A commentary on the prophecy of Hosea by Edward Pococke.

CHAPTER XIII.

VER. 1. When Ephraim spake, trembling, he exalted himself in Israel; but when he offended in Baal, he died.

OUR latest Translatours so rendring, when Ephraim spake trembling, their words express precisely what is in the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cedabber Ephraim reteth, without supply, addition, or alteration. Our a 1.1 former translations, with a supply of what they take to be understood, though not ex∣pressed in the Hebrew, read, there was trembling, and so is our last translation also by divers understood, as if they did so read. So Bishop Hall plainly understands it, while he thus paraphraseth it, Ephraim was once very awfull to the rest of his fellows, so as while he spake, the rest of the tribes were ready to tremble, &c. So also Dr. Stokes in his Para∣phrastical explication, which is thus, the time was also, when if Ephraim stood up to speak, a kind of fear and reverence seized upon all those of the ten tribes. Those notes also usually called the Assemblies notes, do to the same purpose explain it, and the reason, I suppose, why these all, and perhaps others, take it so to meane, is because they found that to be the most general meaning given to the words by Interpreters and Expositours, both among Jews and Christians, who follow that reading of the original, which now is, and I suppose ever was, followed, in reading 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 reteth, and took it to denote, trembling, or fear, which is agreed on to be the proper notion of it. The ancient Chaldee Paraphrast seems to have led this way, interpreting, when one of the fa∣mily of Ephraim spake, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 trembling did seize on the nations, they were princes in Israel &c. Him follow divers of the Rabbins. So Ab. Ezra, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the nations did fear at his speaking, or when he spake. So D. Kimchi, from the beginning be∣fore Ephraim sinned, the fear of him was upon the people which were about him; for when he spake, horrour and trembling tock hold on them that heard him, and he was high and great among the tribes of Israel. So Abarbinel also in like words gives for the meaning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that his fear was upon all people when he spake, saying that it is according to the mind of the Chaldee Paraphrast. The same way also doth the Au∣thor of the Arab. MS. version take in his rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when Ephraim spake, trembling fell on men. R. Tanchum accordingly ex∣plains it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. the meaning is, that men did revere him, and tremble at his word.

As for more modern Interpreters and Ex∣positours, whether in Latin or other languages, they will be found likewise for the most part to take the same way, if not in express words, yet necessarily as to their meaning. So in the Interlineary version there is in the text read only, secundum loqui Ephraim tremor, when Ephraim spake, trembling; but in the margin added, fuit audienti, was to him that heard: and in other editions of Pagnin it is read with a supply in the text, tremor erat, there was trembling. So in the Tigurin, there being in the text put only, tremor, trembling, is added in the margin as subaudiendum, to be under∣stood, b 1.2 fuit in gentibus, was among the nations, as meaning, dum loqueretur, tremebant, when he spoke, they trembled: and certainly when that is put alone, as in them or c 1.3 others, viz. tremor, trembling, as a noun, and in the nominative case, not joining in construction with any following verb, such a supply will be to be understood; the Latin tongue not only admits it as well as the Hebrew, but even requires it, to make a perfect sense. And this way we need not look on as peculiar to modern Interpreters. Among the Latin the ancient Vulgar, if we take Arias Montanus his judgment, meant the same, while he ren∣ders, loquente Ephraim, horror invasit Israel, which Arias would not have so to be under∣stood, that Ephraim speaking, horror invaded Israel, as the Doway english it, and divers others understand it, as if horrour were the no∣minative case to the verb, invasit, invaded, and the words made one continued clause, but that the words should be thus distin∣guished, loquente Ephraim, horror, Ephraim speaking, or when Ephraim spake, horrour, i. e. there was horrour, or trembling, raised, and then the following words, invasit Israel, he, i. e. he who is called Ephraim (whether Jero∣boam that was of it, or the whole tribe of which he was) invaded Israel, not only per∣swaded, but even forced through fear and awe of him, Israel to agree to what he would have. The words so according to him readd and di∣stinguished make the same construction as those that we before spake of, and require the like supply. If this way of his be taken, we should scarce find any difference as to the construction of the words among Latin Inter∣preters in common use, except in the transla∣tion of Junius and Tremellius, who render, quum eloqueretur Ephraim timorem, cum eum excitabat ipse in Israele, when Ephraim spake d 1.4 trembling, he stirred it up in Israel. They, we see, differ from all others in making trembling, to be the accusative case, and sup∣plying, eum, it, which is not in the Hebrew; which rendring of theirs, though differing in the construction of the words, falls in, as to the meaning, e 1.5 with that of the Vulgar Latin, so readd and understood as by others than Montanus they are usually understood, viz. that when Ephraim spake, horrour, or trembling seized on Israel, which Ribera saith is all one with, horrorem levavit ipse in Israel, sive tre∣morem, he lifted, or raised up, horrour or trembling in Israel, which he looks on as the li∣teral sound of the Hebrew words, which is much the same construction which the men∣tioned Junius and Tremellius take, only that they repeate, trembling, twice, viz. after each verb, this but once. But indeed both of them, and all the forementioned, however else dif∣fering as to the construction and distinction of the words, do agree together as to the scope of them, viz. that they do set forth the great∣ness and dignity of that condition that Ephraim was once or heretofore in, being of that authori∣ty, that when ever he spake, determined, re∣quired, or commanded any thing in their f 1.6 assemblies, or in matters of publick concern, the other tribes, or other people that he had to deale with, trembled, and did with great awe and reverence hearken unto him, receive his words, and obey his commands, not daring to contradict him: which Castalio in his rendring briefly expresseth, loquente Ephrai∣mita tremitur, tantus est inter Israelitas. So, I think, we may rather say to be the meaning, than with g 1.7 others, that when Jeroboam first spake to the people of setting up golden calves, they did at first tremble at the pro∣posal, though afterwards, in obedience to him, they condescended to him. All of them agree in that they make the trembling or fear mentioned to be such as was in those that heard, a consequent of Ephraim's speaking to them, not in Ephraim that spake, and where∣with he was himself affected. And this being so generally agreed on by all, we cannot wonder that some (as we said) should so ex∣pound likewise that rendring, which our Translatours give, to the same purpose; the words may be so possibly understood, viz. when Ephraim spake, * 1.8 trembling, as in Latin, cum loqueretur Ephraim, tremor, to which it an∣swers word for word; but then the Latin being plainly a noun, it necessarily requires a supply of a verb, to give an intelligible sense

in it, and it is usual with them so to do; but then in our language neither is trembling, ne∣cessarily to be taken for a noun, neither is it so usual to leave the reader to make supply of a verb to it. It will be harsh, and leave such obscurity as is not usually found in our very perspicuous translation, such as the Au∣thors of it to avoid do, where necessity re∣quires it, usually put in such supplies, as they think the matter to require; as not far above, they do express the like to what others here think required, viz. is there? c. 12. v. 11. their leaving out therefore here, there was, or the like, which they found by others expressed, is an argument that they thought it not neces∣sarily here understood, and their putting the words without it, as they do, suggests to us another meaning, in which the word trembling, is not taken as a noun substantive of the nomi∣native case or accusative, but rather as a par∣ticiple, tremens, trembling, or an adverb or a noun adverbially taken, tremblingly, or with trembling, so making the subject of trembling, or person in whom it was, not him that was spoken to, but him that spake, viz. thus, when Ephraim spake trembling, (without any pause between spake, and trembling) i. e. with trembling, or tremblingly, himself affected with trembling; that is, while he behaved himself humbly towards God, as their father Jacob did with weeping and supplications, c. 12.4. and spake not proudly, insolently, (boasting of himself as c. 12.8.) and blasphe∣mously against him and his Prophets, as when they were grown impudent in their Idolatry, they did, he exalted himself, i. e. was in great power, authority, and dignity, in Israel.

This interpretation according to the reading of our translation, punctually, as we said, agreeable to the Heberw, is as the most ob∣vious, so, I think, most apposite & congruous; others, as we have seen, more generally go another way, yet are there whose company we have in this. An h 1.9 unnamed Author of brief annotations on the Old Testament, having mentioned that former way, adds, reddunt alii tremorem, hoc est, cum tremens loqueretur Ephraim, i. e. others render, trembling, i. e. when Ephraim spake trembling. Whom he means by those others, he doth not express; perhaps he might mean the Authors of our English translation, himself being an English man: if so, then it shews he understood them so as we do; if otherwise, then it shews that others also were of the same opinion. But we have others also to confirm it. As to the con∣struction we have the forecited R. Salomo, who renders reteth, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with trembling, though in other circumstances, as to the mean∣ing, we differ from him: he making it that Je∣roboam when he publickly reproved Solomon for building Millo, and by that means in∣gratiated himself, and grew great with the people, yet spake with trembling and awe of that great king. But the Syriack ••ersion we have, I think, more fully ours; it reads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cad memalel Aphreim roet-vo, which the La∣tin Translatour thereof renders, dum loque∣retur Deus, Aphrem tremebat, proinde fa∣ctus fuerat magnus in Israele, when God spake, Ephraim trembled, and therefore he was made great in Israel. There he supplies the word God, which is not in the Syriack ex∣pressed; if that be understood, then would this agree with that description of one to whom God said that he would have regard, Isaiah 66.2. To this man will I look, even to him that is of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. But, I think, the words may with∣out making such a supply, be rendred, when Ephraim did speake trembling, then was he great, or made great, in Israel, which is wholy the same with our English translation. In both these ways Ephraim is still the person in whom the trembling was, and according to both that behaviour of his the occasion of his being exalted in Israel, which is that which, as we said, we take to be the mind of our Translatours. Mean while, both these and the others forementioned, however otherwise differing, agree in ascribing to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 reteth, the notion of trembling, or horrour, or fear. It doth not any where else occur in the Hebrew text of the Scripture, so Ab, Ezra notes of it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the word reteth hath no fellow but in the Syriack, or Chaldee: the root or words from it have that signification in those Dialects, and therefore it is unanimously agreed, that it so signifies in the Hebrew also, and so is all one with another word i 1.10 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 retet, of much the same sound, though written with another letter.

Of this reading and signification of the word we have no reason to doubt, only in that the LXX seem to render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, their words of the whole clause being, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin Ttranslatour renders, juxta verbum Ephraim justificationes accepit ipse in Israel; and accordingly the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Latin of which hath, juxta verbum Aphre∣mi suscepit ipse justificationes in Israele, ac∣cording

to the word of Ephraim he received justi∣fications in Israel. At this translation of theirs St. Jerom seems to wonder, pro horrore, qui Hebraice di••itur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 reteth, quem Symma∣chus & The••otio tremorem interpretati sunt, nescio quid volentes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. justifica∣tiones LXX transtulerunt, for horrour, which in the Hebrew is called reteth, which Symma∣chus and Theodotio interpret trembling, the LXX, who I know not what they would have, render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, justifications. So ancient∣ly, and to so great a man did this transla∣tion of theirs seem obscure, and it may ap∣pear that it did so to others also, in as much as those Greek fathers, Cyril and Theodoret, in their commenting on them, do indeed in∣terpret 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, justificationes, of those laws and rules of worship which Ephraim received from God, but do not at all take notice of those words before it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ac∣cording to the word, or speaking, of Ephraim, without which no full meaning of the place can be had: they are not at all printed or mentioned, either in the text or their com∣ment in those k 1.11 editions that I have had use of. Some modern learned men think the LXX did not read in the Hebrew as we do the word with the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 resh, r, but with the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 daleth, d, which is indeed a very easy mi∣stake through the likeness of those two letters in the Hebrew. So Cappel, legerunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 datoth, à singulari 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dat, lex, atque illud junxerunt sequenti verbo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nasa, they did read datoth, from the singular dat, a law, and joined it to the following verb nasa. That datoth may be a plural from dat, although we do not elsewhere find that form, but datim, we will not question, but I could wish he would have given us, as well as this correction or conjecture, some good meaning of the words so readd, according to the word, or speech of Ephraim he received laws in Israel. What word or speech of Israel? and what laws? and who was he that received them? These things are not plain, and till we know them, we cannot have a clear meaning; Ephraim will be the speaker, the giver of the laws, and the receiver too. If I may conjecture at their meaning, I should conceive it to be such as may consist as well with reading, reteth, fear, awe, or trembling, as with reading, datoth, laws, thus, formerly when Ephraim spake, or according to what Ephraim spake, he received justifications in Israel, i. e. all received as just and good what he spake, hearkning to his words as laws, which is as much as to say, all stood in awe of him, and ratified his words: or else if we may understand, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he in Israel,, so joining those words, he that was in Israel, any of Israel, or the whole people of Israel, and the whole clause thus, according to the word of Ephraim, or as Ephraim spake, any, or all, of Israel received laws, i. e. his words were as laws to them, then will it also be an expression equivalent to, when Ephraim spake, there was trembling, awe or dread of him, and respect to him and his words, viz. it was so formerly with him, when he di∣rected them to what was good, and according to the law of God, and for promoting his service; but when his words and commands tended to set up and advance the worship of Baal, then lost he this respect, this awe in the minds of men. But what should we insist on conjectures? If their words may be in such like ways understood, or however, it will not be safe to go to alter the meaning in the Hebrew, because their words seem not lite∣rally to answer to it.

It follows, according to our translation, which we think the plainest and most agree∣able to the original, he exalted himself in Israel, shewing what was the state or condition of Ephraim, while he behaved himself as in the former words is described, as the consequent of such his behaviour. The word rendred, he exalted himself, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nasa, without any thing joined to it, which hath, no question, the notion of, exaltatio, levatio, elevatio, to exalt, or lift up, which, saith the learned l 1.12 Mr. Nic. Fuller, is, longe princeps significa∣tus, the chief among its significations, and to which such others as are given it, as of bearing, carrying, taking, rehearsing, pardoning, honouring, swearing, burning, and the like, are reducible. It is in this signification usually joined to an ac∣cusative case as transitive, and there being no such here expressed, but the word seeming to signify only, he lifted up, m 1.13 some say, deest aliquid, that something is wanting, and to be supplied, as, regnum, his kingdom, or, caput, his head. So Pagnin expresseth it in his trans∣lation, extulit caput suum, he exalted, or lifted up, his head, which perhaps he borrowed from Kimchies exposition, which so hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rosho, his head.

By several it is rather rendred as an in∣transitive, sounding, he was high, or exalted. So by the Chaldee Paraphrast, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the n 1.14 usual Latin translation readeth, Principes fuerunt in Israele, they were princes in Israel: Mercer, Principem locum inter Israelitas tenebant, they sustained chief place among the Israelites: so likewise R. Sal. who expounds it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from thence he was thought worthy to be exalted to be king in Israel. And Ab. Ezra, who explains it from one R. Moses, who un∣derstands

it of Jeroboam, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because his kingdom was exalted in Israel. Abarbinel also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and he was exalted high and great in Israel. The MS. Arabick also renders it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there was eminency to him, or he was eminent, among Israel; although in a note he gives another meaning, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. When it was said, Ephraim, trembling and astonishment seized on men; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when any did lift up, or name aloud, his name in Israel, men trembled through much awe of him, but when he offended in the worship of Idols, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his degree de∣scended, and his esteem grew base, and his condi∣tion became as of a dead man that is able to do nothing. Among Latin Interpreters also, some, as the Tigurin, Princeps factus est in Israele, he was made a prince in Israel, which yet gives a note in the margin, that the Hebrew is lite∣rally, sustulit ipse in Israele, i. e. he exalted in Israel, i. e. he was exalted; and Munster, exal∣tatus est. Ours so render it as may agree to either, if it be taken as a transitive, then is himself, a supply added; if as intransitive, then it is an expression of that which is in the verb necessarily included. With this Hebrew word, in this signification, agrees in the Ara∣bick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nasha.

By this exaltation R. Tanchum saith is meant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the exalting his kingdom over them. Zanchi suggests yet ano∣ther way of rendring those words by taking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he, to denote God, and so understand∣ing Ephraim, as governed of the verb, God exalted him, that is, Ephraim, in Israel. Coc∣ceius, I know not why, different from all others, renders it, ille pronunciavit in Israele, he pronunced (sentence) in Israel.

The meaning of the words, as we read them, is plainly to shew the great dignity and eminency that Ephraim was once in by God's favour, viz. whilst he spake trembling, and humbly behaved himself towards God. Here may be asked, when it was so with Ephraim? in whose times? And difference of opinions are concerning it. o 1.15 Some go so high as to think intimated that dignity, which God all along from the beginning had conferred on Ephraim; as first, in making him one of the tribes; secondly, in that he was preferred be∣fore Manasseh, who was his elder brother; thirdly, in that they, or such as were of that tribe, were princes and in great power among all the tribes, as Joshua, who was leader and commander of all the tribes. To which p 1.16 some add their greatness, which appeared when they expostulated with Gideon for seeming to slight them, and his answer to them, Judges 8.12. and their quarrelling with Jephte on like oc∣casion, Judges 12.12. and in that they were exalted to kingly authority over the rest of the ten tribes under Jeroboam their first king. But Rivet thinks that the words do not refer, to those former times, but more particularly to those when q 1.17 Jeroboam of that tribe exalted himself, or was exalted, to that kingdom, and those of his successours to Ahab. And this way we may perceive the Jewish Interpreters, whom we have mentioned, to incline to: yet may it perhaps be more convenient to refer them more generally to all former times, pre∣ceding their more general defection from God, and falling to Idolatry; so as to shew that all along, while they continued to be∣have themselves humbly with God, and duly honoured him, they were among all the tribes in honour and dignity.

Whatever times be meant, it is here af∣firmed, that they were once in such an exalted condition; but in the next words, that they were in a far different condition, as different from that as death is from life, and together the cause of this change in their condition is shewed, viz. their different behaviour from what was formerly among them: when he of∣fended in Baal, he died. The manifest Anti∣thesis in the words, by which these two con∣ditions, that in which they formerly were, and that in which they now are, are set forth, seems as manifestly to require that there be the like in the words in which their different behaviours, which are the occasion both of the one and the other, are described; and so it is apparently given in our translation so understood, as we think it ought to be, the one being expressed by their speaking trembling, the other by their offending in Baal, which justifies our translation, and that mean∣ing of it, against others, which do not so appa∣rently express it. Their speaking trembling, implieth an humble behaviour before God, and a due acknowledgment and fear of him; and the offending in Baal, a being proud and insolent against God, and a forsaking and re∣jecting of him, which in the last verse of c. 12. is called, a reproching of him, & so are they in opposition one to another, as humility and pride, reverence and contempt, honour and reproch. The words, he offended in Baal, de∣scribe his sinfull behaviours, He offended in worshipping that shamefull Idol called Baal.

Ephraim's offending in Baal hath been before in this Prophet more than once mentioned, as c. 2.8, 13. and c. 11.2. where the offender is named Israel, as here Ephraim; but that by both names the same persons are meant, appears by the calling them there in the very next words v. 3. Ephraim. Ephraim being the princely, overswaying tribe, exalted in Israel, led the whole of the ten by his word and example into the same ways of Idolatry, as their King led them; so that whether in this place be understood by Ephraim, more pe∣culiarly their King, or else the whole tribe of Ephraim, all Israel will be included, and the pronoun He, will comprehend all, as one col∣lective body spoken of as one person. The Idolatry that they are taxed of, is called of∣fending in Baal, the known name of an Idol, which properly so called, and as distinct from others, was first brought in among the Israelites in the reign of Ahab king of Israel. He, the Scripture tells us, 1 Kings 16.31, 32. (as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who had set up the two golden calves, that he might avert the people from going up to Je∣rusalem there to worship the Lord in his temple, 1 Kings 12.28. and perswaded the people to worship them) taking to wife Jeze∣bel the daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Zido∣nians, went and served Baal and worshipped him, and reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he built in Samaria, in which regard it is said, that he did evil in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him, v. 30. from which time it is manifest that with great superstition and obstinacy the people gene∣rally seemed to have run after that Idol, as ap∣pears by that contention between Elijah the only remaining Prophet of the Lord, and the four hundred and fifty Prophets of Baal, be∣fore all the people gathered together at mount Carmel, c. 18. (this Baal is there v. 18. called also Baalim, as in this Prophet.) And although Elijah did so far then by a miracle convince them, as that they cried out, the Lord he is the God, and took the Prophets of Baal, that Elijah might slay them; yet did his worship continue among them, till Jehu's time, who slew his worshippers, brought forth the Images out of his house and burnt them, and brake down the Image of Baal and the house of Baal, and made it a draught house, so that the Scripture gives this testimony of him, thus Jehu destroyed Baal out of Israel, 2 Kings 10.28. This history I produce as most per∣tinent to this place, what is here spoken being of Ephraim, as now a distinct kingdom from Judah: otherwise we hear of the whole people of the twelve tribes, when as yet they made all one Israel, taxed as r 1.18 offenders in Baal. After that act of Jehu, they with him more re∣strained themselves again to the worship of the calves, from which it is said that he de∣parted not, v. 29. and it appears that neither the people did.

By the consideration of those passages may we be guided in giving the meaning of these words and the following. If by the of∣fending in Baal, should be understood their worshipping in particular that Sidonian Idol by Ahab introduced and set up among them, then would that destruction sent upon them, or threatned to them, and expressed by saying, he died, s 1.19 seem restrained to that sin of theirs which was in his time, as a consequent on it, and not meant of their worshipping of the golden calves set up before that by Jeroboam, nor any thing that he did, to be understood, at least mentioned as a cause of it. And so seems i•• by t 1.20 some of good note understood, viz. that though that worship of the calves were a very heinous sin, yet for all that God looked on that as less heinous, than that which afterwards in Ahab's time they com∣mitted, and expecting their repentance, did not denounce against them irrevocable de∣struction, nor look on them as quite dead, in, or because of, their sins. Capito thinking likewise this necessarily restrained to the wor∣ship of Baal, and yet thinking Jeroboam par∣ticularly referred to in the foregoing words, as he of Ephraim who exalted himself and his tribe in Israel, thinks him also here accused as a worshipper of Baal, even another Baal before that by Ahab set up, quod Idolum in Gilgal dedicatum colebatur, which was an Idol dedicated in Gilgal and there wor∣shipped; in worshipping of which he also, una cum populo deliquit, did together with the people offend, and for that offence was brought to that condition, that it might be said of him, that he died, even perhaps before he erected the Golden calves. But certainly if we consider how greatly offensive to God the setting up of the calves was, as appears by that brand of perpetual infamy set upon Jeroboam for that fact, that it was he that made Israel to sin, 1 Kings 14.16. as also 2 Kings 13.6. and 14.24. and how the Pro∣phet Ahijah told his wife there, how God would not only bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam in particular, but also root up all Israel out of that good land, and give them up, because of that sin of his, whereby he made them also to sin: and of how much mischief the worship of those calves is in this our Pro∣phet said to have been, or that it should

be to Israel? c. 8.5. c. 10.15. we cannot but think a great cause of Ephraim's death or destruction, here or any where else men∣tioned, to have been from their worship of those calves. What the Jews say of the Golden calf erected of old in the wilderness, that there was never any great judgment fell on Israel, in which was not an ounce of the golden calf, may with much probability be said of the destruction brought on the ten tribes, that certainly the gold of those calves was a great ingredient in it. Besides, that Baal of Ahab's was by Jehu destroyed out of Israel, the above men∣tioned 2 Kings 10.28. The Idolatry still re∣maining among them, when this prophecy was uttered, as to the publick, was that of the calves, which Jehu and his successours still continued. It may therefore seem more pro∣bable that the name of Baal is not to be re∣strained to that one particular Idol so more properly called, but in a larger sense taken for an Idol in u 1.21 general, among which Baal was of great note, & to comprehend the calves also; yea, perhaps, especially to mean them. Both these ways are by such as are of great judgment & authority, taken. 1. To take Baal for Idols in general; so the Chaldee Para∣phrast, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but now when they sinned, so as to serve Idols, they were slain; so the MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and he offended in the worship of an Idol, or w 1.22 Idols, and died: agreeably Cyril, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2. Others looking on Baal as having that lati∣tude of signification, yet here think it more pe∣culiarly to denote the calves. So Tremellius, Though the history of the Scripture do ascribe the superstition of Baal to a successour of Jeroboam, yet because that name is often taken more generally, pro toto grege Deorum quos gentes summo Deo adjungebant, for the whole number of those Gods which the Gentiles did join with the chief God, the Prophet, ad infamandos vitulos, for the more vilifying of the calves, seems to call them by that name, least the Israelites should think that their feigned representation of a Deity, whatever specious colour or pretence they set upon it, to be, minus foedum & tetrum, less foule and abominable than the Baals of the profane na∣tions. So Grotius also, etiam vituli Hebraeis interdum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Baalim vocantur, the calves also are sometimes in Hebrew called Baals, be∣cause God, à se abalienat, doth far remove from himself such Images as are made or erected to him contrary to his law, nor doth esteem better of them than of such as were erected to false gods. In this however all agree, that he who is called here Ephraim, was by Idolatry from great dignity and eminency brought to that condi∣tion, which is expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vayamoth, and he died.

