viz. nishmar, which, as we have seen, some ren∣der he was kept, or preserved; others, did be∣ware, or warily kept himself, the MS. Arab. rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 enhaphedha, which may by either of those ways be rendred, adds a note that it is by some rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was kept, or preserved, in as much as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nishmar may be two ways expounded, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 either as a noun, viz. a participle, or a preterperfect tense; but this may more concern the Gram∣mar, than the meaning of the words.

V. 14. Ephraim provoked him to an∣ger most bitterly: therefore shall he leave his blood upon him: and his re∣proch shall his Lord return unto him.

Ephraim provoked him to anger most bitterly &c. The Geneva English adds in the be∣ginning, but, and so doth Pagnin, sed, but Ephraim provoked, which being not expressed in the Hebrew, if it be supplied as under∣stood, then will it make the following words to sound as an aggravation, or farther de∣claration of ungratefull Israels wickedness, in that they forgetting God's great favours to their forefathers, and so to them in the pre∣ceding words mentioned, did notwithstanding do such things as provoked God to anger: or if it be not expressed nor understood, the words may be looked on as a description of the effects of their sinfull ways above taxed, viz. that by them they provoked him to an∣ger, and so their justifying themselves, that none iniquity should be found in them, (as v. 8. to which words Abarbinel so makes these to have respect) was manifestly false, in as much as their doings were such as provoked God to anger. Provoked him. The word him is not expressed in the original, but some person being necessary to be understood as governed of, provoked, in regard that the Lord was before mentioned, as he which had to do with Israel, ours supply, him, by which will be understood God, which others do for the same reason ex∣presly name. So Pagnin, Deum; and so Ab. Ezra puts as the person understood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hashem, the name, viz. the Lord; and Kimchi and Abarbinel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hael, God; R. Salomo to the same purpose 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Leboreo, his creatour; the Vulgar Latin, me, in the first person, as referring it to the Lord, who all along had spoken to them in the mou••h of his Prophet. All these say but the same thing, understanding the same person, viz. God, him Ephraim provoked to anger. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tamrurim, i. e. say ours in the text, most bit∣terly, in the margin they put, with bitternesses, as if there were understood in the Hebrew the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be, signifying, in, or with, to be prefixed; which expression is likewise ambiguous, whether they refer the words, with bitternesses, to the anger to which they provoked him, to express the quality thereof, as if it had much bitterness in it; or to their deeds, by which they provoked him, as being things full of bitterness, so that they deserved to be called bitternesses.

This various rendring of theirs suggests to us, that the words in their opinion are ca∣pable of different interpretations, and with∣all give us to observe that the word tamrurim, is in it self a noun substantive, though by them in the text rendred g adverb••ally, as substan∣tives in the Hebrew are sometimes used, and to be construed as adverbs. Their marginal reading, if taken in the first of those ways, which we have mentioned, will fall in in meaning with that in the text, to say they pro∣voked to anger which is with bitternesses, being all one as to say, to provoke to anger bitterly: if taken in the second way, as calling their dealings, or that by which they provoked him, bitternesses, then will it give us to en∣quire what those things were, and occasion us for that end to look into such interpre∣tations and expositions of that word which others give, and so to see how they differ from, or agree with ours, and between them∣selves; for they go differing ways in it ac∣cording to the notion or signification that they take that word in.

The notions that are usually given of it, are 1. of bitterness, 2. rebellion, 3. a pillar, or heap of stones or some such thing erected. The first is from the known and most usual signification of the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 marar, from which they will have it derived; and in this notion do ours in the last and most approved translation take it, both in the text and the marginal reading which they give, and so do very many, both ancient & modern Interpre∣ters, though dissering otherwise in their ex∣positions of it, some of them more agreeing with the reading in the text of our Bibles, or that in our margin, as taken so as to mean the same thing; others with that in the mar∣gin, so taken as to differ from that second way which we mentioned. Reducible to the first is that more usual reading of the LXX, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin Translatour renders, indignari fecit Ephraim & ad iracundiam provocavit. Ephraim hath made to chafe, or be much displeased, and hath provoked to anger. What doth the repeating those verbs import, but angrying bitterly or grievously? The printed Arab. which usually follows them, hath, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Latin renders, iratus est Ephraim & indignatus. The Syriack likewise, taking the same way, doth more closely express it by putting a verb in the second place from the same root with the noun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tamrurim, in the Hebrew, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Latin renders, iram & amari∣tudinem excitavit Ephraim, we may render it, Ephraim hath provoked to anger and embittered, which is all one with, hath provoked to anger bitterly, leaving to be understood, him, or me, or God, as the Hebrew doth. With these

among the modern likewise may be reckoned those who render, ad amaritudines, to bitter∣nesses, as Munster, & amaritudinibus, and with bitternesses, as agnin, if we understand there∣by, ira amarissima, with most bitter anger, as Vatablus explains it; which is that which Kimchi explains it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 anger of bitternesses, i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 evil and bitter anger. So Junius and Tremelius, also reading, provocavit Ephraim indignationem amarissi∣mam, Ephraim hath provoked most bitter anger, which Piscator saith is iterally in Hebrew, cum amaritudinibus, with bitternesses.

These and h such like, all agree in making the bitterness which they take the words to import, as a quality of the anger provoked to, that they thereby provoked God to use to∣wards them such proceedings as might i seem the effects of bitter anger, or to proceed from one most grievously and bitterly angred, and so go that way which our Translatours in the text do take, and that also which their mar∣ginal reading may, as we said, be understood in: But that being also capable of a second way of meaning, which we mentioned, viz. so as to set forth the quality of their doings, or the things which, or by which, they provoked God to anger, in that way also understood, we shall find it to agree with several, both an∣cient and modern. There is a reading of the LXX different from that which we have al∣ready seen, which gives that meaning, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and to that the Vulgar agrees, rendring, ad iracundiam provocavit Ephraim in amaritudinibus suis, Ephraim hath provoked to anger in, or with, his bitternesses, or his bitter prov••cations; the Do∣way renders, in his bitterness; the Tigurin ver∣sion hath, amaris rebus, with bitter things.

