A commentary on the prophecy of Hosea by Edward Pococke.

v. 4. For the children of Israel shall a∣bide many dayes without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacri∣fice, and without an image and with∣out an ephod, and without teraphim.

That thou mayst represent to the children of Israel their condition, and what shall be∣fall them, do thou so and so: for what thou, personating me, sayest thy self to have done with such a woman, who resembleth them, shall really be performed in respect of them, by what is declared.

For the children of Israel &c. Who are here meant by the children of Israel, appears by what hath been before said, viz. the ten Tribes; for those doth the Prophet peculiarly now prophecy to, and the things more espe∣cially concern them. There are indeed who will have this appellation to include with the other ten, if not more properly to de∣note, the other two of the Jews, and so too their many dayes so remaining, as is described, to point out the condition that they are now in since the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and their captivity and dispersion among all Nations. So Kimchi; These (many dayes) are the dayes of the banishment in which we now are, wherein we have neither King nor Prince of Israel, but are under the power of the nations, and the dominion of their Kings and Princes, and without a sacrifice, &c. So (saith he) are we at this time in this captivity (or exile condition) even all the children of Israel. Aben Ezra taking the Parable to concern especially Judah, goes higher, and seems to take the time to be ever since the leading of the ten Tribes captive by the Assyrians, and the Jews by the Chaldeans, and the time that the suc∣cession of the Kings of Judah failed, account∣ing that they never since had King or Prince of their own; for (saith he) of the x 1.1 Hasmonei or Macchabees no account is to be had, in as much as they were not of the sons of Judah. y 1.2 But, evidently, to the condition of the Jews, any time before the destruction of the second Temple, the comparison of the state here described, as that wherein the children of Is∣rael should abide, upon examination, will be found not to hold. With that wherein they have ever since been, it will seem well enough to accord; which makes Abarbinel also to ex∣pound it of the time from the subversion of Jerusalem by Titus and the Roman army, so as to last to the time of that future restauration which they expect. And for the same reason, viz. the agreement of the condition here de∣scribed with that wherein the Jews have been since that time, do z 1.3 some among Christians also expound it of them, they now being and having been ever since the taking of Jerusalem, about forty years after Christ, visibly in such a condition as well agrees with this descrip∣tion. But as a a 1.4 learned man observes, it is not sufficient that the words are accommoda∣ble to their condition, but whether the occa∣sion on which they were first spoken, and that of the time and other circumstances will per∣mit that they be meant of them; and its evi∣dent they will not. The Prophet spake to, and of, the people of his time, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as Kimchi well speaks on verse the first, (though it seem to thwart what here he saith, that it belongs to the Jews of the present Cap∣tivity,) and then particularly to the ten Tribes, called the children of Israel, who were short∣ly to be carried away captive by the Assyri∣ans, and to be reduced to such a condition as he here saith they should be, and in it abide many dayes, as it is manifest they were redu∣ced, and did remain, even from that time of their deportation b 1.5 untill Christ's time. But how long that time was to last, will be pro∣per to enquire on the last verse. At present the inquiry is concerning the beginning of those dayes, which we fix on that time of their car∣rying away by the Assyrian, and being de∣prived of all form of their former govern∣ment; and that for which they were threatned to be reduced to such a condition, was their idolatry, likened to adultery. And therefore, though the description of that condition in it self, without heeding to other circumstances, may well enough express that which the Jews as well as those of the other Tribes, who have not been converted to Christ, are at present in, and may be appliable to it; yet it will not be proper to say, that the words were at first spoken concerning it, seeing there will be a long time to be skipped over, in which after this was spoken it could not at all be verified of the Jews: and besides, because those evils that have since happened to the Jews, did not befall them for that occasion, in respect to

which these were spoken, viz. their Idolatry, of which they were not guilty at that time when they befell them, but evidently by ano∣ther occasion, and for another cause, viz. their rejection of Christ; so that of the ten Tribes they are properly to be interpreted, as evi∣dently setting forth the condition they were in, guilty of idolatry and luxury, and what condition they should for that cause be brought to by the concurrence of God's ju∣stice and mercy, which was by the event made good. But as we like not that they should be applied to the present condition of the Jews, as if they were designed primarily to denote that; so neither can we think they were at first spoken or meant of the Babylonish Captivity, and what follows in the next verse to have been made good by their return from that, as it is by St. Jerom said to be the opi∣nion of some Jews in his time, and that which c 1.6 others have since embraced. Upon exami∣nation it will be found, that the condition or state here described will not agree with that which the two Tribes were then in, as like∣wise, that it cannot be said, as hath been above shewed, that the ten Tribes did then return with the two, besides other difficulties.

The plainest and most unquestionable way will be to understand here, by the children of Israel the ten Tribes, whose condition here set forth by the Type of an adulterous woman, so dealt with as this here is said to be, will very well agree with it in all necessary points and circumstances. That woman is said to be one beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, and so represents Israel beloved of God, yet turning after other Gods, and such things as are contrary to his service; this is plainly ex∣pressed, verse the first. The Prophet's being bid, yet to love that woman, and his dealing with her, so as not quite to reject her, but yet to restrain her to a shorter allowance, and requiring her to abide for him many dayes, without enjoyment of such favours from him as formerly she had enjoyed, but as one se∣questred from her former courses, and from the company both of himself and any other, till he should see fit again to receive her into greater favour, is plainly answered, by God's not clean rejecting Israel, but still sustaining her, yet so as that she should be brought to a lower condition than formerly, and not live in that hight of dignity and jollity as formerly she had done, but be deprived of all those glories and pomps in respect both to her Civil and Ecclesiastical state, wherein she former∣ly prided her self. And as she had not those visible tokens of his presence among them, nor a publick profession of his service; so neither the use of such Idol-services and feasts wherein she formerly delighted and revelled; and should long abide in such condition, till having changed her mind, she should at last with sincerity of heart be converted to him, and again be received by him.

To express this, is the scope of the words in general, which remain more particularly to be explained; but before we so explain them, this may be premised, that the words are such as may some of them agree to the service of God, but others properly belong to ido∣latrous worships; and those also which were used in God's service being imitated by ido∣laters also, and in their service abused, were yet still called by the same names: so that it is possible here, that all may be taken in the worst sense; and if they be, it will be well agreeable to the Parable, which represents Is∣rael under the person of an whore or adulte∣ress, whose love to her husband cannot be sincere. And therefore did some among the Jewish Expositors long since, as d 1.7 Abe•• Ezra tells us, (as e 1.8 some also among Christians) think, that they are to be understood of things belonging to Idols; but the more general opi∣nion (as he declares his own to be) is, that some of the terms do belong to God's wor∣ship, others to idols, and that the scope of them, so here joined, is to signifie, that they should abide without outward shew and exer∣cise either of true religion or false, (al∣though both cannot be well joyned, nor is any true and acceptable service done to God, where Baal is worshipped, for what concord hath God with Idols?) And here if we reflect on the different Expositions of the words in the former verse, and thou shalt not be to man, which as we have seen some understand, to an∣other man, others, to thy own husband: if the first be followed, it will rather make for in∣terpreting all the things concerning worship here named, of things belonging to Idols; if the second, then for understanding some of them as pertaining to God's worship, others as to Idolatry, which, as we said, is by most followed. The scope in fine will be much one; which to follow the Reader will best judg, after a particular view of the words. He saith therefore, that they shall abide many dayes with∣out a King, and without a Prince, i. e. accor∣ding to the most usual and plain way of Expo∣sition, without any form of Civil government or State, wherein they should in an orderly way be governed, by a King or Prince, or any such free Magistrate of their own; as it is certain they never were, after the destruction of their Kingdom, and their being carried away captive by the Assyrians, and being dis∣persed among other Nations, to whom and whose authority they were ever after subject.

There are who refer this also to their Ec∣clesiastical state: so do some Christians, who by King and Prince, understand God himself, or Christ; true it is, that so they may well be said to have been, God having long with∣drawn his visible presence from them, and it having been a long time after their Capti∣vity, before Christ came in the flesh to call them in to his Kingdom. For this I suppose would be the best meaning that can be put on the words, if so understood, and applied (as we have shewed they more properly and espe∣cially ought to be) to the ten Tribes, f 1.9 though those who so interpret them apply them more particularly to the two Tribes, at least take them in with the other, and expound them of their being without Christ, since his com∣ing and their rejecting him, and as at this pre∣sent time; but I do not think that King and Prince ought to be so understood here, nor that it is agreeable to the intention of the Pro∣phecy.

Among the Jews Abarbinel, though he gives the former way, yet mentions another, in which referring these words also to their condition as to their religion, and Ecclesiastical state, will by King, have to be meant God; by Prince, some Prince of the Heavenly host, as they accounted him, some signal Star, which in their Idols they worshipped, and so the expression to signify, that they should have no object of true worship, nor any of false, which they should publickly worship. But if we should take this way, I know not why any, that should take all that is here said to be referred to false and idolatrous worship, should not here also in that kind apply these words, and by King think understood some Star of greatest dignity, which in those times of Ido∣latry they looked on, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Melec King, or chief among their false Gods. A proof he will easily find for it in Amos 5.26. where what is rendred in ours in the Text, Ye have born the tabernacle of your Moloch, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Siccuth malcecem, may be also ren∣dred, as they put in the Margin, Siccuth, your King; or, as g 1.10 others, the tabernacle Meleci vestri, of your Melec, i. e. King. In which place R. David Kimchi saith, that by Melec may be understood some signal Star, which they worshipped, and called their King, or h 1.11 some such as they thought to be as King among, or over, other Stars, and to rule among the host of Heaven; and in that way the mean∣ing of the words would be, They shall abide without any false gods either of superior or inferior rank, either as King or Prince, in their esteem. But the first way is as most re∣ceived, so the plainest, viz. that they shall not have any supreme Magistrate among them, and so be without all form of Civil or Politick government of their own. The following words plainly respect their Ecclesiastick af∣fairs, or matters of Religion; as first, that they shall, as to them, abide without a sacrifice, and without an image, or (as in the Margin) a stand∣ing image or statue. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ein zebach, with∣out sacrifice, or, there shall not be a Sacrifice. Sacrifices were used in God's worship, and they were also used in the service of Idols, so that that name is common to both, and is ap∣pliable indifferently to both, whether it be un∣derstood of true worship or false, and de∣notes, that they shall be without that wor∣ship to which it is applied; if to the worship of God, as by most, (as we said it is, al∣though they could not rightly be offered to him, but at the Temple at Jerusalem,) then it signifies, that they shall have no publick wor∣ship of him; if to that of Idols, then that they shall not publickly worship them in their wonted ways of sacrificing to them; if to both, then that they shall not have liberty of any publick profession, or exercise of Religion, either true or false, according to their own choice: that is to be observed; for otherwise probably they did, and were compelled sometimes, to comply with those, to whom they were captives and in subjection, in their sacrificing to their false gods. The restraint of their liberty as a Nation or Church of them∣selves, and in their own power, either for government or publick exercise of Religion, that so they might be made sensible of their own despicable condition, seems the thing in∣tended.

