A commentary on the prophecy of Malachi, by Edward Pocock D.D. Canon of Christ-Church, and Regius Professor of the Hebrew tongue, in the University of Oxford

A commentary on the prophecy of Malachi, by Edward Pocock D.D. Canon of Christ-Church, and Regius Professor of the Hebrew tongue, in the University of Oxford

Table of contents

Title page

To the Right Reverend Father in God THOMAS LORD BISHOP Of EXETER.

A COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHECY of the PROPHET MALACHI.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

An Appendix. Whereas we have by the Jews, in their Commentaries, both on this and other Prophets, often mention made of a Messiah, the Son of Joseph, of the Tribe of Ephraim, whose name they make use of for eluding many Prophecies which belong to the true and only Messiah, Christ: and we have therefore occasion to vindicate such places from their false Expositions, I thought it might not be unfit to add this short discourse, on occasion made concerning that matter, wherein I have endeavoured to discover the grounds of that fond opinion, and collect such things as are by them said of it, because they are not so commonly found put together, I thought best to print it in Latin as it was at first penned, seeing as much as may concern such as understand not that Language, to know for the present purpose, is in such places of the Commentary as there is occasion to make mention of it, said in English.

§

[Page]

A COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHECY OF MALACHI,

By EDWARD POCOCK D. D. Canon of Christ-Church, and Regius Professor of the Hebrew Tongue, in the Vniversity of OXFORD.

[figure]

OXFORD, Printed at the THEATER, M.DC.LXXVII.

To the Right Reverend Father in God THOMAS LORD BISHOP Of EXETER.

[Page]

[Page]

MY LORD,

AMONGST the encouragements which I have had to proceed in explaining some of the lesser Prophets, have been your Lordships perswasions, which deservedly ought to have with me the force of commands. The same have given me boldness to recommend this part of that Work to your Lordships Patronage: by whose countenancing of it, others will be encouraged to look into it with hopes of receiving some benefit by it. That which is presented to your hands is an Exposition on Malachi, the last of the Prophets, as in order, so in time: and even for that reason by me chosen to fix my thoughts on, before others, because nearest, therefore, in conjunction with the Gospell; to which it leads us by the hand, and delivers us over: for that begins where he ends; so that from that, looking back, according to our Saviours own direction to search the Scriptures of the old Testament, which testify of him, for confirmation of the new; and to see how, what in this is recorded as done, was in that foretold as to be done; we presently light on those things concerning Christ and his forerunner John the Baptist, with report of which the Gospell begins, so clearly set down by this last of the Prophets, as that we cannot but admire that the Jews of those times did not at the appearance of them in their offices, without more adoe, confess, That what Malachi prophesied, was now come to pass, and acknowledge, That both Elias, the Lords Messenger, whom he would send to prepare the way before him; and the Lord of the Temple, whom they sought, even the Messenger of the Covenant, whom they delighted in (they that were to come) were come, and [Page] they were to look for no other: And no less is it to be wondred, that their posterity should, even to this day, continue in the like obstinacy, and shut their eies against these manifest truths; notwithstanding they have long since seen fully executed on their Nation all those heavy things which in this Prophecy also were denounced against such as should not embrace them. Yet do they, taking no notice of these things, perversly still stand out, and seek all waies, by false glosses, absurd misinterpretations and misapplications of these Prophecies so long since fulfilled, as if they were things yet to come, to elude them, and deceive themselves and their posterity. Their cavils I have endeavoured, as God hath enabled me, to remove; and so by asserting the place for Christs Birth designed by Micah, and the time for his coming by Malachi, to clear the way for the better understanding of all such other Prophecies as foretold of other things in and by him to be fulfilled, and by the exact accomplishment of which the Gospell proves him to be the CHRIST. These I thought convenient, therefore, to begin with, as the Gospell doth, as preceding in execution divers others that were before them uttered. The due fulfilling of these, and the nature of them being vindicated from the Glosses of the Jews, the other will be better understood; and such cavils also as are brought in the expounding of them, be easier removed, the being and coming of him whom they concern being established. What I have done in this kind, or any other which may conduce to the true meaning of this Prophet, I must humbly submit to the judgement of your Lordship and others. Whatever the Work be, I desire it may be a testimony of my dutiful respects and gratitude to your Lordship, in many years enjoiment of whose love and friendship I have been formerly happy, and now more in that I see that the change of your Lordships condition to an higher degree of dignity in the Church, hath nothing altered your affections, of which I have real proof in your Lordships favor shewed to some of mine for my sake. Long may your Lordship continue in health and happiness, to be an instrument of promoting Gods glory and the good of the Church. So are the hearty prayers of

MY LORD,

Your Lordships most humble Servant EDWARD POCOCK.

A COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHECY of the PROPHET MALACHI.

[Page]

CHAP. I.

VERS. 1.

The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi.

THE burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi.] Whereas there is nothing elsewhere spoken of this Prophet in Canonical Scripture, it hath given occasion of several conjectures concerning him. His name being interpreted signifying, my Angel, or my Messenger, hath made a some to think, that he was an Angel appearing in form of a man, for the delivery of Gods Message to the People of that time. But this opinion by b some ancient Christians of great authority entertain'd, is by others that followed, deservedly rejected, as having no solid grounds. If any will make any inference from the derivation of the name, he may rather think him design'd as a c man of holy, Angelical, qualities, or in office resembling an Angel, rather then a natural Angel. A man therefore he is taken to be; but who is that man? An ancient Jewish d Doctor would make him the same with Mordecai, but having no ground for it, is not by others followed. That wherein e more of them agree, and among them the Chalde Paraphrast also, is, that he was the same with Esdras, to which divers Christians also seem to encline. f But the Arguments brought to prove it, on examination are no way convincing: and therefore the truer and more probable g opinion is, that he was a distinct Prophet, call'd by this name Malachi; a name well agreeing to, and attesting his function, as a Prophet sent by God in his message. He prophesied after the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, and the rebuilding of the Temple, and was the last of the Prophets that God sent to them, leaving them for the future to expect the coming of Christ and to long after it, for farther manifestation of his will. Of Christ and his forerunner John Baptist, he most evidently prophesied, and till their coming God left them for directions to the Law of Moses, Chap. IV.4. The Authority of his Prophecy is asserted in the New Testament, where it is cited, Matth. XI.10. Mark I.2. Luk. I.16. and VII.27. Rom. IX.13. and elsewhere. h The Tradition of the Jews is, that Prophecy remained among them 40 years under the second Temple: in which time Haggai and Zachary, and Malachi prophesied: of which Malachi was the last: and so his Prophecy concludes the Books of the Prophets; it ends with the Promise of him, with the history of whom the Gospel begins, viz. John the Baptist, and his preaching Repentance.

His Prophecy is here called [...], Massa, The burden of the word of the Lord, by which name Prophecy is i elsewhere often called, and usually glossed where it occurs, a burdensome Prophecy, such as denounces heavy things. k But I suppose this nicety, as concerning the signification of burden, and burdensomeness is not to be insisted on in the Interpretation of the word. My ground is, because the Israelites seem reproved for so using or understanding it, Jerem. XXIII.34. &c. As for the Prophet and the Priest and the People that shall say, The burden of the Lord, I will even punish that man and his house. Thus shall ye say every one to his neighbour, and every one to his brother what hath the Lord answered? and what hath the Lord spoken? And the burden of the Lord shall ye [Page]mention no more, for every mans word shall be his burden: for ye have perverted the words of the living God, &c. Here seems a prohibition for taking the word in that sense: The occasion of which, according to the exposition of divers of the best l Jewish Interpreters was thus. Whereas the word Massa (taken from a m root that signifies to bear, carry, take up, and the like) is of ambiguous signification; and signifies (among the rest) sometimes a burden, sometimes what is born, or carried, or delivered from one to another, whether n thing, or word, and so was used for a Prophecy or Message from God, (as often in Scripture) and for other speech or doctrine (as Prov. XXXIII.1.) the Jews looking on the Messages received from God, and delivered to them by the Prophets, as things grievous and burdensome, when they enquired of the Prophets concerning them, used this word, and meant it in the worst sense, in scoff, or contempt of them. God therefore seeing the evil meaning of their hearts (though otherwise their language seemed to be such as was usual for signifying that which they enquired after, and to have no harm in it) discovers their hypocrisy to the Prophet, and charges them with perverting his word in their use of it, and therefore forbids them any more so to abuse it, but if they would enquire of the Prophet to do it in other words, viz. what hath the Lord answered? or what hath the Lord spoken? which was as much as was by that word meant, when it was used by the Prophets, and should have been meant by them when they used it, but was perverted and abused by them to another meaning. Hence taking directions we conceive that here (as in other places) the word is not strictly to be taken in the harsh signification of a grievous or heavy burden, but rather as a burden (if we may take the word in a gentler sense) or Message o taken or received from God to be delivered to the People. That it doth not alwaies import heavy or burdensome words or messages may appear by its use, Zach. XII.1. where it is prefixed to the promises of good things to Israel, not heavy things against them: as likewise Lament. II.14. where the pretended Prophecies of their false Prophets are called [...] Masseoth shav, which is rendred false burdens; whereas they appear to have spoken to them not heavy but pleasing and flattering things, as he there complains that they did not discover their iniquities: so that both real and pretended Prophecies are so called whatsoever they contained.

The word therefore being of such latitude, we need not here press its signification of what is burdensom, but in its larger notion looking on it, take it as sufficient for the meaning of what is here delivered, that it is the p message or import of the word of the Lord: a Prophecy from him received, and by his commission delivered by the hand or ministery of Malachi, to Israel. Which Name, as before the division of the two Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, it was common to the twelve Tribes, though afterwards it became a peculiar title to the ten Tribes: so here it is given to the two Tribes, and to all of the other who join'd themselves to them in their return from Babylon. These having had late experience of Gods great favor in turning their captivity, and restoring them to their own Land, and again settling his worship among them, should have been very careful in reforming their waies, and sincere in their obedience: but it was otherwise. Many enormities, and actions contrary to Gods Law, and displeasing to him, and signs of their great ingratitude to him, and unmindfulness of his benefits, were found among them: for which therefore, seeking still their good, he sends this his Prophet to reprove them, and to exhort them to repentance; and for the comfort of the godly among them, to give them assurance of the coming of the promised Messiah in his due time, to set all things right for their good: as will in order appear in what follows of this Prophecy, which thus begins,

2 I have loved you, saith the Lord: yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? was not Esau Jacobs brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob.

3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage wast, for the dragons of the wilderness.

I have loved you, saith the Lord.] Here seems intimated a reproof of Israel for their great ingratitude and unkindness to the Lord, whilst he tells them, that certainly they ought to have loved him, since that he had first loved them, and ought therefore to have found gratefull returns of love from them: but how contrary behaviour he found from them, he shews in that Question, which he saies, that instead of a ready acknowledgment of his love they were ready to put; implying little less then an absolute denyal of his kindness, Yet ye say, wherein hast thou loved us? So that he sees it necessary by a particular instance or proof in the next words, to make evident wherein he had shewed his love to them. Was not, &c.

The scope and sense will be much the same, [Page] if with q others we interpret those words, yet ye say, by, And if ye say, wherein, &c. it will still intimate their ingratitude, and that they were ready so to say; and that it was necessary to prevent or answer that perverse Question, by confirming by that instance given what he had said, I have loved you, viz. with greater love then ordinary, and shewed to you greater tokens of love then to others. Another learned r Jew reads the Question put something differently: not wherein, as if they utterly denied Gods love to them, which was manifest to all, but wherefore hast thou loved us? as if they should intimate that there was some reason for it, why he should love them; viz. in requital of their Father Abraham's love to him; so that it was not a free love and mercy to them, but a love (as it were) of debt, due to them for Abraham's sake, and then the instance given shews how perverse this thought of theirs was. For if it had been only so much love as was due in requital of Abraham's love to him, why then had not Esau, who was descended as well of Abraham as Jacob, had as much right to it, and as great a share in it as Jacob; his posterity, as they. Whereas by Gods loving Jacob, and hating Esau his twin-brother, 'twas made manifest that there was more in it then so; and that his peculiar love of Jacob, and especial favors to his posterity, were not for Abraham's desert alone, but of free grace and mercy to them, and therefore deserved all possible returns of love, gratitude, and obedience from them. This he makes to be the meaning and connexion of the words, which though in his way it may seem plain, yet is there no need to leave the former interpretation for it.

Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord; yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau.] This the Lord gives as an instance of his free love to the Israelites, the posterity of Jacob, that whereas Esau and Jacob were twin-brothers, one as well as the other descended from Abraham, both sons of Isaac, by one mother, twins, born at the same time, yet he loved one, and did not love, or hated, the other, and so derived that love and hatred to their posterity, and accordingly shewed to them the tokens and effects thereof. The Apostle S. Paul in Rom. IX.11, 13. improveth this argument from hence, that this love to the one, and hatred to the other was declared; when those children were not yet born, neither had done any good or evil. So that it could not be said one had deserved better then the other, and therefore his love to one above the other must needs appear to be of ftee grace and choice, electing one and rejecting the other; and the distinction or difference that he made between them may be illustrated by the several advantages that by his love one had over the other in several matters concerning both their spiritual and temporal estate. But the literal explication of the words here intended, requires no more then the view of the particular effect of his love to Jacob's posterity, and hatred to Esau's here instanced in, viz. the utter desolation of Esau's Country, and the restitution of Israel's, when he had given them both into the hand of their Enemies to be punish'd for their sins; that punishment proving to the one for their utter destruction, to the other but as a fatherly chastisement to make them sensible of their errors, and to amend them, that so they might again be reconciled to him, and taken into favor. Of Esau, therefore (or his posterity, the Edomites) he saies that he declared his hatred to him (or them called by his Name, in that he laid his Mountains and his heritage wast for the Dragons of the wilderness.

His Mountains.] In Deut. II.5. we read that God gave mount Seir unto Esau for a possession, and so again Josh. XXIV.4. so that though the occasion of his going first thither out of the land of Canaan be expressed, Genes. XXXVI.7. to have been because their riches (viz. his and his brother Jacob's) were more then that they might dwell together, and the Land could not bear them both, yet it appears to have been by Gods designation and appointment, that so Esau might take that Country, wch is described by naming its cheif mountain, which was Seir, for his possession, and to his posterity, and leave Canaan to Jacob, which his posterity had after for their possession.

Mountains] s here put in the plural number, intimates that in it were more Mountains, or that it was a mountainous Country. We need not here insist on that Note which t some make, that Gods giving at first to Esau a craggy, mountainous Country, and reserving for Jacob's posterity the more pleasant Country of Canaan, was then a sign of Gods love to Jacob, and hatred to Esau, however true it be. That which is here given us to look on particularly as a sign of his hatred to him, being that those Mountains, and that heritage, that he then gave him, and his posterity had hitherto possessed and flourished in, he had now laid wast, and dispossessing them thereof, gave it to be inhabited by the Dragons of the Wilderness.

Dragons.] So the Latine, and so the most, if not all latter Translations; and so divers of the v Jewish Expositors seem to take it. But [Page] another learned Jew x excepts against this rendring, and saith, that the Creatures by this name meant are not Serpents but Jackales, a wild howling beast that lives abroad in desolate places: and that whether the noun be put [...] Tannoth in the feminine form (as here) or [...] Tannim in the masculine, as Micah I.8. and elsewhere; it is all one as to the signification. Compare this with Psal. XLIV.19. where is, The place of Tannim: and that with Psal. LXIII.10. where we read, A portion for Foxes, (for Foxes and Jackales are not far different in kind or nature.) These Jackales will prey on dead bodies, yea, dig them out of their Graves, if not well covered. So that these words, Psal. XLIV.19. may have this sense, Thou hast caused or suffered us to be smitten in open, wast, unhabited Plains, the place or habitation of Jackales, where such wild beasts prey on the slain bodies, none hindring them: and so will it, in sense, be much like what is said, Psal. LXXIX.2.

A y Jew that in that place of Micah, in his Translation into Arabick, so renders Tannim (the masculine) as the other would have it, viz. Jackales [...] Benat Awi, yet here renders Tannoth (the feminine) by [...] Albume, Owls, why I know not. Concerning the word, see it more largely discoursed there on Micah. But however there be this difference concerning the kind of the creature by this name signified, all tends to the same purpose; namely, to denote that their Land should be so laid wast as that none but such creatures, as live only in wast desolate places, should for the future inhabit it, and there should not be men to afright them, or keep them thence. An expression, the like to which is elsewhere also used to signify the utter desolation of a place that was formerly well peopled and inhabited, as Isai. XIII.21, 22. and XXXIV.13. and Jer. IX.11. and X.22. and II.27. And therefore several ancient Translators seem to have thought it sufficient to give the meaning of the words by such expressions which might import, that this Country should be laid wholly and utterly wast, without particularly giving the signification of this word: as the Chalde who renders it, into wastness of the Wilderness (or a wast wilderness;) the Syriack into habitations of the Wilderness; the Greek, into houses of the Wilderness, which the printed Arabick version following by a plain mistake of the second letter of the word (reading [...] for [...]) renders, into gifts of the Wilderness: Not that they are to be supposed to have read in the Text otherwise then we now do, z but because (as we said) they thought it sufficient so in more general terms to give the scope of the words.

A learned a man conjectures the Greek Interpreter (or Interpreters) not to have read, as it is usually in the Hebrew [...] Letannoth, but [...] Lechanuth, which signifies a Shop, an Inn, a place where People sit and abide to work, or buy, sell, or rest, or the like: but it is hard to follow such conjectures as require a change of the received reading in the Hebrew Text: and here seems no need of it, if we would justify the Greek Version. If what was before said will not suffice, it will be easier and more probable to say that they took Tannoth to signify Habitations, the same that Neoth elsewhere, as Jer. IX.9. and Joel I.19. marg. and perhaps it might anciently be used in the Hebrew tongue in that signification, as well as it (or what is very like it) is still in the Arabick dialect, which is of so nigh affinity with it, that learned men, even the Jews themselves, often have recourse to it, for finding out the signification of some words which are of seldom use in the Bible; and in that [...] Tenaah, or in Hebrew Letters [...] signifies a mansion, or habitation.

Like threats of destruction to the children of Esau, the Edomites, are elsewhere also denounced, as Jerem. XLIX. from ver. 7, to ver. 22. and Ezech. XXV.13. and the whole 35. Chapter, and in the Prophecy of Obadiah, which is particularly directed against them; and Joel III.19. and all those things which are there spoken of them, we cannot doubt were punctually fulfilled on them, because by God spoken, the least tittle of whose words cannot fail, but as surely be all performed as if it were already done, when spoken; although remaining Histories should not leave on record every circumstance, when or how it was done and made good; at least their being no more taken notice of, may seem a part of fulfilling these Prophecies, that they should be small among the Heathen, and despised among men, Jerem. XLIX.14. that he should not be, ver. 10. be as though they had not been, Obad. ver. 16. b yet will from story appear, what is here said to have been made good on them by the Chaldeans, and what followed by the Jews in the Maccabees time. For this Prophecy is said to have taken place, or been made good by the destruction of the Edomites about c five years after the Jews were led captive. From which devastation it appears by the words, that they flattered themselves with a recovery, as well as they saw the Jews after 70 years captivity to be restored, but God shews that what they promise themselves in this kind should be in vain. So he adds, ‘[Page] 4 Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return, and build the desolate places; thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and the People against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever.’

Whereas Edom saith we are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places, &c.] d Some give the sense thus, ‘If Edom shall say, Though we are now become poor and low, and our Land laid wast, yet we will again return, and build the wast places, as Israel have done:’ which seems nearer then what e others of the Jews give, ‘From the beginning we have been poor, but henceforward, being we are enriched with the spoils of Jerusalem, we will return and build up our wast places.’ Another Jewish f Doctor looks on the manner of speech to intimate as if they should say, g ‘It is not his hand that smote us, but by (accident, or) the fortune of the World we have come (or fallen) severall times into a low condition and poverty, and so have our Land laid wast, but we will (or shall) again return and build our desolate places.’ This differs not much in sense from the first (which is clearest) only in that he undertakes to give the grounds of their thoughts; but whatever was the ground of their saying thus with themselves, Gods answer to them is, They shall build, but I will throw down] their striving to recover themselves shall be all in vain, he will so notoriously frustrate all their endeavours in that kind, that all People seeing how ill things succeed with them, and how irremoveably heavy Gods judgments and curse ly upon them, shall call them, The border of wickedness, a Land of sinfull People, cursed for the sins of its Inhabitants; a People against whom the wrath of God is so incensed and continued as never to be appeased; so that instead of that recovery of prosperity, which they promised themselves they should still grow poorer and poorer, and at last be utterly destroyed, as it is at this day, wherein there is no memorial of them, no People owned by that name, except such, as we have elsewhere shewed, as are by the malicious Jews out of mere malice, without any ground, so called, viz. Romans, and in general, Christians: and therefore they expect this Prophecy yet on them to be fulfilled, as Abarbinel, minding nothing but the destruction of the Christians.

The word [...] Rushshash [...] rendred we are impoverished, is by other ancient Translators rendred, are destroyed: as by the Greek and Latin. And so a learned h Jew, both here, and on Jerem. V.17. observes two significations to be fastned on it, viz. according to some, we are impoverished; according to others, we are cut off, or destroyed. And so in Miclal Yophi on this place, out of Kimchi, on Jerem. V.17. The sense according to either will be indifferent.

5 And your eies shall see, and ye shall say, the Lord will be magnified from the border of Israel.

And your eies shall see, &c.] So evident, so fully shewn are these tokens of Gods love to you, and hatred to Esau's posterity, as that your eies, you being restored to your Country, and theirs continuing desolate, you shall say [must needs say] The Lord will be magnified (or is magnified, or, be the Lord magnified) from the border of Israel, i which still shall be called by their name; whereas the Country of Edom shall be looked on as an accursed Land, and called The border of wickedness.

From the border.] In the Margin, upon, or from upon; and it is noted there that so it is in the Hebrew, and so it is [...] Meal. But it is by a learned Jew k noted that [...] Me, or the first letter, or the Preposition prefixed which signifies from, is sometimes redundant in such cases, and that it may be all one, as if it were without it, only [...] Al, upon, above, or over. The same learned Jew farther adds for explication of the sense, more words, which because his Book is not printed, nor common, it will not be amiss to give, or the meaning of them, which is, [That the meaning of these words together in connexion with the former is, Ye have or (shall have) assurance of his love to you, and providence over you, when you see that you your selves are returned to your own Land, and have power of building and inhabiting it, but they have not power to do the like, but they build, and I throw down, and ye therefore praise (or shall praise) and magnify my name for it, saying, The Lord shall be magnified on the border of Israel, that is, his greatness shall be alwaies manifest upon (or over) you; or else it may be supplied thus; The Lord shall be magnified, who protecteth the border of Israel, or the like. Or the meaning is said to be, It would have become you that you should so do, and have continued so to do (viz. to have taken due notice of this, and to have said, The [Page]Lord be magnified, &c. but you have done the contrary; as in what follows is declared. Or, saith he, in the opinion of some, the words from the border of Israel, are to be joined with, and ye; as if it were thus to be construed, And you that reside on (or dwell in) the border of Israel, shall say, The Lord be magnified.] Thus he, which we the rather take notice of, because it will arm us against what another l Jew saith that this may be interpreted, And your eies shall see the destruction of Edom in the end of daies (or the last daies) and then ye shall say, The Lord be magnified from the border of Israel, that is to say, In all the World shall his name be magnified; according to what is said, Then will I turn to the People a pure language, that they may call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent, Zeph. III.9. He seems to look upon this Prophecy as not yet fulfilled, but hereafter to be fulfilled by the utter destruction of Edom, (which certainly hath been long since destroyed) and setling Israel again in their Land. They willingly catch at any thing whereby to cherish themselves in their fond error of expecting a Messiah yet to come, who shall restore to Israel a temporal Kingdom, and subdue under them all their Enemies, and cut off those whom they please to call Edom, by which name we have shewed whom they mean. He runs in this the same way that Abarbinol doth. Yet here Abarbinel, though he promise to himself a farther fulfilling of it in that way, yet could not but confess it to be already fulfilled (viz. under the second Temple, and that restitution of Israel from their Babylonish captivity, and the destruction of Edom in those times, and therefore saith, Perhaps this Promise was spoken concerning both times, viz. that so long since past, and that which they expect yet to come. The Verbs being in the Text in the future Tense, as of what was then to come, will not advantage those who would make that use thereof, as if it were yet to be expected: for though their eies had already seen Edom subdued, and their Mountains laid wast, yet there was there that which they were farther to see and admire, viz. that the Edomites should again strive to recover themselves, and rebuild their wast, as Israel had done theirs, but through the continued indignation of the Lord upon them should never be able to do it.

What we read, The Lord will be magnified, m some read Great is (or, be) the Lord, the Lord n doth magnify himself over, or upon, the border of Israel, viz. by taking especial care of it. o Your eies shall see from the border of Israel, and you shall say, The Lord doth magnify himself. The Chalde expounds it, And ye shall say, Let the Glory of God be multiplied, for he hath enlarged the border of Israel, which p some well like of, and so it will well agree with what Drusius observes the word [...] meal properly to signify beyond, but these small differences make no great alteration in the sense and scope.

The inference from what hath been said is plainly this, That seeing God had in thus declaring his peculiar love to them above others, whom he might for the same respects, they also being the seed of Abraham, have made objects of his love, as well as them, certainly they ought to have requited him with more then ordinary love, and testified it by their obedience to him, which seeing they did not, they are justly reproveable. To shew the justness of his reproof of them, and aggravate the unreasonableness of their ingratitude and perverse behaviour towards him, he in the following words proceeds farther to explain his benefits and relations that he stands in, to them, for which tokens of his love to them they ought also to have shewed such respects to him, as those relations required, but did not. He adds therefore, ‘6 ¶ A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master, If then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O Priests, that despise my Name? and ye say, Wherein have we despised thy Name?’

A son honoreth his Father, and a servant his Master, &c.] God had all along shewed such fatherly love to Israel and paternal care over them above all other Nations, that they could not but acknowledge him their Father: not only by a common right as he is Father of all, as Creator of all, but by a peculiar right, as having adopted them unto a greater priviledge, and nigher relation of sonship then others: and so had he by his peculiar guidance and protection, direction, and government of them, shewed himself a Lord and Master to them, that they could not deny him by a particular right of title to be so to them. This they could not, they would not deny, but rather so challenge him to themselves in these respects q, as if he were not so at all to other Nations, either a Father or Master to them. The word If, therefore doth not put or suppose it as a thing which they doubted, or such as in words they would deny, but such as while with their mouths they confessed, or could not but confess, they did not in their deeds make good, but rather contradicted: for if they did look on him as a Father, why did [Page] they not then duly honor him; or if as a master, why did they not then reverence and fear him? and so includes a reprehension of them for not attesting to their outward profession by their respective behaviour, but by that shewed their heart not to be right with him.

For a son honoureth his Father, and a servant his Master.] It is their duty so to do; and they transgress not only their duty, but the ordinary custom: they who do not so, are unnatural sons, perverse, ill natured servants: unworthy of those appellations, not doing what they require and suppose will be performed by all that are called by them: and such the Questions here put, where is mine honor? and where is my fear? shew them to have been; as neither yielding to God that honor which from sons is due, and is ordinarily performed to a Father; nor that fear which servants ow, and usually shew to a Master. The question imports a denial, viz. that they did not this their duty: and because they would perhaps deny themselves to be peccant in what is objected to them, he proceeds by peculiar instances to convict them as guilty; directing what hath hitherto been said more generally, as to all the People, more particularly to the Priests, who gave ill example in this kind to them, and should have taught them better,

Saith the Lord of Hosts unto you, O Priests that despise my Name. This reading couples these words with the foregoing part of the verse, though that seem spoken more generally to all the People, and this doth not exclude them, though r particularly directed to the Priests, as those who should have prevented such ill behaviour in the People, but now seemed to be occasions to them of despising Gods Name by their despising it first; s as if his speech to the Priests began at, A son honoreth his Father, &c. others putting a stop after where is my fear? or after, saith the Lord of Hosts, will have what is spoken peculiarly to the Priests to begin at The Lord of Hosts saith, or speaketh, to you, O Priests, who despise my Name, viz. The Lord accuseth you for despising his Name. This punctation seems to follow the Latin in some Copies; and t others understanding, To you, O Priests, who despise my Name, I say these things. But this nicety seems of no great import. That which the Priests are accused of is, that they despise his Name, and have him in contempt, which is u contrary to that honor which as a Father; and that fear and reverence, which as he is a Lord, or Master, is due unto him. This were manifestly a great fault; they seem not to think otherwise, or to justify it in themselves, but rather would justify themselves as not guilty of it, and therefore to say, Be it far from us, we have done no such thing, wherein have we despised thy Name? x surely in nothing that we know of. He answereth them therefore in the next words.

7 Ye offer polluted bread upon mine Altar, and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? in that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemtible.

Ye offer polluted bread upon mine Altar, &c.] Of bread to be offered to God we read of two sorts, the one called the Shew-bread, to be set on a Table before the Lord, of which mention is made, Exod. XXV, 30. as likewise of the Table on which they were to be set in the foregoing verses, and directions for ordering this bread are given, Levit. XXIV.5. &c. Of other bread, called, a Meat-offering, to be brought to the Altar, and part thereof to be burnt on the Altar, either as a voluntary oblation, we read Levit. II. or else as a necessary and commanded oblation, of which is mention, Exod. XXIX.40. and Num. XXVIII.5. &c, Of the former of these sorts, viz. the Shew-bread, will y some have the bread mentioned understood. Against which z others object that this bread here is said to be offered on the Altar, whereas that was set on a Table for that end ordained. But if there be no other difficulty, a sufficient answer to this may seem, what is given by some, viz. that Altar here is taken for Table, as manifestly elsewhere Table is the same that Altar (as Ezek. XLI.22.) and here in this very verse what is called Altar is likewise called Table. Yet do a others choose to understand Bread here rather of that meat-offering that was offered with the daily Sacrifice, which was the second sort that we mentioned, and was part of it burnt on the Altar: But both these go on the same grounds, that bread here is taken in that proper notion by that word [...] Lechem usually understood: but others look on it as in a larger signification, as it peculiarly denotes, not only bread properly so called (and usually by that name understood) but any food, or flesh, or meat that is eaten, as well as bread: and so those parts of the Sacrifices, which were burnt on the Altar, are called [...], the bread of the offerings made by fire unto the Lord, b Levit. III.11, 16. (that is, as ours in a word of larger signification render it, The food) accordingly, as ver, 12. in this Chapter, in a more general term he calls what is offered on his Table [...] Oclo, the food thereof: and so those parts also of them which the Priests did eat, seem called, The bread of their God, Levit. XXI.22. Looking on it therefore in [Page] this larger notion (not as signifying only bread, which usually in the Hebrew and Syriack Languages it is taken for, nor only flesh, as in the Arabick, but as it comprehends both, yea all food or meat,) they take it here to denote any Sacrifice or Oblation offered to God on his Altar, which was as his Table, and what was thereon offered and burnt, called his food or meat: d so that under the name of polluted bread may come those blind and lame, and sick Sacrifices in the following words mentioned: yet e some like not this. We need not trouble our selves in deciding the controversy between these differing opinions, or dispute which is to be preferred. An easy way of reconciling them, and composing the matter seems that which is by a learned f Jew suggested, viz. That there is no doubt but that the names Altar and Table may be indifferently used for signifying either the Altar, or the Table of Shew-bread; and by polluted bread may be understood either bread properly so called, or else the flesh of the Sacrifices; and then whether by this variety of words he understand still the same thing, or else diverse, viz. the Shew-bread by some of them, and the Sacrifices by others, the scope will be the same, viz. to shew the contemt they had of his service, and that not in one particular kind only, but in all; and to make good the accusation against them, by instancing whether in one kind or more, and passing from one to the other. Two faults g they seem here accused of; the first, that they accounted that holy enough, which was not so, viz. offerings that were polluted, that is, not so ordered as God had commanded such things as he would accept of as holy, to be ordered, and therefore reputed in his sight as unclean. Secondly, in accounting that contemtible which was in it self to be reverenced, and looked on as holy, viz. the Table, or Altar of the Lord. h As for the first, viz. those offerings, there was the pollution or defect in the things themselves manifest. As for the second, the fault was in themselves, in their evill and contemtuous thoughts, in that they said, or would be ready to say, at least thought in their minds, which was in his sight, or ears, as much as if they openly spake it, though perhaps they were not so impudent as openly to profess it. By doing the first they are said to despise his Name, in despising and setting light by his Ordinances, and the manner by him prescrib'd for the right performance of them; by the second, they are said to pollute him in contemning that which was hallow'd to him, as despicable; the contemt of that God looks on as redounding to himself.

The Question as in their person put, wherein, have we polluted thee? (as if they should say though the bread or things that we offer be polluted, yet what pollution or dishonor doth thence arise to thee?) and then Gods answer, In that ye say, The Table of the Lord is contemtible, plainly shews it, viz. That he looks on it, as if they did, as far as in them lay, pollute him himself. The contemt offered to his Table or Altar, or that whereby they declared themselves to look on it as contemtible, seems to consist in this, that they thought any thing though not qualified with those conditions that the Law required, good enough to offer to him on it. Why they did so contemn it i some give reasons, as that it was, because there was not in the Altar, now under the second Temple, that richness and splendor, and therefore neither (as they thought) that holiness that was under the first Temple, k or in that the things offered were but few, and so their gain or income but small, or (as some l Jews) because there was offered on it fat and blood, and such things as they looked on as despicable, not considering why God requir'd them, or that it was enough, that he commanded. But these are but conjectures: no ground for them in the Text. It was manifestly a sign of irreligion, and disrespect to God, and his worship in them, shewed in this instance of their dealing with his Table, and the things thereto belonging, (both here included together, the offerings and the Altar) for which they are therefore reproved as contemners of God; which their contemt is farther illustrated in the next verse.

8 And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor, will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person, saith the Lord of hosts.

And if you offer the blind for Sacrifice, is it not evil?] This question put, though with a conditional particle, If, intimates that they did presume to offer such things: therefore instead of, If, m others put That you do offer, &c. is it not evil? or, n In as much, or, whereas ye offer, &c. is it not evil? Do you not hereby manifestly profess your opinion that the Table of the Lord is contemtible? as if they were the words of God, and so is the consequence of these words on the former evident. But o others read without an interrogation, And when ye offer the blind, &c. it is not evil, viz. in your opinion; or ye tell the [Page] People that bring them to you to offer for them, that they are not evil, (as if they were their words,) they are good enough to be offered on Gods Altar; clean contrary to Gods command, Levit. XXII.22, &c. Deut. XV.21. And by this doing likewise they said, or shewed that they thought the Table or Altar of the Lord contemptible, and that they despised him; for had they had any respect unto him, any reverence for his Altar, they would not have presumed to offer thereon to him such things, as they would not think to find acceptance for (or with) from any among men, who was in place or honor, and whose favor they would seek. So saith he, Offer it now to thy Governor, will he be pleased with thee? &c. certainly not. Thou wouldst not think that he would accept thy person with a present so disgraceful, so dishonorable, for him to take. He would look on it as a great disrespect of his person, and disregard of his honor, and therefore be much displeased with him, that should shew so little esteem of him. How much more shall the Lord, the great Governor of the World, from whom they have all that they have, and who hath no need of any thing that they have, look upon it as a great contempt to himself, p if they shall presume to offer to him, what they would not dare to offer to one, though in dignity and autority above them, yet a man like themselves? especially seeing he had commanded the contrary, and declared that he would have no such oblation brought to his Altar. For q those that were not able to bring greater gifts, he had ordained less, and of smaller value, yet still (as a learned r Jew observes) required that all of those offerings should be of the perfectest in their kind, lest such things as were offered to him and his service should become contemtible; as here it is shewed that it was come to pass among them, and he complains of them, and reproves especially the Priests for it. For though the People were much in fault for presuming to bring such illegal and undue oblations, yet much more s the Priests in receiving them from them, and offering them; who should have taught them what to bring, and denied to receive what was not fit, when they brought any such, and to have refused to offer it: in that they did not this, but rather tell the People it was good enough, they shewed disrespect to God and contempt of him. He reproves them for it, and expects they should repent of it. So the Prophet shews in subjoining verse the 9th.

9 And now I pray you, beseech God, that he will be gracious unto us: this hath been by your means: will he regard your persons? saith the Lord of hosts.

And now I pray you beseech God that he will be gracious unto us, &c.] A learned t Jew thus gives the connexion of these words with the preceding, ‘He shews them the remedy against their disease, stirring them up to repentance, and that they would make intercession for Israel, that so wrath might be removed from them, and they might find mercy (as he saith that he will be gracious unto us) for that belonged to the u Priests, how much more, when their fault or sin was cause thereof, (viz. x of Gods wrath toward them, or curse on them) seeing the matter was in their hand, and they occasioned it, and might have hindred it, as he saith; this hath been by your means, or from your hand.’ Thus he; and then the words that follow, will he accept your persons, must thus be supplied, except you so do, viz. repent, and make supplications to him, but shall continue to do as you do, will the Lord accept your persons? To the same purpose do others, both y Jews and Christians expound the words, as to denote, that if they did sincerely repent, and seek by prayer for mercy from God, he would yet have mercy on them; but if not, they ought not to think, that he who is no accepter of persons would accept any of them, or spare to reprove them for their doings. Or as z some of them, that they should thus earnestly pray, to see whether God, though much displeased, would yet accept them, and be gracious to Israel; which is agreeable with the old Latin Translation. a Others prefer to look on these words as Ironically spoken, to this purpose; Now therefore behaving your selves thus wickedly in Gods service, do what is farther, your duty, ye Priests, to whom that office belongs, beseech the Lord that he will be gracious unto us, for the evil is come upon us by your means, and now see whether ye (being such as ye are) can prevail for your sakes to have it removed. God hath constituted you Intercessors for the People, and promised to accept of your intercession, while you behave your selves in your office as you ought; but will he now accept of your persons, and hear you for them, or for your selves? surely ye will find your selves much deceived if you think he will: your office so ill performed will not make you acceptable.

[Page] That he will be gracious unto us.] Here is b observed, that the Prophet, though not guilty of those sins which he reproves, yet saith not unto you, or unto the People, but unto us, as joining himself in the number, either out of modesty, or humility, or sympathizing with them in the evil, which should come upon them. So Moses, Exodus, XXXIV.9. praying for the People that had sinned, saith Pardon our iniquity, and our sin, though he had no part therein; which way of speaking he learnt from God himself, who finding fault with the People, joins with them Moses, who was not guilty of that fault, How long do ye refuse to keep my Commandments, Exodus XVI.28.

10 Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought, I have no plesure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand.

Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? &c.] (or that doth shut, &c.) Having shewed the great fault of the Priests, in their negligence in his service, and not taking care for the right ordering of things in it according to the Law, he here seems to aggravate it, in that they receive abundant wages, for what they should do, and are well paid for it, even for their least services they do, as the very shutting of the doors of the Temple, and kindling fire on his Altar. Did he require their Service for nought, as justly he might, then they might have some pretence for their negligence; but now being so plentifully rewarded by the portions in performing their several offices allowed them, sure if they would not out of love do it, yet in justice they ought to be carefull in performing what was required of them, according as the Law required it to be performed; and seeing they are not, he is justly displeased at them, and hath no pleasure in them, neither will accept an offering at their hand. This seems to be the connexion, and the meaning of the words according to the rendring which our Translators give. But I have heard exceptions taken against our Translators for it; but those that blame them for it, should consider that they go not alone in it, but have the consent both of other approved translations and learned Expositors, who seem to embrace it out of choice and deliberation, not because they saw no other, or were not aware that the words were by some, or might be, otherwise expounded. For to the same sense the ancient Latine renders them, and so Junius and Tremellius among the modern, whom together with ours they must tax, as likewise those c Expositors, which go the same way, which are many and learned. Yet if any like not this, nor be moved with those autorities, another Exposition, by many likewise both Jews and Christians given, is this, Who is there also among you, i. e. I would there were any, that would shut the doors against you, that you might not bring in such illegal and unacceptable oblations, nor kindle fire on mine Altar in vain, or to no purpose, or profit to you, for I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of Hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. Any offering, though it were in it self good, you being such as you are, much less such illegal offerings; these services were even better let alone, then be so performed as they are by you. This sense being agreeable to the Chalde Paraphrase, and given by several Jewish d Expositors, sure those who, as we have seen, follow the same way that our Translators do, and likewise our Translators themselves, so learned, attentive, and diligent men as they were, could not be ignorant of, however they chose to follow what they have done. The Reader seeing, and considering both (or if he find any other) may take his choice too. He may only observe that in ours the word, for nought, is for making the sense plainer twice repeated, whereas it is in the Original only once, and that in the last place; and it is so likewise repeated in the Translation of Junius and Tremellius. e Some of the Jews, though to this purpose which we have said, giving their own meaning, yet tell us of another Exposition or Gloss given by some of their ancient Doctors, as making it to include an argument à minori ad majus to this purpose. Two things there are which a man will not refuse to do, yet have no reward for them. If one man say to another, Shut the door after thee or me, or light this candle for me, he for doing it, askes, or takes no reward: but who among you hath shut my doors for nought, neither have ye lighted mine Altar for nought, how much less have you done for nought any of those things which use to be done for reward? Therefore I have no pleasure in you. They give no farther explication of their Doctors meaning: it seems to make for the first exposition.

[Page] 11 For from the rising of the Sun, even unto the going down of the same, my Name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered unto my Name, and a pure offering; for my Name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

For from the rising of the Sun even to the going down of the same, my Name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered u [...]to my Name, and a pure offering, &c.] If God will have no pleasure in those whom he had chosen for his People, and will not accept of offerings from them, whom by his Law he had instructed concerning such offerings as he would accept, and refused all others, f what then will he do unto his great Name? what People will he find, or make use of to magnify his Name, and to bring to him such offerings as he may accept? Thus might the Jews be ready to reply, but this objection doth he prevent, in these words, by shewing that the greatness of his Name doth not depend on their magnifying it. The whole World, from one end to the other, shall give witness to it, and celebrate it, though they despise it; and though they offer polluted bre [...]d on his Altar, so that he will accept no offering at their hand, yet he shall not want acceptable offerings: in every place incense of a sweet savour, and a pure offering shall be offered unto his Name; g so that he hath no need of them, nor will be at a loss in his worship through their denying it to him. The Jews differ among themselves in the expounding of these words, h some taking them to include a supposition, thus, All the People of the World, from the rising of the Sun even to the going down of the same, if I had instructed and commanded them, as I have commanded you, would readily have obeyed, and my Name should have been magnified among the Gentiles, while every where they would have offered to it incense and a pure offering, and not have polluted it as ye do, by offering polluted bread on mine Altar; i so that I should not have been at a loss. But the Text expresses no such supposal or condition. Others therefore, without an such supply interpret it as a description of what was done, and that say some by Israelites, though not by these spoken to, and reproved for doing otherwise in their own Land, yet by such of them who were dispersed in other parts of the World, among the Gentiles, who did in all places where they were, magnify Gods great Name, whose daily Prayers and constant Devotions, and study in the Law, were by God looked on and accepted as incense and a pure offering. To this purpose speak k some of of their more ancient Doctors: and it is agreeable to the Chalde Paraphrast, who gives this sense, ‘For from the rising of the Sun, unto the going down thereof, my Name is great among the Gentiles, and at all times that ye do my will, I will receive your Prayers, and my great Name is sa [...]ctified by you, and your Prayers are as a clean offerring before me, for my Name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord.’ But this is evidently liable to except [...]ons, in as much as Israel is not mentioned in the words, but what is said shall be done, is said shall be done among the Gentiles, and so consequently by them. And for this reason is it by one of their own Doctors excepted against (viz. Abarbinel) and he with l others find out another way, by which they say, it was then done among and by the Gentiles themselves, viz. in as much as though they did worship Idols, or the host of Heaven as inferior Gods, and as Mediators between them and the chief God, yet him, and the magnifying of his Name they still cheifly intended, and ultimately directed their worship and all their Oblations, the purest they could think of, with pure zeal to him the chief and God of Gods, the cause of causes, as they learn him to be (as he saith) from (i. e. by) the continual motion and constant rising and setting of the Sun, and so in m serving their Idols aimed at serving him. So that the words may be a reproof of them, who would not learn even from the Heathen to magnify his Name, but contrary to what even they did, polluted and profaned it. n Others yet, something differently, make the meaning to be, that in reprooving Israel for contempt of his worship and sacrifices, he saith, My Name is great among the Nations, and magnified by them, and their magnifying of my Name, is accepted by me, as if they offered to me incense and a pure offerring, for as much as it is not sacrifice that I require for it self. And therefore as long as ye honour not my Name, which without doubt is great among all Nations (however out of greater respect to me they fancy to themselves Mediators in their approaches to me) I will not accept you. These two last Interpretations, what are they less then even an excuse or Apology for (if not a commendation of) Idolaters and Idolatry, as from the [Page] mouth of God himself, and so then blasphemy against him, who in the Law and Prophets all along, hath shewed them and their waies to be all, most abominable to him, such as he utterly seeks to root out, and will have his People have nothing to do with. And can he be thought here to say that he accepts of what is done to Idols, as a magnifying of his Name, or what Sacrifices are offered to them, as a sweet smelling savor, or acceptable Sacrifice offered to himself? Unworthy certainly is this exposition even of Jews themselves, or any that acknowledge one God, and his Name only great, and how jealous he is of the honor of it, so that he will not be called by any name common with Idols, Hos. II.16. Another exposition yet o some of them give, viz, that this is said in respect of all Kings of the Nations, which brought their offerings to Jerusalem, and did honor and adorn the Sanctuary of the Lord with their presents, in the time of the second Temple, which offerings are called a pure offering. But how doth this agree with the words, which do not say that in Jerusalem, but in every place, incense and a pure offering should be offered to his Name?

In summe, none of these Expositions given by the Jews come up to the words of the Text, nor have we therefore recited them, as if any of them were to be followed, but to shew how, that we may have a full meaning of them, and see how they are made good, they are of necessity to be understood, as Christians take them, for a Prophecy of what should be done at, and after Christs coming, when by the preaching of the Gospell the knowledge of God should be communicated to all Nations, and his Name should become great unto the utmost parts of the Earth, be acknowledged by remote Nations, who before knew him not, and by them all and every where he should be adored and worshipped with acceptable service, the Jews, who despised his Name, being rejected, the Heathen shall succeed, who shall acknowledg the greatness of it. This, however improbable in the eies of the Jews, who thought it incredible, that ever he would own any other People but themselves, or be owned or magnified by any other, or would choose any other place for his worship then Jerusalem, he will certainly effect, and therefore for the better p assurance thereof repeats it, for my Name shall be great; that, which by you, a handfull of men, is now despised, shall be great among the Heathen, by all acknowledged as such. These words were, when spoken, spoken of what should after be, but by Christs coming into the World were made good: so appears it by what he saith in his discourse with the Samaritan Woman, who thought of no other p [...]a [...]e where men ought [...]o worship God, but either the Mountain of the Samaritans (mount Garizim) or Jerusalem, Joh. IV.21, &c. Woman beleive me the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this Mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father. And, the hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The consideration of which words will give us the true import of these, and compared together they illustrate one the other: for his saying that God did no longer confine his worship (i. e.) the outward performance thereof, by such rites and ceremonies as were ordained, to Jerusalem, or any other single place, what is that, but the verifying of what is here said, that his Name should be great among the Nations, from the rising of the Sun even to the going down of the same? and what he [...]a [...]th, that the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, not only there, but every where, sheweth that as his Name should be great and magnified among them, by their acknowledging him as Father, so what is to be meant by that incense and pure offering which they should offer unto his Name, viz. not such as are literally signified by those words, and were then to be ordered according to the prescription of the Law, but such worship as though expressed by the names of those carnal things under the Law, then in continual use and known to all, yet is indeed spiritual, q joining the Soul with the external performances, agreeable to the nature of God who is a spirit; of which those ordinances of worship under the Law were types and shadows. And indeed the change of the place necessarily imports a change of the worship, or things offered for expression of it; for the incense, and other offerings by the Law prescribed, were not to be offered any where else but in the Temple at Jerusalem, after that was there settled for the place of his worship, Deut. XII.13, 14, 26. Those therefore that he will have in every place to be offered to him are manifestly of another nature; though called by those names, which then included generally all the external worship of God under the Old Testament, while the Jews were Gods peculiar People: they, now r figuratively understood, denote the whole spiritual worship of God under the New Testament, since the calling of the Gentiles, and People of all Nations unto Gods Church, the Kingdom of Christ. The incense therefore of the Gentiles converted to Christ, and by the Gospell instructed in the true [Page] knowledge of God, and taught to celebrate his great name, and their pure offering, are devout prayers, Rev. V.8. holy praises, thanksgivings, and alms-deeds, and works of charity, Heb. XIII.15, 16. their whole selves, Rom. XII.1. Divers of the ancient Christian Fathers look on the words as an express and undoubted Prophecy of the Christians solemn worship of God in the Eucharist or Sacrament of the Lords Supper, called the Christian Sacrifice, to which how they are appliable, is shewed at large by the learned Mr Mede in his discourse on these words: where he gives to note that under the name of the Christian Sacrifice, by the ancient Church was understood, not the mere Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, but the whole sacred action, or solemn Service of the Church assembled, whereof this sacred mystery was a prime and principal part; and therefore defines it to be An oblation of thanksgiving and praier to God the Father through Jesus Christ, and his Sacrifice commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine, wherewith God had been first agnized, viz. by them sanctified by being offered and set before him as a present to acknowledge him the Lord and giver of all.

This whole Service duly performed is (as at large he there shews) deservedly stiled incense and a pure offering, both in respect that it is purely or spiritually offered, and in respect of the purity of the conscience, and affection of the offerers, throughly perswaded of the greatness of God, and in respect of Christ, whom it signifies and represents, who is a Sacrifice without all spot and blemish: and by this being offered to his Name in every place, he saith, the time should come, when it should be great, magnified, and acknowledged as great among and by all Nations, though the Jews did now profane it, as he makes the connexion by rendring that, though, which our Translation renders, but. But the sense will be much alike in reading but, viz. to this purpose, the time shall come when from the rising of the Sun, &c. my Name shall be great among the Gentiles, who yet have not true knowledge of me, but will when I shall see due time to reveal it to them, readily embrace it. Mean while it ought to have been so among you, and duly magnified by you, to whom I have from of old revealed it, and given you ordinances and waies of worship, by observing of which you should have magnified it, but you on the contrary have by despising those ordinances, and perverting those waies of worship, profaned it.

When these words were spoken, and thence forward, (as all along before, since the giving of the Law,) till the time of this diffusing the knowledge of God and his Name, and this alteration and reformation of his worship here spoken of, the Jews had for their direction the Law of Moses, and ought duly to have attended to it, as they are warned, Chap. IV.4. but they did in all things go so contrary to it, as that neither they, nor any service they did, were acceptable to God. So notoriously, so obstinately peccant, were they both Priest and People, that he sees it not sufficient to have once reproved them, by reckoning up to them their faults, but again repeats them, that so they may be sensible how greatly they have offended him, how displeasing it is to him, that they should continue to do such things, having been warned of them, and that it is worse then what the Gentiles, when he shall call them, will do.

12 ¶ But ye have profaned it, in that ye say, The table of the Lord is polluted, and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.

But ye have profaned it] viz. my Name, so verse 6. they are said to despise it, and verse 7. to pollute him, contrary to acknowledging of it as great, or magnifying it. If they shall be ready to ask as before, wherein have we profaned it? he tells them wherein, viz. in that they say the Table of the Lord is polluted, so verse 7. ye say that the Table of the Lord is s contemptible. Their t ordering of the things that pertain to it, as common despicable things, and without due reverence, shews that they esteem it so, and is as much as if they openly said so in express words, though perhaps they were not so impudent as openly to utter them.

The Table of the Lord is polluted] his Altar not so highly to be regarded, as a sacred thing, or with so much care and reverence to be approached; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible, viz. his meat, or its meat, or the meat thereof; for the affix is the same that in the former word, and may therefore be referred to the same person or thing: and it will be all one whether we refer it to the Table or to God; for as the Table or Altar is his, so all belonging to it is his, the fruit thereof his, the meat his. But then it may be questioned what is meant by the fruit of the Altar, and his meat, (or its meat) whether that which was offered on the Altar as Gods part of the Sacrifice, or that which he had out of the Sacrifices (by his right) given to the Priests, as a reward for their serving at his Altar. The words so rendered, as we read, are indifferently appliable to both; and therefore in as much as both those may be called the fruit thereof, and his (or its) meat, as well what God took to himself, as that which he allotted to the Priests; they are [Page] capable of a double meaning, as they are looked on with respect, either to the one or the other; 1. With respect to the first, as if their saying or thoughts of their heart were, the fruit thereof, (i. e.) that which is allotted to the Altar to be offered on it, and his meat (t or its fruit, its meat, i. e. which is its meat) is contemptible, viz. being the fat, and the blood, gross and despicable things (as u some of the Jews expound it) and therefore not to be had in such great esteem, and with such care to be ordered, as the Law requires. 2. With respect to the second, or the portion of the Priests, as if they said, the fruit thereof, or x of its meat (or y as for its fruit, the meat thereof) that which is taken of it for meat or allotted to us for our provisions, for our eating, is contemptible, little, and of small value, not worth so much care and pains as we must take in our waiting on it. Thus according to this rendring. But there are among the Jews who render it otherwise as to the word [...] Nibo, which ours, with many others render the fruit thereof, reading his word or saying. And here they differ in telling us whose word they mean; z some making it the Word of God, as if they said, The Table of the Lord is polluted, and his Word concerning the meat thereof, viz. by which he commands such gross things as fat and blood to be put on it, for his, or its meat, is contemptible. [This would be strange impudence in them to have said, yet thus Abarbinel among the Jews expounds it, and Montanus among Christians follows him, as in many other things.] a Others make it the word of the Priest, or him that sacrificed, or others of them, as if it sounded, Ye say the Table of the Lord is polluted, his Word or Speech, or that which he, viz. the Priest, continually hath in his mouth is, that his meat, or its meat, viz. God's or his Table's, is contemptible, being fat and blood, gross, nauseous things: Although b some take the ground of their complaint to be, because the Altar it self still devoured the fat, and left nothing to them but lean contemptible meat. That the word [...] Nib, may be taken for Word, or Speech, in a figurative signification is no doubt, as it is the fruit of the lips, that which is put forth by them, as it is used, Isai. LVII.19. yet that it should be so taken here, there is no necessity; yea both the sense and c construction will be more harsh if it be. And though there be Doctors of great authority among the Jews that would have it so taken, yet d others are there neither of less learning, nor authority, who think it ought to be taken in the more proper signification of fruit. And so it appears to have been taken by most of the ancient Translators. For so while the Chalde expounds both the words, this and the other rendred meat put together, as denoting the same thing, the gifts of it; it is manifest that he took them both, as denoting the same thing, viz. those offerings which were brought to the Altar. And so the Greek likewise while they render, the meats (or food) that are put thereon, whom the printed Arabick likewise follows, and the Syriack including both in one word, its meats, agreeable to what a learned e Jew notes, that as if the two words were synonymous, or words denoting the same thing, the putting both doth but double or repeat the same thing. f Another expounds the meaning of the words so put together, so as to import, either, the fruit of its meat, though the affix its or thereof be joined with the first of the words, as well as the latter; or else so as he before, taking them for synonymous, Its fruit, its meat, i. e. its fruit, and its meat (or its fruit which is its meat.) And as for the word that we speak of, its manifest that the Author of the ancient Latin Version took it in the same meaning, whilst he renders it, that which is laid thereupon which is that which is meant, by the fruit thereof: but then he differs from all the rest, in rendring that which is by ours rendred his meat, by, with the fire that devoureth it; taking [...] Oclo that which is eaten or devoured, to be as much as [...] Ocelo, i. e. that which devoureth it, which being the fire on the Altar, he expresseth it by name, though in the original it be not expressed; as if they should say, that the Altar and all belonging to it were contemptible, g or that that which was offered at the Altar were contemptible, because serving for no other use, then to be devoured by fire. In the Hebrew concordance the word is put under both significations, as being doubtfull, which is to be preferred: but when all is done, that which ours follow, so as at first expounded, seems clearest.

13 Ye said also, behold, what a weariness is it? and ye have snuffed at it, saith the Lord of hosts; and ye brought that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick: thus ye brought an offering: should I accept this of your hands? saith the Lord.

Ye said also] Proceeding in his reproof, whether of the h Priests, or i People, or rather both k jointly, for their perverse behavior in his service, he objects to them that they [Page] said, Behold what a weariness is it? and ye have snuffed at it, (or as in the Margin, whereas you might have blown it away, &c.) Of the words so read as they (appositely to the original) are in the text of our Translation, a plain and easy meaning may be thus paraphrastically given; that they said, or so behaved themselves, as if they plainly said, What a deal of toil and labour are we put to in ordering the offerings of the Altar, and the things pertaining thereto, and our selves in respect to them, according to what the Law nicely requires? And that they therefore snuffed (or puffed) at it, in token of indignation and dislike, or displeasure at it: and therefore, or besides this, the Priests to save themselves that labour, and (the People) that cost and charges, which according to the prescription of the Law they should be at, took any illegal l thing, whether torn, or lame, and sick, for a Sacrifice; and m brought with it their meat offering, as if this were sufficient to put off God with it. But he (though nothing profited by what they offer, yet in respect of his commandment, which they were bound to obey, and that reverence and honor, which he required to be shewed to his Name and Altar) shews that he takes due notice of what they do, and how they do it, and will by no means accept or take it at their hands: Should I accept this of your hands? saith the Lord. The Question imports a negation. This exposition seems plain, and very agreeable to the words, and is warranted by the authority of learned Interpreters. As first of a Jewish Doctor R. Tanchum, an Author as dextrous in expounding the Scripture as any among them. He tells us that the word▪ [...] Mattelah being compounded of [...] Mah, which signifies, what, and [...] Telaah, which signifies, labour, affliction (or ill accidents) signifies, What affliction or misery is this? and that their meaning is, (he taking it as spoken of the Priests) what a toil or wearisomness is it (that we are put to) in purifying and hallowing our selves for eating this small pittance or portion? So as that the words are a reproof of them, for their looking on it as a toilsome thing, that they should make or keep themselves clean for eating of the holy things, and their rejecting it therefore, and contemning that portion; which is expressed by what he saith, and ye have snuffed (or puffed) at it. [...] Vehippachtem oto, the proper signification of which word (saith he) is, ye blow it (or at it) the meaning whereof is, ye look on it as contemptible (or express contempt of it,) as he that blows on his hand in token of contempt of a thing, or when one takes a thing in his hand, and blows (or puffs) at it. Other expositions also he mentions, but prefers this as most agreeable to the words and place. And thus much have we mentioned of his words, because his Book is not yet printed, and because it makes for confirmation of the meaning that we gave, only that he restrains the reproof more particularly to the Priests, and what concerned their ill behavior; whereas we rather extend it both to Priest and People. And so do also among Christian Expositors, Calvin, and Lud. de Dieu, who saith, the sense of the words is, you complain that you are wearied with the burthen of my Commandments, and too much oppressed, in that ye are bound to offer to me none but of the best and soundest Cattel, and therefore ye snuff at it, and for your own ease offer to me any corrupt thing.

