A commentary on the prophecy of Hosea by Edward Pococke.

V. 8. Ephraim shall say, what have I to do any more with Idols? I have heard him, and observed him: I am like a green fir-tree, from me is thy fruit found.

Ephraim shall say, what have I to do any more with Idols? Of the connexion of these words with the foregoing we shall best judge, when we have looked into the meaning of them. They are in the Hebrew simply 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ephraim mah li od leatsabbim Ephraim quid mihi ultra ad Idola, or x 1.1 dolo∣res, or y 1.2 cum Idolis? Ephraim what have I to do any more with Idols? There is no sign ex∣pressed which may shew what case Ephraim is to be taken in; some therefore take it as in the vocative case, as much as to say, z 1.3 O Ephraim; and so the words, these first as well as the fol∣lowing, will be the words of God speaking. In the explaining what it is that he speaks there is difference between their expressions, yet most tending to this, that they are a calling on them from him no more to have to do with Idols, no more to a 1.4 join them with him, who alone is sufficient for them, without b 1.5 need of them, and therefore requires that they serve him alone, on him alone depend, and casting away their Idols serve him alone.

Abarbinel among the Jews (and among the Latins Arias Montanus following him) makes them to sound as much as, O Ephraim, what have I to talk, or speak, to thee any more of Idols, and to reprove thee for them, and shew that they are shamefull things, and have no power to save thee, seeing I have already spoken enough in this kind? &c. as he will then have the following words to sound, as in their place we shall see. By these we see Ephraim is taken in the vocative case, but by others in the nominative, and so to be the person repre∣presented speaking these words, and in them renouncing and disclaiming Idols, and therefore the note of distinction or accent in the Hebrew, as c 1.6 they think, requiring some∣thing to be understood to make the constru∣ction plain in other languages, supply a verb to be governed, which ours, choosing this way, make to be, shall say, or let him say, as divers others, both ancient and modern, like∣wise do. So the Chaldee Paraphrast, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 those of the house of Israel shall say, what have we any more to serve Idols? So the Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & dicet Ephraim, quid mihi ultra & Idolis? and Ephraim shall say, what have I any more to do with Idols? The MS. Arab. looks also on it as what Ephraim said, or shall say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ephraim said, what of profit is to me from Idols? or as he saith it may be rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what is to me and Idols? i. e. what have I to do with them? In the same way go the Rabbinical expositors also. R. Salomo explains it, Ephraim shall say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what have I any more to go after Idols? & so shall he return from Idolatry. R. Tanchum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what have we to do with them, i. e. what is the need of them? illustrating the construction and use of the repeated particles in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the like expression Jer. 2.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what hast thou to do in, or with, the way of Egypt? Aben Ezra also, when Ephraim shall say, what have I to do any more &c? I have no need of them. Kimchi also, and then (viz. when things are so as in the pre∣ceding words described) Ephraim shall say, what have I any more to do with Idols? for while I did serve 'them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all evil be∣fell me; but now I serve God, all this good shall be, or is, to me, and then shall God say as follows. The Author of the Vulgar Latin, Ephraim quid mihi ultra Idola? without expressing the particle in the later word, yet Englished by those of Doway as if it had it, what have I to do any more with Idols? may seem at first to take in the former way Ephraim for the voca∣tive case, as if they were the words of God speaking to him; yet do d 1.7 some ranck him among those that take it in the nominative, un∣derstanding also the word, dicent, shall say, as those whom we have mentioned, besides others whom it will not be necessary to men∣tion, do. And this way Rivet prefers before the former, as thinking the words so rendred, what have I any more to do with Idols? to be more agreeable and proper to penitent Ephraim than to God; and there seems reason for it, in as much as Israel had had to do with Idols before, but e 1.8 God never had, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 od, any more, seems to intimate that those so saying had formerly had to do with them, and had respect to them.

This inconvenience is by some, who yet take the word in the vocative case, O Ephraim,

remov'd by changing the person in the pronoun from the first to the second reading, not, Quid mihi? what have I? but, quid tibi? what hast thou to do any more with Idols? So f 1.9 Mercer, saying that the change of the person, obscuri∣tatem parit, makes the sentence more obscure, and that therefore he would choose to use the se∣cond person. Yet will the words without that altering the person give no obscure meaning, and such as will not be liable to any mis∣interpretation, they in that way literally with∣out supply or alteration sounding, Ephraim, what is to me any more and to Idols? which will make plainly this sense, what likeness to, or what g 1.10 concord with, Idols have I, or is there to me, that thou shouldest continue to join me with them, or any more join them with me? yet may we think that ours do well in taking the other way, making Ephraim the nomina∣tive case, and supplying, shall say. Grotius makes out the sense by a different supply in a different place of the sentence, viz. of cur∣rit, before the last word, and h 1.11 without respect of the signification of the pronoun in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to me, farther than so as to make with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mah an interrogation, as if they sounded, Ephraim quid ultra ad Idola currit? why doth Ephraim any longer run to Idols? i. e. cur adhuc Ephraimi∣tae Idola colunt, cur non ab eis discedunt? why do those of Ephraim yet serve Idols, why do they not depart from them?

