A commentary on the prophecy of Hosea by Edward Pococke.

CHAP. III.

VER. I. Then said the Lord unto me, Go yet, love a woman (beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress) accord∣ing to the love of the Lord to ••ard the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine.

THis Chapter, according to the formentio∣ned division of Abarbinel, contains the second Prophecy of this Book, and the scope of it, a 1.1 he saith, is to declare what shall hap∣pen to Israel in their Captivity, and how things shall stand between God and them, viz. that God, even then when they shall be in the Land of their enemies, will not subtract his providence from them, and that they, while they are there, shall not serve other Gods as they did in their own Land, but whatever other sins they shall be guilty of, shall beware of that of Idolatry, and that at the end of their Captivity they shall return and * 1.2 seek the Lord their God, and David their King.

Manifestly there are in it given us, to take notice of, first, the condition of Israel which they were in, when this Prophecy was ut∣tered, as to matters of their Religion, viz. that they were given much to Idolatry, verse the first: Secondly, what mean condition they should be brought to in that Captivity, which they should be given up to for that sin, not long after, in the three following verses: Thirdly, what should be their happy condition after that, when they should be converted to God in the latter days, verse the fifth.

The form of speech in which these things are declared being Typical, or Parabolical and much like that which we had before Chap∣ter the first, and the second verse &c. is to be understood in the same manner as that was, and the same questions are made as con∣cerning that, as namely whether that which the Prophet is said to have been commended, and to have done, were actually and really done, or whether in Prophetical Vision onely, or whether not so much as so, but that which is said to have been done, were onely a Parable put by God into the mouth of the Prophet, in which by representing or sup∣posing a thing done by him, he might make them sensible of what was really done by them. That way which we find Expositors to have taken there, the same shall we find them generally to take here: onely we shall take notice that Abarbinel, who there is ear∣nest to have what was said there, to be un∣derstood as really so done, saith, that what is here said, may be understood as done one∣ly in Prophetical Vision, or rather as a Parable, according to the Chalde Paraphrast's mind, because there the Text saith that he did do so, speaking of the Prophet in the third per∣son; but here speaks of him onely in the first person, saying, so I bought, as relating what perhaps in Vision onely he saw, or thought himself to do. If the Reader therefore would consider more of those different ways, I shall refer him to what hath been largely said there, without trouble of repeating it. Which way soever any shall take, it must be looked on as a Parable, wherein are the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ma∣shal, and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nimshal, the Similitude or thing represented as done, and that which

is assimilated and represented by it, as certain∣ly to be done according to that manner and purpose, in and to which the other is said to have been done; so that in it are persons with their actions, personating, and persona∣ted, representing and represented; the colla∣tion between which is here so expresly made in this Prophecy, by applying the main of them one to the other, that the scope of the whole is manifest, whatever difference there may be in the explication of the particular terms, and applying them to the persons. For that here by the Prophet's supposed carriage towards an adulterous woman beloved of her friend, the chief persons named in the simi∣litude, is represented that behaviour which God would use towards Israel, is not left for any to doubt. However about the woman and the friend personating God in the simili∣tude, who or what they are to be said to be; and likewise in the application, who is meant by Israel personated by the Adulteress, there be questions raised, which we shall take no∣tice of in their place, in going over the words: all make the scope and intention of the whole put together to be the same, viz. to shew how God will deal with Israel, and what her condition shall be first and last.

To proceed therefore more particularly to the explication of the words, which we must labour so to interpret, as that those in the one part of this Parabolical narration may fitly answer to those in the other, and the things representing to those represented by them.

Then said the Lord unto me, go yet &c. The same Lord that spake unto him in the foregoing Pro∣phecy. He is still acted by the same Spirit, and commissioned by the authority of the same Lord. I shall not need to observe, that the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Odh, i. e. yet, farther, or again, is by some referred and joyned to the preceding words, thus, The Lord said unto me again; So in the ordinary Translation of the Chaldee Paraphrase it is put, Dixit ad me Do∣minus iterum, vade &c. And so it seems to be in an Arabic Version, done out of Hebrew, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Wakala 'llaho li aidan &c. And the Lord said unto me also (or, again) go &c. although I know not why in the Chalde words the distinction should be so made any more than in the He∣brew, the same word being in them retain'd that in the Hebrew, and so placed also; and is therefore by another Learned man in trans∣lating them so placed, viz. Et dixit mihi Do∣minus, rursus vade &c. and that Arabick Trans∣lator, though he use a word which usually re∣fers to something going before in the order of speech, yet perhaps might so mean it as to refer to what follows: thus, also go &c. onely that he might place the words so as they stand in the Hebrew, without regard to the more accustomed use of that dialect. It is u∣sually by Interpreters, and that aptly, referred not to the Verb, said, but the word, go. The matter is either way indifferent, tending to the same purpose, viz. that besides what the Lord had before bidden him to do, he now bids him farther to do what he here saith, and so shews, that this is a new Type or Parable different from what before he was bid to make use of to them, for making them the more sensible, b 1.3 seeing the former had not wrought that good effect on them which it should have had, or not been laid to heart, or c 1.4 duely thought on and remembred as it ought to have been. Much alike is the scope of both: where∣in they differ, will be discerned by reading both, and comparing them together. This is manifest, that in this latter there is a more large d 1.5 declaration of the condition of Israel, and of God's dealing with them, in the middle while, between God's rejection of them and his receiving them, after a long time again into perfect favour, which is such, as that therein shall be evidently declared both his justice and mercy; his justice by reducing them to straits, and a mean or a hard condition, his mercy by his sustaining them the mean while, and not utterly withdrawing his care and pro∣vidence over them, nor suffering them finally to perish. It is commanded him from God, Go yet, love a woman: what the import of the word, love, here is, will better be discerned, when we shall have seen who is meant by the woman that he is bid to love. And concerning her there is much and not easily reconcileable difference between Expositors. e 1.6 Some will have it to be the same that was spoken of in the first Chapter, and there called Gomer; In which opinion there is nothing much absurd or inconvenient, and the words may seem to favour it, in regard that he is not here bid ex∣presly to take unto him for a wife, or marry, her, but to love her, which may seem to im∣port, that he had before taken her to wife. f 1.7 What some object, Whence shall it appear, that Gomer did, after she was married, return to her whoredoms? seems of no great mo∣ment. The description of her in the first Chapter rather intimates, that she continued to play the whore, but withall it appears not to be necessary to understand it of her, this being a new Type or Parable for representing the condition of Israel different from the for∣mer, and so might suppose a thing done by a different person. What difficulty might arise from arguments for it, or against it, if it be

as g 1.8 some will have, looked on as a narra∣tion of a thing really done, will be taken a∣way by looking on it (which is, as we have in that Chapter shewed, the more probable way) as a thing represented in Prophetical Vision, or rather a Parable. For if so, no inconve∣nience will be in introducing for the doing things supposed to be done, at divers times, either the same or a different person; nor will there be any difficulty in allowing or not al∣lowing such circumstances and space of time, which for the real transaction of things would necessarily be required in an ordinary way. As first, for the Prophets marrying a wife of fornications, and having by her three chil∣dren, and staying the weaning of them before he could utter his first Prophecy to the people; and then for his doing again what he is here bid and said to do: but in a Vision or Parable all these may be represented and set as it were before the eyes together, as in Pharaoh's But∣lers dream, the Vine was represented as bud∣ding, blossoming, and bringing forth Grapes all in an instant, which to have been really done would, we know, have required some moneths, except in case of Aaron's rod, Numb. 17.8. which all together budded, and brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and yielded Almonds: but here is no mention of a miracle, but a Vision or Parable, in which that may be represented together as done, which for the real doing would require the stay of several years. So that if what is here said to be done, be understood as done by or to the same person, as that in the first Chapter, it will not put us to enquire how many years interceded betwixt the uttering of this Prophecy and the former, as it will if we understand the thing really done, nor make way for other difficulties, to which the under∣standing it so makes liable, as we have on the first Chapter seen. So that the looking on it as a Parabolical representation onely, on the Prophet's side, of what was really done be∣tween God and Israel, seems much the more probable and convenient way.

h 1.9 Others also, who take a different way of Exposition, yet think the same person to be here meant by this woman, as was by Gomer in the first Chapter, viz. not one that was re∣ally dishonest, and a Strumpet; but the Pro∣phet's own former, and still honest, wife, which yet for making Israel sensible of their really a∣bominable condition, he is content to traduce and set forth as a lewd Strumpet, which not∣withstanding her ill carriage he still loved, and would not clean put her away. But this Ex∣position, as we did not before, so neither can we here incline to. It would be too harsh a dealing with an honest woman, who by this means though she were not really dishonest, yet would be really traduced and made infa∣mous as such. And if we shall think the crimes onely feigned or supposed, why may we not rather think the person to be so, than feigned crimes cast on a real person not guilty of them?

i 1.10 Others take a different way, and say, that by this woman here is meant the wife of ano∣ther man, which having plaid the Adultress, was yet loved of her husband, so that he was loth to put her away; and that the Prophet as a common friend to both should deal with her, and hire her to stay at home with him for a good while; not that he should make use of her, which had been a great wickedness, but that she should there live solitary and chast, neither using the company of others, nor of her own husband, till after a long time having bethought her self of her former folly, and grown better, she might again be brought to her husband, and live with him.

A Learned man, who lookes on this as the truest Exposition, refutes that which by the woman means Gomer, because it cannot be expresly made out of the Text. The same exception I suppose may be made against his: for he makes here three persons to be repre∣sented; the person of an husband, which must represent God, and the person of an adulte∣rous wife representing Israel, and then the Prophet, as a friend, which, out of love to both the husband and wife, shall seek means of reconciling and bringing them together a∣gain, which he saith represents him that lead Israel captive into that Captivity wherein she sate solitary, and as in widdowhood, viz. the Assyrian. For besides that here cannot well be, according to the words without for∣cing them, a third person at all introduced, neither in the similitude, nor the application, but onely two in each, the Prophet and an adulterous wife in the one, God and Israel in the other, as we shall by and by see; how shall the Assyrian, who neither loved God nor Israel, nor did what he did out of kindness to either, but rather in opposition to the one, and out of despight to the other, seeking not certainly the final good of Israel, but her ut∣ter destruction (however God made better use of him as the instrument of his chastise∣ment) be represented by the Prophet in what he should do out of love to both, seeking at once God's glory and Israel's good, and to make up the breach between them? This will not easily be deduced from the Text, nor well accommodated to it, or the intent of it. To omit what k 1.11 others object against it, viz. that this love, wherewith he is bid to love this woman, cannot be understood of any but

conjugal love, because he is bid to love a wo∣man beloved of her friend, according to the love of the Lord towards the children of Israel: now the love wherewith God loved the children of Israel was conjugal love; for being aware of such an objection, he saith, that the words, according to the love of the Lord towards Israel, bear not respect to the words, love a woman, but to the other, beloved of her friend, i. e. saith he, her husband, with such love as the Lord loveth the children of Israel. However by this he may seem to put off that objection, I suppose the other which we have given doth plainly shew, that this Exposition is not aptly accommodable to the Text; in giving the meaning of which, the application of the similitude or thing represented, plainly here expressed, must be (as he himself notes) our direction for rightly understanding the nature of the similitude representing, and the terms in it used for that end; and these here laid together will evidently shew both, that the Prophet in this comparison bears the per∣son of God, and that the love to him com∣manded is to represent the love not onely of a common friend, that wisheth well to ano∣ther man and his wife, and would seek to do good, in making peace and procuring love be∣tween them, but the love of a man to one espoused to himself, whom he continues to love, though she behave her self unworthily to him, so that he cannot but use some seve∣rity to her, and out of his love would try all possible means to reduce her to better order, that so he might again express more love to her in admitting her anew into his favour.

l 1.12 Others look on this woman as one that had a loving husband but was false to him, and that the Prophet was commanded to make love to her, still remaining another man's wife: and because this would be a great wickedness, they think this taken off, by say∣ing that it was not really acted, but propos'd as in a Parable onely. But we may not think that any thing that God should either have represented to him in Vision, or bid him use as a Parable, should be such as might require any appearance of sin committed by the Prophet; that would have made both him and his do∣ctrine (so expressed) obnoxious to the cavil of the hearers, and to be disregarded of them, and besides would not correspond with the thing to be represented by this Parable, viz. God's love towards Israel, whom he loved not as anothers wife, but his own.

m 1.13 Others yet understand it as spoken of one that had indeed been another man's wife, and been dearly beloved by him, but had com∣mitted adultery; and was now either by the death of her husband, or being divorced from him free, and that the Prophet was bid now to love her, notwithstanding her ill carriage to her former husband, and to contract her to himself: that after she had been separated for a good while from her evil company, and lewd doings, she might be received to him; and this they will have to be really done. But besides, that the Type so understood will not so well be appliable in other regards to what is represented by it, there is manifestly in it this default, that it supposeth in the sign two husbands, a former and the Prophet, where∣as in the thing signified there is but one, viz. God alone, who was before an husband to Israel, and still bears such love to her, though she hath played the strumpet, that he will not utterly cast her off, and will trie means to work upon her, that she may anew be received by him.