Having the sense that we gave thus warranted, we might well acquiesce in it, but that our Translators in the Margin reflecting on another rendring, give us to look into that too, and the grounds of it; which while we do it is no little wonder to see how differently these words, which may (as before expounded) seem plain, are by Interpreters understood, and so made difficult. That which in our Margin is reflected on, seems to go on these grounds, which some, both n Jews and Christians, suppose here intimated; viz. that they brought a lean beast for Sacrifice on their shoulder, and then that they might make People beleive that it was fat and fleshy, they would cry, what a labor or wearisomness hath it been to me to bring this heavy beast? and would puff and blow at it, o as if they had been heavy burdened with it; whereas it was indeed so lean and light, that with an easy breath or blast they might have blown it down. This is that which the Margin in our Bibles seems to point at. p Others, supposing the same, differently render the last words, and ye threw it on the ground by way of contempt (or indignation) which Kimchi also would have to be the meaning of the Chalde Paraphrast, q though the word that he useth, otherwise signifies, ye strangled or choked it. r Others on the same supposition render them, and ye blew it up, viz. by blowing puffed it up with wind, that it might seem fat. And besides this, ye bring that which is stollen or torn, or lame or sick, things that have such blemishes in them as by the Law make them unlawfull for offerings, and together with them you bring your meat offering. And shall I accept this of your hands, the Sacrifice being illegal, shall I accept the meat offering brought with it? by no means.

s Others will have it supposed that what they thus brought, and pretended themselves wearied with bringing, was some stollen Cattel [Page] taken by force from the owner; and so render the words which we render; and ye have snuffed at it, by, and ye have grieved him, viz. the owner for his loss. t Others, and ye have deprived its owner of it, or caused it to go from him by force. Of this the forecited R. Tanchum making mention, prefers that already cited before it. And whereas they that embrace it would confirm it by what follows, and ye brought [...] Gazul, that which was stollen, so rendring that which ours render torn; he saith that these words have no reference to that. Whether either of these things supposed were true or no, here is nothing in the words, that proves them so. Others do yet give other rendrings, R. Salomo Jarchi makes the word, which is rendred in ours, and by others, what a weariness is it, to signify a lean Cattel, as if they said, Behold it is a lean beast, but we are poor, and are not able to bring any choice u vow: and then renders the words [...] Vehippacht [...]m oto, and ye have grieved him, which ours render, and ye have snuffed at it. And he notes that this word is one of the eighteen that are called [...] Tikkun Sopherim, the correction of the Scribes, and that [...] Oto, him, is put instead of [...] Oti, me, and that for x reverence to God, (because he or his name should not be joined in the first person with a Verb of so ill signification,) the person in the Pronoun was chang'd, and instead of grieved me, put, grieved him: but this is a groundless thing, and so to some of the more learned y Jews themselves seems. And here again R. Tanchum notes that they are far from the truth, who refer the Pronoun it, or him in this place to God, as if it were spoken of him, that they did afflict, or grieve him: yet Diodati seems to like it. Aben Ezra expounding the word, as before, what a toyl or wearisomness is it, gives another reason of their saying so, viz. as if they said it by reason of the curse and famine, that was in the Land, so that there was not bread (or food) to put on the Table (or Altar:) as for the following words, he doth not sufficiently explain his meaning, saying only that [...] Hippachtem is from the signification of [...] Piach Ashes, Exod. IX.8, 10. viz. that which is as ashes, and there is not what is sufficient on it, perhaps he means, Ye put on the Altar, what is no better then ashes to be blown away; or, and ye look on it, or make it as ashes, nothing worth. This is all that is in the printed Copy of him that we have: but Abarbinel seems to have had a Copy that had more in it, whence he gathers, that he understood this word in the signification of grieving. But besides that composition of the word [...] Mattelaah, according to which it is rendred, what a weariness or labor, there is yet another given by others, according to which it signifies as much as Mittelaah, from labour, (which z Kimchi shews to be justifiable by other examples, without thinking that those that give this signification read the word with another vowel, then it is ordinarily read, viz. Mittelaah with i, instead of Mattelaah with a, (as a some think they did.) And this exposition follow many ancient Interpreters, as the Chalde, what we bring is of our labour; and much alike the Greek, the Syriack, printed Arabick, and vulgar Latin which hath, Lo l of labor; which perhaps might be so understood as to sound much one with what a labour, or how great labour is here, but is usually expounded, Lo, what we bring is of labour, or affliction, viz. the best that is left us by reason of our late affliction in our captivity, which hath impoverished us, and the wearisomness we and our Cattel endured in our tedious way home. And so saying puff at it, or make it fit for nothing, but to be puffed at by me (and so the Greek changeth it into the first person, and I have puffed at these things) or as by d others, Lo, what we bring is gotten by our labour, not given to us by the People; 'tis out of those tenths, which should belong to us, and so the price of our toil and labor. Thus by reason of the different reading given in the Margin of our Bibles have we looked (perhaps more then enough) into the most of other rendrings, which we have met with, out of any of which, or perhaps altogether, will not be made up any meaning so facile and agreeable to the words without any force or straining, as that in the first place set down. e [Their saying, what a weariness is it, seems contrary to what God saith, Micah VI.3. wherein have I wearied thee.]

And ye have brought that which was torn, &c.] By what hath been said, appears the word [...] by some to be rendred stollen, by others, torn, viz. by wild Beasts, or the like, the later of which divers prefer, and f some except against the former, as improper for the place: yet I doubt whether the word will elsewhere be found in the signification of torn: however either of these would make the thing g unfit for an offering to the Lord, as likewise those defects or blemishes after named; as appears out of Levit. XXII. see ver. 20, 22, 24.

Thus ye brought an offering, &c.] viz. h these illegal things for an offering, or (according to others as we have seen) together with these your Mincha, or meat offering, as if all were b [Page] done according to the Law, but it is contrary to it, and therefore shall not be accepted at your hands, The Lord hath said it.

14 But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing: for I am a great King, saith the Lord of hosts, and my Name is dreadful among the heathen.

But (or and) cursed be the deceiver, &c.] Having reprehended them for their misbehavior in other daily Sacrifices, he farther proceeds to reprove them for their misbehavior in matter of vows, or such offerings as being not otherwise liable to, they did by vow oblige themselves to. Concerning such we have what the Law requires, set down Levit. XXII.18, &c. the oblation for a vow was to be a male without blemish, ver. 19. perfect, ver. 21. whatsoever was otherwise should not be accepted. ver. 20, 21, 23. But to that pass it seems were these People now come, that there were of them such who deceitfully dealt with God (rather indeed with their own souls) in this kind. Out of pretence of Piety, and greater devotion, they would by vow bind themselves to offer an oblation to God: but when they came to perform their vows would deal deceitfully, and instead of a male, a perfect Beast, bring a corrupt thing, an imperfect one, with such blemishes as made it illegal, and that (which aggravated their offence) when they had in their hand such as the Law required, and might duly have made and performed their vow: i which had they not had, their pretence for bringing such as they brought, though not fully such as the Law required, yet the best they had, might have been more plausible, and been at least a seeming excuse, and lessened their fault, although it had been more agreeable to the Law, if they had not had what had been fit for a vow, not to have vowed at all, Deut. XXIII.21. but now having vowed, and having wherewith to perform that vow according to the Law, and yet dealing deceitfully with the Lord by offering in place of what they had vowed, and what they had in their power to pay, a blemished illegal thing, as if he could by such false dealing be deceived, must needs shew great contempt of him who is a great King the Lord of hosts, and whose Name is dreadfull among the Heathen, and therefore expects accordingly, to be reverenced as is his due, which seeing they neglect to do, they that think so to deceive him, to his dishonor, and the contumely of his Name, shall receive that reward which shall shew that he takes notice of their doings, and instead of t [...]at blessing which by guile they thought to get from him, pull on themselves his curse.

Cursed be the deceiver, &c.] [...] Nocel, the fraudulent, k hypocritical, false, or deceitfull dealer, who makes a shew of one thing, and doth, or intends another, or doth not what he would seem to do, as here, pretending devotion to God, when his heart is not sincere with him, nor doth in sincerity, and to the utmost of his power what he would make shew of doing, as if he could deceive God in doing in his service otherwise then he required, and yet be accepted by him▪ It is from the root [...] Nacal which signifies to think or deal deceitfully. The Greek (and printed Arabick following it) rendring it, He that is able, seem to respect another root, viz. [...] Yacal, which signifies to be able.

Which hath in his flock a male] i. e. a perfect male,] the sense requires it, though that Epithet be not here added, because the Law admitted no other for a vow, Levit. XXII.19, 21. and so by a corrupt thing will be denoted whatsoever is otherwise, m whether not a male, or if a male, such as is not perfect, but had such blemishes or defects that made it illegal. He that thus dealeth is cursed, because he shews disrespect to, or contempt of the great Majesty, and dreadfull Name of God, the great King, who will maintain his own honor with more jealousy then an earthly Prince. (See ver. 8.) and requireth sincerity in those that would seem to honor him, and that they testify their due reverence to him in their serving him, by doing what they do according to the rule of his Commandment, and to the utmost of their power. The consideration of this his greatness ought to have made them, and ought to make all very carefull, sincere, and faithfull in the performance of any duty and service to him, to do the best they can do, that it may be a holy, perfect Sacrifice acceptable to him.

My Name is dreadfull among the Heathen.] How much more n then ought it to be so among you, whom I have loved and chosen for my peculiar People, should you despise me, and not dread my Name, and shew by your doings that you truly reverence it? His saying that his Name is dreadfull among the Heathen, though spoken as of the time then present, and was then and alwaies true, (it being by his o judgements made oft conspicuous to them) yet because they had not generally then a clear knowledge of him and his Name, it is by p some not unfitly looked on, as a Prophecy of what should after be, by the making it more clearly known to all Nations by the preaching of the Gospell.

l

CHAP. II.

[Page]

‘

VERS. 1.

And now, O ye Priests, this Commandment is for you.’

AND now , O ye Priests, this Commandment is for you.] Having before reproved both Priests and People for such faults and enormities, as they were both guilty of, and the things which follow likewise concerning them both, that the Priests might not excuse themselves, as less guilty, by casting the fault on the People, who brought such illegal things, seeing they could offer no other then were brought (or by such like excuse) be here addresses his speech to them by name, and tells them this Commandment, q that which he is commanded now to speak, or this Commandment, viz. r either that which hath been already spoken concerning a due care in offering such things only to God, and in such manner as are according to the Law, and looking to it that his Altar be not polluted, profaned, or contemned, s or else that which shall now be spoken concerning other enormities, which they ought to reform, and are severely threatned, if they see not to it that they be duly reformed. To them is this peculiarly directed, to shew them that they are chiefly accountable for what was done, t not only by themselves, but by the People also. Because matters concerning Gods worship, and observance of the Law were committed to their charge, they were to teach the People how to perform them, and to hinder them from performing them in wrong manner: if they brought offerings which were illegal, they should have refused them. v To them therefore peculiarly is this Command, that they offer not such things on Gods Altar; and if they take not due care of it, are threatned as follows.

2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my Name, saith the Lord of hosts, I will send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.

If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, &c.] If ye will not hear so as to lay it to heart, so hear as to take due notice of what is said to you, and that you may obey, and do according to what is commanded (x being not forgetfull hearers, but doers of the work,) that so you may give glory to my Name, give to me the honor due unto me, by worshipping me with holy worship, offering duly to me such clean and perfect things, and in such manner as in my Law I require, (contrary to that despising his Name, chap. I.6. and polluting him, ver. 7. and profaning his great Name, ver. 12. for which they are there reproved) I will even send a curse upon you.) The ancient Latin reads, I will send upon you, want, or poverty, which not unfitly expresseth the meaning, according to that notion which the y Jewish Doctors give of it, that it imports substraction or diminution of good, and so is contrary to [...] Beracah, blessing; which imports increase and addition of good, at least it expresseth the the cause, which is Gods curse, by its effect viz. want which it causeth.

Vpon you.] z All of you, both those that bring such illegal abominable offerings, and you, O Priests, that receive and offer them, say some: so that though the speech be addressed to the Priests more particularly, who should prevent such miscarriages, yet the curse thereby provoked is such as is denounced to all; only the particular appellation of them warns them, that they shall not escape by casting the fault on the People that bring such things, but that they shall be looked on as guilty in the first place, and so the curse take hold on them in eminent manner. a Others look on these words as particularly concerning the Priests; and those that follow, to concern the People. It will be a safe way to look on all as concerning both, though chiefly the Priests in the nine first verses. 4

And I will curse your blessings.] In expounding what is meant here by blessings, is some difference betwixt Interpreters, some, to this purpose explain them your blessings, i. e. wherewith you bless, or pray for b your selves or the People, c as the Priests office was to do, those shall be turned into curses or have the issue of curses, as to all those things that they blessed them in. So we have a contrary expression, Deut. XXIII.5. of turning a curse into a blessing. This Exposition d some look on, as slender or not full enough, and understand it of all the benefits and good things which by Gods blessing they did enjoy, and wherein and wherewith he had blessed them, as plenty, peace, health, or the like, of which he threatens, [Page] they should not find joy and profit in. Consonant is this to what some also of the Jewish Expositors give. So R. D. Kimchi, who finding fault with e one before him, who restraineth here Blessings to the signification of offerings or gifts, which it sometimes hath, expounds it, the blessings wherewith I have blessed you since the building of the house: as if he said, Seeing you have despised me in your offerings, I will turn the blessing into a curse. And so Abarbinel, The meaning is, That, I will turn to you the blessing where- f blessed you, since the foundation of the Temple was laid, into a curse. And what this turning the blessing into a curse means, we may see by reading the XXVIII. Chapter of Deuteronomy here cited in the Margin of our Bibles, wherein are described the blessings for obedience, and curses for disobedience. Much like in meaning is what R. Salomon Jarchi saith, I will curse you in all which hath need that I should bless to you, your Corn, and Wine, and Oyl. Another learned g Jew gives an exposition, wherein he seems to comprehend, at least to point at, all these, thus explaining what is said, I will curse your blessings, that inasmuch as the Priests office was to pray or intercede for the People, and to teach them their duties, he threatens, seeing they despised his offerings, and neglected to direct the People to what was fit and right in that kind, that he would curse what they blessed, [or wherein they should be blessed] so as that the punishment should extend to all, in that there should fall a dearth or scarcity on their Corn and Cattel, and they should be straitned as concerning what they should offer to God; and the Priests dues should be few also.

Yea I have cursed them already,] them, i. e. your blessings. The words thus read, shew that they should not deceive themselves in hope that the evill threatned should be delayed, or put off; but if that they would take notice of it, the curse was already gone forth against them, and had begun to seize on them, from the time that they began to despise his Name, and he saw that they did not lay it to heart to observe his Ordinances: so some of the h Jews. And to this purpose i divers understand it. Others read it, yea I will also (or certainly, or farther) curse them, or it, i. e. the blessing, or every one of your blessings. [So they render it, because though the foregoing Noun be plural, the affix is of the singular number and feminine gender, which way of construction is of constant use among the Arabians, and seems not to have been unusual to the Jews in those times.] So as that the repeating of the threat may add a confirmation to denote the certainty of it. And this reading divers k ancient Translations, and other l Expositors follow. R. Salomon Jarchi seems something more nicely to expound the words, while he observes, that the words at first put with a condition, If you will not hear, and if you will not lay it to heart, &c. I will send a curse, &c. and here repeated without the condition intimate as much as if he should say, But there is no need of suspending the curse on that condition: for certainly you will not hear nor lay it to heart, and therefore from this time will I curse your blessings. The cause of this curse already gone forth, or certainly threatned to come, is because they do not lay to heart, what God hath spoken, and commanded concerning his service to observe to do accordindly: m such contempt of his word he will not bear.

3 Behold I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts, and one shall take you away with it.

Behold I will corrupt, (Margin reprove) your seed, &c.] The word [...] n Gaar here used, is noted to signify both, to rebuke or reprove, and also to corrupt or destroy. [with this difference, that in the former signification it hath the preposition [...] be following it; in the second only the noun, thing, or person of which it is spoken, without a preposition (as here it is.) The sense here will be much one in whether signification it be taken, the rebuking or reproving it will import the hindring it o from growth and increase: and so will the corrupting it, hinder it likewise. And so the words include a curse on the fruits of the Earth, a threat of p dearth and scarcity. Your seed]. In the Hebrew, To you the seed, or as q others, The seed because of you, or for your sakes (because of your wickedness:) but this makes no great difference. r Others by seed here understand, posterity, as if he should say, I will curse or destroy your posterity: but however this would be a different meaning, yet the reading in the Hebrew will still manifestly be the same. A greater difficulty will be how to reconcile to our reading that of others, and that ancient, who instead of seed, read Arm or Shoulder. For though the consonant letters of the word [...] Zera, that signifieth seed, and Zeroa, which signifieth an arm or shoulder, be both one, yet they differ in the vowels; so that there will be nothing to be said, but that either they took them in these different forms to signify the same thing, whereas now [Page] they are usually distinguished according to the difference of their sound, or form, according to the vowels, in signification also; or else that they read the word as to the vowels otherwise then it is now ordinarily, and with joint consent read in the Hebrew Text. This difference is ancient, for the Chalde and Syriack (both ancient) take the same reading and signification that we now do. But the Greek and vulgar Latin, with such as follow them, the other. What occasioned at first these different readings or rendrings will be hard to say after so long time, and as hard to compose them, there being on both parts such as eagerly defend them. They who prefer that signification, which the Greek and vulgar Latin give, (of which the first hath) Behold I separate to you the shoulder, the other, s Behold I will cast forth to you the arm, think this best to fit this place, as best t agreeing with what follows, and spread dung upon your faces, the dung of your solemn Feasts, both having respect to those dues, or portions, which the Priests had out of the Sacrifices that were offered, to whom were allotted the u shoulder and the maw, which they will have here denoted by the dung, which is contained in it. So that by his saying he will cast to them the arm; x some will have to be meant, that he will with indignation, as it were, throw it at them, as one angry with them, not out of favor as a blessing from him to them. But then it may be questioned on what ground the word [...] Goar is rendred, I will cast forth to, the significations of it else where used, being as hath been said, to rebuke, to reprove, or else to corrupt and destroy, which observed hath made y some that follow the reading, which we are speaking of, to inlarge the signification of the word projiciam, I will cast forth to, and to explain it by I will cast forth from, or take from you; but then they change the meaning of the words, as if he should say, I will take from you the arm, i. e. your strength and sustenance, which you had by those portions of the Sacrifices allotted to you, or by other means, as if the arm were spoken of their own arm, or did include both their own, and that, i. e. the shoulder of the Sacrifice. This meaning is far from the former, and will scarce be made to accord with it: it may perhaps be easier reduced to that which the Greek hath, I separate to you the shoulder, although the Greek Father Cyrill otherwise expound that, saying, that I do separate, is to be understood, I have separated to you, (viz. allotted to you by the Law) that part, which custom I command again to be observed (saith he) as if they neglecting the former command, not being content with that part, had taken of the flesh of the Sacrifice what liked them best. But what is there in the words, that may be a ground for this supposition, and supply of the sense? besides what warrant or example is there, for rendring the word [...] Gaar, by separate? which makes another Greek z Translator render it according to the known signification, Behold I rebuke you with the arm. But in all these there is more of harshness and difficulty then will easily be solved. If that make for liking the reading of shoulder, rather then seed, because another part of the Sacrifice allotted to the Priests is intimated, and joyned with it in the next words, (as hath been said.) The like reason will as much make for, and be appliable to the rendring it, seed, inasmuch as here is before made mention of the Mincha, or meat offering, which was offered together with the Sacrifice, and was made of flower, and of which after a part burnt on the Altar, the remnant was the Priests: and besides that the first fruits of their Corn, Wine, and Oyl, &c. they were commanded to give to the Priests as well as the shoulder, and two cheeks, and maw of the Sacrifice, Deut. XVIII.3, 4. and so the corrupting of the seed will be an evident cursing of their blessing, a punishment to them; inasmuch as by these means the People shall not have for the a Mincha, or meat offering, what to bring, nor plenty of first fruits for the Priests to receive. So that the corrupting of the seed b, in respect to the Mincha, will have as good connexion (if it be to be stood on here) with what is said of the scattering on their faces the dung of their solemn Feasts, in respect to the Sacrifice, as the casting forth to them, or throwing at them the shoulder, (or what else they will have meant by that expression) by way of threat or denuntiation of a curse.

All things therefore being considered, there seems no reason, why the ordinary reading in the Hebrew Text should be questioned, or not be preferred before any other, that can be pretended, and none therefore why we should not embrace our Translation, which is agreeable to it. That Exposition of a c learned man who would take in both those notions, which we have mentioned, viz. seed and arm, thus, as if God should say, I will repel with my arm that gift, which with your hand stretched forth you offer unto me, and will cast back in your faces the seed of which it is made: or as d another correcting him would have it rather, I will cast forth that (your) arm, with which you offer me a gift, and scatter the cake it self, or seed on your faces, may be admitted perhaps as a wide Paraphrase, but will little help in determining the reading or litteral rendring.

[Page] And spread (or scatter) dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn Feasts] i. e. of your Sacrifices slain at such times. e Because at their solemn Feasts many Sacrifices were killed, and offered, therefore is the same name [...] Chag, which signifies a Feast, used also for Sacrifice, as Psalm CXVIII.27. Bind ( [...] Chag) the Sacrifice unto the horns of the Altar: and in the same notion, Exod. XXIII.18. the fat of my Sacrifice [...] Chaggi, and therefore in the Margin is put Feast, and so Isai. XXIX.1. Spread dung upon your faces, even the dung, &c.] Instead of dung the Greek read, the maw, which some g Expositors, both ancient and modern, look on as the thing signified, by naming that which is contained in it, by way of greater reproach. So that there is no great reason why a late learned h man should hence gather, that the Greek did read otherwise then we now do in the Hebrew, viz. [...] Ceresh for [...] Peresh. And we may observe that though the word Ceresh may signify the maw, panch, or belly, as Jerem. LI.34. yet that is not the word used for the maw, where it is assigned to the Priests, but [...] Kebah, Deut. XVIII.3. but here it will be more emphatical to take the word Peresh in its proper signification of dung, though in a figurative expression, the meaning of which may be given in different manners, but all will tend to the same scope or meaning, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn Feasts.] Your holiest of your Sacrifices, those that you offer on your solemn Feasts, being such illegal ones as you offer, shall be in my sight as dung, all as despicable, as loathsome i as dung; and I will be so far from accepting them at your hand, that I will reject you, and what you offer, with as much contempt as if I took the dung in the panches of your Sacrifices, and threw it in your faces; or I will look upon you as loathsome, and make you appear to be as loathsome in your most solemn professions of holiness and devotions, as if I had took the very dung of your Sacrifices, and threw it in your faces, which were the greatest note of disgrace, that can be shewn, and so would make all men look on them with contempt, as on such whom God had by such an open affront shewed himself to loath and abominate, and exposed to the scorn of all, as things no more to be regarded then to be taken away, and cast forth with dung. R. D. Kimchi so expoundeth the words, as if God said to them, As you have contemned me in your Sacrifices, so will I shew contempt of you in or by them, by casting back in your faces that which is most despicable in the Beasts, viz. their dung, as if he should say, I will make you a reproach and contempt by reason of famine, in that I will corrupt your seed which you sow, and ye shall be in want of bread, and shall be for a reproach to the Nations, which are round about you; for so shall they be in famine (according to the expressions used, Joel II.19. and Ezek. XXXVI. and 30.) and behold you shall be for a reproach and contempt, as if I had thrown dung on your faces. Abarbinel so explains it, as if he should say, that those Sacrifices that they offered before his face, he would cast back in their faces, as a Lord that rejecting a gift brought to him by his servant, casts it back in his face. Whatever variety there is in applying the words of the expression, the scope of the whole is manifest, l that he declares that he will not accept of, or be pleased with what they bring, inasmuch as it is contrary to what he required; but with indignation reject both it and them.

And one shall take you away with it, in the Margin, or it shall take you away to it.] These words, added to the former, are an aggravation of the contempt, that he will pour on them, or a declaration of the issue of it to them. If it be read as in the Text, the meaning according to m some will be, That they shall be so filthy, all as bespread with dung, that he that taketh away the dung shall also take them away with it, finding no difference between them, or take them away with him: an expression of extreme vileness and contemptibleness. n Others reading, one shall take you away with him, or to himself, by that one, think understood, The Enemy, as if it were said, and the Enemy, or an Enemy, shall take you, being by me set at naught, and rejected as dung, or what is most vile, and I loath, away, &c. and so will it be the issue of Gods rejecting them. And o some by that Enemy will have particularly meant the Forces of Antiochus, or (as p others) the Romans. If it be read as in the Margin, it shall take you away to it, then will it be, q It, i. e. the dung cast upon you, shall so cleave unto you, cover you, and make you filthy, that you shall be reputed as it, and no better esteemed, but as r despicable, and loathsome, s deprived of all dignity and respect. A learned t Divine, because it is not expressed who or what shall take them away, looks on it as to signify as much as, And ye shall be taken, and born unto it, as if it were every one, or any body shall bear you to it, making the sense thus, Think not that your faces shall escape that dung, which I threaten to scatter on them: if f k [Page] you seek to avoid it, every one shall carry you to it, that you may be sprinckled with it. [He quotes R. Salomo Jarchi, as making to his purpose. According to the printed Copy, which reads [...], they shall take or beare you to it: it might indeed seem so to do, but in a Manuscript Copy it is [...] Yissa, it shall take you to it, and so is the same that is read in the Margin of our Bibles.] R. D. Kimchi gives an Exposition, which though it be not a literal Version, is plainly enough the result of the meaning, viz. your iniquity shall bear or carry you to this contempt, measure according to measure, or proportionablely to your doings; ye have contemned me, and ye shall be contemned or contemptible. The Greek, Syriack, and printed Arabic understand it, as if it were God that should take them away, rendring it as in the first person, And I will take you away together, or I will take you away with it, viz. with the dung.

The Dutch Notes have as a 2d Exposition, The punishment shall take you away. The Chalde paraphrasing it, ‘I will revele the confusion of your wickedness upon your faces, and will take away the magnificence of your Solemmnities, and your part shall be restrained from it, (or your part of it shall be restrained;)’ may confer somewhat as to the meaning in general, but makes not much to the litteral interpretation.

4 And ye shall know that I have sent this Commandment unto you, that my Covenant might be with Levi, saith the Lord of hosts.

And ye shall know] u others, for ye know, x others, and know ye. That the word [...] Vidaatem, may either of these waies be rendred, will not be much questionable, by reason of the usual change of tenses as to their signification in the Hebrew tongue, the pretertense (of which the verb here is) being frequently (especially with the letter [...] V, as here prefixed) put in the signification of the future, and y the future signification used sometimes as Imperative, or bidding to do, ye shall do, for do ye. But according to such different rendring will the meaning of the following words be necessarily made, something (though not greatly) different. If it be rendred in the first way (as ours and many others render it) then the meaning will be to this purpose, And (or then) when this contempt hath been poured out upon you, this punishment inflicted, shall ye know, that this commandment for not contemning me, this threat of punishment for your breaking my Commandment, and dishonoring of me by offering illegal Sacrifices, is sent unto you from me, that you repenting you of such your misdoing, z my Covenant which I made of old with Levi (the Tribe of Levi of which you are) might stand firm, and you might not run on in your wickedness, to the abrogating of it, and causing me to deprive you o the blessings and priviledges annexed to it: a Or, that my Covenant made with the Tribe of Levi, which you have neglected and broken, may be observed and made good on my part, by my calling you to account for it, and vindicating it on my part, by dishonoring you, because you on your part violate it, by not honouring me, as in that was required at your hands. This from me is not a breach of it, but a making it good, being on your part broken.

b They that follow the second rendring, give their Exposition thus, as if God for shewing of his Justice in denouncing such punishments as he threatens to them, did appeal even to their own conscience, inasmuch as they had his Commandment, notwithstanding all which they did so transgress that Covenant made to, and observed by, those their progenitors as to provoke him to this just displeasure against them.

They that embrace the third, thus, Know ye that I have not sent this Commandment to you, viz. that you should honour my Name, but because my Covenant was with Levi, which was publickly made before all Israel, (speaking this in reference to the rods which they laid up in the Tabernacle of witness, Num. XVII.7.) and therefore it was meet that you should confirm (or keep inviolable) this Covenant, as a learned c Jew gives the meaning, or as a d Christian, Know ye that I have sent to you this Commandment by my Prophet, because my Covenant is with Levi, by virtue of which Covenant I convent you for not observing; not only that general Covenant which I made with the People, but that peculiar one with the Priests and Levites, Num. VIII.14. &c. and XVIII.19. The meaning according to this reading is perspicuous. There is a difference in it from the former rendrings, not only in the first word, but also in translating the word [...] Lihyoth, because it was, which they translate, that it may (or might) be, or to be.

e Some of the Jewish Expositors look on these words as directed to the People, to stir them up to shew reverence and respect to the Priests and Levites, as was due by virtue of Gods Covenant made with Levi, the whole Tribe separated for attending on Gods Sanctuary [Page] and service, and more peculiarly belonging to the Priests as chief among them, and then f the meaning of the words, I have sent this Commandment unto you, to be, I have commanded you in the Law so to do. But the connexion of the words requires that it be rather looked on as spoken to the Priests for reproof of them, and that whether by commandment be meant the Commandment given of old in the Law, as some understand it; or as others, the message now sent to them by the Prophet to reprove them for the breach of it, and to call on them to reform their misbehavior in Gods service, to a due and better observance of which they were bound by vertue of his Covenant made with Levi: which their misbehavior is aggravated, and his Justice in punishing them vindicated, by mentioning that Covenant both in respect to the nature of it, and that observance of it which was found in their Predecessors, and their contrary dealing, both to the tenour of the one, and example of the other, as is in the four following Verses declared.

5 My Covenant was with him of life and peace, and I gave them to him, for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my Name.

My Covenant was with him of life and peace, &c.] With him, i. e. with him that is here meant by Levi, that whole Tribe; or more particularly g Aaron and his posterity, to whom the Priesthood was appropriated, among whom Phinehas was eminent for his zeal towards God and his worship, and who, h some think, is here particularly pointed out. One, saith a learned i Jew, saith that Aaron is the person here peculiarly spoken of; Another that Phinehas is meant. But he concludes that both are here meant, and not only they, but as many of their posterity as were holy Priests, as they ought all to be, they are all comprehended under the common name of Levi their Father, and so spoken of as but one person, all meeting in the same stock, all separated to one holy function; and so as many as were such as he here describes are together the Levi of God, to and with whom he saith his Covenat was, My Covenant was with him of life and peace, and I gave them to him for the fear where with he feared me, &c.

The meaning of the words, thus rendred, seems plain and good, and this rendring is backed by good authority, both of k Jewish and l Christian Interpreters; yet by n one of great authority too is it excepted against, as if it corrupted the sense, but he again is by o another sharply reproved for his exception. Seeing therefore there is difference betwixt Expositors in their Interpretations, it will be convenient to see how the words barely and litterally found in the original Hebrew, as they lie, without any alteration, addition, or subtraction, that so we may better judge of those differences, and of the grounds of them. The words then thus found, My Covenant was with him life (or of life) and peace, and I gave them to him fear, and he feared me: which words, though when they were spoken, they were agreeable to the then common use of speaking, and doubtless well understood, yet will now scarce make a full and plain sense, put into another language, without something added or altered in them. For this reason therefore our Translators (and those who go the same way) add the word, for, (in for the fear) and change and for wherewith (in wherewith he feared me) which supply (as we said) by a man of great note is excepted against, as marring the sense. The meaning that he gives is this, My Covenant was with him of life and peace, and I gave to him fear, and he feared me. (And in this rendring concurs the ancient Latine Translation, and much like the Greek, and I gave to him to fear me with fear, which the printed Arabick, that followeth them, explains, My Covenant was with him, to (or for) life and peace, and I gave him fear, that he might fear me.) And by fear p he understands a rule, according to which he should serve God, and by what is said, and he feared me, that he observed that rule, kept that Law, prescribed to him; (and in this some q others agree with him, and the Chalde seems to have lead them the way, who interprets, and I gave them the perfect doctrine of my Law that he might fear me, &c.) But he that except against this Exceptor warns, that while he excepts against this supply, he leaves out that which is expresly set down in the Text, viz. the Pronoun, them, for it is said [...] Vaettenom lo, and I gave them to him, fear, and he feared me; which he ought not to have left out, but to have shewed to what, them, is to be referred, what pointed to by it. So that he affirms that rendring to be imperfect, and that, for, ought to be supplied to make the sense clear, viz. I gave them i. e. life and peace, to him, for or because of the fear with which he feared me.

Having taken notice of this difference that we may the better judge of it, and see farther into the meaning of the words, it will not be amiss to look also what others, who follow neither of these waies, say. r There be therefore who likewise supply the word, for, but in another [Page] sense then ours and those who agree with ours do, rendring not, for the fear, but, for a fear, not as if the Promises of the Covenant for life and peace followed on that fear, but as if that Covenant were to effect and produce fear. Though they both concur in this, that fear and reverence of God and his Name, and a right performance of worship to him, is a necessary condition for obtaining and receiving those benefits and priviledges by vertue of Gods Covenant to be expected. A learned s Jew hath on these words this Note, which because his Book was never yet printed, we shall more at large set down. My Covenant was with him of life and peace, &c. that is, ‘I covenanted with them, to give to them as a reward of their obedience to me, life in this World, and security (or safety) from evils, or if you will say, happiness in this World, and happiness in the World to come, which is true peace: and t some say the meaning is, I have made a Covenant with them concerning (or with) such Precepts or Commands, by which they shall receive (or shall be received or obtained) life and peace. And what he saith, and I gave them to him, fear, is said in respect to those Precepts, that he should fear to transgress them, or to let slip the receiving of them. And others say that what he saith, and I gave them, is meant of Israel, viz. I gave them to be governed by him, u that they should reverence him, and fear him. Then saith he, he proceeds, and saith, that he did so, viz. as I commanded him, which is that which he saith, and he feared me, &c.’ thus he. Then concluding, ‘This is spoken of those ancient righteous men, who bare the office of the High Priests, exciting those who in those times bare it, that they should imitate (or be like them) by their diligence in their obedience, and a good conversation.’

R. Salomo Jarchi thus expounds the words. And I gave them to him fear, that he should receive them in [or with] fear, and so he did. And he feared me, &c. which words may suggest to us another rendring, viz. My Covenant was with him of life and peace, that I would give them to him [in, or with, or on] fear, viz. if he should fear me, [for so I suppose [...] Vaettenem may be rendred, that I would give them, as the conjunction Va, is sometimes rendred by, that, see Psal. LI.16. [...] Veettenah, that I should give it, as in the Margin of our Bible.] The same Author thinks this here to respect that Covenant which was made with Phinehas, inasmuch as it is said of him, Numb. the XXV.12. Behold I give unto him my Covenant of peace, though to his posterity also it was intailed, as there follows, And he shall have it, and his Seed after him. And there be x some of the Jews that look upon it as more signally made good to him, in that his life was prolonged to him above three hundred years, as they gather from that he was alive in that time when the War was between the Israelites and Benjamites described, Judg. XX. where, ver. 28. it is said, And Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, stood before it [i. e. the Ark] in those daies, which from the place which that Story hath in that Book, being the last Transaction recorded in it, they conclude to have been the space of above three hundred years after the first mention of Phinehas. And this some y Christian Interpreters also mention with some seeming assent. But a learned Jew but even now cited, viz. R. Tanchum, in his Commentary on the book of Judges, looks on this conclusion concerning the length of Phinehas his life from these words, as very groundless, and thinks that very passage, that Phinehas was then there, to be an evident proof that that transaction, though placed last in that Book, yet was before several others things therein put before it, and not long after the Israelites entring into the promised Land. [Probably by the Penman of that Book set down, where it is as a story by it self, and not having dependance on others, that he might not interrupt the series and connexion of the History.] The same also he saies to be done in that story of the Danites, and Micah, Judg. XVIII. both he thinks to have been before that of Jephti; and that the like also may be observed in other places where the Penmen of the Books of Scripture, for reasons best known to themselves, and to avoid interruption in what they were about, placed such things after others in their writing, which were done before them. The opinion likewise of others, who say that Phinehas lived yet longer, and was Eliah, he there confutes as very absurd. And in z Aaron this may be said to be fulfilled, who lived an hundred and twenty and three years, Numb. XXXIII.39. But it will not concern our present purpose to examine such things; sufficient it will be to us from the present words, to be instructed that God did, to those comprehended under the name of Levi, as well as others, as Aaron, Eleazar, and Phinehas, make good on his part his Covenant to them of life and peace, and all conducible to their prosperity and happiness in the best manner, and still would to as many as should keep Covenant in fearing, reverencing, and obeying him, as those their Ancestors did. If these now find it to be otherwise with them, it is from their own, not his breach of Covenant, [Page] by which they fondly expected to have him bound up to them, while they would wickedly break it, and deal falsly in it towards him.

A late very learned a man gives this exposition of the words, that whereas they literally are, My Covenant was with him of life and peace, and I gave them to him fear, &c. the sense is to be made up, by supplying either, and, viz. And I gave them to him, and fear, or else with, viz. And I gave them to him with fear, that the sense may be, My Covenant was with him, or I made a Covenant with him of life and peace, And as I promised them by Covenant to him, so I gave them to him: nor gave I them alone to him, but also my fear, or them with my fear; and so follows, and he feared me: This he prefers before those rendrings above mentioned, either, and I gave them to him for a fear, or for the fear wherewith he feared me. Thus we having set down how the words simply run in the original, and most of what is said, and perhaps of what may well be said for exposition of them, the Reader may judge what he thinks will best make for the meaning of them; he will find that which our Translators give, backed with the autority and consent of men of good judgement and learning, and to give a plain and perspicuous meaning.

And was afraid before my Name.] The same with the former, and he feared me, b doubled or repeated. c He was broken or contrite, i. e. humbly and with fear or reverence behaved himself before d me and my Name: with e great awe and reverence approached to the performance of my worship and holy duties, f not as ye who despise my Name, (c. I.6.) g Others interpret it, he was broken, or grieved when he saw my Name profaned, as in the matter of the golden Calf, Exod. XXXII. and the Midianitish woman, Num. XXV. h Others, he was bruised for my Names sake, i. e. hath undergone, and suffered all kinds of troubles and hardship for my Name's sake. There are i some of eminent note, who expound these last words, (as if they were contrary to the former) of Levi's, being broken, brought down, deprived of the promised life and peace, because they did not sanctify the name of God according to the Covenant: but this is disapproved by k others, because he here speaks in commendation of the former good Priests, and doth not speak this of the impiety of the present wicked Priests, nor concerning what had befallen, or should befall them.

6 The Law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity.

The Law of truth was in his mouth.] In his mouth, i. e. the mouth of l Aaron, or Eleazar, or Phineas, or any, or all of those ancient holy Priests successively, (the genuine Levi) was the Law of truth. Gods Law is the truth, Psal. CX▪X.142. the true doctrine of this Law did he teach the People, and instruct them in the true meaning and intent thereof, that according to that right rule, they might frame all their actions, nothing of it did he conceal from them, nor teach them any thing contrary to it, or false: this was in his mouth, nothing contrary to it found in his lips. A learned m Jew thus expounds it, He gave answer (or pronounced sentence) according to the truth in it self, and did not respect the person of any in it, nor alter (or pervert) it for any wordly respect. That is it which he saith, and iniquity was not found in his lips, he did not mean one thing in his heart, and say another with his mouth, say n others of them. He did not take bribe, saith o another, nor respect persons. Some of their ancienter p Rabbins more particularly instance, the Law of truth was in his mouth, i. e. he did not pronounce that unclean, which was clean, nor that clean, which was unclean, and iniquity was not found in his lips, he did not pronounce unlawfull, that which was lawfull, nor pronounce that lawfull, which was unlawfull.

He walked with me.] That we may know what is meant by walking with God, may be compared with this place, Genes. V.22, 24. where it is said, Enoch walked with God, and the VI.9. where it is said, Noah was a perfect man and walked with God, q and Genes. XVII.1. where God saith to Abraham, Walk before me and be thou perfect, and Hebr. XI.5. where it is said, that Enoch had this testimony, that he pleased God. By which we may understand, that to walk with God is so to walk, as in all things to endeavor to please him, in a due observance of all his will, and according to the rule of his Commandments. as alwaies in his presence, and therefore fearing to offend him in any thing, or to depart from, or transgress, his righteous Laws, with respect in all things to him, and his glory. How Levi so walked is expressed in the following words, in peace and equity.

In peace.] r Some understand this of peace with God, as that by so walking, and doing what was right, he kept in peace and friendship with God, and s did not provoke him by disobedience: so t that whereas Gods Covenant was with him of peace (ver. 5.) he did observe it on his part, that so God might on his. u Others, of peace with men, x others, with both: and no doubt both must go together; and he that will have peace with God, [Page] must, as far as in him lies, live peaceably with all men, Rom. XII.18. And a ready way to have peace with God, is to keep peace with and among men. Live in peace and the God of love and peace shall be with you, II Cor. XIII.11. so, blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be called the Children of God, Mat. V.9. but keeping peace with God, is necessarily included in the forementioned, walking with God, and these words describing the manner of that his walking, and having reference to what follows likewise in description of him, that he (by such means) turned many away from iniquity, seems to respect not only his conversation with God, but before and towards men, whom he was to bring, likewise with with himself, near to God. To this purpose that Jewish Doctor, R. Tanchum, saith, that here by peace are meant his moral vertues, and the right ordering his conversation among men with gentleness, because by that means will be occasioned peace among all. Then by [...] Mishor, rectitude is meant the rectitude of works pertaining to Religion and equity. So before him Aben Ezra, another of them, in peace, saith he, that is, with Israel; and in rectitude (or equity) i. e. by doing my Commandments. And that thus by peace those more ancient did understand, may appear by that saying, in that authentic y book, wherein the sayings of their Fathers, or ancient Sages are recorded, where is set down as a saying of Hillel, an ancient Doctor, who is thought to have lived something before Christs Incarnation, Be of the Disciples of Aaron, who loved peace, and z followed peace, and who loved men, and brought them near to the Law. In which saying he manifestly seems to have had respect to this Text of Scripture, and is by Abarbinel cited in his explication of it, who then for explaining what is said, and in rectitude, adds, he rectified or directed them in their waies (which seems to agree with the Greek Version which hath, in peace, directing he walked with me.) In explaining this word R. D. Kimchi a little differs from the other forementioned Jews, as he likewise doth in his exposition of the former word, as we before intimated. The whole of his exposition of both is this, In peace; Because he did cleave to me to do my will according to what is said, he shall make peace with me, Isa. XXVII.5. And in rectitude (or equity) because he walked in the a waies of men (as the printed Copy hath it,) or in the b matters of men, or concerning men (as a Manuscript) in a right way; and in both he was with me: c for in these things I delight, viz. to exercise loving kindness, and judgement, and righteousness in the Earth. Then proceeding to explain the next words, And he did turn many away from iniquity, he saith, because he taught the Law continually to all, and many hearkned unto him, and he converted them from iniquity. In explication of the same R Tanchum saith, Because by such truths, as he taught them, and his gentle behavior towards them, and what they saw of his righteous works, which he exercised, they were necessarily directed, and returned from their rebellions without difficulty, being both by his doctrine and example wrought on. Aben Ezra's note is, Because when the Priest is upright, many will be upright. Some of the Jews (as was before said) restrain the things here spoken to Aaron, some to Phineas, and apply them particularly to d things done by them in their times; but the words seem more generally spoken, so as to concern any of those holy Priests of their race, who succeeded them in their office, and rightly did, as they, behave themselves in it; as where it is said that Aaron and his sons offered upon the Altar of burnt offering, &c. I Chro. VI.49. it must necessarily be understood not of Aaron in person alone, and his sons then living, but of any of his race that succeeded in his, and their room.

7 For the Priests lips should keep knowledg, and they should seek the Law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.

For the Priests lips should keep knowledg, &c.] e Some render do keep, f others, shall keep, g others did keep. The word in the original [...] Yishmeru being the future, properly signifies shall keep, but the Hebrews having not that variety of Moods and Tenses that some other Languages have, do by one Tense and of one Moode express that which those other Languages do by different, and that causes this variety of rendrings, though most of them mean the same thing. They that render do keep, cannot mean as if the Priests then spoken to, did so; for they are reproved for the contrary: neither would it be to the purpose in hand, to understand shall keep, so as if hereafter only the Priests lips should so do. They therefore that either of those waies render it, or follow them, explain themselves to mean what our Translation more clearly expresseth; as also some of the h Jews expound it, viz. that they should so do, or ought so to do by vertue of the office that the Priest did sustain; it was their duty so to do, and men might expect it from them. And so the connexion betwixt these and the foregoing words will be, that those former holy Priests did behave themselves so as they are commended for doing, because [Page] they considered what was their office and duty, and that they might accordingly perform it. That it was their duty so to do, and a command laid upon them for it, viz. to know the Law and instruct others in the meaning of it, and to teach them his will, is clear out of the Law, Lev. X.11. That by a perpetual statute they should teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord had spoken to them by the hand of Moses. And so Moses saith of them, They shall teach Jacob thy Judgements, and Israel thy Law, Deut. XXXIII.10. And that the People should seek the Law at his mouth, go to him as the Interpreter thereof, to know what was the right meaning and intent thereof, that they might accordingly do it in an acceptable manner, and were to stand to his sentence and judgement in any difficult point thereof; is likewise plain out of the Law, Deut. XVII.8, 9. &c. and XXI.5. and out of the Prophets, Ezek XLIV.23, 24. i and Hag. II.11. they are bid to ask the Priests concerning the Law, for (saith he) he is [...] the Messenger or Ambassador of the Lord of hosts. one appointed by God to declare his message, his will, and commands unto the People, and k direct them in the waies thereof. It is the same word that signifies an Angel; and an Angel hath that name from his office or emploiment, of being sent on Gods message (from [...] in the Arabick Dialect in use, and signifying to send.) So from his office doth the learned Grotius Note, a Bishop in the Revelations, ch. 2. &c. to be called [...]. And the words by which here the office of the Priest under the Law is described, well agree to the office of such who are emploied in the Ministry of the Gospell, and the teaching of that. Saint Paul saith of himself and others in like emploiment, that they are Embassadors for Christ, II Cor. V.20. (so that he that heareth them, heareth him, Luk. X.16.) that a Bishop is the Steward of God, Tit. I.7. and ought to hold fast the faithfull Word as he hath been taught, [or in teaching, marg.] that he may be able by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers, v. 9. that he ought to be able to teach, II Tim. II.2. and apt, to teach, ibid. v. 24. with many more things which might be said in parallel to these words, in which the Priests office and duty, and so the Peoples duty, in respect to him, are described. But it will not be to the understanding of the present words to insist thereon, only this by the by, because of the ti [...]le here given him.

That which from what hath been said, makes to our purpose, is to shew the connexion of the present words with the preceding, according to those who render or expound them, that the Priests lips should preserve knowledg, &c. as shewing that what was before said, that he did, or concerning his behaviour, was that which his duty required, and by conscience thereof he was moved to do, and did in observance thereof accordingly do. They that render, The Priests lips did preserve knowledg, and they did seek the Law at his mouth, because he was the Messenger of God, make it a continuation of the description of the behaviour of those ancient holy Priests, and how they walked worthy of their office, and performed all that it required of them. Either of these supposeth and includeth the other; the holiness of the office importing a holy conversation, and a holiness of their conversation, adorning and setting forth the holiness of their office which required it, and of the rule by which they framed it. And so by a commendation of those of old, for their walking worthy of their office, shews how culpable these at present spoken to, were in regard to their behaviour, contrary both to their duty, and to the examples of their Predecessors, which he describes in the next words.

8 But ye are departed out of the way: ye have caused many to stumble at the Law: ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts.

But ye are departed out of the way, &c.] But ye, contrary both to your duty, and to the examples of your pious Ancestors, are departed out of the way, which the Law prescribed for you, as well as it did for them, to walk in, and they did diligently keep to and observe. They by their instructions directed, and by their good examples led men in the right way of Gods Commandments, and turned them from iniquity; but ye have caused many to stumble at the Law, (or as in the margin, to l fall in the Law.) Ye have m been occasion of ruine to them in things concerning the Law, either by teaching them what is not agreeable to the Law, or not teaching them the right meaning of it; or by your example contrary to it, ye have caused them, who thought they might safely be guided by your instructions, and do as they saw you do, to transgress the Law, and run on in false and evil waies to their destruction; or, which will be agreeable to the words in the Text of our Translation, (which n others also give) o give occasion to them by your wickedness to disdain Gods service: (agreeable to that expression, Rom. II.24. The Name of God is blasphemed through you, and I Sam. II.17. That through the sin of Eli's Sons men [Page]abhorred the Sacrifice of the Lord.)

The words spoken indefinitly give to under-several, or many things, they went aside from, stand, that in or contrary to the Law of God, and were a cause of scandal or offence to the People. But if we enquire after particulars, the foregoing Chapter shews, that they did so in what concerned Gods Offerings and Sacrifices: and the verses following in this Chapter, viz. 11, &c. that they did so also in matters concerning Marriage. And p some, therefore, for explication of this place, refer to Nehemiah 13. from the 4th verse forward, where q are several offences against the Law taxed, which seem by the fault of the Priests to have been occasioned, as the introducing Strangers into the places belonging to the Temple, and the profanation of the Sabbath, and marrying strange Wives.

Ye have corrupted the Covenant of Levi, &c.] Agreeable to this expression is said, Neh. XIII.29. They have defiled the Priesthood, and the Covenant of the Priesthood, and of Levi. In vers. 4, 5. God mentioneth his Covenant with Levi. This Covenant r required that they should sanctify and honor God by a due observance of his Ordinances, and teaching and causing others to observe them. By violating the conditions on their parts they have corrupted and made void that Covenant, and must not therefore expect from him that life and peace (v. 5.) and all those benefits which he had on his part promised on keeping Covenant. They belong not to such Covenant-breakers; and thence are those evils which have befallen, and shall befall them, contrary to what they vainly, without redressing their errors, and breach of Covenant, did expect. So he had before threatned them, vers. 2, and 3. and in the next verse farther declares, ‘9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my waies, but have been partial in the Law.’

Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the People, &c.] Therefore because they have thus corrupted the Covenant of Levi, &c. and by their ill administration of their office, had s shewed contempt of God, and despised his Name, ch. I.6. therefore, saith he, have I also made you contemptible, or as t some render, will I make you contemptible, &c. It will be to the same pass in such speeches, to speak in the same Language of what is past, and of what is to come, that which hath not been yet done, being as certain when God hath said it, as if it were already past.

According as ye have not kept my waies.] So rendring to them according to their own dealings, and v measure for measure. It is that which God of old had declared, as the rule by which he would go in judging and dealing with those who ought to take care of honouring him, in looking to the due observance of his Commandments, I Sam. II.30. Them that honor me will I honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. The Priests, by virtue of Gods Covenant with them, were to be highly honoured and respected by the People: and how zealously be would vindicate their honour, appears in that Story of Corah, Dathan, and Abiram. But upon breach of Covenant with him, if they find on the contrary disrespect and contempt, it is by his just judgment, and by his just judgment they shall so find, therefore have I also made (or will I make) you contemptible, &c. according as ye have not kept my waies, but have been partial in the Law.] That contempt which they cast on him and on his Law, by wresting it out of respect to persons, that so they might gain favour and respect from them, so honouring them more then him, and seeking to please them more then him; hath he, or will he, cast back on them, by making them contemptible, even in the eies of them from whom they thought to find by that means respect; yea, made or will make them base before all the People. To this purpose a learned x Jew expounds the words: and y others agree with him, that by being partial in the Law, is for mens sakes to approve of that which the Law approved not of; and not to reprove men, when they did contrary to it, as in particular, in that out of respect to those great men that brought them, they did accept of, and offer illegal Sacrifices, (as in the former Chapter is shewed) and not reject and reprove them for bringing such things contrary to the Law; whereas perhaps (as z some add) from a poor man they would not have accepted them. But the words a seem more general, and to comprehend any wresting of the law, either out of favor to themselves or others, when in declaring the meaning thereof, or determining any thing according to it, they did not deliver the truth, but respect the persons, in whose case they were to deliver their judgment, and so accordingly interpreted it in favor or hatred unto them; and, as b some think, more particularly in case of extortion and usury, they favoring the oppressors: and this in any kind was contrary to what the Law commands, Lev. XIX.15. Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor [Page]honor the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. And Deut. I.17. Ye shall not respect persons. And Deut. XVI.19. Thou shalt not wrest judgment, thou shalt not respect persons. This is to be partial in the Law: our Margin tells us, it is literally according to the Hebrew, ye have accepted faces: it is usually elsewhere rendred, to respect persons. These three expressions are in meaning all one: but our margin gives us likewise another rendring, viz. Ye have lifted up the face against the Law, viz. presumptuously done or taught what is contrary to it; which although by c some Interpreters followed; and the word [...] Nasa, doth doubtless signify as well to lift up as to accept, and the meaning be good; yet is by d one found fault with, because the common and received use of the phrase is to denote e respect of persons, and not elsewhere taken in that sense of lifting up the face.

10 Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the Covenant of our fathers?

Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? &c.] f Some, especially they who render the former words by lifting up the face against the Law, will have this verse to be the words of the Priests or People, apologizing for themselves, against that which the Prophet in the following verses, accuseth them for, and reproves them, viz. their contracting unlawful marriages with Infidels, or Heathenish women: as if lifting up the face against the Law, which forbad them so to do, they should say, why do ye tax us for our unlawful marriages with Infidels? was not Adam one common Father to us all? hath not one God created us all? why do ye therefore charge us with treacherous dealing with our brethren, and profaning the Covenant of our fore-fathers, in that we do promiscuously match with our heathen Neighbors? as the learned Bishop Hall paraphraseth the words according to their meaning. And they in their Notes take notice of the grounds that these making their excuse do go on, viz. in that all being from one common Father, and all by one created, they are all equally lawful as for liberty of contracting marriages with them. And again, as it is no treacherous dealing therefore with their brethren, so it cannot be a profanation of the Covenant made by God with their Fathers, inasmuch as by this means they called others into partaking of the Covenant, wch was a most just thing. g Another going along with them, as to the first part of the verse, and taking for included therein all that they say, makes yet the latter part, viz. why do we deal treacherously, &c. to be the Prophets answer unto them, by retorting on them their own words, and putting it to their own conscience, bidding them to ask themselves, why do we, that know Gods command for not marrying with the Gentiles, deal treacherously every man against his [Jew] brother, by casting off his sister or daughter, whom we have married, to take in her place a stranger, so profaning the Covenant of our Fathers, by which God required that they should not pollute themselves with h such marriages, and they did faithfully keep it. But as for the first of these opinions, it is excepted against by a learned i man, as restraining so these words to the Priests, to whom the foregoing words were spoken, whereas the things, now taxed, were common to all; and the second seems not much to mend the matter: both make the matter harsh, and require such an abrupt change of persons in speaking, as the words seem to give no ground for. They more plainly and clearly flow, if they be all taken as the words of the Prophet, proceeding in his reproof, but not of the Priests only, as before, but of all. k They that in the preceding verse understand by their being partial in the Law, their partiality in determining in behalf of oppressors and exactors, think that sin of exaction here especially taxed, and the iniquity of it shewed, in regard that they were all Children of one father Jacob, and so equally free, and having equal right to justice, according to the Law, without respect of persons, and by one God created, i. e. made his People: why then do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, in oppressing him, and by unjust usury exacting of him, which is a manifest profanation of the Covenant of our Fathers, or that Law given to them, which forbad to lay usury on any of Gods People, their brethren, as Exod. XXII.25. Lev. XXV. [...]6. Deut. XXIII.19, 20. And for their ground of this exposition and confirmation of it, they refer us to the History of the Jews, in those times about which this Prophet lived, as particularly set down in Nehemiah, ch. V. vers. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, &c. where their oppression of the poor by usury, and exactions, is described, and a reformation thereof sought by Nehemiah. With these others agree, who will have here all wrong dealing taxed. But others, the Jews generally, and divers m Christians, follow another way of exposition, which seems more agreeable and coherent to the following verses; and that is, (whether with respect to the foregoing words, as n some will, or without respect to them, as some of the Jews, who look on this as a l [Page] beginning of a new Prophecy, as o one speaks, or a new matter of reproof, or a p new Section;) that these words are the words of the Prophet reproving them for what they did under the second Temple, after their return from the Babylonish captivity, contrary to the Law in what concerned their marriages; in which they were peccant in two regards. q 1. In taking Wives that were of another Nation and Religion. 2. In oppressing and hard dealing with their Israelitish Wives, either by dismissing them, or using them despitefully and contumeliously, and denying them what was due to them, in favor of those strange Wives which they took with them, and preferred before them: in which kind how peccant they were, both People, and Priests, and Levites also, is shewed at large, Ezra c. IX. This sin the Prophet coming to reprove, argues, as r some observe, and aggravates the hainousness and unreasonableness thereof, in regard that it is the violation of the tie of a double relation, which should have kept them from doing it. 1. In that they had all one Father, were of one kindred and Family, have we not all one Father? and so in violating the rights of that affinity, did deal treacherously every man with his brother. 2. In that they were all of one Religion, the People of one God, all acknowledging and professing to serve him alone, and to observe his Laws, hath not one God created us? and so in doing, as they did, contrary to his Law, profaned the Covenant of their Fathers, that Covenant by God, who made them his peculiar People, made with their Fathers; by vertue of which, s as he was one God, so they were to be one People separated to him, and not mingle themselves with the idolatrous Heathen, and particularly by making marriages with them, Deut. VII.3. That this meaning may be made plain, it will be convenient to observe somthing concerning some of the words; as first, who is that one Father, which they all have. By him the t Jews understand to be particularly meant Jacob, the more immediate Father of the 12. Tribes, from whom they all sprung: and u others (many Christian Expositors) understand Abraham, from whom also they all came, with whom God first made that Covenant, by virtue of which, they, as his Seed, were accounted his peculiar People, and heirs of the Promise. And of him that they were wont to boast as their Father, we learn in several passages in the New Testament, as Joh. VIII.38, 39. and x else where. And Esa. LI.2. God bids them to look unto Abraham as their Father, whom he called [one, or] alone. So that in respect of either of these it may be said they had one Father. Nor will it make any difference as to what is thence urged or concluded here to them: it will be as to the purpose all one which of them be understood, as likewise if they should name also Isaac, who was between Abraham and Jacob. y Others think by this one Father to be meant God, it following, hath not one God created us? and him may they truly so call; and we hear them saying in the forecited Joh. VIII.41. We have one Father, even God. And thus taken, it would make for inferring the same conclusion of not dealing treacherously, nor violating the Covenant made with their Fathers; but as it is z observed, would not bring it so close home, nor press it so far upon them, as if it be understood of their one Father in the flesh, in whom they were by God received into Covenant, and made his peculiar People, distinct from other Nations; and ought therefore, by so preserving themselves without mixture with other profane People, to observe that Covenant without violation of it. If it should be understood of Adam, (as by a some it is) this way of arguing would be yet wider and looser, and not much to conclude against that which seems here in the first place more especially spoken against, viz. their taking Wives of other Nations, although against those things joyned with it, viz. their putting away the Israelitish Wives which they had, or taking more strange Wives with them; it so would firmly conclude according to our Saviors way of arguing, Mat. XIX.4, 5, &c. Yet seems it most agreeable to the argument of this place, to understand either Abraham or Jacob.