What case the LXX here take Ephraim in, or how they distinguish the words, we are left uncertain, by reason of the different read∣ings in the several copies thereof, i 1.12 some having 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so joining it with the pre∣ceding word in the foregoing verse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, making it sound, of Libanus of Ephraim; some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the dative, which then will sound, of Libanus to Ephraim, which will be much the same in sense if the words be joined, but if it be separated from Libanus, and begin a new verse, as in k 1.13 others it doth, then will it re∣quire something to be supplied, as perhaps, say, or let it be said, to Ephraim, or ask Ephraim what he hath yet to do with Idols? or as to Ephraim, what hath he to do &c? or the like. In others there is no article at all, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. what hath he &c? which is still, as for Ephraim, what &c? or let Ephraim say what he hath &c. then the article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to me, they seem to change into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to him, which change of person we have above seen some to think here to be conducing to the plainer meaning of the words. In some that word is quite left out, and then they will sound, Ephraimo quid adhuc cum Idolis? this being observed their meaning is plain, viz. as a de∣mand from God what they any more should have to do with Idols, and so intimating that they had no reason to follow them.

The result according to all is this, that converted Ephraim, all that come into Gods Church, neither ought nor will have any thing to do with Idols, or look to or depend on any for good but God alone, whether we take them as spoken from God declaring that they ought not, or as to be uttered by them to declare that they will not, as above they are directed to do v. 3. What reason there is for both, is farther declared in the following words, which are by ours looked on as the words of God, describing how his carriage to them hath been and shall be, upon their con∣version to him.

I have heard him and observed him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ani aniti veashurenu. According to such different significations as the roots of these verbs are looked on to have, are here different interpretations of the place given, as the Inter∣preters thought such or such most agreeable to it. Notions that to the first, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 anah, are attributed, are of humbling, speaking, an∣swering, or hearing, and each of these are here by some taken. The LXX take that first named, rendring it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I have humbled him, supplying the accusative case of the person to be governed of it, which is not expressed in the Hebrew. With them in this fully agree the Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and likewise the printed Arabick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Among the Latin Interpreters, the Tigurine version may be reckoned with these, having ego adflixi eum, and such as Oecolampadius saith render humiliavi, perhaps he means the Septuagint. As to the second verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 veashurenu, being regularly from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shur, the usual significations attributed to it, besides that of singing, which seems not so much to pertain to this place, are l 1.14 to direct, fixe or set ones eyes upon, to behold, and, curavit, animad∣vertit, sollicite observavit, to take care of, to mark, and diligently observe, and that whether for good or m 1.15 evil. The primary signification of it n 1.16 some will have to be, recta intendere, seu extendere, distendere, & dirigere, to stretch right out, to extend, distend, and to direct, and thence the other notions, as of singing it being understood of the voice, and of directing to, or setting on, the eyes, to flow. The LXX here render it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will strengthen him; the Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will glorify him, or celebrate him. That of the LXX and Arab. may well enough agree, and be reduced to some of

those notions of directing, and looking after, or taking care of, as well as, and more regularly than to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ashar, as it signifies to go right, or to direct ones goings &c. to which o 1.17 some re∣fer it. That of the Syriack may also without straining be reduced to the same notions of the theme, though more plainly to the notion of singing, their word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying glo∣rificare, celebrare, and canere, that so it may import that those whom he had humbled or made low, he would set again in a laudable and glorious condition, like the tree described in the following words, for those also he joins with these. According to these the reason included in these words, why they should or would disclaim having any more to do with Idols, is because all the disposal of things to them was only from God, and the Idols of themselves neither did p 1.18 nor could do good or hurt to them, neither the affliction that they were in was brought on them by their power, though for their sakes, nor could they take it off from them, and restore them to strength and prosperity. This Cyril looks on as the scope of them.

The same notion of the first verb, viz. that of humbling, some also among the Jews take, but with a different construction, and to a different meaning. So R. Tanchum in the first of three interpretations which he thinks the words to be capable of, cites it as rendred with the other, veashurenu, following it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I have humbled, or humbly inclined, my self, or condescended, when I saw it, (perhaps, when I saw him renouncing Idols, if we read it lamma; or to what I have seen, if we read lema) i. e. saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I have condescended from my due, and have not exacted it of him as it might be exacted. His words seem to me obscure, except perhaps he would have it meant, that God upon their disclaiming Idols presently should or would shew favour to them; so that their turning from them had or should have present effects for good to them. However by this it is ma∣nifest that they took the first verb in the no∣tion of humbling, as the LXX did, though in a different sense from them, the Greek under∣standing it of Gods humbling them, and sup∣plying 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; these of Gods humbling himself.