These agree in that they take that which is expressed by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tamrurim, understanding the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be, in, or with, before it, to be the things by which they pro∣voked God; and, in that they take the word in the notion of bitterness, leaving to be fur∣ther enquired what shall be understood there∣by, as deserving the title of bitterness, or bitter things, by which will be necessarily under∣stood some k such things, or such sins, as are grievously displeasing to God, without parti∣cular expressing of any one kind, so that any grievous sin of theirs may in general be un∣derstood. But others, though in the main as to the meaning not differing from them, do not so strictly confine the root to that signi∣fication of bitterness. A second notion there∣fore in which that word is by some taken, is that of rebellion. So R. Tanchum, who taking also the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be, in, or with, to be un∣derstood, as if it were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 betamru∣rim, so denoting as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath multiplied tamrurim, saith that the significa∣tion of tamrurim is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rebellions, which he proves from the use of the root in Ex. 23.21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 al tammer bo, which ours render, provoke him not, but according to him sounds, rebell not against him; as also out of Job 13.26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for thou writest against me meraroth, bitter things, as ours translate it, but as he would have it, rebellions, i.e. thou keepest my rebellions in mind, as if they were written down. Before him, in ascribing this signification to that root, went l Abuwalid, who there contends for it in that place of Job, viz. that it is in the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rebellion and disobedience, or being contrary to, which he saith the following words, which are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. and makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth, make evi∣dent, so that he cannot see what place the signification of bitterness can there have; and those other words in Ex. 23. he explains by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rebell not against him, instancing likewise in other places, in which he thinks the signification of rebellion to be most conve∣niently given to that root. To these per∣haps, rather than to the former, may be re∣duced the rendring of the MS. Arab. which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ephraim hath made angry by untowardness, or perverse be∣haviour; for in the Author of the great Ara∣bick Dictionary called Kamus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 illeness of disposition, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ex∣tremity of rebellion, or crosness.

There is a third notion in which the word tamrurim, is by many taken and in it rendred, viz. of some high erected things, as pillars, heaps of stones, or statues, or the like. So among the Jews R. D. Kimchi, though he saith it may signify bitterness, as above we saw from him, yet in the first place, as seeming to like it best, saith that by tamrurim, here are meant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the altars that were as heaps, or hillocks, and pillars, or statues, or such things as are erected for signs, which he confirms from the use of the same words, Jer. 31.23. where it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which ours render, set thee up way-marks, make thee tamrurim, high heaps; m where R. Tanchum notes it to signify 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 heaps of stones, or stones placed by ways

for marks, and he intimates, that it hath in it the signification of n height, or being high, by adding that the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 agrees with it, which occurs Daniel 8.7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which ours render, and he was moved with choller against him, but o he 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he lifted up himself toward him, as also Kimchi ex∣plaining it to the same purpose, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he was raised, or lifted up himself, toward him: so that according to them it is manifest that in their opinion, tamrurim, signi∣fies some such things as were by them ere∣cted, as p altars, Idols, statues, or the like, and in this way doth q Calvin render it, ex∣celsis suis, with his high things, or places, and prefers it before those rendrings which take the notion of bitterness, saying that however in other places it have that signification, he doth not doubt but that here, where the Pro∣phet is inveighing against the false worship of Israel, denotet excelsa illa loca, in quibus Israeli••ae instituerant falsos cultus & impios, it denotes those high places, in which the Israelites set up their false and wicked worship: so that it should be rendred either with, or in, excelsis, their high places, and so the Geneva English hath, Ephraim provoked him with high places; to which may also be reduced that rendring which that other English translation which was in common use before the last, hath, Ephraim hath provok'd him through his abominations. Under the name of high places, will be comprehended, r altaria, sacella, & Idololatriae omnes quae ab Israelitis in locis excelsis administrantur, their altars, chappels, and all Idolatries which were by them used in high places. And s some so look on them as joining in one both the notions of bitterness and height, because by them erected, and in high places used, God was most bitter∣ly provoked, so that they may all be called bitternesses. This is a good descant, and speaks what is true; but it is manifest that Kimchi in putting this as a distinct rendring and meaning from the first which takes the no∣tion of bitterness, and is by him also, as we have seen, mentioned, did not in this have at all respect to that signification, but to the other of height, or being high, or erected. And to that also, I suppose, Ab. Ezra to have had respect in explaining it by, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in aperto, openly, citing for confirmation of his opinion the two forecited places Jer. 31. and Dan. 8.7. as if he meant by manifest, things seen of all, as things placed on high, or high erected.

There is a different exposition from any of these here mentioned by t Abarbinel, not dif∣fering, as to the signification, but in the di∣stinction and construction of words, viz. by referring tamrurim, bitternesses, not to the foregoing, but to the following words. The words, he saith, may be understood either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath provoked God to anger of bitternesses, or bitter angers; or else, Ephraim hath provoked, therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall bitternesses, or bitter things, be upon him, and his blood shall &c.

Among these several ways of rendring these words, we may think our Translatours did with good reason choose that which they put in the text, which will be confirmed in that besides what is known of the most usual signi∣fication of the root, the noun in this form must, where it occurs elsewhere in the Scriptures, besides this place and that of Jer. 31. forecited, be necessarily taken in the notion of bit∣terness, as Jer. 6.28. where none will doubt, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 misphad tamrurim, is by ours rightly rendred, most bitter lamentation; and again in Jer. 31.15. bitter weeping, which I think are all the places where it is found in that form. Ours, I suppose, add here the note of the highest degree, because the noun which they adverbially here render, is of the plural number. And the words thus under∣stood, declare (as we said) the effects of their Idolatry, ingratitude, and rebellion, and other grievous sins, of which they are before shewed to be guilty, viz. that thereby they provoked God to anger most bitterly; the ill con∣sequents of which to themselves, the following words (as by ours also readd) do shew, viz. that therefore he will leave his blood upon him.