It remains therefore that this woman be understood of a n 1.14 wife of the Prophet's own, whether Gomer, whom before (Chapter the first) he had married, or because this is a new Pa∣rabolical narration, some other which he had either espoused (as o 1.15 some choose to express it) or married, (as Aben-Ezra saith, the words, love a woman, import, Take her to wife, for that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ishah, woman, implies a wife) yet because she had been false to him, did for a good while sequester him∣self from her, and her both from others and himself, that so he might accustom her to live honestly, and then (as it were) on a new ac∣count admit of her again, being not willing quite to abandon her as she deserved to be, out of a constant love that he had to her. Which Exposition will well agree with what was said Chapter the second, verse 16, 17, 19, 20. and is that which the Chalde Paraphraste here follows, who thus gives the meaning, And the Lord said unto me again, Go, utter a prophecy against the house of Israel, which, (or, that they) are like a woman that is beloved of her husband, and committeth whoredom under him, yet he notwithstanding loveth her, and is not wil∣ling to put her away; such is the love of God to∣wards the children of Israel, but they turn after the Idols of the nations.

Of this woman is here put as an Epithet, beloved of her friend: who is meant by this friend is here questioned. Some will have by it meant her husband, some another with whom she is much in love, and committeth adultery. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rea, is indifferently appliable to both, signifying more generally a friend, and any lover; yet sometimes parti∣cularly spoken of an husband, as is p 1.16 proved by example for both, out of Jeremy, Chapter the 3d. where in the first v we read, Thou hast played the harlot with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Reim

rabbim, that is, saith Kimchi, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ohe∣bim, lovers, as ours render, with many lo∣vers, so that there it is necessarily taken in the notion of a friend or lover in gene∣ral, but v. 20. as a wife treacherously depart∣eth from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Reah, her friend, i. e. as Kim∣chi expounds it, and ours in the Margin have it, her husband, to him in particular restrain∣ing that otherwise more common word. Ac∣cordingly is the word friend in our language appliable both to an husband, and to another which a woman shall love besides her husband. In which kind therefore is it here used? who is meant by her friend, of whom she is said to be beloved? Her Husband, say some: so, as we have seen, the Chaldee, so R. Salomo Jarchi, so Kimchi, the Prophet himself who should marry her; so among Christians q 1.17 many, that so this may be an aggravation of her fault, in that she sinned not onely against an husband, but an husband of whom she was still beloved.

Others, not a few, understand it of some other friend which she loveth, and is beloved of, besides her husband, so as to belong to the description of her lewdness, which is in the other words, yet an adulteress, more plain∣ly expressed. So among the Jews Aben Ezra, who saith, that by it is meant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A∣dam acher, an other man, (viz. besides the Prophet, who in the word love is bid to take her for a wife) with whom she shall commit adultery. In the like manner, of Christians r 1.18 not a few. Whichsoever of these wayes we take, it will according to that Exposition which we follow, come much to the same end. The first perhaps will be the more appliable to what follows in the explication of the simili∣tude, and accommodation of it to what is re∣presented by it; and it is perhaps well s 1.19 ob∣served, that the title of friend is here apposite∣ly used, because the marriage-knot being by the adultery of the woman dissolved, his good will that he still bears to her, makes that he deserves the title of her friend, but she cannot lay challenge to him under the name of hus∣band, till he shall by a second contract anew betroth her, and receive her to the right of conjugal priviledges.

Before we pass from these words, we may observe that which is by most Expositors ob∣served, that we have in the Greek Version of the Septuagint, a clean different reading or rendring of them, viz. in stead of beloved of her friend, the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, loving evil things; in which reading also the Syriac and printed Arabic version follow them. Their ren∣dring seems to depend on their reading, as if instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rea, which signifies a friend, they, with change of the vowel, read Ra, which signifies evil, and to the Passive Par∣ticiple gave the signification of the Active; or else there also in stead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ahubath, with change of the vowels read Ohebet; or perhaps the meaning seeming so plainer to them, and to be the import of being beloved by a friend, applied to another besides her law∣ful husband, though they read it as it is now read, they thought fit so to express it. We have no reason however, because of their so reading it, to doubt of the generally received reading in all the Hebrew Copies, or to de∣part from the proper significations of the words so read.

There follows to shew what is represented by the Prophets being commanded so to do as is expressed, viz. the love of God to Israel, and Israel's idolatrous condition; the one by the Prophet's loving an adulterous wife, the other by her being called an adulteress, in these words, according to the love of the Lord towards the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine. For understanding of which is first to be enquired, who are meant by the children of Israel, here represented by such a woman. And here is diversity of opini∣ons. t 1.20 Some think, that as the former Pro∣phecy concerned more particularly the ten Tribes of Israel, so this doth the other two of Judah and Benjamin. u 1.21 Others that it con∣cerns rather the whole twelve Tribes; but I think it more agreeable to the words and con∣text, that this also, as others w 1.22 will, be looked on as more especially still concerning the ten Tribes, both because his saying, Go yet, or again, seems to intimate that this address was made by the Prophet to the same that the former was; and again because the description of that state and condition, to which she, re∣presented by the woman that the Prophet was bid to love, was to be brought, given in the 4th verse, well agrees to that which the ten Tribes were brought to after the Assyrian Captivity, (as in due place will appear) not to any that the two Tribes were ever in till they were rejected for rejecting Christ, and not for Idolatry, which is the sin expressed, for which the children of Israel were to suffer such things as are by the Prophet here de∣nounced: and therefore though the words o∣therwise are appliable to the condition they are now in, yet do they not properly agree to them, nor these present times, nor any for∣mer sufferings of theirs, who before Christ's time were never totally deprived of their Kings and Priests, and since have not been guilty of Idolatry.

Here is by x 1.23 some another question raised, whether what is said, and the good therein promised, belong then to all Israel of those Tribes, or onely to the elect among them?

But this question I suppose need not here be nicely urged: the words are of the whole complete body of Israel, indefinitely spoken; and y 1.24 what if some of them did not believe, shall therefore the promise of God fail of its due effect? God forbid. The evils denoun∣ced are in general terms denounced, as to the whole body of them, because of the abound∣ing of wickedness among them, though we may not doubt but there were some good, and of God's elect among them: and the good promised is so likewise generally promised, al∣though it cannot be thought but that there were many wicked, and cast-aways among them. In the eyes of men perhaps may be no visible distinction betwixt them, or their con∣dition; but God who can distinguish, will so order things, as that all of them shall have their several portions according to their ways, and yet not one word of his promise, so made, fail. Where none is excluded but by his own fault, if all enjoy not the benefit, it's not to be charged on the promise; all that duly lay hold on it, shall find it faithfully made good to them. Properly therefore it is made in gene∣ral terms, to all, without exception of such particulars as should not embrace it. As to the outward part of the covenant, that is offe∣red to all in general, and means used too for converting all.

God's love to the children of Israel is re∣presented by the Prophet's loving a woman: which will confirm among the forementioned Expositions that which interprets it of one that was before his Spouse or wife; for so was Israel before her forsaking him by her adultery. It is that which in the z 1.25 foregoing Chapter hath been put all along as a ground of what is spoken, and likewise makes it pro∣bable, that by her friend is to be, in the words beloved of her friend, or companion, understood her husband, rather than an∣other friend; because in God's love to the children of Israel it was so. Though she was false to him, and had by her breach of the marriage-covenant, on her part made it null, and deserved utterly to be hated and aban∣doned by him, and he was much displeased at her, and had shewed great tokens thereof, as if she were no more his wife, but utterly reje∣cted by him; yet did he profess, and will by this Parable have it to be signified, that he hath a 1.26 still a kindness for her, his love being without repentance, and that he may ex∣press that his unchangeable love and kind∣ness, will therefore try yet means to re∣duce her, so as that he may make her ca∣pable of being again received into his fa∣vour, and enjoying new kindnesses from him. Mean while, as for their present con∣dition, it is resembled by that womans be∣ing an adulteress; and for what reason she is looked on as so, is here expressed, viz. by reason of her Idolatry, a sin usually likened to adultery, and so called: so saith he, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine

If with others we look on, as meant by that friend, another whom she was loved by be∣sides her husband, and with whom she com∣mitted adultery, then will all those words to∣gether, beloved of her friend, and an adulteress, whereby the womans lewdness is described, represent Israel, as looking to other gods, and loving flagons of wine, which all describe her Idolatry, and love of it. The first words, who look to other gods, are plain, shewing how forsaking God and his service, she loved Idols, and served, and honoured, and set her mind on, them, and thought her self beloved by them, and to receive all her good things that she en∣joyed, from them, as appears she did, by what is said in the foregoing chapter, where verse the fifth she saith, I will follow after my lovers, that give me my bread, &c. and verse the 8th. that she did not know that God gave her corn, and wine, &c. and verse the 12th. that she said of her vines and fig-trees, these are my rewards that my lovers have given me. But the last words, though plainly still tending to the description of her Idolatrous courses, yet are more ob∣scure, or made so by the different rendrings or expositions of them. That which ours with b 1.27 others render flagons of wine, (or c 1.28 grapes, as ours have in the Margin, and the word properly signifies) the vulgar Latin renders Vinacia, and love the kernels of grapes, as the Doway English Translation hath it. What ex∣ample there is for that signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ashishe, I know not, and if Vina∣cia be here taken in that its proper signification of kernels of Grapes, or husks of Grapes, out of which all the liquor is squeezed or pres∣sed, as it should appear from Jerom, from whom it proceeded, I know not what reason he had so to render it here, or what authority he followed in it: it may be he had as much for giving that notion to the word, as others had for giving other significations to it, but he hath not transmitted it to us, and so we are ignorant of it, in as much as none either Jews or others acknowledg that signification. He seems to have taken directions from some Greek Translations which he consulted, whiles he tels us, that Aquila (of whose Translation we have nothing but some fragments, cited by him, and others, left) rendred it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, old things, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such as were barren, and unfruitful; and to such things, viz. old and unuseful husks or kernels of grapes, he compares the traditions of the Jews. But if

this interpretation of the word be taken, I suppose the best exposition of the words is that which is by some given; that, as by a Proverbial expression he denotes the vanity and unprofitableness of those other gods, which they looked after, and those Idols which they served, as hoping for good from them, by comparing them to husks or kernels of grapes, that are for no use or profit but to be cast a∣way; and to these perhaps, as d 1.29 a Learned man notes, did St. Jerom think it to be refer∣red, whiles by another Exposition he com∣pares to such refuse of grapes the Apostate Angels, which void of all grace are become as such husks; and the Idolaters did in their Idols worship Devils and evil Angels: e 1.30 though some understanding thereby not so much the husks or kernels themselves, as a base sort of wine or liquor that was made by infusion of water on them, after all the good juice was squeezed out of them, take it as spoken in deri∣sion to those that idolatrously run after those false gods, and assembling to their worship were content then to have such liquor given them, there being not good wine to give to so great a multitude as came thither, as if they took any thing well that was as a token to them that they were respected, as Votaries to them.