The next word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Matsebah also, rendred an Image, doth more generally sig∣nifie any thing, or more especially of stone, that is erected or set up, either as a monu∣ment or memorial of something; as Jacob set up the stone which he had put under his head for a pillow, for Matsebah, a pillar, Gen. 28.18. and so again, Gen. 31.45. he set up ano∣ther stone for Matsebah, a pillar, for a witness between him and Laban. So likewise 35.14. he set up Matsebah, a pillar of stone, in the place where God talked with him; and ano∣ther Gen. 35.20. on Rachels grave in memory of her; and 2 Sam. 18.18. we read of Ab∣salon's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Matsebet, or pillar, which he erected to keep his name in remembrance: or else by way of devotion, or in pretended honour to God and his service; in which kind may be reckoned perhaps that which we men∣tioned out of Gen. 35.14. and that spoken of Isaiah 19.19. where is said, there should be an Altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a Matsebah or pillar at the border thereof unto the Lord, though both Altar and

Pillar are there but figuratively taken, to shew, that there shall be the knowledge of God, and publick acknowledgment of him; but in this kind, such Matseboth were most frequent among Idolaters, and in the service of Idols, and then translated, Idols, or, as in in the Margin, standing Images, or Statues, as, 1 King. 14.23. and 2 King. 17.10. where is said of this same people here spoken of, that they set them up such: and Jer. 43.13. we read of such among the Egyptians: and such abuse of them seems to have been ancient; for which cause God in his Law expresly forbid∣deth the use of them in his Service, or that they should pretend to honour him in, or by, them. So Levit. 26.1. Ye shall make you no Idols, nor graven Image, neither rear you up 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Matsebah, a standing Image, saith our Translation there, (or Pillar, in the Margin.) After which prohibition we cannot look on any such used in religious worship, but as a part, and so sign, of the falseness of that wor∣ship, and so here therefore, to say the chil∣dren of Israel shall be without such, is as much as to say, that they shall not have free exercise of their former ways of Idolatry, (however perhaps they might, as we said, par∣take either voluntarily or being compelled, with the Nations, among whom they should live, in theirs.) And whereas therefore the Greek and vulgar Latin render it, Altar, as the word signifying onely a thing set up, may bear, it must be understood of an Idol-Altar, or such stones which the Arabians called from the same root, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i 1.12 Ansab, viz. such on which they slew their Sacrifices to their Idols; as also they called their Idols themselves by the same name. And so may 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Matsebah per∣haps be used as common to both, the Idol, and the Altar, but may by no means be applied to the Altar of the true God. k 1.13 Kimchi's words briefly express the meaning of these two words hitherto mentioned, according to the way we speak of, viz. without sacrifice to God, and without Statue (or Image) to Idols. One Japhet, cited by Aben Ezra, it seems would have this understood also of such Pil∣lars or monuments as were lawful, and not any idolatrous Statue; but how he will ac∣commodate it to the scope of the place, ex∣cept he could prove (as perhaps he thought) that all the things named were such as did be∣long to the worship of the true God, I know not, and I suppose he is by none of his own Nation followed in his opinion concerning this word.

The next word, Ephod, (in without Ephod), is the known name of a Priestly garment, so called from its being put on over others: con∣cerning the making and using of which there is a command by God himself given, Exod. 28.4, 5. where it is ordered to be made of gold, and of blew, and of purple, of scarlet, and fine twined linnen with cunning work; that was the Ephod of the high Priest. But besides that, there were l 1.14 other Ephods it appears, which inferior Priests did use, made of plain Linnen, called by the same name, because of the same fashion. So Samuel, when but a child, served the Lord girded with a linnen Ephod, on which place R. Tanchum notes, that that Ephod was not as that which belonged to the high Priest, but near unto it in fashion, and called there∣fore by its name, and it was the custom for any that served to put it on of their own ac∣cord. So we see m 1.15 David and others cloathed themselves with it, and 1 Sam. 22.18. it is said, that Doeg fell upon the Priests, and slew on that day fourscore and five persons that did wear a linnen Ephod. But as this garment was used in God's service, so also was it abused to Idolatry. So was Gibeon's Ephod, which with whatsoever intention by him made, became a snare to Israel, and they went a whoring after it. Jud. 8.27. And so was Micah's, who had a house of gods, and made an Ephod for their service. Jud. 17.5. And so it may be applied to the garments of any Priest in his worship true or false. The false ones in Israel proba∣bly would not seem to want any thing, that true ones at Jerusalem used, at least something like it that might resemble it; and by the n 1.16 naming of one chief one, may the other Priestly garments and ornaments be under∣stood, o 1.17 yea the Office it self. So that to say they should be without an Ephod, may signifie that they should be without any such office. So the Greek therefore for explication sake ren∣ders, without Priesthood, as likewise the printed Arabic; the Syriac, without any that wears an Ephod.

It follows, and without Teraphim; where is to be observed, that the word, without, is not in the Original Hebrew, which hath one∣ly, without an Ephod and Teraphim. But the Greek and vulgar Latin supply also, as ours do, the word without, as do also two Arabic Versions, the printed, and a Manuscript, which if it may seem to any to make any dif∣ference in the sense, may be taken notice of. As concerning the word Teraphim, all, I sup∣pose, that after the best enquiry made into the things by it denoted, (things, I say, for it is of the form of the plural number,) we shall be able to say, is, that they were some sort of Images which they had in great esteem, and either placed much holiness or confidence in them, or thought them to be of great use and benefit to them. Yet because there is that

difficulty in the word, which hath put Expo∣sitors to divers conjectures concerning the name and nature of them, it may seem not inconvenient, if not almost necessary, to make a little search in that kind. We shall perhaps discover, if not what they were, yet what they were not, viz. not things of good or lawful use at all, not things in God's service, used or lawful to be used; which long since seem'd to Aben Ezra so plain, that whereas he cites (as we have seen) one Japhet, who intepreted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Matsebah (which ours ren∣der an Image) for some lawful Pillar, or the like, not a forbidden Statue, as if that word, and perhaps the others here used, were taken in a good sense, in short words thus takes him up, But what will he do with the word Teraphim? i. e. I suppose, how will he shew that to be of good or indifferent signifi∣cation? But we shall the better judge after a farther enquiry into the matter.

In questions of this kind, viz. concerning the nature of things anciently known and used, but now out of use, the signification of the name imposed on them oft-times much helps to a discovery of them, but all that we find by any brought concerning the import and derivation of this name is so uncertain, and of so doubtful conjecture, that it will not af∣ford any help at all, on which we may with any good ground rely, and that inquiry there∣fore we shall defer to the last place, and begin rather with what we find concerning the history of the thing it self, and the use of it. And of very ancient use shall we find Teraphim to have been in the world, for even in time of the Patriarchs have we mention made of them. So in some passages of the history between Jacob and Laban, Gen. 31.9. as of things then commonly known: for v. 19. we read that Rachel at her departure stole the Tera∣phim that were her fathers; and they are a∣gain named v. 34. and 35. Those being carried away by her, and not restored to her father, were probably destroyed by Jacob, when he purged his house of all strange gods which were in their hands, Gen. 35.2-4. yet did both name and thing continue in the world, and were found in his family too and posterity in succeeding generations, as well as among others: for though we read no more mention of them in the books of Moses and Josua, (and perhaps for so long time after Ja∣cob's putting them away, Israel might conti∣nue without them, till their taking them again from other Nations,) yet in the time of the Judges we read of them again among them; as Jud. 17. where is the history of a man of mount Ephraim, Micah by name, who had an house of gods, and made an Ephod and Tera∣phim, v. 5. and c. 18.14.—17.18.20. the same name repeated. Afterwards we have the mention of them again, 1 Sam. 15.23. where is said, stubborness is as iniquity and Te∣raphim, (ours render it, Idolatry,) and in the same book, c. 19.13, Michal took Teraphim, (an Image, say ours) and laid in the bed (in David's place: and so v. 16. there was Tera∣phim (an Image) in the bed. Again, the 2 Ki. 23.24. it is said, that Josiah put away the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the Images, i. e. (Teraphim, as the Mar∣gin in our Bibles hath it) and the Idols, &c. Again, Ezech. 21.21. it is said, that the King of Babylon consulted with Images, (Tera∣phim.) And Zach. 10.2. the Teraphims (or Idols, say ours) have spoken vanity. Out of these places it is apparent, that Teraphim were of ancient use in the world, and is in part al∣so discovered what they were, and what use put to; as namely, that they were Images and Idols, and that they were worshipped and consulted as Oracles. That so it was, and that to such ill use they were put, all the pla∣ces will easily concur in, except that of Sam. 19. where the use that Michal put that Image to, was onely to deceive them that sought for David, by their mistaking it for him: which hath made it to be thought by divers, that the word it self is of a middle or indifferent signifi∣cation, so that it may denote any Image, not onely idolatrous ones, such as it is not likely were in David's family. What that Image was is very uncertain, and perhaps it might be p 1.18 such an one as had been used for an Idol by the Philistins, or such idolatrous inhabi∣tants of that country who had before lived there, or from whom it had been taken q 1.19 and cast by, not yet destroyed; or whether it were r 1.20 something by her made up in form of a man or image, out of such things as she had at hand, it matters not much: it thus far proves, (as to the thing we are speaking of,) that Teraphim signifies Images, and, by the way, that those Images, however it were as to the form, did differ in sizes or bigness. For this of Michal must be something of the bigness of a man, and those of Labans seem to have been but small; else Rachel could not so easily have car∣ried them away, nor have covered them by sitting on them. But the other places all, as we said, plainly seem to prove those spoken of in them, to be such as were put to idolatrous uses; except there be made a doubt concern∣ing those of Micah, as b•• * some learned men there is, who think better of him than that he gave himself to idolatry, or worshipping of Idols, and honouring things dedicated to them, but that out of zeal to the service of God, whom he could not go to worship at