In the second verb they take a different no∣tion, viz. of seeing, not of strengthening. Others differ from them in both. So a second In∣terpretation by R. Tanchum mentioned, takes the first verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aniti in the notion of speaking to, as it is used Deut. 26.5. and the second 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ashurenu, in the notion of seeing, so as to sound, I have commanded that the wor∣ship of Idols be left off, but I see that you do serve and worship them in opposition to me, so that the intention of them should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not this a shamefull thing in you so to do? and so would the words be a reproof of them for not leaving their Idols when God had commanded them to do it, and not a rea∣son why they had left them, or were resolv'd to leave them. In this way there seeme re∣quired many supplies, which make it also obscure. A third interpretation which he brings is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when I say to Ephraim (or, if the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be redundant, as proba∣bly it is, when Ephraim shall say) what have I to do with Idols? I will answer and will look on him, i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when he hath repented I will have a care of him or an∣swer his desires, that so the signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 anah here may be agreeable to that notion in which it is taken, where it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mony answereth all things, Eccles. 10.9. and so the meaning, that when he hath re∣pented 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will look upon him with my providence; and with this last ex∣position do such, as are by other Jews chief∣ly given, agree. So that of R. Salomo, who explains the first verb by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will answer, or hear, him out of his affliction; and the second, ashurenu, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will look upon his affliction. Aben Ezra also, when Ephraim shall say &c. I will answer, or hear him, so as to give all his desire, citing likewise for this use of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 anah, that place out of Eccles. which was before men∣tioned. Kimchi also to the same purpose, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will look upon him in an accepted time, that it may be contrary to what he elsewhere saith, I will hide my face from them, Deut. 31.17. Abarbinel also cites this as the common exposition of their Interpre∣ters, observing withall that they take the first word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is in form the preterper∣fect tense, to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the place of the future, I have heard, for, I will hear, viz. presently without delay, & certainly as if I had already heard them; but he himself chooseth to give another exposition, to wit, in pur∣suance of his exposition of the foregoing words which we have seen, as if both they as well as these were all the words of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I have spoken to thee these things, viz. that thou shouldest no more have ought to do with Idols, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and I also will observe him, to look after him to see whether he will any more return to his folly and the worship of Idols or no,

and, or for, I change not, for I am still as a green fir tree, remaining still without change &c. as follows. But, though he preferre this way of his own before that of the others before him, I know not what reason we have to do so. Ac∣cording to them the MS. Arabick renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I have answered him, and will cast mine eye upon him. Most modern In∣terpreters among Christians also rather, and perhaps not without good ground, agree with them, as ours do, with some little difference between them, especially in that whereas the first of the verbs is in form of the preterper∣fect, the second of the future tense, some render both as of the preter tense, others both as of the future, others both in neither of them, others each so as they are in the He∣brew. Hence are these various rendrings; 1. ego q 1.19 respondi & respexi, I have answered and looked upon; so the Geneva English, I have heard him and looked upon him, as well as our later, I have heard him and observed him; 2. r 1.20 exau∣diam & respiciam, s 1.21 aut contemplabor, I will hear and will look upon; 3. t 1.22 ego exaudio; aut respondeo, & respicio, I do hear, or answer, and look unto; 4. u 1.23 respondi & contemplabor eum, I have heard and will look upon him, yet with this note (perhaps without cause) set on the first word, praeteritum pro certissime futuro, that the preter is for the future, shewing it shall most certainly so be, and so to sound, certisfi∣me exaudiam, I will most certainly hear. Yet this certainly is most literally agreeing to the Hebrew, wherein the first verb is of the preter form, and the second of the future, and as so to be taken, as R. Tanchum observes the vowel Patach under the conjunction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ve to shew, whereas if it were to be taken for the preter∣perfect, it should be Kamets. Yet do all these mean while well agree as to the signification of the words, nor much differ as to the mean∣ing, all looking on them as shewing what great reason there was that Ephraim should clearly abandon Idols and cleave to God, be∣cause of the unprofitableness of them, and the great benefit of Gods service; though as to the circumstances of the time when this was or should be made manifest to them, they differ, while some refer it to such benefits that those who are called Ephraim had already found and enjoined in serving God, and had assurance of still enjoying, such as they never found from Idols, who neither could hear them, nor answer them, or grant their re∣quests, and that therefore they ought to aban∣don Idols and their service, and should re∣solve so to do, and so their experience thereof in these latter words be the reason why they should or did say as in the preceding, what have I to do any more with Idols? though in the order of the words the effect does precede. This way Calvin thinks the best, under∣standing both verses, as we have seen, in the preterperfect tense as ours also do, or in the present as others. Others look upon it w 1.24 as a declaration of what God would certainly do upon their repentance or casting off their Idols and turning to him, so to move them to repent and turn, and therefore take both in the future tense, as telling of what should follow on their so doing, that they might see what reason they had to do it. In the last way, which is literally agreeable to the Hebrew, both these will be joined, as shewing what they had found, and what they should find, of good in God, and so giving as a reason of their conversion, so a reason why they should pro∣ceed in, and adhere constantly to God alone.