The Greek Version of the Septuagint hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or, as other Copies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, junkets, or cakes with raisins, except the Translators take the word indifferently for any grapes, though it properly signifie dried ones, or raisins; though there the com∣mon Latin Translation of the Greek have also cum Vinaciis, which we cannot then think ought to be taken in its proper signification for dry husks or kernels of grapes, for they would be no pleasing ingredient for junketing cakes; and Jerom seems to take it for raisins, while he saith cakes which are eaten, cum uvis sive vinaciis, with grapes or vinacia, as if it were indifferent which word were used, and they were much used to the same purpose. According to much the same notion do they viz. the LXX, though no where else using the same word, render it in other places where it occurs, as namely 2 Sam. 6.19. where what is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Veashishah Echat, they render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and a cake from the pan; and the 1 Chron. 16.3. where the same story is repeated, and the same word used in the Hebrew, they render it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a sweet cake; and alike, if Drusius his conjecture may hold, Cant. 2.5, where for what is in the Hebrew stay me 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beashishoth, is commonly in them read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with sweet oyntments, he conjectures should be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with sweet cakes. The Syriac Version doth here much concur with the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dabushe deph∣shotho, sweet cakes, or like junkets with raisins in them, (plum-cakes); as also the printed Arabic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Almaltutat mea-z'zabib, cakes kneaded or min∣gled with raisins. Something doth likewise an Hebrew Arabic Glossary confer to the con∣firming of this signification of the word, who among the significations of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ashishah, reckons bread, or a sort of bread, fetching his authority out of the g 1.31 Tal∣mud, where by one of their Doctors it is ex∣pounded, a cake made of the sixth part of an Ephah of flower, although he is contradicted there by another Doctor, who saith it signi∣fies a vessel or flagon of wine; but in the mar∣ginal Gloss also there is put for explication of it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a great cake; and in the Chaldee Paraphrase ascribed to Jonathan, Ex. 16.31. the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wafers, is rendred by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ashishion. In the Arabic language likewise 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Osh, signifies bread, but h 1.32 properly dry bread. Now as for such cakes, they seem to have been of use in their Idolatrous worships and services, either to be offered to the Idols, as Jerom saith on this place, and we may have good grounds to think so, from what we read Jer. 7.18. The women knead their dough to make cakes to the Queen of heaven: and chapter 44.19. Did we make cakes to worship her, (although that prove nothing to the signification of the word here, because it is another word there used, but to the matter it doth) and among those things they offered to their gods, are reckon'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the word here used in the Greek; or because such cakes were distributed to them, that assembled to the Idols worship, as i 1.33 o∣thers think.

But now, most, both of the Jewish Exposi∣tors, and Christians also, except the forenamed, prefer to render it, as ours do, to denote fla∣gons or like vessels of wine, though in different words or names for them, which it will be needless singly to reckon up, or to inquire into their several measures, and quantities or dif∣ferences between them, except we had more punctual assurance than we have, which of them the word did peculiarly signifie. It will be sufficient, if we can make it clear, that it were some vessels for holding wine, which in their Idol-meetings or services were ordi∣narily made use of; whether bigger, which held more wine, out of which they might be supplied with it; or lesser flagons or bowls, such as they used in giving it about, or drink∣ing f 1.34

it. For this I suppose, if it be granted that it signifie any such vessels, it will be granted that here is understood wine, and to say flagons of grapes, will be as much as to say k 1.35 flagons of wine. or the bloud or liquor of grapes.

Now that it doth signifie some such vessel as we said, is first affirmed by most of the Jewish writers. So R. Salomo Jarchi, citing an an∣cienter Doctor, R. Menachem, saith, that he interpreted it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cups of wine, that the meaning may be, that they loved to make themselves drunk with wine, and did not give themselves to the study or doing of the Law; so, saith he, we elsewhere find that he punished them, because they drank in bowls of wine. Amos 6.6. And besides the authority of that Talmudical Doctor, which we have above seen, elsewhere also it is used in the l 1.36 Talmud for a cup or vessel. Aben Ezra also, and R. D. Kimchi, plainly so take it; and R. Tanchum renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Kanani in Arabic, which is flagons, or like vessels; as also he doth in the places of 2 Sam. 6.19. and Cant. 2.5. be∣fore cited; as m 1.37 others also of the forementio∣ned do. And though the printed Arabic render here as we have seen, yet in 2 Samuel he hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a cup of wine; and an∣other Arabic Version done out of the He∣brew renders it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which by the Arabian Lexicographers is explained, vessels that may be taken up in the hand, or handed; and n 1.38 another in that place of Sam. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Kanínah, a flagon, or glass-bottle, or the like. Abarbinel also, though he think it elsewhere to have other significations, as of some thing to be eaten, in Sam. and sweet odors, in Canticles; yet here thinks it to signi∣fie such vessels as we speak of, and that there∣fore he adds here the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of grapes or wine, to restrain it particularly to this notion, and exclude those other notions of it: and to him it seems that the Chaldee Paraphrase so took it also, though his words at first sight seem not to express any such thing. His words in his Paraphrase are, They look or turn themselves after the idols of the hea∣then, but if they repent it shall be forgiven them, and they shall be like a man which sins through error, and hath spoken words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bechabreh, against his friend, (as o 1.39 ordinary Editions have it) or as p 1.40 others perhaps better, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bechamreh, in his wine. So that the words according to him, besides what he adds, should import they were like men who loved to drink up flagons, or vessels of wine, so as to make themselves so drunk or sottish there∣by, that they knew not what they did; so were they besotted with the love of Idols, as to do they knew not what. So that according to this explication, and love flagons of wine, should be a Proverbial speech, to express that they were q 1.41 drunken in their adulteries; wherefore he saith, that those sins upon their repentance should be looked on as sins of drunken men, who knew not what they did, and so should be more easily pardoned.

I stand not farther to examine the meaning of the Chaldee, onely that by what he saith to have been his meaning, it appears that he took the word Ashishe to signifie flagons, or some other such like vessels of wine. As for himself that so he takes it, he farther yet shews, saying that for his part he thinks they be not here upbraided with drunkenness, but the object∣ing to them their love of flagons of wine to be in respect of another idolatrous custom, viz. a sort of Divination by r 1.42 such cups or ves∣sels of wine, and that they followed after Devils and Spirits, which they saw in those vessels by a kind of Magick, seeing as they thought in them Devils ascending and descend∣ing in such postures and figures, as might re∣present to them things to come; in which do∣ing the vessel is more regarded, or had re∣spect to, than the wine, and that therefore that he saith not, and love wine, but flagons of grapes or wine. But this being his single con∣jecture, I leave it to himself.

By what hath been said appears, how ge∣nerally the Jews understand by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ashishe, in this place, flagons or vessels of wine; and if we look among modern Trans∣lations either in Latin, or other Languages, we shall find them for the most part taking that way, though (as we said) expressing by several names these vessels.

The Tigurin Version indeed retains, with the Vulgar Latin, Vinacia, which what it properly signifies, and how St. Jerom (from whom we have s 1.43 that ancient Latin Version) understands it, we have seen: otherwise t 1.44 there be who would have us, by that word also to understand vessels of wine. And why we should take the word in the Hebrew so to sig∣nifie here, besides the authority of so many Interpreters and Expositors, there is very good reason, from the ancient custom of Ido∣laters, and the necessary conjunction of those two sins, idolatry and drunkeness, as hath been by v 1.45 Learned men observed, that the

idolaters were wont to revel and make ban∣quets at their Sacrifices, as appears Judg. 9.27. and Amos 2.8. and by what the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 10.7. and 21. where such cups are called the cup of Devils, for another reason than that which we have seen out of Abarbinel.

If after all this there remain yet any doubt left as to the interpretation of the word, we shall not find much help or directions from those several Etymologies which are brought of it, and drawn to their side, according as some fancy one signification, others another; as namely that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should come from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Achad, w 1.46 one, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shisha, six, as denoting the sixth part of an Ephah, whether of flower if it be a cake, or of wine if it be a vessel; or from x 1.47 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sus, to be glad, which may be appliable to junkets or cups of wine, both which may be said to exhilarate; or from the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, either as it hath the notion of corroborating and strengthning, so to denote either cakes or wine; or of y 1.48 fundamentum, the foundation, or that which is at the bottom, and so appliable to husks or kernels of grapes, which are at the bot∣tom of vessels of wine, and so be rendred vi∣nacia; or of z 1.49 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Esh, fire, to denote cakes baked on or by fire; or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shaish, which signifies marble, of which of old they built houses and temples, which Abarbinel com∣mends from Aben Caspi, but then he must mean vessels or pots made of marble, to put wine in. But all these, and the like, are but playing with the word, and are no solid proof of any of the significations attributed to the word, nor have we from a 1.50 such languages as are of affinity with the Hebrew, such helps here, as oft we have for other words: yet as to the signification of flagons, I suppose the Arabick affords us good probability; in which the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Esas, which well answers to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (onely by change of the letter Alef into Ain, which is not unusual, they being letters of the same organ, and of the same sound, onely the one somewhat more harsh than the other, and sh into s, which is very usual between those languages, as we have an example in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aras, to espouse, from which the Arabs say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ers, a spouse,) signifies great goblets or bowls. If af∣ter all this we be left at some uncertainty as to the signification of the word, yet we have what may well incline us to prefer that which our Translators follow: whichsoever of the forenamed or others, if they occur, any shall fol∣low, this must necessarily be acknowledged, that there was something consequent on, or joined with their idolatry, which was like the doings of an adulterous woman, and made them here to be resembled by one; which pro∣bably is well expressed by b 1.51 some learned Jews to be their leaving the service of God, and making themselves like to c 1.52 idolatrous Nations, in following after bodily delights and pleasures, as drunkeness, gluttony, and the like, which the service of those Idols did permit, yea require, as out of the places a∣bove cited may appear; or perhaps it is a farther expression of their following Idols, by the love to their feasts, and the wine drank at their sacrifices, and in this will both the Greek Translation, and all such as agree with ours, concur.

v. 2. So I bought her to me for fifteen pie∣ces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half-homer of bar∣ley.

In the former verse the Prophet declares a command from God to him for doing what we have seen described, with a declaration of what he was to represent in so doing; now doth he tell us what he represented himself to have done in obedience to that command, af∣ter which also follows a declaration of what was signified by his doing it.

So, i. e. in obedience to what the Lord said unto me, I bought her to me. Her, i. e. the wo∣man before spoken of. I bought; in the same sense of the word do, as d 1.53 most of the He∣brew Expositors, so most Translations agree, except perhaps the old vulgar Latin, which hath, Fodi eam, (which the Doway Transla∣tors render) I digged her unto me, though in the Margin they put, bought. That the word doth signifie to dig, there is no question; nor more, that it signifies likewise, to buy; but that Translator choosing to render it by the notion of digging, hath put some, who follow and defend him, to inquire after some reasons why he should choose to render it by that word. And e 1.54 some think it so meant as if they therein took an allusion to be had to a vine∣yard,

and the pains and cost that the owner is at in cultivating it, and reducing it to good: but this seems very far fetched. f 1.55 Others look upon it as an allusion had to that digging or boring through the ear of a servant, (man or maid,) of which mention is made g 1.56 Exod. 21.6. by which means that servant was obli∣ged to serve his master for ever: but this seeming to others not clear neither, h 1.57 they think it a better way to say, that plainly by digging they meant buying; and i 1.58 some give a rule (which may be observed for reconciling the Latin to the Hebrew in some other places) that whereas an Hebrew word hath two or more different significations, that which doth not so well agree to the place which is inter∣preted, is sometimes taken; but then to be understood according to the latitude of the Hebrew word, in that sense which is most proper for the place, and in stead of the other, though it would not elsewhere so signifie; so it being done here by them, there is in this no quarrel against ours and the like Translations. The Greek of the Septuagint here hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I hired her to my self, and so the printed Arabic following them; whereas an∣other Arabic Translation, done out of He∣brew, hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Athbattoha li, I made her firm to me. This rendring is so near in sense to that of, I bought her, as buying and hiring for a price are, (both signifying the getting of a thing into their own right or pos∣session by a price,) that one would scarce make any question about it; yet doth a k 1.59 learned man hence take occasion to affirm, that the Septuagint did read otherwise than is now read in the Original Hebrew, to wit, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Veeccereha, and I bought her, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Veeshcereha, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shacar, which signifies hire. But we have no reason to comply with him in it, as, for the reason already given from the nearness of the sense of one of those words with the other in such a case as that here mentioned, so also, because we cannot doubt but the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Carah, did as well signifie to hire for a price, as to sell, it being a very usual and known signification in the Arabic language, which is of great affinity with the Hebrew, of the same root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cara, which hath in it the signification as of dig∣ging, as in the Hebrew it hath, so also of hiring for a price. But if the word be so taken for bu••ing, there seems to lie from it an obje∣ction against the exposition which we follow; in taking, by the woman here spoken of, to be meant such a one as the Prophet had be∣fore married or espoused to himself, and she had under him committed adultery. For what need had there been of new buying her that was his own? and he might by right of the former dowry given to or for her, have still challeng'd dominion over her, having not put her away by bill of divorce. l 1.60 But to this the answer will be casie; that indeed, supposing the matter really acted as it is here described, he had not lost his right to her, although she had played false with him, and forsaken him, and on her part dissolved the marriage-knot, and might by force have called her back: but he out of the kindness that he still bare to her that had shewed such unkindness to him, dealt with her as is here said, and that he might perswade her to a better mind, and to bring her to such a condition as that she might be fit, (as at present she was not, and therefore he would for a time abstain from her,) to be again received by him, and live with him, al∣lotted her such a portion to live on in an ho∣nest, though not such a luxurious manner as she before did, till upon her repentance and amendment he should again admit her; which admittance of his would be as a new espous∣ing or a new marriage of her, who for her part had forferted and lost that right and title, which by vertue of her former espousal she had in him. And this is agreeable to what is by God said, c. 2.14 and 19. that he would allure her, and speak comfortably to her, and would anew betroth her, who having for∣merly been his wife, was through her whore∣dome and adulteries now become not his wife, v. 2. So that we shall not need farther to look to what this buying or hiring her with such a price, had respect; whether to such a coemption, as m 1.61 some will, whereby of old among some people, man and wife were said to buy one another, (which I know not whe∣ther in this Prophets time it was known to the Jews) or to the known custom among the Jews, of giving dowries for their wife, as n 1.62 o∣thers. For the price which he is here said to buy her with, seems not as a dowry, where∣by he should first purchase her for a wife; but such a portion, as though, through the power he had over her, he might for her ill deserts have quite put her away for ever, or (if he had been so minded) have by rigor taken her, and shut her close up, and used all severity and hard∣ship toward her, he did notwithstanding allow her, to maintain her, not in luxury but in a competent manner, so as she could not but be sensible at once both of his displeasure in cutting her so short, and of his great kindness in allowing her so much who deserved no∣thing, till upon her bethinking herself, for which he allowed her a good time, he should

