A commentary on the prophecy of Hosea by Edward Pococke.

V. 2. And now they sin more and more, and have made them molten Images of their silver, and Idols ac∣cording to their own understanding, all of it the work of the craftsmen: they say of them, Let the men that sacri∣fice, kiss the calves.

And now they sin more and more, and have made them molten Images of their silver &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 veattah, and now. This first word, I suppose, ought to be well heeded to for the directing us in the right meaning of the fol∣lowing, by not only pointing to the time when what is spoken of was done, but withall giving us more distinctly to understand who are the persons here taxed for doing it, and what it was that they are taxed for. By looking back

to the preceding words, we shall perceive that the person, or persons, spoken of, is, or are, set forth under the name of Ephraim, and that before now he, or they, had offended in Baal, and suffered evil, called his dying, for it. Now if we look into the history of Israel, we shall find true what Kimchi observes, that in the time of their Judges they, all the twelve tribes, then comprehended under that name, did worship sometimes Baals, as Jud. 6.33. and when they had some good Judge, were by him taken off from that Idolatry, and re∣turned to the Lord; and that afterwards, when there were two kingdoms of them, Je∣roboam the first King of the ten tribes set up the worship of the golden calves: and to those acts doth that d 1.1 Rabbi here refer these words, but sure their being timed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 attah, now, restrains us from looking so far back, and directs us to refer what is spoken, to the time when the Prophet spake this, and to the condition that Ephraim had lately been, and was now, in. It cannot be said of Ephraim that he died in the daies of the Judges, he was then but mingled with all the twelve tribes. It was long after that that they grew to that height as to be a distinct kingdom from Ju∣dah, and chief of the other tribes of Israel. Sure this notation of time will necessarily li∣mit us to what happened in, and to, him after he was so, i. e. after Jeroboam's time, and after that we shall find how more appa∣rently he offended in Baal, and the, now, will point out unto us what after that he conti∣nued to do.

That offending in Baal therefore in the pre∣ceding verse mentioned, will be their publick worship of Baal by Ahab set up; and their now sinning more and more, or adding to sin, the Ido∣latrous courses which they continued in after that e 1.2 Jehu had destroyed Baal out of Israel: for though Jehu had so done as to the publick worship of Baal and his house and wor∣shippers, yet it is said that Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God of Israel with all his heart, and that he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, which made Israel to sin, 2 Kings 10.31. His son Jehoa∣haz is likewise said to have followed the same sin, and indeed all his Successours till Ho∣shea the son of Elah, the last King of the ten tribes, amongst whom was Jeroboam the son of Joash, in whose days our Prophet is said to have prophecied, c. 1.1. who hath that brand set upon him 2 Kings 14.24. will ap∣pear to have followed the same Idolatrous courses, in keeping up the worship of the calves, and the people under them generally to have run on in them, and probably to have added other like abominable ways to them, according to what is testified against them, 2 Kings 17. from v. 7. forward, where v. 16. it is said, that they left all the commandments of the Lord their God, and made themmolten images, even two calves and a grove, and wor∣shipped all the host of heaven, and served Baal, and caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divinations and in∣chantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord to provoke God to anger; and v. 22, 23. it is said, that the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did, they departed not from them, untill the Lord re∣moved Israel out of his sight, so that be was carried out of his own land to Assyria. This per∣tinacy and obstinate perseverance of Ephraim still in such Idolatrous courses, after that they had seen what mischief the offence committed in Baal had brought both on Ahab and his house, and on the whole people also, and what they had suffered for that or other for∣mer Idolatries, plainly appears to be that which is here described, and they are taxed for, viz. in his saying, that now they sinned more and more, and made them molten Images of their silver &c.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yosiphu lachato, they sin more and more, in the margin in our Bibles is put, they add to sin, as more literally agreeable to the Hebrew, but in the meaning there is no difference between them, and I suppose most other translations in other languages concur as to it, there being no dubiousness in the word to move them to the contrary. The Chaldee and Syriack use words from the same root which is in the Hebrew, and have in them the same signification. Both the Arabs use a word which denotes f 1.3 a returning to a thing, and a continued exercising ones self in it, all expressing their pertinacy in continuing in that sin of Idolatry which they are taxed of, which is apparent in them, in that they made them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 massecah, molten Images. The word in the Hebrew is of the singular num∣ber, conflatile, as the Vulgar renders it, and so do most g 1.4 other translations put it in the sin∣gular number, a molten image: but it is, I sup∣pose, well noted by others, that the singular, in a way not unfrequent, is put here for the plural. So is it by Tremellius, and so by Arias Montanus, as observing that they are accused of making more Images, both before and in this very verse. In c. 10.1. it is said of them, that they increased altars and made goodly Images, and here in this present verse follows as explicatory of this word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 atsab∣bim,