The proper notion of dying and death, which is by the separation of the soul from the body, and leaving it without life, is well known, and it is well known also that the word is used in other Metaphorical significa∣tions to denote x 1.23 such conditions, wherein they that are, are looked upon as worthily to be rather reckoned among the dead than the living, as bad as if they were so; so they that live in perpetual misery, they also that live in sin. They also of whose recovery there is no hopes, and who are destinated to cer∣tain death, may be called already dead.

y 1.24 Some, that the meaning of the word in this place may be the better understood, ob∣serve that there is a threefold generation: first, that by which men are begotten of their parents and born into the world: secondly, a spiritual, by which they are born of the Spi∣rit and become new creatures: thirdly, civil, when from a lower or baser condition they are exalted to dignity above others, which is as it were, a new birth to them. So on the contrary, a threefold death, or dying; first, that which is by the separating of the soul from the body; secondly, when a man by sinning is deprived of grace, and destitute of the life of God, the only true desirable life; thirdly, when a man falls from dignity in which he formerly was, or from a happy and comfortable, into an unhappy and calamitous condition. We may observe also, that as men in their persons, so also peoples, states, and kingdoms, are said to die: and these things being observed, we shall the better judge of the meaning of the word as applied to him, who is called Ephraim, and what condition of his is expressed by it, whether what was passed, present, or to come. Some understanding Ephraim, as hath been already intimated, rather of the King who was of Ephraim than the tribe it self, look upon it, as what was already befaln him. So R. Salo∣mo explains the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vayamoth, by, the house of Jeroboam was cut off, and so the house of Ahab. Abarbinel citing and explaining that exposition of his, in applying the former words to Jeroboam, both that it was he that provoked God bitterly in setting up the calves, and whose blood God would leave on him, viz. in cutting off his house, and whose reproch, viz.

that of hard words given by him to king Solo∣mon, by reason of which he was exalted to the kingdom in Israel, he would return unto him, and that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in hell, heightens also the signification of the word, he died, above what is either in the words of the text, or R. Salomo's Gloss, expressed, by explaining it, but after that behold he offended in Baal, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and he died out of this world, and out of the world to come.

Aben Ezra by the word looks upon as signified 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he was accounted as dead, and also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because a 1.25 Abiam slew all his army. But others looking on him who is denoted by Ephraim, to be not so much the single person of Jeroboam the king, as the aggregate body of the whole tribe, spoken of as one person (which may seem the more convenient way) by his dying, look on as denoted that low condition, which that formerly head-tribe so exalted above the rest, both because of their having the first king of them by the consent of the whole ten tribes and other priviledges, was now brought to, and grown contemptible to their enemies, not able, as formerly, to beare up against them. So Kimchi, the saying he died, is as much as to say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he was beaten before his enemies as if he were dead, because his power was gone. This explica∣tion of his, I suppose, b 1.26 Pagnin had respect to, when he translated the word which signi∣fies simply, and he died, by, caesus est acsi fuis∣set mortuus, which is indeed from the Chal∣dee Paraphrast, which hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they are slain; neci traduntur, as the usual Latin trans∣lation, they are delivered to death, or as Mer∣cer renders it, cladibus afficiuntur. According to the forementioned distinction of dying, Ri∣vet thus applies it to Ephraims case, when Ephraim sinned by Idolatry, he died in all those ways; 1. by a natural death, though not yet actually, yet, c 1.27 merito, sententia & destinatio∣ne, by his desert and the sentence of God desti∣nating him to it; 2. by spiritual death, actually; 3. by a civil, because from that time the king∣dom of Israel was so much weakned, that it was very near to destruction, which did afterwards after divers overthrows utterly seize on it. Which soever of these ways be taken, whether the words applied to Jeroboam the king, or the whole tribe & kingdom, the concerns of each belonging to the other; and whether under∣stood of evils, either past, or present, and far∣ther to come, we have from them a plain passage to the following, and an evident con∣nexion between them for the aggravating the sin of the people, who should certainly by what had befaln either one or the other, have been wrought on better to bethink themselves, than it appears they did.

But before we pass from these words, we may observe, that whereas the last word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vayamoth, though in form of the future, is generally rendred in the preter tense, and he died, according to the usual rule of Gram∣mar, giving to the conversive particle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ve, force of changing the signification of verbs of the future tense, into that of the preterper∣fect, it is by Castalio rendred as the future, his words being, & tamen crimen commisit in Baale quo morietur, yet he committed a fault in Baal for, or by, which he shall die. which rendring of his though it may be granted the Hebrew will bear, and it make a good sense, as that foolish and ungratefull Ephraim, though he were so great in Israel by God's especial fa∣vour to him, yet observed not God his only benefactour, but followed Baal, and in so doing committed such an offence, for which he should certainly die, yet seems that way of rendring which ours with others generally follow, both more agreeable to the original, and to give a plainer meaning, that by com∣mitting that offence, Ephraim had incurred that sentence by which he was in great mea∣sure already fallen from his dignity, and made obnoxious to several calamities, and which should end in total destruction to him, if not prevented by repentance. The consideration of what he already saw, and felt, and heard cer∣tainly threatned to him, should in all reason have wrought him to repentance; but it is clean contrary with him, he is thereby only hardned in sin, and proceeds from one degree in it to another, so is their perverse behaviour described in the next words.

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 1.28 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 1.29 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 1.30 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 1.31 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 1.32 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 1.33 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 1.34 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 1.35 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 1.36 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 1.37 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 1.38 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 1.39 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 1.40 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 1.41 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 1.42 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 1.43 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 1.44 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 1.45 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 1.46 some rendring, de eis, of them, or, y 1.47 de quibus, of whom; others, propter z 1.48 hos, or as Drusius thinks it should rather be, propter has, for those, or in respect to those Idols; or a 1.49 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 1.50 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 1.51 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 1.52 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 1.53 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 1.54 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 1.55 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 1.56 slay men in devotion to their Idols, according to that Deut. 12.31. secondly, that they i 1.57 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, * 1.58 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 1.59 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 1.60 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 1.61 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 1.62 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 1.63 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 1.64 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 1.65 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 1.66 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 1.67 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 1.68 〈 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.

V. 3. Therefore they shall be as the morning cloud, and as the early dew that passeth away, as the chaff that is driven with the whirl-wind out of the floor, and as the smoke out of the chimny.

Therefore they shall be as the morning cloud &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lacen, therefore. This shews the connexion of these words with the former, because they did so wickedly behave themselves, as in the former words is described, therefore shall it be with them as follows. They might pro∣mise to themselves great prosperity under the protection of their calves and Idols, whose favour they did so earnestly and ambitiously seeke to make sure to themselves, but they much deceive themselves in it. By forsaking God, and relying on others, Idols or Idola∣ters, they do but lay themselves open to de∣struction, which how near they are to, how∣ever at present they might seem to flourish, he shews by four comparisons from things of a most fading nature, by which he sets forth the fickleness and instability of their condi∣tion: as first, that they u 1.69 are, or shall be, as the morning cloud, or a morning cloud; secondly, and as the early dew that passeth away. These two comparisons for expressing what is of no stability or duration, are above used c. 6.4. where we have the same words as here, and have spoken of them, and observed that here is manifestly an errour of the print in w 1.70 se∣veral copies of our new translation, in which is readd, it passeth away, whereas it is appa∣rent that it should be, that passeth away, as in the older English translation it is, and also in some other copies of the new, in which it seems well corrected; the sense requires it so to be, there being nothing to which the word, it, may be referred to make a clear constru∣ction. Thirdly, as the chaff that is driven with the whirl-wind out of the floor; a compari∣son likewise used to express a very unstable condition elsewhere, as Psalms 1.4.35.5. Job 21.18. Isaiah 17.13.29.5. Fourthly, and as the smoke out of the chimny, importing the like instability and vanishing condition, Ps. 68.2.102.3. Isaiah 51.6. The significa∣tion of the words, and the meaning of them so readd, is manifest. The only trouble given to this verse, is from the suspicion of a different reading, occasioned by the Seventie's rendring

of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 arubbab, by ours rendred a chimny, and by others by x 1.71 something equi∣valent, but by them according to some copies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, like a vapour from locusts, whence it is y 1.72 conjectured that instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 arubbah, which signifies an hole, as a window in a wall, or chimny, through which smoke is let out, or for like use, they did read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 arbah, which is, a locust, that so it might be meant, z 1.73 a cloud, as it were, of locusts, which intercepts, for the present, the light of the sun, but they keeping on in their flying, quickly passeth away, & leaves all cleare again; though Theodore rather understands it, as a cloud of locusts dissipates vapours in the aire. But why will it be necessary to say they readd arbah, for arubbah, and not rather that they took both forms promiscuously to signi∣fy the same thing? But how comes it then about, that other several copies have, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as a vapour from tears? How did they read? It is a 1.74 said that this crept in by an error instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Some, saith Cap∣pell, not understanding what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 meant, by an easy change of letters changed it into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, seeing from tears falling warm they more easily conceived a thin smoke or va∣pour to arise, which easily or suddenly va∣nisheth. Other copies yet have, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as a smoky vapour from tears, in which Drusius thinks two rendrings to be joined, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from tears; and the other, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from a chimny. But concerning their rendrings, and the difference between them, we are not to be sollicitous, nor to disturb the ordinary and perspicuous Hebrew reading for them, seeing that Greek father Cyril himself thought not fit to take any no∣tice of them, but without mentioning them follows another agreeable to the Hebrew, which is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as vapour, or smoke out of a chimny; which is said to be Theodotion's rendring, and shews that he did read the Hebrew as we do, as also did Aquila, who renders, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which, saith Jerom, signifies, foramen in pariete fabrica∣tum per quod fumus egreditur; & so Symmachus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from a hole. The printed Arab, which usually follows the LXX, hath, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as vapour from smoke, he seems to follow another reading, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. All these four similitudes set forth the instability of their condition, and how suddenly they shall be cast down from the glory of their pride, and be brought to destruction. The two last may farther seem to * 1.75 allude to their being far driven and carried, as it were with a strong wind, from their own land into a strange country.

V. 4. Yet, I am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no God but me: for there is no Saviour beside me.

5. I did know thee in the wilder∣ness, in the land of great drought.

Yet I am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 veanoci, and I, or yet I. That the conjunction signifies and, and may be rendred yet, there is no question. So therefore by some it is rendred, & ego; by others, b 1.76 autem, as by the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; by c 1.77 others, atqui, but, or yet. The Syriack omits it, rendring only affirmatively 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I, I. It seems to give a connexion between these and the preceding words. If we shall join them to those next immediatly preceding, in which the present condition of Ephraim is described as unstable and neer to destruction, they seem to intimate the reason how it comes to pass that it is so with them, to be not through any failure or defect in God, as if he were not able still to preserve them, who had all along done so great things for them as are here expressed, and continued still the same God, and of the same power, but from themselves who had forsaken him that could and would, to rely for preservation on such things as could not help nor protect them, but bring on them shame and reproch; and this seems to Abarbinel to be the import at least of the fourth verse. If we shall refer them to those before, viz. v. 1, 2. then will they shew their great wickedness and ingra∣titude in forsaking God to follow Idols, by rehearsing those great benefits by which he had from of old approved himself their God, not only as Lord of the whole world, but as their God by a peculiar interest in them, and care over them, which he shewed in doing good to them in those ways mentioned, and the great engagements whereby he had obliged them to serve him, and him only. As referred to both, they shew their great folly, as well as their perversness, in that they would do as they did, not only to the breach of their duty to him, but for manifest mischief to themselves, by so putting themselves out of his protection, and laying themselves open to destruction. These things all appear from the words describing God's infinite power and goodness, both which he had made manifest

to them of old, and whereby he had both obliged them to his service, and given them assurance of safety and security while they should continue therein, such as they could not find in, or from, any other but him.

This being the scope of the words in ge∣neral, the particular terms or expressions lay thus in order, yet I am the Lord thy God from the Land of Egypt. These words have we above c. 12.9. and as there, so here do ours for making the sense full, supply the verb, am, which is not expressed in the Hebrew, nor in other translations in such languages, wherein it may well be understood. The Lord thy God from the land of Egypt: the Lord and God of them and of all he was from the beginning, but their Lord by more particu∣lar interest, from the land of Egypt, in framing them wherein into a people to himself, and bringing them out thence with mighty signs and wonders, and protecting them thence forward, he shewed such evident tokens of his d 1.78 power and favour, as neither before, nor to any other people. Some for making the sense clearer, add here by way of sup∣ply for explication, e 1.79 qui te eduxi, which brought thee out, which is expressed Ex. 20.1. at the beginning of the Decalogue, f 1.80 to which respect may seem to be here had. So the Chaldee, and I am the Lord thy God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that brought thee up out of the land of Egypt &c. and so the Syriack. the Greek also, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But it is withall ob∣servable, that g 1.81 the LXX between these and the former words, and I the Lord thy God, do add a whole clause, that is neither in the Hebrew nor other ancient translations found, viz. who established the heaven and created the earth, whose hands created all the hosts of heaven: and I did not shew them to thee, h 1.82 that thou shouldest walk after them, and I brought thee out &c. which words Jerom censures as not authentick, being not found in the Hebrew nor other Interpreters, nor found in an old copy of the LXX, and thence Grotius takes occasion to note, adeo veteres quaedam in istis li∣bris 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that there were very anciently in those books scholiasts and explications inserted. This seems to have been a Glosse added for explication of i 1.83 that great comprehensive name by the affixe restrained to what concerned them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Lord thy God; what follows, and I brought thee out &c. is a sup∣ply common to them with others both an∣cient and modern; which Rivet yet thinks not here necessary, in regard that here is respect had, not only to his bringing them out of Egypt, but also, ad conservationem & mul∣tiplicationem populi, to the preservation and multiplying of the people.

This asserts both his power in general and his favour to them, in as much as he is the Lord God, & more peculiarly in that he is their God; which that he alone was, and for such ought therefore to be acknowledged, he declares in the next words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 velohim zulati lo teda umo∣shia ain bilti, which ours render, and thou shalt know no God but me, for there is no saviour be∣side me. The verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 teda, is in the form of the future tense, and doth properly signify, as ours render it, thou shalt know, as like∣wise the Vulgar, nescies; which sounds as a command at present given, or a repetition of k 1.84 such as was of old given to them, as if there were understood, saying, or who said. Others think it plainer to render it as in another tense and mood, l 1.85 non agnosceres, or, m 1.86 non agno∣scere debueras, thou shouldest not know, thou oughtest not to know, or acknowledge, which use the future may well be capable of, or as Ca∣stalio equivalently to it, & nec ullus Deus prater me à te agnoscendus est, so that it may follow on the other n 1.87 by way of inference, therefore thou shouldest not know &c.

This way do the Jews mostly follow, so R. Sal. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and thou oughtest not to rebel against me. Aben Ezra to like purpose, o 1.88 How art thou turned to kiss a calf, which neither saves thee nor filles thee, and hast left him that is thy God from days of old, which saved thee, and knew all that thou hadst need of in the way. Kimchi also plainly, Thou oughtest not to know or worship other gods beside me, for you see that there is no saviour besides me. Abarbinel likewise 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 velacen, and there∣fore thou shalt not, or shouldest not, know any god besides me, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for p 1.89 on this condition, or for this end, I brought thee out thence; to which meaning the Tigurine version not amiss, ut Deum praeter me non agnosceres, that thou shouldest not acknowledge any God besides me. Others render it in the same mood, but in an∣other tense, viz. the preter tense, q 1.90 non cognoscebas, or r 1.91 non cognovisti, thou didst not know, or hast not known, or s 1.92 non expertus es, hast not had experience of, or by experience known, so expressing what is here meant by t 1.93 knowing, viz. experimental knowledge, having trial of his ability to save, which signification they look upon it to have Deut. 13.7. where is said, other gods which thou hast not known.

There is yet u 1.94 another way of exposition, by rendring it, as ours do, in the future tense, but in a little different sense, so as that, thou shalt know no God, may sound, thou canst not know, or shalt not be able to find any God but me, quantumvis quaeras, non cognosces neque in∣venies Deum nisi me, though thou seeke, yet thou shalt not know nor find any God but me, who can, & perdere à me recedentes, & ad me accedentes salvare, destroy them that depart from me, and save them that come to me. We may look on all these as well comprehended in the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thou shalt not know, viz. non cognoscebas, thou didst never know or hadst experience of, thou shalt not, or non debes, thou oughtest not to acknowledge, non potes, thou canst not know, or shalt never find any God but me; and all for the reason subjoined, for there is no saviour but me. The words in the original are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 umoshia ein bilti, and there is not a saviour but me: the first particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 u, and, do ours render, for, and w 1.95 others note that here it ought so to be understood, viz. as a causal, quia, because.

This being the undoubted and incommu∣nicable property of God alone, to be Lord and God and Saviour, he doth as here, so else∣where with great jealousy assert it to himself, as, besides in the first commandment in the De∣calogue, which after the preface, I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage, is, thou shalt have no other Gods before, or but, me, which commands the acknowledging of him, and plainly forbids the knowing any other besides him, in that which he saith Deut. 32.39. See now that I, even I am he, and there is no God x 1.96 with me, I kill and I make alive, I wound and I heale, neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand; and Isaiah 44.8. Is there a God be∣sides me? yea there is no God, I know not any; and y 1.97 c. 45.21, 22. There is no God else besides me, a just God and a Saviour, there is none else. Look unto me and be saved, all ye ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else. This is his glory which he saith, he will not give to another, neither his praise to graven images, c. 42.8. Great boldness then and wicked∣ness will it be in any men to give it to any other, much more in them who had known, and by experience found, him such to them, as in the next words he declares.

v. 5. I did know thee in the wilderness &c. He did so know them, as to deserve to be known by them. By knowing them he shewed how he ought to be acknowledged by them: so Kimchi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thou oughtest to know me, because I knew thee in the wilderness &c. The word is the same in both places, both where it is spoken of their knowing God and no other for God, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 teda, thou shalt know no God but me, and of God's knowing them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yedatica, I did know thee, but in a z 1.98 different signification: in the first place signifying either to acknowledge, and confess, or a 1.99 worship, or else to know by experience, according to what we have seen in the exposi∣tion of it: in the second place, to take notice, and care of, and to have regard to, as it is also else∣where used, b 1.100 Ps. 144.3. what is man 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vattedaehu, that thou knowest him, or as ours renders it, takest knowledge of him? So that here it imports his care over them, in taking notice of all their wants, and supplying them with all things necessary for them. So R. Sal. explains it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I applied my heart to know thy necessities, and supplied thee; as likewise Kimchi to the same purpose, and it is indeed the rendring of the Chaldee Paraphrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I sup∣plied their wants.

And in this sense the LXX also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I fed thee, from which rendring of the c 1.101 Chaldee and d 1.102 LXX Cappellus takes occa∣sion to conjecture, that it was by them former∣ly readd otherwise than it is now readd, viz. not yedatica, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 raitica, pavi te, I fed thee. But sure there is no necessity so to think or suppose, but that in rendring the word so readd as it now is, they gave such meaning as they thought (and might well think) it here to have, to prevent the taking it in any other meaning which it might other∣wise be thought to have, and we find by some here given to it, as by Arias Montanus, who expounds it by, animum menten••que perspexi, I perceived thy mind and disposition, viz. how wayward they were in the wilderness, where if they never so little wanted any thing, they presently murmured against God and Moses. They therefore to make their meaning plain, seem to have rendred as they did, and we see those Rabbins, whom we have mentioned, to give it the same meaning, who we are sure readd it as it is now readd. If the Chaldee Paraphrast be thought to have readd it as he supposeth he did, then will it be for the same reason thought, that Onkelos also, that pa∣raphrased the Law, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yada le∣cteca, he knew, or knoweth, as ours render, thy walking through the great wilderness did read also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 raah, because he renders it by the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he supplied to thee thy wants when thou walkedst through the great wilderness Deut. 2.7. which place seems here referred to, and will illustrate this,

which is no way probable; but he there, as Jonathan here, looked on that which they give as the meaning of the verb yadah, both in that place and this, which the e 1.103 Syriack also and printed Arab. which follow the Greek, here take as the genuine sense thereof, with∣out giving us to suspect that they readd other∣wise than is now ordinarily readd. The MS. Arab. differs not much, when he renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I delivered thee, noting the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yada, to have here that f 1.104 notion given it. The word doth doubtless imply God's care over them in providing for them, which kindness is much heightned by ex∣pressing the palce where it was shewed, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, bammidbar, in the wilderness, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where there was not provision, as Kimchi speaks, so that they must otherwise needs have perished for want thereof; yea not an ordinary wilderness, but such as was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 erets taluboth, a land of great drought, or as in the margin, droughts. What kind of land or place the wilderness through which he led them, and in which he sustained them for fourty years, was, appears out of the history of the books of the Law, where we read of them complaining both for want of water, bread and flesh, and how by God's bounty they were supplied with all: and with several terms equivalent to these have we it elsewhere described, as Deut. 8.15. as a great and ter∣rible wilderness, where were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water; and c. 32.10. where it is called, a desert land, a wast howling wilderness; and Jer. 2.6. a land of deserts and of pits, a land of drought and of the shadow of death, a land that no man passed through, and where no man dwelt; yet is it no where found expressed in the same terms as here, viz. erets taluboth. That word is no where else found in the whole Scripture but here, which makes Interpreters to doubt, and be of different opinions about the derivation and signification of it. R. Salomo looks on it as a compounded word, the interpretation of which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a hill in which they desire all good and find none, which perhaps he grounds on the Chaldee paraphrasing it, a land in which ye de∣sired, or wanted, all things, as the Psalmist describes them, being therein hungry and thir∣sty, their soul fainted in them, Ps. 107.5.

Aben Ezra cites some who would have it to import 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in which all things were in suspense, or uncertain, but looks on it as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 said by way of allegory, or allusion, not of simple interpretation, a descant of the words, rather than a proper account of its signification; which may be said also of other ways by some more mo∣dern Interpreters taken in their exposition of it. Such are the making it to signify, g 1.105 ter∣ra luctuum, the land of mournings, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 abal, which hath the same radicals only transposed, signifies so; or else a land in which, h 1.106 multum fatigari solent homines, men use much to be wearied, because from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 talah, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 laah, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bo, in it, that signification might be had, the same al∣most that Aben Ezra speaks of: or i 1.107 terra in∣flammationum, a land of inflammations, be∣cause 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lahab, which signifies flame, is neere to laab, in sound; k 1.108 terra deliquiorum, a land of faintings, as if it were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 talbuboth, taken, sensu privativo, in a priva∣tive sense, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 leb, the heart, and sounded, failings of heart.

But to omit those or any like, I doubt not but others, as most of the Jews, send us for the proper derivation and signification of the word, to the Arab. tongue, which probably took it first from the Hebrew. In it, as l 1.109 Abu∣walid observes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 laba (for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lawaba) signifies, to be thirsty, or dry; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the same that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 atash, thirst, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lab, the plural number from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, ground which the sun hath burnt and dried by its long continuance on it. And from this signification the inhabitants of such a country are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lubim, Lybians, as when it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Ethiopians and the L••∣bims, 2 Chron. 16.8. so that the meaning of the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beerets taluboth, according to him is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in a land of thirst, i. e. in places of thirst, in hot and dry countries. Much like to him R. Tanchum ex∣plains it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a land of Laab, which he saith is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vehemence of thirst, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thirsty places, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 barren dry lands; so that it will be all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 above Deut. 8.15. so that ours well render it, the land of great drought, or droughts; nor do they, as to the meaning, recede from it, who render it with respect to the effects of such drought,

as the Lxx, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in an unhabited land, and the Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in a desolate land that is not inhabited. The Vulgar Latin, in terra solitudinis; the MS. Arabick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in a land of de∣serts, or desert land, i. e. where nothing grows, none dwells. The Tigurine, terra solitudinum; Pagnin, terra sitibunda; Interlin. in terra tor∣ridorum locorum; Munster, terra siti ardente; Castalio, in inaccessa terra. These all agree, as to the sense and notion of the word.

That in such a land where none could have found any thing whereby to have su∣stained life, and so not have possibly lived without a great miracle, God should so plen∣tifully as he did, supply them, giving them bread from heaven, Manna and Quails, and causing water out of the rock to follow them, not leaving them, till he brought them into a land flowing with milk and honey, as it argues that he knew them in all the significa∣tions of kindness that that word is capable of, so certainly should it have obliged not only those of that generation, but all their poste∣rity, these now spoken to, to have known him for their God, for the only God, and have stedfastly and obediently cleaved unto him. So Abarbinel makes the import of the words to be, as if he said, since I brought thee forth of the iron furnace out of Egypt, and supplied your necessities in the wilderness fourty years 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I purchased thee for a perpetual servant, and thou mayest not change me for another God. Certainly this ought in all reason to have pre∣vailed both on their fathers and them, in all their generations, to have made them ever mind full of God, and faithfull in their cove∣nant, and both sincere and zealous in obe∣dience to him. But what contrary effects those, and all his favours, had on them, the next words declare.

V. 6. According to their pasture so were they filled, they were filled, and their heart was exalted: therefore have they forgotten me.