again receive her to the full priviledges of a wife; which reception might (as we said) be well looked on as a new marriage, and his allowance to her as a buying of her; though not so much a purchasing to himself a right in her, as a buying or hiring her to be honest, and fit to be received again by him, and not cause him quite to abandon and disclaim that his right in her, as she had on her part forfeited that right which she had in him, and could not have pleaded any, had not he by great and extraordinary kindness been plea∣sed still to own her, and look after her for good, even in his shewing of his displeasure for her ill doings. And this being considered, there will be nothing in the use of the word buying, which may cross our understanding of the woman described, for such a one as had been formerly his wife, but becoming an adulteress was thus again bought from her self and her lewdness, or hired with a price to be honest; in which kind dealing and love to her, yet he may appear to have used his power over her; for it is not mentioned, that she was willing to consent to it, but he gave her that allowance, and required her to do as follows in the next verse: but we have before that, in this verse, mentioned the price wherewith he so bought her, or the portion of maintenance that he allowed her, which is said to be fifteen pieces of Silver, and an Ho∣mer and half Homer of barley, or Lethec, (as in the margin.) The pieces of Silver are un∣derstood by divers to be Shekels; the word be∣ing indefinitely put seems to denote the or∣dinary coin then among them, whether (as most probable) Shekels, or otherwise: so do they usually understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mat. 26.15. which literally answers to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ceseph here; and if those thirty pieces there, were the value of four pounds ten shillings, as is o 1.63 observed, then will this Silver here amount but to fourty five shillings. As for the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Homer, which is also called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cor, 1 Kings 4.22. and so rendred here by the ancient La∣tin, Corus, p 1.64 the Jews say of it, that it con∣tained thirty Seahs, and a Lethec fifteen Seahs; so that a Lethec was half an Homer, as it is by ours rendred, and that thirty Seahs are ten E∣phas, (the name of a measure often met with in the Scripture) every three Seahs making an Ephah, and a Seah 144 Egges, and so an Ephah the measure of 432 Egges. q 1.65 Others giving the measure of it by weight, say it con∣tained the weight of seventy two thousand Drachmes, that is, five hundred common Ro∣tals, and so consequently a Lethec thirty six thousand Drachmes, or two hundred and fifty Rotals, and that an Homer is the greatest measure they have, as an r 1.66 Egge the least.

If there be any thing dubious in their ac∣count, or difficulty in bringing the Hebrew measures to ours, it is not that which need much disturb us, being to look on the allow∣ance here made as sufficient, according to the custom of those times, to her spoken of, for that purpose which he would effect on her.

Now as to the number of these pieces of Silver, and the measures here assign'd, toge∣ther with the matter or nature of the grain by those measures given, such strange Allegorical or Mystical expositions are by Interpreters, both Jews and Christians brought, and those so many and so different, that to recite but some of them will be tedious, and to insist far∣ther on them certainly to little purpose, and nothing at all to the meaning of the words or scope of the place. s 1.67 It cannot be that they should all have hit the right, or be all true or apposite, and very probable that none of them have so. The Chaldee Paraphrast takes the words as spoken by God, and understands by the fifteen pieces of Silver the fifteenth day of Nisan, in which he redeemed them by his word, i. e. brought them out of Egypt, thus rendring the whole verse; And I redeemed them by my word on the fifteenth day of Nisan, and gave silver in weight for the redemption of their souls, and commanded that they should offer before me the wave-sheaf of the fruit of barley: which words of his, because I find not the Jews to make any clear sense of, I shall not adventure on it. They bring others as unin∣telligible, while t 1.68 they would discover to us, agreeable to the Chaldee, from the number of the pieces of Silver and of the Seahs, which an Homer and a Lethec do contain, the fifteenth of Nisan, in which the children of Israel came out of Egypt; and of fourty five days, which they spent in going to Mount Sinai where they received the Law; and that by barley, which is food for beasts, is intimated that great part of the people that came out of Egypt, till they received the Law, were as Horse and Mule which have no understanding, but that after they received the Law their eyes were opened, and the spirit of understanding rested on them; v 1.69 or that it should have in it an allusion to the w 1.70 valuations set on persons by vertue of a vow; x 1.71 or that by the fifteen pieces should be meant the righteousness of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the twelve Tribes, and the same by fifteen Ephas con∣tained in the Homer and the Lethec; or as y 1.72 others, that the Homer and Lethec, making fifteen Ephas, intimate Moses, Aaron, and

Miriam, and the twelve Princes (of the Tribes) that went out of Egypt; or as z 1.73 another, that the Parable concerns Judah, and the fif∣teen pieces of Silver denote the fifteen Kings of Judah, of which Rehoboam was the first, and the Homer and Lethec the High Priests, which were in the Kingdom of Judah in Jeru∣salem. Or as others, a 1.74 that by fifteen pieces is meant fifteen Prophets, who prophesied of the Jews redemption yet to come from cap∣tivity, viz. David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Habbakuk, Zephaniah, Daniel, Haggai, Zachariah, Mala∣chi (for though Balaam also prophesied of the same, yet he is not to be reckoned with them, seeing he was not of the children of Israel,) and that these are called Cesaphim, pieces of Silver, or Silverlings, is from the import of that word which signifies desireable, and the de∣sires of Israel are to or on them, and their good Promises and Prophecies. And as for the Homer and half Homer of barley, which they would rather have to be rendred accor∣ding to another notion of the word, an heap and half heap, or great measure, that it should point to the many curses in the Law denoun∣ced, of which are half so many in one place mentioned as in another, as Lev. 26. forty nine curses, Deut. 27 &c. ninety eight; and that in the name of barley, should be an allusion to another signification of a neighbouring root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Saar, which signifies a tempest, because those curses were as a destructive tempest to Israel; by considering which curses in the Law denounced, and the good Promises in those fifteen Promises, they learn to acknow∣ledg both God's Justice, and Providence, and Mercy, and are armed with patience for en∣during the afflictions of their long captivity, and hope for deliverance out of them; or that by them is declared the number of years which the afflictions of the Jews should last from Jehu's time untill the excepted time of their deliverance to come.

These and the like mystical Expositions of these words have we from the Jews, in which to trace them, would be to wander with them in a wilderness wherein is no way. If the meaning of any of them be asked, I know not what to say, but that I suppose they them∣selves knew not what they meant. They seem to have set their fancies on work, which lead them on till they knew not where they were, and then they fixed on any thing that had the number of fifteen upon it, and any thing that they could imagine to contain the same num∣ber or measure howsoever made up, with an Homer and Lethec, or any way agree with the name or nature of Barley, thought that to be the thing meant by the Prophet. Abar∣binel confesseth of what is said by others, that there is in them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 much weakness and straitness, or straining; and per∣haps would not deny the same of what him∣self brings of his own in that kind, seeing he confesseth, that he did for that cause onely bring such allegorical Expositions, because all other Expositors before him had so done; and, it seems, not liking of what they brought, would himself try what he could do. We may justly wonder at these; but how shall we then but wonder more to find Christians of great learning and note, no less extrava∣gant in their expounding these words, and finding out mysteries in them? St. Jerom, and b 1.75 some others, much agree with the Jews in telling us of the fifteenth of Nisan, and of their coming to Sinai after forty five days, and the five shekels apiece for the firstborn, and the like. c 1.76 Others find out the five books of Mo∣ses, and the ten Commandements in the num∣ber Fifteen, and in the Homer and half, the Law and the Gospel. d 1.77 Others, all that dow∣ry (as it were) which God gave to the Syna∣gogue when he espoused her in Egypt, and the Silver that they took from the Egyptians, and the necessary supply of sustenance (denoted by Barley) which he gave them in the wilderness, and all the blessings spiritual and temporal which he bestowed on them. Arias Montanus plainly translates Abarbinel, though without naming him, and seems of the same opinion; and others say things as little or less intelligi∣ble, and all far from the purpose as will appear, if they be applied to the words to which they will be found no more to agree, than any thing on which such numbers or measures may be any way fastned, the disconvenience of them all will easily appear by considering such things as must be heeded to, however what is here said be looked on, either as a thing actually done, as some will, or repre∣sented onely in a Prophetical Vision, or as a Parabolical Type, which opinion we rather choose to follow, of which there is after given (v. 4.) the explication and application. They disturb and confound the series and scope of the words or narration: first, in that whereas the Prophet speaks as of himself, that he ac∣cording to a command received from God, bought, with the price set down, such a woman, of such, and on such, conditions, they by a change of the person make God to speak as in his own person, that he bought her, and he said unto her thus and thus. Secondly, in that whereas here is a Type or similitude set down, to which that which follows v 4. &c. is to be applied, as the thing resembled by it, they anticipate that application, and make it void as to that purpose, by making the similitude

it self to be a narration in aenigmatical terms, of other things by which that is not at all re∣sembled, nor can have any coherence with, except as a thing which should also be done afterwards, whereas it is ushered in by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ci, for; to shew that what is after said shall be done by God, is that, for declaring which this before is commanded to be done, or re∣presented as done, by the Prophet, and that there is no other meaning in it then what refers to that. Thirdly, in that they make these words to be a narration of things long since past, whereas they are spoken as of things which the Prophet represents himself, as then, at that present, to have done, and to capitu∣late with that woman for the future, thereby to e 1.78 signifie not what God had formerly done, but what he would after do to Israel. In these respects, some or all of them, will the former recited Expositions be found peccant, and in summe confer nothing for understanding the meaning or scope of the words; nor are they such as may satisfie any mans mind, (as by f 1.79 some is observed,) nor can the mentioning of them be of any other use to us than to look on them as so many false ways, that we may if we meet with them, beware that we run not astray in them, but look after some plainer and righter.