These likewise agree in their construction and distinction of the words, making these mentioned one clause, and then the other fol∣lowing another, farther describing how good God was or would be to them, I am, ac∣cording to ours and others, and I will be, as others supply there also the future, a green fir-tree, from me is, or shall be, thy fruit found, ordering the tenses as they did in these words, and on the same ground.

The same construction and distinction have we likewise in the LXX, and in both Arabick versions, and in all the Jewish Expositors which we have mentioned. But the Vulgar Latin, though as to the signification of the words, and as to the scope of them, it will agree with some of them, yet as to these, viz. the construction and distinction of the words, it is different from them all, as will appear by a view of its reading, which is, ego exau∣diam & dirigam eum ut abietem virentem, which those of Doway English, I will hear and di∣rect him as a verdant fir-tree. In this rendring both the construction, distinction and order of the words, and the nature of the com∣parison, is altered from what it is in the others; the second verb ashurenu, by them rendred, I will direct, doth not, as in those, end a clause but continue it, taking into con∣struction with it the following words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ani cibrosh, the first of which, ani, they put before it in the construction, which is in the Hebrew in place after it, and by the other Interpreters made to begin a new clause, and to require as understood with it the verb sub∣stantive, am; then the second, cibrosh, as a fir-tree, they make to be governed of dirigam, and in the accusative case, as pertaining to the person by the pronoun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 him in it denoted

and spoken of, whereas according to the others it is the nominative case, and refers to the person speaking, so that the nature of the comparison is clean altered in it; in the other ways he that is compared to such a tree is God himself, he that speaks; in this, those of whom he speaks, viz. Ephraim.

x 1.25 There be who so expound those words as not to make dirigam have that influence on abietem, but understand another verb after ego, which they then separate from it by a pause, as beginning a new clause, thus, ego exaudiam & dirigam eum, ego ut abietem virentem, subaudi, faciam, I will hear and di∣rect him, I (will make him) as a green fir-tree; but still though the distinction of the words be by that means altered, is the comparison un∣derstood in the same different way, viz. so that Ephraim, and not God, be the person compared to the tree. The same way in making it, as likewise in the construction and distinction, doth the Syriack also (whom we have mentioned) take, rendring, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Latin Translator renders, Et ego glorificabo eum quasi pinum opacam, and I will make him glorious as a thick pine tree. The same way doth the Chaldee Paraphrase also go, whose explication of the whole verse is, Those of the house of Israel shall say, what have we to do any more to serve Idols? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. I in my word will accept the prayers of Israel, and will love, or be mercifull to, him; I in my word will make him like fair fir-trees, in as much as there is found y 1.26 from, or before, me remission upon their repentance. In this Paraphrase we may by the way consider whether or no he do not point out as the time when, and the person in whom, these things should be made good, the time of Christ and his coming, by his putting in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bememri, in, or by, my word, it being known and confessed by Jews as well as Chri∣stians, that by that word memra, the Messias or Christ is often in the Chaldee Paraphrase of the Old Testament designed, who is in the New Testament called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the word. To return; notwithstanding this difference be∣twixt those who follow these two ways in the construction, and ordering, and applying of these words, they agree all in the general scope of them, that they are a declaration of great good and mercy from God to those, that abandoning Idols and false hopes, cleave only to him and depend on him, and are an assurance and promise to them of finding it so. But Abarbinel (as above we said) takes the words in a clean contrary way, as rather mi∣natory, and a threat to them, if they shall not turn from Idols and abandon them; and there∣fore having so rendred the former words, as we have said, makes the latter to sound, as in confirmation of what he threatned, and I change not, for I am as a green fir-tree, constant∣ly remaining the same without change, and there∣fore know thou that thy fruit shall be found from me, and that fruit shall be according to thy works, i. e. if ye shall be willing and hearken, ye shall eat the good of the land; but if ye refuse and rebell, ye shall be devoured by the sword, for the fruit shall certainly be in due manner. Arias Montanus seems to follow him in it, but I think there is no reason to forsake the way that our Transla∣tors and others take, according to whom as the first words are a declaration of what good they had found and should find from God on their sincere conversion to him, and include a promise that they should still find the like, that he had & would have continually both his ears and eyes open to them and on them for good; so are the latter a further confirmation and il∣lustration of the same, by way of comparison expressing how he was and always would be to them, saying, I am like a green fir tree, from me is thy fruit found, whether we understand what is spoken as of what is, or of what shall be, seeing we speak of God with whom is no alte∣ration or change of time, but all things pre∣sent, it will be all one.