Hath not one God created us?] It seems not ill observed by b some, that the word of creating, is here not meant in that general signification, whereby it is common to all men, all being created by God alike, but in a more restrict signification of making, or framing, or constituting to be a select People to himself, wherein it was peculiar to Israel his chosen, whom for that purpose he brought out of Egypt, and did, as it were, form and model anew. In which sense it is likewise used, Isa. XLIII.1. The Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and so v. 7. And in the new Testament in much like use, Eph. II.10. We are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works: for if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature, II Cor. V.17. Or if it be used in the more usual sense, it will tend to the same purpose, and conclude with the same force being thus understood, Hath not one God created us? i. e. do not we, the Jews, all c acknowledge one Lord, one God the Creator [Page] of us, and of all things, and profess to serve him alone, contrary to other Nations, who do not so acknowledge him, but serve false Gods? and how then should we all, agreeing in the true Religion, and by it distinguished from others, violate those respects and duties which that Religion binds us to observe one towards another, as brethren and partakers of the same Covenant, which by dealing treacherously or falsely one with another, we do profane.

Every one against his brother.] The matter according to the exposition we are speaking of, rather d seems to require, that it should be said his sister, viz. those Israelitish women, whom by taking heathenish women with them, or instead of them, they injured. The word, brother, may therefore be taken, either so as to include the relation of kindred and family, (which was e accounted brotherhood) whether males or females, sisters as well as brothers: his wife is meant, (saith Abarbinel) as if it sounded, a man against his wife, f or else while they so wronged their Wives, they wronged those whose daughters or sisters they wronged, and dealt treacherously with them.

Why do we every man? This intimates, that the fault spoken of, was very common among them, many guilty of it; yet not so, that we may think every one was guilty in that kind, nor the Prophet himself among them: though to shew how he, and all the rest that were members of the same body and community, were concerned in those sins which were by many among them committed, he speaks in general, and seems to include all, even himself too. We every man. There is nothing in the original that expresly denotes every, but indefinitly a man against his brother, or one against another. The Greek, therefore, as exempting the Prophet, render not we but ye.

The sin wherein they dealt treacherously, and by it profaned the Covenant of their Fathers, though not particularly expressed in this verse, yet is in the next verse set down in express terms, so as to favor the last Exposition.

11 ¶ Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel, and in Jerusalem: for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange God.

Judah hath dealt treacherously, &c.] The People of Judah, or the Jews, together with those Israelites of the other Tribes, which adjoined themselves with them in their return from the Babylonish captivity, are accused for treacherous and false dealing, and committing abomination, as in the other parts of the Land, so in Jerusalem it self, the chief City g and place of the Temple: where they should have been most carefull of their behaviour, and given good example to others, even there they profaned the holiness of the Lord, which he loved, &c. The Lord is holy, perfect holiness, his Name holy, and all things more particularly related, or pertaining to him, holy. His Law, Covenant, and all his Ordinances and Institutions, holy; Israel his peculiar People, an [...] holy People: the Sanctuary or Temple▪ and all things therein consecrated to him, holy; Jerusalem, the City of the great God, holy; yea the whole Land of his inheritance, holy; so that whosoever doth not observe those due respects, which to any of these belong, and preserve with religious care that holiness which belongs to them, may be said to have profaned the holiness, which he loved, commanded and required: and so is it differently expounded by h some, of one of these, by others of another, as, of the Temple, of the People, &c. But if we consider what is before said of their profaning the Covenant of their Fathers, and here joyned in the accusation of them, that they married the daughter of a strange God, and what follows afterwards concerning their ill and false dealing with their lawfull Israelitish Wives, called the Wives of their Covenant; we may well assent to them, who by the holiness here said to be profaned, understand more especially his holy institution of Matrimony among them, not so much in general, as it was a holy institution at first made in Paradise, as i some think, but as so limited and restrained among this peculiar People of God, as that by observing his commands concerning it, they might sanctify him, and preserve themselves a holy Nation to him, and k seek, and propagate a godly Seed, by marrying within themselves, and cleaving to those Wives as one flesh, and not mixing themselves with Heathens and Idolaters, by taking wives of their daughters, although by their neglecting his Commandment, and breaking his Covenant in this kind, all other things that had the impress of his holiness were at once profaned; his holy People themselves, by bringing in a mixed spurious generation of half Jews, half Ashdodites, Ammonites or Moabites, or the like; (Neh. XIII.24.) his Sanctuary or holy Temple, by bringing into it such wives and such children; his holy Covenant made with their lawful wives, while they either l put them away, or wronged [Page] them for the sake of those illegal strange wives, taken either into their places, or together with them; and so by necessary consequence his whole holy Law, which he that willingly transgresseth in one part m is guilty of the breach and profanation of all; and so his holy Name that was called on them, and himself, who was their God, and commanded them to be holy as he is holy: in sum, all the holy things of God, (as the Greek comprehensively renders it) all that holiness which he loved, delighted in, commanded and required.

Of these words, which he loved, we have in the Margin of our Bibles another reading, viz. wch he ought to love: this is a Translation wch some n others of good account give, and explain it, which holiness Judah ought to have so loved, as not to profane it by placing their love on any other to the violating and profaning of it. And o others render it otherwise, as, which, i. e. which Lord, loved her, i. e. Judah. A p later very learned man, which, i. e. which Lord, he, that is, Judah, had loved, viz. formerly, and was espoused to, but now profaned his holiness, and married the daughter of a strange God. The Spanish renders Judah hath defiled the holiness of the Lord by loving and marrying [or in that he loved and married] himself to the daughter of a strange God. But among all, none seems more genuin then that given in the Text of our English Bible, so understood as we have said, in that so it is opposed to what follows, vers. 16. where he saith, The Lord hateth putting away, and that any should take other illegal wives to his lawfull wife, according to that Exposition which there some follow, those things are contrary to that holiness here spoke of; as those he hates, so this he loves and requires.

The daughter of a strange God.] Of what Nations they that then transgressed in this kind took wives, we read Ezra IX.1, 2, &c. from which place, and this, is manifest, that the prohibition in the Law, Deut. VII.1. did not only make it unlawfull to take wives of those seven Nations there named only, but of any other heathenish idolatrous Nation: and so the q Jewish Doctors, by comparing the words of Ezra with that Command there given, conclude. And such women of these Nations, which had not one Father, (vers. 10.) nor acknowledged one true God that created them, as Israel did, are called daughters of a strange God. As those that acknowledge, worship, and serve the true God, are called his sons and daughters, Deut. XXXII.19. so they that worshipped any strange God, are by like reason here called the daughters of that God: hence the r Jews say, He that marrieth a heathen woman is as if he made himself son-in-law to an Idol.

12 The Lord will cut off the man that doth this: the master and the scholar out of the Tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts.

The Lord will cut off the man that doth this, &c.] So with ours most Interpreters render it, as if the Lord here threatning to punish him that did such things, and transgressed in that manner spoken of, threatned to cut off and destroy him, whether such or such were his condition, as is here in the following words described. But a learned s man well notes, that the word [...] La-Ish may according to the more frequent use of the letter or preposition, [...] L, for a note of the dative case, be rather rendred to the man, i. e. from the man, then by omitting it, as ours and others do simply the man, as threatning to cut off not so much, or not only his person, but those that were in such or such relation to him. And so the Chalde Paraphrase renders it, The Lord shall destroy to the man that doth this, &c. Those that he threatens to cut off, whether we understand the person himself sinning, or those related to him, are in the next words thus described, the Master and the Schol [...]r (whether he be so or so) and in the Margin of our Bibles, as another reading we have, or, him that waketh, and him t [...]at answereth, which (as a Jewish Expositor notes) is the proper signification of the words, though diversly interpreted by others, t some rendring, him that calleth, and him that answereth, seeming to take the word in an active sense, as v others do, him that wakeneth. x Others, the master and the Schol [...]r, y others, the Author and him that obeieth him; z the Lord and the servant, Priest or Laïc. The Chalde, son and son's son, and the like: of which may be said, as that Jewish Expositor saith of the Chalde, that they render a by way of Interpretation, or by giving the meaning, as they thought the words to import, not as they literally signify. And as to the following words, and him that offereth an offering, b some expound as a description of the Priests and their sons: as c others do the former words likewise, to be a description of the Priests and other Levites, d Officers about the Temple, as Porters and Singers, and the like. e Others render, when (or although) he shall offer a gift to the Lord [Page] to make attonement for his sin. And so accordingly do they differently give their Expositions of the whole; as f some, that the Lord will cut off both the man that transgressed in this kind, and also his abettors and defendors, though he would seek to expiate his fault by gifts and Sacrifices offered to the Lord by g himself or others. h Others that he would cut off from him, either himself that looked after such women, or from him that defended him, those sons begotten of them, yea though he offered gifts, &c. A i l [...]te very learned man, having considered the different Expositions of others, gives thus his own opinion, that in this verse is threatned punishment to those that were guilty of that treacherous dealing in the precedent verse mentioned, viz. that God would cut off from them, 1. Such who should watch for (or over) them in (or with) praiers and admonitions. 2. Such as should answer them, when they should ask concerning the Law. 3. Him that should offer to God such Sacrifices as they brought. So that together he may be understood to threaten the Priests, (spoken of in the former verses of the Chapter) that they should be removed from their office, and likewise all the People (spoken of in the verse immediatly foregoing) that they should be deprived of their Priests. But to me there seems no more facile or perspicuous Exposition then that given by that learned k Jew, at first mentioned, (agreeable likewise to what l others of the same Nation give) viz. that (he will destroy to or from them, or) they shall (be destroyed, or) perish: so that there shall be none left among them, to whom shall pertain (or agree) any of those Epithets that import life, [such as are waking and answering, as if this were a m proverbial kind of expression to denote as much as any living soul, as if he should say, I will cut off every living soul, so that there shall be none in his house, that may call or answer, none at all living.] And this imprecation (or menace) saith he, comprehends the transgressors in this kind of all Israel; as he saith, (first) out of the Tabernacles of Jacob, and then particularly applieth it to such of the Priests as did so, saying, and him that offereth an offering to the Lord of hosts, (or, and of him that offereth,) viz. out of the habitations, both of the common People of Israel, or the Laïty, and also of the Priests; which last Exposition comes nigh to what the Greek hath, from or out of the Tabernacles of Jacob, and from or out of those that bring an offering to the Lord Almighty: although in the rendring the words immediatly preceding, they be very wide from any yet mentioned, rendring untill he be brought down, which n some ascribe to the reading it differently from what is now read in the Hebrew: But whether so▪ or that they did it by way of Interpretation (as we before said of others) thinking it a proverbial Speech, and that to be the importance of it, which they set down, though no [...] in a litteral rendring, it will not concern us to enquire; our business chiefly being to see what meaning the Hebrew Text as now read (which we doubt not to be the true and incorrupted reading) will naturally bear, and to adjust with it our English Translation, and sometimes, as occasion gives, others also, from it, as now read, derived.

Out of the Tabernacles of Jacob.] The Chalde Paraphrase rendreth, Out of the Cities of Jacob. From the ancient and frequent use of living in Tents or Tabernacles in those Countries, and the long custom of their Ancestors of living in such, was the word afterwards used for any habitations, Cities, or Houses in wch they dwelt: and sometimes o for the Congregation o [...] Company of the People themselves that dwelt together in them. So that by cutting off these sinners out of the Tabernacles of Jacob, may be understood the extirpating them out of the Land, the dwellings, or the p Congregation of Israel. q Some thinking this spoken more particularly of the Priests or Levites, think by this expression to be meant the casting them out of the Temple, or from the Altar, so that they should not be admitted or suffered any more to serve there. But this seems to be too narrow a restriction of this menace only to the Priests, which (as appears out of the foregoing verse) is denounced against all Judah and Israel. And though it appear out of the forecited books of Ezra and Nehemiah, that some of the Priests were guilty in this kind by taking strange wives, yet was the sin more general, and so the punishment menaced seems extended to all of all sorts that had so done, whether Priests or Lay-People. By r some the word Tabernacles is thought used to put them in mind of their unsetled condition.

13 And this have ye done againe, covering the Altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.

And this have ye done againe.] Againe [...] Shenith, secondly, or a second time, or in the second place, or s this second thing; so that he seems proceeding in his reproof to tax them of a second crime added to a former. [Page] The former, to which this now to be spoken of, is second, is by t diverse taken to be that in the foregoing Chapter, and the beginning of this, taxed; their offering to God illegal Sacrifices, and in illegal manner, and shewing contempt of his Altar, and want of due regard to his service. u Others look on this as called second, in respect to that spoken of, vers. 11. viz. their profaning the holiness of the Lord by marrying the daughters of strange Gods, idolatrous wives; to which, though the sins after spoken of, have respect, and be of the same kind, yet it is another additional degree of it, an heightning and doubling of it: so that the word againe or secondly may well be referred to it. And it will not much matter which of the two opinions be followed. [But the Greek, and such as follow them here, (as the printed Arabick) render the word [...] Shenith much differently from both, viz. things which I hated, x taking, it seems, this word to be of the same signification with [...] Sane in the 16. verse, which signifies hating, and is a different Root.] The fault with which they are taxed is, that they covered the Altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and crying out, &c. which by the generality of the Jewish and most of Christian Expositors, is understood of the effect of their treacherous dealing with their lawful Israelitish wives, whom, by either dismissing them to take others, or by taking with them strange women, to whom they shewed more respect, love, and kindness then to them, and with them dealt unkindly, and otherwise then they ought, depriving them of what was due to them; they caused to pour forth abundance of tears before the Altar of the Lord, as it were covering it with them, y from the sight of God, or which God looked on z as if they fell on his Altar, and to utter there their sad lamentations and doleful complaints for the injuries done them, as desiring help, redress, and justice from God: by seeing and hearing of which he was so far moved and provoked, that he would no more regard or receive with good will any offering that was there offered by the Priests, a either for themselves or others, who had committed such things. Yet this Exposition, though by so many agreed on, Calvin rejects, thus rendring the words, And this secondly have ye done, by covering the Altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and crying, because there is no more any respect had to the offering, nor any good will or acceptable thing received at your hand: giving then the meaning to this purpose, that the Priests by their ill behaviour in Gods service, so provoked him, as that he would no more respect any offerings offered by them, nor accept them with good will and delight: which displeasure of God the People perceiving, instead of coming with praises and rejoycing into the Courts of God, now came only full of grief, with tears and cries, as thinking all they did to no purpose for the pleasing of God. But in this his way of interpretation, he seems not either to make the sense of the words, or the connexion of them so clear, as to perswade b those, who otherwise have great respect for him, to follow him in it; but they rather choose to embrace the former Exposition. There is another Interpretation given by an ancienter c Expositor, who understands these tears, &c. of tears shed by those who are accused before, of such ill doings as are spoken of, as if they in shew of sorrow for their offences, did approach Gods Altar with many tears and lamentations, and cries, as desirous of pardon, yet still continued to do the same wicked things, and would still retain their strange wives; for which their false dealing, God refuseth any more to respect or accept their offerings, though they cry never so much and so loud. This would be no ill meaning: but the first mentioned is more approved and followed, as best agreeing with what follows. [Nor is that way followed which Cyril mentions, as if by the tears, &c. were understood such as were drawn from the covetous offerers, d loth to part with those things which they were to offer, as sorry for the loss they were to be at; wherefore he that loveth a cheerful giver, could not with good will accept things with so ill will offered.] There is yet another way by a very learned e man (in the foregoing verse mentioned) given, which making it an aggravation of the punishment in the foregoing verse denounced; as if having there, according to his Interpretation, threatned to cut off from them the Priest that should watch over them, give them answers out of the Law, and offer gifts for them, he should here add, And this secondly shall ye do, ye shall cover my Altar with tears weeping and cries: why? because there shall be no more respect to any offering of yours, &c. But it will be safe to follow the first, and more generally received Exposition.

14 Yet ye say, wherefore? because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy Companion, and the wife of thy Covenant.

Yet ye say, &c.] Yet ye f are so impudent [Page] as to stand up in defence of your sin, and to say, Wherefore, &c. or as others, if ye say, wherefore? i. e. wherefore is the Lord so angry, that he will no more accept any offering from our hands? the answer is; because the Lord hath been witness of the contract, or matrimonial promises▪ made according to his Law in his Name, viz. with invocations of it, and calling him to witness, (and therefore called the Covenant of God, Prov. II.17.) between thee and the wife of thy youth, i. e. which thou tookest in thy youth, with whom thou now dealest treacherously, though she were thy companion, made so according to the institution of God, that thou shouldest g cleave unto her as one flesh with thy self.

And the wife of thy Covenant.] By mutual covenant espoused to thee; the conditions of which covenant God h being witness to it, looks on as necessarily binding on both parts, and requires the due performance of it from both: and therefore hearing her just complaint of the breaking of it on your parts, moved with just indignation, will not accept of you, or look on any offering from you such treacherous Covenant-breakers, as pleasing to him. This seems a plain Exposition of the words, and in which will be included or easily reduced to it what is by others said; as what Kimchi saith, that by, because the Lord hath been witness between thee, &c. is meant, that whatever they pretend, God seeth, and is witness, that they did not love their wives; their heart was not towards them, but they dealt treacherously with them, and so gave them just cause of complaining to the Lord: as likewise what Abarbinel saith, who makes the import of the question, wherefore? which impudently standing on their own justification they asked, to be, wherefore do those women weep and complain? as if they knew no cause they had: and then explains the answer much according to what was at first said, that it was because God was witness to those rites and instruments of matrimonial contract and covenants made between them, which the women having kept unviolated on their parts, and behaved themselves as faithfull companions and covenanted wives to them, when they saw them violated by their husbands taking other wives with them, did address themselves to the Lord their witness, and complained of the wrong done to them: By which moved, he shews himself justly displeased for such their treacherous dealing.

By Gods being witness, i some understand his precept or command for keeping Covenants inviolable betwixt man and wife, according to the first institution of marriage, Gen. II.24. By wife of youth, k some understand a wife taken in her youth or flower of her age, which being now past, they set her at nought, and l either put her away, or took other strange wives, whom they more loved, with her: and by companion and wife of covenant, a partaker of the same holy rites, (or Religion) and in the same Covenant of God. And it is by m divers observed that here are put, as several aggregations of their fault in thus injuring their wives, 1. the witness of God, 2. the wife of thy youth, 3. thy companion, and 4. the wife of thy Covenant. [Kimchi observes that by these expressions is denoted the dereliction of any Israelitish wife legally married, whether in youth or age, inasmuch as the notion of companion and wife of Covenant agrees to either.]

15 And did not he make one? yet had he the residue of the spirit: and wherefore one? that he might seek a godly seed: therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

And did not he make one? yet had he the residue [Marg. Or, excellency] of the spirit, and wherefore one? &c.] This verse is confessedly difficult. It appears so by the several different Expositions that are given of it. We shall in the first place take notice of that which seems most agreeable to our Translation in the Text. And did not he, i. e. that one God who created all, vers. 10. make one? i. e. one man, and one woman, made out of the rib of that one man, one only pair; so that that one man had only one wife, though he had the residue of the spirit, n being the Father of spirits, and so could have at his pleasure created more spirits or souls, and infused them into more women, so that that one man might have had more wives if God had so pleased. But now he gave him only one, and made only one couple, and that for this end, that they might in chast wedlock and sincere love, and undivided affection, propagate a godly seed or holy seed to God: whose example, therefore, ye ought to look on as a perpetual Law set to you: and therefore in imitation of that first man, take heed you also every one to your spirit; that spirit by God infused into you, that ye impart and communicate it only to one, and that with sincere affection, and let none of you deal treacherously against the wife of his youth, by despising or relinquishing her, or taking any other strange wife with her. This seems an easy and very probable Interpretation, and the rendring is agreeable to the [Page] words, without force or violence to any of them, or to the construction. And it will be confirmed by our Savior's way of arguing against divorce, (and consequently Polygamy,) Matt. XIX.4, 5, 6. Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, &c. by which is well expounded this expression here, did not he make one? that is one couple, which by that relation, as he there adds, became one flesh, and are no more two but one flesh, one man, as (Gen. I.27.) they both together are called, and therefore should be of one mind and one spirit also, the unity of which they ought faithfully to preserve, without dealing treacherously one with the other, to the making a division betwixt them, or by taking in strangers to corrupt that holy Seed by God required, and introduce a spurious unsanctified generation, like that by such means brought in, Gen. VI.2, &c. But though this seem a plain and good Exposition, yet because far different ones are by others given, it will be convenient to take notice of some of them at least, lest we should be thought to take this because others were not considered.

In the next place, therefore, we may take notice of that reading, which the ancient Latin Translation gives, Nonne unus fecit, & residuam spiritûs ejus est, &c. which, according to the Doway English Version of it, is, did not [...] make, and the residue of the spirit is his? or, as it may sound, and [it] is the residue of his spirit. They that follow this reading, wherein one is the nominative case, differ in their Expositions; for if it be asked, what did one make? [...]ome understand one man, and one woman, Adam and Eve; which was the residue of his spirit: of whose spirit? whether of the spirit of God or the man? this Jerom shews to have been a doubt betwixt Interpreters even in his time. If of God; then they expound it, that God having residue of the same spirit, i. e. o like in kind, and of the same nature to that which he had infused into the man, infused it into the woman taken out of him, that so they might be of one mind, and joined in mutual affection. And to the like purpose p they that expound it, the remainder of the spirit of Adam, viz. that into the woman was inspired the like spirit as into him. q Others, by that which he made, understand Eve, into which he inspired the remainder of the spirit, i. e. the like spirit, or of the same kind, that he had inspired into Adam; and then proceed in like manner as the other, as to the scope of the words: and then he adds, what doth one seek but thee Seed of God? i. e. for what end did God do so? so join them into whom he breath'd the like spirit, but for the propagation of a godly seed of men that might serve him? which by your taking strange heathenish wives will not be preserved, but necessarily adulterated. For caution, in which kind, he infers, keep ye then, (or therefore) your spirit, i. e. say some of them, s your wives, which are the remainder of your spirit, as it were making one soul with you, and wrong them not; or, t your affection, which from that relation ought to be in you towards them: or (as others more generally) your souls and spirits, from committing any such sin by taking strange wives to the wrong of your lawful wives, which from your youth you have had: or, u as you love your own soul and spirit, take heed of doing so. Thus they who follow that rendring. A learned x man, who doth not farther follow it, yet if the words be so rendred, did not one make? thinks this would be the meaning, That the one, viz. God, with whom is the excellency of the spirit, yea so great abundance of it, that there is still remainder of it with him, did make that which is in the end of the foregoing verse said, That the wife should be a companion to the man, and in covenant joined with him. And what in that doth he look after? he seeks a Seed of God, a divine or godly Seed, of which he may be called the Author and Father. Therefore take heed to your spirit that you offend not against him, (with whom is abundance of the spirit, and who by that abundance most wisely ordered Matrimony,) by dealing treacherously with or against your lawful wives. This Exposition he sets down, but doth not acquiesce in it, but gives another which he more approves of, which is thus; And not one, i. e. none doth this to whom there are any remainders of spirit: and how should any one do it, seeking a Seed of God? take heed therefore to your spirit, that none deal treacherously, &c. that the sense may be, Thou dealest treacherously against thy wife, who is thy companion, and joined with thee in covenant. None doth this, y who hath any thing at all of the spirit of God remaining in him, and how should any do it, who seeks a Seed of God? If therefore ye seek that, take heed to your spirit that it deal not treacherously, &c. Another sense he also mentions, viz. For he made not one alone, and abundance of the spirit is with him: and why, or to what purpose, should he have made one seeking a Seed of God? Take heed therefore, &c. the sense is; God would that the woman should be a companion to the man, and his confederate; for he made not only man, not a male alone, but a woman also, and that most wisely, inasmuch as he hath the remainder of the spirit; and to what purpose should he do it, whereas [Page] he sought a Seed of God, which could not be born without wedlock? Therefore take heed, &c. But this, he saith, pleaseth him not so well, as that before it, inasmuch as the word [...] Shear, signifies not excellency (abundance as it notes excellency) but remainder only.

Having seen this variety of Expositions, (besides what we shall after see) among Christian Interpreters, if we shall look into the Jews, we shall find yet more, they almost all differing one from another. The Chalde Paraphrast, the ancientest among them, thus paraphraseth the words: ‘Was not Abraham one alone, from whom was created (or procreated) the World, or a World?’ (It may be supposed he respects the blessings promised to Abraham, that from him should be a multitude of Nations, and in his Seed all the Families of the Earth should be blessed, Gen. XII.3. and XVII.4, &c. and XXII.17. or, that by the World he understands the People of Israel, God's peculiar in the World, Gen. XXXII.8, 9.) ‘and what did that one seek, but that there might remain to him an offspring from before God, or in the sight of God: Take heed therefore to your selves, and deal not falsely with the wife of thy youth.’ R Salomo Jarchi, though after him many ages, yet the eldest Commentator, gives an Exposition to this purpose, according to his own words, z and as by Abarbinel explained; ‘Did not God make one, i. e. one pair, Adam and Eve, and not one man with two women? and the residue of the spirit was to him, or was his, i. e, to, or in, Adam the first man: the rest of the spirits of men were in him, from him they all proceeded. And if so, why doth one, who is in marriage, seek to find occasions against his wife, which is coupled to him, and which is the Seed of God? why doth he prosecute her so as to despise her?’ This is his chief, or only Exposition, according to what is in the printed Copies, and what is reported from him by Abarbinel. But in a Manuscript Copy there is before this put another Exposition different from it, viz. to this sense, ‘Did not the holy God prepare a help for Adam (or man) and joyn to him his wife at the beginning? and the remainder of the spirit was to him; (or, his spirit remained unto him) but now another a spirit is come upon him to hate her, and he hath chosen to him the daughter of a strange God: and why one? he seeketh, (or what doth that one seek?) a daughter of Israel, which is the Seed of holiness.’ This I must desire the Reader to examine by some other manuscript Copy, if he meet with any; and for that end I have put the Hebrew words, as they are in that Copy which I had use of. [...]

Another Exposition he likewise mentions out of the ancient Rabbins, in which the words are made, as it were, a Dialogue betwixt the People and the Prophet; as if those that had married strange wives, coming together to the Prophet, said, did not Abraham do so, who took to him Hagar with his wife? and he answered, ‘But the residue of the spirit (or excellency of spirit) was with him; his meaning was not as yours; he set not his eies upon her; he had another meaning. They said to him, and what did that one seek, what was his meaning? he saith to them, That he might have a Seed of God.’ Another also in the manuscript Copy to this purpose, as if the People did object, ‘Did not one make us? did not he that created Israel, create the Nations also? why doth he make it unlawful for us to joyn in marriage with them? are not also all the rest of the spirits his? the Prophet did answer, And what doth that one require? a Seed of God. Take heed, therefore, unto your spirit, and let not thy spirit deal falsely with the wife of thy youth.’

The last but one of these is plainly the same with what David Kimchi gives, as his Fathers opinion, (without mentioning either R. Salomo, or any other from whom he took it,) only a little more explained, viz. ‘That the first are the words of the People to the Prophet, Did not Abraham, our Father, who was one, do so as we do, who let alone his wife, and married Hagar his Maid, although there was in him excellency of spirit, and he was a Prophet?’ then the Prophet's answer in the next words, ‘What did that one seek? a Seed of God: as if he should say, When he married Hagar, he did it not but to seek a Seed of God, because he had no Seed by Sarah his wife, b and withall he did not deal falsely with his wife, because by her good will, and her command, he did it. But do you take heed to your spirit, and let not any of you deal treacherously with the wife of his youth, to leave her and marry the daughter of a strange God.’ That which he gives as his own interpretation is, ‘Abraham, who was one, and the Father to all that come after him, in his Faith, did not so as ye do: for he followed not his lust, neither married any c that was lawful to him, (d no not Sarah, [Page] no not of his e own flesh, or kindred;) but that he might leave a Seed of God, as he commanded to leave Seed, saying, Increase and multiply, Gen. I.28.’ And by the word [...] Shear, he saies is understood excellency, not as in other Expositions, residue of the spirit. [To this opinion, of making Abraham the One here spoken of, several f Christians also incline: and amongst them Grotius, who yet in the expounding the other words differs from them, by the words which they take to signify excellency of spirit, he taking to be signified, that they, the Israelites, were the residue of his spirit, i. e. all drew and derived their spirit from his: and then what is rendered, Take heed to your spirit, understands, restrain or refrain your Anger.] The changings of persons and numbers here in the Hebrew, (as, Take ye heed to your spirits, in the plural number and second person, then the wife of thy youth in the singular, then let him not deal treacherously in the third person, without expressing who is meant, whereas it might seem more agreeable to what precedes to say, do not ye or thou, which some supply by putting in any, let not any, or let none deal, &c. g others making the preceding word spirit the nominative case, that is, and let not your spirit deal treacherously, &c.) are waies of change so usual in the Dialect of the Scripture, that none that looks into the Original thereof, can raise any scruples or difficulties from it.

Abarbinel having considered and recited Kimchi's Exposition, as likewise shewed how the opinion of those, who understand that One of Adam, is, as he supposes, to be managed most agreeably to the scope of the words, (viz. that the first words be taken as an objection to the Prophet that reproved them for their taking strange wives; ‘We are all the children of the first man Adam, children of one Father, and then none can be accounted a strange woman; which is that which is said, did not one, i. e. the holy God at first create one man alone? and the residue of the spirit was with him, i. e. the rest of the spirits came forth of his loins, viz. of that first Adam, who was one: and then that the other words be the Prophets answer; to this purpose: Will you make your condition to be equal, or like that of the first man Adam, when he was alone in the World? for he did not seek ought but a Seed of God, children that should serve God; not following after his concupiscence as ye do, and therefore it is meet that ye Take heed to your spirits, &c.’ which Exposition, how clear it is, I will not examine:) yet seeing that neither Adam nor Abraham are mentioned in the Text, thinks the words are capable of another more simple Exposition, which he thus gives, And not one hath done it, viz. not one only among you hath committed this evil. So that you may say, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wrath with all the Congregation? (as Num. XVI.22.) One man alone among you hath not done this; so as that to the rest, their spirit is with them, i. e. they keep entire their soul and spirit, which shall return unto God who gave it. And if it were but one alone among you, I would ask him what he did seek by this marriage? whether he did seek that the children, which were born unto him should be a Seed of God? this is not possible as long as their mother is the daughter of a strange God. And seeing the matter is so, that ye have all transgressed, not one only of you, and seeing that he that so transgresseth in this, knows of a truth, that his Seed will not be the Seed of God, it concerns you, that ye take heed to your spirit, (for there is nothing more precious to a man then his soul) and that you keep your spirit, that it break not forth after its lusts, and then it will not, (or let it not, viz. that spirit) deal treacherously with the wife of thy youth; Because, &c.

This is a literal Interpretation of his words: and this his opinion a learned h Christian embraceth; but a modern i Jew who cites it, having considered it, prefers another of his own, wherein he takes by the One to be meant Israel, whom God chose to be to himself One peculiar People among all Nations, a People that should dwell alone, and not be reckoned among the Nations, (as Balaam speaks of them, Num. XXIII.9.) and were therefore to preserve themselves a holy People, and to keep their Genealogy and offspring entire, not mingled with other Nations, nor making marriages with them, whereby the holy Seed, the Seed of God might be mingled with the daughter of a strange God. So that the Prophets reproof here will run thus, Did not God make Israel one Nation in the Earth, and to him was excellency of spirit, i. e. did not God give to Israel, that one Nation, an excellent spirit above all Nations? and what is it that that one seeks, or should seek? It is a Seed of God, a Seed that God hath blessed to take (or in taking) a wife of the daughters of Israel, who are the Seed of God, children of the living God; and not the daughter of a strange God, Therefore take heed to your spirit, lest there be made a breach in that high degree and excellency which God hath imparted to you, in making you one holy People, separate from all other People. And this Exposition he confirms, by looking back to the 10th and 11th verses, Have we not all one Father, &c. which he will have to import, That God our God is one, and he is our Father, who created us [Page] to be to him a peculiar People, one People of one God, and if we take strange wives of the Nations of the Earth, we shall deal treacherously every one against his brother, and profane the holy Covenant of our Fathers, our Seed, which is the holiness of the Lord, which he loveth.

There are yet other Expositions ancienter then some of the forementioned, which yet because the k Author, from whom I take them, is not yet printed, as the others are, and in some consideration to the Expositions themselves, I put in the last place. He tells us that the meaning of the words is said (by more perhaps, because he names no particular, though the words in which he gives it, are expresly Aben Ezra's;) to be, ‘That there is not any among you but hath done this, that the construction of the words, with a supply of what is to be understood, may run thus, There is not one of you that hath done, [...] Cedat, according to the Law, and his spirit (or whose spirit) remains to him, so as that it hath not been mingled with the daughter of a strange God.’ This Exposition, though he approve not of, yet it may be observable in regard that it agrees with the usual reading of the LXX, or Greek Version, which hath [...] which being read without an Interrogation, though it is usually read with one, would sound, And he hath not done that which is good, and there is remainder of his spirit: where by he (seeing it is to be asked who is meant by it) it will be the readiest and plainest way to understand any one, that by [...], he hath not done, may be meant the same as by [...], there is not that doth, i. e. not one that doth good, Rom. III.12. and so then there is not any one ( [...] Echad, one) that hath done good, and there is a remainder of his spirit; (or reading the last words only, with an Interrogation, and is there any remainder of his spirit? i. e. so as that there is a remainder of his spirit, or his spirit is entire. This being allowed, it will be all one with that Jewish Exposition mentioned, the one's supply of Cedat, according to the Law well answering to the others [...] good: and if so, all that I shall at present say is, That then this Interpretation is not novel, and withal, that perhaps there is no reason why [...], not good, should be changed into [...], as a late learned l man would have it, that so he might have occasion of finding fault with the ordinary reading in the Hebrew.

This Exposition R. Tanchum having cited, rejects, for this reason, because that fault was not so general, as that all may be said to be guilty of it, but only some particular persons, who are reckoned up in Esdras, ch. X.18, &c. and Nehem. XIII.28. except they may therefore be all accounted guilty, because they did not disapprove it. Another Exposition; therefore, he gives of his own, viz. And there is not one who hath done this, and hath his spirit remaining to him, i. e. but shall certainly perish in his sin. Then he asks, as by way of derision, and what is the end or purpose of any one in doing this? doth he thereby seek a holy Seed that shall set it self to obey God therefore it behoveth you to look to your selves, as you would save your spirits, that you abstain, (or to keep your souls, by abstinence from so doing) and that he deal not treacherously; the third person being put for the second, as in many places it is done, i. e. and do not thou, or you, deal treacherously with the wife, of thy, or your youth, he speaking to them in the second person.

There being this variety of Expositions irreconcilable between themselves, I knew not how better to make way for the Reader to examine them, and judge of them, and so to enquire after the truth, then by thus giving him the chief of them at large: and for more facilitating yet the matter, it may not be amiss to give the bare signification of the words, which are so diversly expounded, as they stand in the original Text, which are [...] Velo Echad, and not one, [...] Asah, hath done, or made, [...] Vsear ruah lo, and the remainder (or, as some will, excellency) of spirit to him [...] Vmah Haechad, and why, or what? one, [...] Mebak-kesh, seeking, or seeketh, [...] Zera Elohim, a Seed of God. From the different putting together and construction of these words, and distinguishing them, and reading them either with or without an interrogation, arise these so different senses; which when the Reader shall have well considered, he shall perhaps find the first, which is according to our English Translation, in the Text or the last of the Jewish, which is R. Tanchum's, most easily appliable to the words, and according to either of them, and indeed of all, they will be a forcible argument against either their putting away their legal Israelitish wives, or taking with them other strange wives; yea more generally against either divorce, or Polygamy, all treacherous or unfaithfull dealing against the covenant of the Marriage bed; which is also farther expressed in the following verse.

[Page] 16 For the Lord, the God of Israel saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts, therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

For the Lord God of Israel saith, that he hateth putting away, (or as in the Margin) to put away, &c.] In this verse also are several Interpretations, and it hath its difficulties, of which our Translators give notice, by their putting in the Margin, as a different rendring, of which the first words are capable, If he hate her, put her away. And this marginal reading is agreeable to what most ancient Interpreters, to omit modern, have it: so the Greek and ancient Latin, and Arabick, If thou hate her, put her away; and so the ancientest among the Jews, the Chalde Paraphrast. Yet neither is the other, which ours follow in the Text, novel: they are both mentioned in the m Talmud, and since that, by such Expositors as have followed, so as you may perceive they doubted which to prefer, though some inclining more to the one, others to the other. Kimchi following that which the Chalde hath, makes no mention of the other; Aben Ezra following the other, as the truer in his opinion, mentions not that. R. n Salomo only tells us of both without preferring either: and so doth Abarbinel and R. Tanchum. So that it will be necessary to take some notice of both, that so the Reader may at last use his own judgment which he will follow; which will be the better done when he shall have likewise considered the following words, which are in our Translation rendered, for one covereth violence with his garment. Concerning the Exposition of which words there is likewise no little difference betwixt Interpreters, both concerning the construction of them, viz. who, or what one it is, that is said to cover, and what to be covered, or which with which is covered, the violence with the garment, or the garment with violence; and concerning the meaning of this expression. 1. As to the Construction, that which our Translators follow in the Text, makes the person spoken of, (viz. he that doth that wrong to his wife whom he putteth away,) to be him that covers; and violence to be that which he covers, and his garment to be that with which he covers it. For one (say they) covereth, i. e. He whosoever he be that doth this, as Bishop Hall well paraphraseth it, covereth violence with his garment: so taking the Preposition [...] Al, which otherwise signifieth, upon, or above, here to signify the same that usually the Preposition [...] Be doth in construction of Verbs, i. e. with. So do, besides some other modern o Interpreters, some ancient Jews also take it to do, as the Chalde Paraphrast, and R. Tanchum; although the first of these doth not render the former words as ours do, but, If thou hate her put her away, yet in these he so takes the particle (as we said) to signify with, rendring, and cover not sin with thy garment. That he changeth the person from he to thou, his to thy, is by the liberty of a Paraphrast, that gives the meaning according as he takes the intent to be, not of a litteral Interpreter. But whereas he puts in not, which is not in the Text, this Grotius solves, by saying that he read it interrogatively, And shall, or may any so doing cover his iniquity with his garment? which may likewise be applied to what R. Tanchum saith, who saies that the first words being interpreted, when a man hateth his wife let him put her away, (i. e. it is permitted to him to put her away) viz. by a legal Bill of divorce, that so another Israelite may marry her in a legal way, and he do not deceive her, by taking another strange wife unto him; the construction of these must be, and let him not cover violence with his garment: and so a Latin p Version of good account renders it with an Interrogation, shall he therefore cover violence with his garment? That which from what hath been said we gain to our purpose is, That our Translators in rendring, covereth violence with his garment, go not alone, but have others of good autority, concurring with them in their opinion, that the words ought so to be rendred. Yet others do differently render them, so as to make violence the thing covering, and their garment the thing covered: so the ancient Latin, But iniquity shall cover his garment, and so before him the Greek, as we may well suppose, though now in the ordinary Copies it is read, impiety shall cover over thy thoughts, [...]. But a learned q man well supposes it anciently was read and ought to be read [...], thy garments, which is confirmed by the printed Arabick, which he that was the Author of following the Greek, appears so in his time to have read it, by his rendring it [...] Thiyabeca, thy garments. And with these agree several others, whom we need not name, because they go in their steps. A late learned r man considering the ordinary use of the Preposition [...] Al, which we before spoke of, affirms it to be the righter way of rendring, and so renders it, And injury hath covered his garment. Much the same construction of the Preposition s he observes, that [Page] renders, For he covers with violence his garment, it sounding, he draws violence as a covering over his garment. But now all these that go either of these waies, hitherto mentioned, take the verb [...] Cissah to be the pretertense, whether rendred hath covered, or for making the sense as they would have it, shall cover, or the like. But a learned t Jew saith, that according to that rendring of the former words he hateth putting away, it may and must be taken for the Infinitive Mood, which hath the force of a Noun, and may be rendred to cover, or the covering; as also the foregoing Verb [...] Shallach, as it is by them taken, who render it to put away, or as ours putting away, or shall put her away, or let him put her away. As also u Drusius in another rendring, whereas he hates putting away, he covers violence with his garment, whereas others who render it, put thou her away take it for the Imperative Mood; as also x such who render, because God hates that word of yours, put her away: And then it being so taken, the whole will run thus, For the Lord God of Israel saith that he hateth to put (or putting) away; and that he hateth to cover, (or covering of) violence with his (or ones) garment. And this perhaps will be the clearest way of connecting the words of the former and latter parts of the sentence together. But this now being said of the construction of the words, it remains to be enquired what is the meaning of the expression, according to any of these rendrings.

And first as to the Jews, by y some of them the violence here mentioned, is the refusing to put away his wife by a legal way of divorce, whom yet in his heart and covertly he hateth, whereas by legally dismissing her, that so she might be married to another, who would love her, he might have done her more right; his now retaining her, and for coloring his hatred keeping her to himself, as a garment that he would not put off from him, yet taking a stranger with her, is a great injury to her; or as z others of them, is a manifest injury covering his garment, openly conspicuous, for all his pretence of doing her right in retaining her. Their words in expressing their meaning, as a learned a man observes of some of them, are short and obscure: that which they aim at is manifestly this, That if they hated their wives, they ought to put them away by legal divorce; their not doing so, but retaining them, though in their hearts hated by them, and taking in with them other strange wives, whom they more loved, was a great injury, a violence done to them and to God's Law, whether it be interpreted a violence covered with their garment, i. e. with a pretence; or violence covering their garment and manifest to all. Then, according to that Interpretation, which as we have seen, the Chalde and others follow, viz. If he hate her, let him put her away, these will thus follow; For will he (or can he) cover his iniquity in taking another strange wife, by his retaining still his former Israelitish wife? i. e. let him not deal falsely with her, and think it enough thus to cover his inward hatred of her, by making a shew of respect by retaining her, whereas his taking a strange wife with her, argues that in his heart he hates her; or according to b others, it is a violence or injury that will not be hid, but appear to all, as any thing that is above his garment. Is it at all meet, saith R. Salomo, that thou spread thy garment over her to retain her for a wife, when violence or injury covereth this garment, (viz. under that pretence of retaining her, thou dost a continual wrong to her) hating her in thy heart, and alwaies vexing and afflicting her? for so I suppose R. Salomo's words must be read interrogatively, or else they will make no clear sense. [In whose words Figuero seems to mistake [...] Hogaata instead of [...] Hoganat rendring, Thou hast labored, &c. for Is it meet?]

In a Manuscript Copy of the same R. Salomo we have another Exposition, which in the ordinary printed Copies we find not, viz. That he that putteth away his wife, draweth a covering of violence over his other garments to himself; agreeable to that expression, Hab. II.17. The violence of Lebanon shall cover thee: the end will be, that the violence done to her shall be revenged on him; his meaning seems to be, he makes himself guilty of violence, which God will revenge. But this is to be applied to that other rendring of the preceding words, viz. he hateth putting away, which (as we have seen) others of the Jews also follow, who yet as concerning these words, scarce give us enough, whereby to discern what they thought of the meaning of them, as particularly R. Aben Ezra, who hath no more then only these words, He hateth him that putteth away his wife that is clean, and he hateth him that covereth, or God seeth his violence, or injuriousness, which is in secret. By which words all that we can see of his meaning is, that by covering violence with his garment, is meant harboring in secret hatred of his wife, which God seeth under what pretence soever covered, and hateth it. R. Tanchum also having declared for the meaning of the words, what we have seen, as appliable to the other rendring of the former words, doth not add any other as particularly appliable to this rendring, except out of his explaining them thus, ‘That he hateth [Page] putting away, or divorce, in this kind, that a daughter of Israel should be put away for the daughter of a strangers sake, i. e. that he may take in her room a strange heathenish wife;’ we may pick out this meaning, that the putting away an Israelitish wife for that reason is called a covering violence with his garment. All therefore that I can say is that the Jewish Expositors in giving the meaning of these words, are (as we said) somwhat perplex and obscure. Let us see if the Christians speak more plainly.

They that render as ours in the Text, or to that purpose, for the Lord saith he hateth putting away; for one (or and, or but he) covereth violence with his garment, must make this the meaning, that what he doth is hateful, though he hath for a covering or pretence, that the c Law permitted to put away his wife, whom he did not like. For though God, to prevent greater mischief of cruelty and Polygamy, did permit, or rather leave unpunished by the Politick Magistrate the doing so, d yet for all that, it was still hateful in his eies, really violence and iniquity, however, he might cover it with that cloak of permission in the Law. And so if it be read (as in our Margin) if he hate her, put her away, to the same meaning follows, e yet the use of this permission is only a covering of violence with a politick coverture; and not a thing pleasing to God. Or f as others, and let him cover violence with his garment, i. e. with a bill of divorce, which is likened to a garment, because as a garment defends the body from the injury of weather, and covers the shame; so that served to defend her, that was put away, from that cruelty, or hard usage which she should find, if retained; and from that contumely and disgrace, which she would otherwise be obnoxious too: and therefore g some look on the putting their wives away, without that covering of a bill of divorce, as the violence or injury here meant.

From what hath been said will easily result what Calvin takes to be the import of these words, That God doth not in them shew any approbation of divorce, yet that seeing he had connived at it in his Law, h it would be a less fault then the taking in strange illegal idolatrous wives with their lawful Israelitish wives. And the same meaning i they seem to aim at, who by violence understand the Israelitish wife retained for a cover, though hated and abused, and having another taken in above her, though Calvin thinks that a very forced Interpretation. To these may be added, because they follow the same order in construction of the words, such who yet give a far different meaning of the phrase, by taking the Preposition [...] Al in its most usual signification for upon or above, and so render the words as a k proverbial Speech, and he hideth violence upon his garment, i. e. though he pretend the l [...]berty of the Law in divorcing his wife, yet his doing so is a mafest violence or injury, no more to be hid then what a man bears or holds on the outside of his garment. But this will be much the same meaning which they give, who clean differently order the words in the construction, which, as we have seen, the vulgar Latin and others do, rendring, but violence shall cover his garment, i. e. l for all his bill of divorce, it is still open violence and an injury, which will not, or cannot be concealed: or, taking with m others violence or iniquity for the punishment of violence; for all that, the punishment of his violence or injury done to his wife, shall be made conspicuous to all, n both the fault and the punishment shall cover (or be overspread over) his garment, and his body too (as Jerome by the garment understands the body, which is as the garment of the soul;) and make him infamous to all. o Others, the iniquity of his wife (made known by his divorcing her) shall cover his garment, defend him from that infamy which his wife did asperse him with.

This Exposition seems not much to the purpose; as neither that of p theirs, who would have it, If he hate her, put her away, saith the Lord, who covereth violence as with his garment, by permitting to put her away with a bill of divorce. Lud. de Dieu, having considered these words, and asserted▪ this construction of them, and violence (or wrong) covereth (or hath covered) his garment, giveth as his opinion for the meaning of them, ‘That God here reproveth them, for that, whereas they with their garment ought to have covered their wives; violence or wrong did cover their garment, whilst they did treacherously hate their wives, and put away those whom they hated, that they might marry strange wives: or else, that by these words, violence covereth his garment, is denoted the filthiness of adultery, wherewith he was wholly covered, according as the garment spotted by the flesh is taken, Jude vers. 23.’ To which his meaning he maketh way, by observing, That in matters concerning wedlock, the name of garment is used for fidelity and conjugal protection, as Ezek. XVI.8. I spread my skirt over thee, &c. and Ruth III.9. Spread thy skirt over thy handmaid: and so concerning the use of the marriage bed, is used the expression, To discover the skirt of the garment, Deut. XXII.30.

In all this variety presented to the Readers view, he may judge what meaning will best [Page] satisfy him, and seem to give the fullest sense of the words. For my part I must profess my self not fully satisfied with any of them, and am of opinion, that by this figurative and perhaps proverbial expression, (which then when uttered was well understood, though not so at this distance of time) was somthing meant, which none of our Expositors give: concerning which though I have nothing confidently to affirm, yet I shall make bold to propose a conjecture, which I suppose will, as concerning the use of the words, be easily made probable. The conjecture is this, that by the words, taking that construction of them which we have seen, Abraham Aben Ezra, and Rabbi Tanchum to afford, and which seems to be among all that are given the plainest, viz, He hateth putting away, and he hateth to cover (or rather to put, or that one should put as a covering, or superinduce) violence over his garment; is meant the superinducing or marrying an illegitimate wife, over (or with, or above) his legitimate first wife. So that by violence may be signified a second wife, with wrong to the former taken in with her, and by his garment, his former wife lawfully taken. For making which use of the words probable, to begin first with the last word, we may observe, besides what hath been already mentioned of the use, if not of the very word, yet of another of like signification in matter of wedlock, that which (according to the simplest exposition of the words) is by Abimelech said, Gen. XX.16. That Abraham was to Sarah his wife a covering of the eies, i. e. saith the Chalde, a covering of honor. And by like reason that the husband may be said to be to the wife a covering of the eies, to keep her from looking after others, or others from looking after her, may the wife be said, to be to the husband a covering of the eies, to keep him from looking after any woman but her. If this be not enough to prove such accommodation to man and wife of words signifying covering or garment, in the language of those times; yet if one Eastern language may serve for illustrating and giving testimony to the expressions of another of so nigh affinity to it, that they may be accounted almost one, and one but a dialect of the other, as the Arabick is to the Hebrew, so esteemed by the Jewish Writers, and therefore usually had recourse to for finding out the use and signification of Hebrew words, where any doubt or difficulty occurs; then here will the Arabick Tongue help us, and teach us to pronounce boldly of such words, as signify a garment or covering, that they are applied to signify man or wife respectively. So saith a learned q Grammarian, that [...] Hollah, which signifies an upper garment or robe, is used to denote a wife; and so likewise [...] Lebas (which answers to the Hebrew word [...] Lebush here used) to denote either the husband or wife respectively; and he cites a testimony out of the Alcoran it self, (wherein he that compiled it endeavors very often to imitate Scripture expressions:) as if God should say to the men [...] Honna lebas lacom, waantom lebas lahonna, they, i. e. your wives, are a garment to you, and you are a garment to them. And why might not this figurative signification also be allowed anciently, to this and like words in the Hebrew Tongue, from which the Arabick might borrow it? And if by his garment here be understood his wife, 'twill easily be thought, that by violence or wrong, may be denoted another strange wife, with open injury taken in with, or above her. The name proper for such a superinducted wife, is in the same Arabick language of nigh signification to it, which is [...] Darrah, which, as other Nouns from the same root, signifies hurt, affliction, oppression, force, and the like; as r also in the Hebrew Tongue, in which such a wife is called [...] Tsarah, one that afflicteth, is enemy to, or doth injure, and oppress the other. Whence in the Law is forbidden to take one wife to another, [...] Litzror, to vex her, Levit. XVIII.18. Now that the Noun signifying violence or wrong, or oppression, should in the abstract be taken for one that doth violence or wrong, is no marvel, it being very usual to put Nouns signifying goodness or badness, or the like, in the abstract, for such as are eminent in those kinds good or bad, profitable or hurtfull: and so violence for a wife, that will certainly do wrong or violence; or by taking of which, violence or wrong is necessarily done to the former wife; with more reason, I suppose (though much the like) then s some by violence take to be meant the former wife violently retained, and not dismissed, that she might be married by another. And if garment may be used for a wife, then the Verb signifying to cover, or put on a garment, (as [...] Cissah here) may by the same reason be well used for the taking a wife. And these things being allowed (as I know not why they should not be) as to the signification of the words, then will the meaning which we have given be plain, as to the reading of the foregoing words, which is the Text of our Translation, For the Lord saith he hateth putting away, and for a man to take a strange (a wrongfull injurious) wife, above (or with) his lawfull former wife. For the Particle [...] Al is t noted to signify as well [...] im, i. e. with, as over or above, the sense will be all one: and as to the marginal reading it will well agree with that also thus, If he hate her, let him put her away: he may have some color from the permission of the Law so to do, but he doth not [Page] that, but retaining her, though he hates her, takes over her, or together with her, another strange idolatrous injurious wife, which is a greater wrong and violence offered to her: or, but by him another wrongfull wife is taken with or above his former legal wife; to fit it to that construction, violence covereth, &c.

Another meaning might be, according to the same notion, given agreeable to that construction, let him put her away, and cover the wrong towards, or against, his wife, called his garment, viz. by a Bill of Divorce; so that [...] Al may signify towards or against.

The same meaning will be easily applied to such other rendrings, as are given and warranted by the scope of the place, as coming fully home to it, which, from the 10th verse to these inclusively, is a reproof of the Jews of that time, for their injury done to their lawfull Israelitish wives, by either illegally putting them away, that they might take the daughters of a strange God; or else if they did retain them, yet secretly hating them, and taking in above them such strange idolatrous wives, whom, with manifest injury to their former, they did shew more affection to, and make, as it were, Mistresses over them. And this the u Jews think to be all that is meant, accounting both divorce, and taking more Israelitish wives, not to be (for all that is said) any way prohibited, or displeasing to God. But to us learning from x Christ the true import of the Scriptures, it will be more absolutely a prohibition from God, both of the one and the other, viz. both Divorce and Polygamy; which having shewed how hatefull it is to him, he concludes with a repetition of his injunction or Caveat given in the foregoing verse, Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you deal not treacherously: take heed to your selves as you love your souls, and the preservation of your spirits, that ye offend not by indulging to your unbridled lusts in either of these kinds, and prevaricate against the sacred tie of Wedlock, by God instituted for the joining one to one, in an indissoluble knot of affection in legal manner. And this till some plainer way be shewn we embrace, as the fullest and properest meaning of this verse, it being agreeable both to the construction and signification of the words, and manifest scope of the place.

17 ¶ Ye have wearied the Lord with your words: yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? when ye say, Every one that doth evil, is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them; or where is the God of judgment?

Ye have wearied the Lord with your words, &c.] A Jewish y Doctor notes this to be another Section, and the things therein spoken to belong to the time to come, and so z some others make it the beginning of a new Chapter, as not having dependance on the preceding words, but referring rather to what follows in the next Chapter, in which is an answer to the doubts they raise, and a vindication of Gods justice, which they seem here to call in question: yet may there well enough be a connexion made between them and the preceding words too, if we look on them as a defence of their obstinacy in not hearkning to God, or the Prophet in his Name, reproving them for such faults as have been hitherto mentioned; for that a there seemed to them no such care taken by God of what men did, when they saw those that did otherwise then he commanded, yea more plainly wicked and disobedient, to prosper as much or more then others, that made more conscience of their waies, and therefore there was no necessity to them of amending their waies, or ceasing to do what they did. Or as Abarbinel makes the transition from the former words to these, that, after he had reproved them for their evil deeds, both Priests and People, he here proceeds to reprove them for their words and thoughts, which were even worse and more wicked then their deeds; in that the wicked ones of that generation did return in answer to the reproofs of the Prophet, There is neither judgement nor Judge, God hath left the Earth. His reproof of them, therefore, for this he gives, saying, Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Here is by several of the b Jews noted (as well as by others) that this is spoken figuratively according to the language of men, or in such as is passable among men, but cannot be properly, said of God, who cannot be wearied. It denotes that their words were such as would weary any man in autority, and provoke him to anger, and so did provoke God to deal so with them, as that by the effects they might judge him to be weary of hearing from them such words, and could no longer endure them: which is that which the Greek expresses by rendring it, who have provoked the Lord to wrath. Rabbi Tanchum thus expounds it, Ye have caused a restraint of his (care and) providence, or caused him to withhold his providence from ordering your affairs, by doing such things as he cannot bear, according to what is said, I cannot away with it, &c. Isa. I.13. and again, I am weary to bear them, v. 14. Abarbinel thinks there is no necessity of making any c Metaphor or figure in this speech, but that it may be understood, not that God [Page] was wearied by their words, but that they in saying what they did, did ascribe to him weariness and impotency, and defect in his power and providence: for if he did not know what wicked men did, or did not regard it, or would not, or could not hinder or punish it, this would argue him weary, impotent, and deficient. Which of the two waies of expounding this word we take, will not be much material, nor make any difference in the sense or coherence with the following words. But there is no reason to depart from the first and more followed way.