These words do others differently render. They are in the original 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 veda∣mau alau yittosh, of which, I say, we have different rendrings and interpretations given. The LXX render, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and likewise the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Syriack likewise 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all of them, and his blood shall be poured out upon him. So among our modern Translatours agree∣ably to them Pagnin renders, ideo sanguis ejus super eum u diffundetur; the Tigurin and Mun∣ster, effundetur, shall be poured out; and so the Geneva English hath it. Capito, disper∣getur, shall be sprinkled. 2. The Chaldee hath, the guilt of the innocent blood which he hath shed, shall return, or reside, upon him. The Vulgar Latin, & sanguis ejus super eum veniet, and his blood shall come upon him; and of more modern Interpreters Calvin, manebit, shall remain, or as Vatablus, requiescet, shall rest upon him. 3. Kimchi explains it, the inno∣cent

blood which Ephraim hath spilled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his Lord shall w spread upon him. And in this way of construction Junius and Tremellius, caedes ejus in eum expandit, spreads his slaughters, or as Piscator would have it answerably to the Hebrew, expandet, in the future, shall spread. Tremellius also, quiescere facit, or as Vatablus, faciet, doth, or shall cause to rest. Drus. and x others, sangui∣nes ejus super ipsum relinquet, shall leave his bloods upon him, which is that which y ours take, only that they put blood, in the singular number, yet in the margin putting, bloods. This way also is more anciently in the MS. Arab. found 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and he shall z leave at large &c. To the same purpose in the Interlineary, is, deseret, shall leave, omit, or forsake; and what Grotius also puts, san∣guinem ejus in ipsum deferet Deus, his blood shall God bring down upon him, viz. because they had slain many godly men.

Thus are there, we see, several rendrings of the words given by Expositours, according to the different ways of constructions that they take, some making 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his blood, or bloods, the nominative, others the accusative case; and the verb some rendring as passive orin∣transitive, some as active and transitive, be∣sides their something different acception of the words, as to the import of their signifi∣cation, and what is meant by that which is called their blood, whether their own that should be shed, or of others which was by them shed. That we may judge of these it will be convenient, that we look into the nature and signification of the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 natash, of which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yittosh, here is the future. Two usual notions in which it is taken, are of leaving and spreading, (to omit the third of plucking up, as not concerning this place) to which all above mentioned are referred. It hath this property, that it is taken sometimes actively or transitively, and so governing the noun after it; sometimes intransitively, or in a passive signification, and governed by a noun, but not governing any. Of the first use of it, many and obvious are the examples; also of the second examples are given, as Num. 11.31. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vayittosh al hammechaneh, where ours indeed, as di∣vers others, render it transitively, and let them fall by the camp, viz. the wind, let the quails fall; but Kimchi noteth that it is there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a verb intransitive, and before him that great Grammarian a Abuwalid noteth that the verb is there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 intransi∣tive, and the signification is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were spread, or did spread themselves, yet with∣all saith, that it may there be transitive: and so also 1 Sam. 4.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which in that way is by ours in the margin rendred, and the battel was spread, though in the text they give the meaning, they joined battel. Of the first of which places Abuwalid also saith, that there the verb may be also taken transi∣tively, viz. the wind spread &c. but not the se∣cond, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there is no possible way of taking it so, saith he.

This place here is also brought as an example of this verbs being used b absolutely or as an intransitive, and so the forementioned Abuwalid saith, that it is in this place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 intransitive. But Kimchi on the contrary saith that it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 transitive, and we see by the several rendrings which we have mentioned, that Expositours are divided in their opinions about it, some taking one way, others the other. As to the meaning, it will be indifferent which be taken, it, as to that, being all one to say, God will leave his blood upon him, and his blood shall remain, or be left upon him, both denoting the same condition that he shall be in; but as to the construction, it makes great difference; for in the one way it being actively rendred, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 da∣man, his blood, will follow as being governed of the verb, and another person governing it being understood, viz. the Lord, as before mentioned, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Adonau, coming after in order of the words, though before it in con∣struction, as by c some it is so placed before this verb, as well as before the following, as the common nominative case to them both: but in the other way, it being taken intransi∣tively or in a passive signification, shall be left, or the like, then that noun will precede, and govern the verb as its nominative. Against which way of taking it, and in favour to the first, might seem to lay an objection, in as much as that noun is here in the plural num∣ber, and properly denotes bloods, as in our margin in our Bibles is observed, whereas the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yittosh, is the singular number. But this objection may be easily solved by in∣stancing in other examples of such constru∣ctions in the Hebrew tongue, (in the Ara∣bick most frequent,) wherein a noun plural is joined with, and governeth, a verb singu∣lar. To omit others, we may instance in two, wherein these very words are so used also, though not both together, as first the fore∣cited Num. 11.31. where this verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yittosh, being there, as we have said, according to the forenamed chief Grammarians among

the Jews, taken intransitively for, were spread, or left, and being of the singular number, is yet according to that construction governed of the noun plural 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shalvim, quails. A se∣cond instance which we shall give, is Ezek. 18. v. 13. where the same word as here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 damau, his bloods, is joined with a verb of the singular number, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 damau bo yihyeh, which therefore in the Interlineary is literally, though irregularly as to the use of the Latin tongue, rendred, sanguines ejus in ipso erit, his bloods shall be upon him; and by the same reason may it then be here so also used, and so is by those great Grammarians, and others, taken. On that place of Ezek. Kimchi notes, that in this noun, the plural 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 damim, and singular dam, are somtimes indifferently put and used.