I am, or according to others, will be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cibrosh raanan, as a green fir tree, say ours, and so many, yea most, others; as the Vulgar Latin renders it, abietem virentem, but the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the La∣tin Translator renders, sicut juniperus condensa. The printed Arabick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Latin Interpreter renders, similis arbori cypressinae uberrimae, like to a most fruitfull cypress tree, but I know not for what reason, seeing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 arar in Arabick is a known name for the Juniper, not the Cy∣press tree. The MS. Arab. renders it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 alsharbin, but Abuwalid thinks that to be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 taashur, Is. 41.19. as also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the ancienter Rabbins, and to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a kind of Cedar. It is by ours there in Isaiah rendred, the Boxe tree, and it must be then different from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which there is named as distinct from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In the z 1.27 Arabick Writers of simples it seems to be made all one with Dioscorides his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ce∣drus, his words being by them taken in the

description of it, viz. that it is a great tree out of which comes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: it bears fruit, saith Dioscorides, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, like that of the a 1.28 Juniper tree; they say like that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Cypress tree. And the Author of Ma la yasa reckons it among the species of the Cy∣press. Ebn Bitar saith there is a lesser prickly sort of it, which bears a fruit like that of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 arar, or Juniper. in Isaiah c. 55. v. ult. in both Arabick versions the same word is rendred by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The same Author of the Arabick MS. saith it may here be also otherwise rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 albarutha, which agrees in letters with the Hebrew name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here according to the ordinary change between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and I look on it as the Chaldee name of the same tree. The Sy∣riack, as we said, renders b 1.29 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin Translator renders, pinum, a pine tree; but in the c 1.30 chief Syriack Lexicographers it is said to be a great tree with many leafes on, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an almond tree. Abuwalid and R. Tanchum say of it, that it is a kind of cedar. Arias Montanus renders it buxus. That there should be a difference and ambi∣guity in rendring the names of plants or ani∣mals among such who lived not in the place where those things were, and saw and heard what was so or so called, is no wonder. Hence such variety in such cases, not only in different Interpreters, but even in the same when such names occur; as for instance here in the LXX, this very word they render sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a fir tree; sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a cypress; sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a cedar; sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a fir; sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a tree of Libanus; sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a pine; sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, usually taken for a juniper, yet may it be doubted whether they might not mean a cedar, for which also the word d 1.31 is observed to be used. The Epithet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 raanan, green, joined with the tree spoken of, shews that it was such as kept its leafes, and did not cast them as others do; and therefore these Interpreters all, however as to the particular tree they dif∣fer, yet generally pitch on such as are of that nature, perpetually green and flourishing: and in that regard which ever of them it be taken for, God may be compared to it in respect of his continuing the same without change, which is that respect for which Abarbinel thinks him to liken himself to it; and Ephraim also, whom Jerom and the Syriack and Chaldee think here compared to such a tree in regard to a constant flourishing condition, which they take God here to promise that he will continue them in. But according to the others whom ours follow, God is looked on as comparing himself to such a tree as is named, not only in respect of its perpetual verdure, but in re∣spect to such benefit which men by reason thereof receive by it, as shade or refreshment, shelter and protection from it, and therefore may be well thought meant some of the noblest among them which are perpetually green, and fit for that purpose.

Of that tree by the LXX named 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Cyril saith that it is a tree so thick, so clad with leafes, that it may seem a roof or shed artificially made with hands, not to be pierced either by the sun, or by e 1.32 any, though most vio∣lent, rains; so that God promising to be to them as such a tree, promiseth that they shall find from him or in him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a very safe shelter and help. Of the same tree Jerom saith that it is of that na∣ture, ut semper floreat, that it always flou∣risheth, semper novos afferat fructus & nun∣quam deponat virorem suum, always bringeth forth new fruit and never changeth its verdure, that it defends those that rest under it from the heat of this world &c. that it gives fruit, and not only, dormientibus requiem & sedentibus, refreshment to those that sleep or sit under it, sed & saturitatem vescentibus, but what may satis∣fy those that eat. R. Salomo also saith of the tree here meant by berosh raanan, that it is a tree 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that may be bowed down to the ground, so that a man may take hold of the boughs thereof; so that the meaning is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will be found of him, or ready at hand to him. Kimchi also gives the like meaning, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will be to thee as berosh raanan whose top men bow down towards its roots, and explains it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. so I dwelt in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, Isaiah 57.15. and so Mercer gives us their meaning, Some of the Jews, saith he, do refer the comparison to a green leafy fir tree, in that such a one may be bended whether soever you list, and to denote that God thereby promiseth that he will be facile and exo∣rable to grant their desires. Capito likewise, bowing down my majesty I will exhibit my self to him easy to be taken hold of as he lists, and to meet his desires becoming like a fir tree of mount Li∣banus, which as it always pleasantly flourisheth with green leafes, so bends down its boughs to a man, by which means, quidvis ramorum decer∣pere liceat, he may gather any thing from them. But what kind of tree that is, which is by the name meant, they do not express by giving us