The Prophet thus reproving them as faulty in this kind, they are represented, as impudently denying themselves so to be, or to have spoken any words, that should be so offensive, Yet ye say, wherein have we wearied him? (or according to the other way, whereby have we attributed to him weariness or impotency?) Or if we interpret the words as others to include a supposition of what he knowing their evil thoughts, saw they would be apt to say, If ye shall say, Wherein, &c. He gives them an answer in which he declares what it was they said, or thought to the affronting of God, and highly provoking him, when ye say, Every one that doth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them, or, where is the God of Judgement? It is easily supposed, though not exprest, that they, seeing the prosperous condition of some openly wicked men, not only of the idolatrous Nations, as d some would have it, but among themselves also, they being e preferred in dignity above others, and florishing more then themselves, who in their own conceits, were much better deserving; took thence occasion of uttering these blasphemous words, f contrary to what the Prophets affirmed concerning God's Justice and Judgments on sinners, thus retorting, and contradicting them, ‘It is not certainly, as you say, but on the contrary, such as do evil are good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them, it so appears by their prospering; and where then is the judgement of that just Judge, that you tell us of? which yet R. Tanchum thinks not to imply that they utterly denied the being of such a Judge, (for then it would not have been added, And where is, &c.) but spoke by way of contradiction to what they heard from the Prophets, as a proof of God's slow proceeding in his ordering and disposing of things. And in giving this sense, he takes the particle [...] O, or, to be, as if it were, the Copulative [...] Ve, and.’ By others, he saith, the meaning is thus given, as if they did say, thus or thus; sometimes every one that doth evil is good in the sight of God, and he delighteth in them; at other times, where is the God of Judgement? and by others, If it be not so as we say, where then is the God of Judgment? In these waies of exposition by him given, is comprehended most of what is said by other Expositors ancient and modern, they following the same way in construction of the words. But a late learned g man thinketh it more convenient and agreeable to the nice rules of Grammar, to render the former words, when ye say every one that h maketh evil, (or, the evil) to be good, i. e. with him that saith of evil, or of him that is evil, that it, or he, is good in the sight of God; God is delighted; or, he that so saith is acceptable to God. But this doth not make much difference, as to the scope or intent of what blasphemy they are charged with: viz. that they should make God a favorer of wicked persons. He differs from others likewise in his opinion, concerning the rendring of that particle [...] O, which is rendred or (and R. Tanchum would have rendred And, as he saith it elsewhere signifies, viz. i Lev. IV.24, and and 28.) and would have it to be taken for a particle of exclamation, O; and so that and the following words to be the words of the Prophet, admiring the patience of God, who so patiently bears with so great impiety, and doth not punish this their blasphemy. But though in his Notes on Isa. XXVII.4. he make it probable that this particle may sometimes so signify, yet whether it ought here so to be used (especially, making, as he doth, the following words, where is the God of Judgement? to be the Prophets words) may seem questionable, inasmuch as then the Prophet would seem guilty in the same kind that those whom he reproves were; viz. in questioning Gods justice, as shewing favor to wicked men, they did it because God seemed in their eies to favor others more wicked than themselves, more than he did them; he should do but much the same, because God so much favored, or bare with them. But if any will have it so rendred, I should rather think the following words should still be the words of those wicked men, as others take them to be; and then the sense will be but the same, as if it were rendred or, or and, only with a little more vehemency; and either a denying or complaining of the slowness of Gods Justice: They thus (probably, as we said, in defence of their own obstinacy in persevering in those evil waies, for which the Prophets reproved them,) k arguing, ‘What need we fear, though we go on in such courses, as you reprove us for? do we not see those, that do that, which you call evil, prosper? so that we may well conclude, either that their doings are well liked of by God; or else, if it be not so, [Page] where is the God of Judgment? sure either there is no such, (as Abarbinel notes this way of speaking to denote the not-being of a thing;) or else he is very negligent and slow in his executing judgement: else why doth he suffer so long such things, and not punish them?’ (so those scoffers, II Pet. III.4. where is the Promise of his coming?) so intimating, that from the ill ordering of things in distributing of justice, they thought either that God saw the evil things that were done, and was not displeased with them: or else did not see them, nor regarded them, and so was not a God of judgement. Such impious sayings of theirs he shews that God was highly offended at, for their undertaking to be judges of the Seasons and circumstances, which he hath reserved the l judgement of to his own knowledge and power, and to subject the depths of his judgments to their own shallow reason; and with this reproof of them is this Chapter concluded. But out of his great condescension in the next Chapter, he returns such an answer to these their causeless objections, as may teach them to discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not; as he speaks is the 18th verse of that Chapter.

Grotius interprets what is rendred, ye have wearied, &c. by ye will weary, &c. and when ye say, by in that ye will say, &c. viz. so as to be a foretelling of their behavior in that interval, that they should now be without Prophets and Miracles for many years, between the time that this was spoken, and the coming of that Messenger and Lord, in the next Chap. vers. 1. spoken of. And it is but reason, and agreeable to the words, that we should take in, together with what the Jews had done, since their return into their Country, and with what at present they did, all that they should do in that time, God foresaw what they would say or do, as already said or done. But to pass by all that was in that time done, and to look on the words, as reporting by way of Prophecy what is now by them done in their present dispersion, after the real completion of these Prophecies, as some m Jews do, (according to what R. Tanchum thinks convenient, both here and Chap. III.14.) is wholly to elude this Prophecy; as then spoken, and to make void all that we beleive, and all that the history of the times testifies of the completion of it, by the coming of Christ, and the destruction of the Jews in the following words threatned, and to perswade us to look after that, which they vainly do, as if Christ were not yet come, but we were to look for another, to shut our eies against what hath been, and to look for what shall never be, to take off the Prophets words from the times that they concerned, and apply them to such as began not till all that he spake was manifestly fulfilled, so making by a perverse method the end to be the beginning. Though they be now guilty of the same sin that the men of that generation then were, yet are not they the men then particularly spoken of and designed.

CHAP. III.

[Page]

‘VERS. 1. Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple: even the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.’

BEHOLD I will send my Messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me, &c.] How these words depend on those foregoing, with which the former Chapter is concluded, hath been already intimated, viz. that here is an answer given to that blasphemous question of those perverse ones of that time, who from what they saw of the prosperity and florishing condition of such whom they looked on, as deserving other usage, took thence occasion of questioning Gods Justice; God assuring, that there should come a time, wherein they should perceive that he was no favorer of wicked men, or their practises; a time, wherein he would by his executing his just judgement on them, shew that he took due notice all along of what was done by them, though he might seem for a while to connive at it; and that time should be at the coming of a righteous King, whom he should raise up to set things in order, viz. the King Messiah: as I choose to utter in the words of a Jewish a Expositor, that so it may appear, even by confession of his Enemies, That the words are a most illustrious Prophecy of Christ, by which this last of Prophets before Christs coming, assured them of, and warned them to expect his coming: for which to prepare them, they should have no more Prophets sent them, till a Messenger, which should immediatly before his coming, appear to prepare his way before him. How this Prophecy was in its due time fulfilled, the History of the Gospel clearly and fully shews: so that there is nothing in the cavils of the Jews, or any other that acknowledge not the truth thereof, that can raise to us any doubt, as to the scope and true meaning of the whole; though in the explaining of the particular words may be some difference; which as far as may seem convenient, we shall take notice of, in going them over as they lie in order.

Behold [saith God] I will send.] Others translate, I do send, as more agreeable to the letter; and so also is it recited in the New Testament; as, Matth. XI.10. Mar. I.2. Luk. VII.27. Because the thing, though not done or in present doing, when these words were spoken, yet was assuredly to be done; and was therefore spoken of in the present tense. But ours, in regard that it was after a time to be fulfilled, express it not unfitly in the future, I will send, as agreeable to the sense, and not disagreeable to the letter, which will well enough bear either; seeing the Participle, as is here [...] Sholeach, sending (Behold I sending, i. e. am sending, or will send) is frequently used to denote the present Tense, but b somtimes the future also.

[...] Malachi.] Which signifies either my Angel, or my Messenger, the word signifying both an Angel and a Messenger, an Angel because a Messenger, agreeable to the root of the word, of which see Ch. I.1. and II.7. from which our Prophet had his name Malachi: it is here rightly rendred my Messenger.

My Messenger.] Who is designed by this title we Christians cannot doubt, it being in those forecited places in the Gospel, expresly attributed to John the Baptist: and he in two of them, viz. Matth. and Luke, is plainly said by Christ himself to be him of whom this was written. But the unbeleiving Jews denying Christ, whose Messenger this was to be, are at a loss likewise concerning this Messenger: and by disagreeing among themselves so far as they do▪ and by the absurdity of what they affirm, shew that they are either all ignorant of the truth, or will none of them confess it, as by a brief view of them we may see. R. Salomo Jarchi interprets it (if Abarbinel give us the meaning aright) of the c Angel of death, who shall take the wicked out of this life to be sent into Hell torments. In the copies of him that we have, are no such words expressed, but only My Messenger, to take out of the way, or cut off the wicked. [...], and so accordingly interprets the Angel of the Covenant, an Angel that shall revenge the [breach of the] Covenant. Which Exposition of his so understood, the same Abarbinel thinks, though true in the general (that however the wicked here may prosper, yet after death vengeance shall certainly be taken on them) yet not to agree to this place, where is a Prophecy of a signal particular day, and not that which is continually and necessarily seen, and alwaies was, and will be so, without any new remark to be ushered in with a Behold, as of a new notorious thing: as is likewise intimated to be pointed out here in what follows, But who [Page]may abide the day of his coming, &c. And he shall purify the Sons of Levi, &c. which are not things properly and peculiarly denoting the state of Souls after death.

Aben Ezra saith that it is probable, that by this Messenger is meant Messiah the son of Joseph. But it is so far from being probable so to be, that it is most certain it is not so. For what is that Messiah the Son of Joseph, but a mere figment of their own brain, whom they suppose to be of the Tribe of Ephraim, on whom they may fasten those Prophecies, which foretell of the sufferings of Christ, that so they may take them off from Messiah the Son of David, to whom they will have none but glorious and triumphant things to pertain? as if they could not belong to one person, who through d sufferings should enter into his glory. And this they do without any ground or warrant from Scripture, only that they may deny our Christ to be the true and only Messiah, by the Prophets spoken of: so that to us, who believe the Gospell, this signifies nothing, nor hath in it any thing that may make it probable, so far as in this place to be embraced by others of their own profession. R. D. Kimchi thinks that by this Messenger is meant an Angel from Heaven; ‘If, saith he, ye ask concerning the judgement of the wicked in this World, there shall come a time that you shall see, and then he will draw near to you for judgement to consume the wicked that are among you: and that shall be the day when I will send my Angel, and he shall prepare (or clear) the way before me, and he shall be an Angel from Heaven, as it is written, Behold, I send my Angell before thee to keep thee in the way, &c. Exod. XXIII.20. and he shall clear the way before me: this shall be in the gathering (or restoring) the captivity, so as that they shall not find in their way any adversary, or evil occurrent.’ This Exposition of his appears, not to have pleased Abarbinel, by his taking no notice of it, when yet of his Exposition of the other words he doth; and by that he himself gives another far different from that or the others that have been mentioned: wch is, ‘That by this Messenger is meant the Prophet himself that here utters these words from God, whose name is the same word here used, viz. [...] Malachi, and being interpreted signifies, my Angell, or my Messenger:’ which cannot but seem strange to any, that the Prophet speaking of things to come, should be thought to prophesy of himself. But, to put the best color he can upon his opinion, he would perswade men, that Interpreters are out in interpreting these words wholly of the time to come, but that they are to be understood partly of what was at present, partly of what was to come, partly of what was past: of what was present, Behold I send Malachi my Prophet; of what was to come, The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come, viz. the Shecinah or majestatick glorious presence; of what was past, And the Messenger of the Covenant, whom ye delight in (viz. the King of Persia) hath already come: as if, to stop their murmurings by reason of the prosperity of the wicked, he had now sent the Prophet Malachi to tell them what punishment is determined for those wicked hereafter; (as in the following part of the Chapter he will shew) and so to clear the way before him by solving their question, Where is the God of Judgement? And seeing they murmured, because the Shecinah, or glorious presence did not appear in the Temple they had now built; (in which were wanting the Shecinah, and glory, and fire from Heaven, and answer by Vrim and Thummim, which were in the former Temple;) and objected that Gods Providence was removed from them, and all things were ill ordered; therefore to assure them, that the Shecinah should assuredly come again into the Temple that should hereafter be built, he saith, And the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come into his Temple, there shall his glory and majestatick presence dwell, even that Lord which they now sought in their murmurings. And for a proof of this, and that this promise should certainly be performed, he instanceth in what they had already seen in what concerned the King of Persia, who was the Lords Angell, or Messenger, and Messiah or Anointed, for destroying of Babylon, and bringing back the dispersed of the Jews to Jerusalem, according to what Esay prophecied of him, and made with them a Covenant of peace: of whom therefore he saith, And the Messenger of the Covenant whom ye delight in, i. e. to honor and love him, do you not see, that he came according as was promised to you? so shall the Lord, whom ye seek, come suddenly and unawares, in the time of redemtion and gathering of the captivity, &c.

This is his meaning, as far as I can make it out in his Commentary on this place; and I suppose I have faithfully given it, and the giving of it is a sufficient confutation of it: so doth he distract the construction of the words, so blend and intermingle them with strange notions; that as he rejects the opinions of others of his own profession, so I suppose none of them will embrace this of his. All that we can gather from this, or any yet named, is, that they, not willing to see or acknowledg the truth, which the Christians instructed by the Gospell embrace, do strive to go as far from it as they can; mean while taking such [Page] different waies, and disagreeing among themselves, as that it is manifest they had no one probable thing to insist on.

There is yet another opinion among them, (which Abarbinel glanceth on for a reserve, as a possible one, if the other of his own be not thought sufficient, although he doth not so apply it as others do) and that perhaps much ancienter then any of these we have yet seen; and such as by a right interpretation of the words, though not according to their meaning, might be reconciled to the truth. And that is, e ‘That by this Messenger is meant he who, Chap. IV.5. is called Eliah, whom some of them would have to be Eliah the Tishbite in person: others, not necessarily so, but some great Prophet like him in degree, and therefore called by his name.’ So the often cited R. Tanchum reports their opinion on that place, Chap. IV. where will be occasion to speak again of it. That this opinion among them was ancient we learn, not only out of their own records, but out of the Gospell also, Mat. XVII.10. where we hear the Disciples asking Christ, Why then say the Scribes that Eliah must first come? their opinion then was, that before Christ Elias ought to come, as a Messenger and Forerunner: and Christ doth not say they were out in expecting such a one, as was to be looked on as Elias; but in this that they did not acknowledge him that was under that name expected to be already come, saying, Elias was truly first to come: but that indeed he was already come, and they knew him not, &c. By which answer his Disciples understood, that he spake unto them of John the Baptist, of whom also he had before told them, and the whole People, that he was he of whom it is written, Behold I send my Messenger before thy face, &c. Mat. II.10. and the Elias which was for to come. To those Jews, therefore, who are of the last opinion mentioned, we have from those words of our Saviour a ready answer, and to any objection that they shall raise from it, against their believing this Prophecy to be fulfilled, and the Messiah to be come. Whereas f some of them, making it an argument in that kind, say, that this Prophecy is not fulfilled, because Elias is not in person come, and therefore neither the Messias; we refer them for answer to those of their own Sect, who confess that neither these, nor those other words of Malachi, nor any other Prophecy, require that Elias should come in person, but only some great Prophet or prophetical man in degree like to Elias. And then to these, if they say that not any such hath yet appeared, we say, Yes, there hath, and that John the Baptist was he, for he came before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elias, to make ready a People prepared for the Lord, Luc. I.17. He was by all that then lived and beheld his works, counted and holden for a Prophet, Mat. XIV.5. and XXI.26. yea, he was more then a Prophet, then whom there was not a greater risen among them that were born of women, Mat. XI.9, 11. so great, that they doubted whether he were not the Messiah himself.

What was required from this Messenger, and from him that was promised under the name of Elias, viz. that he should prepare the way for the Lord, he did fully make good by preaching repentance, Mat. III.2. by baptizing unto repentance, vers. 11. by bearing witness to Christ, and pointing him out to the People, that they might beleive on him, Joh. I.29. &c. if there be any thing in that ancient g Tradition of theirs, that Eliah was to prepare the Messiah to his office; that may be said to have been fulfilled by John's baptizing Christ before he began to preach, at which baptizing the Holy Ghost descended on him visibly from Heaven. But this is besides the expression of the Scripture, and so not to the present words. John then being such as to his person, and so having performed that office, for which it is said here that he should be sent, what can it be but mere obstinacy to deny him to be the Lords Messenger here prophesied of? and what can they expect in any, which was not in him found?

From the time of this Prophecy till the time of its completion by the Lords sending him, was their opinion true; that such a one, who for his excellency and the spirit with which he was to be endowed, might be called Eliah, was to come as a Messenger and a forerunner of the Messiah, to prepare his way before him: but since these things have been all fulfilled, still by virtue of the same Prophecy, to expect another, denying him, is great perversness. According to their own rule, h that Prophecies and promises of God are at their manifestation to be discerned and acknowledged as fulfilled, they ought so to discern and acknowledge this, and could not but so do, did they not willingly shut their eies, because they will not accept of Christ. God be thanked, who hath opened our eies by the Gospell, so as to acknowledge this Messenger, who by what is therein declared, is evidently approved to be John Baptist. He it is, without doubt, of whom he here saith, my Messenger. So our Translation renders it, others rendring my Angell. The word is indeed that which is used to signify an Angell, but as well likewise any other Messenger or Ambassador; (from a root that signifies to send:) and that signification of Messenger is by our Translators well chosen to put in this place, as taking away or preventing those needless questions, which from rendring it an [Page]Angell, might be raised: as, How John was an Angel? or, Why called so? which is i reported anciently to have given occasion, to some, of an erroneous opinion, that he was not only so by office, but by nature also.

The word [...] Pinnah, which ours and others (agreeably also to what is in the Gospels) render prepare, is from a root Panah, that hath also the signification of looking on, and is therefore by the Greek in this place, according to that, rendered [...], shall look on; and so by the printed Arabick, which therein follows them. Which certainly cannot be so agreeable to the meaning, except we extend it so far as to understand by it, to look to it, so as that it be as it should be, which then will be the same with preparing. But the word in that form that it is here, is not used for to look and consider, or the like; but to clear and make clean, to prepare by removing what is amiss or offensive: so likewise used Esay, XL.3. Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight a high way: which words are likewise applied to the same John Baptist's office here spoken of, Mat. III.3. and Mar. I.3. and Luc. III.4. and he shewed to make good what is thereby required, by calling to repentance, and by preaching the Baptism of repentance, for putting away those sins which might hinder them from receiving Christ, and so were obstacles in his way. And in that place it is rendered by the Greek also prepare, and so probably they might here do.

Having observed these words to be cited by the Evangelists, we cannot but take notice that in them they are cited something differently from what is read here: for whereas here he saith, my Messenger, and before me, or my face, in the first person, as speaking of himself; there it is still said before thy face, and thy way before thee, as speaking to, and of another. Which hath caused some question to be made, which of the persons of the Trinity here speaks, whether God the Father, or Christ. But though it be true what k some here observe, that such works of the Trinity, as are external and common to all the persons, and not proper to one, may indifferently be attributed to either; yet the plainest way of expounding these words here seems to be, to look upon them, as spoken here (as well as in the Evangelists) by God the Father concerning Christ; here of him, there expresly to him. And then the saying here, my Messenger, before me; and there thy way, before thee, making the same way to be called Gods way here, and l Christs there, affords us an evident proof, that Christ is one God with the Father, m and that in Christ God came, and was manifest in the flesh.

For the proving the same, viz. That Christ is one with God the Father, some n would take from what is here said, before my face, an argument, thence proving that Christ is called The face of God: but o others observe, that according to the use of the Hebrew Tongue, before my face, is no more then, before me. And therefore our Translators so rendring it, shew, that they thought not in the word my face to be included any argument for proving the Divinity of Christ, on which any great stress ought to be laid: and they that think it, ought to shew p how then the words, as here uttered by the Prophet, and as cited in the Gospels, may be reconciled. For if by my face be here meant that Christ is the face of God, who then shall be there understood by thy face? who shall be called the face of Christ? It follows,

And the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his Temple, &c.] Who by this Lord is meant is agreed on, on all hands by Christian Interpreters: viz. that it is Christ, whom God hath made both Lord and Christ, Act. II.36. and who is Lord over all, ibid. X.36. q by whom all things were made, by whom all things are sustained and governed; who is (as the root of the word imports) the basis and foundation, not of any private family, Tribe or Kingdome, but of all; by whom are all things, and we by him, I Cor. VIII.6. and whose we are also by right of Redemption; and so he is Lord of Lords, and King of Kings, Rev. XVII.14. and XIX.16. deservedly entituled The Lord.

Among the Jews there are some who understand it more generally of God; so R. Salomo, The God of Judgement, R. Aben Ezra, The God of glory; and so Abarbinel, The glorious Name, i. e. the glorious God, whose words may be by a Christian well interpreted also of Christ, though not so by them meant. But others of them more plainly agreeing so far with us, expresly say, he is the King Messiah, so Kimchi; yea r [...] Bela shaccin, that without doubt it is meant of the Messiah: and so say we, though as to his person, and the right of his title to that appellation of Lord, they will not agree with us. This Lord is described by that Epithet, whom ye seek, which may be referred to what is before said, where is the God of Judgement? as an answer to that question, and is therefore by s some looked on, as if it were spoken in ill part, as much as to say, whom ye scoffingly seek, saying, Where is he? Why doth he not shew himself? Although it may be (as by many learned men it is) taken; as spoken of a serious expectation, and seeking of the promised Messiah, by many, if not the generality of the People, whom all along from of old they longed and l [Page] waited for, according as that saying of Jacob, I haue waited for thy Salvation, O Lord, Gen. XLIX.18. and what we read of Simeon, Luc. II.25. that he waited for the consolation of Israel, and ver. 38. that Anna spake of him (being brought into the Temple) to all them that looked for Redemption in Jerusalem, manifestly shews that there t was such a seeking, a waiting and longing for the promised Shilo among them by such as seriously wished for it, as well as others did in scoff ask after him, or murmure at his delay.

Of him that was so sought, it is said, as to the circumstance of time, that he should suddenly come▪ i. e. suddenly after that his Messenger had come and prepared the way before, as Christ did after John Baptist's preaching: or suddenly, i. e. unawares, when men should not think on, or be aware of him, as Kimchi takes the word here to signify; the time being not precisely in the Prophets determined, according to what is said in Daniel, The words are closed up and sealed, till the time of the end, Chap. XII.9. Whence perhaps it is that the Jews reckon the Messiah among the things that come v unawares, or when men think not of them: and in this sense, as it is here said of his first coming, so it is said of his second coming, which perhaps may be comprehended under this here spoken of, that except they diligently watch for it, it shall come upon them unawares, Luc. XXI.36. suddenly, Mar. XIII.36. in such an hour as they think not, Mat. XXIV.44. So doubtless shall his last coming at the day of Judgement be; which is that alone which the unbelieving Jews, having overslipt the former, here mentioned, without taking notice of it, can now (whatever they vainly promise to themselves, as if this Lord were not at all yet come) farther expect; as farther appears by the circumstance of the place, to which it is here said, He shall come, that is, his Temple. However, by his Temple, some x have anciently understood Christs human nature, or body, of which he spake, Joh. II.21. or his Church; or all faithfull believers, who are called likewise the Temple of God, I Cor. III.16. or the like; yet no doubt but here is meant that Temple at Jerusalem, built then lately (when these words were spoken) after their return from the Babylonish Captivity, which whatever alterations were made in it, was still looked on as one, till the time that it was destroyed by the Romans; and by the Jews called the second Temple in respect to that former built by Salomon, and destroyed by the Chaldeans. To this Temple it is here said that the Lord (here spoken of) should come; and so did Christ, whom we say to be that Lord: and of his coming to it, and his appearances there at severall times, we read: He was there first presented by his Mother, Luc. II.22. there again when he was twelve years old, found sitting among the Doctors, ver. 46. where, in his answer to his Mother, who told him that they had sought him sorrowing, he ma [...] seem to allude even to this Prophecy, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be [...], in my Fathers house? Was it not foretold that he should come to his Temple? was not that the proper place for him to be in, and for them to look after him in? Severall other times we read of his going to it, preaching in it, conducted to it, and received with a Hosannah's, and Blessed be he that cometh in the Name of the Lord: and in it a exercising his autority, as Lord of it, in purging it, and vindicating the dignity of it, and driving out thence those that profaned it. Any of these his appearances there, is sufficient to prove, in, and by him to have been made good, that which we take to be the main drift of this expression in this Prophecy: viz. that the Lord (Christ or Messiah) here spoken of, was to come while the Temple (that Temple then built) was standing. Which is likewise evidently foretold by the Prophet Haggai, Chap. II.7. that into it should come the desire of all Nations, and it should be filled with glory, yea, that thereby the glory of that later House should be greater then that of the former, ver. 9. though it were then in their eies as nothing in comparison of it, ver. 3.

b By vertue of these signal Prophecies it is without question, that those ancient Jews who lived before Christs coming, did expect that he should come while that Temple was standing. And it is evident that old Simeon, to whom it was revealed by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death till he had seen the Lord's Christ, who came by the spirit into the Temple, when Christ was thither first brought, and taking him in his arms blessed God, and desired of him then to depart in peace, because he had seen his Salvation; did so understand it; and that the Lord was now, according to this Prophecy, come to his Temple: he desired to see no more for the completion of it. And so holy Anna also, who coming in that instant into the Temple, gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all that looked for Redemption in Jerusalem. And what else is proclaimed by all those multitudes, who at his going to the Temple, and at his being in it, cried, Hosanna to the Son of David, Blessed is he that cometh in the Name of the Lord, Mat. XXI.9, and 15. but the same, viz. that the Lord was now come to his Temple? and so it is witnessed that according to this Prophecy, and that of Haggai, he was by the Jews of that time expected to [Page] come to that Temple then in being. And so to us do they together afford an unanswerable argument against the later Jews, all that have lived since that time, that that Temple was standing, and deny the Messiah to be yet come, thus; Messiah was to come while the Temple was standing, and therefore seeing the Temple hath so long since been destroyed, it is manifest that he is long since come, and in vain is now by them expected. For what is it else but blasphemously to accuse God speaking by his Prophets of falsehood? So poor a shift is it, which is all they have to flee to, to say that there is yet a third Temple to be expected, under which these Prophecies are to be fulfill'd; as that it cannot any way shake our Faith, but ought more to confirm it, while we see that they have for so many hundreds of years above a thousand, expected what they without any ground or warrant from Scripture look for. It cannot without wilfull blindness and obstinacy be denied, that the Temple here mentioned was that second Temple, and more plainly when Haggai looking on, and describing that Temple then built, saith expresly, this house; by this house, to understand a house after this (as Abarbinel doth) is such a perverting of words and meaning, as we cannot without loss of our own reason admit of. Yet this is the only salvo that they have, or can have. And this their great Doctor c Maimonides seems to make use of, when finding no Temple for their yet vainly expected Messias to come to, saith, ‘That the King Messiah shall hereafter come, and restore the Kingdom of the House of David to its old former estate, and shall build a Sanctuary or Temple, &c. and that in the same place where formerly it stood.’ And in that regard perhaps they will have it called his Temple (as here it is) and so shift off another argument against the Jews, who deny Christs divinity, which is by Christian d Interpreters hence usually taken, viz. that because the Temple is called his Temple, it is thereby made manifest, that he who should come to it as a man, was not only so, but God also; it being proper to God only to have Temples, or Houses of worship erected, and appropriated to him: and so we know that at Jerusalem to have been dedicated to the only true God. Here therefore it being called Christs Temple, it shews that he is true God, one with the Father. This argument, though pious and conclusive to Christians, yet a learned e man would not have to be much insisted on, as to the signification of the word [...] Heicul, inasmuch as it doth not only signify a Temple, or House, of worship, but also a Palace; and so he thinks the Jews may put it off by saying it signifies only, the Messiah shall come to his Palace. But I suppose they would not fly to that, I do not find any of them that do.

The ordinary Expositors that we have of them (as R. Salomo Jarchi, Aben Ezra, David Kimchi, as likewise R. Tanchum) do not at all meddle with interpreting this word: only Abarbinel (who, as we said, interprets the Lord, not of the Messiah, but of the Shecinah or glorious Presence of God, or God himself) explains it, to his [...] Heical, which is [...] Bebeith mikdasho, in his Sanctuary: by which he will have to be meant [...] Habbeith haatid, that house, or Temple, which is to come, or shall hereafter be built: or, as in his Commentary on Haggai he calls it, [...] Beith shelishi, the third house. By it then here I doubt not but they all understand it a Temple properly so called. But however they may otherwise seek to evade the force of this argument (and this I mean of them who confess by the Lord here to be meant the Messias;) whether by saying, it may be called his, because by him built (according to Maimonides) or because he should frequent it, or otherwise; certainly the other argument for proof of his being come, because the Temple, to which he was to come, is so long since destroyed, is unanswerable, and their talking of a third Temple, without any ground in Scripture, so long and still in vain expected by them, under which this Prophecy is to be made good, (as if it were not long since fulfilled, while that second Temple was standing, as we are assured that it was) is a mere dream of men choosing to themselves strong delusions. Which lest any of theirs by enquiring into it, should discover, they (weary, it appears, or ashamed of the length of the time of their vain expectation, or not knowing how they should satisfy such as should enquire into it;) have long since, by a severe way interdicted all such enquiries, by saying f [...] Tippach rucham (or Atsman) shel Mechashebe hakketsim, Let them burst (or, breathe out their souls) that enquire after the ends (or periods) and terms of time, viz. concerning the coming of the Messiah. And that perhaps may be the cause why their Expositors in this place say so little of it, viz. how, or when, the Lord should come to his Temple. Certainly without acknowledging Christ the true Messiah, and him to be come in the flesh, and both God and man, there cannot any thing be said that can give the true meaning, or shew what was requisit for the fulfilling of this Prophecy here, and that cited out of Haggai of such affinity with it. And no wonder to see them who willingly and obstinately decline the one only way of manifest truth, to run on in such different [Page] tracts of error. It follows in the Text,

Even the Messenger of the Covenant whom ye delight in.] Where our Translators rendring the copulative [...], which ordinarily signifies and, by even, give us to look on these words as a farther description of the same person who was called the Lord; and that is (as hath been said) Christ Jesus, who though he be one with his Father God eternal, yet humbled himself for mens sakes to be as a Messenger from his Father to them, to declare unto them his will, and to be unto him obedient in all things that he gave him to do. This proves not, that he is not one God with the Father, though as a Son he yielded obedience to him, and performed his work. Here is nothing in this that takes away either g unity of essence, or equality of power. So that we need not to depart from this notion of Messenger, or Angel, to render it Prince, as a learned h man, by the use of the word in another language , thinks it may be proved in the Hebrew, and here also to signify. It will come but to one pass, he is Prince of the Covenant, for the same reason that he is called Messenger, or Angell of it: which is because in him God founded the new Covenant of Grace, and by him as Mediator of it, administred it; he, not only declaring it, but ratifying it with his own Blood, and receiving into it as many as lay hold on him; even that new Covenant (of which he is Mediator, Heb. XII.24.) better then the old, and established on better promises, Heb. VIII.6, 8, &c. spoken of, Jer. XXXI.31. no more comprehending Jews alone, but Gentiles also. In which regard God saith of him, I will give thee for a Covenant of the People for a light of the Gentiles, &c. Isa. XLII.6. in whom he was reconciling the World unto himself, 2 Cor. V.19.

In this that we say, that it is b [...]t the same person who is called both Lord and Messenger, we have most of the Jewish Expositors consenting. So R. Salomo, and Aben Ezra and Kimchi, and R. Tanchum, and Abarbinel in a secondary Exposition; but yet in this divided among themselves, that i some of them say by both is meant God himself, i. e. God the Father, by others the Messiah. Against the former is hence an evident proof, that of God the Father it cannot be meant, because a Messenger is necessarily a distinct person from him that sends him. The Lord therefore and Messenger here spoken of, must, as we affirm of Christ, needs be so. As for those who interpret both, as we do, of the Messiah, though much differing from us, as concerning the nature of his person; yet there is no occasion to dispute with them concerning that here, in that they agree, that the person by both titles described is the Messiah. As for others, who take by the Lord to be meant one, by the Messenger of the Covenant, another; so vain and absurd are their fancies, that to name them will be sufficient confutation of them, as not only that uncouth as well as novel opinion of Abarbinel, making it to be the King of Persia, who had sent them home from their Babylonish Captivity; but also that of some more ancient, who would have to be meant Eliah, whom they would have to be called by that title, because he alwaies presides at the Rite of Circumcision, the sign of Gods Covenant with them, which they thus make out, ‘God seeing his zeal for Circumcision, when those of the ten Tribes were negligent of it, gave him this priviledge as a reward of his zeal, that that Sacrament should never be administred, but that he should oversee it, for which cause alwaies at every Circumcision they set a Chair of State for him, as being Angel, Messenger, or President of the Covenant, and so here called.’ A pretty story, whereby to delude themselves, and amuse the people from further enquiry after the truth, which if it were found only in trivial fabulous Books might pass as a fancy, but that it should be quoted by their serious and grave k Authors, as a thing pertinent to this place, and grounded on it, cannot but seem as strange, as it is groundless and ridiculous.

What is added, whom ye delight in, shews that with great longing they expected of old his coming, as a time that should bring much cause of joy and rejoycing to them: and what follows as repeated, Behold he shall come (or cometh) saith the Lord of hosts, shews the certainty of the thing, as sure as if it were already done. God engageth both his truth and power in it, he saies it, and every word of his is truth, and he that saies it, is the Lord of hosts, God of all power, and can and will effect whatsoever he saith.

Behold he cometh] not as Abarbinel (as we have seen) would have it, hath or is already come, that so he might apply it to the King of Persia, who made with them a Covenant of Peace; but [...] yabo, shall certainly come, [...] Bizmano, in his time, as Kimchi truly explains it. And not only so, but if we look on the place before named to which he should come, viz. his Temple, it will give us necessarily to understand, as to the time too; that he was to come while that Temple was yet standing, as Groti [...]s well observes.

And here before we proceed, it will be covenient to take notice what the same learned man suggests to us on the next verse, viz. That Christs coming, when spoken to, and of the Jews, denotes not only his first manifestation [Page] in the flesh, or the Temple; but all the time from his first preaching to the destruction of the City of Jerusalem, and of the Temple. Otherwise, more distinctly the word is applied to a l threefold coming of Christ, 1. His coming in the flesh, to be born among men. 2. His coming in Judgement for vengeance to his enemies, and deliverance of his Servants in this World, as he did come at the destruction of the Jews. 3. At the end of the World, at the day of Judgement. And so understanding it as particularly respecting the Jews, we shall easily perceive here a full and satisfactory answer to those murmurers and scoffers of those times, who seeing the prosperity of some wicked men (as it is in the last verse of the preceding Chapter) said, every one that doth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them, or, where is the God of Judgement? Though such who impiously question Gods Justice, deserve no other answer then to feel it, yet in much condescension he here vouchsafes them such an answer as to let them know, that though he doth not presently proceed, as they would have him, but seem to neglect or wink at the doings of wicked men; yet he is not negligent, but in his own appointed time will so order things, as shall make it manifest to all, that he took notice all the while of what was done. This time, as to them, he here expresses to be that coming of Christ, which is in these and the following words described; in which time was his just judgement signally executed before the whole World, as to what concerned their Nation: And so the question, why God suffers the wicked, oft, most to florish? as to them of that Nation, the People then by the Prophet spoken to and of, is fully decided by what was in that space of time by him brought to pass, so as to stop the mouth of any other, who shall in like blasphemous manner question his Justice; by warning them to leave to him his own time to execute his just Judgements, and rather to prepare themselves for that time, which certainly shall come upon them, then in any way to doubt of it.

The things here spoken do more particularly concern the Jews, but are to all, and to us, for examples, and are written for our admonition, God having several waies of executing his Judgements, but proceeding still according to the same rule of Justice. They likewise concern rather more general and national impieties, and judgements accordingly executed; yet so, as every particular man may thence take instruction, that none who taketh care of his waies, seeing such as are openly wicked to prosper and florish, should thence take occasion of murmuring and questioning Gods Justice, nor any wicked man that prospers in this World, should, because God suffers him so to do, for that justify himself, or think himself good in the sight of the Lord, or that God delighted in him, but be assured that a time will come, when God will execute just Judgement on him, however for a time he forbear him, and so deal with him in particular, as he here threatneth to do with the wicked of those times. He hath other waies of coming, besides that here spoken of: to every man, at his death, and after judgement, which though R. Salomo, as we have seen, doth ill in making the prime and literal meaning of this place, as he doth, yet so far he is true, that certainly God will by it come to every man in particular, and then judge and distinguish them according to the things that they have done, not the things that they have enjoied in this World. His deferring them till then is not a sign of his liking to them, but shall make (if they by repentance prevent it not) for their greater condemnation and misery, and so shall it appear that they are out, who for what they see them here to enjoy shall account them happy. See Luke XVI.25.

This may seem a digression, as not pertaining to the literal meaning of the words, yet may be not impertinent, in regard that both the present words and other passages after in this Chapter, cannot but suggest such consideration of Gods just Judgement both for private persons, and whole Societies of men, to us. That some m Christians anciently should interpret the word, come, in the first place, of Christs first coming, and in this second, of his coming to Judgement, cannot but seem strange. Doubtless, here is but one and the same coming spoken of, and the repetition of the promise of it, doth but confirm the certainty of it, and that was the first coming of his, then, when these words were spoken, to be expected by the Jews. The words will naturally bear no other sense.

2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiners fire, and like fullers sope.

But who may abide the day of his coming, &c.] By looking to what precedes in the last verse of the former Chapter, and the first of this, the connexion of these words with the former seems thus, The Jews of those times seeing (as they thought) all things out of order then amongst them, the godly oppressed and the wicked exalted, murmured against Gods Justice, and having had promises from God of one who should set all things to right, as doubting [Page] of the truth of those promises, seeing them so long deferred, ask'd, n Where is the God of Justice? where is the promise of his coming? He answereth them therefore, that he is not negligent of their affairs, nor slack concerning his promise, but what they counted slackness was long-suffering towards them, that they might be prepared for receiving that Lord whom they sought after, that Messenger of his Covenant, whose coming they longed to see, as expecting that then all things should go according to their desires, and they should have great cause of rejoicing, in seeing the wicked severely dealt withall, and themselves established in worldly prosperity and pleasure; mean while, not examining themselves how they were fit for such things as they expected. He therefore tells them, that certainly without any failing on his part, that Lord should come at his appointed time; but that before him also should come a Messenger to prepare his way before him, by calling them (that thought best of themselves) to prepare for his coming; For that it should not be so easy to them as they fancied to themselves, without more ado to give them what they expected of wordly enjoiments, and without farther trial to give them what they thought themselves worthy of; but that it should be with great severity, and so as in strict Justice to proceed after trial made of all, for good to those who should be found faithful and sincere, and for destruction to those that were otherwise; so that the righteous should not without o difficulty be saved, but for the ungodly and sinners they should not be able to appear. This is that which he saith, but who may abide the day of his coming, and who shall stand when he appeareth?

Who?] of the wicked, say p some: which as it is most true, and the coming of that day shall be to them most terrible and intolerable; yet may the question seem more generally put as concerning all, even the best as well as the wicked, to shew, that the time spoken of shall be full of difficulties, such as will put all to a hard tryal, such as will prove them to the uttermost, though the issue thereof shall be indeed for joy and Salvation, to those that are found faithful and sincere; even they shall be saved, but so as by fire. For in that day many shall be made white, i. e. tryed, saith Kimchi, in the words of Daniel, XII.10. even the righteous shall pass a hard trial that they may be purified and made white, though not consumed and destroyed as the wicked: so that even to them the day of his coming should be terrible, though salutary. This that they might expect, and yet among those difficulties find comfort, Christ himself having taken our sins upon him, took on him the Cross, that he might enter by it into his Kingdom, and shew to his the way that they must also go, if they will enter thereinto, viz. by taking up their Cross and following him. True peace and joy he promiseth to them, but not without the preceding trial of q troubles, and afflictions, and so instructeth them that they might know that he came not to send peace on the Earth, Mat. X.34. not such peace as the Jewish Nation generally expected at his coming; but that r for judgment he came into this World, (as is here prophesied that he should) which, if we take his coming in that latitude as before we said, we shall see with such severity to have been executed, as that in respect thereof we may see there was good grounds for this expression of it by way of question, who, (not only of the wicked, but of the best of men) may abide the day of his coming? or who shall stand when he appeareth?

Though the generality of the Jews did, I suppose, then expect nothing but present joy and prosperity at his coming, yet we may well think that those that better considered the Prophecies, had other notions like those, that we have expressed, of the day of his coming and appearance, by that Tradition which those since report to us, as from them, of the [...] Cheblo shel Mashiach, The pangs or dolors of the Messiah, such great afflictions as shall be to Israel at the coming of the Messiah, spoken of in the s Talmud: which Abarbinel mentions, as here pointed at, if the words be expounded (as we have shewed they ought to be,) of the Messiah. And certainly such Tradition may be as well founded on these words as any passage in the Prophets, although this place be not cited, where it is mentioned in the Talmud in the Tract of the Sabbath, c. XVI. fol. 118. but that which is repeated concerning the same day that is here spoken of, Chap. IV.5. where it is called the coming of the great and dreadfull day of the Lord.

The same Abarbinel speaking of the same opinion of theirs in his Comment on Daniel, fol. 68. col. 2. saith, [That the Disciples of Jesus received from the wise men of Israel (among other things that he there mentions) that in the daies of Messiah afflictions should be multiplied, which they call [...] Cheble hammeshiach, the pangs or dolors of Messiah, insomuch that they said, Very happy shall he be that shall not see them, and in whose time they shall not be. And concerning them (saies he) it is said in their Gospel, Wo (or alas) who shall live with (or in the time of) those great afflictions which shall be seen in the last daies? which are the pangs or dolors of Messias, which by Tradition they had heard of.]

The words which he mentions, though they are not literally found in the Gospel, yet may [Page] (as the sense) thence be collected, as a summary Inference out of what our Saviour saith, as in Mat. XXIV. Mar. XIII. and Luk. 21. It is well observed by Buxtorfius that the word t [...], by our Savior used in his description of those daies of his coming in Judgement to the Jews (that here called likewise, The day of his coming and appearance) doth properly and particularly answer to the Hebrew [...] Chebel, or [...] Chabalim, or in construction [...] Cheblo, or [...] Cheble, as they denote bitter pangs, as of a woman in travel, and so used for any great pains or afflictions. So that, if that Tradition among them were ancienter then Christs coming, and the Gospel, it may not improbably be thought, that our Saviour did by such terms as were then in use among them, and in their mouths, set forth those dolorous times which they did talk of and expect; so to warn them to prepare for them, as now at hand; and a certain proof, that Messiah, of whose being come they were, by their own confession, to be a sign, was now come, and they ought to acknowledge it. And in expressions so full of dread doth he describe those pangs, sorrows, or afflictions, of that time and day of his coming to the Jews (which were accordingly made good in that space of time, which we said to be comprehended under the day of his coming, and his appearing) as that nothing can surpass or equal them, but the day of his last coming, at the terrible day of Judgement, to all People at the end of the World; insomuch that it may even seem doubtfull, whether that day were not meant by divers of them, in those Chapters of Mat. XXIV. Mar. XIII. and Luc. XXI. which we have cited. At least, this is set forth as a type and figure of that: insomuch that as well in respect to this time of such tribulation, as had not been from the Creation, here spoken of, as of that, might be said, as well concerning even the Elect among the Jews, (for whose sakes our Saviour saith, those daies should be shortened, whereas else no flesh should be saved, Mat. XXIV.22.) to whom the issue should be v salutary, as concerning the wicked, to whom it should be for destruction, Who may abide the day of his coming, and who shall stand when he appeareth? which in S. x Luke is expressed by being accounted worthy to escape all those things, that should come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. What we, with most others, render, who may abide, &c. is by the Vulgar Latin rendred, who shall be able to think of the day of his coming, and who shall stand to see him? To express emphatically, I suppose, the terror here intimated. For if none can think of it by reason of the power or dreadfulness of his Majesty, who shall be able to abide or bear it? saies S. Jerom, including both significations. Not that the word [...] Mecalcel, or its root doth properly signify to think of (it is no where else so found) the properer signification being to bear, or sustain, which it hath, Jer. XX.9. And so farther describing the terror of those times, or giving a reason of the terror of them, he adds, For he is like a Refiners fire, and like Fullers Sope. In words taken from things of known and ordinary use, he describes the severity of those Judgements, which should then come on all in that Country, for trial to all, and destruction to the wicked. He is (saies he) like a Refiners fire, or as the construction will also bear, as y refining fire, though the other seems more proper. The use of that fire is to melt metals and try them, that so what is pure may be by it self retained, the dross being either consumed, or so separated as to be taken away from it. And then the People being compared to mixt metal, that hath in it what is pure and what is dross; and the Lord that should come in Judgement, being compared to fire, which shall throughly try that metal; the meaning will be plain (as R. Tanchum expresses it) that he will consume or take away the transgressors and rebellious amongst them, as the Refiners fire consumes or separates the z dross of melted metals, and cleanseth them from what is false and unsincere: and this so, as that the good and sincere shall at once be put to severe tryal, every one in their own persons, as the good metal also, the sincere gold or silver endureth the hardship or trial of the fire, though preserved, and at last coming forth more pure, refined and purged: So as this may be applied to what concerns them in their particulars also, which by those tryals and afflictions shall be made sensible of their sins, and what is amiss in them, that so purging themselves from them, they may become vessels of greater honor, sanctified and meet for the Lords use, and prepared unto every good work, as the Apostles words are, 2 Tim. II.21. But the words seem here more to concern the whole mass or community of the People, all calling themselves by the same name of Gods People; but many of them being not so, whom now by the refining fire of his Judgements he would distinguish from the true Israelites, and by the same means prove the one, and bring to destruction the other; as was actually done by those heavy calamities, which ended in the destruction of the Country, City of Jerusalem, and the Temple, by the Romans, about the 70th year of Christ. The same is plainly likewise the meaning of the other similitude added, and like Fullers Soap, the use of which is to scour wooll or cloth, and purge out all spots and stains in it, and take them away, leaving the wooll or cloth, though by the same means fretted and rubbed, the more white or brighter colored. As that takes away all spots, so shall he take away all wicked ones, saith R. Salomo. [Page] The wicked may well be compared to spots in the garment of a People, as S. Jude calls them in the Assemblies of the Christians spots in their Feasts of Charity, Jude ver. 12. The word [...] Borith, which ours and others render Soap, the vulgar Latin and others also render Fullers herb. Concerning the primary signification of the word, there is doubt both among the a Jews and others: but, which is all that is to the purpose, it is by all agreed on to be somewhat, which in those times and places the Fullers, or Scowrers of Cloth, used to take away spots and stains, cleanse and whiten Cloth withall, having (as Grammarians will) for its root [...] barar, which signifies to cleanse, make white and clean, as Dan. XI.35. Now what our Translators, and most others supply by, he, attributing it to the Lord spoken of, Kimchi doth it by, it, attributing it to the time called the day of his coming, and when he shall appear; and takes refining for an epithet to fire, but then maketh the sense the same, thus, And that day shall be as fire which purgeth the dross from silver; so shall that purge or separate the wicked from the good, and the wicked shall be destroyed, and the just or righteous shall remain: and so in the other similitude.

Here we may not pass unobserved that divers Christian b Expositors interpret this, not of those visible judgements and afflictions which we have spoken of, but of the irresistible force of Christs word and preaching, which may be compared indeed to fire, as Jer. V.14, and XXIII.29. and is expressed by things of greatest force and power, which nothing can resist, as Heb. IV.12. by a two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, &c. and called a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the hearts, which spared no sin or sinner; and of the efficacy of his c grace and spirit working on the obdurate hearts of men, and the like: which may be added to what hath been said, as the words seem to require it should. Otherwise, I suppose the way that we have taken to give a fuller and more proper meaning of the words, and such as will be of more use in dealing with the Jews to convince them, that all here spoken hath been fulfilled, all those calamities, those pangs of the Messiah, which they expected that the coming of Messiah should be accompanied with, did accordingly seize on them in that day of his coming; including the time (as we said) from his preaching to the destruction of the Temple, brought on them by their obstinacy in refusing to hearken and turn to him: and so what is here said, to intimate what is more fully declared by Christ in the Gospels concerning that time. The other d Exposition alone perhaps will not gain much from them.

As to the expression here used, it may be compared with several others in the Scripture: So (as Aben Ezra and Kimchi will) with what is said, Zach. XIII.9. where God saith, I will bring the third part through the fire, and I will refine them as silver is refined, &c. as likewise, Isa. I.25. I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin: and Ezech. XXII.18, 19, 20, 21, 22. as they gather silver, and dross, and iron, and lead, and tin into the midst of the furnace, and blow the fire upon it to melt it; e so will I gather you in my anger, and melt you, &c. (v. 20.) as silver is melted in the midst of the furnace, so shall ye be melted, &c. (v. 22.) and Luk. XII.49. I am come to send fire on the Earth, &c. and II Thess. I.8. f where he speaketh of a time, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven in flaming fire, &c. with other like places. Which what judgements they concern will not be to our purpose at present to enquire; but only thus much, that it is usual to compare Gods severity in proceeding against sin, to such purging and refining fire, which melts and tries the whole mass, but purifies the good, and g refines it, and separates and consumes the dross. So those judgements often fall promiscuously on all both good and bad; but the end is different, and when the wicked are destroyed, the godly are only purged and made more precious in the sight of God, yet so as that in regard of that severe examination and trial, which they shall endure; even in respect of them also it may justly be asked, who may abide the day of his coming? &c. According to the same notion he adds in respect of the present trial here spoken of, ‘3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.’

And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, &c.] R. D. Kimchi, as before, so here also, what ours and others attribute to the person of the Lord, takes as spoken of the time called the day of his coming, thus giving the meaning of the words, ‘As a Judge that sitteth to judge the People, and to distinguish the offender from the innocent; so shall be that day, which shall refine and cleanse the silver, and take away from it the dross, or refuse; and they are the wicked.’ But the word [...] properly signifying to sit, may seem more to agree to [Page] the person, then time, though it make not much difference in the meaning. And it cannot be here strictly taken in the notion of sitting, however it be attributed to the person; but rather to signify his set purpose and resolution of so doing, as one that fits to a work. He shall set aside all other works, that he may be as a refiner, saith R. Salomo, scarce warily enough; inasmuch as one work hindreth not him from attending to others; except we take his meaning to be, that he shall so fully do that business, as if he attended wholly to it. The Chalde renders it, ‘He shall be revealed, or reveal himself, to melt and cleanse, as a man that melteth and cleanseth silver.’ He means (saith R. Tanchum) ‘he shall try and cleanse Israel, or the People, as silver, i. e. h as silver is cleansed and purified, or, he shall sit, as one that refineth silver.’ The letter or particle [...] C, which is a note of similitude, being in either way omitted, because the meaning is clear.

And he shall purify the Sons of Levi, and purge them.] He shall cleanse them as silver that is tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times, Psal. XII.6. The Sons of Levi.] Of the Priests who were the Sons of Levi, we have in the former Chapters heavy complaints, that they in nothing performed their duty aright, but profaned Gods holy Name, his Altar, his Offerings, and Service; and adulterated and violated his Law: of them therefore seems here particular mention made, and promised or denounced, that he would take them (who should have directed and been examples of good to others, but were wholly corrupt, and ill examples to them) in the first place into a strict examination, and reform what was amiss in his worship and their performance, so far that he lothed their offerings, that hereafter he might in an acceptable manner be worshipped, and have offerings offered to him in righteousness, such as should be pleasing to him.

But who are meant by the Sons of Levi is not well accorded by Expositors. Who of old were called by that name is manifest; but now the outward part of Gods Service being altered, the persons also, by whom it is to be performed ought to be so too, though under the same name set forth. The change of the Law, and the change of the Priesthood or Ministers, necessarily accompany one the other, Heb. VII.12. By the Sons of Levi here therefore n some understand in general all Christians, who are all in Christ made a holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual Sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, I Pet. II.5. all Priests unto God, Rev. I.6. and v. 10. o or the whole Church, by naming the Levites, who were anciently the chief part thereof. p Others understand the Priests or Ministers under the new Testament, who succeed under the Gospell, in the place of those under the Law; as the Apostles and Disciples of Christ, and their Successors: q Others, the Sons of Levi, properly so called, or the race of Aaron according to the flesh, of whom this is verified; in regard that many of them by the power of the word of God, were purged and purified from their former corruptions and errors, and reduced to the acknowledgement of Christ, and true worship of God, according to the perfect rule of the Gospel, as it is said, And a great company of the Priests were obedient to the Faith, Act. VI.7. All these may be true, and well joined. As to the last which understands it of the Sons of Levi properly so called, as of that race; of such as were won to the obedience of Christ by the word of his Gospell, and had their hearts purified by faith in him; of them may it be truly verified, that they were purified and purged as gold and silver by him sitting as a refiner and purifier of silver: and it cannot be doubted, but that they had their parts in that sharp trial of afflictions too in those daies. And as for them who were all dross, and would not be purified, but continued in their corruption, what became of them, the sad story of the destruction of the City and Temple (which we take to be deciphered by this day of his coming, and the trying and purifying here described) shews, when so many of them together with the Temple, perished by fire: as that if the expression here were properly meant of material fire, it might be said to have been verified in them; although we do not here take it as so meant, but only to express the strictness and exactness of the trial. It is said that he shall so purify and purge them, that they shall offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. In the times when this was spoken, that they did not so, is shewed in the preceding Chapters. Because they were so perverse in their waies, so wicked in their doings, he tells them that he regarded not the offering, (by which they thought to satisfy his Law, and do to him acceptable service) nor received it with good will at their hands. As likewise, Isa. I.19. &c. he calls the Sacrifices they pretended to do to him, while their hands were full of wickedness, vain oblations; the incense they brought, abomination unto him; their feast, iniquity and trouble to him, and that, when they make many prayers, he will not hear. Before they can do any thing that shall be acceptable to him, they must wash them, and make them clean, put away the evil of their doing, cease to do evil, learn to do good, &c. The persons must be first made such as he will accept, [Page] before their offerings can be r acceptable or their Sacrifices sweet unto him. That therefore among these that are here called Sons of Levi, (whether be meant all Christians, or those that are peculiarly separated to the ministring to God in holy things, or such of the Jewish Levites that were converted to Christ) there may be such as may offer to him an offering in righteousness, rightly, lawfully and acceptably, not to the farther displeasing of him (as those in this Prophet reprehended then did) he saith that he will first purify them as silver, and purge them as gold and silver, from all dross and corruptions that are in them, by such means as he sees convenient, whether by the powerfull efficacy of his Word▪ Grace, and Spirit, or farther (if he see necessary) by the fiery trial of sufferings, by the s spirit of judgement and of burning, to separate the sincere of them from those that are not such: and then they being so purged, and with sincere hearts and pure hands, presenting their offerings in righteousness to him, shall be accepted, both they and their offerings: so saith he in the following words.

4 Then shall the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the daies of old, and as in formeryears.

Then shall the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord.] Judah and Jerusalem are named (saith Kimchi) because there was the Temple or Sanctuary. It will be easy to translate the names to the Church of Christ, of which that City was a type, and which thence was to have its t rise and beginning, though since spread abroad through the World; so that it will be all one to say the offerings of the Church. But what offerings are then to be understood? not certainly such legal Sacrifices or Mincha's, as were then under the Law offered. For this is spoken of what was to be after the coming of the Messiah, by whose once offering of himself all such legal offerings had an end put to them, and were for the future to cease. By the offerings (the Mincha or offering, as it is in the singular number) of Judah and Jerusalem therefore must be meant all the spiritual offerings and services of the Church, and the faithful Members thereof; their u Prayers, x Alms, Praises, Eucharistical Sacrifices, their whole selves offered to God, as a living Sacrifice, holy acceptable to God, Rom. XII.1. all comprehended under that pure Mincha, or offering, y Ch. I.11. they being all made a holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual Sacrifices acceptable to God, I Pet. II.5. Much of the service under the Law consisting in offering oblations, that name is transferred to all Evangelical services.

It is said they shall be pleasant as in the daies of old, and as in former years, in the daies of the pious Patriarks, say z some. a Others, in the time of the first Temple, and when the worship of God florished in Judea: or b the time of the Tabernacle that Moses pitcht.

But it will not concern particularly to design the time, the Text having not so designed it, it will be sufficient to understand it, that the services in the time here spoken of, by such and in such manner as he describes, done, shall be as acceptable and pleasing to God, as any ever heretofore by holy and pious men in due manner performed, were, and not lothsome and displeasing to him, as those offerings of that present Age by wicked men, unduly and with neglect and breach of his law offered, were.