his Tabernacle, he set apart to himself a room at home for his worship, and put therein such things as by God's own order were in the Tabernacle, and used in his worship. Mi∣cah's zeal we shall not call in question; no more can we that of many zealous devout Idolaters, whom we cannot but conceive to have had great respect to God, whom in their false Gods they thought they honoured; nor do we doubt that they did in many things imitate, as nigh as they could, what was done and used in his service. And so might Micah, who knew what was there done and used, and strive to get about him such things as represented those in the Taberna∣cle; yet would not this exempt him from be∣ing guilty of false worship, in worshipping even God himself, otherwise then he had prescribed to be worshipped, nor prove his things, his graven Image, his molten Image, his Ephod, and Teraphim, to be lawful and ac∣ceptable to God, no more than s 1.21 his conse∣crating one of his own sons could make him a lawful Priest. He lived in a corrupt age, when there was t 1.22 no King in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes, and wherein (as we read before, chap. 10.6, 7.) the children of Israel served all manner of strange Gods, and forsook the Lord, and ser∣ved not him; so that we have too much rea∣son to suspect the sincerity both of him and his Levit in matters of Religion; He might perhaps imitate such things as were in the Tabernacle, or make such things as he supposed might supply to him the place thereof, though taken from such other patterns as he saw used in the service of other Idol-gods, and think they would please God too. If he thought them to be of the same nature with those by God commanded and allowed in his service, why doth he not call them by the same name? For we hear not in God's Tabernacle either of graven images and molten images, or Tera∣phim; which yet he very injuriously to God, calleth, my gods which I have made, Jud. 18.24. whereas none of those things used in God's service were called gods. If it be said, that perhaps these names of Teraphim, &c. were not given them by Micah himself, but by the holy Penman of that Book; that is as strong an argument, that they were not things of lawful use, or approved by God: for if they had been so, then would he have called them by good names, the names of such things which he pretended to imitate; his calling them now by infamous names, (as we may well say, ac∣cording to the use of them in Scripture else∣where,) shews them not to have been good things. Nor doth the Priests answer to the Danites, when they said unto him, Ask coun∣sel, we pray thee, of God, whether the way which we go shall be prosperous; Go in peace: before the Lord is your way, express that he consulted any of the things he had in his Chappel, but spake as his fancy gave him to think, or he thought would be acceptable to them, as other false Prophets elsewhere did; nor if he did, prove that that was a lawful Oracle, and such whereby God answered the high Priest, when in due manner he consulted him, no mote than the true answer procured by the Witch of Endor for Saul, 1 Sam. 28. when the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Ʋrim, nor by Prophets, v. 2. could shew that his con∣sulting her was lawful; nor the event of any Pythian heathenish Oracle prove the goodness and Divinity thereof. I can see nothing to make us think, that we do wrong to Micah, in thinking his Teraphim to have been vain, yea idolatrous Images; but in thinking better of them, and comparing them to such holy things as were in God's service used according to his command, and affirming them to have in nature agreed to them, may be too much derogatory to those holy things; and there∣fore can we think no better of his Teraphims than we do of others.

Having thus far traced the history of Tera∣phim in the Scripture given, as to their anti∣quity and use, it may be inquired, what kind of things they were, how made, or of what fashion.

But here we must premise, that all things given us concerning the nature of them, be∣sides what may be gather'd out of what is said of them in the Scripture, are so novel, and of so late a date in respect of those times by the Scripture mentioned, that we cannot look on them, at best, more than probable conjectures; and they being divers and dif∣ferent, it must be left at last to our selves, to judge of the probability of them, whether pretended to be grounded on ancient tradi∣tion, or record of history, or on customs used anciently in other nations, like in nature, though, according to the difference of their language, called by other names.

And so to proceed; We are told by v 1.23 some, that at first they were the heads of first-born sons cut or violently wrung off, and then pickled with salt and oyl, or embalmed with drugs, under the tongue of which they put a golden Plate, which had the name of an un∣clean spirit written on it, and that setting up such a head against a wall, they lighted Lamps before it, and made obeisance to it, and it spake to them, declaring to them such things as they enquired after. This is so horrid and barbarous a thing, that I think none would believe it at the report of any, but one who

had lived in those times themselves, and with his own eyes seen it done, as he that we have it first from (one R. Eliezer) did not, but many ages after, (as is said about 73 years after Christ.) And therefore though he be of some antiquity, and of great authority a∣mong the Jews, yet in this do not the more learned among them relie on his credit, but give us their opinions, concerning the nature of Teraphim, otherwise. Some will onely have them Astronomical or Astrological In∣struments, whereby they did not onely mea∣sure the time and parts of it, but pretend al∣so by observing the stars to foretell things to come. Some such thing the author of a MS. Translation out of Hebrew into Arabic seems to have taken them for, who in the present place of Hosea, renders the word Teraphim by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Etstaglab, as he doth likewise Ezek 21.21. as also Zachary 10.2. onely that there he puts it in the plural number, and takes it for such as used those instruments, rendring the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ashabol- Etstaglabat, the masters of Etsta∣glabs, or such as used them. Where by Etsta∣glabs I suppose he means Astrolabs, though he change the letter R. into G. for so the Jews do in that kind, calling Astrologers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Atstagnin, but sure such an instrument would not have served Michal to have laid in the bed, to deceive those that sought for David, as Kimchi observes. Aben Ezra therefore thinks the most probable opinion to be, that they were Images in form of a man, so as to re∣ceive influence from the heavenly bodies or powers; and Kimchi, that they were images made, whereby they might know things to come; and R. Solomon Jarchi, that they were Images framed at a certain set time, and made to speak by Magical art, and so declaring hidden things, or foretelling things to come. For which end some of them guess Laban's to have been stolen by Rachel, lest they should discover to him what was become of Jacob: and in understanding them of such Idols as ei∣ther did speak, or at least he that consulted them imagined they did, * 1.24 as one thinks do wother Jews concur, considering what was used afterwards to be done, as histories and other books report among the x 1.25 Sabii, who pretended to succeed the old Chaldees in their religion and rites about their Telesms, and Figures, and Images: we cannot but easily believe that such things were derived to them from ancient times, and that the De∣vil did from of old much deceive the people in those parts with such fopperies.

Abarbinel, for explication both of the nature and use of them, looking on the name to be comprehensive of what the other Jews diffe∣rently say of them, gives his mind thus. My opinion is, that Teraphim in general were things in the figure of a man, whereof some were made for idolatry, some for drawing down the influences of the heavenly powers, some for knowing the hours of the day, some made according to the likeness of some well known man; and that women made such in likeness of their husbands, that so they might have them still as present to look on them, through their love to them; and of this sort were those that Michal had in the form of David, because she dearly loved him.

That which I think will be sufficient to our present purpose, is, to conclude from what is by those Jews whom we have cited, and from others also agreeing with them therein, said, and especially from what we have seen to be said of them in the Scripture, that Tera∣phim were Images either lesser or greater, which they did use to consult concerning things that they desired to know, as their Oracles, or such as could declare them to them. Which is farther manifest to have been the opinion of ancient interpreters, by their rendring of the word by words sometimes agreeing to their nature or form, sometimes to the office they were imagined to perform. So the y 1.26 Chal∣dee Gen. 31. renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tsalmanaya, Images; and so likewise 1 Sam. 19. z 1.27 by the same. And Jud. c. 17. and c. 18. by a word of much like import, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Demain, Similitudes, or Images: and 1 Sam. 15. by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Taavatha, Idols; but here in Hosea, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mechave, a declarer, viz. oracle, or the like. So the Greek also, (the LXX 1 mean) who in divers places retain the Hebrew word untranslated, in others render it Idol, as Gen. 31. graven images, as Ezech. 21.21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ce∣notaphium, representation of a dead corpse, as they seem to mean by it, or Herse. 1 Sam. 19.13. here render it a 1.28 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, manifestations, which the printed Arabic, which usually follows them, expresses by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 director: and Zach. 10.2. they render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Spea∣kers: whereby it appears, what both the one and the other of these (viz. Chaldee and Greek interpreters) thought of these Teraphim, viz. that they were both images, and directing images.