Having seen this concerning the constru∣ction of the words, that we may come to the meaning of them, we may premise something, as that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 damim, blood or blooas, is, be∣sides the known proper meaning of the words, used also for the shedding of blood, and that either as taken for guilt and a crime in shed∣ding of blood, or for that which makes one ob∣noxious to have his blood shed; or punishment and death, that being by the shedding of blood caused and executed; and more largely for any great and foule sin, besides other ac∣ceptions, which it will not here be need to take notice of: but more especially may be enquired, what blood it is that is here called his (that is, Ephraim's) blood, whether his own which was to be shed, or he deserved to have spilt or shed; or the blood of others which he had spilt or shed, since it is found taken for the d one, and for the other. If his own blood be understood, to the shedding of which he hath by his sins made himself liable, and deserved capital punish∣ment, the meaning will be, that seeing he hath by his sins deserved death and destruction, God will not hold him guiltless, nor free him∣from what he hath wilfully pulled upon him∣self, but leave his guilt on him, or it shall re∣main on him, even that destruction which he hath been e cause to himself of, and of which the blame lieth on himself; it is his. For illu∣strating this meaning, make those expressions Jos. 2.10. Whosoever shall go out of the doors of thy house into the street, his blood shall be upon his head, and we will be guiltless: and 2 Sam. 1.16. where David saith to the Amalekite that brought him tidings of Sauls death, Thy blood be upon thy head, for thy mouth hath testi∣fied against thee, saying, I have slain the Lords anointed.

If it be understood of the blood of others by him shed, then will it signify that that blood shall not be pardoned to him, nor the guilt thereof wiped off from him, but it shall light heavy upon him, God will open•• avenge it on him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the Chaldee explains ir, the guilt of the inno∣cent blood which he hath shed, shall return upon him. R. Sal. taking this way, doth so far in∣large the meaning, as to comprehend not only those whose blood they had actually shed with their hands, but all those that they had drawn away to Idolatry, and so been cause of destruction to; because, saith he 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he that maketh a man to sin, is worse to him than he that slaieth him, and therefore the Scripture assigns greater punishment to the Amonites and Moabites, who en∣ticed Israel to sin in joining to Baal Peor, than to the Egyptians and Idumeans, who drowned them in the river, and went out with the sword to meet them. Zanchi understands it of the blood of their sacrifices to Idols.

All those whom we have before mentioned, however otherwise differing among themselves, do yet agree in this, that they look on these words as a threat and denouncing of evil to Ephraim for their sins. So doth also the now cited R. Sal. and Abarbinel, who, as we above said, join the preceding word, tamrurim, bit∣ternesses, with them. Bitternesses, saith R. Sal. shall be to him, because God will cast upon him his bloods, which he shed in making Israel to sin; and so Abarbinel, bitternesses shall be to him, and the bloods which he hath shed, shall be spread upon him. But there is another exposition given, wherein they are made not a de∣nouncing of evil to Ephraim, but a farther declaration of such evil as was in them. This is given both by Abuwalid and R. Tanchum, who taking blood, not in its proper significa∣tion, but in a larger notion, in which it is sometimes, as we said, used, of which we have above given some account c. 4. v. 2. p. 169. as it may denote, any hainous crimes, and much defiling sins, or the defilement thereof, and then the verb yittosh, as intransi∣tive, give this for the meaning, his filthiness is spread upon him, and manifestly appearing in him. So f Abuw. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for so he observes that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dam, is not used only to denote blood, but also, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 foulness, filthiness, and rebellions, or transgressions.

But however these words may be under∣stood, it is manifest that the following words are a denouncing of evil to them, and his re∣proch

shall his Lord return unto him. These words Kimchi thus explains, that his reproch with which he reproched God in making the calves, the reward of all will his Lord return on his head: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Adonau, his Lord, is God. blessed for ever, although he do not acknowledge his dominion, yet whether he will or no, he is still his Lord, and he will return, or repay, him his reward upon his head. To the same purpose are they by most of Christians also, ancient and modern, expounded. Cyril so interprets what is called, his reproch, of the reproch which they cast on God in setting up their calves, to which they gave that honour which was due to him; Jeroboam, who was of the tribe of Ephraim, when he set them up, saying of them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem, behold thy Gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. For it is an open injury and confessedly a reproch to God to attribute to dead liveless things those great and wonderfull things by him done: therefore according to this reproch of Ephraims shall proportionably such evils as pro∣ceed from Gods wrath, be likewise brought upon him: for as God was by him deprived of the ho∣nour due unto him, so shall he be deprived of his dominion, for the kingdom of Ephraim shall after a time cease. St. Jerom for explaining this expression, remits us to that of Nathans to David, 2 Sam. 12.14. Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme &c. thus bringing it to the purpose, propter hanc rem, for this deed, i. e. for the sin of killing Ʋriah, that very blasphe∣my and reproch, with which the Lord by this means is blasphemed, shall be turned on thy head. I suppose, to his meaning it may conduce to take in the words of Nathan from the ninth verse preceding those that he expresly cites, wherein is threatned to David punishment proportionable to his fault in killing Uriah and taking his wife. According to him the meaning here will be, that as they caused God to be evil spoken of, and reproched by the Heathen who saw them who pretended to be his people, to make so slight of him and his service, as to cast him off to follow Idols, (so that the reprochfull words of the others were but the found of their opprobrious deeds, and the reproch therefore more theirs than the others,) so, as a reward of these their wicked dealings, he would give them up to contempt, to be despised, and reproched by other people, even by those whom they caused to blaspheme and reproch God. This is agreeable to what God saith of his method in dealing with men, Them that honour me will I honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed, 1 Sam. 2.30.