But here is observable that from what he saith, that the Sons of Levi shall be purified, and then offer offerings in righteousness, and pleasant unto God, as those of holy men of old, on, and after the coming and appearance of the Lord the Messiah, there is an evident proof, that by that coming of his here spoken of, is not meant his last coming to judgement (inasmuch as after that will be no time for such services: they are to be performed in this life and this World, not in the life and World to come) but a coming in this World, after which it should yet last, in which is a time of purging; the other being a time only of remuneration, according to what men have in this done. They are an argument in this kind looked on, not only by c some Christian Expositors, but by a Jew also. Abarbinel makes it as a proof against R. Salomo's interpreting what is here spoken, concerning death, and the punishments in another World, because, saies he, that which is here said of offering offerings, [...] is a thing that doth not belong to Souls after death. This is to be observed not only in respect to what hath been already said, but in respect of what follows also in the next verse, and other passages which are betwixt this and the end of this Prophecy: by which, taken by themselves, the judgement after this life and World may seem deciphered; and we ought to be put in mind of it. Yet if we consider to whom, (viz. the Nation of murmuring Jews,) and on what occasion the words were then spoken, and how there is in them (as this) that which agrees to things in this life and World, not so properly to that; we shall see that they must have respect to such judgments [Page] as God would exercise towards that Nation in this World, and taking the time denoted by the day of the Lord, the Messiah's coming, for that time, which (as we said) was from the first preaching of John Baptist, and Christ, untill the destruction of the Country, City, and Temple of Jerusalem; and considering what was done in those times, we shall easily perceive that all by the Lord in this Prophet spoken, was so far fulfilled, as that in regard thereof alone, not one word of his may be said to have fallen to the ground: though, as then the words might warn them, who were then in the Prophets time living, and should die before the execution of such Gods publick judgments on the Community or Nation, of a certain account that they should after this life, if not before, be brought to, for their doings; so they ought still to warn all, whether particular persons, or whole Nations, to expect in Gods due time to be brought to judgement, at least after this life, if not in it too: what happened to them, being for example to all, and their concern so to make use thereof, that purifying themselves before hand, and doing to God acceptable service, they be not consumed as dross.

5 And I will come near to you in judgement, and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts.

And I will come near to you in judgement, &c.] An answer to their former groundless murmurings and questionings in the last verse of the preceding Chapter, he hath in the former verses given, and in this and the next verse continues it in terms coming close to the question there by them made, where is the God of Judgement? he here answers, I will come near to you to Judgement. Before he spake as of a third person, The Lord shall come, &c. and he shall sit, &c. and he shall purify, &c. viz. The Lord Christ, the second person of the blessed Trinity; here in the first person, as of God the Father, I will come near, &c. This alters nothing in the sense, but only gives us to understand, that God will judge by the Messiah, God the Father in and by the Son. For the Father hath committed all judgement to the Son, John V.22. and hath given him authority to execute judgement, ver. 27. he coming, therefore, saith, I am come in my Fathers name, ver. 43. whether therefore this be looked on as spoken in the Fathers name, or in the person of the Messiah, as d Vatablus will, it is all one, for he and his Father are one, Joh. X.30.

He will come near to them in Judgement, to exercise judgement, which they complained was not executed. Will come] at the end of the World, at the last Judgement, saith the same learned man, following e some others. f Others expound them of both comings of Christ, that already past, and that to be at the end of the World; as much as to say, I will come down in the flesh, and enquire into the corrupt manners of men, I will come also at my last coming to judgement.

Or, I will come in Judgement, first to correct, and also as occasion shall serve, to punish; but will perfectly complete it at the day of the last Judgement. But what to say of these see in the note on the former verse, as likewise of R. Kimchi's note on the place: I will come near, viz. in that day which he hath mentioned, to you; that is, to that generation which shall be in that day, and the generations that are past, if they received not their judgement in this World, they shall receive it in the World to come; and of what Abarbinel here saith, who though he rejects R. Salomo's opinion, as to the former verse, yet will have it here to take place, viz. that by his saying I will come near, is meant that before those things so far off to come, which Malachi should tell them of, he will more speedily come to the particulars of them by death, which should send them to Hell; making that the import of [...] I will be, or am near to you.

And I will be a swift witness, &c.] That none of the transgressors may think to avoid his judgement, as in human Judicatures many do for want of evident witness, against them, their crimes having been committed in secret, and oft sentence is delaied that g so enquiry may be made, and witnesses sought for; he tells them that here it shall not be so, he himself that is the Judge will also be witness. And h all things being open to him, even those things which are done with greatest privacy, as well known to him, as those that are done in the face of the Sun, and before many witnesses, he will not delay for making farther search and enquiry, as in doubtfull matters, and where circumstances may not be plain, or mens memories may fail, is by men done, but will be a swift witness, will without more ado, convince them of their sins, and as speedily execute sentence on them being convicted, none being able to stop or hinder his proceeding, when once he takes the matter in hand, as he here assures, that in his appointed time, (which shall then seem too sudden to them, though [Page] now they accuse him of delay) he will do.

Against whom he will so proceed, he shews by reckoning up divers notorious sins, which his specifying shews to have been then common amongst them: and besides that, he will in like manner proceed against all others guilty in other like kinds of sins contrary to his Law; as these expresly are. These being named, we cannot but think others included.

Against the Sorcerers.] Of this sin forbidden, Deut. XVIII.10, 11, 12. is shewed, that they were much guilty even under the first Temple, in Isa. c. II.6. Jer. XXVII.9. Micah V.12. And how under the second, and in the later degenerate times, they addicted themselves to the like vain diabolical arts, (one here named comprehends the rest, which in the Law are distinguished by several names) is proved by the learned Dr Lightfoot by several instances on Mat. XXIV.24 And of the rest of the sins here reckoned up, the same will be to be said, that as they of former times before the Babylonish captivity, and destruction of the former City and Temple, were guilty of them, and by them pulled on the whole Nation those heavy Judgements, besides those which in their particular persons they were for them liable to, either in this life or the other, so these also, after their return from that captivity, (not taking warning by what had happened to their Ancestors, and they had either tasted of, or could not but have fresh in memory,) casting off the fear of God (which in the last words of the verse is assigned as the cause of their so doing) did again give themselves up to the like, so far, that God again threatneth them with like national Judgements. In rendring the words, whereby the last sin here spoken of is described, viz. and that turn aside the stranger from his right, the words from his right being put in different characters, sheweth that they are not expressed in the original Hebrew, but are supplied for making clearer and fuller the sense; the words literally sounding only, that turn aside the stranger: So do some of the Jews think a supply for that end necessary, and therefore understand [...] Mishpat, Judgement, as if it were [...] Vmatte mishpat hager, and that turn aside, or pervert, the judgement of the stranger; which is in the text it self put in, where a curse is denounced against this sin, Deut. XXVII.19. (and there is the word [...] matteh, perverteth, in the singular number, and therefore with the letter [...] H in the end, whereas it is here in the plural, and therefore with [...] i in the end. Which I suppose is all that the Masorites, or those that took care of the right writing and reading of the Hebrew Text, would have here to be observed by that note of theirs, which i some take notice of, viz. that it is not else where read with 'yod in the end; not that they would have us think it ought here to have been written with [...] H; for here it is in the plural, as the rest of the Nouns here are, as R. Tanchum notes; of which yod in the end is a sign, and the letter [...] H of the singular.

That among the sins here reckoned up as provoking God to come in judgement, is not mentioned Idolatry (as great as any, and which the former Prophets under the first Temple did oft inveigh against) Abarbinel notes the reason to be, because that under the second Temple that sin was not found amongst them. The same Doctor on the last words, and fear not me saith the Lord, notes, that he intimates, that if they should fear him, and k repent of these sins; he would pardon them.

Saith the Lord of hosts.] This intimates the certainty of what he saith shall be, that they may take due notice of it, which is also assured in what follows, ver. 6. l Divers connect the last words with the former thus, and against those that do not fear me, including, with those guilty of the former sins, all others who fear not the Lord.

6 For I am the Lord, I change not: therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.] These words are very differently expounded, at least applied, by Interpreters; especially as to the latter part of them. The connexion of the former part of them with the preceding, according to the way that we have gone, will be easy; viz. That although he have so long forborn to take vengeance of the wicked, yet they are not to think, that it is because he approves of their doings, or is grown neglectful of those that take care to serve him; but that he will in due time execute his judgements on the one, according to what he hath threatned against such as go on in evil waies, and shew his care of the other; inasmuch as he is still the same God of judgement, unchangeably the same, a hater and certain avenger of evil, and a lover of good: and therefore all his threats and promises, however seeming to be deferred, shall in their due time certainly come to pass, and have their due effect. But how then doth what he subjoins, therefore, (or and) ye sons of Jacob are not consumed? follow on these? Because (as we said) Expositors in giving the meaning of these words much differ, it will be convenient to take some of their Interpretations distinctly.

R. Salomo's note on this place is, Although I do defer my anger, I have not changed my [Page] mind [or purpose] from what it was at first, as that I should love the wicked, and hate the good. And ye Sons of Jacob, although [some of you] are dead, or have died, in their iniquity, and I have not taken punishment of those wicked in this life, yet ye are not consumed; ye are not consumed, or brought to nothing, before me; I have left your souls to execute my Judgement on them in Hell: according to Jonathan's Chalde Paraphrase which is, And ye of the house of Jacob think that he who dieth in this World, his Judgement ceaseth: as much as to say, Ye in your opinion say, my Judgement is frustrate, or ceaseth, because there is no farther time to take vengeance on him. But our ancient Doctors, saith he, otherwise expound it, I have not changed or returned, or done a second time, I have not smitten any other Nation, and returned, [or m been changed, to it, or smitten it a second time.] But you have I preserved, or caused, to abide after many punishments. n My arrows are consumed or spent, but ye are not consumed.

R. D. Kimchi's Exposition is thus, for I the Lord change not, for whatsoever I have spoken, though for a long time to come, shall certainly so come to pass; for I change not, neither do my words change: and all the things to come, which I have spoken to you by my Prophets, shall so be, or come to pass. The Verb [...] Shaniti hath the signification of changing, as if he should say, I change not from word to word, from purpose to purpose, or liking to liking, i. e. that I should one while say or like one thing, and another while another. And ye Sons of Jacob are not consumed; as other Nations are consumed, of whose name no memory is left, and who are destroyed from being a Nation: but ye are not consumed, neither shall you be consumed; for ye shall alwaies be separate among the Nations, that ye may be one Nation in the Earth; although you be led captive, and dispersed to every corner, your name remaineth, or shall remain, in every place. The evil that I have done to you, I have done for your iniquities. And as I change not, so ye also shall not be consumed, and in the latter daies ye shall return to your dignity, and shall be high above all the Nations of the Earth. But Jonathan paraphraseth it thus, ‘For I the Lord have not changed my Covenant, which is from of old, but ye, O house of Israel, think, that he that dieth in this World, his Judgement ceaseth.’ Thus Kimchi.

Abarbinel, though he dissent from R. Salomo on the 2d, 3d, and 4th verses, (as we have seen) yet here agreeing with him, as separating, what is spoken in the 5th and this verse, from what is spoken in them, as belonging to a distinct time and judgement, as not seeing in his way how well to joyn them, thus here speaks; ‘For I the Lord change not, i. e. I have alwaies loved judgement and righteousness, but if it be not in this World, it shall be in the World to come, that is it which he saith, and ye children of Jacob are not consumed, for although you die, behold your souls remain to receive the recompence of your doings.’

These words and opinions of these Doctors we recite, not as if they conduced to the right meaning of the place, for they are far from it; as R. Salomo's, in that, what is spoken of a particular signal day and judgement in this World, he expounds of that which continually did befall, and still doth befall all men in their times; viz. the day of death, and of the immortality of the Soul, which things being common to all men, and before known to all the Jews, cannot be the utmost meaning or conclusion of a new Prophecy directed to the Jews; and particularly concerning their Nation, to shew them some new thing that should betide them, and satisfy that question then in their mouths, Where is the God of Judgement? with some new answer. However, that which he saith be in it self true, it is not here, by it self, to the purpose, and it seems to proceed on his former wrong supposal, that ver. 1. by the Lords Messenger is meant the Angell of death, and by the Lord here spoken of, the God of Judgement, without respect to the Messiah; and not to come home at all to the taking away the murmuring of the People, of which he complains, and shews it to be causeless, and through ignorance of what he now declares to them.

This objection against him Abarbinel suggests to us, in what he saith on the first and second verses, but here, where he falls in with him, it stands firm against himself: for here we are not (as he doth) to look on these words, as spoken of a distinct time, or persons, or judgement, from those that are in those former words spoken of, but as concerning still the same day or time, (as Kimchi, as we have seen, well notes;) and all directing to some visible judgement, whereby God in that appointed time should clear his Justice, which they now looking on the prosperity of the wicked called in question, and make manifest his immutability in his hatred of the wicked, though he do not presently execute sentence on them, and his love to the godly; whom though he suffer to endure for a while perhaps hard trial, yet he still takes care of their final preservation, and will in his due time make it apparent, by what shall be then visibly done by some distinguishing judgement: which to the particular day of mens dying, and the judgment that they shall then be brought to, invisible and unknown to others, (so that [Page] thereby Gods love and hatred to the one or the other are not easily discerned, one thing, as far as man can discern befalling them, and one dying as the other dieth,) is not so kindly appliable.

As for David Kimchi, neither can his Exposition here take place, it running (as to the latter part) on a false supposition, which may not be granted, viz. that the Lord and his Messenger, who were, as is evident (ver. 1.) to come to the Temple then standing, which is long since destroyed, and by whom the judgement spoken was to be brought near unto them, (v. 5.) are not yet come, nor that judgment yet executed, but are yet (no man knows when) to be expected, and that the judgement, with which that Nation is here particularly threatned, was to be executed only on other Nations, there remaining for the Jews, only a triumphant return to their ancient dignity, and a flourishing estate in this World; which certainly are no way intimated in the words, but on the contrary a destruction of all the sinners among them by a national Judgement, though the godly among them were not to be thereby consumed. All which hath been already so fully compleated in the destruction of that People, within few years after Christs coming, that to pass by what hath been done, and look after things to be done, not at all by God here, or else where promised, is to delude, and not to give a true Exposition of this Prophecy.

From none of these Expositions therefore (as we said) have we certainly the right meaning of these words, as to the scope of them; all that we may gain by them to our purpose is a justification of the signification of some of the words, as they are by our Translators rendred, and particularly of the two Verbs, the first in [...] Lo shaniti, I change not; the other in [...] Lo celitem, ye are not consumed: in the giving of the meaning of which, R. Ab. Ezra, and R. Tanchum agree with those already named, only that the latter of them thinks that both of them, though in the form of the preterperfect tense, ought to be rendred in the signification of the future, I will not change, and ye shall not be consumed; making the former to include a reason of the returning of Gods Providence to them as it was of old, and giving for the meaning, ‘These promises shall certainly come to pass, although they be deferred for a long while, for no change or failing shall happen to me: and likewise ye shall remain by the remaining of my Law among you, neither shall you be consumed or cease to be.’ Into which meaning we shall not further enquire, he not fully expressing of it. If he mean the same that Kimchi doth, the same answer will serve. That which we take notice of, is, that according to these the meaning of the first word is given, by saying that God doth not, or will not alter his purpose and Decree, concerning his hatred of the wicked, and in his appointed time bringing to condign punishment obstinate sinners, or his love to the good and care of them; so that however he delay the time of his evidencing these things by open judgements, his Justice is not to be questioned, as if he now liked or approved of such things or persons, which he had formerly declared his dislike unto.

This while with them we look on, as the import of the word here, we cannot but wonder at the impudence and folly of that railing Jew o Lipman, who saith that Christians go contrary to the meaning of what is here said, in affirming, that God, who before had not flesh and blood, was changed to be flesh and blood, or, as another Copy hath it, who was before only the Father, and the Holy Spirit, was afterward changed to be the Son. In which objection of his is only much malice and impertinency; inasmuch as by nothing that the Christians say, nor by any consequence that can be drawn from what they say, can it be concluded that they affirm any change or alteration in God or the Godhead, with whom they profess to be no variableness, neither shadow of changing, either in his nature or any of his attributes, all things remaining in him, the eternal Trinity, one God in three Persons, as they were from eternity; nor by Christs taking the Manhood into God, was there any change of God into Man, nor confusion of substance, or alteration of person. Again, inasmuch as, that he might pick a cavil against Christians, he takes the word which here denotes Gods immutability in his Will, Word, Decree, and purpose, which with the Jews the Christians absolutely affirm, as if it imported here immutability of nature or substance, (though that be most true also:) so that it is a cavil sought, not offered to him, either by the word as here used, nor any thing by the Christians affirmed. He had no occasion to say this, but he having said it, it was convenient to take some notice of it, lest others of his Sect might applaud him in it, and think to be true what he feigneth.

But of the concurrence of the other Jews, in rendring the latter Verb in the same notion that our Translators do, who render it are not consumed, we take more notice, because some learned Christians take it in another signification, and would have it rendred, And ye sons of Jacob p do not desist, or leave off to do evil: so in Munster and the Tigurin Translations more lately: And the Septuagin [...] of old seems so to have taken the word to signify, reading this word with the two first of the following verse, And ye sons of Jacob have not r [...]c [...]ded from the unjust dealings, or wickedness of your Fathers: [Page] as likewise the printed Arabick Version following that, and the Syriack also. And from the word in that notion rendred, would flow a very convenient sense, taking the whole verse as a confirmation of what is before said; and that they certainly must expect that judgement denounced to come in its appointed time, inasmuch as the Lord is unchangeable in his purpose of punishing incorrigible, unrepenting sinners, and they would not leave off their evil courses, nor repent them of their sins, nor desist from them.

But others, and they the major part, viz. all that follow the vulgar Latin and diverse others also of modern Interpreters, prefer, with the forementioned Jewish Writers, the other notion of being consumed, as more usual to the Verb in the Conjugation or form here used; according to which our Translators render are not consumed: but then in giving the meaning and connexion of the whole verse, there is among those who embrace this signification of this word some difference. Some taking it as speaking of the time past or present, make the coherence with what goes before, and the meaning, to this purpose, as may be collected out of them put together; that doubtless it shall be so as he said, he will come in judgement to those sinners. For he (the Lord) who hath determined and pronounced that he will not leave impenitent sinners unpunished, doth not change his will and purpose. But how then is it that the Sons of Jacob, whose Fathers and themselves have been great and obstinate sinners, have not long since been, or are not yet consumed? It is from the same unchangeableness in God, who as he is just, so is likewise merciful and long suffering, not willing the death of sinners, but rather that they should come to repentance: and therefore determined as to execute justice, so not to be hasty in executing it, but to give space for repentance, that so the necessity and equity of his judgements executed on such as would not lay hold on his mercy by repentance, while they had time allowed for it, may appear: and besides, that he might shew how just he was in keeping promise, and his Covenant made with their Forefathers, Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in so long sparing for their sakes their rebellious posterity, who would make no end of sinning: So that it was not through any change in him, that they have not yet been consumed, but shall now be severely punished; but from his mercy and their obstinacy opposing and rejecting it. So that they cannot but say (if they will rightly consider the matter) it is of the Lords mercy that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. Great is thy faithfulness, Lam. III.22, 23.

This, however they differ in expressions, seems to be the scope that the most of q Expositors will have these words to aim at. There are that read them by way of interrogation or admiration, r For I the Lord change not, and are not ye, O Sons of Jacob, consumed? how wonderful a thing is it that the Lord being immutable in his judgement against refractory sinners, they should not yet be consumed! how hath mercy prevailed against judgement! This falls in with what hath been already said, and requires the same answer.

There may be proposed another way thus, ‘Expect certainly the execution of the judgement spoken of, and that I will in due time call to an account sinners, for I the Lord change not:’ s Of which that you may not doubt, you have from a contrary effect and evidence of my immutability a proof; for therefore ye Sons of Jacob are not consumed; though the wicked have hitherto domineer'd, and wickedness reigned, yet you true Sons of Jacob, that fear me, as Jacob did, have been preserv'd; by virtue of my promise and mercy they have not been able to root you out.

But as we saw before, that by a learned Jew it is noted, that this Verb is to be rendred rather in the signification of the future, and with respect to what was to come, not to what was past or present; so it is by t some of good judgement and learning among Christians also taken, that the words may be rendred, Therefore, or and, ye Sons of Jacob shall not be consumed, as part of the Prophecy of what should be to the godly, when the Lord should come to execute his Judgement spoken of on the wicked: and for making out the meaning to this purpose, they understand by the Sons of Jacob the godly amongst the Jews, (they who being of the Faith of Jacob, and following his steps, deserved peculiarly to be called his Children or Sons, according to what we learn in like kind, whom properly to call Children of Abraham, Galat. III.7. and Rom. IX.7.) and then the coherence will appear thus, I will certainly come near to you in judgment, against the sinners among you. For I am the Lord and change not, but am still, as ever, inexorable to obstinate impenitent sinners, one that will in due time take vengeance on them however for a long time I have spared them; but ye true Sons of Jacob, ye whose heart is right with me, and who lay hold on my Promise to him made, and by walking in his steps approve your selves his genuine Children, heirs of his Faith; ye, as you are not partakers of their sins, so neither shall ye be of the judgements brought upon them: I will make a way for your escape, that ye perish not with them. And that so he effected it, is made evident by the history. When the judgement here prophesied of had its execution and completion in the [Page] destruction of the City and Temple of Jerusalem, and the wicked obstinate sinners of the Jews in it; God provided for the escape and deliverance of such as had embraced the doctrine of Christ, and yielded obedience to him: so that they were not consumed, as, if God had not taken a special care for them, they must necessarily have been. And so taking by that day of the Lords coming to be meant the space (as we have said on the first and second verses) betwixt John Baptist's and Christ's beginning to preach, and the destruction of the Temple; and by that swift judgement the destruction of the wicked among the Jews, together with their City and Temple; and by the Sons of Jacob those that believed in Christ, whom Jacob so long before waited for, and transmitted the expectation of to his posterity; and by what is said that they should not be consumed, their escape and wonderful preservation from that so universal a destruction, by their being from God warned to go out of the City, while there was an opportunity offered, which accordingly they did to a place called Pella, so that there was not one Christian left in the City when it was destroyed, but all escaped, as Eusebius testifies in the 3d book of his History, Cap. 5. and Epiphanius de Ponderib. Cap. 15. u we cannot but see all that is here spoken from the beginning of the Chapter to the end of the 6th verse, to have been so fully made good by evidence of fact, that there is no ground by vertue of this Prophecy, to look for any thing yet to be expected, which hath not been made good, as the Jews, that they may keep up themselves in their willing error of denying Christ yet to be come, would have us do: and that there is in them a full and satisfactory answer to that blasphemous murmuring and questioning in the last verse of the preceding Chapter, God delighteth in them that do evil, else why doth he suffer them to prosper? or, Where is the God of Judgment? So that, in respect to those who so spake, and to whom these things were then spoken, viz. the people of the Jews, there is no need of looking farther. Mean while, what happened then to them is to all others for example, to teach them that though God for a while in his forbearance and giving time to repent, suffer the wicked to prosper, yet he will doubtless in due time manifest his Justice in punishing them for their evil doings; and if he do not in this life, whether by personal judgements on particular persons, or national on wicked Nations, yet he certainly will after death, and at that general terrible Judgement at the last day; of which that severe judgement then on the Jewish Nation, was so lively a figure and emblem; as that it cannot but put all that will consider things in mind of it, and warn them to expect it, though it be not that which is here primarily meant. And this seems the most plain and the litteral way of the expounding these words, hitherto.

7 ¶ Even from the daies of your Fathers, ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them: return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts: But ye said, Wherein shall we return?

Even from the daies of your Fathers ye are gone away from mine Ordinances.] The connexion of these words with the former is by Expositors differently given, according to their different Expositions of those. According to those that render the foregoing Verb in the notion of desisting or ceasing [from evil] these words will be a farther declaration of what was by it said, viz. that they continued still to do, as all along from the daies of their Fathers they had done, and would not be brought to repent of their evil doings and forsake them, which now yet they are exhorted to do, and in the following words some of those their sins particularly enumerated.

According to those who render it in the notion of being consumed, and take it in the sense of the time past or present, they will be an amplification of Gods mercy in that they have not been, nor are yet consumed, by aggravation of their sins from their long and obstinate continuance in them without repentance of, or turning from them, which by the same unchangeable mercy they are called on yet to do. But according to the latter way (which we prefer) of rendring it ye shall not be consumed, there is not any such connexion to be looked after, but the former part of this Chapter containing an answer to what was, whether by impatient murmurers or s [...]offers objected against Gods justice and immutability of his methods in proceeding against wicked doers, being in the sixth verse concluded, he passeth to a x new matter, a distinct part of the Chapter, a new contest against the People of that time for other sins, by which they had provoked him to send on them already some previous judgements; for removing which, and preventing those more terrible ones mentioned in the foregoing verses, and which he doth again before the end of this Prophecy put them in mind of, he shews them the only way to be, to return unto him by repentance, and therefore in compassion to them calls on them so to do.

So R. Tanchum saith that though these words are not distinguished [from the former] in the writing, yet in sense they are, being an [Page] address to the People of that time alone. So Junius y and Tremellius look on it as a new contest or expostulation, added to those former, against contempt and profanation of his worship (c. 1. v. 6. and c. 2.10.) 2ly, Against illegal Marriages, Polygamy, and Divorce (thence to vers. 17.) 3ly. Against their murmuring, repining, or scoffing at his Justice and Judgements, (v. 17. of that second Chap.) with an answer hitherto. And now 4ly here against sacrilegious detention of tithes and things belonging to God hence to verse 13. where and in the following verses he adds another against their slighting of his worship and of repentance. So Grotius looks on it likewise as a distinct speech, saying that here leaving off to speak to whom he spake in the last words, he returns again to speak to the wicked. And according to this supposition, that here is a transition to a new matter of expostulation, without mingling this verse with the preceding, in construction or continuation of sentence, will be the plainest way of proceeding to what follows.

Even from the daies of your Fathers ye are gone away from mine Ordinances, and have not kept them.] Abarbinel notes that in these words, ye are gone away from mine Ordinances, God accuseth them of breach of his affirmative Precepts, or those that injoyned them to do such things, as he commanded: in the other, and have not kept them, of the breach of his negative Precepts, or such as forbad them to do such, or such things, which he saith is agreeable to an observation of their ancient Doctors, that the latter word [...] Shamar is usually applied to negative Precepts: but without this nicety of distinction R. D. Kimchi gives the meaning in plain and perspicuous words, thus. ‘A long time is past since that ye have not kept (or observed) mine Ordinances, both z ye,z and your Fathers: therefore have I brought evil on them, and on you: But now from henceforth return, &c.’ In much like manner Grotius; ‘Ye now so live as ye formerly lived when ye deserved to be carried away into captivity, and will again deserve to suffer the like.’ That here, while he mentions their doings, are intimated such evils and judgements, as they had already pulled down on themselves, and should farther pull down if they continued in those waies, is manifest by what follows; as in the subsequent verses, where such evils are named, so in the next words of these, wherein he exhorts them to repentance, as the only means to remove what they already suffered, or were further threatned with, and to reconcile him whom they had provoked, to themselves, and regain his favor. Return unto me and I will return unto you. Return unto me by repentance, and I will return unto you in mercy and favor, and care over you, by my good Providence. Remove you the evil of your doings, and I will remove the evil of my Judgements, the effects of my displeasure for that evil. a God neither recedes nor returns, but when he shews tokens of his displeasure he is said to turn away; when of his favor to return.

But ye said, wherein shall we return?] The import of these words is by b some here given (as of like expressions before in this Prophet) if ye shall say wherein shall we return? and R. Tanchum well notes that the particle [...] be, in, or with, in the word [...] Bammeh, in what, or wherein, hath here the force or signification of [...] from, as in some other places; for that the sense is not in, or with, what thing shall we return unto thee? but from what thing shall we return, &c.? Whether they openly and in words said thus, or inwardly and in their thoughts, is all one; what they thought or said in their hearts, being as well known to God, as what they uttered with their mouthes; it argues their c great impudence, who being called on by God to return from their sin, would not acknowledge themselves guilty of any thing that they should repent of, or amend in themselves, but in justification of themselves, say, d what is there in us that needs to be reformed? Kimchi thus paraphraseth it, ‘Is there any other matter besides what thou hast hitherto reproved us for, of matters of illegal Sacrifices, and concerning women [or transgression in matter of marriage] mentioned in the first and second Chapters?’ To this he returns them answer by specifying what besides those things they were guilty in, viz. in their defrauding him in tithes and offerings: and he so doth it, as to give them notice of the hainousness of that fault, saying, ‘8 ¶ I Will a man rob God? yet ye have robbed me: But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes, and offerings.’

Will a man rob God? &c.] Of these words we find far different Translations, as 1. That of the ancient Latine, Si affiget homo Deum, quia vos configitis me, which the Authors of the Doway Translation in English, render, shall a man fasten God? because you do fasten me, with which though a harsh sense, the Tigurin Version also agrees; though noting in the Margin, that otherwise it may be rendred, do violence to, and pierce, and otherwise, take away by force, and that instead of God, may be rendred, Judicem, the Judge. 2ly, That of the Greek, will a man supplant God? because ye have supplanted me. And 3ly of the Chalde, will a man provoke a Judge to anger? because ye provoke me to anger. And 4, the [Page] Interlineary Version, Will a man take away God by force, (which must be understood of the things pertaining to God.) 5. Ought a man to snatch (or take away by rapine) those things that are Gods? because ye snatch away those things that are mine, as Pagnine. 6. As Munster, Will a man do violence to the Judges? because ye do violence to me.

That we may judge between these, and if there be any other that differs in sense from some of these, and clear the sense, it will be expedient to enquire into the signification of the principal Verb in this expression, because on the acception of that depends the main of the matter, either for preferring any of these before the other, or reconciling them, if it be possible. That word (or verb) rendred by ours, Rob, is [...] Kaba, of which we may observe, that it is found but seldom in the Scriptures, viz. here in this and the following verse four times, and in Prov. XXII. twice in the same verse, viz. the 23. verse, and not elsewhere, I mean in the form of a Verb, for to look after some Nouns which have the same radicals, which are but two neither, in Scripture, viz. [...] Koba, a Helmet, and [...] Kubaath, Dregs, will not be much to our purpose. And this seldom use of it makes the signification not to be so well known as that of words oftner used. Diverse of the e Jewish Grammarians and Interpreters tell us that it signifies, to take away by violence, to rob (as ours well here express it) or to spoile, as in the forecited place, Prov. XXII.23. they render it: for in both places, viz. here and there, it seems to have the same signification. f Others looking on it as a Chalde or Syriack word, at least of more use in that Language, thence would have us take or look for the signification of it: and in that the most usual notion of it is, to fix, or fasten, to stick in, and the like. If this, as the learned Nicholas g Fuller observes, be looked on as the primary signification, then because this is done by a violent percussion, or striking, the other which the Jews give of oppressing, or taking away by force, or robbing, may be looked on as a Metaphorical use of it, as agreeing in the act of violence or force with it. But however they fall in together in this common notion, I know not why that given by the Jews may not be thought as proper a signification of the word, when that Tongue florished in its latitude anciently among them; except we shall think the notion of doing violence, to have been the more general and ancient notion of it. Surely the places which it is found in, in the Hebrew Text, which we have cited, do seem to require some other signification then that of fixing or fastning. And the Doway Translators who here render it, fasten, in the parallel forecited place of Prov. XXII.23. render it pearse. And R. Salomo on that place, notes that in the Syriack Tongue it signifies also, to rob, as he proves by an example out of the Talmud. However these two, of robbing, or taking by violence from, and fastning, are the two main significations attributed to the word, to which all others given to it ought to be reduced, and what is spoken in exposition of it to be examined by.

Now of these significations, the Jewish Expositors more generally follow that which, as we said, they give us, of violent, spoiling, taking from, or robbing. And so doth one of them, who translating this with the other Prophets into Arabick, renders it by [...] Gasaba, which is violently to take away. But the Latin, as we see, follows the second, of fixing, or fastning; which yet divers of those Expositors which follow that, will not have to be understood properly of fastning, but rather of piercing and striking or sticking in; that so the meaning may be, that by sinning against God, as they did, they did, as it were, pierce and wound him, i. e. grieve and afflict him. So h divers learned men that follow the Vulgar Latin, giving to the word a figurative signification. But if we were to follow this Translation, I should rather choose to take the word fasten in a more proper notion, as it will denote, to restrain, as what is fastned is restrained, bounded, or limited, that it cannot go farther, and so is as it were shortned, or kept short, stinted and stopped.

This notion may be illustrated out of the use of the word in the Arabick Tongue, wherein the root [...] Kabaa signifies to shrink in, or pull, or put in, as when a Tortoise shrinketh his neck into his shell, or a man his head into his shirt, or garment, to hide it; and to turn in, as when one turneth in, or doubleth inward or outward the mouth of a Sack, or Bag. According to this notion, to fasten God, in respect to the matter of tithes and dues here spoken of, will be, to shorten that proportion that was due to him, to restrain and stop his allowance, and detain part of it from him, not giving the full of that which he by his Law required, nor in its due time, but limiting and bounding it, according to what they thought fit. And to this meaning seems Aben Ezra to incline, while he expounds it, to retain, or detain that which is due, which will also be confirmed by what follows, verse 10. Bring ye in all the tithes; intimating that part of them were detained and stopped by them. And this being granted, these two Translations, will a man rob God? and will a man fasten God? though at first hearing they seemed very wide from one another, do meet in a middle notion of straitning, or restraining; he that detains ought of a mans allowance, that [Page] pincheth (as we say) or shortens him in it, and doth not give him with a cheerfull eie his full due and proportion, doth rob him, as well as he that by force takes away from him what he hath. And so to fasten, or fix God to their allowance and stint him, not giving him his whole due, is to rob him.

And so these two Expositions, which seemed most different, being brought thus far to agree, it will not be hard to reduce the rest to one of the forementioned significations. As for the Latin or Modern Versions, it will be plain. The ancienter Greek rendring the Verb by supplant, seems to have taken it to have the same signification with [...] Akab (which consists of the same letters though otherwise transposed) to supplant, defraud, or deceive (whence Jacob according to Esau's interpretation, had his name, Gen. XXVII.36.) but it falls in well with the first signification, according to which the other Greeks render it more plainly, [...], will a man defraud his God. The Chalde rendring it, by, provoke to anger, useth his liberty of a Paraphrast, rather then a litteral Translator, the provoking of God to anger being an effect of what they did, he expresseth the sin by its effect and consequents; and so in rendring Judges (wherein he is as we saw by some others followed) what we and most others render God, taketh the word in a signification in which it is also used elsewhere in Scripture, viz. to signify i Judges, who supply the place of God, and not only God himself.

By this enquiry into the signification of that word which we proposed, have we not only discovered the grounds of the different Translations of this place, but in part also shewed how they are between themselves more reconcilable then at first sight or hearing might be judged. By what hath been said will also easily appear, that among all there is not a more convenient or justifiable rendring then that of ours, who translate it to rob, which will express wherein they sinned in defrauding God, either by taking away or abridging and detaining what was due to him: And so from this necessary digression in looking into the signification of the words, return we to consider the scope of them.

Will a man rob God?] This question thus put serves not only to convince them, that they were guilty of the breach of Gods Ordinances, which they denied themselves to be, but shews together the greatness of the sin wherein they offended, as a thing which even the common consent of men, and their reason shewed most unfit to be done. Do ye not know that it is not fit that a man should rob his God? saith Abarbinel, his God, or Gods, for the word Elohim is the plural number, in which though it be usually spoken of the one true God, yet it is also other where so used as to comprehend also Idols and false Gods, such as men made and took to themselves in the place of God, though they were indeed no Gods. And k some conceive, it ought here so to be taken, and that so there is a greater Emphasis in the words and force, for convincing them of great impiety, by shewing that they who knew and acknowledged the only true God, and pretended to serve him, did yet that towards him which any idolatrous, ignorant heathen would not dare, or offer to do toward their false Gods. Would any of them rob, or sacrilegiously defraud those whom they took, though falsely, to be Gods, of such dues, as under that notion of God, were looked on as belonging or due to them, though they were such as could do them no good? none of them, but would abhor it as a wicked thing. Ye therefore are worse and more wicked then any of them, for ye have robbed me, your Benefactor, from whom ye have all that ye have. They also who take (as we before said) God here for Judges, or great men, look on it as an argument concluding from the less to the greater. If men dare not, or will not, or ought not to provoke such persons as are in authority among them on Earth, by defrauding them of what is due to them, as it is plain they will not, or ought not; how much more ought you to beware of offending against me by robbing and defrauding me?

Yet ye have robbed me.] Ye have done it, yet ye deny it? They said, or were, or behaved themselves as if they said, wherein have we robbed thee? seeing they will not perceive or acknowledge wherein they had done it, he particularly expresseth it to them, saying, In tithes and offerings, in that they detained, and did not duly and willingly bring in those dues, which he that gave them all that they had, did require, that they in acknowledgement of his bounty, should offer and return to him, as a portion by him reserved to himself for the maintenance of the Priests and Levites, and such as waited on his service, and for the relief of the poor, out of such encrease of their Fields, and fruits of the Earth, and the like which he gave them. In detaining these from the Priests and Levites, to whom by his command they were to be given, and so robbing and defrauding them, they, he saith, robbed him himself. If they thought by this means to have any ease or greater store to themselves, being, as it appears by what follows, then under a judgement of famine or scarcity, he gives them to know that they are in this deceived, and their penury, not their store, shall be encreased by the continuance of his curse upon them, saying in the next words.

[Page] 9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.

Ye are cursed with a curse, for ye have robbed me, &c.] The words thus read, give us the effect, and ill consequence of that their sin of robbing God in tithes and offerings, and so the coherence is plain, and is that, which by many, if not most, Expositors is followed; and will be all one as to that, whether it be read as by ours, and others, in the present tense, ye are cursed, as speaking of a curse already on them, or (as Grotius takes it) in the future, of a curse to come, or at least to be continued on them, ye shall be cursed; viz. for this your sin, even because ye have robbed me, great evils (such as appear to be in the following verses, l penury and scarceness) shall come upon you; as if he should say, because you have scanted me, I will scant you, and repay you in your own measure. But a late learned m man thinks the meaning to be mistaken in this rendring, and that to be put for the effect, which was indeed the cause of their robbing God, viz. that therefore they robbed him, because they were cursed with that curse of s [...]arcity. He doth not (saith he) make the robbing of God the cause why they were cursed, but his curse the impulsive cause why they robbed God: For they pretended that it was not to be thought much that they detained the tithes and offerings; seeing they were forced to it, by reason of the want of the fruits of the Earth caused by the curse of God. But God required that though they had scarcity, and his curse were on them, yet they should bring in his full tithes of what they had, which if they did he promiseth to return and bless them. This exposition he prefers before any, though he name another also, viz. by way of Interrogation, ye are cursed with a curse, and do ye rob me? i. e. Is it not a wonder that ye are not deterred by the punishments which I have sent on you, but do rob me even when ye are cursed? or without an interrogation, ye are cursed, and yet ye rob me, even this whole Nation: as if he should say, I cannot but accuse you of great perversness and stubborness, who when ye be cursed by me, go on to rob me, and that your whole Nation. This he saith, excepting against the ordinary Translations and Expositions. But if we consider the words in respect to what precedes, we shall find them to comprehend what is by either said.

In the second Chapter, v. 2. we hear God threatning to send a curse upon them, yea, telling them that he had already cursed them. The sins for which he there threatens them are manifest out of the foregoing Chapter, to have been their misbehavior in bringing their offerrings to God, in that they offered polluted bread upon his Altar, and in that they brought to him, to whom the best of their substance was due, that which was torn, lame, sick, and corrupt. There was in that plainly a robbing of him, while detaining to themselves the best things which were due to him, they gave him only the worst, and that which they cared not for. And for that, he threatneth, if they would not amend it, to send a curse upon them; yea, tells them that the curse was already gone forth: they that would rob him in that kind, would not stick to rob him in others also, though not fully expressed till now, viz. in defrauding him by detaining their tithes and offerings, which here mentioning, he mentions again that curse by their evil dealing brought upon them, and tells them that it should not be removed, till they brought in all the tithes into the storehouse; so that we may conceive, the cause of the curse to have been their robbing him, and then the curse being a curse of scarcity and penury, that to have caused them, that they might make themselves whole, as much as they could, to detain what they should have given him, which he shews to have been a wrong course, and a farther cause to him of continuing the curse on them, which should not be removed but upon their amendment of their doings; so that, if it be asked what was the cause of the curse on them, we may say with ours and other Interpreters, that it was, their robbing of God: if, what was the cause that they pretended for their robbing of God, we may say with that learned man, that it was the penury or scarcity which by the curse of God was brought on them: they pretended that his tithes and offerings would be more then they could spare out of that small store which he gave them, or their wicked thought (as if they stood on even terms with him) was, that seeing he had stinted and abridged them of what he was wont to give them, they would abbridge him of what they were commanded and ought to give him: If then it be further asked what was the effect of this their proceeding to rob him; that it was a continuance of his curse to them. So that though we look on what he saith as true, in respect of the cause which they pretended for the robbing of God, yet we cannot but according to what others say look on that their fraudulent dealing, as a cause provoking God to send his curse on them, and so to joyn both Expositions together. And in this the Jewish Expositors shew us the way. R. Salomo Jarchi thus expounds them, ‘Ye are cursed with a curse for this iniquity, because I send a curse on the works of your hands, [Page] and yet notwithstanding ye do rob me.’ Aben Ezra thus, ‘Because ye say, How shall we give with a good eye (or cheerfully) out of this little? but this is not good (or well) that ye rob me, because of the curse and scarcity with which ye are cursed, and are in want; but this do, Bring in all the tithe, and I will pour upon you a blessing, &c. that they should not give with an evil eye. By the curse you ought to have been corrected, (or amended) and not provoked to rob me.’ R. David Kimchi, thus, ‘Ye are cursed with a curse: for those transgressions which were before mentioned, as he said, yea, I have cursed you. Yet farther, still you do add iniquity to iniquity, and ye rob me out of that which you gather, in that you do not give me of it the offering, and the tithes, and ye say he robbeth us of rain, and sends a curse on the fruits, and shall we give him the offering and the tithes?’ and lastly Abarbinel, ‘Do ye think to get ease by denying to give to me the tithe and offering, as ye ought? the matter is not so, for for this iniquity ye are cursed with a curse by me. Yet notwithstanding ye rob me, and so the matter is become hurtful to you, and hurtful to the Levites and Priests.’

What is added, even this whole Nation, R. David Kimchi thinks to intimate, that the whole Nation was not equally guilty of the other forementioned sins, but of this they were. n Some joyn these words with the former words, thus, ye are cursed with a curse, even this whole Nation, because ye have robbed me: but the plainer construction seems that which ours follow, ye are cursed with a curse, and (or for) ye have robbed me, even this whole Nation, all of you have done it; joyning them with the immediatly preceding words. The sense will be much the same, and one infer the other, a general sin and a general curse; so that these words will necessarily be referred to both, and shew both the extent of the sin, and of the curse, all the whole Nation being concerned in both. And for the punishment they repined, but did not repent of the sin, but rather more obstinatly went on in it, and thought to have stood it out with God; but they took not a right course herein, they could not by this get the better of God. If they would be eased of the curse, it must be by pacifying him, not by thinking to make themselves whole out of his part; and therefore he shews in the next words, what is the only way for them to take, even to amend in themselves their errour.

10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

11 And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the Lord of hosts.

12 And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsom land, saith the Lord of hosts.

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, &c.] Their sin it appears consisted, in that they detained part of those tithes, which they ought, according to the Law, to have paid, and did abbridge God of his due; some (it seems) they brought in, as much as they thought good, not so much as he had commanded. So that by this means there was not sufficient maintenance for those who were to wait on his Service, the Priests and Levites, and were by that his due to have been maintained, that without distraction they might attend on their office; this their doing is called robbing of God.

For illustrating the things here said, it will be convenient to look on what we have of the History of those times recorded in the Book of Nehemiah, in which we read, c. 5.3. that there was a great dearth among them. And this curse, here spoken of, seems to have been a present dearth or scarcity, not only one threatned for the future: then c. XIII. v. 10, &c. that ‘Nehemiah found that the portions of the Levites had not been given them, so that they forsook their work, and fled every man to his field to get a livelyhood.’ And the occasion of this appears to be, because all the tithes were not paid, for so upon Nehemiahs contending with the Rulers about it, it is said, v. 12. Then brought all Judah the tithe of the corn, and the new wine and the oyl into the treasuries, or storehouses, as in the margin, and as here translated; the word being in both the same, denoting such a room as was at the Temple appointed for the laying up of those things brought in, as ⁵²³ v. 5. of that XIII. ch. is [Page] described, viz. a great room, or rooms, where they laid the meat offerings, the frankincense, and the vessels, and the tithes of the corn, the new wine, and the oyl, which was commanded to be given to the Levites, and the Singers, and the Porters, and the offerings of the Priests. But those things were not duly given to them as it appears by reason of the Peoples defect in bringing them in. Grotius thinks that the sin, here found fault with, was, that whereas out of the Terumah or offering mentioned, Deut. XVIII.4. and such other gifts as were due to the Priests, they ought to have maintained the daily Sacrifices; they either did it not at all, or in such illegal fraudulent manner as is reproved in the first Chapter, and that the Priests took the whole tithes to themselves, and did not give to the Levites what ought to have been distributed to them, viz. nine parts of them, and that the whole Nation became guilty in robbing God, because that when they saw the Levites were not maintained out of the tithes, they abstained from bringing them, and so God was robbed; both because such things were not performed to him, for which the offerings were given, and because the Levites were not maintained, as they ought to be, but forsook his Service for want of sustenance, and so he was deprived of their Ministry.

But neither here, nor in Nehemiah, is any thing specified in these kinds, but only the People accused for not bringing in all their tithes, by which failure in them, there was not meat in his house, i. e. maintainance, for his Altar and those that ministred at it, and did Service in his House, whether Priests or Levites. For which sin he is angry with them, and commands it here to be redressed by the whole Nation, which were all guilty, by their bringing in all the tithes into the storehouse; and so in Nehemiah it is said that that zealous Governour caused all Judah to do, and that he then set treasurers over the treasuries, to see them distributed as they ought. How long before that was done, this was spoken by the Prophet, the History of the Scripture doth not make clear. But herein do these two Books well agree, in that both here and there a dearth is spoken of: and as here the People are reproved for robbing God in tithes and offerings, so there it is testified that they did detain them; and whereas, here they are exhorted to redress that sin, by bringing them all duly in, for removing the curse that was on them; so there we p read that Nehemiah prevailed on them so to do, as perceiving that there was no other way for averting Gods wrath from them. What was the issue on their doing so, the History doth not proceed so far as to declare, but here in the Prophet we have assurance, that if with a willing and pious mind they should do so, it should be good; God would remove the curse, and abundantly bless them. If they would be so just to God, and kind to themselves as to put it to the trial, by but doing what they ought to do, they should find that God would not fail in any measure of his Promise, but would on their obedience do more for them then by vertue thereof they might ordinarily expect. This he gives assurance of in the next words, And prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open you the windows of Heaven, &c.

The connexion of these words with the former verse, and the meaning of them, as likewise with the following, Abarbinel thus gives, [And if ye shall say that this curse on the fruits of the Earth, is not because of this, but that it is an accident to you, come now let us make a trial, Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, as much as if he should say, give the tithes and offerings in full measure, and with a good eye, and bring them into the Lords storehouse, that there may be meat, i. e. sustenance, and maintainance for the Ministers of my House, the Priests and Levites, and prove me now by this. For (saith he) though the Law saith, ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, Deut. VI.16. q yet now for your information at this present (on this present occasion) prove me, and tempt (or try me) if I will not open you the windows of Heaven, to give the rain of your Land in its season, in such a manner as that I will pour out upon you a blessing to [...] Beli dai, i. e. not to enough only, and such as shall be sufficient, but more and more then enough, that is, a great addition: (but R. D. Kimchi, saith he, expounds it, till there be not vessels to put it in;) and by this ye shall know that for transgressing in matter of tithes, this curse hath been on the corn (or encrease of the Earth) hitherto. And because the Locust and the Catterpillar came upon them▪ and devoured their fruits in the Fields and Vineyards, therefore he saith, and I will rebuke for you (or for your sakes) the devourer, viz. the Locust which devoureth the encrease, (or fruits of the Earth) in such a manner as that he shall not destroy any more to you the fruit of the ground, and of the Vine; for by the will of God are the waies of them; the Beast of the Field, and the Fowl of the Air shall make peace with thee, and the Earth shall yield her encrease in full perfection, so that in respect of the abundance of the fruits which you shall have, all Nations shall call you blessed. And whereas you have been a reproach amongst the Nations, because of the famine occasioned by the curse, with which I cursed you, for your iniquities; now [Page] when all the fruits shall be blessed, ye shall be counted blessed, and prosperous in the eyes of all Nations, and they shall say that your Land is a Land of delight, in which I delight, and that therefore the fruits thereof are blessed.] Thus have we given his words at large, because they give an entire and good Paraphrase and Exposition of these three verses, viz. 10, 11, 12. without interruption, yet because of some different Expositions of others, we shall again more particularly reflect on some of the words and expressions.

Prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open, &c.] r Some look on this as an implicite form of Oath, and an imperfect speech to be supplied, by adding after it, if I will not open, &c. then let me be accounted worse then my word, or the like; because it is usual with the Scripture, when things are to be expressed, which seem to denote something which may sound of blasphemy, or contain any thing unfit to be said, to be silent, and rather leave men to conceive them, then to utter them, or else to use some more comely or honest expression. But however this rule may be elsewhere appliable, here seems to be no need of it. According to those here is a stop made after, prove me now here with, and a distinct member of the sentence to begin. But read all, as in our Translation and others in a continued sense, and the meaning is plain without any such supply, or any abruptness, in the speech, as if he should say, you, in doing what you do, take a wrong course; neither your detaining my dues, nor murmuring against my justice, shall any thing prevail for good or help to you in this curse of penury, under which ye suffer; but if you will find relief, do what I prescribe to you, Bring in all your tithes, &c. and thereby prove me whether I will not quickly remove the curse, by giving all necessary causes and means of a contrary blessing. And so it implies a Promise, that he will do it, they shall certainly find it; s and that the parting with that which they detained, as fearing the parting therewith, should diminish their store, shall be a way, the only way for great encrease of it.

To this purpose R. D. Kimchi explains the words, ‘Bring in all your tithes, &c. that there may be meat for those that serve me, and withall repent you of the faults mentioned; if ye do not, I will punish you with other punishments; but if you do bring in all the tithes and offerings as ye ought, I will give you rain, and pour out on you a blessing.’

Pelicanus a learned and serious man in this Exposition follows him, who also from what is here said, with great reason urgeth on Christians under the Gospel, a diligent care of due and willing paying such tithes and oblations, as are for the maintainance of the Ministry, &c. As likewise t Oecolampadius, saying, that Christian liberty exempteth none from tithes that were wont to be paid. But to receive what either they or any other in like kind, deduce and conclude from these words, will not be to our present purpose, which is to clear only the litteral Exposition of the words, and shew what meaning they will bear.

If I will not open, &c.] That which is here promised, is generally agreed on to be a plenteous rain, by restraint of which, there was occasioned a dearth in the Land, and this the Lord saith, he will give. Though the rain proceed from natural causes constituted by God, as other things in the order of nature do, yet the ordering of those causes and effects, as concerning rain have alwaies been looked on as an immediate act of God himself, whereby his power and mercy towards men have been as visibly declared as in any thing, and as a particular act of his Providence, in causing it to come, (or not come) whether for correction, or for his Land, or for mercy, Job. XXXVII.13. It is therefore an ancient saying among the u Jews, that there be three keys which God hath reserved in his own hand, and hath not delivered to any Minister or Substitute, viz. the keys of life, and of rain, and of the Resurrection of the Dead; in the ordering of the rain they look on his great power to appear, no less then in giving life at first, or afterwards raising the Dead to it: agreeable to which S. Paul saith, that God left himself not without witness, in that he did good, and gave rain from Heaven, and fruitful Seasons, Act. XIV.17. It was a manifest testimony alwaies to all Nations of his divine power, and so acknowledged; so that it will not be necessary to look into those many places of Scripture, wherein he speaks of it as so, either by promising to give it for a blessing, or restrain it for a curse and punishment.

When he restrains it, he is in a figurative speech said to shut up Heaven, as Deut. XI.17. and Luc. IV.25. and to stop the windows of Heaven, Gen. VIII.2. equivalent to which is another expression of making the Heaven brass, Deut. XXVIII.23. and staying it, Hag. I.10. When he giveth it in abundance, he is said, to open the windows (or as x others the cataracts or floud-gates) of Heaven, as here; and likewise, Gen. VII.11. but there it was for a curse, (as sometimes he disposeth it, as we have seen out of Job XXXVII.13.) here for a blessing. Which way soever it be intended, there is no doubt but that the expression is (as Aben Ezra notes) a proverbial phrase for signifying y great abundance: and because abundance thereof may be (as we said) as well for a curse [Page] at sometimes, as a blessing at others; and it is in the disposal of God to order for which it shall be, to shew that his Promise here is for good, he adds, and pour you out a blessing, viz. of plenty, contrary to their present condition of penury. Both the rain, and the making it a blessing, is from him and his ordering. And he saith of that blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. So according to our Translation; and so (as we already noted from Abarbinel) R. D. Kimchi (reporting it as from his Father) saith that the meaning is, in such plenty that you shall not have vessels, or storehouses sufficient to receive it. The words in the original are concise [...] Ad beli dai, and litterally signify only unto not enough, which being an expression not so intelligible in other Languages, Interpreters differently render and explain it in their own Tongues, which rendrings it will be to no purpose to recite, inasmuch as they all agree in this, that it is an expression to denote great abundance, wch shall afford them not only enough to satisfy them, but more then enough, that they shall have to spare, plenty without measure, or such as for its abundance cannot be measured, as R. Tanchum expresses it. Instead of what is in the Text of our Bibles, is put in the Margin, z empty out, which either must be understood, as that in the Text, or else will not be so clear an expression, inasmuch as it may seem to import, that Gods store may be emptied, which can never be. L. de Dieu would have it understood, as long as there is sufficiency, which is perpetually, for Gods sufficiency cannot be exhausted. But for the completing to them a blessing contrary to the curse under which they suffered, it would not be sufficient that they should have rain and fruitfull Seasons; these might make the Earth yeild her encrease, and bring forth in plenty all manner of grain and fruits, and yet they by other means be deprived of them, as by Locusts, Canker-worms, Catter-pillars, and the like devouring creatures, which God calls his great Army, Joel II.25. which in a short time oft have destroyed the hope of the whole year, and occasioned great famines, when there hath been expectation of greatest plenty; and probably these were part of that curse now upon them. For perfecting therefore the blessing here promised on their amendment of their waies, he promiseth also to secure them from these, and all hurt by them, saying, I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, (or to, or for you) i. e. that all things may prosper to you. The devourer; because there were many sorts of such creatures, as may devour and corrupt the corn and fruits, he puts a general name that comprehends all; all of them will he rebuke, i. e. hinder from doing hurt. They are wont to do hurt, not only to the fruits of the ground, the corn and herbage, but to the fruit-trees also, by causing them also not to be able to bring any fruit to perfection, as appears by Joel I.7. according to what some there expound the words. However that place be understood, the thing is known and manifest, and therefore both Munster and the Tigurin Latin Version, instead of what ours render, neither shall your Vine cast her fruit before the time in the Field, &c. translate it, neither shall he (i. e. the devourer) make your Vine barren (or unfruitful to you in the Field,) and to that doth that Exposition of Abarbinel (which we have seen) seem to encline. The Verb [...] Teshaccel is of that form, as that it signifies sometimes to cause to make abortive, to deprive of, and the like in an active sense, as Deut. XXXII.25. The sword &c. shall destroy, or bereave, and Ezek XIV.15. If I cause noisom beasts to pass through the Land [...] Veshiccelattah, and they spoil it, or bereave it. And in the same sense Hos. IX.12. [...] Shiccaltim I will bereave them, to omit other examples: And sometimes again in an absolute sense, viz. to be abortive, to be deprived of, or cast fruit before it be perfect, as Gen. XXXI.31. Thy Ewes and thy she-Goats [...] Lo shiccelu, have not cast their young (or been abortive,) and Job XXI.10. Their Cow calveth [...] Velo teshaccel, and casteth not her Calf. Those therefore mentioned take the Verb in the former signification; ours and most others, both Jewish and Christian Expositors, in the latter, to which we the more incline, because otherwise here will be a change of the Gender in the Verb, speaking of the same thing, for that in the word destroy is masculine, but here is feminine, so that they seem one to agree with the first Noun Locust, which is of the masculine Gender, and the other with Vine in the feminine, however such change of Genders may be admitted: and seeing though the Locusts destroy not the Vines, yet there may be other means, as Blasts, or Blights, and hurtfull Winds, and like causes, whether from within or without, which may make them loose or cast their fruit before it comes to maturity, even after a great shew and likelyhood of plenty; from hurt by all such causes, whether from such devouring creatures, or any other means, God here promiseth to secure them upon their turning to him, and to give them both the encrease of the Earth, and fruit of the Vine, and so all necessary things in such plenty and perfection, that all Nations seeing Gods great goodness shewed unto them, shall call them blessed, For ye (saith he) shall be [...] Erets chephets, a delightsome Land, or Land of delight, or desire; worthy to be desired, [Page] saith the Vulgar, i. e. (as a some will) a Land that men would desire to live in. So R. Tanchum, a Land to be desired and chosen for its pleasantness, and excellency, to the same sense that it is said, which is the glory of all Lands, b Ezek. XX.6, 15. c Others with Abarbinel understand it, a Land of desire, or well pleasing to God, i. e. such as he takes delight in, and shews extraordinary respect and favour to, both to the People and the Land, (as Aben Ezra) as he saith elsewhere of Zion, that she should be called Hephzibah, Isa. LXII.4. i. e. my delight is in her, because, saith he, the Lord delighteth in thee: and the comparing that place with this, seems to make for this Exposition, and it will be well illustrated by what is said, Deut. XI.12. a Land which the Lord thy God careth for, (or seeketh,) the eyes of the Lord thy God are alwaies upon it, from the beginning of the year, even unto the end of the year, viz. to give it its rain in due season, the first rain to make it spring up, and the latter rain to bring it to perfection, and so to preserve the fruits of the Earth, that they might gather in their corn, and their wine, and their oyl, v. 14. which is the same care, and the same blessing that is here promised. This Exposition the Syriack follows, rendring it [...] Ar'o detzebyoni, A Land of my delight, good will or pleasure, i. e. to which I bear good will, or have good liking to. The Chalde likewise taketh it in, rendring, And all Nations shall praise you, because you dwell in the Land of the House of my Majestatick presence, and do therein my pleasure. He suggests therein a double meaning or respect to the word [...] Chephets, as first that they or their Land should be called a Land of delight, or good will, because God delighted to dwell in it, and secondly, because the Inhabitants thereof did the good pleasure of God and delighted to do his will; and therefore he delighted in them, and to do good to them, as appeared by his extraordinary blessings poured out upon them, more then on other People, which they should all acknowledge and call them blessed for it; so saith the Lord of Hosts, of all the Hosts of Heaven and Earth, who hath power and command of all, and therefore so shall it certainly be, as he saith.