It remains that we look something into the reason and derivation of the name by which they are called, and why they are so called, if possibly that may help for farther understand∣ing the nature of them; although, as was before intimated, I doubt we shall find by the best enquiry that we can make, no great w 1.29

satisfaction. Different are the opinions of Learned men in that kind, but all grounded on such conjectures onely, as though they please one, they do not please another; nor any one so certain as that all can be brought to concur in it: and I almost despair, that any other shall be found in which all shall acquiesce, the things themselves having for so many ages grown out of knowledge. The first mention that we find made of that name is in Gen. 31. where it is said, v. 19. that Rachel stole away the Teraphim of her father Laban the Sy∣rian, which he pursuing after Jacob, and ha∣ving overtaken him, inquiring after, saith, v. 30. Wherefore hast thou stolen my gods? If La∣ban himself called those his pretended gods Teraphim, then would that word probably seem to be of Syriac original, for so was he by nation a Syrian, and his language Syriac, as appears by other words by him uttered in the story; as the name of Jegar-Sahadutha being given by him to that heap of witness, which Jacob in the same signification called Galeed, v. 48. But now in the Dictionaries of that language which we have, compiled by Syrians, we have no such name given as Syriac, nei∣ther do their Translations of the Scripture which we have, use any such. And the form of the word is indeed rather Hebrew than Syriac, which would have been Teraphin, with an n, not Teraphim: and we cannot say that that was the name by which Laban called them, for he doth not say, why hast thou stolen my Teraphim, but my gods? The name therefore rather seems to be from the holy Penman of the Book, who so called those things which Laban called gods, and then may they seem rather to be originally Hebrew; but what then will it import or shew them to have been? b 1.30 A very Learned man looks on it as made from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Seraphim, a name of Angels, mentioned Isaiah 6. (and c 1.31 so thought to be called from the fiery flaming lustre of their appearance,) by change of S. into T. according to no unusual custom of the Syrians, when they receive Hebrew words into their language. From the mention of the words in the story where it is put, we rea∣dily conclude with him, that those sorts of Images had their beginning in Syria, and will not deny that, as he saith, perhaps they might be either images of Angels, or dedicated to Angels. But there is no necessity why we should think any propriety of the Syriac dia∣lect to be notorious in it, as, namely the change of S. into T. for the reason already mentioned, viz. because we do not by the words find that Laban or his Syrians so cal∣led them, but the sacred Penman onel, who writ in Hebrew, and doth not say of it that it was Laban's language, d 1.32 as he doth of that other word Jegar Sahadutha. Besides in such books as are come to our hands the Syrians do not make any such change in the name of Se∣raphim, but utter it either by the very same letter, or another of like sound; e 1.33 for they say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Serophin, and Serophe, and per∣haps sometimes f 1.34 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zerophe, not Tero∣phin or Terophe; with a note also in one that is properly an g 1.35 Hebrew word; and so the Arabians also in their language express it still by S. never by T. So that for any thing that can be brought (for ought I know) for con∣firming his conjecture from any propriety or custom of the Syrian dialect, Seraphim and Teraphim must still remain different names, to signifie different things. If there be any communication by reason of a bare change of letter between them, it is in the Hebrew it self, and there I think is no such; for sure the things, to which these different appellations are applied, are much more different in nature than in name. And as Seraphim is a name gi∣ven to holy Angels of the highest rank, (of which whether the Syrians in Laban's time had any knowledge, may also be questioned,) so is Teraphim to filthy Idols the basest sort of things, and never otherwise, for ought that I see any reason why we should doubt, except in that one place of 1 Sam. 19.13. before mentioned, where at best it signifies a thing like such, and therefore called by their name, if not h 1.36 such an one, it self. So that I can yet see no help that we can have from the word Seraphim, and its use, for understanding the name or nature of Teraphim; nor can I, ex∣cept by more cogent arguments or authority, be perswaded that there is any thing common between them in nature, though something in sound of name, yet with difference enough to let them be at the greatest distance for na∣ture; nor think I that the name of one was taken for the name of the other, or ought to be given it; and that ever Seraphim entred in to Teraphim, to give Oracles by them, I think it most absurd (if not worse) to think or say. Good Angels and Devils do not usually so combine, though the Devil no doubt would willingly i 1.37 transform himself often into an An∣gel of light, and perswade men that he is so, and that they should look on him as so: yet still is there that distance between them as between light and darkness, and what com∣munion hath light with darkness, and what agreement hath the temple of God with Idols?

Others think the name Teraphim, that it might express the nature of the thing thereby signified, to be derived from the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rapha, which signifies, to heal, as if they were such as they sought to for health or dis∣pelling diseases, and for that end worshipped them; which k 1.38 some think confirm'd, in as much as the Greeks thence framed their word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which with them signifies both to heal, and to worship, because they used to sup∣plicate to such, and consult with them for re∣covery of health, and curing diseases. In the Noun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Teruphah, which signifies hea∣ling, or curing, is the same letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Th, ad∣ded at the beginning to the Radicals, as here.

Others will rather have them so called from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rapha, which signifies to be languid, remiss, weak, and that either because l 1.39 being set in a place they were not thence re∣moved, (or rather, I suppose, because they could not thence remove themselves,) or m 1.40 be∣cause their answers and oracles were weak things, and no way certain, or n 1.41 because they made their worshippers remiss, and idle, and hindred them from their business. o 1.42 R. Tan∣chum, who thinks them to have been some fi∣gures of Images, to represent some star or other thing, according to their fancy, gives a conjecture, that they might have this name given them from the use they put them to, as in worshipping them, so in consulting them as oracles, or inquiring of them concerning hidden things or things to come; and that it was made by transposition of letters from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Phatar, which signifies to inter∣pret, and declare. This he thinks no improba∣ble opinion, yea seems much to like it. It may be confirmed by many other examples, that such transposition of letters in words is not unusual without altering the significa∣tions, as in a word of the very same no∣tion that we are speaking of; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Parash, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pashar both signifie to interpret; to omit p 1.43 others that are not infrequent. So that in respect onely of this difference in the word, if there be nothing else of inconvenience in it, we may say, with him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is not improbable that this word should be of them, in which transposition of letters is used; and that their images were called Teraphim, because they perswaded themselves that they could declare to them such things as they should inquire after.

q 1.44 There are that (having, I suppose, seen the forementioned opinions, except perhaps the last) think the Arabic language affords a bet∣ter reason of the name from a signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tarepha, viz. to be pro∣sperous, or flourishing in good things, and to enjoy them, or to take delight in them; and in ano∣ther Conjugation, to make a man so to be or do. So that according to that notion it should import, givers of good things. From the same root, in Arabic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tarphah, signifies, as prosperity, so also any fine, neat, pretious, or elegant thing, from which they might also be so called, as precious, estimable, things. But if we look a little farther into the word in that language, r 1.45 we shall find what will suggest far different notions of the name. For we shall find, that the verb imports not onely what we have seen, but also to s 1.46 erre, and to be ex∣orbitant, and to deceive, and seduce, and lead in∣to errors, and make exorbitant; they use it to signifie, that t 1.47 prosperity hath deceived a man, or caused him to erre, and to be insolent. So that according to this notion, the name will set them forth as errors, or causes of erring, things that lead men into error, and out of the right way; a very proper name as to the nature of the thing: but whether the word had anciently that signification in the Hebrew tongue, (as probably it might have) and were for that reason imposed on them, I cannot po∣sitively affirm.

Farther, it hath the same signification with the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Atrapha, which hath in it the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, filthy, wicked, and obscene; which falls in with ano∣ther notion of the name, which some Jews give to it, as v 1.48 ancient as any that is given by them, viz. that it is taken from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 To∣reph, or Turpah, which signifies the same that in Latin, Turpe, filthy, obscene. The word is not found used in the Text of the Scripture, but it is used both by w 1.49 one of the Chaldee Paraphrasts, and other of their writers; by that word they denote the obscenest part of the body: by that in the Talmud is call'd a filthy nasty place. And in the Targum or Chaldee Paraphrast, on Ps. 44.13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Turpi∣tha, answers to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Keles, de∣rision, or contempt; and what we have seen out of the Arabic seems to me enough to assert the antiquity of the word. This reason for the name, R. x 1.50 Tanchum, though having, as

we have seen, given another of his own, which well pleaseth him, doth not reject, but look on as derived by good authority, and gives good credit to, and saith that those Images were therefore called Teraphim, by way of contempt, or derision, and disgrace to them and their worshippers; as the Scripture useth also elsewhere to call Idols by such names as import contempt and disgrace, y 1.51 as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Elilim, things of nothing, z 1.52 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bosheth, shame it self in the abstract, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shi∣kutsim, abominations, Deut. 29.17. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gilulim, dungy things, Levit. 26.30. and oft elsewhere. In fine, a 1.53 saith he, all the names that are bestowed on them in Scripture are such, the import of which is reproach, filthi∣ness, and derision, and contempt, and dis∣grace to them, and to those that look on them with respect, as true things. Thus doth he improve this derivation, which shews his ap∣probation of it.

But against this, as to the name, will be ob∣jected, b 1.54 that it is not likely that they who worshipped them, or had them in veneration, should impose upon them names of ill signifi∣cation: and by such it seems they take this name Teraphim to have been first given to those images. But I conceive it not so, but, as hath been already observed, this name to be that which the holy Penman, not their worshippers called them by. We do not hear them any where so calling them, but onely cal∣ling them their Gods. The Danites indeed so call them, Jud. 18.14. but probably, because by the worshippers of the true God, among whom they had lived, they heard them usually so called. And we do not hear that they themselves hitherto had worshipped any such, though perhaps they might afterwards run a whoring after them, as well as they set them up Micha's graven image, v. 31. and then pro∣bably would no more call them Terap••im, but their Gods, as Micah called them his, v. 24. So that for all that may be objected in this kind, I see no reason why the word Teraphim may not have in it a notion of turpi∣tude, infamy, and disgrace.

These are the chief opinions as to the ori∣gin and derivation of the name of Tera••im, which may conduce to the knowledge of the nature of them, which we meet with.