Those great benefits of God to them in the former words intimated, were so far from making and keeping them humble, faithfull and diligent in thankfull obedience to him, that they made them to themselves an occa∣sion of growing insolent against him, and for∣getfull of him, from whom they had all that they enjoyed. It may well be to the aggra∣vating of their sin in them, that they were from the beginning, even then when they were in the wilderness, before they came to the full possession of those good things which cor∣rupted them, cautioned against it, viz. that when they enjoyed them, and had eaten, and were full, they should be ware least they should forget the Lord, which brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage: but that they should fear the Lord their God, and should serve him, and sweare by his name, and should not go after other gods, Deut. 6.12, 13, 14. and again more at large m 1.110 Deut. 8.11, 12, &c. to which place respect may seem to be here had, where to the like caution is added a threat upon their disobedience, It shall be, if thou do at all forget the Lord thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day, that ye shall surely perish, v. 19. because ye would not be obe∣dient to the voice of the Lord your God. Yet when God had made good unto them all his promises, and they had eaten and were full, how little either thankfulness to him for his benefits, or fear of his threats did prevaile with them to keep them mindfull of him or obedient to him, appears through the whole history of them. How early they began so perversly to behave themselves appears out of what is recorded Ex. 35. that Aaron at their instance having made a molten calf, they said, these be thy Gods, O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and offered burnt∣offerings and peace-offerings, and sate down to eate and to drink, and rose up to play, v. 6. So did they forget God, even then while they were immediatly fed by hand from him in the wilderness, that land of great drought. How afterwards they behaved themselves, when they were by him brought into the promised land where they had plenty of all things, is n 1.111 described by Moses even before hand, God having revealed it to him, as if they had al∣ready done, what he saw they would do, in words much agreeing with these here, Jesu∣run waxed fat and kicked; thou art waxed fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fat∣ness: then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the rock of his salvation, and Deut. 32.15. &c. Of the rock that begat thee thou art unmindfull, and hast forgotten God that formed thee, v. 18. This perverse humor, as if they had taken that for a command, which was spoken by way of prediction and caution, appeared predominant in them in all their ge∣nerations; so that these words here might well be applied to them. But we shall not mention what their forefathers did, while they were all the twelve tribes one people; but

look on them as more concerning the ten here more peculiarly spoken of, after they became a kingdom distinct from Judah, as shewing how they continued still so behaving them∣selves, o 1.112 filling up the measure of their fa∣thers, as if such rebe••lion were hereditary to them, and they ought to improve it, notwith∣standing they had seen and heard how great∣ly God was displeased with their fathers for it, and he had all along testified against them by all the Prophets, and all the Seers, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways &c. Notwithstanding they would not hear, but hardened their necks, like to the necks of their fathers, that did not believe in the Lord their God, 2 Kings 17.13, 14. So that by him are here accused, not only their fathers, but themselves of the present wicked generation, who as in the present words, so in other places of this Prophet are taxed as guilty of what is here expressed, that forsaking and forgetting the Lord, they said, I will go after my lovers that gave my bread and my water, my wool and my flaxe, mine oyle and my drinke, c. 2.5. for she did not know that God gave her corn and wine and oyle, and multi∣plied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal, v. 8. that as they were increased, so they sinned against him, c. 4.7. that they had forgotten their maker, and built temples to Idols, c. 8.14. that according to the multitude of their fruits they increased altars, according to the good∣ness of their land they made goodly images, c. 10.1. that they were bent to backssliding from God, and though they (the Prophets) called them to the most high, none at all would exalt him, c. 11.7. yet Ephraim said, I am become rich, c. 12.8. These expressions assert what is said here of them, that as they were filled with all plenty by the bounty of God, so their heart was exalted, they grew proud and insolent, and forgat God, who by his benefits had obliged them to know him, and acknowledge him for their God and none but him, and for their Saviour and none beside him.

As to the scope of the words, it is easily perceived, and by all agreed on, that it is to taxe Israel for their proud, insolent, and un∣thankfull behaviour towards God. The words in the expression have that in them, which may seem not so easy to be rendred literally in other languages, and so occasion some little variety among interpreters; as particularly for the first words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cemaratham vayisbau sabeu vayarom libbam, which ours render, according to their pasture so were they filled, they were filled, and their heart was exalted. The Chaldee thus pa∣raphraseth them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when I had fed them, they were fed to saturity, and their heart was exalted. The LXX render, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to their pa∣stures and they were filled to satiety, and their hearts were exalted. The Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and I fed them, and they filled their bellies, and their hearts were lifted up, or when they had filled their bellies, as the Latin Translator renders it, their heart was lifted up: the Vul∣gar Latin, juxta pascua sua adimpleti sunt, & saturati sunt, & levaverunt cor suum: the Do∣way English according to other copies read∣ing, elevaverunt, for & levaverunt, ••ender, according to their pastures they were filled, and were made full, they have lifted up their heart, without the copulative and, or any thing that may answer to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ve. The MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at their feeding, or when they were fed, they were filled, and when they were filled, their heart was lifted up. These more ancient translations, though they do not pre∣cisely agree with the letter of the Hebrew nor among themselves, yet give almost one meaning, as do likewise the more modern versions; as the Interlineary, which is more express according to the Hebrew words. Juxta pascuum suum saturati sunt, saturati sunt, & elevatum est cor eorum, according to their pasture they were filled, they were filled, (or they were filled, I say) and their heart was lifted up; or as in other editions of Pagnin, saturati sunt inquam. Junius and Tremellius to give the meaning and force of that repetition of that verb, supply, simul ac, rendring, prout erant pas••ua eorum, saturati sunt, simul ac sa∣turati sunt, elatus est animus eorum, according as their pastures were, they were filled, as soon as they were filled, their mind was lifted up. The same word doth Castalio also in his rendring make use of, though in another place, viz. putting it in the beginning as the im∣port of the first particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ce, and thus gives a perspicuous paraphrase, rather than a literal rendring of the words: Qui simul ac pastu sa∣turati sunt. saturati animum extulerunt, who as soon as they were filled with feeding, being full they lifted up their mind. It may be ob∣served in these and other of the versions men∣tioned, that there is no regard had of the con∣junction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ve, in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 veyisbau, which would literally sound, and they were filled: and p 1.113 Rivet therefore notes of it, that,

videtur redundare, it seems to be superfluous, without any regard to be had of the signifi∣cation of it, unless it be taken, pro nota si∣militudinis, for a note of similitude, and be rendred, sic, so; and so we see ours take it, rendring, so were they filled; and the Geneva English also, as in their pastures, so were they filled. Perhaps he might have better said for, ••icut, as, and it be rendred, as, or and as, they were filled. So R. Tanchum seems to take it, expounding, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when they were fed, so as that, or till, they were filled, by which he saith is metaphori∣cally meant their enjoying of their worldly pleasures: and so Abarbinel, This people did not kick against me, but by reason of the great good which I multiplied to them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. for when I brought them into good pasture, so as that they were filled, (and that is that good and large land) they were filled, and their heart was lifted up, and they forgat me. And in this way of explication, I think may well take place that distinction which Rivet notes some to observe between the same verb here repeated in the first and second place; namely that in the first place it denotes or re∣spects, beneficium Dei, the bounty of God, who filled them, giving them that fruitfull land; but in the second place, ipsorum sce∣lus quo affluentia illa bonorum abusi sunt ad luxuriam, their wickedness in abusing that plenty of good things to luxury, or that bad effect that that fulness had in them, who being glutted therewith, grew proud and insolent, as men in such condition, q 1.114 usually do, as if they were sufficient to themselves, and needed no dependance on God, nor were, nor need be, beholding to him, which is meant by their forgetting him; their pride, the usual effect of satiety, being caused by their fulness, and their forgetfulness and contempt of God by their pride. The illative 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 al-cen, therefore, shewing their forgetfulness of God to proceed as an effect from the pride of their heart, which was caused in them by saturity or being glutted with plenty, is quite omitted in the Vulgar Latin, though necessarily understood.

But what difference soever be in the seve∣ral translations, as to the expressions, we find them all to concur in the same meaning, which is, as we said, a minding Israel of God's great favours to them, and taxing them of their great unthankfulness and perverse beha∣viour toward him, and to shew whence this proceeded in them. Under the Metaphorical term of pasture, with which they were filled, is expressed God's great bounty to them in giving them in that fat land of Canaan all things richly to enjoy, which are more particu∣larly expressed in the forecited Deut. 6.10, 11. and c. 8.7, 8, 9. and 12, 13. and by saying that they were then filled, and their heart was exalted, and therefore they have forgotten him, is shewed their unthankfulness and perverse be∣haviour to him, con••rary to what those his great benefits should have obliged them to, and wrought in them. Their pride is there ex∣pressed likewise by their heart being lifted up, v. 14. v. 17. by their saying in their heart, my power and the might of my hand hath••g••••tten me this wealth. Their forgetting of him there, v. 11. by not keeping his commandments, and judgments, and his statutes, and v. 19. b walking after other Gods, and serving them, and wor∣shipping them, in which kinds they were now manifestly guilty.

These their perverse manners God had long born with, expecting their amendment and repentance, to which he continually called them by his Prophets, which seeing his long suffering cannot bring them to, but they sin more and more, he will now no longer for∣beare: seeing they will not change their be∣viour, he will change his: from a gracious fa∣ther and benefactor, he will become an ene∣my, a severe judge and revenger, and execu∣tor of wrath to them. Which with what ri∣gour he will do, he expresseth in the next fol∣lowing words, by comparisons taken from those fiercest creatures in dealing with such weaker ones, that are not able to resist them.

V. 7. Therefore I will be unto them as a lion, as leopard by the way will I observe them.

8. I will meet them as a bear that is bereaved of her whelps, and will rent the caul of their heart, and there will I devour them like a lion: the wild beast shall tear them.

Therefore I will be to them as a lion, &c. Therefore for such their ungratefull dealing will he be to them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cemo shachal, as a lion. This is the first similitude by which he expresseth how he will in fury deale with them, or, which is all one, all being from him, how the executioners of his wrath, should proceed against them, being by him delivered into their hand. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vaehi, therefore I will be, or as the Greek and Vulgar Latin, and I will be; the conjunction signifies indeed and, but is not amiss, as it is elsewhere used, by ours, and others, rendred as an illative, therefore: but besides this the verb also which is by them and ours rendred in the future, I will be,

is by many readd in the preterperfect tense, r 1.115 fui, or s 1.116 factus sum, t 1.117 extiti, I have been, or am become, which though the Grammar fa∣vour or seem to require, yet I think Tremel∣lius well notes, that, dubium tamen non est poenas in futurum denuntiari, there is no doubt but that he denounceth against them future pu∣nishments; which, to shew that he had certainly decreed to send on them, and to cut off all hope of longer delay from them, according to the usual language of this and all other Prophets, he speaks of as of what was already come, and their condition was already so altered, that we may say it was already begun, as by u 1.118 Tiglath Pileser's invading them, 2 Kings 15.

The name shacal we had above. c. 5.14. and there by ours rendred as here, a lion; by the Greek in both places, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a panther. So the Tigurin version, panthera. The Vul∣gar Latin in both places, leaena, a lioness, though Jerom on the fifth chapter seems indif∣ferently to take it for a panther, which Gro∣tius thinks to be right. The Chaldee also in both places, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the ordinary La∣tin translation renders, leaena, as a lioness; Mer∣cer, leo, a lion. It may indifferently be ren∣dred by either gender. The MS. Arab. in both places 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a lions whelp, or young lion. The Interlineary in the first place hath, pan∣thera, here leo; by Junius and Tremellius it is rendred c. 5.14. ferox leo, a fierce lion, but here, vetus leo, an old lion. Bochart would have it signify, a black lion, but on no w 1.119 ne∣cessary ground. Cocceius in the first place renders it, fera, or panthera, a wild beast, or panther, but here, bellua.

There is, we see, some little difference be∣tween them in their interpretations of the word, but we need not be sollicitous about it, but adhere to our own translation without further enquiry after the age, sexe or kind of the beast meant, it being manifest, and by all agreed on, that it denotes such a one in that kind, as is an emblem of fierceness and cruel∣ty; as is that also in the second place, named 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 namar. Concerning this name there is no x 1.120 question made, but that it signifies a leopard, but in rendring the words adjoined, in which respect seems to be had to the usual custom of that beast, there is such difference, as is hard∣ly reconcileable.

The words in the Hebrew are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 al dere•• ashur, which ours render, by the way I will observe them; in which way of rendring the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ashur, is looked on as the future tense from the y 1.121 verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shor, in which form it is found in the next verse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 veashurenu, by ours rendred, and I have observed him; as elsewhere also, viz. Num. 23.9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I behold him, and there c. 24.17. I shall behold him; that verb signi∣fying among others things, to look on, to observe, to fixe on, this word is as by ours, so by seve∣ral others taken as formed from it, and hath that or other synonymous significations given it. So in the Interlineary, observabo; Junius and Tremellius, z 1.122 contemplatus sum. More ancient∣ly by the MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and as a leopard by the way will I glance, or cast, mine eye. In this way R. Tanchum saith the meaning is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will observe as a leopard by the way, which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 watcheth to prey upon him that passeth by, and hath his eye upon him. So Abarbinel saith it is from the same root, the same form and signification with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Num. 24.17. i. e. saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will look to, or on, their way, as a lion and as a leopard to slay them, because, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as a lion and a leopard look about and spie in the way to kill and to destroy, so will 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he to Israel: so by R. Salomo to the same purpose, as to what is comprehended under that signi∣fication, it is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will lie in wait and watch for, viz. as that beast doth for passengers a 1.123 in the way, as if he should say, I will set on them as a lion, i. e. with open force, and as a leopard, i. e. ex insid••s, by lying secretly in wait, as Drus. This sense seems confirmed by what is elsewhere readd, a leopard shall watch over their cities, Jer. 5.6. viz. lying in wait for such as come out of the cities. In this doth he plainly give the same meaning, though not in the same tense, which the Chaldee Paraphrast here doth, who renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as a loopard that lies in wait by the way.

The verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thara in the Arabick tongue, directly answering to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 b 1.124 in the Hebrew as to the root, hath a signification that would well agree to this place, and the custom of the beast mentioned, viz. to assault, or set on with violence. In this way the pronoun suffixe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 m, is c 1.125 understood, and by ours supplied, them. Others go another way, referring the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ashur to another root, and of a different signification, to wit, to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ashar, which signifies, d 1.126 to go, or direct ones going to;

according as it is e 1.127 used Prov. 4.14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 go not in the way of evil men, and Prov. 23.19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & fac progre∣di, which ours render, and guide thy heart in the way. It is by some taken as a f 1.128 parti∣ciple, or an g 1.129 adjective, from this verb, and to have the notion of going, but they differ again among them selves, some making it an Epithet to the way, some to the beast spoken of. According to the first it will sound, as a leopard in a way that is much gone, or travelled in, a much frequented way where many pass, and so wherein he finds many to prey on, and doth much mischief. In this signification do several of the more learned Jews take it. Abuwalid so far prefers it, as to look on that of those who refer it in the former way to the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shur, to be an error, and there∣fore renders it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by a way that is much gone in; Aben Ezra also by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in which tread the steps of men. R. Tanchum also mentions it without passing his judgment between it and the for∣mer, and explains it, as a leopard 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in a way much gone in, doing much hurt by reason of the multitude of passengers in it. Among modern Interpreters Pagnin so taking it, renders, juxta viam tritam, or as Vatablus explains it, contritam, by a beaten way.

Others on the other hand deriving it from the same root and signification, take it for an Epithet of the leopard, that it might sound, as a leopard which traverseth the way, or goeth up and down in it seeking whom he may seize on, or ready and accustomed to, or in the way, going directly toward it, or right on it. So Kimchi, h 1.130 though he say the word may also be taken in the former signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shur, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i 1.131 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. as a leo∣pard that is accustomed and used to pass and go up and down in, or by, the way, being ready to teare, or prey on, what passeth by him in the way; so have I been, or will I be, to them, in that I have given, or will give, to their enemies power over them, and they had not, or shall not have, power to deliver themselves out of their hand, till they repented, or shall repent, and I have had, or shall have, mercy on them. This Mercer following, renders the word by, di∣rectus, or rather k 1.132 grassans, or gradiens, and explains by, viam obsidens & huc illuc subin∣de oberrans, praetereuntesque observans, which besets the way and runs up and down hi∣ther and thither in it, and observes those that pass by. Munster from the same theme to the same purpose renders it, qui directus est ad viam, which is right set on the way; and his note is that ashur is a participle from the verb ashar, signifying, paratus & accinctus ad prae∣dam, ready to seize on his prey. Capito, sicut pardus super viam qui incedit, as a leopard that goeth in the way.

I have heard another opinion of a learned man, who would have it rendred, as a leo∣pard, erectus, erected, or raised up, or standing upright in the way, so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ashur should be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yasher, which signifies, right, straight, equal, upright. But it being granted that these two roots of ashar and yashar, do in some things agree, as in the signi∣sication of rectifying or directing, and setting straight, yet beside that our word here is not justified by any other example for such use of it, I know not whether, erect, or standing, or raised upright, would be a fit Epithet for that beast, which is usually described to seize on his prey by * 1.133 leaping: and I know not, seeing the word hath nothing in it to convince us of the genuine use of it in that signification, why it should be preferred before any other of the notions given us by others.

There is yet another rendring of the word, backed by as great authority as any of the for∣mer, which is by making 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ashur, a pro∣per name of a place or people, viz. Assyria, or the Assyrians, that the words may sound, as a leopard in the way of the Assyrians, o•• the way of, or to, Assyria. This take the LXX, rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Syriack also, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in via Assur, i. e. Assyriae: and the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the way of the Mausilians, (the chief city of Assy∣ria, whereabout the ancient Nineveh stood, being now in that country called Mausal.) The Vulgar Latin, sicut pardus in via Assyrio∣rum, and more modern Interpreters also. l 1.134 Castalio follows it, rendring, quasi rigris ad viam Assyriae. Calvin also, though seeming to doubt whether he should follow this or another notion, puts in his text, tanquam pardus in via Ass••r, vel aspiciam vel insidiabor, ut alii vertunt. And Drusius also, in via Assur; and so among others the Geneva English, in the way of Ashur, and that other English for∣merly in use with us, in the way to the Assy∣rians. That which is m 1.135 objected against this rendring is, because the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ashur is not here so written as it usually is, when it is a proper name, because then it useth to be written with a short vowel, a, viz. patach, under the first letter, and the second letter doubled with dagesh; whereas here the first letter hath a long vowel, kamets, or long a,

and the second letter is without a dagesh, or note of doubling. But this seems to n 1.136 others to be but a weak objection, and that as a proper name it may be written both ways, there being other examples of indifferently using a long vowel without dagesh, or a short vowel with it, in some other words.

If it be taken this way, the sense according to Mr. Lively may be, that when they should go to Assyria to seek for help, God would be against them in the way, according to what is said c. 5.13, 14. Then went Ephraim to the Assyrian, and sent to king Jareb, yet could he not help you, nor cure you of your wound; for I will be unto Ephraim as a lion &c. and c. 7.11, 12. that when Ephraim should go to Assyria, he would spread his net upon them, and bring them down: and Jer. 2.18, 19. What hast thou thou to do in the way of Assyria? Thy own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backsliding shall reprove thee. Others understand it of what should befall them in their going o 1.137 cap∣tives into Assyria, so that the words according to both would sound, I will be to them in the way of Assyria as a leopard; they may other∣wise sound, I will be to them as a leopard that is in the way of Assyria, viz. which lieth in wait for travellers in the way that goeth to Assy∣ria; via nempe ex Judaea in Assyriam infesta erat ejusmodi feris, saith p 1.138 Cappell, because the way out of Judea into Assyria was infested with such wild beasts. This way of taking the word for a proper name, is, if that objection from the vowels be removed, as it seems by Mr. Live∣lies answer well to be, in the learned Bocharts opinion, percommoda & fortasse praeferenda, very convenient and perhaps to be preferred; yet our last Translatours, we see, who had seen and considered that, choose and prefer ano∣ther, and others take others.

The occasion of all the variety of rendrings which we find, we see is from the form of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ashur, capable of variety of significations, which made it so doubtfull a case to the Author of the Hebrew Concor∣dance, that he cites these very words in three several places to so many several meanings, as twice in the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ashar, where Bux∣torf renders it in the first place, tritus ex inces∣su, a beaten way worn by much going; in the se∣cond, contemplatus sum, I have observed; then in the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shur, where he renders, contemplabor, I will observe, and if he had not purposely omitted proper names, I sup∣pose we should have had it a fourth time. But I wonder why he did not reduce the se∣cond to the third. It makes for the way which ours follow, q 1.139 because it being placed with other verbs of the form of the future tense, it is very agreeable that it should be so too. But which soever of these ways we take, the scope will still be the same, namely to express with what severity God would proceed against this sinfull people, and with what ri∣gor and cruelty the executioners of his judg∣ments should deale with them, which is far∣ther also set forth in the next words, where∣in he compares himself to an inraged bear.

The words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ephge∣shem cedob shaccul, I will meet them as a bear bereaved of her whelps, which rendring of the words seems to allude to the fierceness of that creature, heightned by such a circum∣stance, as doth more increase it. If nothing more had been said, but as a bear, that had denoted great cruelty, that beast being by na∣ture fierce and pernicious, and apt to prey upon, as other creatures, so on men also, and by that means, if opportunity serve, to deprive mothers of their children and others of their near relations, and that is as much as some look on as here expressed. So R. Salomo, saying that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shaccul is the same that r 1.140 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shocel, viz. not, orbatus, bereaved, but, orbans, bereaving; for what is added in ours or like translations, her whelps, there is nothing in the Hebrew that expresseth it, that it should tie it to being bereaved of them. So R. Tanchum renders it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which he explains by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 multum orbans quod multum diripiat, much bereaving because of his much tearing, or tearing many that he preys on. R. Levi also on 2 Sam. 17.8. where the very same words oc∣cur to the same end of expressing fierceness and fury, so explains it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a bear that teareth, which because of its much tearing is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shaccul, bereaving, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because he bereaveth others. Aben Ezra also saith, that it may be either according to some rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a bear whose whelps are killed, or else actively, viz. that bereaveth, or killeth. In this way also the Syriack ver∣sion seems to take it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, much in breaking, which the Latin renders, ursus rapax.

That which seems to favour this exposition is the dagesh in the form of the word shaccul, which seems to denote both action and cu∣stom of doing, and because it is in the mascu∣line gender, whereas if spoken peculiarly of a female, it should be in the feminine. Yet do others, taking, I suppose, shaccul more properly to signify, the being deprived of their young ones, whether in man or beast, and among beasts the sexe which is most affected

with such loss, being the female, and it being a thing taken as granted, that among bears s 1.141 the female is of greatest fierceness, and then more than ordinary when she is robbed of her young, and the expression here used being to set forth more than ordinary fury and cruelty, choose rather to understand it of a she bear, and to render it in a passive signification, as a bear that is bereaved of her whelps, accounting, it seems, that as the substantive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dob, is of the common gender, so the Epithet also, though in form a masculine, being joined to it, may be attributed to the female: for what else can we think them to mean, who so render it by t 1.142 ursus orbatus, in the masculine gender, than others do, more distinctly ex∣pressing their meaning by u 1.143 ursa orbata, or as the Vulgar Latin hath it, ursa raptis catulis, Englished in the Doway translation, as a bear her young being violently taken away. So it is manifest that Kimchi took it, while having explained shaccul by such a bear 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whose young are killed, and he is bereft and imbittered in mind, so that if he light on man or beast, he will suddenly teare, gives a rea∣son for it, which wholy concerns the female, viz. of the pains she is at in licking into form her unshapely whelps which she hath brought forth; and Bochart affirms of it, viz. of rendring it passively, that it is, vera interpretatio, a true interpretation of the place, and to be preferred before that of theirs, who render it actively, bereaving, both here, and where else it is found.

The LXX looking on the word in a larger meaning, as not signifying peculiarly the being bereft of young ones or the like, but being de∣prived of any thing necessary, or in want of it, render it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin Translator renders, w 1.144 ut ursa indigens cibo; and the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Latin thereof, velut ursa fame aestuans, (I suppose he readd, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) as a she bear that wants meat, or an hungry bear; in which case a bear is x 1.145 noted (as other like creatures) to be likewise most fierce, and is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dob shokek, Prov. 28, 15. but 2. Sam. 17.8. they render the same word that is here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, deprived of whelps. It is manifest the words are to express God's severe dealing that he threatens toward them, by the usual dealing of that savage beast, inraged and provoked to the highest degree of fury, the dire effects of which are farther set forth in the next words, and I will rent the caul of their heart. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 segor libbam, the word segor being from the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sagar, to shut, to shut in, or inclose, seems to signify that skin, membrane or caul, which incloseth the heart, and is therefore called pericordium, or claustrum cordis, and capsu∣la and involucrum cordis, all from the same notion of incomp••ssing, or incl••sing. R. Tan∣chum thus describes and explains it y 1.146 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 z 1.147 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the vaile (or covering, the caul) of their heart, which is so named, because it incompasseth the heart, and shuts it in on every side; which according to Aristotle is, a 1.148 membrana pinguis & crassa, a fat and thick membrane. The LXX render it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, conclusionem cordis eorum, which the printed Arab. explains by, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. velum cordis corum. The Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is Latined, membranam cordis eorum, b 1.149 all still the same with ours. The Vulgar La∣tin in a more general expression, interiora je∣coris eorum, and I will breake in sunder the inner parts of their liver, as in the Doway English, which though not so expresly literal, yet may seem well to give the meaning, in as much as the first word segor, may be taken c 1.150 as well for what is included or shut in, as for that which includes it, and the name of heart, not only for the member properly so called, but all the inner parts of the body, the whole bowels, or the middle part of any thing, as the heart of earth, Matt. 12.40. And so likewise by the liver are sometimes understood all other the inner parts of the body, as Ribera here observes.