13 ¶ Your words have been stout against me, saith the Lord: yet ye say, What have we spoken so much against thee?

14 Ye have said, It is vain to serve God; and what profit is it that we have kept his ordinance, and that we have walked mournfully before the Lord of hosts?

15 And now we call the proud happy: yea, they that work wickedness are set up, yea, they that tempt God are even delivered.

16 ¶ Then they that feared the Lord, spake often one to another, and the Lord hearkened, and heard it; and a book of remembrance was written before him, for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his Name.

Your words have been stout against me, saith the Lord.] These words may be coupled with the former, as if they were a complaint of the Jews stubbornness, that though God had reproved them for their sins (such as have been expressed) and by some judgements warned them of his displeasure for them, and likewise had invited them to repentance, and promised upon their repentance to remove those judgements, and turn the curse, with which he had cursed them, into a blessing, d yet this was so far from working in them repentance that they grew more and more insolent, and instead of acknowledging their faults and ill deserts, proceeded in speaking against him and his justice, as if he inflicted on them worse then they deserved, not accepting of any service from them, and mean while seemed to favor those that were notoriously wicked, and tempted him, and despised him, e and so set at nought what by the Prophets was spoken to them for their good. Wherefore he proceeds farther to reprove them, and mind them of the ill consequents of such their ill behavior, which shall be occasion of more heavy judgements, and final destruction, as between this and the end of the Chapter he shews. Or we need not be sollicitous of the coherence of these words with those immediately preceding, but may look upon them as a new reproof, or at least a fresh resumed; and on what follows as a beginning or continuation of a Prophecy f for the time to come, and of the terrible day of the Lord; after the former words inserted for shewing them what was the cause of that judgement of famine at present upon them, and by what means they might remove it, for the fault here objected to them, is much the same with that mentioned in the last verse of the foregoing [Page] Chapter. However we make or judge of the coherence, the meaning of the words in themselves will be the same, your words have been stout against me, stout and great, or insolent words have ye spoken against me, saith Abarbinel; and that will be the sense however there be some little difference between g Translators in expressing it. For all look upon it to denote that their words were such as would be irksome, grievous, and burthensome to any man, and overcome his patience, by casting hard and odious things on him undeservedly; and so (God speaking in the language of men) looks on them as to himself; h or, that their words were more and more insolent against him.

Yet ye say wherein have we spoken so much against thee. The words so much are supplied or added above what is in the letter of the Hebrew Text; I suppose to express what some (as namely i Kimchi) observe that the word [...] Nidbarnu, being in a passive form though active signification, implies more then in a simple active form, so as to denote not only speaking, but a continual, reiterated, or much and frequent speaking; and so here doth the Chalde render, wherein have we multiplyed speaking, or spoken much, against thee? which way ours therefore take: others seem not to lay any such weight upon it, but simply render it, what have we spoken against thee? But generally they render it actively, as it is elsewhere used, as Ps. CXIX.23. Princes [...] Binidbaru, spake against me; and Ezek. XXXIII.30. [...] Hannidbarim, which ours render still talking against. Yet here Abarbinel thinks it may be more conveniently taken for a Verb passive, as well in signification as in form, and be rendred, what are we spoken of to thee, what is said of us to thee, or what are we reported by false accusers to have said aganst thee, as men use to do when they are accused of some ill that they have spoken in secret, to say to him that tells them of it, what false report is this that hath been brought to you concerning us? This way also Montanus commends, though not mentioning whom he follows in it. The words either way taken, include a denial of the fact, and shew their folly in thinking that God did not know what they thought and said in secret, even in their hearts, except they spake it openly and lowdly in the ears of all, or else some to whom they spake it should report it to God. He therefore to shew that he knew, both what was in their mouths and hearts, and to convince them of their guiltiness in that which he accuseth them of, answers them by a particular declaration of what they said. If ye say, what have we spoken against thee? it is this, ye have said, it is vain to serve God, &c.

Ye have said so, at least thought in your hearts, which is all one with speaking, in the ears of God. It is vain to serve God [...] Shav abod Elohim. The Greek and ancient Latin, He is vain that serveth God, as if they had read [...] Obed, he that serveth, for Abod, to serve: but I do not suppose them to have read so, but only to have given the meaning as they thought convenient, for it is all one to say, It is in vain to do such a thing, or, He is vain that doth such a thing▪ the meaning of both being, It is to no purpose that he doth such a thing, or he looseth his labor that doth it, he gets nothing by it, as the Chalde here paraphraseth it, He gains nothing which serves the Lord. It is vain: to wit, to him that so doth: though it may, as k some think, be referred to him to whom it is done, i. e. no profit to God if we serve him: according to what is said, Job XXXV.7. l If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand? but the former is the plainer. The expression gives to suppose, that they served God, and this supposition the Syriack taking in renders, In vain have we served God, and so it well agrees with what follows, and what profit is it that we have kept his Ordinance, what Mammon, or wealth, have we gained? saith the Chalde, (as if it were for Mammons sake only that they served God, and so indeed not God at all, but Mammon.)

His Ordinance, or as in the Margin, his observation.] i. e. that we have observed those things that he hath commanded us to observe. What advantage have we gained by it? yea though we have walked mournfully (or as the Margin hath it) in black, m which is the habit of Mourners: or, as others, with bowing down, or the like submiss gesture, before the Lord of Hosts; and shewed in our behaviour all signs of penitence, and n awfull fear of him by mourning, fasting, and humbling our selves in contrition of spirit (as the Chalde hath it) before him, and the like. Which last words Abarbinel seems to expound otherwise, viz. ‘We have not only not gained any thing, but withall, have been forced to walk mournfully and afflictedly before the Lord, i. e. because we have kept his Commandments.’ But the former construction seems plainer, in that the particle [...] Ci, that, or because, with which the last foregoing member of the sentence is joyned with what goes before, is here again repeated with a copulative conjunction, that we have done that, and that we have done this. Their complaint (according to him) was, that there was no profit in serving God, either on Gods part or their own, no advantage to either; and therefore that it was a vain labour: they were happier that saved themselves that trouble; so it follows,

And now (or o now therefore) we call the proud [Page]happy.] Proud, insolent, presumptuous men, who will not be kept in by any bounds, nor observe Gods Ordinances, as we do, nor walk humbly before him, p but transgress all Laws of Religion and Justice. [The same word used Psal. XIX.13. substantively is rendered prides, or presumptuous sins; but here adjectively, presumptuous sinners.] Such we look upon to be in a condition more to be envied and desired, then pityed or feared for, inasmuch as they enjoy all worldly pleasures and prosperity, nor are overtaken, or, as far as we can perceive, like to be overtaken with any punishment or mischief, in their persons, or any belonging to them; yea so far is it from that, that they that work wickedness (set themselves purposely to do it) are set up (or built, as the Margin hath it, for so the word [...] Nibnu literally signifies) i. e. are firmly established, like a new building, saith q one, not likely quickly to fall or decay. They flourish in their offspring, say r others, alluding to the name [...] Ben, son, in respect to which the Verb that signifies building is used for to obtain children, and so by ours rendred, Gen. XVI.2. and XXX.3. i. e. they raise their houses and families, as s one paraphrases it here: t they are not cut off, but leave a numerous posterity to keep up their name; or generally, they flourish and prosper more and more, all things thrive and prosper with them, yea, farther yet, they that set themselves so impudently to sin, as to tempt God, as if they did it on purpose to try and prove him, whether he could or would punish sinners, and to provoke and dare him to do his worst, to execute judgement if he be a God of judgement; even these are delivered, and escape without any of those punishments in the Law, or by the Prophets threatned against obstinate, impenitent sinners. These are the words, or thoughts of those unsound ones in their Religion, and unsincere in their practise, who, looking on what they saw at present, and not on what should certainly in due time be made manifest for clearing Gods Justice, and his perpetual love to good, and hatred of evil, did hence take occasion of questioning whether there were any just Judge or judgement: and of repining and murmuring against Gods ordering of the affairs of men, and so of contemning and setting at nought what was by the Prophets, reprooving them for their sins, and calling them to repentance for removing such judgements as were on them, or preventing of others, said unto them. Who they were that said these words, and when they said them, and concerning whom, is not particularly expressed. R. Tanchum therefore, as he did also, c. 2.17. looks upon them as representing words which should in time to come be spoken by Israel in captivity, such at least, as if they did not speak or profess, yet might seem to have occasion to do it. And that they are here recited for reproof to them that should be impatient under the length of their captivity, and forsake their Religion, and speak thus in respect to what they should perceive of the prosperity of heathenish Nations notwithstanding their impiety: to which is added in the following words a declaration, that those that endure patiently and stick to the truth, shall in the end be rewarded in the best manner, as in the two following verses, Then they that feared the Lord, &c. and then is added a mention likewise of the punishment of those that are not so affected, and the punishment of the wicked injurious Nations also, (as he saith v. 18. and c. 4.1. then shall ye return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, &c. Behold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, &c.) But as to the former part of his words, it cannot be made out of what is here spoken, as neither out of the last verse of the second Chapter, but is destructive to the right meaning of them.

The words being directed to them that were returned from the Babylonish captivity, manifestly concern the behaviour of them now again settled in their Country, which was not such as it ought to have been, and therefore they are reproved for it; that which is here objected to them, appears to have been a sin of impatience and blasphemy against God, and his Providence and Justice, of which too many or most of them were guilty; yet not all, for while the discontented ones among them spake thus impiously of God and his Justice, there were others that feared the Lord, and spake among themselves otherwise, as is manifest by the next words. But he seems to mean it of the time of the captivity, that they are now under, and a future Judgement yet to come, wherein he is manifestly wide of the matter, and passing over the times of the Prophet, and the present People of which he spake, transfers the words to such times as they do not properly concern, times now present and yet to come: and taking no notice of that day of the Lord, which was here prophesied of, as then indeed to come, but which is long since come, would have another yet on earth to be expected, if the Lord, the Messiah, whose coming was that day, were not yet come, which is the common error of the Jews, which hath been already discovered, and will in considering the following words be farther discovered if God permit.

As for what, therefore, is spoken by way of reproof and comfort, it must be applyed to the right persons concerned therein, which doubtless were in the first place those of that [Page] present time, and then such as should succeed them betwixt that and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans; the completion of that day of the Lords coming, both before, ver. 2. and after c. IV.1. spoken of. Those at that present for the most part of them murmured against Gods Justice, in the manner here described, yet, then mean while (as it follows in the next verse,) they that feared the Lord v hearing what the Prophet said, spake often one to another. The word, often, is not expressed in the Hebrew, and therefore the words are by others rendred, only spake one to another. But our Translators thought good to supply it, as being included in the word [...] Nidbaru, according to what we have seen to be observed by some of the force of the Verb in this form on ver. 13. What they spake is not here expressed, except we render it otherwise, as x some do, spake one to another, saying, certainly God hearkneth and heareth, &c. as if the words following were those that they spake. But this y seems somewhat harsh, in regard that the copulative, and, which is in the original, in [...] Vayaksheb, and the Lord hearkned, is wrested to another signification. It is more easy to understand it thus to be meant, that as the wicked spake much among themselves, so these also did, but contrary things; they against Gods Justice, z these in vindication of it, believing what the Prophet said, and expecting the completion of it: And what they said was not in vain to them, for the Lord hearkned, and heard it.

But before we proceed to those words, we may here take notice that as Abarbinel (as we shewed) differs in the understanding of this word [...] Nidbar, in the 13. verse, so here he goes much more wide from them, taking it in clean another signification from that which he himself gave it there, and others both here and there give it. For here he would have the words rendred, as continued with the former, and part of what those blasphemers, before mentioned, said, viz. that then they that feared the Lord were destroyed, from another signification that the same root hath, and is used in, as in other places according to him and some others. So in II Chron. XXII.10. [...] Vattedabber, and she destroyed all the Seed Royal; and from it is the Noun [...] Deber, which signifies the plague, or such destructive sickness: so that according to him the sense is, that when the presumptuous sinners, that work wickedness, are set up, and though they tempt God by exposing themselves to the greatest dangers, are yet delivered; then at that very time they that fear the Lord perish, are cut off and destroyed, one together with another, [...] el, to, being here the same that [...] Im, with, (or, are by evil accidents intangling them, made destructive and causes of perdition one to another,) as if the hand of God were upon them to confound and destroy them. Thus far he would have the words of those that spake against Gods Justice to reach, and then the following words, the Lord hearkned, &c. to be an answer from the Prophet to them; as if he should say to them, Know and consider that to all this that you say, God hearkneth and heareth it, and that both the righteousness of the righteous, and the wickedness of the wicked are as manifest before him, as if all were written in a book of remembrance, that it might remain many daies, till the time of due recompence and reward, &c.

And the same way of Exposition with him doth Arias Montanus follow, and gives it as his own conjecture or opinion, probably having seen Abarbinel, else he would scarce have fallen in so fully with him here, as he doth in many other places, without mentioning him in Expositions singular to them: and this he commends as most agreeable to the words, but I see no reason to be of his opinion, but choose rather to follow that interpretation which our Translation, with the most both of Jews and Christians, gives, not making these first words a part of those stout words which the wicked spake against God, but a declaration of the behaviour of those that feared God; and the following, of the good consequence thereon. So R. D. Kimchi perspicuously expounds them and the following. ‘The former words were the saying of those who did not understand the waies of the Lord and his Judgements; and when those that feared the Lord heard those words from those men, who denyed the Providence of God over these things below, they spake one with another and multiplyed, or often repeated those words, and argued the matter, till they found by their understanding, that all his a waies are judgement, that he is a God of truth and without iniquity. And the Lord hearkned, i. e. God blessed for ever attended to their words, and gave them their reward for this. And a book of remembrance was written before him, a proverbial expression according to the language of men, among whom Kings write a book of memorials; (for there is no forgetfulness with God,) according to what is said, blot me out of thy Book, Exod. XXXII.32. and every one that shall be found written in the book, Dan. XII.2.’

These words of his we have set down at large, because they give exactly that notion concerning the distinction of the words from the former and the signification of the Verb [...] Nidbaru, which our Translators choose [Page] to follow. And it is that wherein most both Jewish and Christian Expositors do well agree; as likewise in what is meant by what he saith, and the Lord hearkned and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written, viz. that the Lord took due notice of what was said, (both by bad and good, say b some; which though it be true that he doth so, yet here more particularly it seems to be referred to the good,) and kept it in perpetual remembrance, in the register of his memory, if we may so speak, as certainly as if it were written in a book, according to the custome of men c, who note down in writing, or cause to be registred, such things as they would not forget, but be sure to call to mind, and shew that they took due notice of, as meet occasion and opportunity should serve; to reward those that had done them any service or deserved well, or whom they had a mind to do good to. Of Gods book, and things being written in it, there is we know often mention in the Scriptures, besides those places which Kimchi recites, both in the Old and New Testament; and every where is much alike to be understood, viz. that the things spoken of are as surely known, and had in remembrance with him, as if they were written down before him. And so where the books are said to be opened, it is the making manifest his knowledge of those things, by his passing sentence on men accordingly for good or bad: see Dan. VII.10. and Revel. XX.12. and Isa. LXV.6.

The book of remembrance, is here said to be written for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name, viz. to give them assurance that their faithfulness to him, d however he did not presently reward them openly for it, yet was duly taken notice of by him, and in due time he would make it known by his distinguishing them from the wicked, and his great care of them to preserve them from those heavy judgements, and that destruction which should seize on the others, as will appear in the following words.

But before we pass to them, we may take notice of what is by some observed concerning the signification or force of that word which is rendred, and that thought upon his Name, viz. that it imports not a bare thinking of, but a due esteem and awful regard of, so as with all care to avoid all things that may tend to the dishonor of it; constantly to endeavor so to walk as beseems such who profess to know God and to serve him, as alwaies in his presence, and with respect to him, and fear of him. Those, saith Kimchi, are meant who alwaies think of, or meditate in the waies of the Lord, and the knowledge of his God-head, for his Name is himself, and he (himself) is his Name. Aben Ezra understands it of the wise in heart, who know the secret (or the mystery) of the glorious awfull Name. He seems to allude to what is said, Psal. XXV.14. the secret of the Lord is with them that fear him. R. Tanchum saith that the word [...] Choshebe rendred that thought on, imports or includes honoring and magnifying; according to the use of the word [...] Chashub, for one in dignity and high esteem: so that it may be expounded, such as knowing the secret of that glorious awful Name, do accordingly magnify it. The Greek, that reverence his Name.

It will not be any great digression to look a little back, and see how the Greek renders the word [...] Nidbaru, of which we have already spoken, because they seem to differ from the Latin and other Translations, rendring it, [...], which usually signifies to murmure or speak against, or to speak of with derogation. These things (saith that Translation) murmured they, that feared the Lord. So that S. Hierom, to give their sense, saith that they took the words they that feared the Lord Ironically, viz. for such as made shew of so doing, but did not truly and really fear him; and so to belong still to those who spake those stout words before mentioned: except we should think that they took it, as if even the righteous were, by what they saw of the prosperity of the wicked, moved to speak otherwise, then they ought, of Gods Justice and Providence, as the Psalmist by the same consideration was, as he confesseth, almost moved sometimes to do, Psal. LXXIII.2, &c.

But besides this signification it hath another given it, viz. e to speak much, to overwhelm with speaking, to speak one down, as we may say, which if it be here taken, and may be used in a good sense, only for much and earnest speaking, then will it be but the same which our Translation gives, and some as we have seen observe to be the import of the word, viz. that those that feared God, hearing what others impiously spake, derogatory to Gods Justice, did in zeal to his Glory speak much and often, and earnestly one to another in vindication of it, and to cry down the folly of those blasphemous ones, and f hinder one another from doing as they did. But whatever may be thought of this the plainest meaning will be that which we have given, agreeably to our own Translation, and that way which most Expositors (as we have said) take; and according to that way have we a clear passage to the next verse, wherein the Lord having assured them that their words are had in remembrance, and their reward with him in due time to be manifested; he proceeds farther to declare it, and to assign a certain time of it.

[Page] 17 And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels, and I will spare them as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.

And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels (or special treasures, as the Margin hath it,) &c.] According to this reading by ours and g some others followed, the meaning will be plain, that though God suffer his, who are his jewels and peculiar treasure, to lie for a while mingled with the rubbish and dross, without distinction made betwixt them, yet there shall come a day of discrimination, in which he will sever them one from another, and make up, and take into his peculiar care his precious jewels, and reject and cast away what is vile and rubbish; and then shall appear who are his, and who are otherwise; though till then it may not appear, yet by what befalls them as to the ordinary affairs of this World, it may be judged that he rather owns the wicked, and those that tempt him, then those that fear him, and duly think on his Name: but then he will put a distinction between the Vessels of his wrath, and the Vessels of mercy, Rom. IX.22, 23. Vessels of honour, and Vessels of dishonour, II Tim. II.20.

But if this rendring please not any (as a learned h Critick seems to except against it, both for rendring mine, and likewise make up my peculiar treasure, as harsh and unusual;) we have another by most of Interpreters given, viz. they shall be to me, in the day that I shall make (or, in the day that I shall do what I said,) a peculiar : so joyning the last word in order of construction with the first, (as i some expresly note that it ought to be) and not joyning it with the word make, as if it were governed of it, viz. they shall be to me a peculiar in the day that I shall make: and the sense is plain then too, there shall come a day of discrimination by me designed, and then, though it doth not yet appear that I make any difference between the wicked and the godly, in that day there shall be put a manifest difference between them, by my separating the godly to my self, and by taking a special care of them, as peculiarly belonging to me, and which I will preserve as carefully as men do what they most esteem, love, and delight in.

The word [...] Segullah rendred by ours Jewels, and in the Margin special treasure, is taken to denote any choyce thing of great price and esteem to any, and which he looks on as his own proper goods, and chief in his care; as k of silver, gold, or precious stones▪ which he laies up in his treasure: and so used for any thing which he takes special care of to preserve to himself. Such it was promised to Israel for a special priviledge and preeminence above all Nations, that they should be unto God, as Exod. XIX.5. If ye will obey my voice, and keep my Covenant ye shall be [...] Segullah, a peculiar treasure to me above all People. And so Deut. VII.6. where is [...] Am segullah, a special People. And Psal. CXXXV.4. the Lord hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel [...] Lisgullato, for his peculiar treasure. It is a priviledge that they still boast much of, all that can pretend to be of the race of Israel; but it appears to be restrained by the same limits that the name of Israel is, and agrees only to such who truly deserve that name, viz. the true Israel of God: as all are not Israel which are of Israel, Rom. IX.6. so neither are they all his [...] Segullah, his Jewels, his special treasure, his peculiar People, but only such who are m the true Israel of God; so here out of all Israel doth he say, that in that day, only they that feared the Lord, and thought on his Name, should be to him, [...] Segullah a special treasure or peculiar People. Which title, as well as that of Israel, in the New Testament being transferred unto Christians in Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar People, Tit. II.14. and so I Pet. II.9. we cannot but likewise look on, as bounded with the same limitations, and therefore they that will have comfort in it, must approve themselves not only Christians in Name, but in Deed, by abandoning all iniquity, by being pure and zealous of good works, by being an holy Nation, and so shewing forth the praises of him who hath called them out of darkness into his marvellous light. By having these conditions in them must they approve themselves his special treasure. Ordinary stones will not pass for Jewels with him, nor rubbish and dirt for treasure in the day of tryal, though till then they may not be perhaps discovered.

This distinction between the Jews here spoken to, is said should be, in the day which he should make (or bring on them) or the day wherein he should do, what he determined to do, or said he would do, for both these senses are the words [...] Asher ani Oseh, capable of, and so are by some in the one, by others in the other way rendred, all much to the same purpose; In the day which I shall make or bring to pass, so R. Tanchum, and some in Vatablus; and so the Greek. In the day of Judgement wherein I shall execute judgement on the wicked, saith Kimchi. They shall be to me in the day wherein I do, or make, for a peculiar, saith the l [Page] Vulgar Latin, (not as the Doway Version renders, in the day that I do to my peculiar.) The same way others take; and that so those words should be rendred by themselves indefinitely, viz. in the day which I make (or shall make,) or wherein I do, (i. e. will certainly do.) And the word peculiar not governed of that just in place before it, viz. do or make; but be referred to the foregoing, viz. they shall be to me, may be confirmed by their coming again in the same manner, c. IV.3. in the day that I shall do or make, without any thing added after it. Yet doth the ancient Syriack Version make the last word to be governed of that immediatly preceding it, as ours do, though rendring that otherwise then ours, viz. a congregation, they shall be mine in the day when I shall make a congregation. So the Latin Translator points it, although possibly by otherwise distinguishing the words, it might be rendred, they shall be to me in the day, which I make, a congregation. R. Salomo Jarchi seems to give an Exposition different from all these, to this purpose, ‘In the day which I make a reserved treasure, i. e. which I have treasured and laid up with me, therein to perform (or pay) my recompence.’ And if it were so understood, the expression would agree with that, Act. I.7. wherein speaking of those times, in which they expected that Christ should restore the Kingdom to Israel, he calleth them times and seasons which God had put in his own power.

But whatever differences may be betwixt Expositors, as to the rendring the words, the day in them spoken of is still the same, viz. the day of the Lords coming, mentioned before in this Chapter, in the second, third, and fifth verses, and again in the following Chapter, in the first, second, and third verses; namely, the day wherein God should execute his Judgements on the Nation of the Jews, for working revenge upon his enemies, and redemption to those that fear him, and revere his Name. Though such discrimination shall be fully made between all the godly and the wicked at Christs second coming, the general day of Judgement, (to which, therefore, what is here spoken is by m divers referred,) yet certainly here what is said, respects more particularly the Nation of the Jews, and the time of that nationall judgement denounced against them. What hath been before said, and what is here said, and what shall be after said in this Prophecy, will not be so properly applied, and clearly understood by applying it to any other: mean while may the words well be accommodated, to any other People with whom it shall be so, at any time, as it was then with the Jews, and whom God shall in like kind visit with a national judgement or excision; n what to them happened being to others for example, and likewise to that great day of discrimination, the day of the general judgement; yea, likewise to the day of death, as for what concerns particular men; but still those whom the words seem properly to concern as here spoken to, and of, are the Nation of the Jews, then in being in their own Country, a Nation separate from others, and bearing then the name of the Lords People. In that day when the Lord shall do such things, he will shew by making a manifest difference, who are his, and who are not his: his shall be separated from the rest as his own o peculiar, from such as he will not own nor regard; and when he executeth judgement in fury on others, he will spare them, and keep them that those evils which destroy the wicked shall not touch them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.

These words are a farther declaration of Gods exceeding great favor, and compassion to those whom he would own, and look on as his peculiar, in terms of greatest elegance and height of expression. The compassionate affection of a Father is great to any child, though he be unprofitable to him, yea hurtful to him; how much more when he is profitable to him, and honoreth him? so notes R. Tanchum, and to the same purpose Kimchi, and other Expositors p also. There is another thing also here, by q some taken notice of in the expression, which may well be added, as making for the amplification of Gods goodness, and the consolation of those that fear and honor him, viz. that he saith he will spare them, which imports that though there be found in them defects, and they have done and spoken things that they ought not, and which in rigor of Justice might deserve punishment, yet as long as their hearts are right with him, and they sincerely honour and obey him, and have reverent thoughts of him, he will forgive their transgressions, and in great mercy save them, when he will shew no mercy to the wicked, but according to their deserts in severity deal with them.

18 Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God, and him that serveth him not.

Then shall ye return and discern between, &c.] Then, when that day shall come, such an alteration of things shall there be, that though you now think all things go alike to all, or rather for the worse to those that most serve God, yet then you shall change your minds, and discern that God did alwaies observe the actions of men, and put a difference between [Page] the righteous and the wicked, those that served him, and those that served him not; though till now he did not make it so apparent to men of corrupt judgements.

Some difference here is betwixt Interpreters in rendring, and expounding these words, r some following a reading that is in some Copies of the Vulgar Latin, (viz. & convertimini, and be converted, or return) give us to take it as an exhortation to these wicked ones who spake blasphemously of Gods Justice to return and repent: and then they should discern that distinction between the righteous and the wicked, which they would not now perceive. And with this reading the Tigurin s Version also agrees; so it will sound, now therefore return, &c. to which will be reduced also that Exposition of Pelican, If ye shall repent, ye shall discern. Others following another reading, which t some observe to be more correct, and indeed comes closer to the Letter in the Original, though that admit of both; viz. & convertemini; and ye shall return, or be converted, understand it of the late and bootless repentance of those blasphemers, u or a conversion which they shall be forced to, by what they shall then, nill they, will they, necessarily discern and acknowledge of the x different condition of those that serve God, and those that serve him not. With this rendring agree ours, and y they also who render, then being converted, or returning, you shall discern. A late very learned z man, would have it rendred, and ye shall again see; that the meaning may be, Heretofore, when I blessed my Church with prosperity, then did appear a manifest difference betwixt the righteous and the unrighteous; now because my whole Church is under affliction you deny that difference, but I will make or bring againe a day wherein ye shall again perceive that difference. Now all these look on the words as directed to the wicked, who thought it vain to serve God, as if he took no notice of what was done by men, spoken to vers. 13, 14, 15. a There are who think, they may be taken as directed to those that feared the Lord, next before spoken of, as if the meaning were, that such a change of things should be, that though now they could not perceive any difference betwixt themselves and the wicked, yet then looking on what was come to pass, they should evidently discern it, and perceive Gods especial care over them, and that so here is a change of the person, which is not unfrequent in the Scriptures: for whereas before they were spoken of, in the third person, they are here spoken to in the second. But without nicer enquiry into the persons spoken to, and the nature of the conversion or returning here mentioned, of whom, or whether true or false, it may suffice as to the meaning, to take the scope of the b words, to be as at first we intimated, That such a conversion turning, or change, shall then in that day be in the face of things, that all, both the godly and the ungodly looking thereon, shall necessarily see that there is no place for doubting of Gods Justice, in his ordering of things for the punishment of the wicked, and preservation of the righteous, and that he alwaies doth put a distinction between them, though to men judging by the present outward appearance of things, it is not alwaies so apparent. It shall be made beyond all doubt apparent in that day. By this, saith c Vatablus, he points out the future Resurrection; and so think d others, as well Christians as Jews, as expresly e Abarbinel, who therefore interprets this returning of the souls of men, returning to their bodies at that day; which the thing in it self is true, as to a general distinction between all the righteous, and all the wicked that ever were, or shall be in this World. At the resurrection of the dead, and the general Judgement, there shall be an apparent difference made between them, and the one separated from the other, though before in this World mingled one with another, as when a Shepheard divideth his Sheep from the Goats, Mat. XXV.32. and we willingly grant that the words point at that day, so as to put us in mind of it, and warn us to think thereon. But we do not look on that as the primary and proper scope of this Prophecy, but that it describes to us in the first place, and as its main intent, that national judgement which God threatned to the Jews, and accordingly executed on them in this World, shortly after the first coming of Christ, or at his coming; that word including all that time from his first preaching to the destruction of Jerusalem. That was the day in which the distinction here spoken of was to be made, and accordingly was signally made, as hath been already said, and will be in looking into the next Chapter, wherein is both the certainty of the coming of that day, and the nature or manner of it more fully declared, and described in Prophetical expressions: in finding the true meaning of which, as well as of the present words, as to the words and signification of them, we may still make use of the Jewish Expositors, but not as to the sense and intent. For that day to be meant, which we say, agreeably to the words and history of the times also, is meant, they must by no means grant. That those things belong to the time yet to come, and are to be fulfilled, either at a restauration of Israel, and subduing their enemies, at the coming of their [Page] fancied Messias, which with much earnestness they long for, or at the day of Judgement, or to particulars at the day of death, they will tell us; but that they were fulfilled (as manifestly they were) at that long since past destruction of their Nation, and holy City, and Temple, they must obstinatly deny, or else they must grant and acknowledge as we do, that Christ is already come; in opposing and denying which the whole of their Religion now consists. This therefore in their expounding this Prophecy are they silent of, as if no such thing had been. This here spoken (saith Aben Ezra) was spoken to the men of that generation, because this is the end of all the Prophecies. So say we too: for after Malachi was no other Prophet sent to the Jews, till John Baptist, Christs forerunner, and what is said therefore concerned them, the People of the Jews then being, and all their posterity, till that time that this Prophecy was fulfilled (as by succession still one People) to warn them by repentance to prevent the judgement threatned and declared for that end to them, f by the great mercy, and long suffering of God, not willing that any should perish, but all should come to repentance. But seeing the generality of them would not be brought to repentance, nor know the things belonging to their peace, in that their day, as Christ complains of them, Luc. XIX.42, 44. the judgment was, so as here described, then in Gods appointed time executed, and such a distinction and discrimination, as is here spoken of, visibly to all the World made, in the preservation of such among that People who feared God, and beleived in Christ, and the destruction of his enemies.

CHAP. IV.

‘VERS. 1. For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.’

FOR behold the day cometh, &c.] The connexion and necessary coherence of these words with the former, as being, as we said, a declaration of the certainty of the coming of that day in them spoken of, and a description of it, is so apparent as that it may seem no reason why they should be severed from them, and made the beginning of a new Chapter, and therefore by some are continued with them. But we need not much insist on this, the distinction of Chapters not interrupting the sense. As to the scope of them it is well given by a learned a man, viz. that they are a description of the final Judgement on the Jews (in their destruction) and an image of representation of the last general Judgement on all Mankind. That was certainly then to come on the Jews (if not prevented by their repentance, as it was not,) when the Prophet then spake this, but is long since come; this is yet still to come, but shall in Gods appointed time, as certainly come, as if it were already present. Of both, therefore, it might then be said; Behold the day cometh, i. e. shall certainly come, and the description is so full of terror, as that it may well be applied both to the one and to the other, yet certainly was it that former, which the primary intention of the Prophet was here to describe, and to the latter are the words appliable only by way of accommodation. For to the Nation of the Jews did he then speak, as a Messenger peculiarly sent to them, to reprove them for their sins, and declare to them, such things as concerned them, and not immediatly such things as were common to the whole World, though what things happened to them were ensamples to all other People: and like judgements on like behavior they may justly expect in this World also, besides that last general Judgement which shall involve all, both Jews and other Nations, which (viz. to what People the Prophet was peculiarly sent, and spake, and when) they did not seem to consider who passing over what befell the Jews, according to this Prophecy, expound these words, as primarily and properly belonging to that last general Judgement (and taking in too the particular judgement of particular [Page] men at their death, as some will,) as many do.

'Tis the consent (saith b one) of Jews and Christians, that it should be so expounded of the day of Judgement. Why the Jews must in their own defence and maintainance of their other opinions so expound it, or else of some other time yet to come, hath been already shewed; but why Christians should therein consent with them, there is no reason, yea much to the contrary, that they may not thereby confirm them in their error, as if Christ were not yet come. Yet what might move some Christians so to do, we shall perhaps have occasion to see, when we come to the 5th verse. Mean while we take that which we have given, viz. that this concerns primarily that national judgement on the Jews, not many years after Christs coming, (about 40. after his death) executed by the Romans, the instruments of Gods wrath on them, in that terrible destruction of their City and People, to be the truest and most proper way of expounding the words; and according to that shall proceed: However by way of accommodation allowing them to be applied, either to the particular or general Judgement, to be expected by all other men. And though we cannot consent with the Jews in their opinion, yet may we take notice of some things that they say for illustrating our own; or for shewing the incongruity of their opinion, or for enquiry into the signification and literal meaning of some of the words. And by the way we say, that what is said that the Jews all consent in this, that the peculiar day here designed is the day of the last general Judgement, is spoken but at large. For indeed they do not agree in it, as Abarbinel, who doth himself say that it is meant of the time of the Resurrection and the day of Judgement, plainly sheweth in his Commentary on this place, and seeketh to prove that some do agree with him in it, but confesseth that others of their Doctors do not, who refer it to the punishment that seizeth on the soules of the wicked immediatly after death, and that others speak so obscurely that it cannot be positively said of what time they understood it, whether of the restauration of Israel which they look for, or of the resurrection of the Dead. So that all that can be said, that they consent in, is, that they do not expound it of that day which we do, as their interest leads them, as we have said, to do, though among themselves not agreeing in one opinion, and all erring from the right.

Nor do all Christians neither agree among themselves in the matter. c Some of good note and learning going the way that we take; with whom we may rank d others also, who interpret the place, not of Christs second coming at the end of the World, but of his first coming, though they perhaps extend not that name of his coming so far as we do, but in their explications of it, expound it rather of his preaching, while he was on Earth, by which he convinced those hypocrites of their impiety, not sparing their sins, while they do not expresly mention his terrible Judgements executed on the Jews in the destruction of Jerusalem. e Those also dissent from that opinion, which take this day to include all the time from that wherein this was spoken to the first coming of Christ, and f they also, who understand it, that this day began with the first day of Christs Incarnation, and is to last untill he shall again appear in the Clouds, to the last Judgement, which certainly allow too large a time to that day, which is so described by the Prophet, as to shew it to belong to a g peculiar and particular day, h a great and notable day of the Lord, wherein he shall execute the signal judgement here threatned; called again, v. 5. the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

To proceed therefore to the explication of the words and expressions, which to the way that, according to what hath been said, we take, are plainly agreeable, and according to it and no other, run in an equal tenor, he saith, Behold the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven, &c. We had before an expression to the same purpose, c. III. v. 2. especially according to their explication, who there read, it, i. e. the day of the Lords coming, the day here again spoken of shall be as a refiners fire, as we said Kimchi doth. The words as here set down, with behold for ushering in the strangeness of the thing, prefixed, sound out the greatest horror that can possibly be expressed, and beyond which nothing but the inexpressible terror of the conflagration of the whole World at the last day (of which therefore it is, as we have said, usually interpreted) can be imagined; and nearer to which no terrible judgement in the World ever on any People executed, came (or can well come) then this here spoken of. While he saith that the day shall burn as an oven, what doth it less then represent the condition of those whom the judgement spoken of shall then seize, to be as if they were surrounded with fire, without possibility of avoiding the fury and dire effects thereof, then which nothing, we know, is to men more terrible; as if the heavens were on fire over their heads, and made an hideous noise, and the Elements melted with fervent heat about them, and the Earth and all the works therein were burning; that we may take in, and so compare with these, those not unlike expressions in II Pet. III.10, 12. by which usually the terror of [Page] the day of the last general Judgement, is thought to be described: but in the opinion of the learned Doctor Hammond, this that is here spoken of, viz. that of the judgement threatn'd to the obstinate Jewish Nation.

The words (as there, so here also) are such as no figurative or hyperbolical expressions that can be possibly used for setting forth a most dreadful judgement can surpass, yet so great was the judgement according to this prediction executed on them, as that we may look on them not as a figurative but real description of what should be. What could be said less to express the face of things, when their stately City, and magnificent Temple were all at once on fire, and none could quench it? may it not well be said, that the day there then burnt like an oven, and in words appositely here appliable, though spoken to another sense, Isa. XXXI.9. that Gods fire was then in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem? To shew how in that day (that i day of punishment, as an ancient Arabick Translator, not unfitly for expressing the sense, renders it) that which he before said concerning a certain discrimination to be made between the righteous and the wicked, should be made evident, he describes in the following words the effects of it, and first as concerning the wicked saying, and all the proud, yea and all that do wickedly, all those that obstinately went on in wicked courses, and contemned God and his Laws, shall be stubble, and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, &c. Where is now then any occasion to say, as they did, c. III.15. we call the proud happy, yea they that work wickedness are set up, yea they that tempt God are delivered, what shall now become of their happiness, and of their glory, when they shall be, but as stubble before the fire, which shall without delay or resistance be certainly consumed? where is now that deliverance that they talked of? how shall they deliver themselves? who shall deliver them? no escape shall there be found for them, such utter destruction shall that day that cometh in that dreadful manner bring on them, as if they were clear burnt up, so that it shall leave them neither root, nor branch, which is apparently contrary to that being set up, or built, c. III.15.

This also is a k proverbial speech to express utter destruction by a similitude taken from a tree, destroyed not only by having its boughs and branches cut off, but its roots also plucked up. The Chalde Paraphrast renders it, shall not leave them son nor nephew: because, saith Kimchi explaining it, the first son is as the root, and his son is as the branch (but we may rather say, it shall leave neither them nor their posterity: the Father being the root, the sons and posterity branches from him. That interpretation of the Chalde being by most of the Jewish Expositors followed, Abarbinel not seeing how that may be so conveniently applied to the punishment of the wicked at the Resurrection, finds out another explication which he thinks more convenient, viz. That what is said, is concerning the good works of wicked men, for which because in this World they receive their reward, God will not there leave to them any root, or branch of any commandment by them performed, or any good work, for which they may receive reward in the day of Judgement, according to a saying of their Rabbins, ‘That he the most of whose works are evil, and the least part good, he is rewarded for his small righteousness in this World, that he may be wholy punished in the World to come.’ This he gives as his own opinion, though a very far fetched one, not knowing how to adapt otherwise the words of the Text to that punishment of the day of Judgement, which he here thinks to be the day spoken of. Other opinions he mentions also, as of some, that by branch is understood the infants of wicked men, as if they should not be admitted into the World to come; and otherwise that by root is understood the soul, and by branch the body, with the like, l neither root in this World, nor branch in the World to come.

Among Christian Expositors also they who expound the Text concerning the day of Judgement, are at some m difference in applying the expression to the matter or thing signified, but to them who go the way that we have chosen, of expounding the Text concerning the day of the destruction of the Jews and their City by the Romans, there is no difficulty; but the proverbial speech may be interpreted as nigh to the letter as may be, to denote, Fathers and Children, the wicked and their posterity. Well may that day be said to have burnt them up, and consumed them, so as to leave them neither root nor branch; when at that time Histories testify, that in the Siege and taking of the City, there perished of them by fire, famine, and sword, no less then eleven hundred thousand; to which if we add those vast multitudes, and many thousands of others which were immediatly and within the space of few years after by the same enemies destroyed (which all we may account as consumed by the time, which is called that day, having the authority of a Jew,Kimchi himself, so far to extend the notion of that day, and reckon all for one continued day of destruction, while he saith, although it be said, that the day shall [Page] burn them up, yet their destruction shall not be all in one day, but they shall go on in perishing, and in a short time be consumed): add, I say, those great multitudes to the former, (if there be need,) and what less can be said to express the greatness of the desolation and destruction, then that they were cut off root and branch, so far that it is no small wonder that there should be any remainder of them.

These things are manifest out of the Histories of those times, especially out of Josephus's History of the Jewish War, in the sixth Book, according to the Greek division, the seventh according to the Latin; and Eusebius lib. 3. c. 5. as to the main and first part concerning the destruction of the City, and those multitudes that were then there gathered together, and perished; and as to the gleanings of that day, as we may call the following destructions of the Jews, out of such other Historians as relate the great variety of miseries and calamities which one on the back of another befell them, by their pride, as it is here called, and obstinate behaviour towards the Lord pulled on them. If any have not opportunity of consulting those Histories, he may without farther trouble find enough collected out of them by Dr n Hammond, in his Annotations on the New Testament, (in which he applies several things, which by reason of the dreadfull expressions in which they are set down or denounced, are usually by Interpreters applied to the last general Judgement, and destruction of the whole World, particularly to this day of Jerusalem, which we look on as here meant, to shew, that if what is here said, in the highest language that a scene of horror may be represented by, be applied to what was then really done, there will be found no great hyperbole, or figurative exceeding in it, but rather a plain draught, or description before hand, according to which things were afterward acted.

By what hath been said, appears what little reason there was to account the proud happy, and those that work wickedness set up, and that God delighted in them, because at that time they were suffered to prosper, but whether there were any profit in serving God, and keeping his Ordinances, and what should be done for them by which any might discern betwixt the righteous and the wicked; that part of the question remains yet unanswered, for if they perish with the wicked, be involved in one common judgement with them; what is their case yet better then theirs? To this therefore a full answer follows in the next words.

2 ¶ But unto you that fear my Name, shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings, and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

But unto you that fear my Name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings, &c.] In these words is safety and happiness assured to the righteous, in the day that the wicked shall be miserably destroyed, so that there shall be a manifest discrimination between them. What S. Peter saith, The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of Judgement to be punished, II Pet. II.9. which he infers from two examples before given, viz. his saving Noah, when he brought in the Floud upon the World of the ungodly; And his delivering just Lot, when he turned the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes, and brought them to utter destruction by fire from Heaven, ver. 5, 6, 7. is here manifestly asserted, in that the same day which shall come as a burning oven to the proud wicked ones, to burn them up and destroy them, shall be to those that fear the Name of the Lord, as a glorious day wherein the benigne Sun shall arise with his best influences of comfort to them, to cherish and refresh their drooping spirits.

It is well known that the word [...] Tsedakah here rendred righteousness, is used to signify both justice or righteousness, and also benignity or mercy; and both significations will to this place well agree: for that Salvation and comfort, then to be reached forth to the righteous, is a demonstration both of justice and mercy; by it shall be declared the righteousness of God, whose justice those wicked ones questioned, saying, where is the God of Judgement, c. II.17. in that he now rewardeth them for their obedience, when he punisheth those that would not obey, and by it also his mercy in sparing them, though perhaps having many defects in them, in that day of Judgment, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him, as he promiseth, c. III.17. And this would be a clear sense if we should no farther press the letter of the words then so by way of similitude, to denote that the same time which should be to the wicked, a day of utter destruction, consuming them as fire, should be by the justice and mercy of God to the godly, as a fair day wherein the Sun doth kindly arise, and benignly and largely impart his light (as Drusius explains the expression) for the comfort of men and other creatures; a gracious and comfortable [Page] day, a day of saving health to them: so Kimchi, not unaptly, notes that the words import, that they should be delivered from all evil, and rejoyce with a good (or glad) heart. But Interpreters think it not enough to stop here, but farther enquire who is meant by this Sun, and Christians generally agree that Christ who is, o Luke I.78. called the day-spring or rising Sun, is by this title meant; and this day, here spoken of, being the day of his coming (as it is, c. III.2. called) he being entitled a Sun, his coming in it may be well called his rising. Why Christ may be so called, many reasons may be, and are, brought by Interpreters. But among them to our purpose in this place, and according to our understanding of the time here spoken of, the most agreeable will be; because as by the Suns rising those things, which before were covered in darkness, are discovered and made apparent, so by his coming in this manner both p Gods justice, and his mercy to them that feared his Name, which before was not so discernible while he suffered them to be mixed with the wicked, yea insulted over by them, as if he did not own them more then others, nor take any peculiar care of them, so that they sate as it were in the shadow of death, should now be made conspicuous to all, in his freeing them from their oppressions, delivering them from those judgements by which the wicked were destroyed, and signally rewarding them for their obedience, so that they that sate before in darkness now should see a great light, and joyfully walk in it. Such a difference should be in their condition from what it was before, as that it might well be said, The Sun of righteousness, of justice and mercy, was risen to them, and that with healing in his wings, i. e. his comfortable raies or beams, as all agree by wings here to be meant. The ordinary Sun kindly arising in the morning, may at any time be said, to bring healing in his wings, to diffuse and communicate health by his raies, both to men and other creatures, which after his setting, and in his absence, all the night seem to droop, languish, to be sick and out of order, and those that are so otherwise, in that while to be more so. Whence the Jews have a proverbial speech, which may serve something to illustrate this expression. q The Sun ariseth, the infirmity decreaseth, that is, As the Sun riseth, so infirmities decrease. Much more of this Sun might it be said, that he did at his arising to those that feared the Lord, bring healing with him in his wings to them in that day of distress, worse then the darkest night, the shadow of death it self, which without his arising to them would necessarily have swallowed up them too in destruction, and could not but by the apprehension of it, make them as even sick at heart according to what he said, c. III.2. who may abide the day of his coming? So terrible should it be that all mens hearts should r fail for fear, in contemplation of those things that should come on them, yet even then, in regard of his solitary effects that his coming should have toward them that feared his Name, he bid them s, when these things, these terrible things should begin to come to pass, to look up and lift up their heads, for that their redemption then drew nigh, their deliverance from the persecutions by the unbeleiving Jews, which they had endured, and from the dangers which threatned them, as, except by his extraordinary Providence inevitable, and his making that which was for the destruction of his enemies, occasion of comfort and prosperity to them, may well be termed healing. But we may not confine it only to the rescue of their persons, and preservation of their bodies, nor the outward joy that they should find from that, but look on the inward spiritual comfort, and the healing of their t broken hearts, and fainting spirits, in preserving them from failing by fear and despair, as a greater part of it, and therefore not unfitly doth Grotius interpret this arising of the Sun of righteousness with healing in his wings, of the Collation of the holy Spirit, which Christ should send to his to shine in their hearts, and bring perfect health to their minds; that spirit of comfort, the only true comforter. In regard of both these, viz. both his rescuing and delivering those that feared his Name, and protecting and delivering them from their outward fears and dangers, and persecutions, and his inward illumination and comforting of them by his good Spirit, shewing himself in all waies a Sun and shield to them; was this Prophecy that he should arise to them with healing in his wings, evidently and abundantly made good to them in that day. And certainly in all respects doth that title of the Sun of righteousness agree to Christ the fountain of true heavenly light, who enlightneth every man coming into the World, u Joh. I.9. and whom God hath set forth to declare his righteousness, Rom. III.25, 26. and the Author of all true comfort, who giveth to his such joy, as shall swallow up all worldly sorrow, Joh. XVI.20. such joy as no man can take from them, v. 22. and never leaveth his comfortless, Joh. XIV.18. but sendeth to them from the Father, the comforter, the Spirit of truth. Joh. XV.26. to abide with them for ever, and to dwell in them, and to be in them, Joh. XIV.16, 17. and in the same regard likewise may he be said to arise or come with healing in his wings to them, as in all [Page] other waies also, diffusing health in all kinds. When he was here on Earth, great multitudes from all parts flocked to him to be healed of their diseases; and they that were vexed with unclean spirits, and they were healed. And the whole multitude sought to touch him: for [...]here went vertue out of him and healed them all, Luke VI.17, 18, 19. And the woman wch had been twelve years diseased with an issue of blood, did not doubt but to find the effects of that vertue, who therefore coming behind him, touched the hemme of his garment, for she said within her self, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole, Mat. IX.20, 21. and she did accordingly find it, for straight-way she was healed of that plague. And Jesus perceived, though he saw not the woman, that vertue had gone out of him, and she before all acknowledged it, Mar. V.28, 29, 30. &c. and Luk. VIII.44, &c. on which passage in Mat. IX. Grotius notes, that it may well be looked on as having reference to, at least good correspondence with, this place. The word [...] Bicnapheiha rendred, in his wings, being capable of being rendred, in fimbriis, in the hemmes or borders of his garment, as he observes it to be elsewhere rendred: and it may be not unworthy of consideration. But withall, that healing vertue in him shewed it self, not more in the healing bodily distempers, then the worse maladies of the Soul, as appears in his words when he cured some bodily diseases, in saying, not, Be well or healed, arise and walk, but, thy sins be forgiven thee, y Mat. IX.2, 5. that they might know that he had power to forgive sins, v. 6. and was no less a Physitian of sick distressed souls, then of diseased bodies.

In all regards then, as we said, doth the title of the Sun of righteousness arising with healing in his wings, well agree to Christ our Saviour, and all things that those words can give us to expect from him that is so described, have been, and are, by him abundantly made good; [...]o have those that faithfully believe in him and rely on him alwaies found, and shall find. But as to this present place the words seem limited to those benefits of outward preservation, and inward comfort which those that feared the Lord were in that day of discrimination, which the Lord saith he would make, to expect according to his promise here made, and did accordingly find, with what more he adds in the following words for expressing his goodness to them. But before we proceed to them, we may here take notice of a strange conceit of the Jews, which they here bring for explication of what is here said concerning that day that shall burn as an oven, and devour the wicked, and that Sun of righteousness which shall arise to them that fear the Name of the Lord, and how the discrimination shall be made between them. The Sun, z they tell us, is now inclosed in a case or sheath (besides that God, out of a Pool before him, deads his force with water) that so he may not burn up the World, but at the day of Judgement he shall be unsheathed, and so coming forth in his full strength, shall (as he now doth in melting some things and hardning others,) shew contrary effects, according to the difference of the subjects that he hath to work on, and so burn up the wicked as stubble, but heal the godly of all those bodily defects and imperfections with which they shall then arise; This is the [...] of what they say, as improved to its best meaning by Abarbinel. But what tolerable meaning it may have at best, I cannot perceive; sure it is such as hath no ground at all from Scripture, nor agrees with it in any meaning. To prove that the Sun is in a sheath or cafe, because it is said, In them hath he set a Tabernacle for the Sun, Psal. XIX.4. and that in the last day it shall be unsheathed, because it is here said, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, are waies of proof that will have certainly no force with any, but those of the Jews that must think all that their ancient Rabbins have said to be true, how absurd and groundless soever, yea though both contrary to Scripture and reason. What proof, mean while, for the Pool of water in which the Sun is cooled? I should have passed this by, without taking notice of it in this place, as thinking it only a conceipt of their Doctors given in strange terms, to amuse their Disciples when they would not speak plainly to them, with some hidden meaning in them (as many in that kind they have, and in particular, that which also may seem to refer to this place, a that Abraham had a precious stone hanging about his neck, which when any sick People looked on, they were healed, and when he dyed God fastned it in the Sun by which means the Sun hath healing vertue in him; by which b Abarbinel interprets to be meant that Abraham while he lived convinced men of the unity, truth, and power of God by solid arguments, but after his death they being deprived of such an orall Teacher, they had a visible one in the Sun by his wonderful motion undeniablely demonstrating the same;) but that by the c gravest and most serious of them I see this cited as litterally to be expounded, and to give the true meaning of this place, from which, and from being true in any kind, it is certainly most wide, and in it self very ridiculous. As so therefore leaving it we pass on to the following words, in which he farther describes [Page] the happy condition that those that fear his Name shall be in.

And ye shall go forth and grow up as Calves of the stall.] Ye shall go forth, i. e. say some of the Christian d Expositors, who understand the time here spoken of, of the day of the last general Judgement, out of this World, in which ye have hitherto been detained, as in a prison. e Others to much the same purpose out of your graves, and so enjoy that happiness and joyfull estate in the next words described. But this though applied to that time undoubtedly true, and such as may well mind us of that day, yet will not well agree to that way which we follow, taking the day spoken of for that particular day of Judgement, wherein God proceeded to the punishment of the Jews by bringing destruction both on the City and People.

In respect to that, the explication of a learned f man comes closer, which is, God shall as with his hand bring you out of the City ready to be destroyed; according to that way of taking care for the preservation of his faithfull servants, when destruction is sent on the wicked among whom they are, of which we have many examples. Our Saviour gives us two, Luk. XVII.27. the one of Noah, at the general Deluge, whom he taught first to make an Ark for his preservation, and brought not the Flood on the ungodly till he was first by that secured, but as soon as Noah entred into the Ark, the Flood came and destroyed them all. The other of Lot v. 29. to whom God purposing to destroy Sodom, sent Angels to lead him by the hand out of the City, by them telling him that he could not do any thing till he was escaped, Gen. XIX.22. But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from Heaven, and destroyed them all. And a Vision there is presented to the Prophet Ezekiel, c. IX.4, &c. to the same purpose, where by Gods command a mark was set on the foreheads of such as feared the Lord, that they might not perish in the common destruction of Jerusalem, and those that were to destroy the Inhabitants thereof old and young, women and children, without sparing any, were yet charg'd not to come near any man upon whom was Gods mark. Not to look after more examples; this promise of deliverance to those here to whom he saith, Ye shall go forth, was manifestly made good to the Christians that were in Jerusalem, when it was destroyed, by Gods miraculous g warning them to go out of the City, affording them occasion so to do, by which means they went forth and were preserved, as hath been above said on c. III.6.

Calvins words also for explaining this word will well fit the same purpose, (though not fully by him directed to the same, but to the renovation of the Church more generally) that the word going forth is opposed to the hard straits they had been before in, but should now have liberty of going forth, and find open matter of joy. But there may be other waies of expounding this word without looking on it, as denoting properly a going forth out of the place where they were: but being joyned to the next word, and grow, to denote that they shall h proceed to grow, &c. i. e. having received that healing, and salutary influence of the Sun of righteousness, shall go on in prospering, according to what the next words declare. Or as a learned i Jew saith, it may be expounded, ye shall go forth to, or in, or by the light of that Sun of righteousness arising to you; and in this sense may it be well enough applied to that warning of them to go out of the City, which before we mentioned; or as k another, Wheresoever ye go ye shall grow, &c. Which of these notions it will be best to take, (if it be not indifferent to take either,) as to this word, it will be better discerned when we shall have considered those joyned to it, and grow up as Calves of the stall: In rendring the first of which words, viz. [...] Vpishtem (which ours render, and grow up, there is some difference among Interpreters, some rendring it, and ye shall leap, so the Greek, [...], (using here the same word, which is, Luk. VI.23. where he bids his rejoyce, when they are persecuted, and leap for joy.) And so the Latin, and the Syriack: the printed Arabick to the same purpose, ye shall move your selves, or leap for joy, the Chalde Paraphrase also, ye shall do or go l wantonly: the same signification doth the Greek give to it, Jer. L.11. likewise the Syriack and the m Chalde more plainly then here. So doth R. Tanchum say, that it signifies here playing and leaping for alacrity and joy, which he thinks also may most conveniently agree to that other forecited place of Jeremy; that it may be there rendred, because ye skip or leap. And not far from this signification is that notion which the same root, viz. [...] Phasha hath in the Arabick Tongue, in which it signifies to vaunt or boast, to go struttingly or proudly, but n others prefer here to give it the signification of multiplying, waxing fat, growing or encreasing, whether in number, as some seem to understand it, who render it o Multiplicabimini, ye shall be multiplied; or in strength, and well liking as p they who render it ye shall waxe fat, or whether more generally in any way, as others who use a word appliable to encrease in any way, as q augescetis, or r crescetis, with which our [Page] grow up agrees. This signification also R. Tanchum recites, both in this place, and the forecited Jer. L. as likewise Nahum III.18. and Habbak. I.8. and R. D. Kimchi both in this place, and that of Jeremiah, puts it as the proper Exposition of it; here he expounds it, Ye shall encrease and multiply as Calves of the stall, which grow great in flesh and fatness. It is confirmed by the common use of the same word in the Chalde Tongue, and the learned Lud. de Dieu confirms it also by the use of the Aethiopick Tongue, in which s he notes the word to signify, to be sound, healthy and strong, and so would have it here to signify ye shall be fat, lusty and strong, and because Calves when they are fatted and lusty, use to frolick, and to leap and skip up and down in wanton manner, therefore he saith, it was that the Greek and Latin render it, shall leap. But perhaps they looked on it as a proper signification of the word distinct from the other, as well as besides them R. Tanchum, who intimates that the word having different significations, that is to be taken which the sense of the place requires, or best agrees to. Both indeed of the forementioned significations well agree to this place, and that in Jeremy also, and both are joyned by Abarbinel, who saith the meaning of the words to be that the Sun of righteousness shall arise to them with healing, and they shall go forth to (or in, or by) the light of that Sun, and [...] delight or sport themselves and encrease (or multiply or grow up) as Calves of the stall, which will signify, as R. Tanchum well expresseth it, according to that notion, increase in happiness.