Idols, in the plural; and Piscator there∣fore though looking on the word as literally signifying, h 1.5 fusionem, in the singular, melting, (as Drusius notes it to denote both, fusio∣nem & fulfile, melting and the thing melted,) yet would have it here rendred, fulfiles imagi∣nes, as ours do, molten images. These, it is said, they made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 miccaspam, of their silver. Some would have the word more largely understood, of their i 1.6 money, as thinking the calves which they would have here to be understood, were made of gold, not of silver. So they that follow Kimchi, who so in∣deed expounds it, the calves were not of silver but of gold, his meaning therefore is of the silver which every one of them contributed for buying of gold with which the calves were made. But I know not why we should restrain these molten Images to those two golden calves which Jeroboam made, probably they made to themselves others like them in form, whether of gold or silver guilt, and other Images likewise. Petrus à Figueiro cites out of the Glossa ordinaria as the opinion thereof, Cum Rex Jeroboam vitulos aureos fecisset, plebem quoque argenteos ad aureo∣rum similitudinem conflavisse, that when King Jeroboam had made golden calves, the common people made others also of silver after the likeness of them. Ad superiorum impietatem adjiciunt, dum scilicet vitulis non contenti, suos sibi quis∣que does, velut penates habet, they add to the impiety of their predecessours, while not content with the calves, they made every one to themselves their houshould gods, saith Mercer.

How, or of what they were made, or where placed, we need not go to conjecture farther than the history of the Scripture makes plain. It will suffice to look on it as the main scope of what is here said, that it is to shew their great zeale to their Idols and Idolatrous worship to be so great, that they spared nei∣ther pains nor cost for promoting thereof among them, by making and adorning Images. Every word hath its Emphasis tending to that purpose. The words are in the original thus placed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and they have made to themselves a molten Image, or molten Images, of their silver according to their understanding, Idols the work of the craftsmen, all of it, or them: and in the same order do, besides the Interlineary, several in their trans∣lations place them, as Pagnin, they have made themselves, conflatile ex argento suo, a molten Image of their silver, juxta intelligentiam suam, according to their own understanding, & Idola, opus artificum totus ipse vitulus, and Idols, the worke of the craftsmen is all that calf. So the Tig. and Munst. fusile de argento suo juxta intelli∣gentiam suam, Idola scil. a molten Image of their silver according to their own understanding, viz. Idols &c. That which I observe in these is, that they join in one clause the words, according to their own understanding, with the former words, they have made them molten Images, and by a comma distinguish them from the following word Idols, which they place after; but ours place them after that word, viz. that they made them molten Images and Idols according to their own understanding. At this difference we need not be troubled, for though it make some alteration in the order of the words, it makes none in the meaning, and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 atsabbim, Idols, being in the Hebrew as k 1.7 per appositionem, so added to the former word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 masseca, a molten Image, or Images, as only farther to declare what they were, viz. Idols, barely without either, &, and, which ours and others, or scilicet, i. e. to wit, which others do supply, it will be indifferent as to the sense, where the words, according to their own understanding, or how∣ever else translated, as we shall see, be placed, whether between those other words or after them, it being certain that they agree to both, both being but the same thing, those molten Images made according to their own under∣standing, being Idols, that were so.

It being said, they have made them, or made to themselves, &c. shews that they themselves were the contrivers and procurers of them to them∣selves, and set the craftsmen on work to make them; they were at the pains in seeking after them, l 1.8 non Idola ab aliis facta adorarunt, sed fecerunt sibi ipsis sculptile & conflatile, they did not worship Idols made by others, but made to themselves molten or graven Images, contrary to the express command of God, Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image, nor the like∣ness of any thing &c. Ex. 20.43.

And as they were at the pains, so were they at the cost for them, they made them of their own silver, sparing no charge, however cove∣tous otherwise they were, as it appears by c. 12.7, 8. yet for making and adorning Idols they would profusely m 1.9 lavish their silver and gold. This they are above likewise accused of, c. 2.8. and c. 8.4. So much was their love and zeal of them predominant above all things in them. Ar. Mont. thinks here their profuseness in their Idolatry opposed to their tenaciousness shew'd in their murmuring at the taxes of Solo∣mon imposed on them for repair of the city.