There is * 1.55 another indeed, a novel one, which would confer them with the Egyptians Idol Serapis, and make them thence to have bor∣rowed their name, by change of S. into T. al∣so, but with such uncertain conjectures and reasons, that as I cannot understand any thing to the purpose from them, so I will not trou∣ble the Reader with reciting them; nor will I tie him up to any any one of the forementio∣ned ones, so as to prefer it absolutely before the rest, (although I should my self rather in∣cline to those that R. Tanchum, as we have seen, mentions,) nor positively affirm, that any of them is undoubtedly true. That which from consent of all we may conclude, is, that they were figures or images, which among others they put to that use as to consult them as Oracles, thinking that by them they might be informed of such hidden things as they de∣sir'd to know, and that they were illegal and idolatrous. And so, as thinking this sufficient to the present purpose, should I proceed, did I not meet with the opinion of a learned man, which seems to affirm what is clean con∣trary to it.

Christopher à Castro, in his Commentary on this place, having reflected on the opinion of others, as of St. Jerom, that thinks by them to be meant the figures of Cherubim and Sera∣phim, or such like, as were made for orna∣ment of the Temple, which he thinks to be here meant, whereas in other places he thinks by them to be meant Idols; and of Ge••e••rard, who understands by them sacred Images, of which the ten Tribes are here threatned to be deprived, when they should be carried captives by the Assyrians; and of others, who think by them to be meant heathenish idols; and of the Jews, and others, which he thinks the most probable among them, who, as we have seen, take them for such images of men which gave them answers and oracles, and were kept in their houses like those houshold gods among other heathen nations, and which being made at such and such hours, under such and such a Constellation, they thought to receive influences from the heavenly powers, and so capable of answering them to their enquiries concerning such things as they de∣sir'd to know: having, I say, made his refle∣ctions on these, then gives his own opinion in these words; Verum id tandem certius loqui Prophetam de Urim & Thummmim, quae erant duo simulachra parvula, dicta propterea Tera∣phim, quia ex Ephod responsa dabant, juxta Grae∣cos patres, — nam verum cultum Israeli defu∣turum minatur: i. e. But it is more certain, that the Prophet speaks of Urim and Thummim, which were two little images, and therefore called Teraphim, because they gave answers out of the Ephod, according to the Greek Fathers,—for here he threatens that Israel shall be without true worship. And for illustration of this he refers to another book of his own, which he wrote de Vaticinio, or concerning Prophecy; where likewise he affirms, that Ʋrim and Thummim were the same with Teraphim, and that Tera∣phim were little Images, which did give an∣swers to such things as were asked about:

But how confident so ever he is of this opinion, and looks on it as the most certain that is given, I must crave leave to think otherwise, and that there is no certainty at all in it; but that it is not onely not certain at all, but ap∣parently false, and that in three respects. First, in that the Prophet doth not here speak of Ʋrim and Thummim. Secondly, in that Ʋrim and Teraphim were not the same thing, nor could properly be called by the same name. Thirdly, in that it ought not to be affirmed, yea cannot reasonably be thought, that Ʋrim and Thummim were Images. For clearing of which assertions it will be convenient to look what we find concerning Ʋrim and Thummim, and the use of them declared in Scripture, as we have already seen what they say of Te∣raphim.

The first mention of Urim and Thummim that we find, is in Exod. 28.30. where God saith to Moses, And thou shalt put in the breast∣plate of judgment, the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be upon Aaron's heart when he goeth in before the Lord; where we see is no further description of them, either what they were, or how or by whom made, whereas the other holy garments and ornaments belonging to the high Priest, or to the inferior Priests, are largely described both as to the matter and form; as to the end or use of them, there is added, And Aaron shall bear the Judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the Lord continually. And it is farther declared, Num. 27.21. where it is said, that Eleazar the Priest should ask counsell for Josuah after the Judgment of Urim: whence it appears, that they were for that end given by God, that he being duely consulted might declare to them in doubtful cases, and matters of great moment, and of publick concern, and such as were too hard for them, what it would be fit and best for them do, and accordingly they were to do; so it there follows, at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation: and to this use, viz. for enquiring of God, and to receive an an∣swer concerning his will by them, do we find them put. After we have heard the words last cited, we cannot well doubt but that they were c 1.56 consulted, Jud. 1.1. where it is said, that the children of Israel asked the Lord who should go up first to fight against the Canaanites? Saul would have had by them an answer from the Lord, but the Lord would not answer him by them. 1 Sam. 28.6. But David both consul∣ted them, and had answer, 1 Sam. 23. But that this was the use of them, there is no doubt. They are in other places of the Law, and other books of Scripture mentioned; as Levit. 8.8. where it is said, that Moses con∣secrating Aaron, put the breast-plate upon him, also he put in the breast-plate the Urim and the Thummim; and Deut. 33.8. Let thy Thum∣mim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, where the order of placing the words is different from what it is elsewhere. Ezra 2.63. they are likewise named together, and in the ordinary way, Urim first. And so likewise Nehem. 7.65. There are some places, wherein one of them is named alone, as in the forecited Num. 27.21. and 1 Sam. 28.6. but we cannot doubt but the other was understood; they still went together (how otherwise differing and distinguished it will not concern us to en∣quire, and he whom we have to deal with puts both together,) and both inseparably went together with the Breast-plate. But wheresoever they are named, there is no men∣tion who made them, nor how they were made, (as was before said) onely Moses was bid to put them in the Breast-plate; nor read we of any but those by Moses then put in. What should be the reason why the make, form, and matter, of them is not described, as well as those of the other sacred ornaments, hath given occasion to some enquiry; and dif∣ferent opinions are concerning it. Amongst whom (if we ought to seek after a reason for it) they seem to speak, as with most reverence to the things of God, so, most agreeable to reason, who say, that it is because it was a mysterious sacred thing, which God would not have them pry into the nature of, nor know the reason of it, but receive it with that reverence which they ought, as a great privi∣ledge by him communicated to them, and no other way attainable or imitable. So some of the d 1.57 Jewish Doctors say, that thereby was signified that they were not the work of any Artificer, nor did any workmen, or the con∣gregation, confer any thing of their own to the making of them, as they did in the other holy ornaments; but they were a secret that was delivered by the mouth of God himself to Moses, which he wrote with great holiness, and they were the work of Heaven or God himself.

This I think is more safe and reasonable to say, than as e 1.58 some learned men do, that they were things well known in the world before Moses's time, and therefore needed no larger description as to their form or making. But how should we think so, when we hear not at all of the name before? and what reason have we to think the thing it self was known with∣out its name? How they should be so well known to Moses, as that he needed not far∣ther to be instructed concerning them, is ea∣sie to conceive; because f 1.59 all that he was to

make or do, was shewed him in the Mount, and according to that pattern was he to make them. And if there he were shewed all other things pertaining to God's service, which were of inferior dignity, it is not probable that this most sacred mysterious thing he should be left to take pattern of from common, or perhaps idolatrous use. It will be more rea∣sonable to think, that he had information from God himself, which he was not to communi∣cate to the people for the making of them, and so made them himself without committing it to any Artificer; or else that he received them ready made from God, as it is said of the first Tables, that they were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God. Exod. 32.16. But whither so or no, it is sufficient that Moses well understood (having learned on the Mount, or otherwise from God) what he was to do, and what belonged to those sacred things, which having never before heard of, we may justly think now first instituted. Let us else be shewed any former mention or memory of them; it will be but reason to require so much, and not to rest on any, though never so learned mans, conjecture or assertion, that they were taken either from the former Patri∣archs, or from the Egyptians, among whom the Israelites had so long dwelt. But this, perhaps, may seem by them done, at least as to what is signified by the one name Thummim, (and if for that it be proved, we may grant it for the other) viz. that that was borrowed from the ancient Egyptians, among whom their chief Magistrate (and such were anciently their Priests) wore about his neck an image of Saphire, or pretious stones, which was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Truth. But if these had any corre∣spondence one with the other, which shall it be said was used in imitation of the other? ei∣ther that among the Jews, in imitation of what was used among the Egyptians; or, on the contrary, that among the Egyptians, from what they saw among the Jews? For we find contrary opinions concerning the matter. Some think it probable, that the Egyptians, a wise self-conceited people, would never have borrowed any thing from the Jews, whom they had in contempt as a despicable people. But to this may be replied, what is said Deut. 4.5. that the Nations hearing all those Sta∣tutes which God had given unto Israel, should say, Surely this great Nation is a wise and un∣derstanding people; so that it is probable, that thenceforward they should no more despise them, but admire them, and those things which God had instituted among them, and think them worthy of their imitation. Again, after Solomon had made affinity with Pharaoh King of Egypt, and married his daughter, and brought her to Jerusalem, and built a stately house for her, it is probable that the Egyptians had much recourse to Jerusalem, and admi∣ring the splendor of such things as they saw there used about the Temple and Religious worship, as well as in his House, and his wisdom, and the management of his people, might be drawn to the imitation of such things as they saw or heard of, glorious and wonderful, above what they had seen at home; among which might well be accounted that miraculous mystery of Urim and Thummim. Besides those * 1.60 Authors which are alledged for that custom (spoken of) among them, are of so late standing, and novel in respect to the history of Moses's times, yea of Solomons, as that any thing that they had received by any tradition, and reported to be of ancient cu∣stom among the Egyptians, might well be e∣steemed by them as ancient, though it had its beginning many years after those times which we speak of; and we can have no proof from any ancienter record but that it was so.

g 1.61 Others therefore, with more reason, (if one of those Nations did in this matter spoken of imitate the other) do conceive the Egyptians to have imitated the Jews, in put∣ting on that ornament on their chief Judge or Magistrate. Besides I know not what affini∣ty is between that Saphir of theirs, and Urim and Thummim, more than they have with any badge or Emblem, that in token of honour any great Judge or President of a Councel might wear, as to the nature or use of it. For wherein did one resemble the other? The Urim and Thummim were consulted as an Ora∣cle in dubious matters of publick concern, and great consequence, when they knew not otherwise to discern what was convenient to do; and by them they received infallible answer and directions from God: but the others Jewel having the word Truth ingraved on it, hung on the Judge's breast as an Em∣blem onely to mind him how he ought to pro∣ceed in judgment, not that it did otherwise direct him; not to seek for other differences which might easily be found. Neither will it concern our purpose here to enquire farther into the nature of this mysterious thing: h 1.62 ma∣ny have done it, but still are fain, where they go beyond what the Scriptures have said of it, to go on such conjectures as leave us still in doubt; nor can we hope that it should be po∣sitively and infallibly determined, except there should i 1.63 rise up a Priest again with Urim and Thummim. Sufficient it is for us to have seen the history, or as much as the Scriptures have told us, of them; from which we may observe these things concerning them. 1. That they were of Divine institution. 2. That they

were no where found but in the High Priest's Breast-plate. 3. That they were always spo∣ken of as good and holy things. 4. That by them were always given true and infallible answers: which things being observed, it will be easie to shew the incongruousness of that Exposition given by Chr. à Castro.