Another signification is attributed to the word, viz. of spreading or dispersing, and in that sense Aben Ezra would have it here understood, as appears by what he notes on Nahum III.18. where indeed that signification is by many given to the word, and by ours rendred, is scattered, as likewise Habbak. I.8. where ours and many others also render it, shall spread themselves, although in those places also t there be who would have it to obtain the signification of multiplying and increasing. But in this place he hath not many that go with him, although R. Tanchum in his Notes on Nahum, intimate that some do, viz. take the word here to signify as it doth there to spread or disperse themselves. But that signification may be also referred to the former of multiplying. There is another notion that the same root [...] v Posh hath in the Syriack Tongue, viz. to remain, to cease, to rest and be quiet, and [...] Pusho, an interval, resting or intermission between any motions. And to say that here according to that notion it might signify that they should have rest and intermission from their troubles; and be secure and quiet, as Calves in a stall, would be no wide conjecture, nor disagreeable to the purpose. But the two former significations, viz. of leaping, or growing strong and lusty, are the most followed; and both agree to the comparison taken from Calves in a stall; by considering which words, guess is to be made of the signification of this. As to the signification of those, I suppose there can be no doubt made, but that they properly signify as they are by our Translators rendred: nor is any made by any, although they have not all agreed x in the rendring; for some render, as Calves loosed from bonds (they mean I suppose let loose out of the stall.) y Others, as Calves of the heard, not that they read instead of [...] Marbeck, by transposition of a letter, [...] Mibbakar, as might more easily be conjectured, then what a learned z man supposeth that the Greek by change of a letter read [...] Meretak, because [...] Rattok signifies bonds; but that the one took it for a a Calf taken out of the herd, and put into a stall to be fatted; the other having rendred the Verb ye shall leap, thought it appliable to stalled Calves, not while tyed in the stall, but such which having been full fed in the stall were grown lusty and wanton, and would, if let loose, frolick it and leap about, and therefore thought it more apposite to the scope of that word to express the other, by rendring Calves loosed from the bonds with which they were tyed in the stall. The same word is used, I Sam. XXVIII.24. and Amos VI.4. and is doubtless a stall, or place in which Cattel are tyed up and fatted, though in the first place it be rendred by the Greek and Latin, a feeding or a fed Calf; in the second by both an herd. Nor was it necessary that that leardned man should have changed a letter to find in the word the signification of bonds: the word as it is read would as easily afford it, if he had consulted the Arabick, which is of great affinity with the Hebrew, in which R. Tanchum, (on that b place in the 1. Sam.) notes that [...] Rabko or rabak is a cord, with which Calves or other Cattle are tied, that they may be fatted, and thence [...] Marbek, a place wherein they are so tied for that end, a fatting house, a stall. This by the way for justifying the reading of the word in the Hebrew Text.

The comparison that is used in the forecited, Jer. L.11. is much like to this as to the scope, viz. of expressing vigor and lustiness, or alacrity, but there instead of the word [...] stall in this place, is [...] Dasha where (the Verb of the same root being there, that here) [Page] ours render the expression, ye are grown fat, (big, or corpulent, as in the Margin) as the Heifer at grass, but c some think better to render it as a Calf, or Heifer (the word may indifferently be rendred, Calf or Heifer,) that treadeth in the floor; (and so being permitted to eat what he would, grew lusty and wanton.) however the words there be rendred, and however that expression differ from this here, the meaning is much alike, and therefore the Chalde there also renders Calves of the stall, regarding more the sense then the word. And however the words be here rendred, according to any of those Interpretations that we have mentioned, the scope will still be the same whether we follow those that render ye shall leap, or those that render ye shall grow up, be lusty or fat and strong, like fatted Calves. The scope will, I say, be still the same, viz. to be a promise of great happiness and prosperity, and security and occasion of joy and exultation to those spoken to, that they shall not only find healing by the arising of the Sun of righteousness, but also find occasion of delight and joy, as d a Talmudical Doctor expresses it. And this prosperity and exultation so comparatively described do they that by the day here spoken of, understand the day of Judgement, and to concern all, apply to the joy and happy condition which then the Saints shall be made partakers of: but certainly that is such as neither eye hath seen nor ear hath heard, nor can by the heart of man be conceived, nor by any similitude taken from earthly enjoyments, or any expressions of joy, or alacrity in any Creature in this World be set forth.

This comparison may seem more to agree to something that shall in this life be enjoyed, and so therefore do we apply it to denote the secure and happy condition, which in that dreadful day of Jerusalem's destruction (which by this day here we understand) God would of his mercy place those that feared his Name, and sincerely embraced Christs Doctrine, in. There is no doubt a promise to them of safety and deliverance in that dreadful day: and that were great kindness from God to them, and an evident sign of his love to them and providencial care over them, if it were only so, and they needed not any thing more for proof of it then their deliverance from so great and unavoidable destruction, according to what he saith to Baruch, Jerem. XLV.4, 5. That which I have built will I break down, and that which I have planted will I pluck up, even this whole Land. And seekest thou great things for thy self? seek them not, for behold I will bring evil upon all flesh, saith the Lord: but thy life will I give unto thee for a prey in all places whither thou goest, (as likewise to Ebed-melech he saith, c. XXXIX.16, 17, 18.) And had his promise now to those that feared his Name, been only so far, as that he would secure them and save their lives, when so many perished, this had been, we say, evidence enough of his peculiar love and fatherly compassion to them, by which they might sufficiently discern between the righteous and the wicked, between whom there appeared hitherto no difference, in the common opinion: but here is withall an evident promise of greater things, of joy and prosperity, and well being as well as being, set out in this comparative expression. But though righteousness hath the promise of the good things which respect this life, as well as those which respect that which is to come, of outward as well as inward good things, yet considering the nature of Christs Kingdom and his promises, we cannot but think respect to be had here also to that joy and comfort of spirit, and e peace of conscience, which in the inward man they should find through the presence and assistance of the holy spirit, the comforter, by which they should have occasion, according to our Saviors f Precept, to rejoyce and leap for joy, whatever outward trouble they should find; this inward joy should be so great as to express it self in vigor and alacrity, of the outward man also, as it seems here by this comparative expression intimated, and what they now felt, could not but be to them a pledge and certain token of finding the like deliverance in that last general Judgement also, when they shall not be as Calves of the stall, but as Angels, their bodies being made like Christs glorious body, and they by seeing God as he is, be made like unto him, and instated in all fulness of joy for ever, without any mixture of sorrow: though we do not with many look on that as the thing primarily here meant (though put in mind of, and given to look up to it,) but that liberty or happy condition, which in and by that fearfull doom of the Jews wch hitherto persecuted them, they should be brought to. And this is not only described by telling them in what happy plight and condition they shall be in themselves, but amplified by declaring how it shall be with them in respect to the wicked who before Lorded it over them, so as that now there shall be an evident discrimination between them compared one with the other. That follows in the next verse.

3 And ye shall tread down the wicked: for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet, in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts.

[Page] And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be as ashes under the soles of your feet, &c.] In the foregoing Chapter, ver. 15. the wicked are looked on by men judging according to the present face of things, as happy men, men set up, and g delivered to do all those abominations whereby they tempted God, so that they thought it in vain to serve God, no profit to keep his Ordinances, or to walk mournfully before him: but see, in that day appointed by God for a discrimination between them, what a strange alteration shall be. They which before were kept under shall now tread down those that were so high, and the proud ones being by that burning day brought to destruction be as ashes (or dust) under the soles of their feet whom they thought to trample on. By this expression is manifestly set forth the difference which should then be made by God betwixt the wicked and the godly, so as that the one should appear to be owned by him, and by that means not only in a safe but in an happy and honorable condition, the other rejected by him, and given up to destruction, and so in the vilest and lowest condition that any can be brought to, which is expressed by comparing them to dust and ashes under the feet of others.

And it were sufficient thus much to understand by the phrase, as a figurative expression concerning the difference of their conditions, by which should be made good what is said, c. III. v. 18. Then shall ye return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, &c. This is all that they who look on these words as describing the day of the last Judgement, and what shall then be done, h when the just shall awake to everlasting life, and the wicked to shame and everlasting contempt, can require for the making good of the expression, and as much also as understanding it of the day of his proceeding in judgment against the Jews at the destruction of Jerusalem, we need require, or i they also who take this day to include all the time between Christs coming in the flesh, till his last coming at the day of Judgement. Yet the learned Grotius thinks that the words literally, and as without any thing of figure in them understood, may be looked on as made good at that time, inasmuch as after the destruction of Jerusalem, wherein so many were consumed by fire, such of the Christians as did after come thither, did really tread on their ashes. And so some of the ancient k Jews who understood this day of the last day of Judgement, have found out a device to tell us how this shall then also be literally made good, viz. in that the bodies of the wicked (ordinary sinners at least) after they have been tormented in Hell flames for twelve months shall then be consumed to ashes, and the wind shall scatter them under the soles of the feet of the righteous, according to what is here said. A pretty invention for such as will believe it on their authority. But I do not see that the soberer among them do; otherwise they would probably have made more use of it in their Expositions of this place. Abarbinel indeed makes mention of it, but tells us that the simple meaning in these words is to shew; ‘That if we see the way of the wicked to prosper, and the righteous to go mournfully▪ behold that is it which happeneth in this dark World, but when the Lord of Hosts shall arise a Sun and shield in his divine day, and shall judge all living, he shall give to every one according to his waies, and according to the fruit of his doings.’ Neither R. Salomo; nor Aben Ezra, nor David Kimchi mention it at all; the last of these thus expounding the words, ‘He saith, that now the wicked bear rule over you, but in that time ye shall trample them under the soles of your feet. What he saith ashes, is a proverbial or comparative expression, because he had before said that the day that should come, should burn them up.’ It appears then that he did not think that ashes here ought literally to be meant▪ but to denote the vileness and contemptibleness of their condition. Neither find we any mention of it in R. Tanchum, who though he differ from what we follow, in that he looks on the things spoken as not yet fulfilled, but to come, yet affords us words which we may well make use of in our way, which though he put at the end of the Chapter, yet may here conveniently be put, as having respect to what hath been said already, more then to what follows; and they thus sound, [Consider (saith he) the great wisdome in the expression of the Prophetical revelation, however it be to be understood, that whereas there is for the righteous a reward in this World, and in the World to come, and for the wicked on the contrary punishment in this World, and in the World to come, these passages of Scripture are fitted to both intentions at once, according to an outward (or literal) sense and an inward meaning. As to the outward meaning it expresseth what shall be in the daies of Messiah, to wit, that punishment shall then encompass the wicked, and they shall be consumed together and be burnt up, as he saith, Behold the day cometh burning as an oven; but as for the righteous of Israel, the light of divine Providence shall arise upon them, and they shall be healed by the manifestation of truths, from that grief which they sustained by reason of their being hidden from them; and that is it which he saith, And there shall arise to you that fear my Name, the Sun of righteousness, and healing in his wings, [Page]&c. But as to the inward meaning, it signifies, as to those that feared the Lord, and thought on his Name, viz. which sincerely did so after their knowledge of him and walking in his waies, that there should be to them an everlasting duration in his presence, which is that writing down of their righteousness in a book of remembrance before him, and they should be a peculiar to him among mankind, which is what he saith, And they shall be to me, saith the Lord of Hosts, in the day which I shall make (or, when I shall do this) a peculiar, &c. But as for the wicked, to them shall the day come burning as an oven, which is the punishment of the World to come, accordingly as our wise men have declared, as likewise what is said, and the day that cometh shall burn them up. And by l day he expresseth▪ both happiness and misery, for two different meanings (or reasons) 1. happiness, in regard of the light which is found in the day after the darkness of the night, like that clearness of apprehension that shall accrue to the perfected soul after its separation from grose matter, i. e. the matter of the body; then misery, by reason of extreme heat, that is found in the day proportionable to the grievousness of that condition, and the extremity of the pain thereof, as he likewise compares it to fire, saying, burning like an oven. And because the wicked shall be burnt with that fire, whereas the degree of the righteous shall be exalted, he compareth them also to ashes under their feet, saying, and ye shall tread down the wicked, for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet. and he explains his comparing happiness to light, in what he saith, And there shall arise to you that fear my Name the Sun of righteousness, &c. And that is an intellectual light which shall accrue by the right disposition of the Soul, and the rectification of the deeds, by the clearness of the shining of which the Soul shall find rest, and be healed from the pains of the distraction of the senses, and their disturbance (or strugling, or contrary motions;) that is it which he saith, with healing in his wings. And to like purpose, saith Isaiah, c. LVIII.8. Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thy health shall spring forth speedily; and thy righteousness shall go before thee, the glory of the Lord shall be thy rereward. We beg of the Lord therefore that he will assist us for attaining to those inward (or hidden) promises, by hastning the outward (or visible) ones, that our knowledge and worship of him may be sincere, and that may occasion to us an encrease of appropinquation to his Majesty, or, bring us nearer to him, and that may be made good to us, which he saith, Isaiah XXXV.3, 4. strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees, say to them that are of a fearfull heart, Be strong, fear not: behold your God will come with vengeance, &c.]

These are his words (which if opportunity serve we shall at the end of these Notes set down in his own language.) I thought convenient to give them at length, (though perhaps not all to our present purpose) because though he be out in the main matter of timing things, yet what he saith applied to the right time, will illustrate and confirm what we look on as the truest way of expounding them, viz. that literally and primarily they describe to us a day wherein God would proceed in judgement against the Nation of the Jews, for making a discrimination betwixt the righteous and the wicked, which because it was at that present, when this, Prophet lived and spake to them, not so discernible, they took thence occasion to question his Justice, and spake stout words against him, saying, It is vain to serve God, &c. and where is the God of Judgement? That day it appears c. III.1, 2. should be at, or, by the coming of Christ, and by his coming is meant (as we have shewed) his coming in Judgement to them at the destruction of Jerusalem. In that our forecited Author is out, that he thinks Christ not yet come, and so that day not yet come: whereas we (as the truth is) look on both as already come; and that being granted, then we say that in that he is right, that here is described a day of discrimination to be made in this World, as there was then made by the terrible destruction of the wicked among the unbelieving Jews, and gracious rescue and deliverance of those that believed in Christ; but withal, that by the wonderfull wisdom of God, that coming of Christ, to judge them then, is so described, as to set before our eies another coming of his to judge all the World at the last day, wherein shall be made a perfect separation between the righteous and the unrighteous, those being received into joy and glory, and perfect happiness in the presence of God and the Sun of righteousness, m the Lamb that shall be their light; the other adjuged to perpetual burnings worse then of an oven, or furnace, to everlasting shame, and contempt, and misery; however in this World they thought themselves happy, set up, and delivered. The first of these daies is here properly described in such figurative expressions as necessarily suggest to us the condition of the second, and cannot but put us in mind of it. To either of them is appliable what is said in the next words.

In the day that I shall do [this] or, (according to the letter, and as the Interlineary Latin here renders, as likewise n some others) in the day that I make, or shall make. The same expression which we had before, c. III.17. and is an expression also elsewhere used, This is the day which the Lord hath made, [...], and that title may well be applied [Page] to such a peculiar, signal, day wherein God hath done some o extraordinary thing either for good or bad, for punishment to his enemies, or Salvation and deliverance to his. Though, he made all daies, yet such a day might seem of a new make or singular creation, and be singularly attributed to him as its Maker. And such may well be called the daies of Christs Incarnation, his preaching the Gospell, his Resurrection, his coming to Judgement against the Jews of that generation, which all may be (according to what we have before said) looked as on one day, the day here spoken of, especially the last act mentioned, and here peculiarly pointed out, wherein was brought a terrible destruction on his enemies, and wonderfull deliverance to his friends; and for the same reason may the day of the last Judgement be so likewise called, which (as we said) may well be looked on as here pointed out, though not primarily meant as some seem to take it with omission of the other. In this day that they might know what he had said should certainly come to pass, he adds his solemn confirmation.

Saith the Lord of Hosts,] He who hath all power in his hand, at whose beck are all Creatures in Heaven and Earth, as ready Ministers to execute his pleasure, and therefore can make good whatsoever he saith, and who is true in his sayings, and will not alter the thing that is gone out of his mouth, he hath said it? the mighty, the faithfull God hath spoken, and who shall disannul it? he hath said it, and it is therefore as certain as if it were already done. According therefore to what he said, did that day come on the Jews, the People here spoken to, in the time appointed, and all those things here foretold, come to pass. And as certainly shall that other day, here (as we said) typified or intimated, come on all the World in the time appointed for it, because the Lord of Hosts hath though not expresly here said it, yet not obscurely intimated, and elsewhere more plainly said it; so that all must expect that as certainly to come on them all, as they have seen the former already to have come on the Jews. They deny it indeed to have been yet come on them, and would have it to signify some thing to come not on themselves, but on their enemies, but it is because they wilfully shut their eies against that which all the World besides hath seen, and with amazement acknowledge it. A strange thing that that terrible destruction of their Country and Nation, such as was never yet parallel'd by any thing that happened to any Nation besides, nor can be out-done by any thing imaginable, but the day of general Judgement and conflagration of all the World, which it not obscurely represented, should work no more on them. Our prayer for them therefore must not be in their own words, that God would hasten the coming of that first day, that so they might with better preparations expect the second, but that he would open their eies to see, and incline their wills to acknowledge, that to have come upon them, which God here threatned, and so be turned and brought near to Christ; for rejecting whom was all that came on their Ancestors, and themselves ever since, that so, what shall come to pass of that last coming of his, may not be so terrible to them, but he then may appear to them as the Sun of righteousness with healing in his wings to their Salvation, who before came in flaming fire, as a burning oven to destroy them, who would not receive and obey p his Gospel. So shall they prevent by their repentance the evil of that day, though their Ancestors would not, though by God warned, seek to prevent the evil of the other: would not, I say; for though God here shews the certainty of the coming of that day, by saying, saith the Lord of Hosts, and he knew what they would do, yet that it implied a condition of their persisting to do as they did, and that by their repentance and change of their waies it might have been prevented, appears by what he adds (not certainly to no purpose) to move them to it, by bidding them to remember the Law of Moses, &c. and promising to send Eliah to seek to convert them, lest he should come, &c. to whom if they would not hearken they should inevitably pull on themselves destruction.

4 ¶ Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgements.

Remember ye the Law of Moses my servant, &c.] Aben Ezra's Gloss on these words is not amiss, Remember the Law of Moses, &c.] i. e. (saith he) keep (or observe) it; for it will teach you the way of the fear of the Lord, and so when the mentioned day shall come, ye shall be delivered. But the other Jews go wider, as by considering their words, we shall perceive. Abarbinel thus gives the coherence of these words with the former, ‘Forasmuch as the worship (or service of God) which should bring them to that last true reward at the Resurrection, was the worship according to the Law and Commandments, and that great rebellion which should bring to that punishment, which he mentions, is the omission (or rejection) of the Law, therefore he subjoyns to this which he hath said, Remember[Page]the Law of Moses my servant, to declare to them that by means of that they should attain to the reward, and true prosperity.’ That in which he errs in this Exposition is, in that he refers what is here spoken to the day of the Resurrection, which belongs to that day of Jerusalems Visitation, the evil of which that they might prevent, or in it find deliverance, he commends to them the remembrance and observance, in the mean while, of the Law of Moses as a faithful rule, seeing they should after this have no more Prophets to direct them, till his sending to them Elias at the approach of that day. Much in like kind errs R. Tanchum, viz. in mis-timing the things spoken of, saying, ‘That this was given as a Precept to those of the Captivity, he commanding it to Israel by the hand of this Prophet, because after him Prophecy should cease from among them, by reason of the obscurity of the Captivity; and the meaning (saith he) is that he that would attain to the happiness spoken of, and deliverance from punishment, ought necessarily to obey the commands of the Law, continued (or delivered down) among them.’ In which Exposition he passeth over the time to which properly belonged what is spoken, viz. that between this Prophecy, and the coming of the Eliah here meant, wherein Prophecy (as he observes) should (and did) cease among them, and so the coming of that day of Judgement and discrimination; to fasten it on times, wch did not begin till after the completion of this Prophecy, according to its proper and primary meaning, viz. since the destruction of Jerusalem. David Kimchi is not content to run on in the like error, but strives to justify it by accusing Christians of error in misinterpreting the words; his Exposition runs thus, He saith, untill the day of Judgement come, remember ye in every generation the Law of Moses my Servant to do all, or according to all, that is written in it. Which I commanded unto him in Horeb, i. e. as I commanded him in Horeb, not according to the q words of the Christians, which say that it was given for a time according to the literal sense, but an Interpreter (Jesus) came and interpreted it spiritually; this Text is an answer to them. His meaning seems this, That here is a command that till the last day of Judgement they should precisely keep the Law of Moses, according to all that was written in it, and according to the letter of what was written, just as it was given to him and from him to them, and that therefore the words refute the Christians who say, that the Law was to endure but for a time, according to the literal meaning of it, but that the literall meaning was to yeild to a spiritual meaning according to which Christ interpreted it. But we say that this man frames an argument on false grounds, and that the text makes not against us, as he would have it, and hath in it an answer to, and refutation of them, not of us, who embrace them, both according to the letter, from which he departs, and the true meaning of them, which he perverts. First, in that he saith that here is a command that they should remember the Law of Moses in every generation untill the day of the last Judgement. If he mean (as manifestly he doth) the day of the last Judgement, it is manifest that what is spoken hath not primarily respect to that, but to that day of Gods National Judgement to be executed on the Jews, continuing in obstinate rebellion against him? that was the day of the Lord in this Chapter of this Prophecy, and the foregoing, properly spoken of, as we have shewed, though so described as to represent to us, and necessarily to put us in mind of the last general Judgement too. Besides, the words are indefinitly spoken without referring to any set time: if we will enquire till what time they may seem to bind; that will most conveniently be answered to, from the next following words, viz. till he send Eliah the Prophet before the coming of the day of the Lord; warning, that till his coming they should look to the Law of Moses as their Director. So that hence is no evident ground from which to conclude the perpetuity of the Law, against such as should deny it. That it should last in force till that day, is as much as can from these words be concluded, and that which our Saviour saith, The Law and the Prophets were untill John, since that time the Kingdome of God is preached, Luke XVI.16. Farther, in that he saith, according to all that is written in it, and as I commanded him in Horeb; meaning that every thing in the Law was just as it is written in it, and every thing punctually in that manner, and according to the letter as it was commanded, is his gloss; whereas in the Text it is only [...], which I commanded, and not [...] as; which though in it self it may seem to make no great difference, yet according to his meaning it manifestly doth, according to what he adds, not according to what the Christians say, that it (i. e. the Law) was given for a time only to be observed, according to the letter (as it sounds) but that Jesus came and interpreted it spiritually, and so hereafter it were to be observed or understood according to that spiritual, and not its literal meaning. For answer to all this we might bid him only to clear himself, by answering to what is said, Jer. XXXI.31, 32. Behold the daies come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new Covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to the Covenant which I made with [Page]their Fathers, &c. whence we may conclude with the Apostle, Heb. VIII.8. that in that he saith a new Covenant, it is manifest that the first was to be made old, that the new might take place. But to deal more distinctly with him; in that he finds fault with the words of the Christians, let him take from Christ himself what they say, think not that I am come to destroy the Law, and the Prophets, I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot, or one title shall in no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled. Mat. V.17, 18. What is here spoken any way derogatoty to the Law of Moses? is not here the perpetuity of the Law as plainly asserted, as the Rabbin himself could assert it, but then his gloss [...] all just as it is written, is not to be admitted as if every thing were still so to be observed as at first it was, and just as it was given to Moses; as if all things in it were of like moment and equally essential: for in it were diverse things which were to be fulfilled, and being fulfilled, could require no farther observance; such were those ceremonious parts of it, which were types and shadows, and could not but by the coming of the substance, which was Christ, have an end put to them, and necessarily be done away, not by being mean while violated but completed. The other more substantial parts, viz. the moral precepts are so far from being abrogated by him, as that being purged from all those corrupt glosses, and Traditions of the Jews, by which they were almost made void and of none effect, they have not only their true meaning and extent given them, but are backt and confirmed anew by his authority, and commended to the perpetual observance of all his followers. And for what he looks on as a fault to be objected; that we affirm that Christ interpreted the Law spiritually, as if it were no more literally to be understood, I know not what he would make to be the force of his objection, but to conclude against themselves that they are carnal, and so would not have any thing of the Law so understood as to cross their carnal minds, or to require any more then the carnal performances of the outward man, which to think, appears to have been from of old their error, and such as they are willing still to continue in. For the Law is spiritual, Rom. VII.14. and alwaies so was; that which made it not to be so understood, and not to have answerable effects, was the carnality of men, not the fault of the Law. If Christ vindicated it from the wrong by them done to it by their gross and false understandings, and require the obedience of the inward as well as outward man, shall that be accounted an injury to it, or a destroying of it? if he mean that we say that the former types and shadows directed to more then was by them outwardly performed, and that what was by them really meant, was by and in him completed, and fulfilled in a more excellent manner, when he appeared to put away sin by the r Sacrifice of Himself, and so to make all other Sacrifices useless, and by the sprinkling of his Blood to put an end to such other carnal ordinances as were imposed on them till the s time of reformation only; if I say by what he calls interpreting the law spiritually, he means any of these things; he speaks of that which was a restoring the Law to its true meaning, and a perfecting, not a violating of it: so that in these words is no answer (as he tells us it is) against any thing that Christians say, but they shew of him, and those of his Religion, that they themselves do not duly remember the Law of Moses which God commanded by him, nor consider or understand aright what that commanded them. If they would duly look into it, and apply the Prophecies thereof to what they concerned and the types thereof to what was signified by them, they could not but perceive that by them they were directed to Christ, and belief in him against whom they now urge them. This were sufficient for answer to him; even the bare setting down the words of Christ, and his Apostles, which shew that they taught nothing derogatory to the Law of Moses, or by which they might be thought to violate any command, given either here or elsewhere for due observance of it; if there were here any occasion given to him of cavilling in that kind against them: but we look on this, which by occasion of his objection we have hitherto said as a mere digression, there being (however he hath sought occasion) no occasion, as we have already intimated by the words rightly understood, given to him, as will appear by the scope of them duly considered, which we may in brief thus summe up. The Lord having by this Prophet reprooved the Jews for many sins, both by the Priests and People committed wherein they shewed great contempt or neglect of the Law by Moses given unto them, for which he delayed yet to punish them, or did but lightly punish them, giving them time to repent, and for that they for the generality, or most of them took thence occasion rather to applaud themselves in their wicked courses, then to repent of them, and to speak stout words against him, as if he delighted in sinners and their waies, and were not a God of Judgement, nor had respect to them that served him, and therefore it were in vain to serve him, and having told them that he would in due time make it manifest, that he took all the while due notice of what they wickedly [Page] did and said, and would for that end send both his Messenger to prepare the way before him, and the Lord the Messenger of the Covenant, who should bring all their doings to an exact trial, and so he would come near to them in Judgement, and bring on them such a day of discrimination betwixt the righteous and the wicked, wherein the wicked among them should be utterly destroyed, and the godly (who hitherto seemed to be neglected) find Salvation and deliverance; and to move them therefore to repentance, having described the terror of that day; doth here, as it were, warn them, that if this would not move them they should not, as they had hitherto had, have any more Prophets to call on them, but be left only to that Law, which they had hitherto so much neglected, for their Director; which was indeed a sufficient Director to them, and had they duly hearkned to it, as they ought, they had not hitherto had such need of other Prophets to call upon them, and mind them of their duty. But now seeing he hath resolved to send them no more in that kind, till he send his Messenger, whom he calls Eliah, to prepare the way before him at the approach of that great day of discrimination which he hath threatned, he urgeth on them a due remembrance of that Law, and serious heed, and observance of all commanded in it, as the only way whereby to prepare them for the receiving of his Eliah, that they might be converted by him, and so prevent the evil of that day, wherein he would smite with a curse those that did not prepare then to meet him.

This being plainly the intent of the words, to raise from them a question concerning the perpetuity of the Law, or hence to think to prove it in all parts unalterable, is quite besides the purpose. As they were given they are manifestly a command to them of that time to an observation of all the parts thereof, and the meaning of them is evident; thus: Look not henceforth for an ordinary or continued succession of Prophets, as you hitherto have had; but that you may prepare your selves for meeting the Lord in that day by Malachi told you of, remember duly the Law of Moses, with the Statutes and Judgments thereof; take that for your rule and direction, whereby to square your lives and actions. Necessary was it that they should remember and duly attend to that, all of them; for though it was delivered to them by the hand of Moses the Servant of God, and therefore called his Law, yet was it by God himself commanded unto him for all Israel, all of it with all the Statutes and Judgements therein contained, all the parts thereof. By the Law t some will have meant the moral precepts of the Law, by Statutes the ceremonial, by Judgements the Judicial. Abarbinel (as the Jews commonly) by [...] Chukkim, Statutes, will have to be understood such things for which no other reason is to be given, but Gods command, by [...] Mishpatim, Judgements, such the reason of which was manifest. But without farther enquiry into the notion of the words we take to be in the words as here put, all the parts of the Law whatsoever, and of what nature soever, even every jot and title thereof (as our Savior speaks) to be comprehended, inasmuch as every one of them was then (when this was spoken) in force, not any of them completed by having had its due end. And therefore by being bid to remember them, they are told what was a duty necessarily incumbent on them. For all of them were commanded to all Israel, and they ought to observe all, and not forget or neglect any of them, and as this was a duty necessary to them, so was it a thing that would be greatly beneficial to them. So that it was the great kindness of God to call upon them to remember that which he had made formerly their duty, and might in justice without farther delay, or warning have proceeded in Judgement against them for their many neglects and breaches of it, which by this Prophet he hath convinced them guilty of. The benefits of remembring of it, would have been the rectifying of them in their waies, which they had greatly perverted, the restraining them from, and warning them to repent of, those many sins, which he hath convinced them to be guilty of, whereby they had greatly provoked him as he hath shewed, and to set them in such waies, wherein walking both they and their services should be accepted by him: and farther, to instruct them, concerning the Lord, the Messiah, whose coming he hath here warned them of, and how to receive him, and his Messenger that he would send to prepare the way before him. And this especially u some will have to be understood as that for which he would have them remember the Law of Moses. That indeed did both point him out before hand in many types and figures, and expresly command obedience to him, when he should come, as Deut. XVIII.15. as that place is cited by S. Peter, and shewed to be meant of him, Act. II.22. and our Savior himself tells us that Moses wrote so plainly of him, that if they had believed Moses, they would have believed him. And that the cause that they believed not his words, was because they believed not the writings of Moses, Joh. V.46, 47. The Law, (with which it may not be amiss, with x some, to take in the Prophets as appendages for exposition thereof, as our Saviour joyns them, They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them, Luk. XVI.29.) [Page] in these and other regards was plainly a Schoolmaster (as S. Paul calls it) which attended to, would have brought them to Christ. And so the remembring of it would have been eminently beneficial to them. But we look not on this only (though of chief regard and including the rest) as that wherein it would have been advantageous to them to have remembred the Law of Moses, but with this on all the other mentioned. By so doing they should have been so prepared for the coming of the day of the Lord so often before, and immediatly again spoken of, that it should not have for destruction come upon them: and their not remembring it would (as in the event manifestly it did) bring it with all its dreadfull effects on them. It was then Gods great kindness to call on them to remember it for their own good. Yet is not that the utmost of his loving kindness. That they may see his mercies never cease, where men do not obstinately reject them, and forsake them, though they may not expect any more Prophets of an ordinary rank to warn them when they forget the Law, by observing which they should prevent the terrors of his day; yet that they may not have any excuse, or pretence at all to say that it came on them unawares, he promiseth hard before the coming thereof, an extraordinary one, whom he calls Eliah, to endeavor even then to convert them if they would be converted. So follows it in the next verse.

5 ¶ Behold I will send you Elijah the Prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

Behold I will send you Eliah the Prophet, &c.] As to the connexion of these words with the former in such manner as we have said, Kimchi thus notes. ‘Although I warn you to have recourse to the Law of Moses in every generation, yet notwithstanding for your good I will send to you Eliah the Prophet.’ But concerning the person, who is here meant by Eliah, is no small controversy and difference betwixt Expositors. The Jews agree not among themselves; the forementioned Kimchi with several others of them, think it meant of that Eliah himself in person who lived and prophecyed in the time of Ahab King of Israel, I Kings XVII. &c. The meaning, saith he, is, ‘That he will put again his soul which ascended into Heaven, into a body wch shall be created like his first body, because his first body turned to earth at his Ascension, every Element to its like element; and after that he shall cause him to live in his body, he shall send him to Israel before the day of Judgement; which is the great and dreadfull day of the Lord, and he shall warn both Fathers and children together, to turn with all their heart unto the Lord, and they that turn shall be delivered from the day of Judgement, as he saith, &c.’ Aben Ezra seems to be of the same opinion, but to think that Eliah continued still in the same body, and to believe that he appeared sometimes in the daies of their holy wisemen, and praies God to hasten the time of his coming. So y others of them. Abarbinel here thinks the same as to his person, though not determining whether he shall come in a new raised body, or in his old body, which he never put off, ‘God, saith he, shews them that the first which shall arise at the Resurrection shall be Eliah the Prophet, whether he shall rise as others do, if his body were consumed, when he was taken up, as some of the modern Doctors affirm, or whether he miraculously remain in his body and soul in the earthly Paradise, as our wise men thought, and that God will send him, before the great and dreadfull day of the Lord come, which is the day of judgement for all liveing.’ All these thinke that here is a promise of sending Eliah (the old Elijah) in person. Others of them of no less authority, think it not necessarily to be so meant, but of sending some other great Prophet, who because he should be like to Eliah in dignity, and knowledge, is called by his name, as appears by what R. Tanchum notes on this place, whose words are in their own language, partly set down in the Miscellaneous Notes in the book called Porta Mosis, c. VI. p. 219. and translated into English, sound thus, ‘This without doubt, is a promise, that there should appear a Prophet in Israel a little before the time of the appearance of the Messiah, and some of the learned men do think that he is Elijah the Tishbite himself, and that is the opinion that is found in most of the allegorical Expositions; others think it meant that he should be some great Prophet like unto him in degree, and occupying his place as for what concerns the knowledge of God, and the making manifest of his name, and therefore called by the name of Eliah. So expresly declares that eminent great Doctor Rabbi Moses, the son of Maimon z at the end of his great juridical work called Mishneh Torah (or the repetition of the Law) and perhaps according to this opinion may he be understood to be Messias the son of Joseph, as he saith also.’ These words seem to intimate that that should be said by Maimonides in that place. But I do not find any such thing in him there at all, either in any printed Copies or Manuscripts, which I have seen. He mentions indeed [Page] in the preceeding Chapter there, two Messiahs, but the first he saith was David who delivered Israel from their enemies, and the second should be of the posterity of David who should save Israel from the hands of the children of Esau (the Romans he means) according to that obstinate error of theirs, expecting that Christ should come to restore a temporal Kingdome to them, and destroy their enemies: but of a Messiah the son of Joseph (by whom what they mean hath been elsewhere shewn, viz. such a one as should be of the posterity of Joseph, and coming before the Messiah, the Son of David, undergo all the suffering part of such things as are in Scripture spoken of Messiah, and leave only the glorious, and triumphant part alone for the Son of David,) I find not in him any mention.] R. Tanchum goes on and saith, ‘That here is said the same that was above said, c. III.1. Behold I send my Messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me, and that what he there saith, And the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his Temple, even the Messenger of the Covenant, &c. is meant no doubt of the King Messiah: may he quickly be revealed. But the truth of the matter as to these promises will be distinctly known by their manifestation (or fulfilling.) For there is none that hath any certain Tradition concerning them, but every one speaks according to what appears to him, and preponderates with him among the Interpretations of the Texts of Scripture, as there also the same Moses the Son of Maimon declares.’ Out of these words of his appears that among them is this difference, that some understand Eliah in person to be here spoken of, others not so, but some great Prophet in degree and dignity like him. The same difference and doubt seems anciently to have been among their Ancestors, as appears by their questioning John Baptist, whether he were the Messiah, or Elias, or that Prophet, Joh. I.19, 20, 21. for what can those words more probably seem to mean, then whether he were Eliah in person, or that Prophet which was prophesied of, called by the name of Eliah. And we may think that the Scribes mostly thought that it should be Eliah in person, Matt. XVII.10. This difference and doubt he thinks cannot be determined but by the event and fulfilling of the things themselves: no man (saith a Maimonides) can know how they should be, till they be fulfilled. This therefore that we except against them for, is, why since they have been fulfilled, the things concerning the Messenger, and b Eliah, in John Baptist, the things concerning the Lord, spoken of, in Christ, they will not yet for all such demonstrations by the performance of their offices, acknowledge them; but rejecting them, and shutting their eies against what hath been already fulfilled, look on them as things not fulfilled, and expect both Eliah and the Messiah; as here promised, yet to come. But perhaps they will here be ready to retort, and ask why then do Christians yet dissent among themselves, concerning the Exposition of this Prophecy, some of them affirming that here is meant Eliah in person, and that he is yet to come, as well as any Jews do? It is to be confessed that here is a wider difference betwixt Christians then might be wished there were, though on other grounds then the Jews go. The Jews whether they understand it of Eliah in person, or any other great Prophet set forth by his name, all drive at this end to prove that the Messiah is not yet come, because no such Prophet hath yet appeared: against whom we need not add to what hath been said on c. III. v. 1. Their not acknowledging them is no proof that they are not both long since come. The Christians all in this agreeing that the Messiah or Christ is already come a first time, and shall at the end of the World come a second time, and in this also that John Baptist was the promised Messenger sent before him at his first coming, and that he was deservedly called Elias, yet in this differ, that some of them do not think that the Elias here mentioned is the same with the Messenger before promised, c. III.1. nor the same coming of Christ spoken of, that there: but that there, is to be understood his first coming, and John Baptist his forerunner at that, but here his second coming to Judgement, and, as Mr Mede thinks, either Eliah in person, or some other called by that name, who shall come before him at that: Whereas others rightly take the Eliah here mentioned to be the same with the Messenger there promised to be sent, viz. John Baptist, and in both places the same coming of Christ to be meant, viz. that usually called his first coming. And this we say is manifestly the truth. It appears by what is spoken by Christ himself in the Gospel, Mat. XVII.9. &c. and Marc. IX.11. &c. in the story of his Transfiguration, where the Disciples, Peter, and James, and John, which he took up into the Mountain with him, after they had heard what Moses and Elias talked with him (probably concerning the fulfilling of the Prophecies in this Chapter of Malachi mentioned, concerning the approach of the great and dreadfull day of the Lord, wherein he should destroy his wicked obstinate enemies, the unbelieving Jews, and deliver his faithfull Servants that believed in him, out of that destruction, before which it is here said that he would send Elias to forewarn them of it, and to preach repentance for the averting of it, [Page] whom they did not discern to be yet c come;) asked him, why then say the Scribes that Elias must first come, and Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, (or cometh first) and shall restore all things: But I say unto you, that Elias is come already, and they knew him not (or acknowledged him not) but have done unto him whatsoever they listed, &c. These words, I say, make it so plain that the Elias here meant was then already come, and that no other for fulfilling this Prophecy, on which that saying of the Scribes (or Doctors of the Law among the Jews) was grounded, was to be expected before the coming of the great and dreadfull day of the Lord, that there seems to be no place for questioning it. Yet do they, who would have Elias that ancient Prophet to be here meant, take hence their chief argument to prove that he here spoken of is not yet come, and therefore that the day here mentioned is likewise to be understood of the day of the last Judgement, before which they expect he shall come, because, say they, it is said in the future, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things, as if it were a thing yet to come, but surely the following words, But I say unto you that Elias is already come, make it evident that that Interpretation cannot be put on the former, so as to infer from them, that Elias is not yet come, but that they must be expounded thus, It was truly said, Elias shall come, &c. or, It is true that Elias should first come (or was first to come:) and so it appears the Disciples understood it, of whom it is said, vers. 13. Then the Disciples understood that he spake to them of John the Baptist, which is a plain proof that they, that understand it of any other, understand it not aright. They, though the opinion be ancient, and have many both of note and learning which follow it, (for what end it will not be to our purpose to examine,) may seem (as a great learned d man observes) to have taken it rather from some Tradition, that they had heard from the Jews, then to have warrant from the Scripture, or any other good ground for it. Sure the words of our Savior in the place cited, make not for them, but evidently against them, while he concludes all, with affirming that that Elias, which they spake of, was already come, not saying that another was to be expected, though one were already come. To the same purpose, as clearly makes what he elsewhere saith, concerning John Baptist, Matthew XI.10. this is he of whom it is written, behold I send my Messenger before thy face which shall prepare thy way before thee, and vers. 14. And if ye will receive it (if ye will receive and believe the truth) this is Elias which was to come, ( [...]) spoken there as of the future as well as in the forementioned words, which shall come, to shew that he was when the Prophet Malachi spake, to come afterward, not that when our Saviour spake he was yet to come: he plainly sheweth, by saying thus, that he was already come. By all this our Saviour makes it manifest, that all that could in Malachi be interpreted of Elias was made good in John Baptist, e who came in the spirit and power of Elias, and was to be understood of him alone, as much as if he had in express words said, that he only was the Elias, that was to come, and they were not by vertue of Malachi's Prophecy, or any other, to look for another. And of him because he is here stiled a Prophet, doth he say, that he was more then a Prophet, Matt. XI.9. yea much more, Luke VII.26. for (saith he) vers. 28. I say unto you among those that are born of women there is not a greater Prophet then John the Baptist. And in Luke I.76. Zacharias saith of him that he should be called the Prophet of the Highest, and all the People were perswaded that he was so, Luke XX.6. his denying himself to be that Prophet, who the People asked him if he were he, John I.21. shews only that they were mistaken in their conceit, concerning that Prophet which they asked after, as likewise they were in their question concerning Elias, which likewise he denyed himself to be, viz. Elias in person as they expected, but not that he was he that is here called Elijah the Prophet.

Here the Greek Version instead of Prophet puts the Epithet of Tishbite, which was the appellation of the Prophet Elijah of old, and by that f they who would here have it to be understood of him in person, strengthen their opinion: but sure that adds no strength to it, besides that this is a manifest change of the word in the Originall, which ought to be of greatest authority, there is no doubt but that by the same reason, and g figurative way of speaking, he may as well be called Elijah the Tishbite, as Elijah the Prophet, that only shewing the Countrey of that Prophet, as the other word his office; if he deserved to be called Eliah the Prophet, he deserved to be called Eliah the Tishbite. For that Eliah the Prophet whose name because he came in his spirit and power he was called by, was a Tishbite: in this there is nothing of force to prove that here, and in the third Chapter, vers. 1. are meant two different Eliahs. We conclude therefore from the express words of our Saviour, that he that is meant here by Eliah is John the Baptist and no other, and remit the Reader for what is of him affirmed, and concerns us to know more of what is said of his person, to what hath been spoken on Chap. III.1. That which is added in this verse concerns the time of his coming, viz. that he should be sent before the [Page]coming of the great and dreadfull day of the Lord. That day is the same which is spoken of, chap. III.2. called there the day of his coming and his appearing, and vers. 17. the day which the Lord shall make (or according to our Translation) the day wherein he shall make up his jewels, and in this Chapter ver. I. the day which shall come burning as an oven, and shall burn up the wicked as stubble, but wherein to those that fear the name of the Lord, the Sun of righteousness shall arise with healing in his wings, and again ver. III. the day which the Lord should make, or wherein he should do what he had spoken; so signal a day as that it may above others be called h the day of the Lord, as shewing more of his power and presence, then ordinary daies, though all his. And that day we look upon (as we have before shewed) to be that day or time which should end in the dreadful destruction of Jerusalem, so comprehending under it (as we have said on ch. III.2.) all the time from Christs first beginning to preach to the Jews to that destruction of them and their City. And all this may be called the day of his first coming, to distinguish it from that which is usually called his second coming, viz. his coming at the last day to judge all the World. Otherwise if we will more nicely distinguish and confine the day of his first coming to his birth, and the second to his coming at the day of doom to judge the World, this will be to be accounted a middle day or coming between those two (as the learned Dr Hammond calls it on Mat. XXIV. ver. 3. and Luke IX.31.) for vengeance on his enemies, and deliverance of his Servants.

But it may seem convenient to comprehend, as we said, all that time from his first manifestation till his executing that fearfull National Judgement on the Jews, under one notion of his first coming. For though that which makes these titles of great and dreadfull is most signally appliable to that day of vengeance; yet all along in his preaching and foretelling, and threatning them with that doom as certain to come, if they continued obstinate and would not repent, as if it were already present, is that which may deservedly denominate this whole time, a great and dreadful day to them. John the Baptists words, wherein he describes it, and forewarns of it, found no less, as Mat. III.2. where he begins his preaching with Repent ye, for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and ver. 7. O generation of Vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come, and ver. 10. Now the axe is laid to the root of the trees, therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewen down and cast into the fire, and ver. 12. where he tells them of Christs coming with his fan in hand. The day or time thus described is a day of terror, and that so described is the day of Christs first coming then already begun. Our Saviours own preaching and behaviour while he was on Earth was likewise very troublesome to the unbelieving Priests, Scribes, and Pharisees; their quiet by both he disturbes by continual minding them of, and sharply reproving them for, their sins and hypocrisy, and denouncing to them many sad woes for them with severest threats, ye Serpents, ye generation of Vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Hell, Matt. XXIII.33. and telling them Behold your house is left unto you desolate, ver. 38. i. e. the i desolation of your Temple, City, and Nation is irreversibly at hand, as certainly shall it be as if it were already done. Againe, when of that stately admired frame of their Temple, wch his Disciples shewed him as a thing to be wondred at, he saith, Verily I say unto you there shall not be left one stone upon another which shall not be thrown down, Matt. XXIV.2. and likewise that the daies should come upon Jerusalem, that her enemies should cast a trench about her, and compass her round, and keep her in on every side; and should lay her even with the ground, and her children within her, and should not leave in he [...] one stone upon another, because she knew not the day of her visitation, i. e. because she would not repent upon all his calls, Luke XIX.43, 44. and that generation he saith should not pass till all these things were fulfilled, Mat. XXIV.34. and Luke XXI.32. within the the life time of some that there were then alive all that he said should be certainly fulfilled. That time in which these and like dreadfull things were spoken by him who spake as one having authority, as the People acknowledged, Mat. VII.29. the Lord himself then on Earth, whose words were as things done, may well be called a great and dreadfull day of the Lord, at least an awfull day, or day to be feared (as k some would have it rather rendred,) how much more when we shall look on it as concluded before that generation was passed away, within a matter of 40. years, l with the fearfull and total destruction of Jerusalem? so that comprehending all that time, both of Christs being on Earth, come in the flesh, wherein he threatned such destruction to the Jews, and of his coming in that short space after his leaving the Earth, to execute what he had threatned under the name of his first coming, we say that by the day here called the great and dreadfull day of the Lord, that is meant. If any shall so distinguish the parts of this time as to call the time of his being on Earth, the day of his first coming, and the destruction of Jerusalem, a distinct coming from it; that which we say is, that by the great and dreadfull day here meant, [Page] seems chiefly to be understood that of Jerusalems destruction, though we think it better to joyn both these together under the notion of one day, as we have said, and that which we would evince is, that it is not literally and primarily meant of the day of the last Judgement, as divers would have it, especially they who will have by Elias to be meant Elias in person; the one opinion depends much on the other. A chief argument of such of them as are Christians, seems that taken from the Epithet it self, given to this day, because it is called a dreadfull day, m which they say is proper to the day of the last Judgement, whereas the day of his first coming is not so called, but an acceptable time and day of Salvation. But sure, by what hath been already said, it appears that the day of his first coming taken as reaching to the destruction of Jerusalem (as we do take it) may well so be called, and was indeed so.

To the same purpose may be added to what hath been said, that which Simeon said unto Mary when she presented Jesus in the Temple, concerning him, Behold this Child is set for the fall and rising againe of many in Israel, Luke II.34. that is, as it is well and appositly to our purpose paraphrased by the learned Dr Hammond, ‘is appointed by God to be a means of bringing punishment and ruine upon all obdurate impenitents, and on the other side to redeem, restore, and recover those that will be wrought upon by him.’ He that was a chief corner stone, elect and precious, precious indeed to those that believed, was at once unto the disobedient a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, I Pet. II.6, 7, 8. such a stone as whosoever should fall on should be broken, but on whomsoever it should fall, it should grind him to powder, Mat. XXI.44. and whereas n they urge in confirmation of their opinion, that Christ at his first coming came not to judge but to be judged, not to destroy but to save, we may oppose what he saith, Joh. IX.39. for judgement am I come into this World, so as to shew that that cannot be so understood, as to contradict this. And that place of Joh. XII.47. where he saith he came not to judge the World, may, as Dr Hammond observes, be well understood, that he came not to accuse; but certain it is that the Father committed all Judgement to the Son, and gave him authority to execute Judgement, Joh. V.22, 27. and that as he came for Judgement into the World, so he did execute it being come, both by his preaching while he was among men, laying the axe to the root of the tree, and severely putting home the blow at the signal destruction of the unbelieving obstinate Jews, in few years after his departure out of the World, when they who before refused to be judged by him, and to be convinced by his preaching, of their evil waies, and to repent of them, that so judging themselves they might have prevented the farther judgement of the Lord, and thought to prevent that, by judging him, and crucifying him, did by their obstinacy pull it on themselves, and felt the sad effects in so dreadful a manner in that particular Judgement on that Nation, that nothing but that fearful perdition of the whole World expected at the last day, can be imagined more terrible: so that that destruction of theirs being comprehended under the day of his first coming (in the way that we have said,) makes it deservedly called, the great and dreadfull day of the Lord, as well as the last day of his coming to the generall Judgement may be so called. And whereas, as they say, that the day of his first coming is called an acceptable day, a day of Salvation, it is to be considered to whom it was so, viz. to such as received him with good will as a Savior, believed in him, and obeyed him, but to others it was far otherwise, a day burning as an oven to destroy them. In like manner also may that day of the future Judgement be termed, and shall be to the righteous, a day of Salvation, a welcome day, a day longed for by them, and in respect to the certain expectation of which they hold up their heads against all the pressures and persecutions, which from ungodly men they suffer before hand, and are by the Apostle bid to comfort one another with those words, I Thessal. IV.18. so that in these Epithetes here put to the day here spoken of, there is nothing which maketh why it may not be attributed as well to the one as to the other, to that of Christs first coming, as that of his second: and the other circumstances make it evident that it ought to be understood primarily here of the first, however appliable to the second.

In the Prophet Joel, c. II.31. we read of a day of the Lord described in the very same terms, and concerning the day designed thereby is much the like difference of opinions, as here. o But S. Peter in Acts II.20. manifestly interprets that also of the day of Christs first coming, and so from all which hath been said we conclude that by the great and dreadfull day, before the coming of which the Lord bids them here take notice that he will send Elijah the Prophet, is to be understood the day of Christs first coming, which includes his coming in Judgement particularly, against the Nation of the Jews, and ended in the destruction of the unbelievers amongst them and of their City, before which John the Baptist, designed here by the name and title of Elijah the Prophet, was according to this Prophecy sent; and not of his coming to execute the general [Page] Judgement on the whole World, at the day of doom, which shall end in the destruction of the whole, farther then as this was a p type of that, before which that he will send an harbinger, as he did before this, is but the conjecture of q those that affirm it, and that for which there is not from these words any evident proof.

That which hath made me so long to insist on the clearing of this Exposition, even to tediousness, is because the expounding the words otherwise, and as of a thing yet to come, would be to give up to the Jews an argument, which ought not to be given up to them. For if it be granted to them that Elijah in person be to be expected before the coming of Christ, here spoken of, and that the day here spoken of be not yet come, they will think they have reason to say (as they obstinately do) that the true Messiah is not yet come, and yet to expect another Christ as well as another Messenger; whereas if it be made evident (as we suppose it is) that that Elijah here foretold of, is already come, and the day here meant, also come, they can have nothing more but mere obstinacy to pretend why they should not believe in Christ, and forsake that error received from their Fathers.

Farther arguments for confirming what we have said, the following words also afford, as we shall see in taking them in their order; before we pass to which we may take notice of the Greek rendring the word [...] hannora, which other Translations render terrible, dreadfull or awfull by [...], as likewise in Joel II.11, 38, illustrious or notable, as ours translate Act. II.20. where that second place of Joel is cited, which hath made r some to think that they read in the Copy, that they followed, [...] Hannir [...]ah, from [...] to see; whereas [...] is from [...] yare, to fear: but another learned s man is so far from their opinion, as that he thinks that the Greek word mentioned is not there to be taken in its ordinary signification of illustrious or notable, but rather for terrible, and so likewise to have that notion in the title of Antiochus Epiphanes, who he thinks was not called so much illustrious as terrible. But this neither makes much for or against our purpose in giving the meaning. To the day spoken of may well agree, either of those Epithetes: it was terrible and dreadfull, and therefore notable, and perhaps there was anciently that communication of significations between those roots in the Hebrew as to justify both.

6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, &c.] As in the former verse we had him whom God in mercy would send to them for preventing their utter destruction, described by his title of Eliah the Prophet, and by the time of his coming, before the coming of the great and dreadfull day of the Lord, so in this we have him described by his office, viz. that he should turn the hearts of the father [...] to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, to which are added the good effects which should be produced by his performance of that office, viz. the preventing of Gods coming and smiting the Earth with a curse. These words are referred to by the Angel, Luke I.16, 17. with a farther explication of them, and applyed to John the Baptist thus, and many of the children of Israel shall he turn unto the Lord their God, and he shall go before him in the spirit, and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a People prepared for the Lord. That these words are there referred to, is manifest, and the person spoken of, so expresly declared to be John the Baptist, called therefore Eliah, because he should come in the spirit and power of Elias, that there can be no reason why that should be doubted or disputed of among Christians; or Elias in person, or any other by that name called, should be expected by vertue of them, as before we have said.)

As concerning the meaning of the words by which his office is expressed, whatever they think concerning the person, it will be indifferent to all to enquire. They must have the same meaning, whosoever they are applyed to, whether by Jews or Christians. For the meaning of them, therefore, we may look what they do or ought to agree in, comparing them one with another. To which enquiry it will be convenient to premise an observation concerning that word or preposition, which in our Translation is rendred to, and is in the Hebrew [...] Al, viz. that it is (as t Grammarians observe, and examples convince) of divers uses and significations. It signifies most usually above, over, on; but not only so, but withall, to, with, for, by, near, against, in, and other like, of which examples accurre in the Hebrew Text. And according to the words with which it is joyned and the thing spoken of, is the signification [Page] thereof to be discerned and distinguished. Again, concerning the appellations and titles of fathers and children, that they are not only attributed to those that are so by nature, but to others also, who for other respects or relation one to another, have those names given them; as older people that of fathers, younger that of children; and so learned men, or teachers, are looked on as common fathers, in respect to their disciples, or such as learn of them, or are instructed by them, and the like.

This concerning the nature of those words being observed, will help us to judge of such Expositions as are given of the whole sentence. The signification of the forementioned preposition which our Translators choose to give it in this place, is to, or unto, which it often manifestly hath elsewhere, as Joshua II.8. she came up, [...] Alehem, to them: and I Sam. II.11. went [...] to his house, with many other u places. And it is likewise embraced by most of Interpreters: but then accordingly as they apply it to fathers and children, and their different understanding of what is meant by them, do they differ in giving the meaning. They that understand them of such as should be them together in present being, whether natural fathers and children, or others who might be called by that title (as ours seem to do) take his office, so as here described, to consist in taking away such discords and differences as should be betwixt them, and settling peace, and love, and charity among them, so as that their hearts should be propense and kindly affectioned one to another, and they should be of one heart and one soul among themselves, as it is said of the believers, Act. IV.32. and with one consent hearken to God and receive the truth preached to them. So that this disposition and behaviour, which it is here said, it should be the work of the promised Elijah to work in their hearts, may seem (as a learned x Jew observes) contrary to that which in the Prophet Micah is described, as being found among them in his time, Chap. VII.6. the son dishonoureth the Father, or that which on their not hearkning to him our Saviour saith, should be in after times, the father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father, Luke XII.53. Such dissensions among them in those times here spoken of, are y observed to have been caused and fomented by the several Sects that were among them, as of Sadduces and Pharisees, and the like; which had such ill influence as to banish those due respects which ought to have been betwixt parents and children, superiors and inferiors (or whosoever under the title of father and son may be comprehended;) and that love and charity, which should have been betwixt all orders and degrees of men, whose hearts Eliah (i. e. John Baptist coming in the spirit and power of Eliah) should be sent to reduce (if possible) to better order, to mutual agreement among themselves, and joynt obedience to God. This seems to have been the ancientest understanding of the words among the Jewish z Doctors, who summe up the meaning of them in other words, saying ‘That he should be sent, [...] Lehashvoth hammachloketh, to compose dissention, or reconcile differences, [...] a Leasoth shalom binehem, to make peace between them, that they might all agree in the profession of one Religion:’ and thus seem the Greek Interpreters to have understood them, who instead of the second member of the sentence, and the heart of the children to their fathers, put for the meaning of it, and the heart of a man (or every one) to his neighbour. Against this Exposition I know not what may be excepted; yet do others, taking the forementioned preposition in the same sense, of to, give others: b some, he shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, &c. i. e. of the Jews to the Gentiles, and of the Gentiles to the Jews; which though it may be true, and that John did so, and it was as well an effect of his preaching and baptizing, as of the Gospell, yet I suppose is not the literall meaning of these words, which were spoken to the Jews, and more particularly concern them between themselves. c Others, he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, &c. i. e. of God to Israel, and Israel to God; who is called their father, and calleth them sons. That this is comprehended within the latitude of these words we doubt not, inasmuch as we hear the Angel, where he refers to these words, putting as part of Johns office, many of the children of Israel shall be turn to the Lord their God; and indeed for that end was he to turn their hearts one to another, that they might all with joynt hearts, or one heart, turn to the Lord. Yet can we not think that to be the literal meaning of the present words: God is called their Father elsewhere, but I suppose fathers here put in the plural number, cannot be properly used of him.

Another d Exposition of Camerarius, who makes the meaning to be, that he should reduce the hearts of the fathers to the children, and of the children to the fathers, i. e. ‘Should turn or bring back the hearts of the fathers, so as that they should take care of the pious education of their children, whereas they had been negligent in the right instructing and disciplining of them, and the hearts of the children who had been disobedient to their fathers; so as to yeild due reverence and obedience to them, may be well reduced to the first.’ But as to that [Page] which e others give, viz. that by the fathers should be meant the old Patriarks Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, &c. and by the children, those of that generation when this Elias should come: I do not understand how it can be made good. To say that the hearts of the children should be turned by their conversion to the same faith that was in those ancient holy men is intelligible; but how the hearts of those so long since dead should be said to be turned to those of that generation, is not so easily conceived: these hitherto mentioned all take [...] Al here in the signification of to. There are of the Jews who would have it here to signify by, or by the hand, or means of; So R Salomon out of an ancienter Doctor, shall turn the hearts of the fathers by the hand of the children, i. e. ‘Shall speak to the children to perswade their fathers to embrace the way of the Lord, and on the other hand to the fathers to perswade their children.’ The same signification of it takes Abarbinel also, and gives this strange interpretation, making the time spoken of to be according to his fancy after the Resurrection, which he will have to be before the end of the World, ‘If any be then at that time living who hath children dead, he shall by them, being raised from the dead at the coming of Eliah be converted to the truth, and on the contrary such children as are living, by their fathers being raised; that so before the end of the World all may be turned to the truth, that all be not destroyed.’ But this is so uncouth an Exposition and so little agreeing to the words, as that it will be much from the purpose to speak more of it, nor doth that by R Salomo mentioned agree with them, there being shewed in them what God would do by the hands of his Elias, not what Elias should do by the hands of others.