Farther to shew their madness and folly therein, and what goodly things they wor∣shipped, is added that they made them ac∣cording

to their own understanding. So our Translatours render the word, which is in the Hebrew, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bithbunam; but concerning that word there is such variety of opinions amongst Interpreters, differing one from an∣other, and scarce constant to themselves, which will put us on a farther consideration. The word is not elsewhere in the Scripture found in the like form, whereby any thing that is said of it may be confirmed, and there∣fore they take liberty of using conjectures about it. As to the signification, it is by di∣vers, with whom ours go, rendred in the no∣tion of understanding: by others many in a different notion of likeness, or similitude. They that take the first way, look upon it as from the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bun, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bin, whence is the usual word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tebunah, signifying, understanding, viz. with the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 h, the note of the feminine, in the end; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tebun, without it, is no where found in the Scripture, which is all the remains that we have of the pure Hebrew, though perhaps, when the tongue was commonly spoken, it might be in use, and therefore do their n 1.10 Grammarians think that tebunam is here for that which would regularly be tebunatham, with the letter th 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 left out, of which they give also an example in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tsuram, Psalm 49.14, or 15. their figure, or as ours, their beauty, which they say should regularly be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tsuratham, although o 1.11 Kimchi saith that others think, that those nouns might be in use also without the letter b, to wit, tebun and tsur. It being in either of these ways taken, is by the same Kimchi explained, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as they considered of the thing with their own understanding what figure they should make it of. This meaning of the word he seems to prefer, as Aben Ezra also, and the Author of the MS. Arab. version, rendring it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the measure of their understanding; which R. Tanchum also, if it be so taken (for he leaves the matter indifferent) saith will sound, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to their understanding. Abarb. also takes that meaning.

They that take the second way, viz. of rendring it in the notion of likeness, or simi∣litude, who are ancient and many, look on it as either having the signification of another root, though not regularly derived from it, viz. of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 banah, which properly signifies to build, whence the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tabnith is for a pattern, figure, or likeness, with which they would have this to agree. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in another form, as R. Tanchum speaks, which Kimchi observes the Chaldee Paraphrast to have thought, while he renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cidmuthun, according to their likeness; and R. Solomo saith it is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cetabnitham, or else to be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 temunah, which likewise signifieth, likeness, as R. Tanchum saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the change of the letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 b. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 m. In this signification do the LXX take it, by rendring it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the printed Arab. following them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the image, or figure, of Idols; as the Vulgar Latin also, quasi similitudinem Ido∣lorum, and the Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they have made to themselves molten images of their silver according to their image, an Idol &c.

Among these who take it in this notion, we see there is a difference concerning the ob∣ject or persons to whom the affixe, their, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 citbunam, so to be rendred, according to their likeness, is to be referred. The LXX and Vulgar it is manifest referre it to the Idols, and therefore p 1.12 omit it in their rendrings, joining to the word, to which it is affixed, the next following, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 atsabbim, and reading it in the genitive case, the similitude of Idols, such as themselves, and heathen nations had: but the Chaldee and Syriack refer it ra∣ther to the persons themselves spoken of, ac∣cording to their own likeness, by which Grotius understands the Chaldee to mean, that they made them forma humana, in the figure of a man. q 1.13 Others thinking it also so to be referred, by, according to their own likeness, think understood, not so much that they made them according to the form and figure of men, or else of the calves or other Idols that they before had, as that they made such things as were of like na∣ture and condition to themselves, according to what is said Ps. 135.18. they that make them are like unto them: so here, they stupid, sensless men make to themselves sensless, stu∣pid Idols to worship, but this may well be said rather by way of allusion than literal in∣terpretation.

If it be understood as by ours and most mo∣dern, besides such of the Jews which we have seen, it is, in the signification of understanding, then in that way there is no place for any such difference, but the affixe necessarily referred to the persons themselves, who considered and consulted with themselves or the artifi∣cers, what figure to make their Idol that they would worship, in, and according to their own fancy made it, not with any such warrant as Moses had, who when he was to make such things as were to be used in God's service,

was to see that he made them all only ac∣cording to the pattern shewed him in the mount, and no otherwise, Heb. 8.5. How hatefull these things then that they made and set up to themselves for Gods, or pretended to wor∣ship God in, who will alone be worshipped, and not have any Gods with him, and in such manner alone as he himself hath prescribed, being framed according to their own fancy and their own understanding, must needs be, it is easy to judge. There is a way of inter∣preting these words, which will take in both those notions given it, or make them both to agree in one, by understanding that, according to the likeness which they fancied and framed in their own understanding, they formed those Idols that they made to themselves.