Others do so render the words as to make the word segor an Epithet to, libbam, their heart. So Munster, lacerabo obstinatum cor eorum, I will tear their obstinate heart; and the Tigurine version, pertinax cor eorum, noting in the margin that the Hebrew is, conclusum, shut up, hoc est, obstinatum, pertinax, obsti∣nate, perverse, and in this they do but follow some of the chief Jewish Interpreters; for so R. Salomo explains it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 their heart which is so shut as that it cannot understand to return unto me; so also Kimchi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 their heart that is shut and doth not understand, will I tear. Abarbinel seems to mean the same thing, while he explains it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the foolishness of their heart; except we shall render it, the fatness of their heart, as it may also signify, which perhaps will better agree

to this place, and a fat heart and a foolish heart d 1.151 seeming in the Hebrew to signify the same thing. They seem all in this to follow the Chal∣dee Paraphrast, which hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and I breake the wickedness of their heart, i. e. their wicked heart. These rather respect the condition or qualification of their heart, than the place or posture of the heart in the body; which (though the other in respect to the persons spoken of may well be suggested to the understanding, as Kimchi himself seems to say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this is by way of compari∣son) seems in this comparative speech e 1.152 more properly to be understood, for setting forth that manner in which God will cause them to be handled, by the likening it to the dealing of such fierce beasts in tearing their prey open, and seizing on the very heart, which is most cruel, and most certainly destructive. Gro∣tius thinks by this to be denoted the disper∣sion of the people, which together are as the body, of which the several persons are as the members. Whether we refer this action to the bear forementioned, or to the lion next mentioned, may seem indifferent; it may per∣haps be common to them f 1.153 both, and to other wild beasts also, so to do in their preying on men or other creatures; although by those that describe the natural history of them, it be more peculiarly attributed g 1.154 to the lion, that he seems greedily to make way to the heart, as that which he especially delighteth to eat and to suck the blood of. So Kimchi here, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. for so a lion doth in his preying, he teares open the body to the very heart, and eates it, and drinks the blood thereof. In comparing his judgments to the cruel dealing of which beasts, he farther subjoins, and there will I devour them like a lion.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 veocelem sham, and I will eat them there. There. Where? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there in their cities, saith Kimchi, I will consume them by the pestilence, and by the sword of the enemy, as a lion which teares without mercy. Abarbinel also by there, understands, their own country, the former, he saith, is meant of what should be done to them in their captivity by their ene∣mies, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 besides this while they are yet in their own land, he will send on them what he here saith. But others think this way to be understood of what shall be done unto them, in exilio, in their captivity. So Mercer and Petr. à Fig. in their own cities, or else, ibi, there, i. e. in exilio, in captivity. But I know not why we may not look on it, as having respect to the foremen∣tioned 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 derec, way, especially if it be re∣ferred to the way of Assyria, or however other∣wise, there where he will observe them and meet them. h 1.155 So Jerom, Lyra and others. Arias Montanus seems to refer it to their heart, comedam eos ibi in corde cordisque clausura, there in their heart and the caul of their heart will I feed on them; who likewise adds that there is an allusion to that custom of the lion, who having suckt out the blood of the heart and parts about it, leaves the other parts of the carkase to be eaten by wolves, jakales, foxes, dogs, and other like lesser beasts of prey.

I find, here, in Mr. Poole put by way of question, quidni ibi pro tum? why should not there be here put for then, or moreover, as else∣where it is? I know not what may be said to the contrary, except the placing of the par∣ticiple 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sham, which if it had been meant in that signification, should rather have been placed before the verb, which now it follows.

The word which we have here for a lion, is different from what we had before, that being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shachal, this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 labi; that the Vulgar rendred by leaena, this by leo: on the contra∣ry i 1.156 others look on this to signify a she lion, which is looked on as fiercer than the male, and so the Tigurine renders it leaena; others taking it rather for a male, and an old k 1.157 well grown lion; others, as the Chaldee, for a lions whelp, or young lion, and there being doubt about it, I think ours well chose to render it without distinction of sexe or age, a lion. The LXX with more liberty changing also the person in the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin renders, devorabunt eos ibi catuli sylvae, the whelps of the wood shall there devour them; which makes * 1.158 some to con∣jecture, that taking the prefixed particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ce, for a radical letter, they readd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chal∣baya, in the Chaldee form, dogs, or else, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the dog of the wood, or l 1.159 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cela∣bim, dogs. But there seems no need of that, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying rather whelps of lions than of dogs, and their adding 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the wood, being but for explication sake, and to shew what they meant, and so they only omit the par∣ticle of comparison 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ce, as also it is in the printed Arab. following them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 leunculi sylvae, the little lions of the wood. From their rendring also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ocelem, I will devour them, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Cappellus thinks they readd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 acalum, they devoured them. But neither of that is there any necessity, seeing what is spoken of God in the first per∣son,

was to be executed by such of his in∣struments as according to them are called lions whelps, and so they leaving out the par∣ticle of comparison whereby he likened him∣self to them, might change the verb, so as to apply it to them and their dealing; as doth also the Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & devorabit eos ibi leo, and a lion shall there devour them.

Those judgments which by these expres∣sions are set forth, must needs be very severe. What in particular they were, it is not ex∣pressed. Kimchi we have seen to think there∣by pointed out the pestilence, and the sword of the enemy. Abarbinel doth the like, saying to be meant, that while they are yet in their own land, he will send upon them the pesti∣lence which shall consume them, and that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 labi, a lion, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a pointing out the pestilence, which shall seize on them there at home, before their captivity: so that taking in the next words also, and the beast of the field, or the wild beast, shall tear them, he thinks in the expression intimated three sorts of judgments, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 captivity, pestilence and evil beasts. By his saying, there will I devour them like a lion, Piscator thinks to be meant the evils or de∣struction that were brought upon them in that part of their land which Tiglath Pileser in∣vaded and seized on. But Arias Montanus in another way by his saying, he will rent the caul of their heart, and devour, or feed on, them as a lion, thinks meant disquieting thoughts, m 1.160 and troubled minds, which he will give them, which shall gnaw on their very heart or the inner man, which punishment God himself will inflict on them as none but he can; and as for such as belongs to the outward man, he will leave to be executed by his other instruments, which he points to by saying, the wild beasts shall tear them. As for these last words it seems doubtfull how they ought to be taken, whether figuratively, as those be∣fore them or properly. For there are who by, the beast of the field, (as the words lite∣rally sound, as ours in the margin observe) or the wild beast, (as they put it in the text) will have to be understood their cruel enemies, the n 1.161 Assyrians. But o 1.162 others take the words in their proper signification, as denoting that as by his other judgments they should be wasted at home in their cities, so p 1.163 abroad they should be preyed upon by wild beasts, it being that which was in the Law threatned unto them upon their disobedience, that he would send wild beasts among them, which should rob them of their children, and destroy their cattle, and make them few in number, and make their high ways desolate, Levit. 26.22. and among his sore judgments he reckons, the evil beast which should bereave them, Ezek. 5.17. the noisom beast, Ezek. 14.21. and Calvin saith that, jam absque similitudine loquitur, now he speaks without a similitude, and Trem. seipsum de∣clarat absque figura, that he declares himself without a figure: yet doth Mercer say, malim allegoricw̄s omnia dici, that he thinks all the ex∣pressions, even this last also, to be spoken al∣legorically or figuratively; so that having named some kind of savage, cruel beasts, he should at last say in sum, whatsoever wild beasts there are, they shall teare them, i. e. omnis in eos saevitia ab hostibus per me exci∣tatis exercebitur, all manner of cruelty shall be exercised on them by the enemies by me raised up.

These last words Junius and Tremellius couple to the former, ut immanis leo— q 1.164 ut bestia agrestis diffindens eos, I have devoured them there as a great lion, as a wild beast tearing them; where Piscator also notes that, diffin∣det, shall tear, which is in the future, is to be rendred or understood as the preter, diffi∣dit, hath turn, because the verbs before it are in the signification of that tense. So indeed he, and Jun. and Trem. take them all, but ours and others, I think better, in the future, I will be to them &c. and I will observe them &c. I will meet them &c. I will rent &c. I will de∣vour &c. The punishments in them spoken of, may well comprehend all such as God had both already inflicted, and would farther in∣flict on them; but I suppose will not so con∣veniently be applied only to what was past, but rather to the judgments which were to come, spoken of as of things already done, both to shew (as we before said) the certainty of them, and r 1.165 likewise to testify to them, that when they came upon them, they were not things that came on them by chance, or only from the cruelty of their enemies, but by the predesignation of God, who had be∣fore threatned to send them on them, if they should continue in their wicked courses as they did, that so they might know whether to look for the cause of them. Together, they are thereby warned not to look on God as a cruel and severe judge, who is willing to take occa∣sion of punishing, but as one that delighteth in mercy, and therefore tells them before, what will be, if by their obstinacy in sinning they continue to provoke him, that they may by their repentance prevent his shewing him∣self such for necessary vindication of his justice; and withall it shews the s 1.166 irresistible power of

him, and of his instruments, which he shall set on work to execute it. Besides the dif∣ferences which we have already taken notice of between Interpreters, we may also take no∣tice of the reading in the MS. Arab. which being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sounds, and I will consume them there, and the lion and the beasts of the field shall tear them; except it should instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as a lion.

V. 9. O Israel, thou hast destroyed thy self, but in me is thine help.

O Israel, thou hast destroyed thy self, &c. Israel hath been described as in a very ill con∣dition, in God's great displeasure, and under danger of very heavy judgments by him threatned: In this verse is made manifest by what means they were brought to that condi∣tion. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shichetca Israel ci bi beezreca, which ours render, O Israel, thou hast destroyed thy self, &c. with which some others agree; t 1.167 perdidistite, Israel, quoniam in me in auxilium tuum; and to the same sense the Vulgar Latin, perditio tua, Israel, tantum in me auxilium tuum, which the Doway render, perdition is thine, O Israel, only in me thy help, where some, it seems, for making the meaning clearer, add, u 1.168 ex te: thy destru∣ction is of thy self, O Israel; most that follow that translation understand it. It differs in words from ours, not in sense; it being all one to say, thou hast destroyed thy self, and to say, thy destruction is of thy self, both taking shichet, for a noun signifying destruction, and both making so plain a meaning, that the translation being taken to be right, it is by some w 1.169 made use of, in the question con∣cerning free will. But I suppose the transla∣tion is not so right and unquestionable, as that any thing in that or like kind can be built upon it. How 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shichetca can be rendred, the perdition is thine, or thou hast destroyed thy self, I do not well see. The word must either be taken for a noun signifying corruption or destruction, or a verb, to corrupt or destroy. If it be taken for a noun, the literal construction of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shichetca, with the affixe joined to it, will be, perditio tua, thy destruction, Israel, as in x 1.170 the Vulgar it is, which to make so sound, as usually it is understood, the destru∣ction is thine, i. e. of, or from, thy self, and so to be equivalent to what ours express it by, thou hast destroyed thy self, though the Latin as we have it, may well beare yet I suppose cannot be said to be agreeable to the use of the Hebrew tongue, that the noun with its affixe joined to it, thy destruction, should be so interpreted, the destruction is thine, as ordina∣rily it is, or as also Castalio, altering the place of the words, takes it, reading, tua est pernicies, Israelita, cum meum tibi subvenire, thine is the destruction, O Israelite, whereas it be∣longs to me to help thee; so making it a perfect clause by it self, whereas thy destruction, O Israel, leaves the sense imperfect, requiring something to be assigned, of which it may be said, this is thy destruction, except we should render it, it's thy destruction, O Israel, and un∣derstand it for, the destruction is from thee, other∣wise after shichetca, will seem to be understood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to thee, or of, or in, thy self. Yet this way appear ours in the last transla∣tion to follow, and therein they have among the Jews R. Sal. agreeing with them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thou hast destroyed thy self, because thou hast rebelled against me, against thy help; and so Abarb. for the first words, though he render the last, because thy help hath always been in me. Others many look on it rather as a verb, and then it will sound, perdidit te, Israel, it hath destroyed thee, O Israel, but then to make the meaning must something be understood and supplied, which shall be said to have cor∣rupted or destroyed them, and in assigning this is there much difference betwixt Exposi∣tors. Kimchi saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the calf, above spoken of. This Pagnin seems to have thought so right and so necessary to be understood, that in y 1.171 some editions he puts it into the text, reading, Vituli quos fecisti fuerunt causa per∣ditionis tuae, sed in me auxilium tuum, the calves which thou hast made have been the cause of thy destruction, but in me is thy help, Ellipsi nimis remota, by a too far-fetch'd Ellipsis, as Pareus speaks. Others, Rex tuus, thy king hath destroyed thee. So Junius and Tremellius, as looking on him in the next verse mentioned to be here understood by way of anticipation, but as the same Pareus, anticipatione coacta, by a forced anticipation. z 1.172 Others make all that was before spoken of to be the nominative case to the verb here, viz. what hath been said of thy sins, that hath destroyed thee: agreeable to which is that of Munster, perdidit te iniquitas tua, sed &c. with which our ancient English translation agrees, O Israel, thine iniquities have destroyed thee, but in me only is thy help. Tre∣mellius otherwise, gathering from the follow∣ing

words the meaning of these, perdidit te alieni auxilii fiducia, whereas thy help hath been in me, the trust in forreign help hath destroyed thee.

Calvin seems to think that Israel himself might be taken for the nominative case, and not, as usually taken, for the vocative, viz. Israel hath destroyed thee, which would re∣dound to as much as to say, Israel seipsum perdidit, Israel hath destroyed himself, with change of person in the words, but not in the meaning. Not far from this for the meaning is that by Mr. Poole cited as out of the Dutch notes, by understanding Ephraim, the people all along here by the Prophet spoken to and of, O Israel, Ephraim 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••estroyed thee, viz. by king Jeroboam and his doings. Drusius doubts what should be understood, satietasne? thy being full? spoken of v. 6. or cor tuum? thy heart? or whether it might not be rendred, corruptus es, Israel, sed in me quod in auxi∣lio tuo? art thou corrupted, O Israel? making the sense, that which may be for help to thee, is to be sought, or expected, in, or from, me; thou oughtest not utterly to despair. The Gene∣va English read, O ••srael, one hath destroyed thee, but &c. adding their note, thy destruction is certain, and my benefits towards thee declare, that it cometh not of me, therefore thine own ma∣lice, Idolatry and vain confidence in men must needs be the cause thereof. There being no nominative expressed in the text, but the words put inde∣finitely, they thought not fit to name any, but at large to understand it of any, saying, one, i. e. some or other, in which they seem to fol∣low that explication of Calvin, as if the words left them to * 1.173 seek, who or what had destroyed them. Deus ergo hic neque Israelem nominat, ne∣que certum authorem exitii designat, sed ostendit tamen Israelem esse perditum, & exitii causam ali∣bi quaerendam esse quam in se, i. e. God therefore here neither names Israel, nor expresseth any cer∣tain author of their destruction, but shews yet Israel to be destroyed, and the cause of their destruction to be to be sought for elsewhere than in himself.

With this last concurs the opinion of Lud. de Dieu, as that the word seems im∣personally taken, that so it may sound, perdi∣dit te, Israel, nempe perditor, i. e. perditio tibi allata est, O Israel, he hath destroyed thee, O Israel, i. e. some destroyer, that is, destruction is brought on thee, O Israel. Such variety be∣tween Expositors is there in supplying the no∣minative case in the first clause of the verse, & in the following words also, while some render the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ci, which joins the two clauses, by, tantummodo, only; others, as ours, by, sed, but; others by, a 1.174 cum, whereas; others by, quia, because: in that also that whereas the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 b, is twice expressed in the latter clause, as in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bi, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beezreca, some, as the Vulgar, ours and others, looking on it as superfluous for making the meaning, in the second place quite omit the rendring of it; others in both places render by, in, as b 1.175 ours in the margin, in me in thy help, as Jun. and Trem. also, who for making the sense complete, add here a supply, understanding, thou shouldest subsist, viz. quum in me in auxilio tuo staturus esses, whenas in me in thy help, i. e. qui sum auxi∣lium tuum, in or by, me who am thy help thou mightest subsist; or as c 1.176 others, est sa••us, there is help. Others render it by, d 1.177 contra, against; against me, against thy help, and then they also add as a supply, rebellasti, thou hast rebelled. e 1.178 Otherwise yet, some retaining the signification of in, because, non confisus es thou trustedst not, or, non conversus••es, wert not converted. All these seem to make a good meaning. If it be asked which among them all may seem most agreeable to the words. I think there is none of them so necessarily and so undoubtedly agreeing to them, but that it may be excepted against by others, and that there is place for another which may be more expresly an∣swering to them, without need of any supply or wresting any of the words, and in that re∣gard be preferred before any of them; and such I think to be that which is by some learned Jews suggested to us, which is, It, or this, hath destroyed thee O Israel, because in me is, or was, thy help: this we have from R. Tan∣chum thus explaining the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 O Israel, my being in, or for, thy help hath corrupted, or destroyed, thee; or this hath corrupted, or destroyed, thee, that I was in thy help, or at hand to help thee, that is, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thy relying on this, that my providence over thee for good, which thou hitherto foundest) should be per∣petually continued to thee, hath corrupted thee, that thou wouldest not return to me by repentance, and leave thy rebellions, or wicked ways. It appears that he taketh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 snicheth, the first word, as we have seen most do, for a verb; the second preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beezre∣ca, in thy help, he observes to be f 1.179 redundant, the meaning being complete if it were only ezreca, thy help, or else that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bi beezreca should sound the same that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because I am, or was, in, or for, thy help. The same exposition is by R. Nissim also, cited by Abarbinel, given, who as he

relates his words, expounds it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. that that which corrupted, or destroyed, Israel, was their thought, or thinking, that God would be continually in, or for, their help, in as much as he had brought them out of Egypt, and continually pardoned their ini∣quities; so that according to him the words sound 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this thought hath corrupted thee, or been corruption to thee; or thy destru∣ction (if we take it for a noun) is this thought, that I have been continually in, or for thy help. And of this interpretation, though he had be∣fore himself given another, he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and this is truly a right, or convenient, interpretation. And so truly it seems to be above any other that we meet with, more punctually agreeable to the words, no way adding to, or detracting from, them, which literally sound, because in me (is, or was) in, (i. e. for) thy help. I find it not, I confess, followed by any in their expositions, yet in their rendrings some of them, while they would follow the letter, are forced to come neer it. Calvin, though in his exposi∣tion he go otherwise, yet in the text puts it, perdidit te, Israel, quia in me auxilium tuum. The Interlineary though more precisely ren∣dring the words as they are in the Hebrew, corruptela tua, Israel, quia in me in auxilio tuo, thy corruption, O Israel, (is,) because in me in thy help, will be the same according to what we observed of the use of the preposi∣tion b 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in, that as L. de Dieu observes, it doth often serve but to the nominative case, or by making it to sound, for, and making it up as Abarbinel doth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because in me is strength and power for thy help, the Vulgar may easily be reduced to it by changing, tantummodo, only, into, quia, because, and ours by reading because, instead of but. The MS. Arabick seems so to take it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it hath corrupted thee, O Israel, g 1.180 that, or because, in me was, or hath been, thy help.

The LXX here seem somewhat wide from the words, rendring, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, O Israel, who shall help h 1.181 thy corruption? This rendring of theirs makes i 1.182 some to think, that instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bi, in me, they did read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mi, quis? who? which if it should be granted, yet would not that make the words to agree; for there would no account so be given of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ci. We may rather think, that they reading the words as they are, took liberty of giving for the meaning, what they conceived them to import, or what they thought would necessarily be inferred from them, viz. that they having corrupted them∣selves through presumption on God's help and providence, and so deprived themselves of the benefits thereof, should not be able to find any other to help them; which by putting it by way of question, they strongly assert, as it is in the following verse also done. The Chaldee Paraphrast also here takes such li∣berty to himself, as not much to help us in the literal rendring of the words, he thus giving for the meaning, When ye, O house of Israel, corrupt your works, the people, or other nations, bear rule over you; but when you return to my law, my word is, or hath been, for your help. The Syriack with change of persons renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 perdidi te, O Israel, quis auxiliabitur tibi? I have destroyed thee, O Israel, who should, or shall, help thee? they may as well as the Greek be thought to have readd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mi, who? But nei∣ther do I think that this conjecture ought to prevaile with us against the ordinary, and I suppose, the unquestionable reading, ac∣cording to which that interpretation, which in the last place we gave, confirmed by the au∣thority of those two Jewish Rabbins, I doubt not, will on due consideration be looked on as most plain and genuine: and the words so understood, agree with what is said v. 6. and give us thus to conceive of the present condi∣tion of Israel, that they having hitherto found God on all occasions ready at hand to help them, had, presuming on his continual pro∣tection, corrupted their manners, forsaken him and his worship, and so provoked him to forsake them, and to withdraw his assistance from them, and so laid themselves open to destruction, to those heavy judgments which he had now threatned against them, from which they could not be able to deliver them∣selves, nor could find any able to deliver them, which is in the next verse plainly declared. That other interpretation which Jerom saith these words to be capable of, viz. dispereas Israel &c. perish O Israel &c. seems not to sound well.

V. 10. I will be thy king: where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities? and thy judges, of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes?

I will be thy king: where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities? &c. Our an∣cienter

publickly authorized English transla∣tion hath, I am: where is thy king now that should help thee in all thy cities? So also that from Geneva as to the distinction of the words, only leaving out that particle now, who for ex∣plaining their meaning give also this note, I am all one, James 1.17. Several other rendrings also of the first word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ehi, are there from others, who take it to be a verb of the future tense from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hayah, to be, the same that fully written would be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ehyeh; some joining it with the fol∣lowing word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 malceca, thy king, so to make a clause with it, as ours do; or else to be a distinct clause by it self, and that other word to be referred to what follows it. Cal∣vin so taking it, as our ancienter English, di∣stinguisheth it from the following words thus, Ero: Rex tuus ubi? &c. explaining it also by, Maneo semper idem, & constanter paratus sum me ostendere beneficum erga homines, I remain always the same, and am constantly ready to shew my self beneficial to men, referring to the same place of James 1.17. Pagnin in that way also, for explication sake, puts in the text it self, Ero in perpetuum, I will be for ever, sed rex tuus nunc servet te, but let thy king now save thee; which is much the same with Kimchies explication, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 k 1.183 I will be firm for ever, but thy king where is he? &c. In the same manner seems R. Salomo also to distinguish the words ex∣plaining it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. I will remain, or stand, on the other side, or aloof, to see where thy king is, that I may see what will be thy latter end; where is he that shall save thee &c. l 1.184 Others rendring it so also as to signify, I will be, yet not to be joined with the following word, malceca, thy king, supply another word from the pre∣ceding verses, viz. ero, inquam, leo, I will, I say, be as a lion, as he had threatned to be to them, as a lion, a leopard, a bear.

These all take, we see, the first word for a verb; but others many, of good authority do not so, but only for a word of interroga∣tion. So the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so the Chaldee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where is now thy king, that he may save thee? the Syriack in the like meaning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so the Vulgar La∣tin, ubi est rex tuus? which makes some to conjecture, that instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ehi, they did read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eiyeh, which signifies interrogative∣ly, where? and that saith Cappellus is a better reading than we now have. But what need is there for him, or any, to say so? Why is it not sufficient rather to note hence, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ehi signifies the same that elsewhere 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aiyeh ordinarily doth? Sure these authorities that we have of those ancient Interpreters, may be sufficient for it of themselves. Yet may we add others of Jews, as well as Christians. Abuwalid, Ebn Jannahi that chief Gramma∣rian among the Jews, and R. Tanchum often cited, positively affirm that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ehi, whether by transposition of letters from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aiyeh, or otherwise, is the same in signification with it both here and v. 13. Amongst Christians, Drusius prefers it before any other, and thinks it confirmed by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 epo being joined to it, which is usually joined with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aiyeh, and adds Emphasis to the in∣terrogation, making it to sound, ubi nunc? or, ubi jam? where now? Mercer is likewise for that rendring of the Ancients, and cen∣sures the rendring of it by, ero, saying of it, friget, that it is a cold interpretation. Cocceius also rendring it, ubi est rex tuus, ubinam? saith, non potest verti, cro rex tuus, that it cannot be rendred, I will be thy king, quia epo ubinam nihil sit ad rem, seeing then there would be no place for epo, now, and it would be said, I will save thee, not, let him save thee, nor would there be any good dependance or connexion of the words, and thy judges; withall the words, which are a commination, would be turned into a promise. As for that rendring of some who render, sum, rex tuus ubi? I am, where is thy king? it is, he sharply saith, phraseo∣logia insolens & inepta, an unusual and incon∣venient expression.

These authorities, I suppose, are sufficient to prove that here is no necessity of feigning a various reading, because the LXX and Vul∣gar Latin render that by where, which others render by I will be, or I am. As to the matter or passing judgment betwixt such rendrings, that way by making it a particle of interro∣gation hath, we see, as great authorities as well may be; yet Tremellius having consi∣dered it, judges it a better way, and more agreeable to the distinction of the words, which the accent in the Hebrew requires, to render, ero rex tuus, I will be thy king, and so to look on the following words as importing, where are those whom thou wilt oppose against me, that they may protect and save thee? as if he did here assert his right of dominion over the Israelites, though they had fallen off from their obedience to his law, so that he derides as well the folly, as the wickedness of their con∣fidence, in that they opposed the power of their Idols and confederates against all the threats of God; as if he should say,

Although they have cast off the yoke, although they have given themselves up to other Gods, and addicted themselves to the service of men, yet shall they know that they are under my hand and power, none shall take away the right of my

kingly power, which I acquired by re∣deeming Israel.