It is by a Learned g 1.80 Expositor said, that in this number of pieces of Silver, and measures of barley, there is some mystery couched, but what it is, is uncertain. But I know not why we should think there is any farther my∣stery hidden in them, than what is after ex∣plained in the application of the things by this signe signified, to it, viz. the condition that Israel should be brought to the like condition of a woman so dealt with. If it be therefore asked, why the price or allowance that the Prophet saith himself to have given to her, is said to be fifteen pieces of Silver, and such measures of barley; I think it may be suffi∣cient to answer, that seeing some price was to be assigned, why not this as well as another? If any other had been named, it would have been obnoxious to the same question, why that rather than another? Farther, h 1.81 it may possibly have respect to a custom then known, of giving so much on such an occasion. Again, it may be very apposite to the case supposed, viz. that this woman, which had before in her plenty indulged to lewdness and luxury, should by her loving friend or husband, not willing to put her clean away, but to reduce her to a better understanding and better beha∣viour, that so she might be fit afterwards to be received again to his favour, have such a portion or pittance allowed her, by which she might live soberly and honestly, though not so luxuri∣ously and want only as before, and so (as we have before said) perceive his love to her in allowing her so much, and his displeasure at her former doings, by his so fa•• straitning and abridging her; and so bethink her self of her former folly, and learn for the future to behave her self better and more obediently to him, and fear any more to offend him. This will more appear by a view of the conditions which, on making her this allowance, he re∣quires on her part, and promiseth on his own. But before we proceed to that, we may by the way observe, that instead of Lethec, or a half Homer of barley, the Seventy put in their Greek Translation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Nebel of wine, which why they so did, I find i 1.82 some to won∣der, but none adventure to give a reason; so the printed Arabic likewise following them. It must be likewise heeded, that whereas here for an Homer they put 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it be not mista∣ken for an Omer, which they elsewhere ex∣press by the same name, and is a far different little measure, and is written in Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Omer, whereas this is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chomer. Drusius his conjecture is not amiss, who thinks this at first was written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ch, however by the fault of the Scribes it be now otherwise. This being observed, to pro∣ceed.

v. 3. And I said unto her, Thou shalt abide for me many dayes, thou shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be for another man: so will I also be for thee.

The Prophet having represented himself, as having given to her such a price or allowance, addes certaine conditions that thereupon he requires, and binds her to; which are, first, that she should abide for him many dayes, or literally, thou shalt sit to me, or, for me, which is all one with abiding, in expectation of his farther pleasure concerning her, and not to run a gadding after others as she formerly did; but remain as one sequestred and folitary, and that for many dayes, as many as he should see fit to require her so to do. The time is indesi∣nitely expressed, and therefore to define it by a year or years, or like space, otherwise than left in his breast who requires it of her, is without ground. Nor do they so kindly seem to express it, who render, k 1.83 shalt sit with me, as if at his house she should remain. Sufficient is it that she were there, or elsewhere, so she observed what he required, viz. that she should so abide sequestred, and as in wid∣dowhood, till the time that he should l 1.84 be fully reconciled to her, and see fit again to

receive her to the priviledges of a wife, which till then she shall be content in m 1.85 penance, as one notes, for her former abuse and forfei∣ture, to want, yet reserved still for him; and therefore he expounds the meaning of the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 li, to me, or for me, by, shalt be called still by my name, and not by the name of an other man; though so separated for a time from him, as not utterly rejected or disowned yet by him. So an Arabic Version out of Hebrew renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Thou shalt sit a long time in my name. Aben Ezra makes the import of it to be, that thou mayest be mine, thou shalt sit or abide many dayes. The sense, saith he, is, If thou wilt be mine thou shalt sit many dayes, so as not to play (or that thou shalt not play) the Har∣lot; and that is in the next place a condition which he farther requires to be observed by her, viz. thou shalt not play the harlot; and then a third condition is, and thou shalt not be for an∣other man: where it is to be observed, that the word (another) is not in the Hebrew, but supplied by our Translators, for giving their meaning, as it is by others also both n 1.86 Transla∣tors and o 1.87 Expositors. But p 1.88 others think it not convenient so to do, but barely to put it down as the Hebrew hath it, and thou shalt not be to a man, i. e. that it may import, not to any man, no not to thy own man or husband. Both of these ways are well agreeable to the words, taken either by themselves, or joyned with those preceding and following, which imply both, and that she should sit solitary as in state of widowhood, without the com∣pany of any man, either her own husband, or any other. But they will make some diffe∣rence in the application of the thing signified to the Type or Parable, as will be seen in the next verse.

Having required these conditions from her, he addes another, which he will observe to∣wards her, so will I also be for thee. That is li∣terally what the Original Hebrew hath, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vegam ani elaic, word for word, and also I to thee, (or for thee;) and to the same purpose do the q 1.89 ancient Translators render it, and most of the modern. Yet are there r 1.90 ma∣ny who do otherwise, repeating here from the former clause the negative Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lo, not, as if it had common influence on these as well as them, as in other cases sometimes it or the like Particle hath on two members of a sentence, though not expressed in the latter, but repeated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as that which is com∣mon to both, as they speak; and then they render, and I also will not be for thee, and this do some accordingly follow in their Exposi∣tions. So divers of the Jewish Expositors; so Aben Ezra, The one negative Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not, once expressed serves for two, and the sense is, and I also will not come unto thee; yet the other way also he mentions, saying, There are who say, the meaning is, If thou shalt return unto me, I also will return unto thee. So also R. David Kimchi saith, that the one negative Particle stands for two. Abarbinel also men∣tions it as a way that may be followed, though he seem to like the other better. Among Christians also there be, as we said, that follow it. So Arias Montanus expounding, I also will not perform the duty of an husband to thee; Mercer also prefers it, as more agreeable in his opinion to what follows in the next s 1.91 verse: but t 1.92 others think otherwise, and therefore that the negative ought not to be repeated, but the words are to be taken affirmatively, as they stand by themselves, and as they are by ours rendred; and so the meaning will be, that as she should abide for him many dayes, so he would also abide for her, and not clean put her away from him, but expect till after her humiliation and repentance of her former lewdness, and abstaining from all evil doings of like nature, he might think her fit again to be received by him, and that on such her be∣haviour and conversion he would certainly again return unto her, and receive her into his favour. This is agreeable to what the Chal∣dee Paraphrast hath, I also will have mercy upon you. * 1.93 Some explain the meaning by, I also will abstain from marriage, or that he pro∣miseth and obligeth himself on his part also, that he will expect till that time be expi∣red, and not take any other wife. Which al∣though it may be well enough understood, u 1.94 yet perhaps is an expression not so conveni∣ent, as being liable to some scruples or obje∣ctions, if nicely urged, in that it may seem to restrain God's promise of marriage onely to the people of Israel, here particularly spoken to, with exclusion of other Nations, which were to be in Christ received into the same Cove∣nant with them. So that the meaning in re∣spect to Israel must onely be a promise, that God, though he separate himself for a long time from them, and humble them by bring∣ing them to a low condition, and restraining them from their Idolatry and former luxury, yet will not so utterly reject them, but that he will in his due time upon their conversion, again receive them, as in the applicatory part of the Parable will be farther manifest. And

in this Exposition will be well included what w 1.95 others also suggest for the meaning of the words, viz. though he thus requireth her to sit solitary and sequestred, yet he will not forsake her with his care, but all the while bear a kindness and respect to her, and take care for her, that he may at last free her a∣gain from this desolate condition, and enlarge her.

Thus have we hitherto the proposal of the Type or Parable; in the next words follows the explication or applicatory part of it, with a reason why the Prophet was bid to repre∣sent himself as doing what he saith he did.

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 1.96 Hasmonei or Macchabees no account is to be had, in as much as they were not of the sons of Judah. y 1.97 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 1.98 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 1.99 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 1.100 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 1.101 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 1.102 Abe•• Ezra tells us, (as e 1.103 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 1.104 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 1.105 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 1.106 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 1.107 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 1.108 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 1.109 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 1.110 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 1.111 naming of one chief one, may the other Priestly garments and ornaments be under∣stood, o 1.112 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 1.113 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 1.114 and cast by, not yet destroyed; or whether it were r 1.115 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 1.116 his conse∣crating one of his own sons could make him a lawful Priest. He lived in a corrupt age, when there was t 1.117 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 1.118 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, * 1.119 as one thinks do wother Jews concur, considering what was used afterwards to be done, as histories and other books report among the x 1.120 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 1.121 Chal∣dee Gen. 31. renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tsalmanaya, Images; and so likewise 1 Sam. 19. z 1.122 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 1.123 〈 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 1.124

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 1.125 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 1.126 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 1.127 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 1.128 for they say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Serophin, and Serophe, and per∣haps sometimes f 1.129 〈 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 1.130 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 1.131 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 1.132 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 1.133 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 1.134 being set in a place they were not thence re∣moved, (or rather, I suppose, because they could not thence remove themselves,) or m 1.135 be∣cause their answers and oracles were weak things, and no way certain, or n 1.136 because they made their worshippers remiss, and idle, and hindred them from their business. o 1.137 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 1.138 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 1.139 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 1.140 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 1.141 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 1.142 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 1.143 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 1.144 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 1.145 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 1.146 as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Elilim, things of nothing, z 1.147 〈 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 1.148 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 1.149 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 * 1.150 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 1.151 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 1.152 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 1.153 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 1.154 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 * 1.155 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 1.156 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 1.157 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 1.158 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 1.159 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 1.160 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 1.161 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 1.162 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 1.163 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 1.164 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 1.165 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 1.166 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 1.167 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 1.168 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 1.169 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 1.170 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 1.171 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 1.172 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 1.173 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 1.174 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 * 1.175 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.

v. 5. Afterward shall the children of Is∣rael return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their King, and shall fear the Lord, and his goodness in the later dayes.

When they have for many dayes received and undergone this discipline or penance of being without those things, by the enjoyment of which they grew wanton, and committed lewdness against the Lord in following and serving Idols, and without those Idols, be∣twixt God and which could be no possible agreement, and so fitted again to be received by him: then, afterwards, after those many dayes. When those dayes were to begin, or they were to enter on that former course of penance, we have already seen in the fore∣going verse; how long they were to conti∣nue in it, and when to enter on this different condition here described, being by that for it prepared, or when those many dayes were to end; these present words give us to enquire, and direct us in it.

The word, afterwards, doth not any way determine the space of time, but the other expressions subjoyned, as namely, that which is said, they shall seek David their King, and the particular mention of the later dayes, will help us in determining it, viz. so as to refer it to the time of Christ's coming, and the calling them in, by the publishing to them the tidings of the Gospel, as we shall see when we come to those words in their order as they lie.

Afterwards shall the children of Israel, i. e. those whom we have seen by that name in the foregoing verse to be denoted, viz. those of the ten Tribes peculiarly here spoken of, though the words in some respects may be appliable to the others also; return, by repentance (saith Kimchi,) they, viz. the posterity of them, be∣ing still by succession one people, who had before forsaken and forgotten the Lord, to run after Idols, which they called their Lovers and Benefactors, (as their lewd behaviour is in the second Chapter described) shall, after they have been, by the just judgment of God whom they had provoked, for a good while taken of and restrained from the liberty which they had indulged to themselves formerly in their lewd courses, by this means brought to a better consideration of their wayes, and un∣derstanding of themselves, return or be converted unto him, and abandoning all false worships, all things contrary to him, seek him

the Lord their God; so far had they gone a∣stray from him, that if they would again find him, there was need to them of seeking him. But the word implies more, viz. b 1.176 a desire of being reconciled to him, a setting their affe∣ctions on him and his service, a desire of knowing him and his will, as acknowledging him the onely true object of worship, and his service, in that manner as he requires to be served, the onely true worship and religion, and an endeavour accordingly with all heed and diligence to serve him, and conform them∣selves to his will, and a dependance on him alone as the author of all good to them, and expectance of all onely from him, all contra∣ry behaviour to that which was before in them described (as we said) in the foregoing chapter; where we hear of them running after their lovers, as they called their beloved Idols, and saying that they were those that gave them their bread and their water, their wool and their flax, their oyl and their drink, as re∣wards to them for their serving them, and therefore lavishing on them, and for adorning and serving them, their Silver and Gold; mean while casting off the knowledge of him, together with their obedience to him, and forgetting him, and putting away all due remembrance of him: but now on the contra∣ry shall they, abandoning those things, and putting away even all remembrance of them, seek after God and him alone, him acknow∣ledge both as Jehovah the onely God, and as their God, as a God who had always right over them, and to their service, and had done all things for them, and so their God, whom alone they will acknowledge, on whom alone they depend, and will therefore duely serve, and seek to for all good things which they want. These and the like condi∣tions doth the seeking the Lord their God ma∣nifestly include, and require.

It is added, and David their King; him al∣so, being converted from their errors, shall they seek, i. e. set their desires on him, ac∣knowledge him, embrace his government, look and apply themselves to him with de∣pendance on him, for his protection, and all that is to be expected from a King, and hear∣tily yeild to him all that respect of honour and obedience which is from loyal subjects due to their King. But who then is this David their King? David in person was long since dead, and therefore of him in person it cannot be understood. That which is generally as∣sented to by all, therefore is, that it must be one of his race, and out of his loins, who should be King or have dominion over them, as he in his generation was their King. He means, saith R. Tanchum, the son of David, c 1.177 who should be in his stead, and who should be of his progeny, or as to the same purpose he speaks on Ezek. d 1.178 34.23, 24. where is likewise to∣gether with God made mention of his servant David, who should feed them, and be their shepheard, and he would be their God, and his servant David a Prince among them; that by David is e 1.179 meant a King of his race, who shall walk in his way, and in whom his name shall be upheld, and his Kingdom preserved; so that it is as much as if he had said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ben Da∣vid, the son of David.