Besides the difference we have seen con∣cerning the signification of this word, there falls out to be another by some started, though perhaps not by many taken notice of, con∣cerning the reading of it, viz. whether it be to be read bitbunam, which would be lite∣rally, in intelligentia sua, in their understanding, or citbunam, according to their understanding. This Drusius takes notice of, observing that in most printed editions of the Hebrew Bible it is bithunam, but in r 1.14 one that he names, cit∣bunam. He, I doubt not, accurately compared them all; he saith likewise that Kimchi did read bitbunam, but that the Chaldee para∣phrast, and Jerom, and the LXX, did read, citbunam, with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 c, let me add that in a very fair MS. Hebrew copy the first letter, as far as I could judge, and others likewise whom I desired to look upon it, seems plainly to be a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 caph, c, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beth, b; yea the third letter also very dubious, as if it were not, bitbunam, but citcunam, which if it were so, would make little alteration in the sense, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tecunah, which occurs in Ezek. 43.11. signifying the disposition, order, or fashion of a thing, as it is there by ours rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tsurat habbeit vetecunato, the form of the house and the fashion thereof; so that if it were here so readd citcu∣nam, the same translation would serve for it as doth for citbunam, according to the Latin and others, secundum similitudinem, ac∣cording to the disposition, or fashion, or likeness thereof, Idols according to the fashion of them. But I find not any question or doubt by others made concerning that third letter, and would not frame any on such uncertain grounds as the dubiousness of the turning of a letter, which may depend on the deceit of the sight: and whereas Drusius saith that Camchi, or as we usually call him, Kimchi, reads it with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 b, in the beginning, I do not find where Kimchi doth particularly take notice of it, so as to mention what the letter is, and as for the copies of his Comments, the character is so dubious in them, that nothing concerning his opinion in the business, can be positively as∣serted from it. And whereas he saith, that the Chaldee and Jerom and the LXX did read it citbunam, with the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 caph, I think there is no necessary proof for it from their transla∣tions, seeing they will as well agree to it, if it be readd with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 b, their quasi, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being but the same with, secundum, juxta, ac∣cording, which ours and others which so read it, do give, those particles in such expres∣sions falling into one and the same meaning, so that this very small question can very hardly be determined. I know no way for it, ex∣cept it were by the consent of some very an∣cient MS. copies, wherein those letters are very accurately distinguished. Meanwhile it seems of no moment at all, seeing the meaning will still be the same. This being said by the by, to proceed.

These molten Images he calleth Idols, so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 atsabbim signifies. The same word in the same signification we have before c. 4.17. and c. 8.4. as oft elsewhere in the Scripture. There is Emphasis in the name, shewing, as their wickedness, so their great folly in making to them such things, which were, as odious to God, so certainly such as should bring on themselves much mischief; the word according to the notion of its roote, signifying, griefs, troubles, and deservedly given to Idols, which should certainly pull on those that wor∣shipped them, such evils.

They in farther description of them are said to be the work of the craftsmen. They can∣not pretend, as the foolish Ephesians and other Heathens did for the image of their goddess Diana, that it fell down from heaven, Acts c. 19.35. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 maaseh cha∣rashim culloh, it is the work of the craftsmen all of it. Which words Kimchi explains 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all the calf (the s 1.15 whole of their image) is the work of the hand of the craftsman, there is no spi∣ritual thing in it: as also it is said Hab. 2.19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and there is no spirit at all (ours render it, no breath at all) in the midst of it. The same Kimchi there explains it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not so much as the spirit of a beast. t 1.16 It seems to have been the opi∣nion of those ancient Idolaters, that some spi∣ritualities from superiour intelligences & hea∣venly powers did influence such images, as they made in such figures as they thought acceptable to them, and dedicated to them, and therefore called even such their images

themselves Gods, and thought them so; at least, vicarios Deos, inferior Deities, media∣tors between them and the superior, and did offer sacrifices and burnt incense, that they might draw down, and entice, as it were, those spiritual influences to reside on those Images, that so they might declare to them, or do for them, what they desired. But their folly in promising to themselves any good from those vain things, is here set forth by describing the nature of them, and the utmost of what they are, viz. all that is in them the work of the craftsmen, nothing beyond what themselves, and those that they set on work, could give them, and frame out of such dead matter as they made them of, into which they could not inspire so much as the breath of life, much less any Spirituality of higher nature, any supernatural power, by which others should now look themselves to be inspired from them. The like have we objected to them above c. 8.6. from Israel was it also, the workman made it, therefore it is not God. Less of God must necessarily be in it than in them that made it, he that made it being but a man, that which is made can be but a stock. The like argument from the nature and make of Images u 1.17 is often elsewhere used to con∣vince the stupidity (as necessarily it must to any that were not quite brutish) of Idolaters that worship them; as among other places Isaiah 44. v. 9. to v. 20. Sure it is enough to convince them, if they would but remember, and shew themselves to be men, as he speaks pro∣ceeding in the same way of argument there, c. 46.8. if they would have done so, it could not but have been plain to them, that it was great folly to ascribe Deity to that which was wholly the work of mens hands, either their own, or some others like themselves. Their so doing as they did, shews them even to have put off the understanding of a man, and to be brutish in their knowledge, as he thence con∣cludes them Jer. 10.14. and c. 51.17. more bru∣tish than to know, as our Translatours in both places read in the margin; for certainly did they know any thing, their understanding would have suggested to them to say, w 1.18 shall I fall down to that which is the work of a craftsman, a man perhaps of lower condition than my self and whom I would otherwise despise, and refuse to make my companion? Shall I worship that as a God, which is his work all of it; all that is praise worthy in it, above any thing, though for the vilest services, made of the same metal or matter? The LXX render it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the printed Arab. following them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 opera artificum completa ipsis, or cum ipsis; but Drusius observes that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ipsis, is not to be joined to these words, but the following, so that this whole clause ac∣cording to them is, the complete works of the workmen. The occasion of their so rendring Drusius thinks to be their redaing not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 culloh, all of it, as it is ordinarily readd, but by change or corruption of the word, as he thinks, cullah, with other vowels, which signi∣fies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be completed. But I know not why it is necessary so to say. It will be easier to think, that referring the word, all of it, not to the Image, but to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 masseh, the work, they took it as if it signified, it is the whole of the work of the craftsmen, i. e. the most of their skill, even all of it is bestowed in making it, they shew their utmost art in framing such Idols, that so they may be pleased with them, and that they so being, were re∣ceived with much veneration by them. This sense the words seem capable of, though it do not so plainly agree to them as the former doth. Either way it shews what we said, their great bruitshness in making or procuring to themselves such Idols, which when they and the workmen had done all that they could, were still such things as were merely of mans framing, and could therefore have no∣thing of God in them: yet such to be their brutishness, appears in their great zeal for their worship, which is described in the next words, They say of them, let the men that sacri∣fice, kiss the calves; for so they do manifest∣ly sound as to the main, that there were who did zealously promote the honour and interest of those Idols among them, however there be otherwise in the explication of the words in particular no small difference, as in looking on them singly we shall see.