In the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cherpato, his reproch, the pronoun affixed signifying, his, is so placed, g that it may seem doubtfull to whom it is to be referred, whether to God or to Ephraim; if to God, it must signify that which was by Ephraim cast on him; if to Ephraim, then the same, as by him so cast. It is most commonly and most plainly referred to Ephraim as the agent. So Piscator, quo alios affecit, that reproch which Israel cast on others. And who are they then who are reproched? God is usually understood; Grotius saith, Prophetas, the Prophets. But it is manifest enough they reproched both, and if one be, the other will be reproched: they that will despise God, will despise his Prophets; and they that despise them, do despise him that sent them. But R. Salomo, following some of the Tal∣mudical Doctors, puts another as the person reproched by them, viz. King Salomon, and the reproch meant, to be that which Jeroboam, of the tribe of Ephraim, cast upon him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that he publickly reproved him, because he built Millo, 1 Kings 11.27. which was a publick grievance and charge to the people, which they gather from what is there said, that he lift up his hand against the king: and that therefore he threatens him to return upon him his reproch, because he him∣self did worse than he. But this I do not find others to give much heed to, and there seems no reason that they should.

The person that is said, shall return his re∣proch unto him, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Adonau, his Lord. The name Adonim, though in form plural, is usually (as some other nouns of like nature) rendred and put in construction (as here) as the singular number, his Lord, not Lords, and it is spoken as well of men as of God; and so there be, who will have it spoken of an earthly Lord, viz. by it to be meant the Assyrian, into whose hand God would deliver them to be punished for their reproch and contempt of himself. But the more general way and apparently the best, is to understand it of God himself, whose instrument only the Assyrian was, and who, however they reje∣cted him, would approve himself still their Lord, as he had formerly done in doing them good, and wonderfull things for them, now in punishing them; for their not so acknow∣ledging him and his goodness, he will now again make them know him by such evils as he will send upon them for their evil doings; he will so preserve his right over them, he will return their reproches upon them, they can∣not fasten on him, they shall fall back on their own heads.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yashib, he will return. Of the signifi∣cation

of the word there is no doubt: only h some though it be in form future, render it by the present tense, reddit, he doth return, as if he had already begun to do it. The Vulgar Latin rendring it, restituet, will restore, i Ri∣bera looks on it as giving an Emphasis to the meaning, as importing that the sinner by sinning makes (as it were) God debter to him for his doings, who will not remain in his debt, but certainly in due time will repay him, and that he will do it in his own coyn and in full tale; so here for his, probrum, reproch, k poenam probrosam, reprochfull punish∣ment. The meaning then of the words so un∣derstood as we have seen them to signify, is according to the current opinion of the most, if not all, this, that the reproch which Ephraim had cast upon God, by setting up Idols in his stead, and their hard speeches against God and his Prophets, he would return upon them∣selves, punishing them with shamefull punish∣ment for them, according to their just deserts, so that they should themselves beare their re∣proch and shame in the sight of those that be∣held how the Lord hath shewed himself their Lord, whose power for all their bragging they could not stand out against, nor escape his hand. Of this verse Castalio giving the meaning rather than a literal translation, thus renders it, Irritavit Ephraimita acerbe Do∣minum suum, itaque ille eum capitaliter & foede puniet, ac remunerabitur ut dignus est, The Ephraimite hath bitterly provcked his Lord, therefore will be capitally and shamefully punish him, and be shall be rewarded as he is worthy. So will he make good what is above threatned verse the second.

Notes

• q

  Kimchi.
• r

  Riv. Tarn.
• s

  Ar. Mont. Ribera.
• t

  Full. Concord. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as, pascit ovis pratum, Ovid.
• u

  As vain as to think to feed or to govern the wind, Doway note.
• w

  Corn. à Lapide.
• That so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be of the common gender, masculin or feminine.
• Tarnov. makes it the accusative case governed of the verb following it, Ephraim malum spiritum persecutus est, aestum tota die.
• y

  Tarnov. although of that may be examples.
• z

  Ar. Mont. omnium linguarum communi sermone ventus, ali∣quando vanitatis exprimit imaginem.
• a

  Especially blowing by day, Kamus, Ebn. Athir.
• b

  R. Ianch.
• c

  See more of his meaning in the note on that place.
• d

  Interlin. Tig. Capito.
• e

  And so Jun. Trem.
• f

  Pet. à Fig. and Pisc. multiplicabit, i.e. multiplicare s••let.
• g

  Trem. Non tam vocem ipsam quam, quod sibi videbatur melius congruere expenderunt, nen enim putarunt menda∣cium cum vastitate apte congruere, or else they twice rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cazab, omitting shed, Rivet.
• Cocceius renders in the text, violentiam.
• h

  Vat. in 8^o.
• i

  Pare.
• k

  Drus.
• l

  So Jun. Trem. render it unguentum.
• m

  Pare.
• n

  Cyril, Jerom, Rivet, Tarnov.
• o

  Pisc.
• p

  Scimus nunquam profectos fuisse in Assyriam vel in Aegyptum, nisi dum fratribus suis machinabantur exitium &c. Calvin.
• q

  Ar. Mont. Chr. à Castro.
• r

  Ab. Ezra, Petr. à Fig. Pisc. Ribera.
• s

  Trem. Ar. Mont. Zanchi, Riv. Pare.
• t

  C. 1.4. c. 2.13. c. 8.13. c. 9.7.
• u

  Zanchi.
• w

  River.
• x

  Grot. gravius puniam.
• y

  In edit. in 4^o and 8^o.
• z

  Buxt. Trans. l. 2. c. 9.
• a

  Riv. futurum est ut visitet, Drus.
• b

  Tig.
• c

  Pagn.
• d

  Jun. Trem.
• e

  See in Chr. à Cast. Dane. Cocc.
• f

  It is in a MS. copy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• g

  It is printed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but I suppose it is manifest it should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• h