Capito is much of the same opinion, Because they rejected the Lord that he should not rule over them he asserts his kingdom, sum vel ero, I am, or will be, thy king; nam hujusmodi verba absolvuntur à tempore, for such words are indifferent as to any time. The same way of rendring we see that our last Translatours choose and prefer, and we may take them either in that sense mentioned, or else so as to mean, if thou wouldest return unto me, I would, or will, be thy king and savior, otherwise, where is now any other to save thee? let him appear. A different interpretation from any of these which we have seen, the MS. Arab. hath, who rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. I will be thy king, here, that he may help thee in all thy cities, or countries, and where are thy judges of which thou saidst 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 set over me, or I will set over me, a king and princes, thus in a note gives his m 1.185 meaning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by what he saith, I will be thy king, he means, where is he that said to thee, I will be thy king.

This great difference is here concerning the first word of this verse, that being any way setled, the scope of the following is plainer, and such as will agree with any of the mean∣ings given to that, as being to declare the helpless and perplexed condition that Israel had now brought themselves to, whether they thought still to find help from God, whom they had rebelled against and forsaken, or from any other, they were in both vain. God will not continue to help them, no other can. Both are intimated in the manner of the ex∣pression; that he will no longer help them, by his sending them to others; that others cannot, by his deriding their vain trust on them, whether it be rendred as it is by the Vulgar, Where is thy king? now especially let him save thee in all thy cities; or as by others, Where is thy king now, that he may save thee? &c. or to the like purpose; or as by ours, Where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities? the sense of all will be as we said, that he having withdrawn his help from them, as he manifestly intimates he will do, and distresses every where in all their cities having befallen them, or being like to befall them, there is no other in whom they might place their confi∣dence, whether King or n 1.186 Judges, or any Rulers or Magistrates, that under that name may be comprehended; which he describes by saying, of whom thou saidst, give me a king and princes.

Here may seem respect to be had to the Israelites asking of old a King, 1 Sam. 8.5. where the Elders of Israel being gathered to∣gether, say unto Samuel, Make us a king to judge us like all the nations, by which desire of theirs God saith, they did not reject Samuel, but him that he should not reign over them v. 7. and so bent were they on this, that though Samuel urged all arguments he could to disswade them from it, nevertheless they re∣fused to obey his voice, and said. Nay but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like other nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battels, v. 19, 20. And v. 22. it is said that the Lord bad Samuel hearken unto their voice, and make them a king: and so he did, and ever after they had a king; at first one over the whole twelve tribes, and after the rent in Re∣hoboams time two, one over two tribes, an∣other over the other ten, and so was it with them at that time when this was spoken. What they expected from their king, ap∣pears from their own words, viz. that he should judge them, and go out before them, and fight their battels, which and whatsoever else they could expect from him, will be com∣prehended under the words here used of saving them in all their cities; but how vain they were in this expectation, God having withdrawn his help from them and their king, appears by putting it to the question, where is he that may save thee, either king or judges, of whom thou saidst, give me a king and princes? which question plainly includes a denial of power in any of them to do it, and is a de∣riding of the vain confidence of the people in trusting on any of them for safety. In the hi∣story above cited there is mention only of a king, not of judges and princes, which are here joined with him; but this shews that in their petition were implied princes and judges, with other like officers of state and govern∣ment, by which the kings of other nations to whom they desired to be like, did at home rule their people, and at home or abroad wage their wars: they had now all these, yet can none of them, or all together, save them. It was that which, when upon their instance God had at first granted them a king, Samuel told them, that if they would fear the Lord, & serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then should both they and their king continue following the Lord &c. 1 Sam. 12.14. but if they should

rebel against the commandment of the Lord, and do wickedly, then the hand of the Lord should be against them, and they should be con∣sumed both they and their king, v. 15, and 25. And this is the condition that now for their wickedness is like to befall them and their king, all events and success of things, which concern them both, being wholy disposed of by God, and neither by any power in their king or themselves to be hindred, which the next words give us further to consider.

V. 11. I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath.

The words in the Hebrew are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Etten leca melec beappi veekkach beebrati, in which him, which ours put in after took, is not expressed but supplied, as looking on the word king, expressed after the first verb, to be necessarily understood also after the second. But here is farther ob∣servable, that the verbs in the Hebrew are of the future tense, so that they would lite∣raly sound, I will give, and I will take; and accordingly they are by some rendred, as by the Vulgar Latin, dabo, and auferam: and then sound as if they were spoken of a thing that was to be done, a king that was yet to be given; which cannot properly be taken of any king of their own nation, which had al∣ready been given them. Drusius thinks it may be meant of the king of Assyria, whom in his anger he would make to have domi∣nion over them. But this is by o 1.187 others ex∣cepted against, in as much as the following words, that he would take him away in his wrath, cannot agree to him, seeing the taking away of him would not have been a sign of wrath toward Israel, but a thing most ac∣ceptable to them; unless the first that was to be given being understood of the king of As∣syria, the second that was to be taken away should be understood of Hosea the present king of Israel.

* 1.188 Others that the notion of the future tense may be retained to the verbs, look on the words, though referring to an history of things long since in part past, yet so ordered, as if they had been then spoken, when those things were all yet to be done, and to be as it were what then God answered or resolved, when they said, give me a king or princes, viz. p 1.189 as if at that time he had said, I will give thee a king in mine anger, and will take him away in my wrath; both which they take to have been fulfilled in Saul. That God gave him in anger is manifest by what hath been already mentioned of the story, and that they were made sensible of it, appears by what is farther recorded of those unusual storms of thunder and rain in the day of their wheat harvest: even for that end, as Samuel tells them, it was that they might perceive and see, that their wickedness was great, which they had done in the sight of the Lord in asking them a king, 1 Sam. 12.17, 18. which they could not but at the sight thereof acknowledge, as they did v. 19, all the people said unto Samuel, pray for thy ser∣vants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for we have added unto all our sins this evil to aske us a king: and that he took him away in his wrath, the history of his destruction makes likewise evident, which is in the c. 31.7. of the same book, where it is likewise said after the description of his sad death, that when the men of Israel saw that the men of Israel fled be∣fore the Philistines, and that Saul and his sons were dead, they forsook the cities and fled, and the Philistines came and dwelt in them. So far was it from what they promised to themselves, that their king and princes should defend them in all their cities. Nor was it therefore likely that those that they now had, should do more for them. This way of exposition of the verb by the future tense doth Ribera commend and prefer before any others, although he do not understand the word only of Saul, but the first concerning the giving of a king, of him, and the following which concerns the taking away a king, of other kings, and par∣ticularly of the last, Hosea, who was then king when they were carried captives: although he say, that it may be understood of other following kings as well as of Saul. As if God should say, that they having been urgent on him to give them a king, it should repent them of their request, in as much as in those times, when they had most need of the help of kings, he would give them such ill ones, which should be pernicious to them, and such as he would quickly take away, as Za∣charia, Shallum, Menachem, and others, as appears in the history 2 K. 15. In the future likewise doth the MS. Arab. render the verbs 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will set over thee a king in anger, and q 1.190 take, or carry captive, in my wrath. So Castalio, regem tibi & iratus dabo, & saeviens auferam. But others think it more agreeable to the place and meaning to render them, according to

that promiscuous use of tenses which is usual, at least the first verb, in some preter tense, I gave; for they that agree in that, do not as to the second so fully accord; some rendring that also in the preter tense, I took away; others in the future, I will take away; and some render both in the present tense, do, I give, and, recipio, I do take.

Among those that render both in a preter tense are the LXX, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and I gave thee a king in mine anger, and had (him,) in my wrath, or as other copies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which may be rendred, r 1.191 sustinui, patienter tuli, I suffered, or patiently did bear; w^ch would make another sense than is usually given of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ekkach, which signi∣fying in general to take, is here usually under∣stood of taking away; as if it were meant, that as God gave them a king in anger, so he did also suffer him to continue only in anger and wrath, and for evil to them. But Jerom notes that generally Interpreters did yet here render it by abstuli, which is the same by which most do also render the Hebrew, ekkach, though, as we said, signifying generally to take, yet as the MS. Arab. notes, used also for taking away, as Gen. 14.11. Amongst those also that put both in the preter tense is the Chaldee, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I did set over thee a king in mine anger, and removed, or took away, [him] in my wrath; the Syriack likewise 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the very same meaning. The printed Arab. also which follows the Greek, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin renders, & prehendi eum in furore meo, of which word of his, I think, we may note that as it signifies to lay hold on, so perhaps it may denote to take away by death, in as much as that word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kobe∣da, in the passive voice, signifies to be dead, taken hold on, or taken away by death.

The same way of rendring both verbs by a preter tense follow also divers modern Inter∣preters, as Pagnin, the Tigurine and Munster, Calvin and our English, both ancienter and new. According to these if it be demanded what king is said to have been given in anger, who to have been taken away in wrath, if it be said that it was Saul, according to what hath been said of him in that former way of Arias Montanus, it may seem to hold of him; he was long before this was spoken both given and taken away, and in both were signs of God's anger and displeasure: yet doth not this satisfy all, and there is difference about it. s 1.192 Others therefore understanding the first of Saul, as given in anger, in the second place un∣derstand Zedechiah the last king of the Jews as taken away in wrath. Against this may be, and is, objected, that however the first may be well understood of Saul, who was king over the whole twelve tribes, yet the second cannot be properly meant of Zedechiah, who was king only of the two tribes, Judah and Benja∣min, seeing what is here spoken concerns par∣ticularly the ten tribes of Israel, which obje∣ction likewise lies against understanding in the last place Josiah, whom t 1.193 some also name: and therefore others look as understood Jero∣boam the first, whom God gave in displeasure u 1.194 against Solomon, and he also may be said to have been taken away in wrath, his family being destroyed, as Abarbinel notes, and Hoseah the last king of them. But against this likewise may be excepted, if the word be rendred in the preter tense, because when this was spoken Hosea was not yet taken away: which objection may be solved by saying, that the preter tense, according to the frequent use of Prophetick language, is put for the future, to denote the certainty of the thing to come, as sure as if it were already done; or else by taking, abstuli, I took away, to denote as much as, w 1.195 auferre decrevi, I have determined to take away; or indeed by rendring it as in the Hebrew it literally sounds, by the future, auferam, I will take him away.

All such scruples are avoided by another way which others take, viz. by not looking on the words to respect only such or such a particular king, but the whole succession of the kings of the ten tribes, and the condition that Israel was in through the often change of them, and the unsetledness of their kingdom under them, and the certain destruction which by that means they should ere long be brought to; so that it should appear, that as their king∣dom was given in Gods anger against Solomon, so it should be taken away in x 1.196 greater anger against them for their continuing in Idolatry and other wicked courses, according to that threat from God above cited. This meaning Grotius thus expresseth, dedi jam saepius, id est, iratus peccatis vestris, sivi vos per seditiones ac caedes mutare reges pro libitu, i. e. I gave thee a king, i. e. I have often given, i. e. being angry for your sins I suffered you by sedition and slaughters to change your kings as you listed, and I will take away, viz. per Assyrios, by the Assyrians, who should take away their last king, and put an end to their kingdom. This meaning Junius and Tremellius giving, render (as we said) the verb in the present tense, do tibi regem, I give thee a king in mine anger, & recipio cum, and take him away in my wrath, adding their

note, Jam vides ut reges tibi paulo momento obtrudam & detrudam arbitratu meo propter indignationem meam, thou already seest how I set up kings over thee and put them down at my pleasure through my wrath, for in those times, mutationes fuerunt quamplurimae regum in Israele, there were very many changes of kings in Israel, as appears 2 Kings c. 15. and c. 17. So that it is not ill by y 1.197 some explained, dare vo∣bis soleo, I use to give to you, and take away from you, a king in mine anger. Which way so∣ever of these the words be understood, and of what kings soever among them, the thing in∣ferred is still plain, that Israel having re∣belled against God and forsaken him, do in vain either expect that he should continue to help or defend them, or rely on any other for help and defence. They seem to rely on this, that God having given them a king, he had by this obliged himself to protect then their king, and they might confide in him for safety, as given them for that end by God; but he sheweth them that this was no assurance to them of defence, his giving them first a king was no token of his favour to them, but a thing though extorted from him by their in∣stance, yet accompanied with his displeasure. He had promised indeed by the mouth of Sa∣muel, that notwithstanding their folly in that their first request, he would, if they should faithfully for the future serve and obey him, make their king a blessing to them, 1 Sam. 12.13, 14. but withall threatned, that if they should still do wickedly, they should be con∣sumed both they and their king, c. 16.25. so that it should appear that his first gift was ac∣companied with displeasure, and his taking it away, with greater, leaving them open to the assaults of their enemies without any to save them. From this scope of the words we should not recede, as neither from the propriety of them, if we should read or understand, I can give thee a king in mine anger, and take him away in my wrath, and so will it warn them that they are vain in thinking the power of their king shall save them, when God will withdraw his help from them and their king. This effect of God's wrath, why Israel now grown to the height of wickedness by their long continuing in Idolatry, should expect to have made good against them, the next words declare.

V. 12. The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up: his sin is hid.

Usually such things as are bound up or tied together, and hid or laid up in some safe or secret place, are not neglected or forgotten, but therefore laid aside that they may be, when occasion shall serve or require, forth∣coming and produced. God therefore in these terms expressing his dealing with Israel as to their sins, manifestly declares that though his judgments threatned to them for their sins do not presently seize on them, yet this ought not to make them grow secure, as if he were not regardfull of their doings, or did not see iniquity in them. However he seem to con∣nive at them, or bear with them for a while, yet their iniquity is well known to him, and not forgotten by him; it is as a thing bound up and kept close with him, which he will in due time discover and bring to light, and by his punishments inflicted on them for it, make known and evident, that he did all along know it. The folly of men (such as that of Israel is intimated to have now been) in thinking that z 1.198 because sentence is not executed speedily against their evil works, they may securely run on in doing evil, as if God were either pleased with their doings, or did not a 1.199 see or take notice of them, and what will be the ill consequents thereon, is well expressed Psalm 50.21. These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altoge∣ther such a one as thy self: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes. The expressions here used, may be illustrated by the like Deut. 32.34, 35. Is not this laid up in store with me, and sealed up among my treasures? to me belongeth vengeance and recompence, their foot shall slide in due time &c. and Job 14.17. my transgression is sealed up in a bog, and thou sowest up mine iniquities. The meaning of the verse in this way is perspicuously given by the Chaldee Paraphrast 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the sins of Ephraim are laid up, or b 1.200 treasured up, they are kept that vengeance may be executed, or that I may take vengeance, on all their sins. To the same purpose do other of the Jews expound it; so Aben Ezra by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tsarur, is bound up, saith to be meant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is in my heart, I will not for∣get it, or him, as they have forgotten me, v. 6. So Kimchi also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. It is kept with, or by, me, as a thing that is kept in a bag, according to that expression in Job forecited, and by the iniquities and sins, he saith is meant, the iniquity of the calves, which they committed in worshipping them. The MS. Arab. renders it by a word of the same root with the Hebrew c 1.201 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the iniquity of Ephraim is bound up, his sin is had in remembrance; for as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tsarar,

in Hebrew, so also is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tsarar, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sarra, in Arabick, to knit, or bind up, as any thing in a purse or bag; as also in Syriack, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tsar, whence the Syriack Interpreter also here putteth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tsarir. R. Tanchum rendring it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 explaineth it by a convenient word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mohassal, which will import both what is gathered together, and also what remaineth, or what is produced and made present, or manifest. He would have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tsarur, here to be of the same notion which the root hath Prov. 30.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which ours render, who hath bound the waters in a garment? The same meaning do both the Vulgar Latin and Jerom's Commentary, with most other of the Latin and other mo∣dern Expositors, give; the Vulgar rendring, colligata est iniquitas Ephraim, absconditum pec∣catum ejus, to which our translation word for word agrees, and others though differing in words, do in meaning most of them agree; as whether they render the first word by, d 1.202 li∣gata, obsignata, or e 1.203 constricta; or as Junius and Tremellius, servatur in fasciculo, or the like. They manifestly concur both in the significa∣tion of the words, and in the import of them, that it is to ascertain, that though their sins be yet unpunished, and therefore seem to them to be not taken notice of by God, or for∣gotten, yet the matter is far otherwise: he knows them, and remembers them all, and will after his long forbearance in due time bring on them what they have deserved.

They likewise agree as to the person by whom their sins were bound up and reserved, in memory, viz. that it is God: and this as it is the most obvious and by most embraced meaning of the words, so seems the most ge∣nuine, yet are there who choose another. The occasion is not from any dubiousness or dif∣ference in the signification of the words which are expressed, but from a different supply or assignation of the person to whom they are to be applied, and by or with whom the iniquity and sin of Ephraim are bound up and hid, which is not expressed. He according to the former way (as we have seen) is God; ac∣cording to these, Ephraim himself: which dif∣ference in assigning the person will also neces∣sarily cause a different meaning of the words. According to the first they will import a con∣cealing of their sins by God, so as not at pre∣sent to take notice of them, but yet keeping them in mind, so as afterwards to take ac∣count of them. According to the second, an hiding them so as to hope that they shall not at all be taken notice of. The meaning there∣fore in this way by them given, is, that Ephraim wraps up and conceales his iniquity, and hides his sin, so flattering himself that no iniquity should be found in him, c. 12.8. wherein how he deceives himself, the next verse will shew, wherein is declared how it will at last necessarily be brought to light. This way among the Jews Abarbinel, though having mentioned the former, prefers, and among Christians, Rupertus, and Arias Mon∣tanus. Not far from these seems to be the in∣terpretation of Castalio, Ephramitae arctum crimen, intimum peccatum est, the fault of the Ephramite is close [joined to him,] his sin very inward; only that whereas they express his concealing or keeping close of it, he seems to express withall his love and affectionate ad∣hering to it.

At a farther distance yet from what we follow, seems to be the rendring of the LXX, who according to the reading in most copies, render the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tsarur, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is by Nobilius rendred, conglobatio, a gathe∣ring round, or in a round, together, and so may answer to the no••n tseror, as it is taken for, fasciculus, a bundle, or the like, rather than to the participle, tsarur, bound up in such a bundle. But those copies then differ among themselves, some reading (as the London Po∣lyglot following the Roman copy) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the accusative case; others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the no∣minative. If it be put in the accusative case, some verb must be understood, which must as so govern it, and without some such under∣stood cannot begin a sentence, as in that edi∣tion it is made to do; and therefore Cyril so reading it, makes it not to begin this, but to end the preceding verse, and to be governed of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, viz. thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin Translator of him renders, Sed in ira dedi principem, & habui in furore meo con∣gregationem iniquitatis, but in anger I gave a prince, or governour, and had in my fury a, or the, congregation of iniquity. Others, that it may the better begin a verse, read it in the no∣minative case, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so as to found, a ga∣thering together, or knot of iniquity is Ephraim, as if they were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their abounding in it so termed, as much as to say, as Theodoret ex∣plains it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. that Ephraim heaps up iniquity, and continually in∣creaseth it, following ill counsel: and by their sins being hid, he thinks meant, that sin is wholy fixed in him. Or what if it may found, there is a bundle, or gathering together, of the iniquity of Ephraim? So would it be much in sense the same as to say, the iniquity of Ephraim is knit and bound together in a bundle. Some copies instead of it read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; the ancient Latin version of it, congregatio, may accord

with either. The printed Arabick, which as hath been more than once observed, follows in these books the Greek, seems to have readd here otherwise than any of the known ordi∣narily copies do, expressing a preposition which is in none of them extant, while what they read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Latin Transla∣tor renders, propter sceleratam vitae rationem, leaving out the affixe, ejus; we may render it, for his exercising himself in injustice, or ini∣quity, i. e. his wicked or injurious conversa∣tion. He seems to distinguish the words as Cyril above cited doth, and to refer these words to what was before said of the king, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and I took him in mine anger, viz. because of his wicked conversation, and then will follow as a distinct clause 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ephraims sin is hid, or else they may, being severed from the former, but not so plainly, make one clause with it, because of his wicked conversation Ephraims sin is hid.

This variety of reading in the Greek makes a confusion, and leaves it doubtfull what they mean••; but we need not be sollicitous about it, having from the versions which more exact∣ly follow the Hebrew, a much more perspi∣cuous meaning, especially from the first way which we have seen, according to which we have a plain passage from this verse to the next, and an evident connexion between them. If the iniquity of Ephraim be bound up f 1.204 with God, not neglected nor g 1.205 remitted; if their sin be hid, and reserved, and trea∣sured up against the day of wrath Rom. 2.5. it cannot but be expected, that in that day, in the time b•• God appointed for the revela∣tion of his righteous judgment, who will render to every one according to his deeds, they should be laid open, and the punishment which was not inflicted for them singly, be in∣flicted for them all together in a severer man∣ner and measure, The certainty of which pu∣nishment, and the nature of it, is in the next words declared. Much the same connexion will be also between the two verses, in the second way of expounding this first, which we saw to understand the words of Ephraims own hiding and concealing his sins: their folly therein shall be manifested by such pu∣nishments, whereby what they thought to keep secret, shall one day to their greater shame and sorrow be necessarily discovered.

V. 13. The sorrows of a travailing woman shall come upon him, he is an unwise son, for he should not stay long in the place of breaking forth of children.

The sorrows of a travailing woman shall come upon him, &c. In these words is described the punishment by which the continued sins of Ephraim, though for a while winked at by God, and by himself, as he thinks, kept se∣cret, shall be manifested, and his folly in not seeking to prevent that punishment, or with∣out delay to free himself from it by timely repentance, declared. The first is set forth by comparing it to, or calling it, the sorrows of a travailing woman, or woman in travail, which argues it sudden, unavoidable, and great or grievous. Such are confessedly the pains of a woman in travail, and they are often there∣fore used to express by comparison to them any such great calamities or afflictions, which suddenly and unawares seize on any, so as they cannot avoid or escape them, nor be well able to endure them. So, often in the Old Testament, as Jer. 4.31. c. 30.6. c. 49.24. and c. 50.43. Mic. 4.9, 10. Ps. 48.6. and in the New also, as the 1 Thess. 5.3.

The second, to wit, their folly in their not seeking speedily to deliver themselves from such grievous things as they had made them∣selves liable to, by removing the causes there∣of by undelaid repentance, is described by comparing them to an unwise son, a silly child, which staieth long in the place of the breaking forth of children. Should we suppose a child in the womb capable of understanding what concerned his welfare, and able to contribute to it, he would be thought very foolish, if he should voluntarily, when he is come to the birth, stick in the passage, to the endangering both of himself and his mother. It is so with them, they should have so much understanding as to consider what is for their good, and seeing there is no other way for safety to them, get out of their sins, the cause of such miseries as are on them or threatned to them, by repentance, compared to a birth, and the difficulties of it. Their delaying to use that means, shews them to be very foolish, (so not wise, seems to denote, most contrary to it,) as simple as a poor child, that strives not to get out of the straits of the womb; yea worse is their folly, as being voluntary and con∣tracted, whereas that of the poor child is na∣tural and necessary. Or we may say by, he should not stay, to be meant, h 1.206 that if he did se∣riously repent, he should quickly be delivered from the straits in which he is. The word should, by ours used seems to leave it ambi∣guous,

but it is plainest to understand it as, would, i. e. ought not to stay, or would not choose to stay, as our other English translations render it, else would he not stand still at the time of birth of children, as the B. Bible, or at the time, even at the breaking forth of the children, as the Geneva English; for it seems to lay the fault in this, that they did choose so to stay: and well may our later translation rendring it by should not stay, be taken in the same meaning as such as in Latin render it, staret, or stetisset, all shewing their great folly in the delay of their repentance. This is the interpretation of the words, and the exposition of them, according to our translation, and such others who fol∣low the first way of exposition of the former verse, and render this as ours do, or others who agree with them in the scope, though perhaps something differing in their expressions.

There seems to be here for setting forth the state and condition of Ephraim, a double comparison of them. First, to a mother, or woman in travail; secondly to a child coming forth of the womb: for the making of which more plain, i 1.207 some look on the whole com∣mon wealth, or people of Israel compared to a mother, the single persons to a son or child. By naming them a son, Aben Ezra and Kim∣chi think denoted their posterity 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the generations to come, that they should continue in their fathers folly, or that they, though they saw what great evils had befallen their fathers for their sins, would not yet grow wise, nor consider that their fathers had by their iniquity been brought into affliction, nor did turn from their doings, but did evil as they had done; whereas if they had been wise, they would not (or should not) for so much as one hour have remained in such straits: for as soon as they had re∣turned to the Lord, they should have been delivered from them, or, they would speedily therefore have turned to him, and been like a sprightly child, which quickly without de∣lay gets out of the womb, and so have been freed. To this purpose Kimchi.

This exposition which we have given, agrees well with our translation of the words, which seems to be very proper and agreeable to the original Hebrew: yet are there who other∣wise render the words, and therefore also sug∣gest something different expositions, of which because of the authority of the Authors, it may seem necessary to take notice, that we may see what grounds there are for such dif∣ferences. As to the first words they do well all agree, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cheble yoledet, the sorrows of a travailing woman, only that the LXX render, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so the printed Arabick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and so the Syriack also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as of her that bringeth forth, or is in child bearing, with the ad∣dition of the particle of likeness, as. But then as to the following words, wherein the Hebrew is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hu ben lo chacam, he is a son not wise, or an unwise son. The LXX render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this (is) thy wise son, * 1.208 omitting the negative par∣ticle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lo, not. The way to make this agree with the Hebrew and others is, either by reading it by way of interrogation to Israel, is this thy wise son? as Theodoret will have it; or else by way of Irony, this is thy wise son, as Cyril: so that the meaning will be, that he is certainly unwise. Then the follow∣ing words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ci et lo yaamod bemishbar hanim, by ours renured, for he should not stay long (or a time, marg.) in the place of breaking forth of children, they render, * 1.209 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or as other copies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, where the newer Latin, quia non subsistet, but the k 1.210 ancient Latin, quia nunc non sustinebit, because he shall not, or now he shall not, subsist, or endure in, the breaking forth of children. So the prin••ed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quia non stabit in contritione filiorum, because he shall not stand in the breaking of children, omitting 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, now, or ought which should an∣swer to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 et, a time, rendred by ours in the the text, long. By this unwise son, whom they so think Ironically called wise, Cyril thinks to be meant Hosea, their last king, whom they thought wise, who by breaking faith with Shalmanefer king of Assy∣ria, and seeking help from the king of Egypt, brought upon them such destruction under w^ch neither they, nor he himself, could stand.