They say of them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lahem hem omerim; the words do as plainly sound, they say to them, and some render them one way, some the other, of whom then, or to whom? for this being placed first in the Hebrew, we so put it, else first would be in∣quired who say? If it be readd, of them, it is manifest that it is meant of their Idols, which were the work of the craftsmen, importing that to them they would have that honour and devotion, which is in the words ex∣pressed, to be performed. This way our last Translatours taking, have many going therein with them, x 1.19 some rendring, de eis, of them, or, y 1.20 de quibus, of whom; others, propter z 1.21 hos, or as Drusius thinks it should rather be, propter has, for those, or in respect to those Idols; or a 1.22 propter quae, in regard to which.

If it be rendred, to them, then will it be meant of the people, that some say to them

what follows; and this way do others many, both ancient and modern, take. So R. Salo∣mo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they say to Israel; so Ab. Ezra also (though in a different sense from others, as if it were not spoken by way of perswasion or command to do what is after mentioned, but in derision of them for so doing) understands it, as to them. So the Greek, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being joined with the following, as was before warned, and the Vulgar Latin, his, to these; and others, b 1.23 ipsis, to them. Whether construction be ta∣ken, it will be farther necessary to aske who they are that say of the Idols, or to the Idolaters, what is said, they being denoted only indefi∣nitely by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hem, they, and not particular∣ly expressed. Who then are they? The Priests, say some; so R. Salomo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Idolatrous Priests say to Israel. And this some think so evident, that they put it into the body of their translations, as if it were of the letter of the original text: so Pagnin, ipsi sacerdotes dicunt. It is likewise Kimchies way, who in his explication taking in both the rendrings of the former word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lahem, thus gives his meaning, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Concerning them they the Priests of the calf, say to the men that come to sacrifice. Aben Ezra takes thereby denoted indefinite∣ly any men that saw what they did. The Chaldee Paraphrast directs to understand it of the false Prophets. Jerom, Sacerdotes & Principes, the Priests and Princes, who should teach them better things. Diodati takes it to point out the Kings and Governours of the tribe of Ephraim, who commanded the people to do such things. c 1.24 Others look on the ex∣pression as meaning that they said one to another, as exhorting and encouraging one another to do so as the next words require, which be∣fore we proceed to, we may yet take notice of a different construction from any that we have seen, given by Arias Montanus of these former, who refers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lohem, to the following words, they say, coming between as a Parenthesis, that it may sound, his sacri∣ficantes, sacrificing, or they who sacrifice, to these; but how he gives the meaning, we shall see after we have first looked into the more usual expositions by others given according to the other ways of construction before men∣tioned.