  Petr. à Fig.
• i

  Which is, calcem centingo, & calce seric, & decipio, Drus.
• k

  So Ab. Ezra, as in the person of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I gave him sirength to take his brother by the heel; and Kimchi, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 end this I did that it might be a sign to his children after him.
• l

  Pag. Tig.
• m

  Cast.
• n

  Cocc.
• o

  Munster, certavit.
• p

  Trem. Buxt. vindic. p. 794.
• q

  Sanct. Corn. à Lap. Menoch. Tirin.
• r

  Directus est in luctando, Lyra.
• s

  See in Rivet, and J. H. Ursin from Origen.
• t

  Lyra saith it was Jacobs, for that Esaus being a good one would not oppose him in going whither God commanded: and his own did it for confirming his saith.
• u

  Josephus, See Rivet.
• w

  Personaliter Ange∣lus, repraesentative & authoritative Deus, see Rivet.
• x

  Id. River, ex Serrario & Pererio.
• y

  Indiscrete vel cou∣fuse, Calv.
• z

  Merc. Rivet. Pisc. Cocc.
• a

  Diodati.
• b

  The LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in his labours.
• c

  Rivet ex Abulensi.
• d

  Theodoret.
• e

  For to say with some, that this was done to him by way of puni••hment, and that he sought to kill him for his diffidence, and because he had sent so many cattel to Esau, not having yet paid the tenths which he had vowed to God, (Pool. Syn. ex Li. on Gen. 32.24.) I think it is a ground∣less conjecture; we cannot look on it, as done for bad, but for good ends by God to Jacob.
• f

  Rivet.
• g

  Nullus est melior titulus quam denatienis, Calv.
• h

  River.
• i

  Calv.
• k

  Mentioned Deut. 2.37. and 3.16.
• l

  See Mercer to this purpose.
• m

  Var. Trem. Drus. Zanc. Castal.
• n

  Petr. à Pig.
• o

  Merc. River.
• p

  Implorare est fletu regare, Lively.
• q

  Id. for example bringing 1 Sam. 1.10. and Esth. 8.3.
• r

  2. Falfitas aut molestia & labor, vel querimonic. 3. Luctus, Nic. Full. cap. Conc.
• s

  Bib Fran••••.
• t

  Von satis expresse, Trem. River.
• u

  Aben Ezra, R. Tanchum, Trem. Rivet. &c.
• w

  Kimchi, Calvin, Pare. Tarnov. Drus. Jun. Trem.
• x

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

  Pare. Tirin.
• z

  Rivet.
• a

  See MS.
• b

  Calv. who censures it as, coactum, forced
• c

  Jerom, Calv. Trem. Merc. Riv. Tarnov. Diodat. Dane. Pare. &c.
• d

  Ribera, Christ. à Cast.
• e

  Rad. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in his Dictionary.
• f

  Ainsw. on that Psalm, and Durch notes here.
• g

  Jun. Trem. Pagn. Cast.
• h

  See Merc. and Petr. à Fig.
• i

  See in Poole.
• k

  R. Saadias cited by Aben Ezra in that place.
• l

  As by other examples he shews it to be no unusual construction.
• m

  Ex. 23.11.
• n

  Dissert. de Nomine Dei §. 17.
• o

  Ainsw. on Ex. 6. and Fagius &c. and see R. Sal.
• p

  Abar∣binel.
• q

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yeheveh, erit; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hoven, ens; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 havah, fuit; Shind. and see Buxt. de Nomi∣nibus Dei.
• r

  Full. Misc. l. 4. c. 13.
• s

  Buxt. ut supra.
• t

  Buxt. Dissert.
• u

  Tig.
• w

  As some think by Galatinus.
• x

  Compare 1 Cor. 8.5.
• y

  Ps. 86.8.
• z

  As Michael, Dan. 10.21. and 12.1. Rev. 12.7.
• a

  Buxt. Dissert. Rivet on Psalm 24.
• b

  Isaiah 10.5 &c.
• c

  Fag. on Gen. 2.1.
• d

  Kimchi Rad.
• e

  Rivet on Psalm 24.
• f

  Rivet.
• g

  So Ribera, semper Dei recordabatur, and reciteth also Cy••••ls interpretation which follows.
• h

  Car. Ucil.
• i

  Jon. 2.5.
• k

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

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

  Rom. 9.8.
• n

  Rom. 4.12.
• o

  Grot. Bren.
• Exemplo Jacobi.
• p

  Petr. à Fig.
• q

  Sa. Menoch. Tir.
• r

  He saith that on the contrary 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 l, is sometime used for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 b.
• s

  Tar∣nov. approves his way.
• t

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

  Rivet.
• w

  Fag. Munst. Tig.
• x

  Cast. Grot.
• y

  Jun. Trem.
• z

  Petr. à Fig. Zanc. Par. Tarnov.
• a

  See c. 6.4. God is not pleased with such 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 goodness or mercy as goeth away like a cloud, or as the early dew.
• b

  Zanchi.
• c

  Pam.
• d

  Calv. Zanch. Pare. Riv. Tarnov.
• e

  Rivet.
• f

  1 John 4.20.
• g

  Gloss. Gram. l. 3. p. 358.
• h

  So Dr. Stokes, so maiest thou altogether expect the like help from God, and put thy trust in him.
• i

  Cap. Conc.
• k

  It includes fiducia, none wait so on any, in whom they have not confidence grounded both on his ability and will.
• l

  See 1 Chron. 16.11.
• m

  Rom. 8.35.
• n

  C. 2.23.
• o

  Munst. Tig. Calv. Castal Capit. Drus. &c.
• p

  Pag. Jun. Trem. Pisc. Drus. Iustitor, Cocc.
• q

  As Grotius notes out of Homer and Philostratus.
• r

  Le∣vit. 19.35, 36.
• s

  Pet. à Fig.
• t

  Trem. Dane. so Micah 6.10, 11, 12.
• u

  He notes that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aheb is the preterperfect tense.
• w