The Vulgar Latin rendring the first of these words more expresly according to the He∣brew, ipse filius non sapiens; in the latter agrees with the Greek, nunc enim non sta∣bit in contritione filiorum, for now he shall not stand in the contrition (bruising, or breaking) of children; which I think will be plainer than what the Doway hath, for now he shall not stand the confraction of the children, which at the first hearing, as the Greek likewise, doth seem to give this meaning, as by l 1.211 some after Hierom explained, cum filii ejus, i.e. ej••s populus conterentur & occidentur ab hosti∣bus, non stabit, i. e. non p••••erit ferre, when his children, i. e. his people, shall be broken and slain by the enemy, he shall not stand, or he shall not be able to endure it; or, non poterit re∣sistere

adversariis, shall not be able to resist his enemies. With this much seems to agree for the sense the MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the sorrows of a travailing woman shall come upon him, he is as an unwise son, for the time shall come on him, when he shall not stand firm in the birth place of children: and among the more modern, that of Castalio, Eum parientis dolores invadent, filius est insipiens, sed erit cum non manebit in angustia pariendi, the sorrows of a woman in child-birth shall come upon him, he is an unwise son, but there shall be a time, when he shall not endure in the distress of bringing forth, i. e. as in a note he explains it, such anguish as is of her that bringeth forth, cum foetus est in uteri faucibus, when the child is in the straits of the womb. But as to the letter of the Vulgar, there are observable in it some differences from what ours and most other modern Translators give in their rendrings; as first, that whereas the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eth, signi∣fies time, indefinitely, but as the scope seems to require, some, as ours, render it long; m 1.212 others, tanto tempore, so long a time; others, n 1.213 d••u, long; others taking in the signi∣fication of the negative 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lo, not, which is joined with the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yaamod, shall, or should stand, o 1.214 minimo tempore, or, tempore parvo stetisset, he would have staid a very short time; others, p 1.215 tempore opportuno, a conve∣nient time, i.e. when it is convenient for him to go forth; others, q 1.216 ad tempus, or r 1.217 per tempus, or s 1.218 tempore, as ours in the margin, a time, or, horam, for an hour, all to the same purpose: all seeming t 1.219 to look on 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eth, as a noun, with a supply of a preposition, and understanding an adjective expressing the quantity thereof, that (as u 1.220 the Greek of some copies) renders it by, nunc, now, which being the proper significa∣tion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 attah, causeth w 1.221 some to think, that they did so read here, viz. not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eth, but at, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 attah. But there seems no necessity of so thinking, the noun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eth, may be rendred, at this time, or at that time, which will be equivalent to now, as denoting the time then instant. We cannot say there∣fore that they did read one for the other, but we may say that they x 1.222 took one to signify the same with the other, as Tremellius saith. Secondly whereas what others render, staret, or stetisset, or maneret, he should, or would stand, or have stood; as of what should have been done by him for preventing evil or freeing himself from it, he renders in the indicative mood, non stabit, shall not stand, as denoting what condition he should certainly be in, and not be able to free himself from it. By both he is upbraided with folly, who would not prevent that which he was not, or should not be, able to stand under.

Thirdly in that he renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bemishbar banim, which ours render by, the place of the breaking forth of children, and others expound the womb, or the mouth of the womb, or the like, by, in contritione filiorum, con∣cerning which, I think, need no contention to be made: the noun being from the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shabar, which signifies to breake, may signify either what happens, or the place where, or time when, it happens. From that root we have the noun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of two forms, mashber and mishbar, though well agreeing in signification, in both the notion of breaking being conspicuous, however they be rendred. The first occurs y 1.223 2 Kings 19.3. where we read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bau banim ad mashber, where ours render, the children are come to the birth, but the word literally, as in the Interlin. rendred, sounds, ad rupturam uteri, to the breach of the womb; though by z 1.224 some expounded 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sella p••r∣turientis, the chaire on which a woman brings forth; or as Abuwalid 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the place where the child falls on the ground at its coming forth, so called also in Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and in Chaldee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The second form mishbar, we have as here, so in several other places, in which it is usually translated waves, as so called from their breaking and da••••ing one against the other, or for their breaking of ships &c. but here it appears to be other∣wise taken, by its being restrained by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 banim, children: it must be some∣what pertaining to them or their condition, and is therefore so translated by ours and others, as to denote that place wherein the child is in straits and danger being bruised and crushed, or that place which is broken for and by the coming forth of the child. Pagnin for that respect rendring it, vulva filiorum, as thinking it more particularly to express the word than the more general term of contri∣tione, which the Vulgar useth, is sharply censured by Ribera, who will not allow the word mishbar so to signify, though he allow mashber so to do, but to be better rendred by contritio, as that is frequently taken in that La∣tin translation for some violent and great cala∣mity. But he is again by a 1.225 others censured for this, and the way of Pagnin and other mo∣dern

translations justified. They seem well to prevent such quarrels, who do by that reading in the Vulgar look on the same to be meant, which is by the others more particularly, as to the thing, expressed: as Grotius, who by, est filius non sapiens, understands, quasi foetus sibi non consulens, neque ex utero erumpens; and, nunc enim non stabit in contritione filiorum, ex∣plains by, alioqui non tam diu staret in loco unde erumpunt filii, and by this allegory looks on as signified, that Ephraim was not wise, in that he so long deferred to repent, and to free himself from calamities. And in the same manner may we understand those others who agree with the Vulgar, as the Greek and Ara∣bick which we have seen, and the Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Latin renders, jam vero non ma∣nebit in doloribus filiorum, now shall he not remain, or endure, in the sorrows of children, which seems plainly to mean, in such as of child-birth, or when children are born, or as they are in at their birth.

Ribera himself, after he hath found fault with the later translation, b 1.226 yet thinks it not amiss that it also should be taken in with that of the Vulgar, one necessarily seeming to infer the other, He is an unwise child for staying a long time, or at all, in the mouth of the womb, or in the place of the breaking forth of children; for he cannot stay long there without great pain and danger both to the womb that bare him, & to himself; There, is no time for delay or long staying: which according to c 1.227 another learned Interpreter is the most literal rendring of the words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quia tempus est ut non maneat in ore matricis fi∣liorum, that the whole may sound, the sorrows of a travailing woman shall come upon him: he is an unwise son, for now it is a time that he should not stay in the mouth of the womb of children, or where children come forth, as giving to understand, that, though now in such a dangerous condi∣tion, he did yet make stay or delay to free him∣self out of it, and by that shewed himself very unwise, as a simple child, sticking by the way when he should come forth out of his mo∣thers womb. In these ways of rendring the words, we have in this verse in comparative expressions set forth the great miseries de∣nounced to Ephraim, likened to the sorrows of a woman in travail, and the foolishness of the peoples behaviour in such their condition, likened to that of a child by his long stay in the womb indangering both his mother and himself. So the words seem plainly to make foolish or unwise an Epithet to son. So do like∣wise they take it to be, who render, non stat in tempore, i. e. saith Drusius, cum tempus est. He doth not stand in the place of breaking forth &c. by which, I suppose, they meant, doth not, or will not, turn to repentance, while it is yet time, though differing something from the others in meaning.

Yet do some of note, in applying the terms of the comparison, seem to refer all for which they are taxed, to the mother, the woman in travail. So Ar. Mont. who connecting these words with the preceding, thus gives the meaning, that Ephraim hitherto had sought to smother and conceale his sins, yea and did deny them, saying that in all his labours they should find no iniquity; but here is foretold that it shall come to pass, that such evils should seize on him as should cause him even against his will to confess his iniquity, and that which he had so studiously suppressed, and so impu∣dently denied, should ••e discovered, as it happens sometimes to foolish maids, which having in their fathers house been dishonest and become with child, when they are by their father or friends taxed of it do deny it and forsweare it; but time discovereth all, when their pangs of child-birth come upon them, which they are not able to put from them. So Ephraim endeavouring to hide their sin, then when it had been more wisdom to have confessed it, yea less shamefull to have laid it open to him, who could have pardoned it, when calamities shall come upon them, shall confess to their enemies, that they are for their own ill doings brought into these miseries, and so witness their own shame to them, giving glory to God through their im∣patience under their sorrows, as those of bring∣ing forth; that so the words, now he shall not stand in the contrition of children, may sound, non perferet neque dissimulabit dolorem, he shall not beare nor dissemble the sorrow.

This notion of his seems not much disa∣greeable to that of Abarbinel among the Jews, who makes the words likewise to be an an∣swer to what they above said, that in all their labours they should not find iniquity in them, that though they covered their iniquity, their condition was like the condition of a maid, which committing whoredom in her fathers house, and being with child, yet should say, I have done no iniquity, in that when the pangs of child-birth come upon her, if she be wise, she will keep a bridle in her mouth, and indure the panges, and not cause her voice to be heard abroad; but if she be foolish, cries out, so that her whoredom will be made manifest. So the children of Ephraim cover their sin, and say, in all my labours they shall not find iniquity in me. The sorrows of a tra∣vailing woman shall come upon him, to wit,

captivity and the distresses thereof, and then under his punishment he shall confess and crie out of his sins, and his iniquities shall be re∣vealed, because he is an unwise son, and shall not stand any time in the place of the breaking forth of children, without having his condition revealed, whereas it were better that he should say, the Lord is righteous, for I have rebelled against his mouth. If he were a wise son, he would return unto the Lord in pri∣vate, without great noise, and making his sin publickly known; but because he is an unwise son, he maketh it openly known &c. In this at least they agree, in that they make what is by the last words described, still to be∣long to the carriage of the mother, not of the child, in which they also both agree with the Chaldee Paraphrast, which thus expoundeth the verses, Tribulation and trouble shall come upon him, as pangs of a travailing woman; he is a son that is grown great, and is not wise to know my fear, now will I bring distress upon him, as that of a woman which sitteth on the seat of child-bearing [the midwifes chaire,] and hath not strength to bring forth. All these, we see, do understand the last words as declaring what is proper to the mother not to the child, and so in our ancienter English translation we have a note to the same purpose, where the words being rendred, an undiscreet son is he, else would he not stand still at the time of birth of children, it is in the margin noted, as a woman not labouring at the birth of the child; so the people if they do not repent, when God punisheth for sins, are occasion of their own destruction. But in the Geneva English on the contrary is the doing of what is said, or rather the omitting to do what should be done, attri∣buted (as it is more generally and seeming more agreeable to the words) to the child, this note being given on the words rendred, else would he not stand still at the time, even at the breaking forth of the children, viz. but he would come out of the womb, i. e. out of the danger wherein he is, and not tarry to be stifled. This variety in applying the words in this place, makes it liable to that remark which is set on it, that it is d 1.228 an obscure place, which we shall have further reason to say, when we look on what different interpretations are yet given.

Two in that kind are given by R. Tanchum, in the first he takes the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ci, rendred, for, to be in the signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 men, from, so making the sense to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the time that he yet stood not in the place of the breaking forth of children, that is, that folly was natural to him before he came from that place, i. e. even be∣fore he was born, or as Abuwalid expresseth the same 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at the time of their falling into the place of birth, which perhaps will be ever since that they were first a people; and so would this ex∣pression agree with that Isaiah 48.8. thou wast called a transgressour from the womb, folly came into the world with him, he was as it were born and brought forth with it. In his second way he would have that particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ci, either to be redundant in the signification, or else to signify the same that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be, and so the meaning to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the time that he standeth not in the place of breaking forth of children, to which he thinks punishment to be compared, as he said, the sorrows of a travailing woman shall come on him; and so the sense to be, that as long as hurt and calamity were taken off from him, he did not consider that God's providence was the cause of it, by reason of his foolishness, because he was an unwise son, as if he should say they had no wisdom but what affliction taught them, nor were longer wise than under that.

e 1.229 Another exposition of a modern Author thus makes the meaning, he is now indeed an unwise son, standing, in ruptura uteri, in the breach of the womb, sed tempore praestituto ab angustiis liberabitur, but in the appointed time he shall be delivered from those straits, and so he thinks what is said would well cohere with what follows.

Among all these different interpretations we may well adhere to what our own trans∣lation gives, according to which and all the rest, Ephraim appears to be now in a dan∣gerous estate, no less than death and destru∣ction hanging over his head, from which by what means alone he shall or may be freed, the next words shew, which are,

V. 14. I will ransom them from the power of the grave: I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destru∣ction; repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.

I will ransom them from the power (or the hand, marg.) of the grave: I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues, &c. The former words of this verse, though as to the signification of them singly in themselves there be no question or difference, are according as they take them, to be referred to the preceding or following, by divers differently rendred; as by some, I would have ransomed them, I would have redeemed them, viz. conditionally if they had repented; by others as if the verbs

were in the preter tense, I have hitherto ran∣somed them, I have redeemed them, as if the following words were a threat that he would no longer do so, seeing they were so obsti∣nate in their rebellion, but gave them over to the power of death and the grave. By * 1.230 others they are readd interrogatively, much to the same purpose, should I still ransom them? should I redeem them? No: O death, seize with thy plagues on them; O grave, destroy them, &c. But sure the verbs 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ephdem, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 egalem, both futures, do most properly ly signify, as they are by ours rendred, I will ransom them &c. Though if the sense did re∣quire, they might in the other or like ways be rendred, yet here, I suppose, they are no other way to be taken, as so making the true and best sense. That, contrary to the opi∣nion and authority of divers others, we so think, we have good reason backed by un∣questionable authority for it, which is that of St. Paul, who citing the following words, gives such a meaning of them as seems to make that which we give of these, necessary. Those words are by him cited in this manner, 1 Cor. 15.55. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, (or hell, marg.) where is thy victo∣ry? which at first hearing seem indeed so dif∣fering from those translations which are usually by others given of these here, that some are bold even to doubt whether St. Paul did cite these or no, and others think he did only al∣lude to them. But I do suppose that he did intend them, and literally quote them, and therefore look on the meaning of them by him given, to be the only true meaning, and such as being granted so to be, shews in what sense these that precede them are necessarily to be taken, and therefore without going to give account of what others say in exposition of them, think the most expedient way of finding the true meaning of the whole verse to be to shew that St. Paul did so intend that part of it which he cites, and gave such a translation of it as gives the perfect sense thereof, and di∣rects us to understand the meaning of the rest.

For I must needs say with Jerom, that consi∣dering how St. Paul hath interpreted and ap∣plied these words, nos aliter interpretari nec possumus nec audemus, we neither can nor dare interpret them otherwise. The only thing then we have to do, is to search how St. Pauls words there in Greek do agree with these here in the Hebrew, which upon due conside∣ration we shall find them so well and per∣spicuously to do, as that if we doubt how we may find them nicely to answer word to word according to the ordinarily now known use of the words, yet we cannot deny that in the scope they exactly agree. In this inqui∣ry we shall among others make use of some, as to the signification of the words, who in the application of them do far differ from the Apostle, viz. some of the more learned Jews. As for the first word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ehi, rendred by ours and many others, I will be, as taking it for a verb, it is by the Apostle taken as a particle of interrogation, rendred, where is? So also by the LXX, and the Syriack, and the printed Arab. and among modern Interpreters, in the Tigurin version also, and Jun. Trem. and those two learned Jews, the chief Grammarian Abuwalid, and R. Tanchum, contend that it ought so to be here taken, as likewise above v. 10. as we have seen. As for the next word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 debareca, by our, and others rendred, thy plagues, it is by the Apostle rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, thy sting, which word is likewise in the LXX, but so placed last in order, as if it should an∣swer rather to the following word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kotbe∣ca, by ours rendred, thy destruction, which also perhaps might be shewed to signify something like 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as we shall after see. But I rather enquire how the Hebrew words and the Apostles, as they lie in order, may be adjusted together. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 debareca therefore we may look on as the plural form either from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 debar, which signifies more generally a word, thing, or matter in any kind, good or bad; or from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 deber, which more particularly signifies, pestis, a plague, quasi f 1.231 res perdens, as a destructive, or hurtfull thing, the root having also g 1.232 that notion of destroying. It being ambiguous to which it should be re∣ferred, some incline to the one, some to the other, as ours (with many others) to the latter, rendring it, thy plagues. R. Tanchum renders it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thy causes, or instru∣ments. That this more general word should in St. Paul be in a more particular notion, in re∣spect to the thing spoken of, viz. that where∣by death did wound or inflict hurt or destru∣ction, restrained and rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it signifies a goad, a sting, a spurre, or such hurt∣full instrument, cannot but seem well agree∣able to the signification of the word, though in it self otherwise of greater latitude: and that in this way the word was anciently used and understood, as the matter spoken of re∣quired, I think we may have reason to think, if we look into the use of the Arabick tongue, in which among the significations of this root, as that of death and destruction, also the word

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 da••erah is the spurre of a h 1.233 bird, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that with which he strikes, i 1.234 which is also in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and there be who k 1.235 think a bee called by the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 deborah, because she is, aculeata, or hath a sting. For these reasons I think 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Apostle doth well answer, as in order of place, so in signification, to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without running to that conjecture of Drusius, that this word is by change of the place of letters put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 darbaneca, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 darban, which more usually signi∣fies a goad or sting.

As for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kotbeca, rendred by ours, thy destruction, it appears to be of affi∣nity to the former 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dabar, by its being joined elsewhere also with it, as Psalm 91.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which ours render, nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness, nor for the destruction that wasteth at noon day; it is usually rendred, exci∣dium, exitium, lues, pestis, cutting off, de∣struction, plague, pestilence, or the like. The learned Jew that translated the Psalms into Arab. renders it there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hatphon, and so do••h he that so translated these books of the Prophets here; and so doth R. Tanchum also explain it: which word though otherwise seeming to signify a more quiet and ordinary death, yet what they mean by it, appears by Abuwalids explication of the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by it, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a de∣structive taking away with, or by, violence, which notion is not certainly improperly rendred by victory, whether being taken for the power or act of so doing. Here seems to be occasion of some scruple from that the LXX in this last place put 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as if it an∣swered to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Hebrew, whereas St. Paul l 1.236 puts it in the first place, as answering to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dabar, or deber, and it is by some ob∣served in favour of the LXX, that any thing m 1.237 which, pertundendo aut perfodiendo repente pene∣trat impetu vehementissimo, ut cuspis acuta solet, id apud Hebraeos nomine illo designatur, i. e. doth by making a hole or boaring suddenly and with ve∣hement force pierce, as any sharp pointed thing, is in Hebrew called by that name, and the Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying a point, or pointed thing, seems to confirm it. But this will not trouble us as to the sense, one of these expressions seeming but an explication of the other, and the words in sense not much differing from one another, so that which soever of them be put first or last, the meaning will be much one. All that I shall observe from it is, that St. Paul seems not here to have followed the LXX, but more exactly the Hebrew, both for the signification and order of the words: which being so, having said thus much for the signification of the words, we shall by the conduct of the same divinely inspired guide, easily discover the scope of the whole verse, viz. that it con∣tains a good promise, to those who are con∣cerned in it, of deliverance from the greatest of evils, death and the grave (or hell) and an assurance to them of the fulfilling of it: a promise, I say, of good and not a commi∣nation or threat of evill; as divers both Chri∣stians and Jews would make it. That Jew that we have seen in that way of interpreta∣tion of his w^ch we have quoted much to agree with St. Paul, as to the signification of the words by him cited, so makes it while he gives for the meaning of the whole this: I did there∣fore ransome them and redeem them from hell and death, but now come and do execution: bring your instruments of doing mischief and exert your conquering destructive power, none shall hinder you, for I have restrained my self, from alter∣ing my purpose, or, I will not reverse my sen∣tence, for punishing them. That a Jew looking at the present condition of Ephraim, the peo∣ple of that time and what evils were then ready to seize on them without hope of tem∣porall restauration, which is the chiefe happi∣ness that they look'd after as promised by God, should so interpret the words, is not much to be marvelled. But that after the light of the Gospell is manifested and after St. Paul hath so clearly directed to the meaning of the words, as being a triumphant exclamation in token of victory over death and hell obtained by Christ, wherein those great enemies of mankind are called, not to produce their de∣structive force and instruments to do hurt with them, but by way of upbraiding them, as no more having power to do hurt with them, as appears by his subjoyning thanks to God for giveing the victory, it is more to be wondred that any Christian Expositours should look on them still as a threat or de∣nouncing of evil. St. Paul sure better directs us to look on them as a promise of good, and as so taking them, it may be convenient to enquire, what as so taken they contain.

The promise is given in the first clause 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 miyad, sheol, Ephdem, I will ransome them from the power (or literally as in the margine, the hand) of the grave (or in∣ferni of hell, as the word also signifies and is by the Interlineary and others rendred) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will redeem them from death, in which words some observe as a peculiar use of the first Verb Ephdeh that it signifies, n 1.238 pre∣tio seu lutro redemptionis date liberare, to set one free by paying a price for his redemption, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rendred, I will redeem, that it pro∣perly is when the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Goel, he that by vertue

of affinity hath right to do it, doth redeem, according to the law of Moses of redeeming possessions, who or what is to be redeemed. That as the words have these more particular significations, so that they are also used to signi∣fy more generally to free and deliver, there is no doubt; yet it is not amiss to take notice of their being sometimes so restrained, in as much as in the fulfilling of this promise we shall find the utmost of what may be required by them in that kind and their proper notion, to have been made good. The next words being an insultation over those enemies, from whose power the promise saith they shall be freed, as if it were then already fulfilled when pro∣mised, shews the certainty of it in God's de∣termination, which also is in the last words confirmed by his asserting the unchangableness of that his determination.

The persons concerned in the promise being not particularly expressed, but indefinitely only designed by the affixe of the third person plural, them, gives to enquire who they are. That it should be understood of the Jews, the two tribes, as o 1.239 some would have it, and their redemption from the Babylonish captivity, there is nothing in the text to make it probable. They have not been here spoken of, but the ten tribes (or Ephraim) distinct from them, nor was what is by the words properly signified, fulfilled in that restauration of theirs: they were not redeemed from death and hell so pro∣perly called, although if other things did ac∣cord, it might perhaps be said, that by those words metaphorically taken, might be signified their deliverance from those evils which they suffered in captivity as bad as death and the grave it self. Secondly neither, though the ten tribes have been here spoken of in the pre∣ceding words, can these seem properly to be restrained to them. If we should say with some, that they were made good by the return of some of them, who joined themselves to the Jews, when they were restored from their captivity, they were too few and inconside∣rable for the fixing on them, or what was done in or to them, the completion of so illu∣strious a prophecy, neither was it fulfilled in or to them as to the thing promised, according to the proper signification of the words. They were not freed from death and the grave, so as to make any new distinction between them and others subject to mortality. Surely the words seem to require a benefit of greater ex∣tent than to reach only to such a parcel of men, and of greater excellency than any such tem∣poral deliverance as was wrought for them, that we may think thereby this promise to have been made good, and the prophecy to have had a full completion. What ransom then, what redemption from death and the grave or hell can we find of such nature, of so large extent, and of so great vertue and efficacy, as to ob∣tain and confer so great, such new and extra∣ordinary benefits as are here described, but only that by our Saviour Jesus Christ given & wrought, by which all that can by these words taken in their proper and strictest sense be re∣quired, was fully made good? As for the ex∣tent of it, that is not limited either to Jews or Israelites, the two or ten tribes, but together with them reached forth to all sorts of men. That it should be here promised in the midst of threats to Ephraim in particular, and where they alone have been spoken of, is no marvel, no interruption according to the usual me∣thod of God in the Prophets, amidst the se∣verest threatnings of judgment to the impeni∣tent, to insert gracious promises of mercy to those that heare his voice and turn to him; neither yet that while he is speaking to Israel, he should make & publish to them such an Evangelical promise as should concern all nations, seeing that to them his ancient pecu∣liar, the good tidings of the Gospel were p 1.240 first to be preached, before they were to the Gentiles: as Christ himself came in person to the Jews, and among them wrought that de∣liverance which concerned all mankind, and sent his Apostles in the first place to go and preach the Gospel of the kingdom of heaven to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Matt. 10.6. yet then were they to go to all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature, Mark 16.15. the redemption by him wrought being a common benefit to all of all nations that should believe, v. 16. and all of them therefore do we look on as here comprehended as well as Israel according to the flesh, though they were then spoken to by the Prophet mouth to mouth, as all partakers of the benefit here promised, viz. that he will ransom them from the power of the grave, or hell, and redeem them from death. In applying of the words to this work of his, they will all (as we said) be taken in their proper signifi∣cations.

As first, that of ransoming: that he did to the utmost that the word can import, by buying them with q 1.241 a price, a full and deare price, not of corruptible things as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, 1 Pet. 1.18, 19. whether we understand the person here speaking, I will ransom, of God the Fa∣ther, that fore-ordained and gave him so to be, or of Christ himself that gave himself a ransom for all, both being true and the same thing to say.