The words then in the original are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 zobeche adam agalim yisha∣kun, which ours in the text render, let the men that sacrifice kiss the calves; but in the mar∣gin, as to the first word, the sacrificers of men, which is to shew us that these words are of an ambiguous signification, and may denote either, they that do sacrifice men, or men that do sacrifice, and some take it the one way, some the other. Some look upon it as meaning those that did sacrifice men, or offer men in sa∣crifice to their Idols. Sure all that did offer any other creatures to Idols, might be said to sacrifice men, in that sense which is said of such as offered sacrifice in ill manner, Isaiah 66.3. He that killeth an oxe, is as if he slew a man. But that is not the way in which they understand it here, who take the words to signify such who sacrificed men; but such who did really offer them up in sacrifice to those Idols. That there were of old such who did offer such cruel sacrifices, not among the Heathen only, but in Israel also, appears by what is said Ps. 106.37, 38. where he saith, They sacrificed their sons and their daugh∣ters unto devils, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the Idols of Canaan. This custom to have obtained even among the Jews we may perceive by what we read of Ahaz 2 Kings 16.3. that he made his son d 1.25 to pass through the fire, or that he burnt his children, 2 Chron. 28.3. according to the abominations of the Heathen; as likewise of Manasseh 2 Kings 21.6. and 2 Chron. 33.6. though they had been cautioned against it, Levit. 18.20, 21. and Deut. 18.10. and that the people built the high places of Tophet in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and daughters in the fire, Jer. 3.31. and the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, c. 19.5. as likewise c. 32.35. that they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech. But those that are here spoken of being more peculiarly Ephraim, or Israel of the ten tribes, of them have we it also pecu∣liarly said, that they left all the commandments of the Lord their God, and made them molten Images, (as here is said,) even two calves, and made a grove, and worshipped all the host of hea∣ven, and served Baal, and they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, 2. Kings 17.16, 17. Of such sacrifices here will divers have these words meant, rendring them, they that sacrifice men. So expresly R. Salomo Jarchi, the Idolatrous Priests say to Israel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he that sacrificeth his son to the Idol, is worthy to kiss the calf, for he hath offered to him a lovely gift. And this he takes as the opinion of ancienter Talmudical Doctors, and saith of it, that it is more agree∣able to the reading of the text, than the Chal∣dee Paraphrast, which indeed is not here literal,

being, the false prophets deceive them, they sacrifice to the work of mens hands, they offer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bullocks to calves.

Of such sacrificing of men it is manifest that both the LXX and Vulgar did understand it, the one rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as likewise the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; the other, immolate homines, sacrifice men, the Doway reading, immolate men. The MS. Arab. also seems so to have understood it, rendring it as if spoken by way of applause and incou∣ragement, and they say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 O they, or ye, that sa∣crifice men, O they that kiss the calves, which seems the same that the Syriack also hath, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin Translatour renders, O qui sacrificatis homines, & vitulos osculamini. Our English Geneva translation takes it likewise in that sense, rendring it, they say one to an∣other, whilst they sacrifice a man, let them kiss the calves, adding their note, the false Pro∣phets perswaded the Idolaters to offer their children after the example of Abraham &c. in which they may seem to follow Calvin, who thinking the Prophet to reprove their beastly custom, in that the fathers sacrificed their children to Molech; in as much as God's command to Abraham to offer up his son to him, which yet he suffered not to be put in execution, was no precedent to them for any such doing. Mercer to the same purpose explains it in his latter notes, they shall at last be admitted to kiss the calves, qui hominem, id est, liberos ma∣ctabunt, who shall sacrifice a man, i. e. their children, which in his former notes he saith that they did, and sacrificing their children to the calves, thought themselves warranted in by e 1.26 the example of Abraham, to do as a thing ac∣ceptable to God. If his will of so doing was ac∣cepted, how much more should their deed be? f 1.27 Castalio likewise renders it as so signifying, qui hominem immolaverint, they that have sa∣crificed a man shall kiss the calves. The Tigu∣rin version also, homines sacrificent, let them sacrifice men; and in the margin according to others, sacrificantes hominem. Aben Ezra doth also take the words to signify such as slay men, though understanding the clause other∣wise than those that we have seen, viz. as if this were the speech of some deriding them for their absurd folly, in that they kissed Baals, which were the figure of calves, but did shed innocent blood, according to what he saith c. 12.14. his blood shall he leave upon him, so g 1.28 going contrary to the ordinary custom of men, who kiss men their friends, and kill calves for them to eat. Abarbinel also takes the words to denote the killing of men, though not taking them as an exhortation to to doing it, thus explaining them, that they said of those Idols, that those men that kissed the calves, their reward should be very great, as if they sacrificed a man, which was in their ac∣count 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the greatest of services, or devotions. R. Tanchum also looks on that to be the signification of the words, though he mention a double meaning of them; as first to describe the zeal of the Idolaters, that they did even h 1.29 slay men in devotion to their Idols, according to that Deut. 12.31. secondly, that they i 1.30 did kill those who did refuse for to worship them.