any other name of it, and we may well think they mean a fir, as Mercer translates it; yet Kimchi in his book of roots, or Dictionary, saith, as we have seen others do, it is a species or kind of cedar, which in the vulgar tongue of the country where he lived, viz. the Spanish, was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 boxe, as f 1.33 others also here ren∣der it. * 1.34 How many kinds of cedar they make I know not, nor will it much concern us to be sollicitous about it, seeing on all hands it is agreed that the tree here meant is such as is constantly green and flourishing, and fit at all times to yield refreshment, shade, and shelter against all injuries of weather, sun or rain, and so sets forth the constant duration and unal∣terable condition of him that is compared to it; and so if it be referred to God (which way ours with many others well take for the best) denotes that they keeping neer to him shall in him, or from him, find constant re∣freshment, shelter, and protection against all evils injurious either to their souls or bodies; or if it be referred to them, then that God will keep them in a constant prosperous con∣dition. In either way I think that no signifi∣cation is more conveniently given to the word than that which the Vulgar Latin, and among divers others ours both here and elsewhere, as also Lexicographers most usually give it, viz. that of the fir-tree.

A very great benefit is this of such constant shelter and protection, here in this compara∣tive expression promised, to those to whom it belongs, yet doth he not stop here, but to shew that they shall find from him not only defence against evils, but supply also of all things good and convenient for them, he adds, from me is thy fruit found. That is plain∣ly a literal rendring of the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mimmeni piryeca nimtsa, as they are likewise to the same purpose by other Inter∣preters generally rendred; so by the LXX, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; the printed Arabick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ex me invenitur fructus tuus; the MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the same signification something more pun∣ctually, as expressing by a participle that which in the Hebrew is so, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nimtsa, found, leaving necessarily, is, to be understood, whereas for supply of that both the Greek and printed Arab. express it in another tense, as also others do for supply of what may de∣note, is. The Syriack with change of numbers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and from me are, or have been, thy fruits found. The Vulgar Latin, ex me fructus tuus inventus est, that with which most g 1.35 other Latin versions agree. Cal∣vin instead of ex me, hath à me, both signifying from me; and instead of inventus est, Jun. and Trem. have, praesto est, is ready at hand, yet noting that the word literally signifies, inve∣nitur, is found, and so h 1.36 some others also. i 1.37 Piscator would have it rather be, praesto erit, shall be at hand. Castalio hath, extat, is ex∣tant, to the same purpose. We cannot say that between these is any difference, and they all agree in rendring the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mimmeni, from me; yet here shall we find in our former English Translators, both the Geneva and that other used formerly in our Churches, that it is rendred on me, both having upon me is thy fruit found. I cannot think that they took the preposition here properly to signify k 1.38 otherwise than our later Translators did, but that they did it to avoid an ambiguity which the words might otherwise seem to have in them; for when we say, from me is thy fruit found, it may be asked whether this fruit from God be meant of such as is found in God himself for them, or such as is found in them from God's inabling them to bear it. They seem to explain that they understood it of such as is in, with, or on, God himself, and from him to be found of them; for it is not agreed on between Expositors which of these meanings is to be taken, the words seeming indifferent to either. That which God yeelds and gives to them to enjoy, and that which he enables them to bear, may both be called their fruit, and both be said to be from him; and some therefore understand the words being so ambiguous the one way, some the other.