  Lively.
• x

  Calv. Zanchi.
• y

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

  Grotius.
• b

  Lively.
• c

  Jun. Trem.
• d

  Grotius.
• e

  Tig. Castal.
• f

  Cocc.
• g

  Rad. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Vat. fortitudinem; Capito, robur; and so L. de Dieu, Ar. Mont. vim, strength.
• h

  And 10.15.
• a

  R. Tanch.
• i

  Lively, pro comparare, assequi; as Jun. Trem. render, assequutus sum.
• k

  Although he otherwise take it for one with Avon, and to signify 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that which doth not profit.
• l

  R••b. Pet. à Fig.
• m

  Rivet. Tarnov.
• n

  Pare.
• Abuwalid, Kimchi.
• o

  Kimchi, Calv. Pare. Zanchi.
• p

  Edit. Lond. 1600.
• q

  Opibus labore meo partis. Homines, Zanchi.
• s

  Munst. Tig. Capito.
• t

  That it may be so rendred see Glass. Gr. p. 303. Non poterit inveniri in negotiis meis peccatum injustitiae, Sa.
• u

  Tirin.
• w

  Bren.
• x

  Interlin.
• y

  Rivet.
• y

  Rivet.
• z

  See Galss. Gr. p. 587.
• a

  Rivet.
• b

  So doth Oecol. render it in the preterperfect tense.
• c

  Crit. p. 290.
• d

  Glass. Gr. l. 3. c. 23.
• e

  Grot. thinks he took avon for onah 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an appointed time, I think rather for punishment, adding in the day.
• f

  Steph. Lex.
• g

  It would have been the same if he had put, will not find me, for the like ambiguity is in our English find, I have not enough to find me.
• h

  It is written in the copy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yaphi, but I think by a manifest errour of the Scribe.
• i

  Rivet.
• k

  Plutum.
• l

  Rivet.
• m

  Munst. Tig. Oecol. Par.
• n

  Cast. Pisc.
• o

  LXX. Vulg.
• p

  Merc.
• q

  Interlin. Jun. Trem.
• r

  Cast.
• s

  Dane.
• t

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

  Sedere te faciam.
• w

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

  MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will make thee to sit; printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will make thee to dwell.
• y

  Who are distinguished into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 inhabitants of houses, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 inhabitants of tents. See Spec. hist. Arab. p. 2. and in the notes p. 87.
• z

  Though R. Sal. refer it to Jacobs so dwelling, see Capito.
• a

  Grot. in aedibus, Stokes, other houses were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the first use of Tabernacles wherein they dwelt in the wilderness.
• b

  Rom. and Polyg.
• c

  See Drus.
• d

  Trem.
• e

  Capito.
• f

  See Pisc.
• g

  Abarb.
• h

  Theodoret.
• i

  See Gualt. and see Rivet.
• k

  Num. 14.34, 35. Deut. 2.15, 16.
• l

  And so Gualt.
• m

  See Chr. à Cast. and Menoch.
• n

  See Pet. à Fig. Menoch.
• o

  Tirin.
• p

  The Church of Christ called a ta∣bernacle, Acts 5.16. Rev. 13.6. and 14.5. and 21.3.
• q

  See River.
• r

  Merc. Diod.
• s

  Riv. Diod.
• t

  Lively.
• u

  In 8^o, by R. Steph. and in 4^o. at Hanovia.
• w

  In folio by R. Steph. and in that with the Hebrew and Greek.
• x

  See Castal. and Merc. ex consequentibus hic antecedens est colligendum, their restoring argues a preceding captivity.
• y

  Pet. à Fig. Chr. à Cast. J. H. Ursin.
• z

  J. H. Ursin.
• a

  Brenn.
• b

  Lively, Diod. see Trem.
• c

  Trem. and see Theodoret.
• d

  Jun. Trem. Grot.
• e

  Pare. Tarn.
• f

  Munst.
• g

  Zanchi.
• h

  Ribera.
• i

  Per. à Fig. Menoch.
• k

  See Nold. Concord.
• l

  Capito.
• m

  Grot.
• n

  Pet. à Fig.
• o

  Pare.
• p

  Rivet on c. 1. p. 2. out of S. Austin.
• q

  Drus. River.
• r

  Ri∣vet.
• s

  See Pisc Zanch. Cast.
• Pisc. Oecol.
• t

  Before him Ribera puts it as a conjecture, In promptu est etiam dicere non ita scribendum esse ut nunc scribitur, sed ita 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eddameh, quod passivae vocis est, ac verietur, assimilatus sum.
• u

  Pet. à Fig. Chr. à Castro.
• w

  Proposui similitudines.
• x

  Trem.
• y

  Drus. Rivet.
• z

  Rivet.
• a

  Tirin.
• b

  Pare.
• c

  Theodoret.
• d

  Cocceius.
• e

  Ribera, Rivet.
• f

  It is by others rendred si, if; by others certe, surely; by others sed, but; by others quia, because; it being in these and other significations used.
• h

  See Bib. in octavo according to the Lovain Doctors correction Antw. 1582.
• i

  Non boves di is immolant, sed bobus offerunt sacrificia, Jerom, yet Drusius thinks it ought to be readd boves; and Ar. Mont. notes, non dativi, sed effectivi casus est; namque Hebraice est accusativi.
• k

  So R. Sal. see Pet. à Fig. Capito takes Gilead to have belonged to Gilgal, though Jordan were between them.
• l

  Ri∣bera, Menochi, C. à Cast. in his Paraphrase and notes.
• m

  Ribera.
• n

  P. à Fig.
• o

  Id.
• p

  Ribera.
• q

  Some copies read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, igitur &.
• r