These, many and of great authority, agree in that they look upon the words as importing that men or children were actually stain in the case, and most of them take them for such as were offered up too in sacrifice to Idols. But though it be not doubted, that men or children were by those Idolaters sometimes so sacri∣ficed, neither that the words, zobeche adam, may so signify, as they would have them, viz. those that sacrifice men; yet it is doubted whether in this place they be to be so un∣derstood, or do denote that bloody custom. It is objected against it, that those sacrifices of men were proper to Molech, * 1.31 and not to the calves (or such other images) as are here peculiarly spoken of; but of what force that objection is, and whether they did not offer also such sacrifices to their calves and other Idols, as well as the Heathen whom they followed did, we shall not need to examin, having a better expedient to free us from such questions, by taking the word in another sense, which certainly they are as capable of, viz. that by ours very well, I think, and upon good consideration chosen and put into the text, viz. the men that sacrifice, be the sacri∣fice what they will. Thus doth Kimchi, though having seen that former exposition of the Talmudical Doctors, here render them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the men that come to sacrifice; and in the same way several modern Expositors, so Munster, k 1.32 qui sacrificant ex ho∣minibus; and Pagnin, sacrificantibus hominibus. Junius and Tremellius, homines qui sacrificant; or as Piscator to the same purpose, qui sacri∣ficare volunt: and for this way of construction an example is l 1.33 produced from Isaiah 29.13.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ebyone adam, egeni hominum, the poor of men, or the poor among men, as ours render it.

This construction of them also takes Arias Montanus, who as above we intimated, dif∣ferently from others takes the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lahem, to them, to be governed of, zobeche, that sacrifice, and to be referred to those other Idols that they made besides the calves, that so the meaning should be, m 1.34 they say, let those that sacrifice to them, kiss the calves, i. e. though those new-made Idols were not had in so great veneration as the calves set up by Jeroboam were, yet it was so pleasing to the calves, that they also should be worshipped, that they that sacrificed to them, were accepted as if they kissed them themselves. With him still, sacrificantes hominum, the sacrificers of men, are, quicunque hominum, whoever the men be that do worship the Idols, whatever the offerings were; and the words being so rendred and understood, we are not necessa∣rily put on any question concerning their sa∣crificing of men, or offering up to Idols their children, but have only remaining to enquire, what in the next words they are bid to do, or said that they should do, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 agalim yishakun, let them kiss the calves, or, osculabuntur, they shall kiss the calves: which may be understood either as a duty, that they were to perform to complete their service, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Kimchi speaks, because their ser∣vice was non complete till they kissed them; or else as an honour that they should be ad∣mitted to upon their offering sacrifice, viz. to kiss the calves.

That kissing the Idols was among the cere∣monies used in their religious worship of them, we plainly learn out of 1 Kings 19.18. where God saith to Eliah, I have left to me se∣ven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth that hath not kissed him. This rite, if the thing which they worshipped and adored were near at hand and to be approched, was performed pro∣bably by the kissing of it it self, but if farther remote, by looking to it and kissing their own hand, as is thought to be proved from those words of Job c. 31.26, 27. where clearing himself from Idolatry in worshipping the sun and moon, he saith, If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness, and my heart hath secretly been enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand. In both kinds examples are brought by n 1.35 Expositors out of other Au∣thors, but these out of the Scripture seem sufficient, and are of greatest antiquity. And hence it is that the word kissing, is elsewhere used for veneration of, adoring, yeelding worship or reverence and subjection to, as Ps. 2.13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nashecu bar, kiss the son; and on the other side adoring used here to express, what is signified by kissing. So the Vulgar, vitulos adorantes, which Jerom notes to be equiva∣lent to what Aquila renders it by, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. deosculantes, kissing, by reason of the custom before mentioned. This they enjoin them to do, as we said, as a duty in the worship of the calves required of them; withall it may seem as a favour and love to them, as shewing not only the o 1.36 affection they bare to the calves, but the favour they might think themselves to be in with them, none but such as are looked on as friends, being usualy admitted to the favour and honour of a kiss. Both may it import, if we understand the words only as an invitation to them that sa∣crifice, but will be necessarily looked on as so, if with those others we understand the former words to denote sacrificers of men, as pro∣posing to them as a favour, that on those, and no other terms, they shall be admitted to, viz. not to the kissing of the calves, but at that dear rate of sacrificing to them what is most dear to them. This is the signification most ordinary given to the word, viz. that of kissing: p 1.37 some a little differently render the word, viz. let them cleave to the calves, i. e. constantly worship or persist in it, according to the signification of the word Ezek. 3.13. the living creatures 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that touched another, adhaerentium altera q 1.38 alteri.

In the view which we have made of this verse, we may easily observe a difference be∣twixt the rendrings of the LXX and Vulgar Latin and such as follow them, and betwixt the Hebrew as now readd and such as follow the present reading of it, in the rendring of the words, zobsche adam; for whereas ac∣cording to the Hebrew they literally signify, sacrificantes hominum, sacrificers of men, they render in the imperative mood, sacrifice men. Thence Cappellus conjectures that the Author of the Vulgar Latin (which holds alike of the LXX) did not read zobeche, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 zibchu; but that here is no proof that they did so read, Buxtorf shews from the frequent Enallage or change of moods and tenses r 1.39 in the Hebrew, and thence the promiscuous rendring of them in Interpreters and Exposi∣tors, as the sense will seem to require. Here is in the whole clause manifestly the force of an imperative mood in bidding or injoining, and that according to the present reading of the Hebrew is placed in the last words; the Latin by s 1.40 inverting only of the words, placeth it in the first, leaving still the same meaning.