But this Exposition leaves the terms inde∣finite, and the matter undetermined, seeing there were more who on that account, if that were sufficient, might be called David, and leaves us still to seek, who it is that is here particularly and signally pointed out by that name; and him f 1.180 there are that think to be Zorobabel, or g 1.181 any of his race. But we have on former passages on this Prophecy said enough, to shew that it cannot be Zorobabel; for then must the fulfilling of this Prophecy be limited to the return of the Jews from the Babylonish Captivity, and such of the ten Tribes which joined themselves to them: in whom it is manifest, as we have shew'd, that it cannot be said to have been fulfilled, and we shall not find any ground to affirm, that he ever was called or deserved by way of excel∣lency and singularity to be called David; nor indeed shall we find any other, who by way of eminency was so called, or deserved so to be, but one, viz. Messiah, or Christ, that chief h 1.182 rod of the stemme of Jesse, and branch out of his roots, yea that i 1.183 root of Jesse, which indeed is before Jesse was, and by whom his root and all his stemme were ennobled, to whom it is there said, that the Gentiles should seek, as it is here said that the children of Israel shall seek him as their King, who is elsewhere in Scrip∣ture (by way of eminency also) called the son of David, and alone understood of old a∣mong the Jews, as by many passages in the Gospel appears, by that name, and by that title of the King that came in the name of the Lord, and so is by David himself called k 1.184 his Lord, Ps. 110.11. He was not onely of the stock of David, so as to uphold his name, and preserve his Kingdom, (according to what is said by the Angel Luc. 1.32. the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David;

and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his Kingdom there shall be no end;) but David was a l 1.185 Type of him, and therefore by that name, where it cannot be understood of David in his own person, as here, and in those m 1.186 other places, by way as of excellency, so of singularity, and to the excluding others from that signal note of Dignity, is he, viz. Christ, alone, most pro∣perly understood; and it is so, as by most of Christian interpreters, so of the Jews also, acknowledged.

The Chaldee Paraphrase, the ancientest record we have in that kind, leads the way to those that follow, and, I suppose, gives the genuine meaning and opinion of those that went before: in it we thus read; After∣ward the children of Israel shall repent or turn by repentance, and shall seek the service of the Lord their God, and shall obey Messiah the son of Da∣vid their King. So also Aben Ezra, David their King, that is, the Messiah, as is said E∣zek. 37.25. and my servant David shall be their Prince for ever: on which place of Eze∣chiel R. David Kimchi also saith expresly, the King Messiah, his name is called David: As likewise on Ez. 34.23. he saith, that by David is there meant the Messiah, which shall arise out of his seed in the time of salvation; and on Jer. 30.9. where it is said, they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their King, (where likewise the Chaldee Paraphrast ren∣ders it, and shall obey Messiah, the son of David their King,) he saith, It may be that he spake this of David the King, that he would raise him up from the dust, at the time of the resur∣rection of the dead, or else that it is spoken of the Messiah his Son, whom he calleth by the name of David. He will not allow any to be meant by that name, but either David himself, or the Messiah his son, not Zoroba∣bel, or any other of his progeny; though n 1.187 he that thinks Zorobabel to be meant by David, doth so in those places also, but plainly without any good ground. For Zorobabel's condition, however he was prospered by God, will scarce be found to have been such as that he might by way of eminency and singularity (as we said) be called David, as chief and most excellent among all the sons of David, the glory of that race, nor those that joyned themselves to him of the ten Tribes so many, as to fill up the measure of the title of the children of Israel, in that com∣prehensive manner as is here given. What Abarbinel's opinion also of this appellation, is, is manifest from what he saith on this place, viz. that here he declares, that in the end of the Captivity, the children of Israel shall return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their King; i. e. they shall repent them of that division of heart which was be∣tween them, when they departed from after the Lord, and therefore they shall seek the Lord their God to walk after him, and to cleave unto him and David their King, so that there may reign over them a man of his seed. For although at the first, when they begin to bring under the Nations, they shall set over them one head, which shall be Mes∣siah the son of Ephraim, to wage war with their enemies, behold he shall die in the war, and Israel shall seek David their King, the rod out of the stemme of Jesse, which the Lord shall choose, that he may rule over them. By these words it is manifest, that by David he takes here to be meant the Messiah, or Christ: for who else can be meant by his opposing him to that other feigned Messiah of theirs, the son of Ephraim or Joseph? concerning whom, as we have in other places spoken, so more largely in a Latin discourse at the end of the Commentary on Malachi: (to which by the way let me onely adde this Quaere, Whether it be by any decree from God, that they should choose to themselves such a Messiah? If it be, why then shall they be punished for it? If not, it is a great mer∣vail that they, being so long before warned by the Jews how unsuccesful it shall be to them, shall yet do it, and not be more mer∣ciful to themselves, and that poor son of Jo∣seph, than to put him on certain destruction, and themselves on such mischief which they might avoid in looking onely after the son of David.)

He in plain terms expresseth himself to mean him by David, in his Commentary on those other forecited places of Jer. 30.9. and Ezech. 34.23. and c. 37.25. On that place c. 34. he saith, that their Interpreters are righ in saying, by David to be meant Messiah, who should be of his seed, and is therefore called by his name; and withall tells us of an absurd opinion of their Cabalists, who hold∣ing transmigration of Souls from body to bo∣dy, say, that therefore the King Messiah is called David, and was to be indeed so, David really and personally, because David's soul was to be devolved into his body; and on that in the 37. c. he understands the King Mes∣siah, not onely in person but all his seed, as if he also were to have posterity. But it is not here to our purpose to examine how right they are in their opinions concerning the per∣son of the Messiah, in which they are in ma∣ny things very far from the truth; but to prove, (what is to our purpose) that they ge∣nerally or for the most part concur in this, that by David their King is meant here Mes∣siah,

or Christ; and so we have shew'd them to do, and that most of Christians also so do, is so manifest, that we need not recite their names, it will be harder to find any (except those already cited) that do otherwise.

Now the joyning David their King with the Lord their God, as the object of their seeking, that they should together seek them, affords several considerations. Diverse of the o 1.188 Jew∣ish Expositors alledge here a saying of some of their ancienter Doctors, as conducing to the explication of this place, the summe of which is, That one R. Simeon said, that the Israelites cast off three things in the dayes of Rehoboam; the Kingdom of Heaven, the King∣dom of the house of David, and the Sanctuary (or holy Temple,) that is it which they say, What part have we in David? To your Tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David. 1 Kin. 12.16. What part have we in David? so to be understood as it sounds, [there is a reject∣ing the Kingdom of David:] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Leo∣holeca, to your Tents, O Israel, p 1.189 read not, saith he, Leoholeca, to thy tents, but Leeloheca (by transposition of letters) i. e. to thy gods, O Israel, [there is a rejection of the Kingdom of God:] look to thine own house, David, that is, to thy Temple, [and so that is a rejecting of the Temple, or house of holiness.] To which another Doctor of the same name, Simeon, adds, That no sign of salvation and redemp∣tion shall be shewed to Israel, till they return and seek these three things, which is that which he saith, afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, i. e. the Kingdom of Heaven•• and David their King, which signifies as it sounds: and shall fear the Lord and his goodness, that is, the holy House or Temple, as it is said, that goodly mountain and Lebanon. Deut. 3.25.

It will not be to our purpose to examine the several parts of these sayings, or the proofs thereof, to see whether there be any weight in them, (as little I doubt will appear;) onely by the way we may take notice of what a q 1.190 Learned man, that recites it in his Comment, saith, viz. That it thence appears, that ancient∣ly there was made a difference by the Jews between the Kingdom of Heaven and any earthly Kingdom; so that the Jews now ought not to think the distinction, between a Spiritual Kingdom, which we say men are called to in Christ, and an earthly temporal Kingdom, which onely they of their carnal minds would have to be expected from him, to be a new or ungrounded doctrine.

But not to digress from what may make to the explanation of the present words, Abar∣binel having recited this saying, saith, that by it they give to observe a high secret in the wondrous dealings of him that is r 1.191 perfect in knowledge, viz. that the house of David was s 1.192 bordering on, and close joyning to the house of God, and his Kingdom in the midst of Israel coupled with the Kingdom of God over his people, and therefore Solomon built toge∣ther the house of God and the house of the King; and at the destruction of Jerusalem it is said, and he burnt the house of the Lord, and the King's house: and when the ten Tribes put off from themselves the Kingdom of the house of David, and the Kingdom of Rehoboam, immediately they put away from them the Kingdom of Heaven, and made the Calves; and under the second Temple, where there was not the Kingdom, there was neither 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shecinal, or the Majestatick presence of God; and so in the latter dayes shall they seek the Lord their God, and David their King.

This is his observation in respect to that forecited descant of their Doctors on the words. A Christian certainly then keeping close to the words of the Text, it being ac∣knowledged that by David is meant Christ, may on like grounds necessarily infer, That whosoever will rightly seek God, must also seek Christ; whosoever will have the Lord for their God, must have Christ (whom God hath set as King upon his holy hill of Sion, Ps. 2.6.) for their King, and in, t 1.193 and through one, seek the other. It is that which many passages in the Gospel direct to; so saith he, that doth not onely direct us to the right way, but is himself that way, Ye believe in God, believe also in me. Joh. 14.1. No man cometh unto the fa∣ther, but by me, v. 6. Whosoever denieth the son, the same hath not the father: but he that acknow∣ledgeth the son, hath the father also; with the like, 1 John 2.23. He that honoureth not the son, honoureth not the father. Jo. 5.23.

v 1.194 There are, who yet further improve this observation to the establishing of that un∣doubted truth, that Christ is one God with the Father, and the communion of their na∣ture and dignity, in that they are together put as the object of the Israelites seeking, and the same word requires from them worship and obedience to both. This, however in it self most true, may be by a Jew, or some other, cavilled against, as not of necessary conse∣quence, who perhaps will object, That this inference is of no more validity, than from what is said, w 1.195 Fear the Lord and the King, to conclude, that therefore the King is of the same nature with the Lord. I shall not there∣fore insist of it as a proof of that great

truth, of which there are so many more evi∣dent proofs, but onely so far as to conclude from it what we before concluded, viz. That they that will seek the Lord their God as they ought, must also seek Christ (it being gran∣ted, that he is meant by the name of David) their King. For so it will necessarily follow from those other words, Fear the Lord and the King, that men must, if they rightly fear the Lord, fear also the King, the Lord in the King; so far, that the Apostle concludes it x 1.196 necessary for every soul to be subject to the higher powers, in as much as he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And so certainly from these, that those who seek not David, i. e. Christ their King, do not seek the Lord their God; but in denying or rejecting the one, deny and reject the other.