The Jewish Expositors take the first way; so Kimchi, thus connecting these words with the former, If thou shalt say a fir-tree is not a tree that bringeth forth fruit, thy fruit l 1.39 is found from me at all times and in all seasons. So Aben Ezra, Fear not because a fir-tree hath not fruit, for thy fruit is found from me. R. Tan∣chum more plainly, giving the connexion be∣tween these and the foregoing words, thus, God in opposition to Idols in which is no profit, declaring himself to be him who would govern them, and would be ready at hand to them in all their needs, and supply them with all good things and blessings, makes use of a comparison taken from a m 1.40 sappy tree, from whose shade shadow may be had, and from whose fruit, food. That which he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 like a green fir tree, de∣notes defence, and yielding shade, or overshadowing, it being a sort of cedar in n 1.41 other places mentioned: but then, saith he, he declareth that he is not

as a fir-tree in all respects; for a fir tree de∣fendeth with its shadow but bears no fruit, but he both constantly defends from hurt and supplies with good, from me, saith he, is thy fruit found. In this way it appears that the Chaldee Para∣phrast (whose words we have seen) did also take these last words, (though in the former he looks on them, and not God, to be likened to a fir-tree,) while he interprets the fruit spoken of, of the remission of their sins on their repentance, which is in God, and not in them. This way several also of the Latin Expositors take, as we think Jerom to do in his explaining of the Seventies version, while he saith of the tree spoken of, that it yeelds not only rest to those that sleep or sit under it, but also saturitatem vescentibus, that which shall satis∣fy those that feed on it. But several of the mo∣dern speak plainer, whose expositions we may take summed up in Rivets words, From me is thy fruit found, i. e. thou shalt find in me not only shade under which thou maiest lie hid and rest, but also, o 1.42 uberes fructus quibus, alere te possis, plenty of fruit on which thou maiest feed; as if he should say, I will make thee to per∣ceive, omne tuum bonum ex me solo esse, that all thy good (or the good that thou dost enjoy) is from me alone. So Pareus, ego etiam praeter naturam in abiete virente fructus pro∣ducam, I also differently from what is by nature in a green fir-tree will bring forth fruit. Grotius also seems so to take it, explaining it, apud me semper fuit operae tuae pretium, which we may look on as Englished by Dr. Stokes, thou hast never done any thing for me, O Ephraim, but it hath been found that I have answered it to thee with the fruit of a high reward: he seems to take fruit for a reward, as we saw Abarbinel to do, but still that is from God, not from them∣selves. But several others take the other way, understanding it of such fruit as shall by God inabling them be brought forth by them; so Drusius explains 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 piryac, thy fruit, by, opera tua, thy works. So Diodati saith it may be understood of the Elects good works, brought forth in them by the power of Gods grace and spirit. Bishop Hall ac∣cording to this way paraphraseth it, Whatso∣ever fruit thou yeeldest it shall be of my giving, thou shalt be beholden to me for it. In this way, ex me, from me, will be as Piscator explains it, me procurante, by my procuring, or by my bringing it to pass. This way would seem better to agree with that way of rendring the former words, which we have seen the Vul∣gar & some others to give, according to which not God but Ephraim is looked on as com∣pared to a fir-tree, as if God should say, I will after thy turning to me make thee as a green fir∣tree tall of growth, and floridly green. But then, because a fir-tree which is so indeed beautifull, is yet otherwise unfruitfull, he adds, from me is thy fruit found, as if he should say, as thou shalt have from me the verdure and fairness of a fir tree, so shalt thou have also this added, that thou shalt bear fruit, which property a fir-tree hath not; and hereby shalt thou know this, that that thou aboundest in fruit, is the gift of my kind∣ness, not the work of nature; as if any should find fruit on a fir-tree, such fruit as it doth not ordinarily bear, he would know it to be an extraordinary benefit from some other, not the vertue of its nature. So doth Rivet also summe up this meaning, and withall notes, that though it be no incommodious sense, yet the former, minus coacta est, is less forced.

In this way here is but one tree looked on as from which a comparison is in different re∣spects taken: first in respect of its perpetual flourishing and gratefull shade; secondly in respect of its fruitfulness. p 1.43 Calvin for making out the meaning thinks that here is not a com∣parison to one tree only, in which should by the power of God such an extraordinary pro∣perty of fruitfulness be found, which is not usually found in trees of that kind, but that there are two comparisons put together, one taken from a fir-tree, which is fair and other∣wise beneficial, as for shade and shelter, but bears not fruit; the other from another tree that yeeldeth plenty of good fruit, and that God compares himself to both, in as much as they shall from him find the benefit of both, both that which answers to the shade and shelter of a fir-tree, and the fruit of the other: as if God should thus bespeak them, that if they be wise they will content themselves with his grace alone, quoniam qui ab ipso alimenta quae∣runt saturabuntur, because they that seek ali∣mony from him shall be satisfied; for they shall find in and from him, fructum copiosum & sa∣tis uberem, sufficient plenty of fruit, all things convenient for them, for this life and the better. Mean while those two respects in which the fruit sound from God may be taken, for either that which is from him to us, or from him in us, are so necessarily joined, that as the ex∣pression may denote both, so we cannot al∣most but understand and take in both toge∣ther. Among the chief of such fruit as we receive from him, being power and grace to inable us to be fruitfull in good, and bring forth fruit acceptable to him, as those that are in him shall from him find all good things for them, so will they all also be inabled by him to do such things as are good and pleasing to him. This fruit is necessarily consequent

on the other, but still found q 1.44 from him, who always willeth and doth good to his, and of his good will and beneficence worketh in them also both to will and to do good of his good pleasure, Phil. 2.13. 2 Cor. 3.5. Heb. 13.2.