First, in regard that it is manifest, that he doth not here speak of Ʋrim and Thummim. For this we shall not need any farther proof than what hath been at large already given, viz. that what is here spoken, concerns the ten Tribes, who were to be carried into Cap∣tivity by the Assyrians, and were manifestly Idolaters. After the rent made between them and the two Tribes, they had no more to do with Ʋrim and Thummim, which remain'd onely in the Breast-plate of the High Priest at Jerusa∣lem, and therefore their Teraphim here mentio∣ned could not be meant of those.

And secondly in regard that Urim and Thum∣mim were not the same thing with Teraphim, nor ought to be, or could properly be called by the same name with them.

The first part, that they were not one and the same thing, is manifest from the same ar∣gument. That which the ten Tribes had and made use of in their idolatrous worship, could not be the same with that which onely the two Tribes had among them, and used in God's worship, and according to his order. Again, that which was of human invention, (or rather, truly Diabolical) never spoken good of, but rather every where as evil and profane, and put to idololatrical uses, (except perhaps in that k 1.64 one place, where they may seem to be spoken of as an indifferent thing, and put to another use rather than that for which they were made, and ordinarily used, viz. that they might by representing a man de∣ceive those that looked after David) and as speakers of vanity, as out of the forecited places of Scriptures, wherein is made mention of Toraphim, it is evident that Teraphim are, cannot be the same with those which were of God's institution, and are always spoken good of, and as of holy things, and infallible teachers of truth, as in all places Ʋrim and Thummim (as we have seen) are. To say that though the Teraphim were abused by idola∣ters to ill ends, yet God thought fit still to retain them, and to rectifie the use of them, and to make them instrumental in his service, and so to change the name of them into Ʋrim and Thummim, though they were still for na∣ture the same things that they were former∣ly, and by others called Teraphim, as he did in matter of sacrifices, which though they were by idolaters abused to the service of the Devil, yet God did not abolish nor exclude from his service, but onely rectifie the man∣ner of using them, and then would be served by them, will not be to prove any thing in this matter. For sacrifices were well used before they were ill, and we hear of them offered before ever idolatry came into the world; as by Cain and Abel near the begin∣ning of the world; and it is by l 1.65 learned men thought that they learned that way of service from Adam their father, whom they doubt not himself to have sacrificed, and to have taught his sons the rites and manner of sacri∣ficing, as he himself had received them by revelation from God; and Noah again im∣mediately after the floud, m 1.66 we read of offer∣ing sacrifice to the Lord, and all the holy Pa∣triarchs after him, before the Law was given; so that we cannot think, but that they were instituted first by God himself and his dire∣ction, though afterward, by the craft of the Devil, or errors of men, corrupted in their use. It cannot therefore seem strange, that God should take away the abuse, and yet re∣tain the use of things by himself instituted: but a clean other thing, and a strange thing it is to say, that he should in ordering the rites of his worship, retain things of the Devils or erring mans invention (as we cannot doubt Teraphim and other images to have been) onely to please the wanton fancies of the Israelites, who would not otherwise have taken such de∣light in his service, nor looked on it as a fine gaudie, pompous, desireable thing, as n 1.67 they would have us to think.

How contrary God's method was to this, we learn plainly from himself, where he com∣mands the Israelites that they should not so much as enquire after the Gods of the Hea∣then, saying, How did these nations serve their Gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God. Deut. 12.30.31. Though they would serve the true God, they must not do it in such manner or such ways as the Heathen served their false gods; they must not borrow any religious rites from them. How much more unworthy of God will it be to say, that he borrowed any such things from them, to please his ill minded peo∣ple? Whatsoever he prescribed, we ought rather to conclude, was to take them off from their idolatrous customs, and therefore that it was not such as had been invented by them; and so necessarily Ʋrim and Thummim, God's institution, not to have been the same with Teraphim their invention, and neither ought therefore to be, nor properly can be, called by the same name. The Scripture, and all the history thereof, afford us no grounds so to do, but all the contrary. We find no where else either Teraphim called by the name of Ʋrim

and Thummim, nor those by the name of Te∣raphim; that that learned man should so po∣sitively assert, that the one is here put for the other. That they should not be called by the name of Urim and Thummim by Laban, per∣haps they will say is no wonder, because those later names were not then known; but in Micha's time they were, and why were they not by him or the Danites, or any where else before or afterwards so called? It seems to me a sufficient and the onely answer, that they did not take them for the same things, yea knew them not to be so. o 1.68 They that think otherwise, say the reason to be, because Teraphim, otherwise a name honest and indif∣ferent, was, because of its abuse by some in an idolatrous way, become infamous and dangerous, and therefore God substituted in lieu thereof the name of Urim and Thummim, a name not used by them, though the things were the same: the like whereof may be ob∣served in other cases, as for instance, that though Baal were in it self a name of no ill sig∣nification, yet because it was often given to Idols, God forbad them any more to call him by that time. Hos. 2.16. But I think this ve∣ry reason strongly concludes for what we would have, against them, viz. that they were not the same things, because never cal∣led by the same names; as the forbidding him∣self to be called by the same name with Idols, sheweth that he and Idols were different things; and this place, where they take one, if any where, to be meant by the name of the other, by their being called Teraphim, certain∣ly shews, above any place, that they were not Urim and Thummim that are spoken of. For by whom are the things here spoken of called Teraphim, but by God himself? And it can∣not certainly be any way probable, that the holy God, who forbad himself by others to be called by a profaned name, should himself here by such a name call his most holy things. We cannot but infer, that the profane name shews them to have been profane things; even Idols and Images, as in other places, and therefore not Urim and Thummim; which yet in the third place is that for which we except against the forementioned Exposition, viz. because he affirms that Urim and Thummim were Ima∣ges, which we think, as most absurd, so most untrue to say, and that which can no way be proved. p 1.69 The chief proof (I think) that is offered for it, is, that (supposing what is here spoken, to be spoken of the ten Tribes, as we have all along shewed it to be) seeing the Teraphim which they had were little Images, it will by necessary consequence follow, that the true Urim and Thummim in the High Priest's Breast-plate at Jerusalem among the two Tribes were so also, seeing their Tera∣phim were made in imitation of them, and that ad amussim so exactly, that they might in all points resemble them, adcò ut qui utrumvis rectè novit, ambo noverit, i. e. So that he that rightly knows either, must know them both: as he that looks upon an image or picture, that true∣ly expresseth the face or countenance of Cae∣sar, may by unerring conjecture apprehend how Caesar himself looked. Again, q 1.70 if Jero∣boam had a mind to make an Ephod and Tera∣phim among his Israelites, which should be in stead of the Ephod and Urim (which either then were or had been formerly) among the Jews; it is not to be believed that he had so far lost all (not onely honesty, but) prudence, as not to take care that they should express or resemble, as neer as possibly might be, the true form or likeness of them, and be every way like them; for that cunning man knew well enough that it very much concerned him, that all his sacred things (or parts of worship) should come as neer as might be to the pat∣tern and model of the worship at Jerusalem, that he might more easily gain to himself the minds of his new people, who had not yet quite forgotten the way of the true worship of God, aad might colour over his naughty doings with the paint of a specious or pom∣pous Religion. For, for that end he seems to have set up Priests, Sacrifices, an Ephod, and Calves, which represented no less the figure than number (if learned men be not deceived) of the Cherubims, and set them up in Tem∣ples by himself built, lest if the worship by him ordered should in any kind differ from the first partern among the Jews, the people touch'd with a sense of Religion should think of returning to their old way of worship.

But this argument seems of no validity, nor more to conclude that Urim and Thummim were Images, because Teraphim which he made in imitation thereof were so, than that God was worshipped in the Temple at Jeru∣salem under the figure of a Calf, because Je∣roboam set up Calves at Bethel and Dan, which they by worshipping might spare their pains for going up to Jerusalem, to worship God there in that manner that the Jews did, saying to them, r 1.71 Behold thy gods O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and they pretended to worship God in those Images.