There is another thing observable from these words, viz. concerning the time when this Prophecy was to be fulfilled; and it is manifest from them, (as we before inti∣mated) that it belongs to the time of Christ, and that it was to have its completion after his coming, and calling them to his Kingdom. y 1.197 That David, whom they were to seek, must be come that they might seek him. The same is farther confirmed in the last words, wherein it is said, that this shall be in the latter dayes. But before we come to them, we are to look on those other words inserted between, con∣cerning their behaviour, viz. and shall fear the Lord and his goodness. Which words are ca∣pable of something differing Expositions, and have accordingly found them; they are in the Original 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vepa∣chadu el Adonai veel tobo, which according to the letter sound, and they shall fear to the Lord, and to his goodness. The particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 el, which ordinarily signifies, to, is by ours taken onely as serving to the construction of the Verb, and a note of the Accusative case, and so not at all rendred. But by others hath its significa∣tion given it, and is rendred ad, or to, which is sometimes taken in its usual signification of to, otherwise of at, or by reason of, and hence is the diversity in their Expositions. If it be rendred as ours render it, then the meaning will be, that as they did now set light by the Lord and his worship, as if they had no fear of him before their eyes, no reverence or re∣gard to his service; so then, on the contrary, they should serve him with fear, and rejoice to do it, with trembling, (according to that ex∣pression Ps. 2.11.) or (according to that Heb. 12.28.) serve him acceptably with reverence and godly fear, having due regard to his awfulness and Majesty. To which will well agree the opinion of z 1.198 those, who expound the follow∣ing word, and his goodness, by his glory, or majesty; and as well, if we understand by it, his mercy, gratiousness, or beneficence, or any such attribute, as the notion of goodness usually suggests to us; for he is to be feared, as well because with him is mercy and a 1.199 for∣giveness, as because with him is glory and majesty. The sense will likewise be much the same, and agreeing with the foregoing words, if by his goodness be understood Christ, as some will have it. But of the several Ex∣positions of this word goodness, we shall by and by speak more. And to this Exposition of fearing the Lord, I suppose will be reduci∣ble that of Kimchi, who expounds the words, They shall fear or be afraid of him, when they shall return to him, and shall hope on repentance to find that great good which he hath given them to expect, [or promised them.] Nor do b 1.200 they seem to lay more stress on the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 el, to, who thus give the meaning, They shall fear to his goodness, viz. that it be not taken away and separated from them any more: whereas their fathers, when the Shecinah, or the Majestatick presence was among them, did not fear lest it should be removed from them; although he had often warned them, saying, c 1.201 I will go and return to my place; but in the time of redemption it shall not be so, but they shall fear to the Lord, and his goodness, that is, shall fear, or be afraid of the Lord, that they anger him not with the work of their hands, and shall fear to his goodness, lest it should be taken away, and be removed from them any more.

They that lay more weight on the expression of that Particle, something change or enlarge the signification of the word, shall fear, that it may not simply signifie so, but to approach with fear, or to make hast as through fear; so Junius and Tremellius, pavidi accedent ad Je∣hovam, & ad bonitatem ejus, they fearing (or with fear) shall go (or approach) to the Lord, and to his goodness, referring it for the meaning to that forecited Ps. 2.11. d 1.202 Others make it to be as much, as Trepidi festinabunt, they shall with fear, or trembling, make hast; observing, that words denoting fear and trembling, are used to signifie making hast, as in the e 1.203 11^th chapter also of this Prophecy, v. 11. They shall trem∣ble as a bird out of Egypt, make hast as a bird that is frighted; and so doth Aben Ezra take the word here to import, That they shall re∣turn speedily, when the end shall come, to their land, running, and making hast presently. f 1.204 Others give to it yet a different, but very apposite signification, to wit, that it may de∣notes as the Verb. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Phazea doth in Arabic,

as, to fear, so also, to flie unto for fear, i. e. for help in fear, or against what one fears, and so to be as much as, to flie to for help, or g 1.205 im∣plore help. And this signification hath it often, when it hath after it the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ela, (answering to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 El) as R. Tanchum here interprets; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they shall flie to him for help from all that is feared, (or may be feared.) Which is therefore different from what ano∣ther Jew, translating it, renders, though using the same Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which will sound, and shall fear, or be afraid of the Lord; because with the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Men, which signifies of or from, it more usually signifies, to be afraid of one, or to fear him, and so will be reduced to the first Ex∣position that we mentioned, agreeable to our Translation. They who, as we said, take the Particle in the signification of at, or by rea∣son of, take the word fear, as denoting being as it were affrighted with admiration, and astonished, or amazed at, as if it should sound, shall be astonished at the Lord, and his goodness. So the Greek of the LXX, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, stupebunt, shall be astonished, which h 1.206 some pre∣fer before the reading of it simply by, shall fear. They shall admire, and even be quite astonished and amazed at the great goodness of God, and his wonderful benefits reached forth unto them, and liberally bestowed on them, of his free mercy. The printed Ara∣bic, which in most things in these books, fol∣lows the Greek, yet here comes not up to them in the Emphasis, though expressing the same sense, rendring it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall confess or acknowledge the Lord and his benefits; much like to what the Syriac hath, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ned'un, shall know the Lord and his goodness.

Now these rendrings, though something differing between themselves, yet are easily reconcileable, and all seem included in the meaning, and concur to make it up, viz. That whereas they had before forsaken God, and been very regardless of him and his ser∣vice, and behaved themselves, as if they had no knowledge of him, nor any thing for which to acknowledge him as their Benefa∣ctor, or Protector, they should now by his discipline, which for many dayes or long time they had undergone, being brought to a bet∣ter understanding, and to repent of what they had done, know and acknowledge him, and be even astonished to see that he should so graciously deal with them, that had so ill de∣served, and therefore in thankful compliance to him with reverence and godly fear ap∣proach unto him, and obediently serve him, allur'd by his mercies and benefits, and awed by his glory and majesty, and fearing lest by their misdemeanour they should cause him longer to restrain his goodness, or again to withdraw it, make hast so to do, removing all obstacles, and flie to him for his protection against all those evils that they might justly fear, as acknowledging now that it cannot be well with them without him, nor ill with them keeping close to him.

That God's goodness will bring it to pass, that it shall be so with them, by converting them to him, and causing that they shall know him, as he promiseth c. 2.20. the words make manifest. For the saying it shall be so, or that they shall do so, plainly implies, that he will effect it. And so the Chaldee Paraphrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if rendred as it is in the Poly∣glott Bibles and i 1.207 others, & multiplicabitur bonitas ejus quae adventura est illis, i. e. and his goodness which shall come unto them in the end of dayes, shall be multiplied, shews that the Au∣thor thereof understood it, by telling what shall be done, to be, as on God's part exert∣ing his goodness, as implied in the words of the Text, which in the Hebrew express one∣ly what shall be done by them on their part, in betaking themselves to him in the manner de∣scribed, and to his goodness. But this I in∣sist not much on as a proof, though the thing in it self be manifestly true, because the words are capable of another construction, viz. by taking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not for a Verb, but a Noun, and to signifie greatness, and is so by k 1.208 some ren∣dred, that so his rendring of the whole may sound, Afterward the children of Israel shall re∣pent, and seek the service of the Lord their God, and shall obey the Messiah, the son of David, their King, and shall gather [or give themselves] to the service of God, [or, as l 1.209 another, shall celebrate, or set forth, the service of God,] and the greatness of his goodness, which shall come to them in the end of dayes. It will either way agree well enough with the meaning of the words, as a Paraphrase.

We have seen in what we have said, that the word, goodness, is by Interpreters diffe∣rently taken, as namely, by some, for his be∣neficence, mercy, and favour, whereby he doth good, and liberally dispenseth his benefits, and favours, and good things, to men, which is the more general and usual acception of it; by others for his glory and majesty, as they will have it taken, Exod. 33.19. where God saith to Moses, who requested of God to shew him

his glory, I will make all my goodness pass before thee. And in this sense it seems taken by a Jew, who in his Arabic Version renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. m 1.210 Others understand by it to be meant Christ, in the foregoing words called David. Yet though it be most true, that the goodness, the kindness, and the love of God hath appeared to us in Christ, Tit. 3.4. do n 1.211 some observe, that there will scarce be found any example in Scripture, where Christ is called the good or goodness of God.

Some Jews (as we have seen) will have by it understood the Temple; but that seems founded on no other proof than the forecited saying of their Rabbins, and to go on a false ground of the Jews expecting a third Temple, to be built after their restoring to their land and a temporal Kingdom, from the Captivity they are now in. The plainest way will be to take it in its largest and most usual notion; and this, it is said, shall be in the latter dayes, i. e. the dayes after the coming of Christ. It is a rule given by Kimchi, on Is. 2.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that whereever it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bea∣charith hayamim, (which are the words here, and signifie the latter end of dayes) it is meant of the dayes of the Messiah. The same rule is also on that place given by Abarbinel, and back'd by the authority of R. Moses, the son of Nachman, who on Gen. 49.1. gives it as a general rule of all their Doctors. And that it is so, sometimes at least, meant, is confirmed to us by the use of those words in the New Te∣stament, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the last dayes, Act. 2.17. (to omit o 1.212 other places to the same purpose) though in the text of Joel, to which the Apostle there refers, the words be not quite the same, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 afterwards, or after that; which yet Kimchi observes to be all one, as if he had said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the latter dayes, and to mean (as the Apostle shews he doth) the dayes or times of the Messiah. This I say, sometimes at least, be∣cause there be, who deny it to do, as the Jews would have it, always so. The utmost * 1.213 they say that can be meant by the words in the Original, is, in venturis temporibus, in the times to come, viz. after the time wherein the words were spoken by the Prophet, p 1.214 whether before or after the times of Christ; which they manifestly do, that they might confirm their opinion, that Zorobabel, or some other of that race, and not particularly Christ, is meant by David in the preceding words; which how without grounds they do, we have (I suppose) already sufficiently shewed. And therefore supposing (as I think hath been manifestly shewed) that by David their King, whom they are then to seek, is meant the Messiah or Christ, it will be evident, that however it may be that the words elsewhere are of a larger meaning, and denote any time following after the thing spoken, yet here by what they are joyned to in the Text, and the scope thereof, they are limited and restrained to his times, before whom no such times were fulfilled, and after whom there are no other later times which the Prophecies of the Prophet had respect to; and we must con∣clude so far with the Jews themselves, That what is said shall be done in the latter dayes, is to be fulfilled in the days of Messiah or Christ.

In the determining of those dayes is indeed an irreconcileable difference betwixt us and the Jews; they denying Christ to be at all yet come, and so those dayes to be yet begun, we being assured that he is come, and so those dayes begun, and this Prophecy fulfilled, and still in fulfilling; so as that if more be requi∣red for fulfilling it than hath been already done, we may in due time expect it. q 1.215 For those dayes we define to be, from his first ma∣nifesting himself in the flesh, at least his first calling in men to himself, by his preaching of the Gospel, till his second appearance at the end of the world; and whatsoever shall in that space be effected, for the conversion of any of Israel to him, we look on as the fulfil∣ling of what is said here, neither r 1.216 confining it to the beginning of that space of time, nor to the end of it. So that what some would have us to understand, by rejecting it to the latter end of it, or toward the end of the world, as if it respected onely such a general conversion of Israel, as should then be wrought at the s 1.217 supposed coming of Enoch and Elias, t 1.218 or after the destruction of Antichrist, I do not well conceive, or find any grounds for. The term of the latter dayes doth as well agree to the beginning as to the end of that time; and certainly there hath been done in that kind, viz. for the conversion of Israel to Christ, so much already, even at the first di∣vulging of the Gospel, as may verifie this Prophecy; and if it shall please God, be∣tween this and the end of the world, to call more of them into the Kingdom of Christ, it will be a farther fulfilling of it; but to look on it, as if it were not yet at all fulfilled, will be contrary to manifest truth. Aben Ezra saith, that what is spoken is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 concerning the future, or time to come; so certainly it was, when it was utter'd by the Prophet in whole, but not so when that Doctor wrote; enough had been then done to say it was ful∣filled, yet not with exclusion of more to be done, if God see fit. All that have been of that nation converted already by the preach∣ing

of the Gospel, and all that shall be con∣verted to the end of the world, are to be com∣prehended under the name of the children of Israel, who should in the latter dayes return and seek the Lord, &c.

That we may not be moved by any thing that the Jews object, that this Prophecy is not yet fulfilled, or in fulfilling, because Da∣vid their King, Messiah, whom they are to seek, hath not yet appeared in that glory, pomp, and equipage, as they fancy he should, to bring under by force of arms his and their enemies, and to restore them to a temporal flourishing Kingdom in their own land; we may observe, that there is not in these words any thing, which may give them hopes of any such thing or grounds to expect it. He that is mentioned, is to be their King, and they are to expect good from him; but it is not said car∣nal or temporal good: And if what they are to look for, be made good to them, by calling them into the Kingdom of Heaven, which he open'd to all that should come unto him, and believe in him, (which according to their own expression is distinct from the Temporal King∣dom of the house of David) and by their being made partakers of the eternal and spiritual good things thereof; who shall say, but that which is here promised, is fulfilled in an higher and more excellent way, than it would have been by seating them again in their own land, though flowing with milk and honey, and giving to them all the glories, and the greatest good things of a Temporal Kingdom?