Secondly, that word rendred redeeming, was also effected in its strict signification by

our r 1.242 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Goel, who taking our nature upon him for that very end, became our neer kinsman, who had the most right of re∣demption, for which cause he is not ashamed to call us brethren, Heb. 1.11. and children, v. 13. That likewise from which he is said to ransom and redeem, the grave and death, will be in this way taken in a more proper signification, and not only a metaphorical for great evils and grievous calamities, but for what they more literally signify. The first enemy that he saith he will ransom them from is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sheol, by ours rendred, the grave, the common re∣ceptacle of the dead, and that it is often so taken there is no doubt, and as well known also that it is otherwise taken for hell the place of the damned; and Abarbinel thinks it may here be well understood of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 perhaps, saith he, by maveth he calleth the death of the body, and by sheol the torments of hell. That of them or that place it should be meant, is made more than probable, in as much as the grave is not otherwise much formidable, than as it is a passage to that, or a temporary re∣ceptacle for those bodies whose souls are there tormented, till they in due time raised, shall be joined again to them to partake of those torments.

If it be taken in the first meaning, by ran∣soming from the grave, will be a freeing of the bodies of the ransomed ones in due time from that by a joyfull resurrection; not as if they should not at all see it or enter into it, but that they should not utterly be destroyed by it, nor for ever be detained in it, but in due time be loosed from the bands of it, and re∣stored to a better life, the grave being forced to give up its dead which were deposited in it: and for assurance of this truth seem the fol∣lowing words cited by St. Paul, namely as a proof of a blessed resurrection from the grave to an endless life, to which by vertue of the ransom of Christs meritorious death and victo∣rious resurrection, they had both right and assurance given them, and therefore it is not said simply, I will ransom them from the grave, but from the power, or hand, of the grave, whereby it detained them. If it be taken in the second way for the place of torment, then will it be understood, that he will so ransom them from the power, from the sting and s 1.243 torments thereof, that they shall never seize on them: it hath no plagues, no sting to prevaile on them, whose sins are by Christ taken away.

To the same purpose in the next clause is what he saith, I will redeem them from death, as it may be taken either for temporal or eternal death. Of the first it cannot be meant, so as that by vertue of his redemption they should be freed from ever tasting of death, ac∣cording to the sentence of the Lord over all flesh, Ecclus. 41.3. but so as that they shall not need to fear that sentence; for it shall not be for de∣struction to them, but a putting off what is mortal, that they may be clothed with im∣mortality; a sleeping or resting for a while, that they may rise to everlasting life: and as for the second death, they are so set free from it, as that they shall not be t 1.244 hurt by it, it shall have no u 1.245 power over them. So that it may be said of death also however taken, that it is by vertue of redemption from sin by Christ wrought, swallowed up in victory, according to what St. Paul puts before these words, depriv'd of its destructive force and power. w 1.246 So was God in Christ reconciling and redeeming the world to himself, sending him in the flesh, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage, Heb. 2.14, 15.

Of this extensive benefit of ransom and re∣demption for all mankind, as many as should lay hold of it, and not only of Israel ac∣cording to the flesh, are we thus by St. Paul directed to understand these words, as a pro∣mise a faithfull promise, such as hell and death cannot disanull; they are challenged and in∣sulted over, as having no power left to do it, O death where are thy plagues, or where is thy sting? O grave, or hell, where are thy de∣structions, or conquering power, or victory? and God himself will not reverse or alter it; so saith he in the last words, repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.

The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nocham, rendred repen∣tance, is by the Vulgar rendred, consolatio, consolation, or comfort, as by divers other an∣cient Interpreters; as the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, both Arabick versions 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That the word may signify either of these is plain from the use of the root and other forms from it, but that of repentance seems here the much more proper, and they that take the other in any strict or proper signification, take the words in another meaning than we do, viz. as a x 1.247 commination or threat of evil, and not for a comfortable promise of good, as we take them to be; and so in our way the meaning of the expression will be, that God will never repent him of this deter∣mination of ransoming and redeeming them, he will certainly make it good, y 1.248 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will never repent of this, or

alter my purpose concerning this for ever. Casta∣lio seems to bring the word rendred conso∣lation, to much the same meaning, by ex∣plaining the text, which he renders, solatio ca∣rebunt oculi mei, mine eyes shall want comfort, by, non dormiam quin hoc fecero, I will not sleep (I will not suffer mine eyes to take rest or refreshment) till I do this, speaking after the manner of men. So are these words ac∣cording to the ordinary distinction (which ours follow) made a part of this verse and the conclusion of it, though z 1.249 some others would make them the beginning of a new one, and to have respect to the following words.

This exposition which we have given of this verse, seems to me (for the reasons given) the most genuine among all we meet with; yet if any had rather read those words without an interrogation, which St. Paul doth with one, as ours do, the meaning will be much the same, one inferring the other. If death, and the grave or hell be spoiled of their arms and of their predominant power of doing hurt and mischief, they may well be triumphed over; if they be insulted and triumphed over, it declares that they are so spoiled by some that hath conquered them, and inflicted on them that which they were wont to inflict on others, and hath swallowed them up in per∣petual victory, so that they shall never be able again to recover their power, without per∣mission from him who hath so overcome them, which he promiseth that he will never yeeld to them. This being here foretold by the Pro∣phet that it should be done, and by the Apostle declared to have been fully done by Christ our redeemer, we have great reason, yea it is our duty to join with the Apostle in a grate∣full acknowledgment of this great benefit, Thanks be to God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Such interpretations and expressions as leade another way, I think do leade us from the scope of the words, and shall not therefore insist or enlarge on them. It is observed by a 1.250 some, that by the Jewish Doctors these words also are expounded as a prophecy of what should be done by Christ, but what they say, doth not conduce to the literal explica∣tion of the words, which is our business.

V. 15. Though he be fruitfull among his brethren, an east-wind shall come, the wind of the Lord shall come up from the wilderness, and his spring shall be∣come dry, and his fountain shall be dried up: he shall spoil the treasure of all pleasant vessels.

b 1.251 Though he be fruitfull among his brethren, an east-wind shall come, &c. Of this verse also have we among Interpreters very different rendrings and expositions, and consequently great difference as to the connexion and the scope of the words by them given. According to our translation, which seems here very proper and apposite and agreeable to the words in the original, after that gracious de∣claration of God's irreversible purpose of that great redemption by Christ to be wrought for all sorts of men that should lay hold on it, as well of other nations as of Israel ac∣cording to the flesh, and not to be hindred by the present Israels rebellions in the preceding verse, inserted after foregoing threats to them for their wicked behaviour, that this may not yet make them securely to run on in sinning, as if by vertue of that his determination they should be secured from such present tempo∣ral judgments as they had provoked him to denounce against them, he returns again to farther threats against them, as concerning their present estate. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ci hu, though he, i. e. Ephraim before spoken to and of, be fruitfull among his brethren, according as his name imports Gen. 41.52. and it was fore∣told by Jacob that he should Gen. 48.19. and he upon that is grown proud and insolent, see c. 10.10. yet, or therefore, shall an east-wind come, the wind of the Lord &c. i. e. an enemy, the Assyrian sent by the Lord, who for his cruelty and the desolation which he shall cause, may be compared to a blasting impetuous east-wind, an extraordinary wind, and there∣fore also termed, the wind of the Lord, (as things extraordinary are usually so called, things of God, or the Lord,) which should come up from the c 1.252 wilderness, i. e. such as not let by any thing, shall blow with full force, that drieth up the springs and fountains, and blasteth such plants or things as grow and are nourished by the waters thereof; and he shall cut off their multitude, and spoil them of their most desirable things, and put an end to their prosperity. The expressions though compara∣tive, are to this sense easily appliable, Ephraim being likened, in regard of his past or present prosperous condition, to a fruitfull flourishing tree, and God's judgements and instruments thereof to such a noxious wind which shall have such effects on them, as such a wind hath on such a tree. The last words, he shall spoil the treasure of all pleasant vessels, being not d 1.253 so properly appliable to the wind it self, discovers all to be meant of an enemy, com∣pared to such a boisterous wind, and withall e 1.254 noxious in those countries; and by its being said to come up from the wilderness, is usually

looked upon to be understood the place from whence he should come, viz. f 1.255 Assyria, al∣though if that be objected against as not alto∣gether holding, it is sufficient to look on the comparison as made good, by the noxiousness of that wind in those parts, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the east-wind g 1.256 rather than auster, the south-wind, as Pagnin renders. It is here manifest that our Translatours take 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 achim, to signify brothers, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ach, a brother, and the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yaphri, to be from h 1.257 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 parah, which signifies, to be fruitfull, beare fruit, in∣crease, or multiply; and so the first words to describe the condition of Ephraim, and the other words to be a threat or denouncing of punishment to him, in which regards such others as agree with them in the signification and sense of these words, we may look on as not much different from them, though giving something a different interpretation from what we have given of their rendring, as to wit Grotius, whose explication of the first words is, quia ipse i 1.258 prae fratribus multi∣plicavit, because he hath multiplied (i. e. saith he, peccata, sins,) more than his brethren, i. e. plus peccavit quam Judah & Benjamin, hath sinned more than Judah and Benjamin &c. in which he professeth to follow the Chaldee Pa∣raphrast, who indeed to that purpose hath, Because they are called sons and have multiplied naughty works, now will I bring upon the•• a po∣tent king, like unto the east-wind, by the word of the Lord, who shall come up by the way of the wilderness, and shall spoil the house of his, or their treasures, and shall lay wast the city of his, or their, kingdom, he shall rob their treasures, all desirable vessels.

The difference betwixt these and our trans∣lation we see is in rendring the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ci, which ours render although, by because, as also the MS. Arab. doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that so may be described not so much their condition which sha•••• now be altered to them, as the cause for which it shall be altered, and therefore the verb of the future form 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yaphri, which ours render in the present tense, (which is plainer than to put with others in the future, though that also may denote the same thing, viz. that though the promise of increase made of old to Ephraim should be, or was, made good to them,) they take in the notion of the preterperfect tense to shew what they had done. To the same purpose tends what others have, Quia germinavit aut crevit Ephraim inter fratres, because Ephraim hath grown up or been fruitfull among his brethren, therefore shall an east-wind come &c. if they do understand, sub fructificatione abusum ejus, under the name of fruitfulness their abuse of it, as k 1.259 some take them to do, viz. quoniam ita crevit in∣ter fratres ut tamen non agnoverit unde ipsi hoc evenerit, because he grew up, or was so fruitfull, among his brethren as that he did not acknowledge by whose blessing it was so well with him, but l 1.260 grew proud and insolent, and hath therefore made himself deservedly liable to the doom here denounced. These all agree as to the notion of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 achim for brethren, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yaphri for increase, or multiplication, as well as in making the scope of the following words to be a denouncing of punishment to Ephraim. But there are others, who agreeing with them in making that the scope, yet much differ as to the signification of the words, some as to one of them, some as to both.

As first, as to the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yaphri, the LXX render, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or as some copies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin version renders, quia ipse, or hic, inter fratres dividit, which the Vulgar Latin also reads, be∣cause he doth, or shall, divide between brethren; and so the Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Latin translation renders, quia ipse fratres ab invicem separabit; and the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quoniam ipse separabit fratres. Their thus rendring it, causeth * 1.261 some to conjecture that they did differently read the word, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yaphri, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yaphrid, as several think, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yaphli, as some, either of which signi∣fies to divide, or separate. But I think that there is no need of any such change, but that the word as it is read might have, or by them be taken to have, that notion, in as much as we find the same root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Ara∣bick to signify, to cut asunder and cleave, and so to divide or separate, not much different from the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Abarbinel also seems to acknowledge that signification of the word, the like to that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pere, which usually signifies, a wild asse, whence Ismael is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pere adam, Gen. 16.12. which the Vulgar Latin renders ferus homo, ours a wild man, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is an Epithet, or appellation, of a man that is separate, or separates himself, from others. R. Salomo also before him men∣tions the same notion, as agreeing to it; saying that the words may be expounded of Jeroboam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 m 1.262 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. because he was a son that separated the pos∣session of Israel, by his hand were they divided into two kingdoms, and that the word is from the same notion with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. According

to this way these first words express that crime in Ephraim, for which the punishment in the following is threatned to him, viz. because he divided between brethren, and made them separate themselves from the two tribes, with whom they should have lived in brotherly love and concord under one king of the house of David, on whom God had fetled the right of the kingdom, and with whom they should have assembled in one temple at Jerusalem for God's worship there, but now had put up an∣other king to themselves, another worship at Bethel and Dan, whence followed continual feud and discord between them, therefore shall it be so to them as follows.

Secondly, as to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 achim, rendred brethren, there are who take it to signify far otherwise, viz. green places, where green grass or sedge groweth, from the sin∣gular 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 achu, which elsewhere in the Scripture so signifies, as Gen. 41.2, and 18. there by ours rendred a medow, and Job 8.11. there by them rendred a flagge, whence here the Tigurine version taking it, as so renders, quoniam ipse inter vireta florebit, because he shall flourish among the places of green grass; but this by n 1.263 others is excepted against, because it should then, they say, rather have been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 achavim, which Kimchi in his roots observes to be the regular plural of that noun, and that they have the Grammar on their side, who take it to be from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ach, a brother. Yet do others of the Hebrew Grammarians take it in this sense also, as R. Salomo, who thinks it so taken well to agree with the fol∣lowing words, wherein blasting by the east∣wind is threatned. Aben Ezra also saith it is from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 achu, and so do others also of good note, as Abuwalid and R. Tanchum, who do not only, as Aben Ezra and the Tigurine ver∣sion differ from the usual version as to the signification of this word alone, but of it and the forementioned, viz. of achim and yaphri, rendring the first by sedge or green flags or grass; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yaphri, by to be, or behave himself as, a wild asse. Some of their words, because not printed, I shall interpret or put down. As for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 achim, Abuwalid saith that it is the plural from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aehu, though in forming it the last radical 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 u be left out; it is he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the name of a plant that is fed on by beasts, by some inter∣preted in Arabick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kort, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dais, and that it signifies either such plants or herbs or the place where they grow. R. Tanchum agrees with him in giving here the same signifi∣cation of it as to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yaphri, they both likewise agree that it is from the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pera, a wild ass, and signifies, as Abuwalid speaks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that he is like to this kind. R. Tanchum likewise saith that they go wide which render it here by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to grow, or be fruitfull, as if it were the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with an h in the end, which doth so signify, because it is manifest that the last ra∣dical letter in this word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a, from which root there is no form found, which hath that signification, and therefore that it is better to deduce it from the notion 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to which Israel is compared above c. 6.9. signifying the same that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 alphara, in the Arabick, i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a wild ass, so that the signification of it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he feeds thereon with this kind of beasts and is like to them, and that this is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a comparison by which is expressed their enjoying themselves in the fruitfulness of their country and the abundance of the good things thereof, and their liberty of running up and down at their plea∣sure, and wantonly, or insolently, behaving them∣selves, by reason thereof: and so then their fol∣lowing words he looks on, as in like compa∣rative expressions declared, what shall be the issue of such behaviour, while he notes out the coming of such enemies upon them as shall deprive them of their country and lay it wast: which enemies, having compared them themselves to a wild ass, and their prosperity to a free feeding on green herbs and the plen∣ty of things produced by the earth, he com∣pares to a parching wind coming out of the desert, which drieth up the rivers, so that the herbs are destroyed, and the fruitfulness of the earth taken away.

In this way we see, as in those all before mention'd, whether the former words be taken as a description of the prosperity of their con∣dition, or of their security and insolent be∣haviour therein, the latter are still a threat to them of such judgements, as shall deprive them of all that prosperity wherein they trusted, or on which they grew proud and in∣solent. And this way of exposition seems ob∣vious and perspicuous, yet are there others, who take other ways far different as from this, so among themselves, in so much that o 1.264 one seems not without good reason, consi∣dering them, to note that this is, locus intri∣catissimus interpretum dissensionibus, a most intricate place through the disagreeings of inter∣preters, which are caused not so much by any difference between them concerning the signi∣fication of the single words, as by that of such constructions as they give of them, and their

different applying of them to persons or things, and some taking them to denote evil, others to promise good to them.

Cyril joining the first words with those that, with others, end the foregoing verse, which he would have readd interrogatively, is any way of consolation hid from mine eyes? takes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hu, he, in, he shall divide, or se∣parate, between brethren, (as the LXX whom he follows render,) to be meant of Christ, who saith of himself, Think not that I am come to send peace on the earth, I came not to send peace but a sword; for I came to set a man at variance against his father &c. Matt. 10.34, 35. and Luke 12.52. and then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kadim, the east-wind the wind of the Lord, which they render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a burning wind, he explains by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the south-wind, which the Hebrew saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yabo, shall come 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mim∣midbar oleh, coming up from the wilderness, and they render with a different construction, the Lord shall bring from the wilderness, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, upon him, as if, as p 1.265 some conjecture, for oleh, they readd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 alekem; by reason of which it is said, his springs shall become drie, and his fountain shall be dried up, but he renders, and shall drie up his veins, and that he shall spoil the the treasure of all pleasant ves∣sels, which they render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. he shall drie up his land and all his de∣sirable vessels as if according to the conje∣cture of q 1.266 some, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 otser, trea∣sure, they had readd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 arets, land: By this wind, I say, which shall do these things, he thinks meant Christ, and him upon, or against, whom he shall work those effects, to be death, which Christ shall spoil of its power, and drie up all its springs and veins, by which he saith he means, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, its ways of destruction, and so by its desirable vessels, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, evil powers con∣trary to men &c.

Theodoret seems to understand by him that shall divide brethren, their captivity, by which they should be carried away without hope of return; and by the wind mentioned, Cyrus who should destroy the kingdom of the Assyrians, and free the Israelites, he being a figure of Christ. Jerom saith hell is it that is said r 1.267 shall divide between brethren, and that, quicquid dividit inter fratres, infernus ap∣pellandus est; and the east-wind to be Christ, who coming out of the desert of mankind, or the barren womb of the virgin, should drie up the veins or springs of death, and the foun∣tains thereof which are sins, and deliver the saints from hell.

s 1.268 Others by him that shall increase among his brethren, following that other rendring of ya∣phri, take Christ to be spoken of by God the Fa∣ther, and by his multiplying to be meant the multiplication of believers in the latter days, when there shall be, unum ovile & unus pa∣stor, one sheepfold and one shepheard, and in the following words to be foretold the confla∣gration of this world, by the wilderness to be understood this world, by the east-wind the burning of it, and by all pleasant and desirable vessels all the desirable good things thereof.

Mr. Lively as to the first words, if they be rendred, because he shall divide among brethren, which he saith he cannot disapprove, thinks them to give this meaning, that God would put a difference between Judah and Israel, saving those, and destroying these, according to what he said above c. 1.7. I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel, but I will utterly take them away; but I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and I will save them by the Lord their God &c. By the east-wind he thinks the Assyrian to be meant, it being a comparison elsewhere used to express an ene∣my, as Ezek. 19.12. and the east-wind dried up her fruit; by the wilderness, that part of Ara∣bia deserta, which lay east of Judah, between Babylon and Judea. Pareus looks on the words as all promising good, as it may be also rendred, certe Ephraim crescet inter fra∣tres, Ephraim shall certainly grow, or be fruit∣full, among his brethren, by which he will have denoted the fructification of the Church, in respect of its many spiritual gifts, and in re∣spect of its enlargement and wide spreading over the world. Secondly, by the wind, the Spirit of the Lord (coming from the east, according to that expression, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Luke 1.78.) and that the wind of the Lord, i. e. a most vehement or strong wind, (as he is likened Acts 2.1. to a rushing mighty wind) which shall be the cause of his fructifying, so that all the following words he will have to be a Periphrasis of the ministry of the Gospel, and the efficacy thereof, by which Christ as with a vehement wind shall move and cleanse the hearts of men, and here to be a promise of great plenty of grace and the efficacy of the Holy Spirit to the Church of Christ, on which follows another part of the good promise, of final victory to it by or through Christ, in the words, he shall spoil the treasure all plea∣sant vessels, which is a figurative expression or sign of a total victory; is shall be fulfilled when Christ that stronger ••e, who spoils the house of that armed man, and taketh away his armour, and divideth his spoils, shall tread Satan under their feet, and the last enemy, even death it self, shall be destroyed, and so he thinks that these words are, egregia pictura

totius Evangelii. This exposition of his Rivet saith he cannot assent to, in as much as the terms here used do sound, in deteriorem partem, or import something of ill, as what is said, that thereby his spring shall become drie, and his fountain be dried up, which imports sterility, not fruitfulness; yet even this doth the learned L. de Dieu interpret also for good, under∣standing by the spring or fountain mentioned, such as were in the wilderness, such by which some desert places were made t 1.269 more barren, and that God here promiseth that with his wind he would drie up such springs of the de∣sert of his people, and then he, i. e. Ephraim, should spoil the treasures of all pleasant vessels, i. e. ditescet alienis spoliis, should grow rich with the spoils of other people.

Junius and Tremellius looking on the scope of the whole as a part of that promise for good, which he had before made of deli∣vering them from death, yet taking the latter words for a description of evil, give a dif∣ferent construction, both in their interpreta∣tion and exposition of the whole, thus, Nam ipse inter fratres fructificabit, postquam veniente Euro, vento Jehovae à deserto ascendente, exa∣ruerit scaturigo ejus, & exsiccatus fuerit fons ejus, illo diripiente thesaurum omnium instrumen∣torum desiderabilium, postquam desolata fuerit Schomeron &c. i. e. for (they rendring ci, by nam, as it is also taken) he shall be fruitfull among the, or his, brethren, after that by the East wind (by which they take to be noted the Assyrians) coming, by the wind of the Lord coming up from the wilderness, his spring shall become drie, and his fountain be dried up, he, (i. e. say they, the Assyrian) spoiling, or taking away, the treasure of all desirable utensils; and taking in also the next verse, after that Sa∣maria shall have become desolate, because she hath rebelled against God, and they have fallen by the sword, and their little ones have been dashed in pieces, and their women with child ript up: not any of these things, though they have be∣fallen them, shall hinder the making good of God's promise, he will cause by vertue there∣of, that after his threats for their sins exe∣cuted, they shall again flourish and be fruit∣full. This interpretation of theirs Rivet ap∣proves, as confirmed by what also follows c. 14. v. 5, and 7. explaining among the other terms which we have seen, that which he saith, among the brethren, to be, that in the time of Christ, when these things are to be fulfilled, many Israelites according to the flesh shall be joined to the other Israelites, as true believers are called, & are, all brethren. Tarnovius and Glassius something differently, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Quia hoc &c. This being so as hath been said, he their redeemer shall make him to be fruitfull, joining to him by the preaching of the Gospel many brethren, which shall bring forth much fruit in the Church. Let there come by the decree of God a vehement east wind, the wind of the Lord from the wilderness, and thereby let his spring become drie, and his fountain dried up, i. e. though all these evils come upon this afflicted people, yet notwithstanding this he shall at last become a conqueror, and spoil the treasure of all plea∣sant vessels, which words import, quod Eccle∣sia verbo Dei convertens gentes in finibus &c. ipsa ditetur, & quaecunque lucratur Deo de∣voveat, viz. the Churches growing rich upon the conversion of the nations, and her devoting to God what she gains.

These expositions I have recited, as in re∣spect to the authority of those from whom they are, so that I might give an account of the words and such meanings as they are thought capable of; yet do I not choose to follow any of the latter, some of which make the words very obscure instead of explaining them, but think it best to adhere to the first, as most plain and agreeable to the words without any wresting of them. Those transla∣tions which we joined with our own, as con∣curring with them in the scope, do altogether give us for u 1.270 the import of the whole verse, (to summe up what we said before,) that though Israel had hitherto greatly flourished and enjoyed great prosperity, yet they should not grow secure thereon, and think it should, however they behaved themselves, be conti∣nued to them. For, because they did thereon grow proud and insolent, and rebelliously be∣haved themselves towards God, he would send against them such instruments and execu∣tioners of his justly provoked justice, as should spoil them of all they gloried in, all con∣ducing to the flourishing of their temporal estate, and bring on them such destruction as is in the next verse described.

V. 16. Samaria shall become deso∣late, for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword; their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ript up.

Samaria shall become desolate, for she hath re∣belled against her God, &c. This verse is ac∣cording to our translation and several others, subjoined to the preceding, so as to be in the same chapter with it; by many others, so se∣vered from it, as to begin a new distinct chapter: the difference between them arising, as they either thought the words best referred to the foregoing as by them understood, or the following. Pareus in defence of the latter

opinion and of his own exposition of the pre∣ceding words, saith of it, Hic versus cohae∣ret cum sequentibus, nec recte avellitur, this verse coheres with the following, neither is rightly parted from them; for, saith he, it pertains not to the preceding promise, (as he takes it to be,) but to the following exhortation to repentance. Ri∣vet on the contrary preferring the former, saith, Here is commonly made the beginning of the fourteenth chapter, sed non bene divellitur hic versus à praecedentibus, cum quibus à recen∣tioribus Interpretibus meri••o conjungitur, but w 1.271 this verse is not well severed from the pre∣ceding, with which by the latter Interpreters it is deservedly joined; and this way our Transla∣tors have chose to follow.