  It is observed to be a fault for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not. Bib. Francf.
• i

  Tirin.
• s

  Although otherwise Ella, as from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 si non, well agrees with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nisi, but that seems not here so conventent.
• t

  See Ribera.
• u

  So in Latin cum faciam vitule. Jerom, Trem. Schind.
• x

  See c. 6.
• y

  Corn. à Lap. and so Tirin. It will be the same if the latter words be read with a bare interrogation without cur, if &c. do they in Gilgal sacrifice?
• z

  Pet. à Fig.
• a

  In rendring the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aven, so as to de∣note the destruction that was to come upon them, he seems to follow the Chaldee, which hath for it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 anu∣sin, & to take that word in the passive signification. See Buxt. Lex. Mercer also renders it, vi oppressi, oppressed with force, viz. of enemies, whereas others take it actively, and render it oppressors, grassatores.
• b

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 en, si, if; except any should take it for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 enna, certainly.
• c

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth he elsewhere render by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as 1 Kings c. 6.8. and Micah. c. 2.1.
• e

  Perhaps Gilgal.
• Brenn.
• f

  Cum dicit boves immolasse magno sumptu maximum incommodum sibi ipsis quaesitum reprehendit, Ar. Mont.
• g

  In his first notes.
• h

  Abuwalid, Kimchi.
• i

  Calv. Zanch. Pare. and see Tarn.
• k

  As Rivet explains their meaning.
• l

  Rivet.
• m

  See Mas. on Josue c. c. 12. p. 22.
• n

  Gen. 31.47.
• o

  Rivet.
• p

  What was done in Gilgal see Jos. 5.9. &c.
• q

  Capito.
• r

  Ab. Ezra, by way of similitude, because they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 many and conspicuous.
• s

  Trem.
• t

  Menoc. Tirin. Grot. Brenn.
• u

  Kimchi, Chald. Calv. Zarchi. Rivet, Merc. &c.
• w

  Jun. Trem. and I think in Gal, an heap, to be an allusion to the name of the place Gilgal.
• x

  Diod. in English.
• y

  Tirin. L. de Dieu.
• z

  To them is the multiplying of altars objected c. 8.11. and c. 10.1.
• a

  In Dr. Huntington's Gregorius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so Bar Bahlul citing this place, takes it for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a tortoise.
• b

  Ferrar. Nomenclator, if his authority be sufficient.
• c

  Drus. Jun. Trem.
• d

  And so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 talam in Ara∣bick.
• e

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 h being turned into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i, as Abuwalid saith of the word, that this letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 h; is in it somtimes turned.
• f

  Rivet.
• g

  Rivet.
• h

  Ribera, Menoch.
• i

  So Capito also seems to think.
• D. Stokes.
• k

  Pelican.
• l

  Ab. Ezra.
• m

  Interlineary.
• n

  Dr. Hammond.
• o

  J. H. Ursin ex Osiandro.
• p

  Neh. 9.20.
• q

  Domesticum exemplum legis loc•• habendum, Ar. Mont.
• r

  Gen. 27.46.
• s

  Calv. Trem. Riv. Par. &c.
• t

  Zanchi.
• u

  R. Tanchum.
• w

  Capito, Gualt.
• x

  Capito, Pet. à Fig. Tirin.
• y

  Deut. 8.12. &c.
• z

  For like ends is the mention of these and like benefits mentioned to them else∣where, as Jos. 24.2. Ezek. 16.3. &c.
• a

  Adage 10. in Boch. it is ill printed, octavum, the eighth, and in the Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b

  So Bar Ali saith it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c

  Martin. Lex. Phil. ex Nonno, and Jun. Nomencl.
• As in the book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• d

  Saphoaddin.
• e

  Ʋt corruptissimi quidam codices habent, saith Ribera of it.
• f

  In octavo at Antwerp according to the Lo∣vain Divines 1582. and that in folio at Paris 1549. by Jo. Benedictus.
• g

  As likewise Castalio, acerbe.
• h

  Diodati.
• i

  Est ira Domini facinora supplicio repensare, Capito.
• k

  Ʋt intelligantur peccata Israelitarum quibus ad iram fuit provocatus, Rivet; gravissima peccata, J. H. Ursin, any of their most grievous, or heinous sins.
• l

  In his book Mostalhec, and his dictionary he affirms the same.
• m

  On Jer. 31.21.
• n

  Drus. verbum à quo hoc nomen, interdum significat, elevare, extollere.
• o

  And so Abuw. in Lex. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• p

  Altaria loca sunt alta è terra elevata, unde & nomen habent.
• q

  And so Trem.
• r

  Ponitur continens pro contento, Zanchi.
• s

  Merc. Gualt. Pare. Tarnov.
• t

  As before him R. Sal. explaining it, bitternesses shall be to him, because the blood &c.
• u

  Or diffundet se, Interlin. in margin, in the text deseret.
• w

  In his Lexicon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall cause to rest upon him.
• x

  Lively, Tarnov. L. de Dieu, Cocc.
• y

  And so Dio∣dati.
• z

  Although in another signification the word may denote, to cause to flow.
• a

  In his Lex.
• b

  Schindl. Lex.
• c

  Jun. Trem. Diodati.
• d

  Of the first it is taken by Jerom, Cyril, Pareus, Rivet; of the second, the Chal. Paraph. Ab. Ez. Kimchi. Abarb. and divers modern.
• e

  Jerom, ipse erit causa mertis suae. Cyril, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• f

  Rad. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• g

  Israelis active, Dei passive.
• Vzi. c. Chelek the 11^th of Sanhedrim f. 101. p. 2.
• Mercer in his for∣mer notes, which Tarnov. on Hos. 11.1. saith are indeed Luthers.
• h

  Jun. Trem.
• i

  So also Sa.
• k

  Zanchi.