Shall we say, he did onely strive to imitate such things as were used in the Temple? Per∣haps he might strive to outdo them, at least to give the people such things as he thought might more please them, and take with their unsettled fancies, and draw them as far as he could from the love of them, and make them think they had no need of them. He that took

the boldness to represent to them the Shecinah, or Majestatick presence of the invisible God under the similitude of a Calf, would not stick to intrude on them Teraphim, or little Images, for his Oraculous Urim and Thummim. The same measure of honesty, or religion, and of prudence, would bear him out in it. For his policy was, upon counsel taken, (as is ex∣pressed 2 Kin. 12.26, 27, 28.) to hinder the people from thinking they had need to go up any more to the House of the Lord to Jeru∣salem, lest it should cause them to revolt from him; and so therefore to order things as to make them think they enjoyed as much of God's presence, and the signs thereof where they were, as they at Jerusalem did; for that end he made them two Calves of Gold, and said to the people, Behold thy gods, O Israel. But shall we say therefore, that there were such Calves found at the Temple, as tokens of God's presence? And for that end we may grant, that he made for them Teraphim in lieu of the Urim and Thummim, that were found in the High Priest's Breast-plate; but shall we therefore conclude, that they were images as these Teraphim were? it was sufficient for his purpose, that these took with his people, as well as those at Jerusalem did with the two Tribes, and so as to make them think, that having these, they had no need of them. Whe∣ther they were like them in figure or not, it did not matter, as long as he could perswade them that these made the use of the other needless to them. But that they were like them in figure, we have reason to doubt, yea good reason to think the contrary. For how should Jeroboam come exactly to know the the figure of them? We cannot think that he had ever liberty to pry so far into the High Priest's Breast-plate, or to examine that Ho∣ly thing. That God would not so far expose his Sacred things to be looked into, and exa∣mined, and handled by every profane eye or hand, we may justly think, when we read of so many thousand of the men of Bethshe∣mesh smitten for but looking into the Ark of the Lord, 1 Sam. 6.19. and of what befel Uzzah for laying hold of it with his hand, though with a good intent, 2 Sam. 6.6, 7. be∣cause he did contrary to the command and caution given, Num. 4.15. that none should touch any holy thing lest they should die. ••nd of such that might better understand what Urim and Thummim were, we cannot find that Je∣roboam had any to help or instruct him how to make what might be exactly like them, or that could do it. We may justly apply to all that he did, what is said of part of it, that he did that which he had devised of his own heart, (1 King. 12.33.) and that which he thought would best agree with the fancy of the people, or at least suffice to detain them from running to Jerusa∣lem, which perhaps if they had had a copy, or likeness only of what was there, they would have been more prone to do, out of curiosity, to see if the figure which he had given them, did agree with that which he pretended to have followed. If Urim and Thummim had been things, the nature and manner of which had been commonly known to every body, we should not have been left so ignorant thereof as now we are, having no certainty at all of it. And I believe that even of old they had little more certainty: so that though Micah and Jeroboam might make such things, viz. Tera∣phim, as might in their opinion serve to them instead of Urim and Thummim, as to the use of them; yet that they did exactly represent them in nature or figure, so as, from what they had, to conclude, that those which God instituted were so also, viz. Images, because their Teraphim were so, I think will be too bold and dangerous a thing, and such as may make us, as to give too much honour to their profane things, so to bring up a false report on the holy things of God, of the nature of which we may be safely ignorant, beyond what the Scripture hath declared of them; but not with safety speak of them, what we have not ground or warrant from that to do, lest it make us guilty of the breach of his com∣mand of not taking his name in vain. And certainly to say of the Urim and Thummim that they were images, we have from that no ground, but on the contrary what may justly move us to assure our selves that they were not so. For when we there hear God so often and so strictly forbidding to make, much more to use, in his worship, Images, when so constant∣ly cautioning them against all things of that nature, which might be to them occasion of Idolatry: it will be a very strange thing to think he should give them two Images for a pledge and certain sign of his immediate rule and sovereignty over them, as s 1.72 some stile the Urim and Thummim, and that he should testifie his Divine presence to them by speaking and giving answers to them out of them. Cer∣tainly those Images which they saw with their eyes made, either by God himself, or at least by his command and appointment, and out of which they heard his voice, would more have tempted them to Idolatry, (to which it ap∣pears they were prone, and hardly restrained from) than his command against it and Images, instilled into their ears, could have restrained them from it. It is given as a reason, why they should take good heed that they should not corrupt themselves, nor make them any image, the similitude of any figure, the like∣ness

of male and female, &c. because they saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake to them in Horeb out of the midst of the fire. Deut. 4.15. &c. Would they not now be ready to retort, We have both seen similitudes and images, and heard God speaking out of them, and therefore we may henceforth be bold to make such?

If it be objected, that the like danger would have been from the figures of the Cherubims, which were by God's command and appoint∣ment made, and set on the t 1.73 two ends of the Mercy-seat; it will be easie to see a manifest difference: for they were made onely for ornaments sake, and God is said to have dwelt between them, and to have spoken u 1.74 from between them, but not to have spoken in and by them. So that they had nothing in them to tempt them to look on them farther than ornaments of that Seat, from above which God spake; but these speaking viz. Urim and Thummim, if they had been images, might have made them think there was much of Divinity in them, and that God delighted to dwell in images, and such therefore they would make for him. We have therefore against the assertion of Christopher à Castro, af∣firming them to have been such, the words of a Learned man of his own Order, Cornel. à Lapide, who had pondered what he saith, and thus censures it. Verùm hoc, uti novum, ita pa∣rum verisimile videtur; praesertim quia hoc val∣dè. periculosum fuisset apud Judaeos, si imagines vidissent, vel audissent loquentes & vaticinantes. Erant enim ipsi in imaginum adorationem, & ad ido∣lolatriam propensissimi, i. e. But this, as it is a new opinion, so seems it very improbable; especi∣ally because it had been a thing very dangerous among the Jews, if they had seen images, or heard them speaking and giving prophecies, [or oracles, or answers;] for they were very prone to the worship of Images and Idolatry. His opinion therefore concerning Teraphim is much agreeable to what we have above said, that they were such images or Idols, which the Idolaters had at home in their houses, and did invoke and ask counsel of in all difficulties, and doubtful matters, as their houshold-gods: and that therefore the meaning of these words here, is, that Israel in their captivity shall want or be without their houshold gods, viz. their gol∣den Calves, and those Baals which they wor∣shipped in Samaria. For though they being mingled with the Nations did worship their Idols, yet these were not their own Teraphim, i. e. their own country and houshold-gods, which they had worshipped in Samaria. Thus he. But then if we take Teraphim in so ill a sense or signification, it is w 1.75 asked by way of retort, or objection, what punishment it had been to them to be deprived of such things? it had been rather a benefit to them. To this an∣swer is given by x 1.76 some of good note, that it is not necessary that every thing that is by God threatned to be taken away from any by way of punishment for their sins, should be in it self really good and lawful; it is suffi∣cient that it seem good, and be acceptable to them, and such as that they shall think them∣selves to be at a loss in being deprived of it, and that therefore God often threatens to take away all instruments or furtherances of super∣stition, and other vices. And this answer per∣haps will not seem to men of unbiassed judg∣ments so slight and light, as to some who are ingaged to maintain that Urim and Thummim are here meant by Teraphim, and that they were little Images, or (which I am loth to say) Idols. But there are other considerations, which I suppose will make it manifest, that neither Urim and Thummmim, nor any thing that was good, was here spoken of, nor meant by Teraphim. As first, that the punishment here denounced savours more of love and af∣fection than of hatred and revenge, and such as should be for their amendment, not destru∣ction to them; a sending that on them which might reduce and bring them home to God by repentance, that he might not be forced utterly to cast them away in displeasure; for the cutting off of their sins, for the saving of them. This is all along manifest, both in the sign and the declaration of the thing signified. The Prophet is not to seek the rigor of the law against the adulterous woman, nor himself utterly to reject her, but onely to impose on her such things as may make her sensible of her misdemeanours, and work in her shame and sorrow for them, and so keep her re∣strained for a time from those things, and those mostly evil, which she formerly took pleasure in, as that she may learn better things, better behaviour, and so be fit again to be received by him into full grace and favour; which as we said, savours more of love than hatred. And so in this declaration of what is signified by that Parabolical transaction, viz. God's me∣thod of dealing with idolatrous Israel, do we plainly see mercy in the midst of judgment, and having the upper hand, directing their suffering to their salvation, yea making it a means for fitting them for it, and bringing them to it, and his providence having all along an affectionate eye of compassion over them, in depriving them of such things as were de∣lightful, but destructive to them. The enjoy∣ing of them did bring on them and their King∣dom destruction, but the issue of their want of them, is described in the following words to be their returning to God, and their gra∣cious