If it be asked when those good promises were to be, or were, fulfilled, we may well say, r 1.45 under Christ, in his times, and in him to the end, and at the end, of the world, as we shewed likewise of those before. As for good things to be received, how shall God having given us him, not together with him also freely give us all things? Rom. 8.32. in him all things are ours, 1 Cor. 3.21. all things do work toge∣ther for good to them that love God, Rom. 8.25. And as for good fruit to be from them, he that abideth in him, and hath him abiding in him, bringeth forth much fruit, John 15.3. and the fruit here is to be understood chiefly s 1.46 of spi∣ritual good things, and those either of this life, or more of eternal good things pertaining to the life to come; to which purpose Jerom, If the promise be fulfilled by the coming of our Savior, and be daily fulfilled in the Church, we are to believe that it shall more fully be fulfilled, when that which is perfect being come, that which is in part or imperfect shall be done away. He adds for direction in understanding these things, that such things as are spoken of the salvation of Israel from captivity, are to be understood, non carnaliter ut Judaei putant, not carnally as the Jews think, sed spiritualiter, but spiritually: in which agrees with him what R. Tanchum also among the Jews saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. these being true spiritual notions, are so to be conceived as belongs to the truth of God, but are often hidden from men; therefore he sub∣joins what follows, mi cacham, who is wise &c?

Notes

• x 1.1

  Interlin.
• y 1.2

  Munster.
• z 1.3

  Tig. Cast. appellandi casus est, Ar. Mont.
• a 1.4

  Diodati.
• b 1.5

  See Drus.
• c 1.6

  Trem.
• d 1.7

  Ribera.
• e 1.8

  Tarnov.
• f 1.9

  And see Oecolamp.
• g 1.10

  Compare 2 Cor. 5.15, 16.
• h 1.11

  So some observe it to be often redundant. Sanct.
• i 1.12

  See Drusius.
• k 1.13

  Polygl. Lond. and in Theodoret.
• l 1.14

  Schindl.
• m 1.15

  As some will have it above c. 13.7. see Tarnov.
• n 1.16

  Nic. Fuller cap. Concord.
• o 1.17

  Kircher Concord. who well observes that there is great affinity between the roots 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in their significations.
• p 1.18

  Isaiah 41.23.
• q 1.19

  Munster, Calvin.
• r 1.20

  Pagnin.
• s 1.21

  Jun. Trem.
• t 1.22

  Mercer, Capito.
• u 1.23

  Tarnov. Cast. eum exoratus respiciam.
• w 1.24

  Aben Ezra above cited, Rivet, &c.
• x 1.25

  Petr. à Fig. and see Jerom.
• y 1.26

  Apud me, per me, with me, or by me, Mercer.
• z 1.27

  Ebn Bitar, and Ma la yasa.
• a 1.28

  Quod ad nomen berosh, non tantum abietem significat, sed etiam cupressum & juniperum, Ribera.
• b 1.29

  In our Polygl. kotirko, in the Lexicons kotarko.
• c 1.30

  Bar Ali, and Bar Bahlul.
• d 1.31

  Steph. Lex. ex Marcello Virgilio.
• e 1.32

  So Pliny saith of the fir tree.
• f 1.33

  Ar. Mont. Capito.
• * 1.34

  Some of them reckon ten; see Buxt. Lex. in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• g 1.35

  Pag. Munst. Tig.
• h 1.36

  Cocc.
• i 1.37

  Noting that participles of the present tense have sometimes the signification of the future.
• k 1.38

  Though it be taken sometimes for apud, as Jer. 32.27. apud me, Nold. Conc. or, mihi, to me, or for me, as Jun. Trem. and ours.
• l 1.39

  An non ego sum ille à quo omne bonum tuum venit, R. Sal.
• m 1.40

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• n 1.41

  As Jer. 14.8. and 41.19.
• o 1.42

  Fructus tibi uberrimus suppetet si in me acquiescas, Mercer.
• p 1.43

  And so Rivet.
• q 1.44

  All the fruitfulness of Gods servants is not otherwise than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for without me ye can do nothing, John 15. so that if any excel in vertue, he must confess, from me is thy fruit found, Cyril.
• r 1.45

  Fal∣luntur qui haec ad solutam captivitatem sub Cyro referunt, ut Ruffinus, J. H. Ursin.
• s 1.46

  Rivet.