As for the words we look on them as a far∣ther threat of evil to the Israelites: They re∣present to us a lively scene of such grievous calamities as should befall them, with the reason why. Samaria the head city, on the ill or well fare of which the happiness or unhap∣piness of the whole kingdom did depend, so that what is spoken of that and the inhabitants thereof, may well be looked on as concerning the whole nation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 teesham, shall be de∣solate. In this notion is x 1.272 this word elsehwere used in the Scripture, and in it here (with some latitude) more generally taken. So the y 1.273 LXX render it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall perish; the MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall be destroyed. R. Tanch. explains it by more words of like signification, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. in Arab. letters, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all importing de∣solation, and being laid wast. The Vulgar La∣tin puts the imperative mood for the future tense, pereat Samaria, let Samaria perish, and most modern Interpreters take it in the same notion of desolation.

But there is another usual notion of the theme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 asham, and such forms as are from it, viz. to sin, to be guilty, and so made or found; and this doth the Chaldee here take, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the usual Latin renders, peccati rea est, is guilty of sin; Mercer, rea peragetur, shall be condemned as guilty; Pet. à Fig. peccavit, hath sinned; Gro∣tius, rea est, is guilty, gravium peccatorum, of grievous sins: the ancient Syriack also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tethchayab, shall be guilty; and among more modern Interpreters, the Tigu∣tine version, deliquit Samaria; and Castalio, crimen commisit Samaria; R. Salomo explains it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 her sin shall be laid open. In this sense it is manifest it may well be spoken of that sinfull city, the nursery of Ido∣latry and rebellion against God; and Grotius saith, mentioning the Chaldee, forsan rectius, perhaps righter than the other way: yet con∣sidering the following words, wherein is de∣scribed what shall be done by the enemy in and to her, tending to her utter desolation. I suppose ours do well join with those who take the other signification, and render shall become desolate.

The reason why she shall be brought to this pass, is added 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because she hath rebelled against her God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 maretah, she hath rebelled, that is the proper and known signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 marah, so by R. Tanchum explained by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and by the Author of the MS. Arab. by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which in Arabick signifies, to rebel. The Chaldee takes it in this signification, because she hath rebelled against the word of her God; and the LXX agreeably to this notion render, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the printed Ara∣bick expresseth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because she hath resisted, or opposed herself against, her God. The same follow most of modern Inter∣preters, rendring it as ours do, by what may sound, hath rebelled, or been rebellious; but the Vulgar Latin something differently, taking the verb in another notion, quoniam concitavit ad amaritudinem Deum suum, because she hath stirred up her God to bitterness, as the Doway Translators english it. And so the Syriack, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quod exasperaverit Deum suum, because she hath exasperated her God; and so z 1.274 several of the modern Inter∣preters, rendring it by, exacerbavit, hath im∣bittered, or bitterly angred, or provoked, & a 1.275 some learned men say that that is the verbal transla∣tion, so taking the word as if it were from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 marar, which signifies, to be bitter, from whence we have above the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, where it is said c. 12.14. Ephraim provoked him to anger, tamrurim, most bitterly. But sure if we look on the form of the verb, which must be b 1.276 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 marah, and the force of the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be, joined in construction to it, and prefixed to the noun governed of it, which ours well render against, we cannot but think the more litteral interpretation to be, hath rebelled; though they are as to the thing al∣most coincident, his being provoked bitterly, arguing rebellion in them, and their rebellion necessarily provoking him, and the roots and forms of the verbs being of very nigh affinity.

It is not amiss observed by c 1.277 some, that the pronoun her, in her God, hath a great Em∣phasis. It greatly aggravates their wickedness, that they should rebel against, and provoke him who was their God from the land of Egypt, as above v. 14. and had by so great benefits

engaged them to his service. Yet the MS. Arabick takes it another way, rendring, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because she hath re∣belled by, or with, Idols. True, it is therein was her rebellion seen, viz. in forsaking and disobeying God to follow Idols, and serve them contrary to his command; but here the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 boloheha, seems to denote the true God against whom she rebelled, and not the false one whom she served. Her rebelling against him hath so exasperated him, as to cause him to denounce to her that doom which he here doth, as in the preceding words un∣der the general term of desolation, so in those particulars, which she shall suffer from those barbarous enemies, into whose hand he will give them up, tending thereto, expressed in the following words, They shall fall by the sword, their infants shall be dashed in pieces, d 1.278 and their women with child shall be ript up. The first of these words express a great calamity, the following aggravate it in the highest degree. That the valiant men of a people, who should defend them, should fall by the sword of the conquering enemy, must needs be a great weakening, and tending to their destruction, but a loss that may in time be repaired, if their children be suffered to grow up in their stead: but when all hopes of that shall be prevented by the cruel policy of the barbarous enemy, by dashing in pieces their new born infants, and preventing the birth of others by ripping up the wombs of their mothers before they come to that maturity, what shall follow on this, but mere desolation? These are expres∣sions sure which argue, as the utmost inhu∣manity in those who act them, and a desire of clearly rooting out a people whom they so deale with, so, as to those who are so dealt with, the most miserable condition that any people can be brought to.

That such cruelty was sometimes exercised by barbarous conquerors appears, as from what is by e 1.279 some cited out of other Authors, so by other places of Scripture, as above c. 10.14. mentioning that much the like was done at Beth Arbel by Shalman, and the 2 Kings 51.16. where it is recorded that at Tiphsha and the coasts thereof, Menahem ript up all the women that were with child. In the same book c. 8.12. Elisha tells Hazael, that among the evils that he would do to Israel, should be, that their young men he would slay with the sword, and he would dash their children, and rip up their women that were with child: and that the Babylonians did much the the like at the taking of Jerusalem, appears from Psalm 137.9. where, that they might be rewarded as they had served Jerusalem, he saith that their children ought to be taken and dashed against the stones; and Amos 1.13. that the children of Amon ript up the women with child of Gilead, that they might enlarge their border. Though it be not expresly set down in the history of the Bible, that at the taking of Samaria such savage cruelty was exercised by the Assyrians, yet that it is here foretold that it should be, is a convincing argument that it was so, or would certainly have been so, if not by their repentance prevented and averted, and of their repentance we do not read. Surely this threatned to them by him, who was not wont to faile of his word, ought to have driven them speedily, if they had any care of themselves, or their posterity, or country, to that which was the only means to have wrought on f 1.280 him to repent of the evil which he had denounced; yet g 1.281 without breach of his word, or altering his purpose. If they do not use this means for averting the evil threatned, that the fault is in their per∣verseness, and not in God's unappeasableness or failing of mercy, appears by his calling upon them to use this means, subjoined in the next words, v. 1. of the next chapter, which the distinction made by them that divide the chapters, doth not hinder us from looking on as part of one continued sermon with these and the preceding.

Notes

• a 1.1

  That of Geneva, and that before the last publickly used.
• b 1.2

  Which Munster puts in the text.
• c 1.3

  As in Calvin.
• d 1.4

  i. e. threatning words to those that would not readily obey him, as they in their notes and Pisc.
• e 1.5

  Agreeable likewise to the Vulgar seems an interpretation which Kin chi gives in his roots, viz. when Jeroboam, who was of Ephraim, spake of the calves, he raised great trembling in Israel.
• f 1.6

  Grot. in communibus conventibus.
• g 1.7

  Jer. Pet. à Fig.
• * 1.8

  A comma being put between spake, and trembling.
• h 1.9

  Annotationes in V. T. & Epist. ad Eph. incerto Authore Cantabrig. 1653.
• i 1.10

  Which also occurs but once, viz. Jer. 49.24. and is there rendred in the Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• k 1.11

  Cyr. Gr. Lat. Paris 1638.
• l 1.12

  In cap. Concord.
• m 1.13

  Drus.
• n 1.14

  Bib. Polyg. &c. and so Pet. à Fig. Princi∣pes erant.
• o 1.15

  Zanchi.
• p 1.16

  Pare. Tarnov.
• q 1.17

  Jeroboam & posteri ejus usque ad Ahabum.
• r 1.18

  Jud. 2.11. and 13. 1 Sam. 7.4. and 12.10.
• s 1.19

  See Pareus.
• t 1.20

  Minus fuit peccatum, Rivet; and see Calv. and Zanchi.
• u 1.21

  Mercer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Baal generale Idoli nomen saepe est.
• w 1.22

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 if readd wathan in the singular, an Idol; if, wothon in the plural, Idols.
• x 1.23

  So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mayet also in Arab. so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the dead of the living, which, saith a Poet, is more truly said to be dead, than he that is dead and at rest, Jauhari in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• y 1.24

  Zanchi, Rivet, Tarnov.
• a 1.25

  2 Chron. 13.17. &c.
• b 1.26

  So in the margin in the Interlin, and see Rivet.
• c 1.27

  Demeritum & sententia mortis pro morte, as in that denounced to Adam, In the day that thou eatest, thou shalt surely die, Gen. 2.7. Rivet.
• d 1.28

  See Mercer, Pet. à Fig.
• e 1.29

  2 Kings 10.28.
• f 1.30

  The MS. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the printed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• g 1.31

  Chald.
• h 1.32

  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 1.33

  Rivet, idem ac si diceret de pe∣cunia sua,
• k 1.34

  Pare.
• l 1.35

  Rivet.
• m 1.36

  Is. 46.
• n 1.37

  Ab. Ezra, R. Tanchum, Kimchi.
• o 1.38

  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 1.39

  As if they had readd not tebunam, but tebunath atsabbim.
• q 1.40

  Pet. à Fig.
• r 1.41

  Viz. of Steph. in quarto.
• s 1.42

  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 1.43

  See Spec. cist. Arab. p. 139. &c.
• u 1.44

  See Ps. 115.4. &c. and 135.15.
• w 1.45

  Is. 44.19.
• x 1.46

  Pagnin.
• y 1.47

  Jun. Trem. Cast.
• z 1.48

  Eos, Interlin in margin.
• a 1.49

  Munst.
• b 1.50

  Calvin.
• c 1.51

  Calv. Trem. Geneva English.
• d 1.52

  Of the meaning of which expression see Grotius on Deut. 18.10.
• e 1.53

  See Oecol. Munst.
• f 1.54

  Whose note is, They attribute so much to their calves, that they admit none to kiss them but such as sacrifice their children.
• g 1.55

  Mercer censures him as too nice.
• h 1.56

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• i 1.57

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.58

  Trem. Rivet.
• k 1.59

  And in his notes, qui sacrificaturi erant.
• l 1.60

  Lively, Drus. and other examples by Glass. Gr. l. 3. de nomine Can. 33.
• m 1.61

  See Brenn.
• n 1.62

  Riv. Tarnov. J. H. Ursin.
• o 1.63

  That they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Abarb.
• p 1.64

  Cited by R. Tanchum.
• q 1.65

  Pag. Interlin. in marg.
• r 1.66

  Vindic. p. 788.
• s 1.67

  Chr. à Castro.
• t 1.68

  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.
• u 1.69

  Sunt, Jun. Trem. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yihiu may be rendred either way.
• w 1.70

  Lond. in 4^to 1612. Cambr. 4^to 1637. &c.
• x 1.71

  By the Vulg. Lat. fumarium, by the Chald. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the Syr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 agreeing with Pagnins, ex fenestra, as also Munst. ex camino summo, Jun. Trem.
• y 1.72

  Drus. Schind. Capp. Grot. who all take it from Jerom.
• z 1.73

  Cappel.
• a 1.74

  Cappel. Grot.
• * 1.75

  Abarb.
• b 1.76

  Vulg.
• c 1.77

  Jun. Trem.
• d 1.78

  Drus. and see Rivet
• e 1.79

  Pagnin.
• f 1.80

  Grot.
• g 1.81

  And so the printed Arab. following them.
• h 1.82

  The Arabick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 least that.
• i 1.83

  To this purpose Calvin notes on the place, Cum se Jehovam nominat hee nomine presternit omnes deos fictitios, ac si diceret, Ego certe merito & jure meo sum Deus, ego sum à meipso, ego sum creator mundi &c.
• k 1.84

  Ʋbi praecepi tibi, Chr. à Cast.
• l 1.85

  Tig. Grot.
• m 1.86

  Trem. Riv.
• n 1.87

  Itaque, Vat. Stokes.
• o 1.88

  Nam si unus ille Deus suffecit ad redemptionem populi sui, quidnam sibi vult populus cum vagatur & mentem suam huc vel illuc appliat? Calvin.
• p 1.89

  Nam ea lege redempti erant, ••rem.
• q 1.90

  Pisc.
• r 1.91

  Riv. Capito.
• s 1.92

  Jun. Trem. Lively, Drus.
• t 1.93

  The verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying, experientia quippiam cognoscere, Drus.
• u 1.94

  Pet. à Fig.
• w 1.95

  Calvin, Zanchi, &c.
• x 1.96

  Deut. 4.35, 39. Isaiah 45.5, 6, and 14, 15, 18.
• y 1.97

  And c. 46.9.
• z 1.98

  Trem. Rivet.
• a 1.99

  Kimchi.
• b 1.100

  And compare Ex. 2.25. Ps. 1.8. Prov. 12. Amos 3.2.
• c 1.101

  Crit. S. p. 329.
• d 1.102

  P. 252, and 271. and see Drus.
• e 1.103

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• f 1.104

  See Chald. Ex. 2.24. so some editions of the Vulg. have there, liberavit, Ant. in octavo 1582.
• g 1.105

  Forst. Lex. see Tarnov.
• h 1.106

  Oecol.
• i 1.107

  Jun. Trem. see Lively, Drus.
• k 1.108

  Cocc.
• l 1.109

  His words I put down more at large, because not printed, and because he seems to have led the way to others, as to Ab. Ezra and Kimchi who cites him for it in rad. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and R. Tanchum and Abarb. and to him Bochart refers out of Kimchi.
• m 1.110

  And see Deut. 31. from v. 16. to 20.
• n 1.111

  Deut. 31.16.
• o 1.112

  Matt. 23.32.
• p 1.113

  Or, saith he, pro van conversivo, fer u that turns the future into the preter tense: so Trem. in sensu ipso redundat, ac tantum fuiurum in praeter••••um canvert••.
• q 1.114

  Least I be full and deny thee, Prov. 30.9.
• r 1.115

  Syr. Pag. Jun. Trem.
• s 1.116

  Tig. Munst.
• t 1.117

  Cocc. so the Chaldee, my word hath been to them as &c.
• u 1.118

  Pisc.
• w 1.119

  Viz. by changing the last letter, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shachar, to be black.
• x 1.120

  Though Castal. render it tigris,
• y 1.121

  Under that Abu Zacharia puts it.
• z 1.122

  Or contemplabor, Pisc.
• a 1.123

  Tig. ad viam insidiabor; so Ar. Mont. He∣braice est, insidiabor.
• b 1.124

  According to their usual custom o•• changing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sh, into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 th.
• c 1.125

  As if it were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ashurem, see Buxt. Vindic. against Cap. that objects the want of it.
• d 1.126

  Recta incessit, gressum direxit, Schind.
• e 1.127

  These examples R. Tanchum gives, add Prov. 9.6.
• f 1.128

  Kimchi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• g 1.129

  Ab. Ezra 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• h 1.130

  As in rad. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• i 1.131

  This word is not in the printed copies.
• k 1.132

  Qui grassatur in via, from Pagnin.
• * 1.133

  Bochart p. 788. ex Plin.
• l 1.134

  Yet not alone, as Capp. affirms him to do.
• m 1.135

  R. Salomo, and Abarb.
• n 1.136

  Lively, and see Buxt. Vind. p. 560. and 561.
• o 1.137

  Quando scil. captivi abducentur in Assyriam, Pet. à Fig.
• p 1.138

  Crit. l. 4. p. 307.
• q 1.139

  Pet. à Fig.
• r 1.140

  Adding that it denotes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all clothed with bereavings, and ready to bereave men.
• s 1.141

  See Bochart p. 814.
• t 1.142

  Munst. Pag. Tig. Jun. Trem. MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• u 1.143

  Boch. p. 813.
• w 1.144

  So Boch. p. 802. ut ursa cibo indigens.
• x 1.145

  Id. p. 815.
• y 1.146

  Which word is used also for the diaphragma.
• z 1.147

  So the MS. Arab. renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.148

  Spigel. Anat. l. 9 c. 5.
• b 1.149

  And other more modern much to the same purpuse, as, clausuram cordis corum, Pag. clausum, Drus. claustrum, Cocc. clausura, Grot. praecordia, Jun. Trem. Grot.
• c 1.150

  Clausum pro re clausa Ribera.
• d 1.151

  So they say, the fatness of the heart causeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 foolishness, as appears from Isaiah 6.10. Buxt. Lex. Rabb. in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• e 1.152

  See Calvin.
• f 1.153

  Solet ursus discerpere usque ad cor ipsum, Vat in fol. R. Steph. in other edi∣tions, mos est leonum &c. Solent leones, & truces ferae — pericordium disrumpere, Trem. yet Jon. Trem. refer it to the bear.
• g 1.154

  See Bochart l. 3. c. 2. p. 740.
• h 1.155

  See Chr. à Cast. and Vat. in octavo and quarto.
• i 1.156

  See Bochart p. 719.
• k 1.157

  Immanis leo, Jun. Trem.
• * 1.158

  Capp. p. 221.
• l 1.159

  Schindl. in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• m 1.160

  Threatned Deut. 28.65.
• n 1.161

  Ar. Mont. Pisc. Chr. à Cast. Zanchi, Grotius.
• o 1.162

  Trem.
• p 1.163

  Mercer, Rivet.
• q 1.164

  See Diodati.
• r 1.165

  Jerom. Pelican.
• s 1.166

  Non significant in Deo feritatem aliquam, cum feritas vitium senet, sed po∣tentiam cui resisti non potest, Pet. à Fig.
• t 1.167

  Capito. so Abarb. saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thou hast destroyed and corrupted thy self.
• u 1.168

  Qui∣dam legunt, perditio tua ex te, sed illud ex te, neque est in Hebr. neque in contextu Hieron. subaudir••tamen facile potest, Pet. à Fig.
• w 1.169

  See Pareus in locum.
• x 1.170

  And so in the Tig. and Castal. rendred as a noun, perdi∣tio; so Grot. rendring, depressio tua.
• y 1.171

  See Interlin. of Plantin. in marg. and Rivet and Cocc.
• z 1.172

  Cited by Pareus and Rivet.
• * 1.173

  Quaere nunc quisnam te perdidit.
• a 1.174

  Jun. Trem.
• b 1.175

  And see Drus.
• c 1.176

  See Pare.
• d 1.177

  R. Sal. Pare.
• e 1.178

  Pare.
• f 1.179

  L. de Dieu gives other examples in which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put, although the nominative case only be meant; and see Nold. Concord. yet would the meaning be the same if we should express it thus, because in me is for thy help, or is that which is for thy help.
• g 1.180

  So must 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here be necessarily rendred, though otherwise it be a pronoun signifying that, or which.
• h 1.181

  And so the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in thy corruption; in Cyril 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 C••. thy dispersion.
• i 1.182

  Trem. Cappell.
• k 1.183

  So Munst. ego ero firmus.
• l 1.184

  Pare.
• m 1.185

  J. H. Urs. seems to take much the like meaning, Ero rex tuus, ille: quum jam tot annis vi & ferre intrusit, postea ut populum haberet obsequentem, nihil non molitus, pactus, pollicitus est; ubi ille? viz. their last king Hosea.
• n 1.186

  Jun. Trem. render it vindices, Pisc. per judices intelliguntur hic, ipsi reges; and see Drus.
• o 1.187

  Riv.
• * 1.188

  Ar. Mont.
• p 1.189

  Jerom reports it as from Jews, Eo tempore quo dicebas, da mihi regem & principes, ego tibi respondebam per Sam. quod daturus tibi essem regem in furcre meo, & ablaturus in indignatione mea.
• q 1.190

  He adds a note that he renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will take, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as taking it to be in the same signification as in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and they took, i.e. took away all the goods of Sodom, Gen. 14.11.
• r 1.191

  Nobilius.
• s 1.192

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there be who so interpret it, saith Kimchi.
• t 1.193

  Dr. Stokes.
• u 1.194

  1 K. 11.9. &c.
• w 1.195

  Brenn.
• x 1.196

  So the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is looked on to denote, such as, modum transit, Drus. &c.
• y 1.197

  Tarnov.
• z 1.198

  Eccl. 8.11.
• a 1.199

  Ps. 73.11.
• b 1.200

  The same word is in the Chaldee used Deut. 32.34. compare Rom. 2.5. and James 5.3.
• c 1.201

  Madhcuraton, so I take it to be, though in the Hebrew characters it might seem to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 madhburaton.
• d 1.202

  Pag.
• e 1.203

  Calv. Cocc.
• f 1.204

  Apud me, Pag.
• g 1.205

  Ligata peccata dicuntur quae non remissa in poenam retinentur, as Matt. 16.19. Rivet.
• h 1.206

  Drus.
• i 1.207

  Pet. à Fig. Zanchi, Rivet.
• * 1.208

  Yet Drus. conjectures they rendred it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not, which was corrupted into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, thine, which seems more probable than to say with Cappell, that instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Hebrew non, they did read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tib••, to thee, or thine.
• * 1.209

  So Polyg. Lond. from the Roman copy.
• k 1.210

  Drus.
• l 1.211

  Ribera.
• m 1.212

  Jun. Trem.
• n 1.213

  Tig.
• o 1.214

  Trem.
• p 1.215

  Capp.
• q 1.216

  Cedr.
• r 1.217

  Munster.
• s 1.218

  Interlin. Drus.
• t 1.219

  Capito.
• u 1.220

  As also the Syr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 now.
• w 1.221

  Drus. Capp.
• x 1.222

  See Tremel.
• y 1.223

  As likewise Is. 37.3.
• z 1.224

  R. Tanchum.
• a 1.225

  Tarnov.
• b 1.226

  Quamvis siquis hanc interpretationem simul cum nostra recipiat, non admodum repugnarim.
• c 1.227

  L. de Dieu.
• d 1.228

  Hebraea obscura, Merc.
• e 1.229

  Brenn.
• * 1.230

  Abarb.
• f 1.231

  Buxt. The MS. Arab. renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, making the whole verse to sound, From the hand of the grave I will redeem them, and from death I will free them; I will be a plague to death, and destruction to the grave, using 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sheol.
• g 1.232

  Abuwalid observes it so to have in Hebrew, as likewise 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Arab. the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to perish, or be destroyed, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be the same that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• h 1.233

  Jauhar.
• i 1.234

  Tribuitur etiam avibus, ut plurimum gallinaceis, Steph. Lexic.
• k 1.235

  Annot. in V. Test. incerto Autore.
• l 1.236

  Wherefore some think him to have changed the order of the words, Drusius.
• m 1.237

  Rivet.
• n 1.238

  Ibid. p. 410.
• o 1.239

  Theodor.
• p 1.240

  Acts 13.46.
• q 1.241

  1 Cor. 6.20.
• r 1.242

  As he is called Job 19.25.
• s 1.243

  There shall no torment touch them, Wisd. 3.1.
• t 1.244

  Rev. 2.11.
• u 1.245

  Ibid. c. 20.6.
• w 1.246

  2 Cor. 5.10.
• x 1.247

  Among which seem the English of Geneva, whose note is, Because they will not turn to me, I will not change my purpose; yet do they render the word, repentance.
• y 1.248

  Abarbinel.
• z 1.249

  Cyril, Ribera.
• a 1.250

  Raimund. Pugio Fid. 483, and 489. Galatin. l. 8.1.21.
• b 1.251

  The Geneva, Though he grew up &c.
• c 1.252

  Jerem. 11.12.
• d 1.253

  Calvin, Zanchi.
• e 1.254

  Pestifer in illis locis, Grot.
• f 1.255

  Ostenditur situs Assyriae, Grot. see Lively, Rivet.
• g 1.256

  See Calvin.
• h 1.257

  Ab. Ezra and Kimchi take it so to be.
• i 1.258

  So I suppose must be readd in him, not pro, see in Pool.
• k 1.259

  Rivet, Zanchi subintelligendus hujus fructifica∣tionis abusus.
• l 1.260

  See Trem.
• * 1.261

  See Trem. Drus. and Capp.
• m 1.262

  Perhaps it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 achvatan, the fraternity.
• n 1.263

  Tremell. &c.
• o 1.264

  J. H. Ursin.
• p 1.265

  Tremell.
• q 1.266

  Trem. Cappel.
• r 1.267

  So Menoch.
• s 1.268

  Vatab. edit. 4^to. and 8^vo. but Rivet wonders that he should be pleased with this conceit.
• t 1.269

  Compare 2 Kings 2.19.-21.
• u 1.270

  See Calvin, Trem. Mercer, Oecol. Zanchi, Grotius, Stokes.
• w 1.271

  See also Ar. Mont.
• x 1.272

  Ezek. 6.6.
• y 1.273

  Symm. otherwise, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shall repent.
• z 1.274

  Calvin, Tig. Munst. Stokes.
• a 1.275

  Trem. Rivet.
• b 1.276

  So Grot. quasi à 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, melius alii 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quia rebellavit.
• c 1.277

  Trem. Rivet.
• d 1.278

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vehariothau yebukkau, though the noun be the feminine gender and the verb passive the masculin, yet both being expressed and the sense plain, we are not to stand on nicety of Grammar: see Ab. Ezra, Enallage generis, Drus.
• e 1.279

  Lively out of Horace, Grot. out of Homer.
• f 1.280

  See Joel 2.14. Jonah 3.9, 10.
• g 1.281

  See Jer. 28.8, 9. Ezek. 33.14. &c.