reception by him. So that Abarbinel on this consideration doth (as seems to me) not without reason dissent from other inter∣preters, who take this second Prophecy (as he calls this Chapter) of our Prophet to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 increpatory, or a menace of wrath and judgment, taking it as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 consolatory, or a declaring mercy in the midst of judgment, by shewing of a method by which they should be freed from the sad effects of that wrath which they had justly deserved. Then secondly, that it is not therefore necessary, that the things which it is here said they shall be without, are to be understood of good, but rather on the contrary of evil things, how ever they thought of them, and formerly pleased themselves in the enjoyment of them. So in the Type, the adulterous woman was required to put away those things from her which made her to be an adulteress, and would shew her so to be while she continued in them: And so here in Israel by her Typified, are the things that is said she shall be without, such, as while she ran after, proved her guil∣ty of Idolatry, and estranged her from God, and provoked God for many days to put her from him, and withdraw his wonted kind∣ness from her. For though some of the names of those things be such as are appliable to good things, yet if we look narrowly into the scope of this method of God, and into the use that they were by them put to, while they enjoyed them, we shall scarce find how to apply them so here, and have probable reason to incline us to their opinion, who (as was above said) think them (viz. such as concern their religious worship) to be taken in ill part, as Sacrifice and Ephod: for though these things y 1.77 nomine tenus, as far as to what the names sound, are such things as were made use of in the true worship of God; yet were they such as were also abused by the Israelites to false worship, and so mingled with other idolatrous rites, and in such ill manner and ill respects used, as thereby to be corrupted and become offensive to God, and occasion of scandal to men. And surely the joyning here of Teraphim with Ephod may give us to suspect that as Teraphim were things ill used, for ido∣latrous ill ends, so also that Ephod is here to be looked on in the worst sense, not the best, so as to denote at best a Priestly vestment, which might be used in any worship, as well false, as true, and so to denote any Sacerdo∣tal ornament, z 1.78 and so any such performance, belonging as well to the service of false Gods as the true. I know it is made an argument to the contrary, a 1.79 that therefore Teraphim are to be probably understood of Urim and Thum∣mim, and things good in their nature, because they are joyned immediately (without distin∣ction of the negative particle, which is be∣tween the others inserted, so as to make a separation between them, as things differing in nature) with Ephod, as in the true wor∣ship of God they inseparably were. But sure∣ly if there be any thing in this nice observa∣tion, taken from the absence of the negative or disjunctive Particle, betwixt these two words, which between the other is expressed, (although most Interpreters do as our Transla∣tors, understand, and supply it here also,) the argument thence taken will conclude on the other part, viz. not that Teraphim are to be taken in a good sense, or so as to signifie Urim and Thummim, or any lawful, or true∣ly good, or sacred things, but that Ephod by being joyned with that ill name, is here taken as in an ill sense, in as much as that name is capable of being applied both to good and bad, to the sacred vestments of the high Priest, and other Priests used in the service of the true God, and to profane vestments used by Priests of the Idols in their worship of their false gods: But Teraphim was a name that always sounded and signified ill, (according to what hath been above shewed) and therefore being joyned with a name which was appliable both to good and bad, may limit and restrain that to what is bad, but cannot it self by being joyned to that change its nature, or be brought to signifie what is good. And besides, an Ephod they saw, and knew, and might imitate in form, so as that which they made might rightly be so called, though not in other respects like to that of the high Priests; but the Urim and Thummim (I suppose, for reasons above given) they neither saw so commonly, nor knew what they were, nor could so far imitate, at least for the known use of them, as that any thing that they could make, might deserve to be called by that name; nor do we find that they ever presumed to call their Teraphim, or any thing that they joined with their Ephod, so; though perhaps they might perswade the people, that seeing they could not have those, these might well enough serve their turn, yet they durst not communicate the name of them to their own fictions; and how shall we do it without injury and profa∣nation to them?

Upon impartial examination therefore, I cannot find any ground or reason at all to as∣sent to either of those clauses in that foremen∣tioned Exposition comprehended, either that the Prophet in God's name here mentio∣ning Teraphim, speaks of Urim and Thum∣mim; or that Ʋrim and Thummim were the same thing with them, and might properly

be, or ought to be, called by the same name as common to them; or that Urim and Thummim were Images. And therefore craving leave not to think, as he or any other of his opinion do, I suppose, though we cannot perhaps precisely and punctually find what sort of ima∣ges Teraphim of old were; it will be safest and most probable, and agreeable to the truth, to agree with the most part of Learned men and Expositors, in taking them for some sort of images, (according to what hath been said) which the idolatrous Israelites then used in their Spiritual adultery, and which were signs of such their adultery (and perhaps may be reckoned among those adulteries between her breasts, which Chap. 2.2. she is bid to put away.)

I have been long in this enquiry concerning what is meant by Teraphim in this place, yet seeing in the process we have seen the golden Calves, mentioned by that Learned man, from whom we dissent, as an instance of things which Jeroboam made in imitation of such as were in the Temple at Jerusalem, viz. of the Cherubims, I shall not dismiss the Reader without giving him the opinion of * 1.80 a very worthy and Learned man concerning them al∣so, whose words are these: "That Jeroboam's Calves were to represent the figure and the number of the Cherubims, that so the peo∣ple might believe they had the same worship still, cannot be said, since

1. Neither the people, nor the King, nor the Priests, ever saw the Cherubims in the Sanctum Sanctorum, to judge whether they were like or no, onely the High Priest en∣tring once a year there where they were, and with a cloud of Incense too about himself, as if he also should not see them.

2. Though it may be true, that some Che∣rubims may have been represented with a face like that of an Oxe, yet that the whole simi∣litude of a Calf was ever set to represent a Cherubim, there is no ground for.

3. It is certain, Jeroboam's Calves were in imitation of that in the wilderness, for the same words are used concerning them, These are thy Gods— which Calf tis plain was made before God had given any instructions con∣cerning Cherubims for the Ark.

4. Neither do the number of the Calves relate to the two Cherubims there, but two were made for the two ends of the Land for their convenience of worship; otherwise if they had related to the two Cherubims in the most Holy, then at each same place where God was worshipped, there ought to have been two as were in the Ark, not one in Dan, the other in Bethel.

To return from our long digression, these Teraphim, whatever they were, it is here said she shall put away, whether willingly or un∣willingly, or abide without, many dayes; what shall be the issue or consequent thereon, the next words declare, viz.

Notes

• x 1.1

  And see Oecolamp.
• y 1.2

  See Rive••, and Chr. â Castro.
• z 1.3

  Vat. Ar. Mon. and Ribera.
• a 1.4

  Rivet.
• b 1.5

  See Drus.
• c 1.6

  Tarn. and see Chr. à Castro, and Pelican.
• d 1.7

  On the place, and on Gen. 31.19.
• e 1.8

  See Chr. à Cast.
• f 1.9

  Jerom. &c. See in Chr. à Castro. Pet. à Fig.
• g 1.10

  Jun. Trem.
• h 1.11

  And see Abarb. on Amos 5.26.
• i 1.12

  See Specim. Hist. Arab. p. 100.
• k 1.13

  And so Ab. Ez.
• l 1.14

  See Ainsworth concerning the fashion of the Ephod, differently described by Josephus and Maimonides.
• m 1.15

  2 Sam. 6.14.
• n 1.16

  Ar. Mont. & Schind. Lexic.
• o 1.17

  Par.
• p 1.18

  See Mercer on Gen. 31.
• q 1.19

  A despised broken Idol. Jer. 22.28.
• r 1.20

  Ribera, Rivet. D^r Spencer of Urim, p. 74. &c.
• s 1.21

  Jud. 17.5.
• t 1.22

  ib. v. 6.
• v 1.23

  Pirke Eleezer. c. 26. Selden de diis Syris; and see Buxtorf. Lexic.
• * 1.24

  R Levi on Gen. 31.
• x 1.25

  See Specimen hist. Ar. p. 140. &c.
• y 1.26

  So Onkelos, as that of Jona than also.
• z 1.27

  And so 2 Kin. 23.24. and Ezek. 21.21. and Zach. 10.2.
• a 1.28

  Aquila 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Illuminations.
• w 1.29

  He that hath not the Hebrew books by him may see their testimonies reckoned up in Buxtorfs great Lexicon in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.30

  Lud. de Dieu. on Gen. 31.
• c 1.31

  Fuller cap. concord. or compare Ps. 104. His ministers a flaming fire.
• d 1.32

  Gen. 31 4.7.
• e 1.33

  See Syriac Version, and Bar Ali, and Bar Bahlul.
• f 1.34

  Ferrar. Lexic.
• g 1.35

  Bar Bahlul 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• h 1.36

  Beyer. not, in Selden de diis Syr.
• i 1.37

  2 Cor. 11.14.
• k 1.38

  Ainsw. on Gen. 31.19. and see Martinius Lex. Philol.
• l 1.39

  Mercer on Gen. 31. Kircher concord.
• m 1.40

  R. Bi∣chai.
• n 1.41

  Zohar. See Buxt.
• o 1.42

  On Jud. 17 and 18. and on 1 Sam. 15.
• p 1.43

  As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lahakath, and Kahalat, a congregation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a lambe, &c.
• q 1.44

  See Lud. de dieu on Gen. 31. and Beyer on Selden.
• r 1.45

  Kamus. &c.
• s 1.46

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• t 1.47

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• v 1.48

  viz. taken out of the ancient book Zohar. See Buxt. Lex.
• w 1.49

  That of Jonathan Num. 25.8. Deut. 28.57. See Buxtorf. Lex. and R. Tanchum in Morshed, and on Jud. 17.
• x 1.50

  On Jud. 17. and 1 Sam. 15.
• y 1.51

  Levit. 19.4. and elsewhere. Ps. 96, 5.
• z 1.52

  Jer. 3.24. and 11.13. Hos. 9.10.
• a 1.53

  On 1 Sam. 15.
• b 1.54

  Beyer on Selden.
• * 1.55

  Id. out of Kircher and Hotinger.
• c 1.56

  Ains. on Exod. 28.30. and so Jud. 20.18.—28.
• d 1.57

  Nachman on Ex. 28. See Buxtor. dissert. of Urim &c. and Ainsw. on Ex. 28. out of R. Menachem.
• e 1.58

  D^r Spencer de Urim. c. 4 sect. 1.
• f 1.59

  Hebr. 8.5.
• * 1.60

  Aelian and Diodorus Siculus.
• g 1.61

  Grot. notes on his book, De verita••e Christianae Relig. and on Exod. 28.30.
• h 1.62

  Fagius on Ex. 28. and see Buxtorf, of Urim.
• i 1.63

  Ezra 2.63.
• k 1.64

  1 Sam. 19.
• l 1.65

  Mercer on Gen. 4.
• m 1.66

  Gen. 8.20.
• n 1.67

  Chr. à Castro, in his book, de Vaticinio; and D^r Spencer.
• o 1.68

  See D^r Spenc. sect. 3. c. 5.
• p 1.69

  Id. p. 64.
• q 1.70

  Id. p. 67.
• r 1.71

  1 Kin. 12.28.
• s 1.72

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pignus, symbolum, & testimonium. D^r Spenc. de Urim. p. 23. and 318.
• t 1.73

  Ex. 25.18.
• u 1.74

  Num. 7.89.
• w 1.75

  D^r Sp. p. 56.
• x 1.76

  River.
• y 1.77

  Id. Riv.
• z 1.78

  Rendred therefore by the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and by the Ar. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Priesthood; and see Diodati.
• a 1.79

  Dr. Spencer p. 57.
• * 1.80

  D^r Allestre.