Notes

• a 1.1

  In his Premises to the 12 lesser Prophets, and again on the present Chapter.
• * 1.2

  v. ult.
• b 1.3

  Tarnov.
• c 1.4

  Ursin.
• d 1.5

  Abarb. & Ar. Mont.
• e 1.6

  Riber. and see Drus. and Rivet in chap. 1.
• f 1.7

  Ursin.
• g 1.8

  Riber.
• h 1.9

  Tarnov. following Luther, &c.
• i 1.10

  Chr. à Castro.
• k 1.11

  Rivet.
• l 1.12

  P••raeus, and see Rivet.
• m 1.13

  Sanct. See Chr. à Castro. & Corn. à Lapide, & Menoch.
• n 1.14

  Riber.
• o 1.15

  Lively.
• p 1.16

  See Rivet.
• q 1.17

  Vat. Calv. Par. Drus. Piscat. Rivet. Chr. à Castro. Tirin. &c. Tarn. & Grot.
• r 1.18

  Pet. à Fig. Lively. Castal. &c.
• s 1.19

  Hutchinson.
• t 1.20

  Vat. See Pet. à Fig.
• u 1.21

  Jer. Sa. & Riber.
• w 1.22

  Mercer. Chr. à Castro, and Rivet.
• x 1.23

  Zanch. & Rivet
• y 1.24

  Rom. 3.3.
• z 1.25

  See ch. 1.2. ch. 2.2.—7. &c.
• a 1.26

  Rom. 11.28, 29.
• b 1.27

  Jun. Trem. See G••ot.
• c 1.28

  Munster.
• d 1.29

  Pet. à Fig.
• e 1.30

  See Chr. à Castro, and Corn. à Lapide.
• g 1.31

  Pesachim, c. 2. and Buxt. Lex.
• h 1.32

  Kamus.
• i 1.33

  See Chr. à Castro.
• f 1.34

  Jesu Bar Ali, and Bar Bahlul.
• k 1.35

  R. Tanch. Aben Ezra. R. D. Kimchi
• l 1.36

  Bababathrac 9. f. 144. See Buxt. Lexic.
• m 1.37

  See R. Isaiah, on the place cited, and R. Joseph in his Arabic Comment on Canticles.
• n 1.38

  Camus.
• o 1.39

  Venet. Bom. Buxtorf. Coddaeus.
• p 1.40

  MS. of Kimchi, Abarb. and Pet. à Fig.
• q 1.41

  Expressing the effect, Drunkenness, by its cause, Wine.
• r 1.42

  Compare Gen. 44.5.
• s 1.43

  Yet so, as that some think it was not his. Tarnov. &c.
• t 1.44

  Lyra, vasa vinorum contentiva.
• v 1.45

  Lively.
• w 1.46

  Talmud. Pesach. c. 2. fol. 36. See Grot.
• x 1.47

  See in Rivet.
• y 1.48

  As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Arabic. and see Ribera.
• z 1.49

  Drus. in conject.
• a 1.50

  What Pet. à Fig. saith, that a Persian told him, that in that language, Ashish, signifies a Flagon, would be farther enquired into.
• b 1.51

  R. Tanch. and R. D. Kimchi.
• c 1.52

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• d 1.53

  Aben Ezragainsays, and takes it otherwise, and not to be from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Carah, but from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to acknowledg; but R. Tanch. saith he is out in it.
• e 1.54

  See Jerom. and Pet. à Fig.
• f 1.55

  Oecolam p. Ar. Mont.
• g 1.56

  Deut. 15.17.
• h 1.57

  Sa.
• i 1.58

  Riber. & Sanct.
• k 1.59

  Lud. Capell. Crit. sacr. p. 276.
• l 1.60

  See Riber. Rivet and Tarnov.
• m 1.61

  See Riber. and Grot.
• n 1.62

  Vat.
• o 1.63

  See D^r Hammond.
• p 1.64

  Maimon. Jad. tr. Eracin. c. 4. & R. Joseph. Ben Akkanin. M S.
• q 1.65

  Abu Walid and R. Tan∣chum.
• r 1.66

  See insworb on Gen. 18.6. and in him on Exod. 30.20. are out of Alphesi reckon'd up several mea∣sures, reduc••d to Eggs, according to what Ben Akkanin hath.
• s 1.67

  Chr. à Castro.
• t 1.68

  Kimchi.
• v 1.69

  Id. & Sol. Jarchi from R. Hai.
• w 1.70

  Lev, 22.9. &c.
• x 1.71

  Kimchi.
• y 1.72

  R. Saadia in Kimchi.
• z 1.73

  Aben Ezra.
• a 1.74

  Aba••binel.
• b 1.75

  Lyra.
• c 1.76

  See in Chr. à Castro.
• d 1.77

  Vat.
• e 1.78

  See Ribera. Chr. à Castro, and Corn. à Lapide.
• f 1.79

  Chr. à Castro. Rivet.
• g 1.80

  Sanctius.
• h 1.81

  Munster and Chr. ••. Castro.
• i 1.82

  Corn. à Lapide.
• k 1.83

  Apud me. Munst. & Tig.
• l 1.84

  Grot.
• m 1.85

  Kimchi.
• n 1.86

  Pagnin.
• o 1.87

  Aben Ezra, R. Kimchi, and Abarbinel.
• p 1.88

  Chr. à Castro, Riber. Rivet, and so Jerom.
• q 1.89

  Greek and vulg. Lat. Syr. and Arab. The Ar. MS. hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• r 1.90

  Pagnin. Munst. Ar. Mont. and Drus. who yet mentions the other way.
• s 1.91

  And see Par.
• t 1.92

  Rivet. and Tar.
• * 1.93

  Grot.
• u 1.94

  See Hutchinson.
• w 1.95

  See Chr. â Castro.
• x 1.96

  And see Oecolamp.
• y 1.97

  See Rive••, and Chr. â Castro.
• z 1.98

  Vat. Ar. Mon. and Ribera.
• a 1.99

  Rivet.
• b 1.100

  See Drus.
• c 1.101

  Tarn. and see Chr. à Castro, and Pelican.
• d 1.102

  On the place, and on Gen. 31.19.
• e 1.103

  See Chr. à Cast.
• f 1.104

  Jerom. &c. See in Chr. à Castro. Pet. à Fig.
• g 1.105

  Jun. Trem.
• h 1.106

  And see Abarb. on Amos 5.26.
• i 1.107

  See Specim. Hist. Arab. p. 100.
• k 1.108

  And so Ab. Ez.
• l 1.109

  See Ainsworth concerning the fashion of the Ephod, differently described by Josephus and Maimonides.
• m 1.110

  2 Sam. 6.14.
• n 1.111

  Ar. Mont. & Schind. Lexic.
• o 1.112

  Par.
• p 1.113

  See Mercer on Gen. 31.
• q 1.114

  A despised broken Idol. Jer. 22.28.
• r 1.115

  Ribera, Rivet. D^r Spencer of Urim, p. 74. &c.
• s 1.116

  Jud. 17.5.
• t 1.117

  ib. v. 6.
• v 1.118

  Pirke Eleezer. c. 26. Selden de diis Syris; and see Buxtorf. Lexic.
• * 1.119

  R Levi on Gen. 31.
• x 1.120

  See Specimen hist. Ar. p. 140. &c.
• y 1.121

  So Onkelos, as that of Jona than also.
• z 1.122

  And so 2 Kin. 23.24. and Ezek. 21.21. and Zach. 10.2.
• a 1.123

  Aquila 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Illuminations.
• w 1.124

  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 1.125

  Lud. de Dieu. on Gen. 31.
• c 1.126

  Fuller cap. concord. or compare Ps. 104. His ministers a flaming fire.
• d 1.127

  Gen. 31 4.7.
• e 1.128

  See Syriac Version, and Bar Ali, and Bar Bahlul.
• f 1.129

  Ferrar. Lexic.
• g 1.130

  Bar Bahlul 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• h 1.131

  Beyer. not, in Selden de diis Syr.
• i 1.132

  2 Cor. 11.14.
• k 1.133

  Ainsw. on Gen. 31.19. and see Martinius Lex. Philol.
• l 1.134

  Mercer on Gen. 31. Kircher concord.
• m 1.135

  R. Bi∣chai.
• n 1.136

  Zohar. See Buxt.
• o 1.137

  On Jud. 17 and 18. and on 1 Sam. 15.
• p 1.138

  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 1.139

  See Lud. de dieu on Gen. 31. and Beyer on Selden.
• r 1.140

  Kamus. &c.
• s 1.141

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• t 1.142

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• v 1.143

  viz. taken out of the ancient book Zohar. See Buxt. Lex.
• w 1.144

  That of Jonathan Num. 25.8. Deut. 28.57. See Buxtorf. Lex. and R. Tanchum in Morshed, and on Jud. 17.
• x 1.145

  On Jud. 17. and 1 Sam. 15.
• y 1.146

  Levit. 19.4. and elsewhere. Ps. 96, 5.
• z 1.147

  Jer. 3.24. and 11.13. Hos. 9.10.
• a 1.148

  On 1 Sam. 15.
• b 1.149

  Beyer on Selden.
• * 1.150

  Id. out of Kircher and Hotinger.
• c 1.151

  Ains. on Exod. 28.30. and so Jud. 20.18.—28.
• d 1.152

  Nachman on Ex. 28. See Buxtor. dissert. of Urim &c. and Ainsw. on Ex. 28. out of R. Menachem.
• e 1.153

  D^r Spencer de Urim. c. 4 sect. 1.
• f 1.154

  Hebr. 8.5.
• * 1.155

  Aelian and Diodorus Siculus.
• g 1.156

  Grot. notes on his book, De verita••e Christianae Relig. and on Exod. 28.30.
• h 1.157

  Fagius on Ex. 28. and see Buxtorf, of Urim.
• i 1.158

  Ezra 2.63.
• k 1.159

  1 Sam. 19.
• l 1.160

  Mercer on Gen. 4.
• m 1.161

  Gen. 8.20.
• n 1.162

  Chr. à Castro, in his book, de Vaticinio; and D^r Spencer.
• o 1.163

  See D^r Spenc. sect. 3. c. 5.
• p 1.164

  Id. p. 64.
• q 1.165

  Id. p. 67.
• r 1.166

  1 Kin. 12.28.
• s 1.167

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pignus, symbolum, & testimonium. D^r Spenc. de Urim. p. 23. and 318.
• t 1.168

  Ex. 25.18.
• u 1.169

  Num. 7.89.
• w 1.170

  D^r Sp. p. 56.
• x 1.171

  River.
• y 1.172

  Id. Riv.
• z 1.173

  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 1.174

  Dr. Spencer p. 57.
• * 1.175

  D^r Allestre.
• b 1.176

  Stokes.
• c 1.177

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• d 1.178

  And Ezek. 37.24, 25.
• e 1.179

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• f 1.180

  Grot. Stokes.
• g 1.181

  Sanctivs.
• h 1.182

  Isa. 11.1.
• i 1.183

  ib. v. 10.
• k 1.184

  Mat. 22.43. Act. 34.
• l 1.185

  See Drus.
• m 1.186

  And see Jer. 30.9.
• n 1.187

  Grot.
• o 1.188

  Yalk. R. Sal. R. D. Kimchi. Abarb.
• p 1.189

  This is reckoned among the Tikkune Sopherim; which doth not im∣port that the ordinary reading is false, but that if it were so read as he saith, it would make better to such purpose as he conceived.
• q 1.190

  Pe••r. a Figuiero.
• r 1.191

  Job. 37.16.
• s 1.192

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 confinis. See Buxtorf. root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• t 1.193

  Zanch. Par. River.
• v 1.194

  Ar. Mont. Mercer.
• w 1.195

  Prov. 24 21.
• x 1.196

  Rom. 13.1, 2
• y 1.197

  See Ribera.
• z 1.198

  R. Saad, in Kimch. and see Vatab.
• a 1.199

  Ps. 130.4.
• b 1.200

  Abarbinel.
• c 1.201

  Hos. 5.15.
• d 1.202

  Lively.
• e 1.203

  Though the word in the Hebrew be not the same that is here.
• f 1.204

  R. Tanchum.
• g 1.205

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Abuwalid.
• h 1.206

  See Cyril. Chr. à Castro. Brenn.
• i 1.207

  See Hos. Heb. Chald. Latin, in 4^to. and Pareus.
• k 1.208

  Petr. à Fig.
• l 1.209

  Id.
• m 1.210

  Oecol Zanch. Chr. â Castro. Pareus.
• n 1.211

  Rivet.
• o 1.212

  Hebr. 1.1. See Dr. Hammond.
• * 1.213

  Grot.
• p 1.214

  See Rivet.
• q 1.215

  See Petr. à Fig. on Micah 4.1.
• r 1.216

  See Rivet.
• s 1.217

  Ribera.
• t 1.218

  Sa. Tirin.