If his so doing should argue that he diffe∣rently readd that word, viz. in the form of an imperative, not of a participle, for the same reason would it be said that he readd also the last word otherwise than it is now readd, viz. not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yishakun, in the future, as having the force of an imperative, they shall kiss, or let them kiss, but the participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 noshekim, kissing, or the like, and so there would be change after change, and no certainty what reading to follow.

I do a little wonder that he that took from that ground occasion for a conjecture of a different reading, did not rather do it as to the LXX, from their rendring the last words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 agalim yishakun, signifying, they shall kiss the calves, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vituli defecerunt, the calves have failed: I do not find that he takes notice of that, though so far wide in signification from the ordinary reading of the Hebrew. But Grotius taking notice of it, thinks that there were in the He∣brew copies two different readings, the one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yishakun, which we now have, which Aquila following, rendred it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, kissing, i. e. venerationis signum exhibentes, quod Latine dici potest adorantes, using a sign of veneration which in Latin is usually ex∣pressed by, adorantes, adoring: the other, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yishkatun, i. e. quiescant vituli, let the calves cease, as if he said, we have long enough sacrificed calves, majoribus victimis opus est, there is now need of greater sacrifices, viz. men, which he thinks the LXX to have followed, and in a little different sense to have rendred, t 1.41 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for the calves have ceased, or failed. This version Jerom so explains, as if it meant, that the greediness of the Idols was such, as that there being not beasts enough for sacrifice, they delighting in the destruction and blood of men, required that men should be sacrificed to them. If there were neces∣sarily a different reading to be looked after, because of their so rendring it, I think we might rather suspect they readd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yiphse∣kun, with a change of the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at the beginning of the word, than by adding the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at the end, the change or mistake would be as easy, and the signification of that more properly agree to the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as denoting, deficere, as well as, quiescere, which more peculiarly agrees to the other; mean while not having any certainty that they did read otherwise in their copy, I know not why they did render the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yishakun by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we having no other example by which it may be proved, that the word was used in that signification also.

Notes

• d 1.1

  See Mercer, Pet. à Fig.
• e 1.2

  2 Kings 10.28.
• f 1.3

  The MS. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the printed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• g 1.4

  Chald.
• h 1.5

  And as so Jun. Trem. take it, rendring the word joined with the following, parant sibi fusione ex ar∣gento suo terricula, they make to themselves by melting of their silver images.
• i 1.6

  Rivet, idem ac si diceret de pe∣cunia sua,
• k 1.7

  Pare.
• l 1.8

  Rivet.
• m 1.9

  Is. 46.
• n 1.10

  Ab. Ezra, R. Tanchum, Kimchi.
• o 1.11

  In his comment, and in his notes, though in his Grammar as cited in Miclal Yophi he deny that tabun can be thought a regular form of a noun, there being none of such form found.
• p 1.12

  As if they had readd not tebunam, but tebunath atsabbim.
• q 1.13

  Pet. à Fig.
• r 1.14

  Viz. of Steph. in quarto.
• s 1.15

  For to them the word is to be referred, and so is as much as if he had said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cullam, all of them, as R. Tanchum notes.
• t 1.16

  See Spec. cist. Arab. p. 139. &c.
• u 1.17

  See Ps. 115.4. &c. and 135.15.
• w 1.18

  Is. 44.19.
• x 1.19

  Pagnin.
• y 1.20

  Jun. Trem. Cast.
• z 1.21

  Eos, Interlin in margin.
• a 1.22

  Munst.
• b 1.23

  Calvin.
• c 1.24

  Calv. Trem. Geneva English.
• d 1.25

  Of the meaning of which expression see Grotius on Deut. 18.10.
• e 1.26

  See Oecol. Munst.
• f 1.27

  Whose note is, They attribute so much to their calves, that they admit none to kiss them but such as sacrifice their children.
• g 1.28

  Mercer censures him as too nice.
• h 1.29

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• i 1.30

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.31

  Trem. Rivet.
• k 1.32

  And in his notes, qui sacrificaturi erant.
• l 1.33

  Lively, Drus. and other examples by Glass. Gr. l. 3. de nomine Can. 33.
• m 1.34

  See Brenn.
• n 1.35

  Riv. Tarnov. J. H. Ursin.
• o 1.36

  That they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Abarb.
• p 1.37

  Cited by R. Tanchum.
• q 1.38

  Pag. Interlin. in marg.
• r 1.39

  Vindic. p. 788.
• s 1.40

  Chr. à Castro.
• t 1.41

  The printed Arab. as if he readd it passively, hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin renders, quia vituli despiciuntur, the words sound, because the calves are left.