But there is yet another acception of the word, which is by others, both Jews and Christians, preferred, as giving the plainest meaning; and that is by taking it here to signify not, to, but f with, as manifestly in several other places it doth. As for example [...] Al merorim, with bitter herbs, Exod. XII.8. and vers. 9. his head [...] with his legs, and Chap. XXXV.22. and they came [...] Al nasim with women, i. e. as ours translate it both men and women; with several like instances. Thus R. D. Kimchi here will have it taken, giving thus his Exposition, ‘He shall warn or call on both fathers and children together, with all their heart to turn unto God, and they that turn shall be delivered from the day of Judgement;’ so that [...] is to be looked on as signifying the same that [...] im, with, fathers with the children, and of children with their fathers, all of them together. So likewise R. Tanchum, the meaning (saith he) is, ‘That he shall seek to rectify (or reduce into order) the Sect (or People) that they may be all of them of one heart, in the obedience (or worship) of God, and the word [...] is in the signification of [...], with, i. e. saith he, he shall seek to rectify the hearts of the fathers among them, with the hearts of the children; and the repeating (or doubling) of the words, (viz. and the heart of the children with their fathers,) is for greater confirmation sake.’ Thus say those Jews, with whom do concurre (as we said) divers g Christians also, and are urgent for it, so as that the words may denote that he should convert or call to repentance all of them together, both old and young, young and old, that so they might all be a People prepared for the Lord, (as Luke I.17. he speaks) and readily receive him, and with joynt hearts obey him; This Exposition gives a clear and plain meaning, and is easily reconcileable with the first mentioned; both even necessarily go together, viz. the converting all together, one with another, and one to another, in obedience to God, and love one to another: and therefore we may well look on the words as comprehending both, and that for giving a full meaning of them, both ought joyntly to be taken in; and so are they taken in likewise in that one word, in which our Saviour elsewhere summs up that office of this Eliah here in more expressed, viz. [...], shall restore all things, reduce all things to right order, which could not otherwise be done then by turning them all one to another, and one with another to the faith of Christ. In much like manner to that of our Saviours, do some of the i Jews likewise summe up the import of these words, concerning his office whoever it be that is meant, saying that he was [...] Leyasher Israel velehacin libbam, to rectify Israel, and to prepare or put in good order their hearts.

In the forecited place, Luke I.17. where these words of Malachi are plainly referred to, the words, and the heart of their children to their fathers, are not put as they are here read, but instead of them, and the disobedient to the wisdome of the just, which the learned Dr Hammond, in his Notes on that place shews to be as a Gloss or Paraphrase on the Prophets words, to explain his expression; both importing that a general reformation should be endeavoured to be wrought by the person sent for that end, among the Jews, for fitting them to receive the Lord Christ. From the same spirit did both expressions proceed, and it will not concern us to be inquisitive why he should change his language or expressions. By what he saith by his Angell there in Luke, it is evident that what h [Page] he here spake by his Prophet was spoken of John the Baptist, and not of Eliah in his person. And with what Elias-like zeal John did set himself to perform the office here designed for him, appears by what we read in the Gospell of his Mission, and his preaching, and the time thereof, and the contents and effects of it, as Matt. III. Mar. I. Luke III. and Joh. I. He that shall duly consider what is in those places said of John, and what he did, and compare them with what is said here of the Eliah promised, that he should do; will easily perceive all that is here prophecied to have been already made good; that there will be no ground left to him for expecting a farther completion of it, by Eliah in person, or any other under that name to be expected before the coming of the great and dreadfull day of the Lord here spoken of. Here God saith, Behold I will send Elijah the Prophet; in the Gospell it is said, there was a man sent from God whose name was John, Joh. I.6. and that that John was Elias which was for to come, Matt. XI.14. Here, that he was to be sent before the coming of the great and dreadfull day of the Lord. There the time of Johns coming is described that it was when the Kingdome of God was at hand, Matt. III.2. when the day of wrath was coming, v. 7. when the axe was laid to the root of the trees, and every tree that brought not forth good fruit should be hewen down and cast into the fire, vers. 10. when He was now coming whose fan was in his hand, and he would throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into his barn, but would burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire, ver. 12. which expressions (as we have before shewed) are an evident description of the great and dreadfull day of the Lord here spoken of: Here, that this Eliah should turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to the fathers, preach to all sorts young and old conversion and repentance; there in the Gospel, that John should turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and the hearts of the fathers to the children, &c. Luke I.16, 17. and that he did preach to all the Baptism of repentance, Marc. I.4. Luke III.3. and that with such power and good effect that Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the Region round about Jordan, went out to him, and were baptized of him, confessing their sins, Matt. III.5, 6. and Marc. I.5. i. e. multitudes of all sorts and conditions of People out of those places, Luke III.7. of the common sort of People; ver. 10. of those that might seem to have least of the fear of God before their eies, least regard of, or charity for other men, Publicans, ver. 12. Souldiers, ver. 14. and were at greatest difference in opinion one from another, Pharisees, and Sadduces. l To all these did he instill Precepts of Charity, Luke III, 11. the hearts of all these it is manifest that he did turn one to another, in that they m agreed and were united in one common Baptism by him. What can more punctually agree then the Prophecy here, and the matter of fact set down in the Gospels thus paralleled, do, to shew that the person who is here so characterized in respect to what was to be, and there to what was made good in him, is one and the same, and that no other ought to be expected by vertue of this Prophecy? Certainly when we consider how exactly all things do concurre of what is foretold of in the Prophet, and reported as done in the Gospell, in the one person of John the Baptist, and how all things here designed to be done by this person named Eliah, were by him in a signal manner performed; we shall perceive that there is little grounds for that argument which is by n some here taken to prove that Eliah in person is to be expected before the day of the last Judgement, because (as they say) John did not fulfill all that is here required, in the conversion of the hearts of the fathers and children one to another, or as it is summed up by our Saviour in restoring all things, Matt. XVII. Not to enquire what other answers may be, or are, given to that objection, abundantly sufficient for confirmation of that Exposition which we have follow'd, as to the scope and meaning of them, and to shew that they do not afford any good grounds for any such argument, will be the consideration of two things which would by those who draw that argument here from them, be otherwise (I suppose) easily granted. 1. o That words which are put to import that such or such a thing should be effected by any, do often signify rather his endeavour, and the doing of what would or might be sufficient for the effecting of them, then a full accomplishment as to the effect, or consequents on his endeavour. So that what is said that the person here spoken of should turn the hearts of the fathers to the children &c. and Matt. XVII.10. that he should restore all things, may well be said to be fulfilled, if he did diligently that which tended to the producing, and was sufficient to have produced, such effects, though through default in the subjects on which he was to work, the hearts of all were not turned, nor all things, or men (as p some think it may, though put in the neuter gender, be particularly applied to them) fully rectified and reduced into right order. 2. q That the word, all, is not alwaies to be taken in that extent as to comprehend every particular (whether it be applied to persons, things, times, or places) but only a great number, and to shew k [Page] the diffusive nature, of that which is said should have respect to all, to be such as might be extended to more, even to all that should come in its way, or be offered to it, or were rightly qualified to receive its operation, or required to make good the truth of what is spoken of.

To omitt other examples, which are frequent, one already mentioned, and which is to our present purpose will make it evident. It is said, Matt. III.5. that Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan went out to John, and were baptized of him. It will not by any be thought that every person in those places did thus, but a great multitude or store of them, and if more had come, or his preaching had prevailed on more, John was ready to perform his office to them. This is thought enough to justify the expression, that all the Countrey came unto him, and were baptized of him. Here is not in our Prophet the word all expressed, but indefinitely, without any number mentioned, said, shall turn the heart of the fathers and the heart of the children; but because where Christ summs up what is here said, or gives the meaning of it, he adds it, viz. and shall restore all things, it is by them looked on as here understood, and the r exceptions therefore taken, that by Elias is not here meant John the Baptist, because to restore all things is to convert to the true Faith all Jews and Hereticks, &c. which John did not effect, and therefore Elias in person is yet to come, and do it. But if we suppose that all is to be here understood, surely that by all were to be meant no more then we have said, i. e. many of all sorts, all that should hearken to his preaching and receive his Doctrine, we may learn from the Angels describing of the same office of his that is here described by this, that many of the children of Israel he should turn unto the Lord their God, going before him in the spirit and power of Elias to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children. The all and the many do then signify the same thing in this matter. And these things being observed, surely by what we read of John's performance, it is evident that the words here spoken of this Eliah to be sent, were in, and by him, so far (even to wonder) made good, that to expect another to fulfill them in greater measure, is not warranted by vertue of this Prophecy. He was zealous in the highest degree in performing what he was sent to do, and on very many did his endeavours take effect. That they did not on more, on all among them without exceptions, prevail, was not through any defect or default in him, but because, as the Scripture expressly declares, concerning many of the Pharisees and Lawyers (many of which yet came in unto him) they rejected the counsel of God against themselves, Luke VII.30. the like effects wch our Saviour, who came to convert them all and to save all, complains his own preaching to have had, among that same People through their obstinacy, saying, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killest the Prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as an Hen gathereth her Chickens under her wings, und ye would not, Matt. XXIII.37. t Some are so far from thinking that on these words can be grounded any argument to prove that the Elias here meant was not John Baptist, and that it is one yet to come at the end of the World, before Christs last coming, as that they look on them as an argument to prove the clean contrary; because this Elias is to come before the great day of the Lord, and to call to conversion and repentance; for which was a fit season at Christs first coming: but at the last day of his coming, the day of Judgement, is no farther time for repentance, but for reward or execution of Judgement and punishment; therefore that day, not this, must here be meant, and this Elias one already come, not one then to be expected. What we have said will farther be confirmed by consideration of the next words, in which is declared why he should be sent to convert them, viz. lest (saith the Lord) I come and smite the Earth with a curse.

As the former words concerning the Mission, the time and the office, of the person here named Elijah the Prophet do (as we have seen) exactly agree to John the Baptist, and so as that they cannot so be applied to any other, so do these also which declare the end for which he should be sent at that time, to perform that office, no less agree with those in which in the Gospell we are shewed for what end John did perform his, by preaching conversion and repentance, viz. That being converted they might flee from the wrath to come, Matt. III.7. and the axe being now laid to the root of the trees, they bringing forth good fruit, might escape from being cut down and cast into the fire, ver. 10. that they might be as Wheat, and gathered into the Lords Garner, and not as Chaffe which he should burn with unquenchable fire, ver. 12. Add how the Angell explains it, Luke I.17. that he should, (and as appears, c. III. accordingly did endeavour to do) turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just. For what end? to make ready a People prepared for the Lord, a People fit to receive him, and to find mercy and Salvation from him at his coming. Who will not at first hearing or reading perceive, that those things said concerning the end of his preaching, s [Page] are the very same with what is said here of this person's performing the office he is sent for, viz. that he should do it, to prevent, lest the Lord should come and smite the Earth with a curse, or utter destruction. The same words which are given, even by some of the Jews, for explication of this expression of the Prophet, will as appositely be used for summing up the meaning of those in the Gospell. Such is that Exposition of R. Tanch [...]m `The meaning, saith he, is, ‘He shall fairly perswade them, that he may reduce any of them who may possibly be reduced; to wit, such who have not evil habits so firmly rooted in their minds, that they cannot return from them till the punishment which shall seize on all the rebellious transgressors, overtake them.’ Surely this which he gives for the meaning of what is here said of this person here denoted by the title of Eliah, for shewing for what end he should perform his office, is manifestly the meaning of what is in the Gospell said, concerning the end for which John was sent to preach repentance, and did preach it, and baptize unto it. Not much different as to the purpose, is that meaning which ⁷⁰¹ another among them gives of these words, viz. ‘Therefore he shall warn them, that they may be brought to repentance against that day come, that he may not smite the whole Land, (or the Land with a consumption) and it be a curse.’ Thus far, well; and so as to shew the end which this Eliah was to aim at, to be altogether the same that John did aim at, and labour to effect, so far as that we cannot but look on him as the person here designed, and have not reason to expect any other for making good, as we have before said, this here spoken. What this last Rabbin adds, They that will not be warned by his admonition, shall be consumed and perish in the wilderness of the People, or at the day of Judgement in the Land of Israel, doth only shew that he knew not well what to say as to the curse, or destruction here spoken of, when, or how it should be, not willing to understand it of that destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, on their rejecting both John's and Christs admonitions, which it is (as we have before shewed) evidently meant of. He knows not on what to fix, and so speaks at random that which signifies nothing, and leaves the Reader in a maze. But if it be applied to that, all will run clear, not so if to any other. For against that which (as we have seen) many concurre in, that it should be meant of the day of doome at Christs last coming to judge the World, the form of the expression (as is by x some observed) affords an evident argument, lest I come, saith the Lord, and smite, &c. that shews that this judgement might by their repentance and conversion be prevented, which is confirmed by what our Saviour saith, Matt. XXIII.37, 38. and Luke XIII.34, 35. that therefore their house was left unto them desolate, because they would not be gathered when he would have gathered them, nor be brought to repentance by his call: and that all those evils, and a terrible destruction came upon them, because they would not know the things that belonged to their peace, nor the day of their visitation, when they were told of them both by John and himself, Luke XIX.42, and 44. But that general Judgement is a day that cannot by any means be prevented, but shall in Gods appointed time certainly come, so that lest I come cannot be applied to that. For certainly he will come, without any peradventure. As for the explication of the word, earth, viz. that by it is here meant the Land of Judea, the People spoken to, and of, and not the whole Earth in general is evident. y That it is in that restrained signification for the Land of Israel and Judea, peculiarly often used both in the Old and New Testament, is a thing so confessed as that there is no need farther to insist on it.

Abarbinel seeming to take it more generally thence infers, ‘That the destruction that is here spoken of should be of things generable and corruptible, such as are on the Earth, not of the Heavens and the Hosts thereof, (or things therein,) so as it was at the universal Deluge, when God destroyed z every living substance: In summe, all only that was in this lower World.’ What he aims at in this inference he doth not farther explain: if he would have it that at the end of the World, only the Earth and the things that are therein should be destroyed, we have to oppose against him that constantly professed truth, that as well the Heavens as the Earth are reserved unto fire against the day of Judgement, as S. Peter speaks, II Pet. III.7. and shall be dissolved therewith; but otherwise, if there be weight in his way of argument, it will make for our purpose, viz. that the day here spoken of is not that day of the last Judgement, because it is a day of such destruction as was to be executed on Earth only, and therefore in this World, viz. (as we have all along said) the destruction of Jerusalem.

By the earth, or land, will easily be understood by a most usual notion, Ahlol ardi, the People of the Earth, or inhabitants of the Land, (as an Arabick Translation done by a Jew hath it) together with the Land it self. ⁷⁰⁵ They that expound it ‘earthly minded men, such as follow earthly things, and will not make use of the time of grace, and embrace Gods Salvation offered to them, say what is true, [Page] but seem not to give the full latitude of the word.’ Such of the People only were destroyed, and those that turned to God were saved, yet for the sake of the many obstinate rebels, was the Land together destroyed and made desolate. As for the last word [...] Cherem, which is rendred a curse, it may be likewise (as it is by b several) rendred, destruction or utter destruction. So R. Tanchum saith, he means an universal destruction according to the sense of the verb in that place, Num. XXI.2. [...] veheeharamti, then I will utterly destroy their Cities, and so do our Translators in Zacch. XIV.11. render the same word that they render here a curse, by utter destruction; and the same verbe that c Num. XXI.2. they render I will utterly destroy, do they render, Micah IV.13. I will consecrate, and Levit. XXVII.28, 29. the nown, the same that is here used, is rendred a devoted thing, and Deut. VII.26. a cursed thing. So that looking into the Scriptures we shall find the root of this word to have these significations, of cutting off, or destroying, and cursing, and consecrating, (to omit another notion in which it signifieth a net) The prime d signification seems to be that of cutting off, or destroying, which appears in the other two; in that of cursing, which is a devoting to destruction, manifestly; and not obscurely in that other of devoting or consecrating, inasmuch as that is a e cutting off (as it were) and taking out of the way from common use that which is so devoted. In this place it is manifest that they that render it curse, mean the same with those that render it destruction; not such a lighter curse for correction as is spoken of, ch. III.9. but a curse ending in a final excision and utter destruction. For what is here meant by what is threatned, the event and manner in which it was fulfilled on them to whom it was spoken, makes evident; The generality of the Jews having rejected the admonitions of John Baptist who was sent to warn them to flee from the wrath to come, by embracing Christ and his doctrine, whom they not only refused, but procured to be crucified, and pulled on themselves a curse by saying his blood be on us and on our childhen, God seconded it with his curse and sent on them that curse which ended in that fearfull destruction of them, and their Land, from which they could never recover, and which makes undeniably manifest to all the World that this Prophecy had its full accomplishment in them, and in vain do they seek to elude it.

Thus here ends this Prophecy, in the Hebrew Bibles and all that follow them; but in many Copies of the Greek, the verses are so transplaced as that the fourth verse being taken out of its place is put after this, viz. Remember the Law of Moses, &c. and so made to conclude the Prophecy; on what occasion, or for what reason I know not. f One saith it was done in imitation of the superstition of the Jews, and to conclude the whole [...] that all might end in good words, or words of a good sound. The superstition of the Jews, wch he mentions, is this, that whereas the last words here, and smite the Earth with a curse sound harsh in their ears, and seem to bode evil; that they might conclude with something more pleasing, they repeat the words going before, again after them, viz. Behold I will send you Eliah the Prophet before the coming of the great and dreadfull day of the Lord, and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to the fathers; or at least some of them, so as still to leave out the last harsh words, which conclude with a curse. The like do they do in some other Books for the same reason, as at the end of Isaiah, and of Ecclesiastes, and the Lamentations, in which after the last verse, they repeat again the verse going before it. And for warning thereof, casting the initial letters of the names of these Books, viz. [...] I, T, K, K, into an artificial word, so as to be a signal or memorial of them, I standing for Isaiah, T, for [...] Tereasher, i. e. the twelve minor Prophets, of which Malachi is the last: and the first K for Kinoth, i. e. Lamentations, the second for Koheleth, i. e. Ecclesiastes, they usually write or print that signal together, with the words wch they would have to be repeated, all or some of them. How ancient this custom was among them I know not: it savors of the humor of those of ancient times among them, who said to Gods Prophets, prophecy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, Isaiah XXX.10. They seem to think that the putting away from them the mention of g the evil day, that they might go on in their sins in security, should secure them from it, so inverting and frustrating to themselves Gods gracious method, who, that they might not perish in their security, caused those words in the last place to be inculcated to them, that so they might sink deep into them, and work in them repentance, whereby alone the evil mentioned might be prevented, whereas their refusing to give that attention to them would pull it on them to their unavoidable destruction, as in the example of these here spoken to, it manifestly came to pass so as to be for caution to all in like kind.

As for the present place, h some are of opinion that the Jews do here repeat those words, Behold I send you Eliah &e. to strengthen themselves in their opinion and hope, that the Messiah is not yet come, but is to come. If so, or [Page] out of what respect soever they do it, we have from the Messiah himself, what to oppose to them, and adde to what they would conclude with, viz. i But I say unto you Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they listed. The Messiah also is already come, and they would not know him neither, but rejected him, and despitefully used him: for which their obstinacy, that great and terrible day of the Lord is also come upon them, and he hath smitten the Earth, i. e. them and their Land with such a curse, so terrible a destruction as makes good all that is here spoken, and shews that not one word of this Prophecy is fallen to the ground, but hath had its full accomplishment on them; so that now they remain an ensample to all others that shall despise or neglect the means of grace offered to them, as they did, and putting far away the evil day, will not, whiles God gives them space, k know the things which belong unto their peace, nor think of the time of their visitation. For how shall any that reject the counsel of God against themselves, as they did, (any People or Nation) but expect to be smitten with the like curse as they were, even in this World; how shall the just God, which spared not that his chosen Nation, his once peculiar People, the Seed of Abraham his friend, spare others guilty in the like kind? So that though these words were fulfilled in that destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Nation, the People then peculiarly spoken to and intended, yet may all others see in them, what may concern them also, even in this World. But if it should so please God, that any obstinately wicked, and impenitent People should escape the like judgement in this World, yet besides that prime and literal meaning of the words, already (as we said) fulfilled, on them, we cannot but by them be put in mind of that more great and terrible day of the Lord, and look on it as by this typified; the judgement of which, none either whole Nations, or particular persons that ever lived shall escape, and which shall unawares seize not on any one Land only, but on the whole Earth and all therein, yea and the Heavens too, with greater terror then that by which this concerning the Jews, is here, v. 1. or elsewhere, described, or can by any words be expressed. Wherefore seeing what God hath done, and being thereby warned, and by his word certainly assured what he will do, what manner of persons ought we to be in all holy conversation and godliness? (as m S. Peter will teach us to infer) looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God.

All those admonitions to the Jews, and all Gods methods toward them for preparing them for that day of his coming here mentioned, equally concern us in respect of that other day of his coming by it typified, and it will be necessary for us to apply them to our own concerns, and to make use of them to our selves, without expecting of another Elias, to be sent to forewarn and convert us. We have not promise of any, and it would be to no purpose to have any. We have l Moses and the Prophets, we have the admonitions of John Baptist and Christ himself, and the example of the miscarriage of the Jews for not hearkning to them; and if we will not hear, and be warned by these, neither will we be perswaded if Elias or John Baptist should rise from the dead, or Christ should come again in the flesh among us to convert us. Sufficient to us to make us to prepare our selves for what we are certainly to expect, or leave us without excuse, are those admonitions of his, extending to all Generations, Watch therefore, for you know not what hour your Lord doth come, Matt. XXIV.42. and again v. 44. Therefore be ye also ready, for in such an hour as you think not the Son of Man cometh. There is no generation which can assure themselves but that in it may be made good, as to that other day, what our Saviour saith to the Jews concerning the day of their Visitation, Verily I say unto you this Generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled, Matt. XXIV.34. The Lord is not slack concerning his Promise, as some men count slacness, but is long suffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, II Pet. III.9.

SOLI DEO GLORIA.

Notes

a

See the Prologue to Mal. in Bi [...]. Mag.

b

Hierom. Praesat. in Mal.

c

Chr. à Castro.

d

See Abarbinel in Mal. è Talmud M [...]gillah, c. 1. p. 15.

e

Idem, and Kimchi. R. Solom. in cap. II.10. Ch. à Castro.

f

Ribera.

g

R. Ab. Ezra. Kimchi. R. Tanch. Abarbinel.

h

R. Tanchum.

i

Za [...]h. IX.1. and XII.1.

k

Drusius on Nah. I.1.

l

R. D. Kimchi. R. Tanchum. Abarbinel.

m

[...]

n

Genes. XlIII.34.

o

See R. Sol. and the rest.

p

The Vision of the Word of the Lord. Syr. Arab. The Prophecy of the Word of the Lord. Another Arab.

q

Chald. Paraph. and Arab. Vers. MS. R. D. Kimchi. R. Tanchum.

r

Abarb.

s

Drus.

t

Kimchi.

v

R. Sol. Ab. Ezra, Kimchi in Rad.

x

R. Tanchum

y

MS. A [...]ab.

z

Buxtorf. Vindic. p. 64.

a

Capell. Crit. Sac. p. 255.

b

Grot. on Ezech. 25.14. and Josephus, and the Books of the Maccabees.

c

Grot. when Nabuchadnezzar overcame also the Mo [...]b [...]t [...]s and Ammonites. Josephus, l. 10. c. XI.

d

R. D. Kimchi.

e

R. Sol. Jarchi.

f

Abarb.

g

See I Sam. VI.9.

h

R. Tanch.

i

R. D. Kimchi.

k

R. Tanchum.

l

Marginal additions in Miclal Yophi.

m

Drusius.

n

Tarnov.

o

Jun. Trem.

p

Grot.

q

See how some of them explain Deut. IV.19.

r

See Chris. à Castro.

s

See Abarbinel.

t

Drusius.

u

R. D. Kimchi.

x

Drusius.

y

Hierom. and others.

z

Drus.

a

Grotius, Riber.

b

And see Num. XXVIII.2. Levit. XXII.25.

d

See Abarbinel and Tarnov.

e

Ribera.

f

R. Tanchum.

g

See Abarbinel.

h

R. Tanchum.

i

Hierom.

k

Chr à Castro, Grot. Pelicanus.

l

Kimchi, and Abarb.

m

Chald.

n

Syriac. Jun. Trem.

o

D. Kimchi, R. Tanchum, and see Drus.

p

R. Tanchum.

q

See Leviticus V.7, 11.

r

Maimonides in Mo [...]eh l. 3. c. 46.

s

See R. David Kimchi and Abarbinel.

t

R. Tanchum.

u

Joel II.

x

Kimchi.

y

R. D. Kimchi, Ribera, Chr. à Castro. Menoch. Grot▪

z

Grot.

a

R. Salomo Jarchi, Abarb. Drus. Tarnov. &c. Dutch Notes.

b

R. D. Kimchi. Vat. Drus.

c

Hierom. Cyril. Riber. Menoch. Tyrin. Grot. Castalio. Dutch Notes, Tarnov.

*

The word [...] Chinnam, signifies both, for nought and in vain, &c. The Chalde parapras [...]th it, That you might not offer on mine Altar an abominable offering.

d

R. Sal. Jarchi, R. D. K [...]mchi, Abarb. R. Tanch.

e

R. Sal. Jarchi, Abarbinel, Yalkut. (We chiefly follow R. Salomo's reading as being plainest;) out of Tora [...]h Coh nim.

f

Josh. VII.9. as some of the Jews expound those words. R. Tanchum.

g

See Matth. III.9.

h

Aben Ezra, R. D. Kimchi.

i

R. Tanchum.

k

Se Yalkut, and R. Salomo [...]arc [...]i.

l

Maimon. Moreh. l. 1 c. 36▪ and see R. D. Kimchi, and R. Tanchum

m

R. D. Kimchi, in rad. and Mic [...]al Yophi.

n

See R. Tanchum, Aben Ezra, R. D. Kimchi in rad. and see Akidah.

o

Aben Dana in Miklal Yophi, out of Meor ein [...]im.

p

Calv.

q

Dr Hammond on Jo [...]. IV.24.

r

Calv. & Vatab. in 8o.

s

So R. D. Kimchi makes that word and this here the same in sense.

t

Cyril, Ribera, Sa, Calvin.

t

Aben Ezra.

u

R. D. Kimchi, & Abarbinel.

x

R. Tanchum.

y

Pisc.

z

Abarb.

a

R. Salomo Jarchi, R. D. Kimchi, and see Abarb. who differently cites R. Salomo's words from what is read in him.

b

Pelic. Oecol.

c

See Calv.

d

Abu Walid, Aben Ezra, & R. Tanchum.

e

Aben Ezra.

f

R. Tanchum.

g

Chr. à Castro in his Paraphrase.

h

Oecolamp. Ch. à Castro.

i

R. D. Kimchi, Abarb.

k

Calv.

l

Levit. XXII.20, &c.

m

Abarb.

n

R. D. Kimchi.

o

Kimchi's Father, Jun. Trem. Vatab. Du [...]ch Notes, and Tarnov.

p

R. Kimchi.

q

See Lud. de Dieu.

r

Abarb.

s

R. D. Kimchi, Miclal Yophi.

t

Abu Walid confirming it by the use of the same word, Job. XXXI.39. caused to go away or expire.

u

Deut. XII.11.

*

And of this reading S. Jerome takes notice.

x

Aben Dana in Miclal Yophi.

y

Aben Ezra, see Buxt. Lex. in [...].

z

In radic. [...].

a

Capel. Crit. pag. 222.

d

Grot.

e

Out of Aben Dana in Miclal Yophi.

f

Calvin.

g

See Isa. lXI.8.

h

Drus.

b

Doway Bibl. Jerom. Ribera. Tirin. Menoch. &c.

i

Abarb.

k

R. Tanch.

m

R. Tanch.

n

R. D. Kimchi.

o

Tarnov. and Chr. à Castro.

p

Calv. Vatab. Edit. 4o & 8o, & Sa.

l

R. D. Kimchi.

q

Riber. Menoch.

r

Tarn▪

s

Vatab.

t

R. D. Kimchi, & Ab [...]rb.

v

R. Salomo Jarchi.

x

Jam. I.25.

y

R. Tanch. R▪ D. Kimch. Rad. in [...] & [...].

z

R. D. Kimch. Drus. Calv.

a

Abarb.

b

Tarn.

c

Grot. Jerom.

d

Calv. See Drus. and Lu [...]. de Dieu.

e

Abu Walid.

f

Hagg. II.18, 19.

g

R. Tanch.

h

Aben Ezra, Kimch. and Abarb.

i

Cal. Tarn.

k

Chald. Greek, Arab. Vulg. Lat. & Arab. MS.

l

R. Tanch. Ribera.

m

Calv.

n

Abu Walid, R. D. Kimchi, in rad.

o

Abarb.

p

Calv.

q

Drus.

r

See Chr. à Castro. Dutch Notes, Stokes.

s

Doway Transl.

t

Riber.

u

Deut. XVIII.3.

x

Rib. Menoch. Grot.

y

Lyra, Chr. à Castro. Tirin.

z

Aquila. See Nobil.

a

See Joel, I.13. and II.14.

b

Abarb.

c

Arias Mont.

d

Christ. à Castro.

e

R. Tanch.

g

Hierom. Riber. Grot. &c.

h

Capell. and see Schindler in [...].

i

Menoch.

l

R. Tanch.

m

Jun. Trem. Pisc.

n

Aben Ezra, R. Tanch.

o

Grot. Tirin.

p

Stokes.

q

Pareus, R. Salomo MS.

r

Lyra.

s

Calv.

t

Lud. de Dieu.

f

See Abu Walid in [...].

k

Drus.

u

Jun. Trem.

x

Abarb. & Grot.

y

Glass. G [...]am. pag. 655.

z

R. D. Kimchi, Vat. Munst. Rib. Tirin. Menoch. Dutch Notes, Stokes, Bishop Hall's Paraph.

a

Calv.

b

Jun. Trem. & Tarn.

c

Abarb.

d

Grot.

e

Aben Ezra.

f

R. Tanch.

g

Kimchi, Abarb. Drus.

h

Grot.

i

Aben Ezra.

k

Kimchi.

l

Vatab. in 4to & 8vo. Jun. Trem. Drus. Tarn.

n

Calv.

o

Drus.

p

Calv.

q

Grot.

*

Whether did he think [...] Mora to signify Doctrine, as if it were from [...] Yarah.

r

Dutch Notes.

s

R. Ta ch

t

See in Aben Ezra.

u

So Aben Ezra, I gave them that they should fear him, and he should fear me.

x

R. D. Kimchi, yea and some say that he was Eliah. Abarb.

y

Vatab. & Pareus.

z

Ch. à Castro.

a

L. de Dieu.

b

Aben Ezra.

c

R. Tanch.

d

Abarb

e

Grot.

f

Abarb.

g

Pisc.

h

Du [...]ch Notes.

i

Jun. Trem.

k

Tarnov.

l

See R. Salomo Jarchi & R. Tanchum.

m

R. Tanch.

n

Kimchi & Aba [...]b.

o

Aben Ezra.

p

Yalkut.

q

See M [...]cah VI.8.

r

R. D. Kimchi. Drus. Ribera, Grot. and Dutch Notes.

s

Tarnov.

t

Calv.

u

Aben Ezra, & Vat [...]b

x

Menoch.

y

Pirke Abo h, cap. 1. §. 12.

z

See Heb. XII 14

a

[...]

b

[...].

c

Jer. IX.24.

d

See R. Salomo.

*

R. Tanch.

e

Drus.

f

Vulg. Lat. &c.

g

Piscat. Grot.

h

R. Tanch. R. D. Kimchi.

i

See Ecclus. XlV.17.

k

R. Tanch.

l

Compare H [...]se. XIV. the last words.

m

Tarnov.

n

Jun. & Trem.

o

Diodate's Notes, and Vatab.

p

Grot.

q

See Ezra. X.2.

r

Ab [...]rb.

s

R. D. Kimchi. Abarb.

t

T [...]. Grot.

v

R. D. Kimchi.

x

R. D. Kimchi.

y

Abarb.

z

Munst. Vatab. Tirin.

a

Grot. Ri [...]. Menoch.

b

Grot.

c

Jun. Trem.

d

Tarnov.

e

So here R. Tanch.

f

Jun. Trem.

g

Tarnov.

h

Exod. XXXIV.16.

i

Pisc.

k

Grot.

m

Cyril, &c.

n

Ribera.

l

Ly [...], and see Christ. à Castro.

o

R. Tanch.

p

R. Ab. Ezra.

q

Id. and Abarb.

r

R. Tanch. Abarb. Hieron. Montan. Ribera, Ch. à Castro, Menoch.

s

Abarb. Deut. XXVI.17, 18.

t

Ab. Ezra. R Tanch. R. D. Kimchi. Abarb.

u

Cyrill, and most Christian Expositors.

x

Mat. III.9. Luk. I.73.

y

Pisc. Diodate.

z

Calvin.

a

Lyra vid. Ch. à Castro.

b

Ch. à Castro. Grot.

c

R. D. Kimchi.

d

Ab. Ezra. Drus.

e

See Montan. Chr. à Castro, & Hierom.

f

Munst.

g

R. D. Kimchi. Calv. Grot.

h

Tig. Vatab.

i

See Ribera.

k

v. 15. See Hieron. Ribera. Pareus on vers. 10. Ch. à Castro. and see v. 16. infra.

m

Jam. II.10.

n

Jun. Trem. Piscat.

o

Genev. in d [...] Dieu.

p

Id. I. de Dieu.

q

Maimon. in Issure bia [...], c. 12. §. 1.

r

See R. D. Kimchi and Abarb [...]nel.

s

L. de Dieu, & Vatab. 4o & 8o.

t

Ab. Walid. & R. Tanch.

v

Munste [...]. &c.

x

Vulg. Lat. and Kimchi in Rad.

y

Tig.

z

Calv.

*

Stokes. [...]

a

Chald. R.D. Kimchi, R. Tanch.

b

Chald. R.D. Kimchi, R. Tanch.

c

Castal.

d

Diodate, Dutch Notes.

e

Jun. Tr [...]m. Pisc. Grot.

f

Jun. Trem.

g

Drus.

h

Pisca [...].

i

Lud. de Dieu.

k

R. Tanch.

l

R. D. Kimchi, Abarb.

m

Ch [...]is. à Castro.

n

Capell thinking they read [...] Ad yeunneh for [...] Er veoneh.

o

Flac. Illyr.

p

Bishop Hall.

q

Dutch Notes.

r

Oecolamp.

s

Piscat.

t

Aben Ezra, R. D. Kimchi, R. Tanchum, and several of the Christian Interpreters.

u

R. Salomo, Abarb. &c.

x

See Schindler in [...].

y

Oecolamp.

z

R. Tanch.

a

Pelican.

b

Pis [...]at. Diodate, Dutch Notes.

c

Lyra.

d

Ch. I. ver. 13.

e

L. de Dieu.

f

Abarb.

g

Gen. II.24. Mat. 19 5.

h

R. Tanch.

i

See Ribera, Ch. à Castro, &c.

k

Grot.

l

See Hierom.

m

Chr. à Castro, Tirin, &c.

n

Buxtorf. Vindic p. 568.

o

Ribera, Corn. à Lapide, Menoch. &c.

p

Chr. à Castro.

q

Sa, and see Chr. à Castro, and Cor. à Lapide.

s

Chr. à Castro, Menoch.

t

[...]irin.

u

Chr. à Castro, Vers. Tig. and see Tarnov.

x

L. de Dieu.

y

See Chr. à Castro, Sens. 4.

z

See Buxtorf. Vindic. p. 568.

a

See Num. 5.14, and 30. and ch. 14.24.

b

See Kimchi on vers. 10.

c

So a MS.

d

Buxt. Bibl.

e

As other Editions.

f

See Calvin, Drus. Vatab. Paraeus, Stokes, &c.

g

So R. Salomo, and Ab. Ezra,

h

Arias Montanus.

i

Aben Dana in Miclal Yophi, on the place.

k

R. Tanchum.

l

Lud. Capell.

*

[...] That ye keep your Soules in (or, by) abstaining from that.

m

Tract. Gittin in the end,

n

See the MS, for the printed Copy is imperfect.

o

Tig. Jun. Trem. Piscat.

*

As likewise the Syriack doth.

p

Tigurin.

q

Schindler in [...].

r

L. de Dieu.

s

Dru [...].

t

R. Tanchum, and see Ab. Ezra.

u

See R. Salomo, Miclal Yophi, and Stokes.

x

See Tarn.

y

R. D. Kimchi, R. Tanchum.

z

R. Salomo, Aba [...]b.

a

Pet. Fig.

b

Aba [...]b.

c

Deut. XXIV.1. &c.

d

See Jun. Trem. Pisc. Bishop Hall.

e

Dutch Notes, Diodate.

f

Brennius.

g

Vatab.

h

And see Drus. in marg.

i

Oecolamp.

k

Pet. à Fig.

l

Menoch. Chr. à Castro's Paraph.

m

Riber.

n

Tirin.

o

See Chr. à Castro.

p

Ibid.

q

Ebn Athir in his Dictionary.

*

Cap. II.

r

Morshed in [...] ▪

s

Oecolamp.

t

Abu Walid.

u

See R. D. Kimchi and R. Tanchum.

x

Mat. V.30, 31. and XIX.3, &c. Luk. XVI.

y

Ab. Ezra.

z

See Lyra, and Ch. à Castro.

a

See Tarnov.

b

Ab. Ezra, and R. D. Kimchi.

c

Mu [...]st.

d

Hieron.

e

Grot.

f

R. Tanchum.

g

Lud. de Dieu.

h

Compare Isa. V.20.

i

See Abu Walid in [...].

k

Tarnov.

*

Abarb.

l

Grot.

m

R. Tanch.

a

R. Tanchum.

b

Buxtorf. and other Grammars.

c

See Moses Alsh [...]ich.

d

Luk. XXIV.26.

e

See Note on Micah, II.13.

f

Trypho in Justin. Martyr, p. 208. Edit. Comel. 1593.

g

In the same place.

h

Maimon. in Yad, the last C [...]apter.

i

See Ribera,

k

Ribera.

l

See Dr Hammond on Mat. XI.

m

I Tim. III.16.

n

Galatin. Jansen.

o

See Chr. à Castro.

p

See Ribera. and Chr. à Castro.

q

Joh. I.3.

r

R. Tanchum on Chap. IV.5.

s

Jun. Trem. Tarn.

l

Dr Hammond on Mat. XI.

t

Grot.

v

Buxt. Lex. mag. in [...].

x

See Ribera, Chr. à Castro. Pareus.

*

See Grot. &c. on that place [...]ut of Nic. Fuller.

a

Matt. XXI.9. Luk. XIX.47. Joh. II.14. and XIV. and VIII.2. and oft elsewhere.

a

Matt. XXI.9. Luk. XIX.47. Joh. II.14. and XIV. and VIII.2. and oft elsewhere.

b

See Grotius on the place, & lib. 5· de Veritate Rel. Christ.

*

Luk. II.26, &c.

c

In Yad lib. ult. cap. 11.

*

[...].

d

Vat. Riber. Chr. à Castro.

e

Pet. à Figueiro.

f

Maimonides, as above Ch. XII. and Talmud Sanhedrin.

g

Polan. lib. 3. c. 10.

h

Lud. de Dieu.

*

viz. Aethiop.

i

R. Salomo, & Ab. Ezra.

k

R. D. Ki [...]chi, & Abarb. in locum.

l

Dr Hammond on Mat. 24. note b.

*

1 Cor. 10.6.

m

See Ribera, and Chr. à Castro, &c.

n

2 Pet. III.4.

o

I Pet. IV.18.

*

Compare Rev. VI.17.

p

Tarn.

q

Joh. XVI.33.

r

Ibid. 9.39.

s

Sabbath fol. 118. Sanhedr. fol. 98.

t

Mat. XXIV.8. Mar. X [...]II.8.

v

Luk. XXI.28.

x

Id. XXI.36.

y

Vulg. Lat. R. Tanch.

z

Psal. CXIX.119.

a

R. Tanch. & R. D. Kimchi in radic.

b

Ribera, Menoch. Tirin. Quistorp.

c

Diodat.

d

In the above cited, Mat. XXIV. &c.

e

See Jer. XXIX.

f

See Dr Hammond.

g

See I Pet. IV.12. [...].

h

See the LXXII Version.

n

Pareus Di da [...], Montan. See Chr. à Castro.

o

Drus.

p

Vatab. ed. 4o & 8o. Ribera. Sa, Chr. à Castro. Menoch. Bishop Hall.

q

Grot. Tirin. Stokes.

r

Jer. VI.20.

s

Isa. IV.4.

t

Tirin. and see Notes on Micah IV.1, 2.

u

Psal. CXlI.2.

x

Heb. XIII.15.16.

y

See the Notes thereon.

z

Cyril. Vatab. Grot. &c.

a

Drus. Aben Ezra.

b

Abarb.

c

Ribe [...]a. See Chr à Castro, p. 572.

d

Edit. 4o & 8o.

e

See Chr. à Castro.

f

Menoch.

*

Tirinus.

g

See Abarb.

h

See R. D. Kimchi.

*

R. D. Kimchi.

i

Buxt. vindic. part. 2. cap. 4. pag. 502.

k

See Cyril.

l

LXXII. Arab. Chr. à Castro, Pareus, Grot. &c.

*

Vat. Edi [...]. 4o & 8o.

m

In the Concordance the word [...] is put in both these significations.

n

Deut. XXXII.23.

*

Eccles. IX.1.

o

See Wagen [...]l Correct. Lipm.

p

Stokes.

q

Pelican. Ribera, Chr. à Castro's Paraph. Tirin. Tarnov. Stock. &c.

r

Sanctius.

s

See Vatab.

t

Castal Grot.

u

Idem adversus Haereses pag. 123. And see Grot. Dr Hammond on Mat. XXIV.16. Simson's Chron. par. 7. p. 46 Ao Christi 67.

x

Stock.

y

Jun. Trem. on c. I. v. 6.

z

See Ezra. IX.7. and Neh. IX.

z

See Ezra. IX.7. and Neh. IX.

a

Calv.

b

R. Tanchum, R. D. Kimchi, and Grot.

c

Abarb.

d

Grot.

e

Abu Walid. R. Tanchum. R. Salomo. R. D. Kimchi. Abarbinel.

f

R. Salomo.

g

Capit. Concord. MS.

h

See Ribera, Chr. à Castro, Menoch. & Tirin.

*

Ebn Athir, Kamus, &c.

i

Ex. XXI.6.

k

Calvin.

*

Abarb.

l

So the Vulgar Latin Ye are cursed with penury.

m

Lud. de Dieu.

n

See Dutch Notes, and Stokes.

523

See cap. X.38.

p

In the forecited place, and in ch. X.35, 36, &c.

q

Compare Esay. VII.11, &c.

*

O [...], for when their waies please the Lord. Prov. XVI.7.

r

Pisc. Rib. Menoch. Stock. and see Chr. à C [...]stro. in Paraph.

s

Compare Hag. II.15. and forwards.

t

On ver. 8.

u

Talmud in Sanhedrin. cap. Chelek. & in Taani [...]h. c. 1.

x

See Vulg. Lat. and Doway Engl.

y

Compare 2 Kings 7.19.

z

And so the Interlineary.

a

Jerom. &c.

b

See Dan. XI.16. and so Zach. VII.14. [...].

c

R. Salomo Jarchi, Aben Ezra, & Tirin.

d

See Cyril.

e

See Abarb.

f

As Aben Ezra notes, This Prophecy is [...] Leatid concerning the time to come.

*

Abarb and see the Greek.

g

See Vulg. Lat. Chald. Syriac. &c. Ribera, &c.

h

Vat. and see Calv.

i

See Abarb. here, and on Ezek. XXXIII.30.

k

Abarb.

l

Read Job XXII.2, 3.

m

Drus.

n

Abu Walid, and R. Tanchum.

o

Vulg. Lat.

p

R. Tanch.

q

Abarb.

r

Grotius. See Rib. and Chr. à Castro.

s

Stokes.

t

Ribera.

v

See Calv.

x

Jun. Trem. and Dutch Notes.

y

See Piscat.

z

See R. D. Kimchi.

a

Deut. XXXII.4.

b

See Chr. à Castro, Menoch. Tirin.

c

See Ester, VI.1, &c.

d

R. Solomo.

e

Steph. Lex.

f

R. Solomon.

g

Jun. Trem.

h

Drus. on the place, & in Quaesit. per Epist. Ep. 1.

i

Aben Ezra, & R. Tanchum.

k

Kimchi in Rad.

m

Gal. VI.16.

l

Deut. XIV.2.

m

See Chr. à Castro.

n

See Dr Hammond on Mat. XIII.49.

o

R. D. Kimchi.

p

Rib. Drus. Tarn. &c.

q

Pelic. & Calv.

r

Grotius.

s

And Munster.

t

Ribera.

u

See Lyra.

x

See Wisd. 5.1. &c.

y

Jun. Trem. & Drus.

z

Lud. de Dieu.

a

Pet. à Fig.

b

See Calvin. and Sanctius.

c

Edit. Steph. in folio.

d

Oecolamp.

e

The last page but one of his Comment. on the Prophets.

f

2 Pet. 3, 9. and see Mat. XXIII.34, &c. and Luke XIII.34.

a

Grot. and see Tarn. and Stokes.

b

Ribera.

c

Tarn. Grot. and Stokes.

d

Arias Mont. & Calv.

e

See Assembly's Annotat. and Tarnov.

f

See Dutch Notes.

g

[...] Abarb.

h

Act. II.20

i

[...]

k

Drus. Compare Job, c. XVIII.16, 19.

l

Talmud. Aboda Zara, c. 1. fol. 4. col. 1.

m

See Ch. à Castro.

n

See him in his Notes on Matthew XXIV. and on Mar. XIII. note a, and on the second of Pet. 3. note g, and on Revel. c. VI. note d, and note i, with other places.

o

See Dr Hammond on Luk. I.78.

p

See Calvin.

q

Baba bathura cap. 1. fol. 16. col. 2.

r

Luk. XXI.26.

s

ib. 28.

t

See Psal. CXlVII.3.

u

See Dr Hammond on that place, and see Joh. VIII.12. and XII.46.

y

Mar. II. and Luke V.

z

Talmud Nedarim. c. 1. fol. 8. col. 2. Abo [...]a Zarah c. [...]. fol. 4. Bereshith rabb [...], Sect. 6. See Buxtorf. Lex. Mag. in [...].

a

Baba Bathra, c. 1. fol. 16. col. 2. Y [...]lk [...]t.

b

On c. 1.11.

c

R. Solomon. D. Kimchi, Abarb. and see Ma [...]mon. on cap. 10. of Sanhedrim, pag. 157▪ in porta Mos [...]s.

d

Jerom. Vat.

e

Ribera, Menoch. and see Christ. à Castro.

f

Grot.

g

Euseb. h [...]st. l. 3. c. 5.

h

Jun. Trem. and see Ta [...]n. and Stokes.

i

Aben Ezra [...] & Abarb.

k

R. D. Kimchi.

l

[...], see L. de Dieu.

m

[...].

n

See Munst. Tig. Jun. Trem. and see Bootii Animad. l. 3. c. 4. §. 3.

o

Pagnin.

p

Munste. Tig. supra.

q

Jun. Trem.

r

Pisc.

s

On Hab. I.8.

t

See Schind. Lex. and see in R. Tanch. on those places.

v

See Bara Ali Lex.

x

Gre [...]k and Arab.

y

Vulg. Lat. & Syriac.

z

Capel. pag. 255.

a

See Chr. à Castro.

b

And in his Diction. and Abu Walid in his.

c

Abu Walid. R. Tanchum, R. D. Kimchi, and R. Solom. and Boot. Animad. l. 3. p. 44.

d

Tract. of Idolatry, c. 1. fol. 4. col. 1.

*

1 Cor. II.9.

e

Grot.

f

Luk. VI.23.

g

Jer. VII.10.

h

Dan. XII.2.

i

Dutch Notes on ver. 1.

k

Talmud. in Rosh hashana, c. 1. fol. 17. and some [...]hing differently reported in [...]alkut.

l

Aben Ezra and others note by Sun ver 2. to be signified, day, the rising of the Sun causing the day.

m

Rev. XXI.23.

n

See Sy [...]iac. and Arabick.

*

Psalm. CXVIII.24.

o

Moreh. l. 2. c. 29.

p

II Thessal. I.8.

q

S [...]e Porta Mosis, Not. Misc [...]l. c. 8. p. 342.

r

Heb. IX.26.

s

Ejusd. V.10.

t

Drus. Vatab. 4o & 8o. Riber. &c.

u

Munster, and see Chr. à Castro.

x

Calv.

y

See Not. in Porta Mosis, c. 6. p. 218. &c.

z

viz. Tract. Melakim cap. ult.

*

Melacim c. 2. § 2.

a

Ibid.

b

See Notes on ch. III.1.

c

As Dr Hammond proves on Mat. XVII. note a, and Luk. IX. note b, and 2 Pet. I. note c.

d

Grot. on Mat. XVII.10.

e

Luk. I.17.

f

Rib. Tirin.

g

Rainoldus de lib. Apocr. praelect. 97. p. 1199

h

S [...]e on ver. 3. out of Moreh l. 2. c. 29▪

i

Dr Hammonds Paraph.

k

Drus.

l

Dr Hammond on Mar. XIII.30. and Luke XXI.32.

m

Bellarm. de Romano Pontifice, l. 3. c. 6. And see Chr. à Castro, and Ribera.

n

Bell. ibid. See Joh. III.17. and XII.47.

o

Rainold. de lib. Apocryphis prael. 95. and Cameron on Matt. XVII.11.

p

Ibid.

q

Meads discourse on Mar. I.14. &c.

r

Schind. Lex. in [...] & Capel. Crit. p. 60. l. 2.

s

L. de Dieu, on Act. II.20.

t

Abu Walid, and R. D. Kimchi in Radic.

u

See R. D. Kimchi in Radicibus.

x

Aben Ezra.

y

See Grot. on the place, and on Luk. I.17.

z

Talmud. Tract. Edaioth cap. ult.

a

Ibid. & Maimon. cap. ult.

b

See Ribera, and Lightfoot.

c

See R. Tanchum.

d

See L. de Dieu.

e

Rib. Menoch. Tirin. &c. and see Chr. à Castro.

f

So an Arabick Transl. MS.

g

Chr. à Castro. L. de Dieu, and Dr Hammond on Luke I.17. in whose Notes, where he refers to this place, [...] is ill printed for [...].

i

Maimon. Melakim, c. ult.

h

Ma [...]t. XVII.11. and see Mar. IX.12.

l

Grot.

m

Lightfoot.

n

Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 3. c. 6.

o

Grot. on Matt. XVII.10. Non tam fructus operae, quam opera ipsa respicitur.

p

Hammond on Luke I. note c.

q

See him on 1 Cor. note,

k

Dr Hammond on Matt. III. note c.

r

Bellarm. ut supra.

t

Ta [...]nov. Cameron on Matt. 17.

s

Matt. III.7

701

Kimchi.

x

Rainolds ut supra, p. 1201.

y

See Cameron on Matt. XVII.11. and Hammond on Matt. V.6. and on Rev. VII. a, and XII. f.

z

Gen. VII.4, 23.

705

See Jerom. Menoch. & Tarnov.

b

See Chald. Syriac. Arab. MS. Tig. Castal. &c.

c

See v. 3.

d

See Drus. and of the use of this word see Selden de Synedr. l. 1. c. 7. p. 128. &c.

e

R. Tanchum in lib. Morshed.

f

Notes on the Greek Bible, Edit. Francf. 1597.

g

Amos VI.3.

h

Rainold de lib. Apocryph. praelect. 95. pag. 1163.

i

Matt. XVII.12.

k

Luk. XIX.42, 44.

m

2 Pet. 3.11 12.

l

Luk. XVI.31.

An Appendix. Whereas we have by the Jews, in their Commentaries, both on this and other Prophets, often mention made of a Messiah, the Son of Joseph, of the Tribe of Ephraim, whose name they make use of for eluding many Prophecies which belong to the true and only Messiah, Christ: and we have therefore occasion to vindicate such places from their false Expositions, I thought it might not be unfit to add this short discourse, on occasion made concerning that matter, wherein I have endeavoured to discover the grounds of that fond opinion, and collect such things as are by them said of it, because they are not so commonly found put together, I thought best to print it in Latin as it was at first penned, seeing as much as may concern such as understand not that Language, to know for the present purpose, is in such places of the Commentary as there is occasion to make mention of it, said in English.

An Appendix.
Whereas we have by the Jews, in their Commentaries, both on this and other Prophets, often mention made of a Messiah, the Son of Joseph, of the Tribe of Ephraim, whose name they make use of for eluding many Prophecies which belong to the true and only Messiah, Christ: and we have therefore occasion to vindicate such places from their false Expositions, I thought it might not be unfit to add this short discourse, on occasion made concerning that matter, wherein I have endeavoured to discover the grounds of that fond opinion, and collect such things as are by them said of it, because they are not so commonly found put together, I thought best to print it in Latin as it was at first penned, seeing as much as may concern such as understand not that Language, to know for the present purpose, is in such places of the Commentary as there is occasion to make mention of it, said in English.

[Page]

MAL. III. vers. 1.

Ecce ego mitto Angelum meum, & praeparabit viam meam, & statim veniet ad Templum suum Dominus, quem vos quaeritis, & Angelus foederis, quem vos vultis, ecce venit, dicit Dominus Exercituum.

NON est mihi impraesentiarum animus singulas hujus commatis voces ad Grammaticorum Canones exigere, sed nec genuinum verborum sensum pluribus confirmatum vel illustratum dare, de quo dubitare nos non sinit divina Evangelii veritas; quae hic dicta in Johanne Baptista Christi Anteambulone, & in Christo novi foederis Angelo completa atque eventu comprobata esse ostendit. Dicendorum materiam suppeditabit unum magni apud suos nominis Doctoris R. Aben Ezrae glossema, quo prima statim verba corrumpit, Ecce ego mitto Angelum meum [...] convenit (inquit) ut sit [Angelus iste] Messiah Ben Joseph. quod licet absurdum plane atque atque à Scripturae veritate, & ratione maxime alienum sit, paulo attentius considerandum & ad examen revocandum duximus, ne falso ipsius aliorumque ejusdem farinae commento non hoc solum sed & alia Prophetarum oracula corrumpi atque eludi, adeoque ea, quibus veritas propugnari debuerat, arma nobis eripi, atque in hostium contra pugnantium manus tradi, nescii atque incauti patiamur. Notissimum enim est apud Rabbinos in suis ad libros Propheticos Commentariis aliisque ipsorum scriptis frequenter Messiae Ben Joseph vel Ephraim (è Tribu scilicet Ephraim Josephi Patriarchae filii oriundi) mentionem occurrere; idque eo potissimum fine ut quae de vero, eoque uno, Messia Ben David Christo Domino nostro intelligenda sunt, si fieri possit, alio detorquentes nondum ea completa esse, adeoque ipsum adhuc expectandum probent. Quorum sententiam dum explodimus, ut merito id à nobis fieri constet, necesse est, ut quem per Ephraimitam istum Josephi filium indigitant, atque unde, quae de eo narrant, desumserint, prius inquiramus; ne de re nobis ignota statuentes, temere, & sine justa ratione, parte scilicet inauditâ altera, haud aequum statuere videamur. At in historia ejus pertexenda, quo tandem duce utemur? Neminem sane reperimus, cujus autoritas tanti apud nos esse debeat, ut ea permoti rem pro certa imo vel probabili habeamus; Ejusmodi enim est, quae ut non luculento aliquo sacrae Scripturae textu, in quo Messiae istius mentio fit, ita nec vel Paraphrase [...]n antiquiorum (Onkeli puta vel veri Jonathanis) vel ipsius Textus Talmudici, quem Misnaioth vocant, autoritate commendetur; adeo ut primo loco novitatis suspicione laboret, nec dubitari possit, quin diu post Christum in carne manifestatum & completa de eo vaticinia, malitiâ eorum, qui ne, quem amplecti noluerunt, sine omni vel ratione vel autoritate adhuc expectare viderentur, quo haberent, quod pervicaciae fuae obtenderent, excogitata, & quasi à Patribus accepta posteris obtrusa fuerit. Antiquissima, ni fallor, quae ei confirmandae adducunt, testimonia è Paraphrasi [Page] in Exodum cap. 40. v. 11. Jonathani falso ascripta, & Paraphrasi in Cantica & unico Talmudis tractatu Succah depromuntur. In ea ad Exodum mentio fit [...] Messiae filii Ephraim, cujus ope Israelitae vincent Gogum, & turmas ejus in fine dierum. Cant. c. 4.5. verba illa, [...] & duo ubera tua sicut duo hinnuli gemellae capreae, sic enarrat Paraphrastes [...], quae etiam c. 7. v. 3. repetita) duo liberatores tui, qui liberaturi sunt te, Messias filius David & Messias filius Ephraim, similes Mosi & Aharoni. Sed Paraphrases istas, sc. Jonathani in legem falso tributam, & alteram in Cant. incerti authoris & incertae aetatis, commentis scatere Rabbinicis observatum est à Doctis; nec ejus sunt autoritatis, ut vel ipsos Judaeos in sententiam suam trahant; ideoque nec R. Salomo, nec Aben Ezra in locis illis explicandis eam amplectuntur, quorum ille verba, cap. 4. de Mose & Aharone vel de [...] binis legis Tabulis, vel (ut cap. 7.) de Rege & Sacerdote summo; hic de duplici lege, scripta & ore tradita, accipit, nullâ Messiae filii Ephraim seu Josephi factâ mentione: quamvis Aben Ezra c. 7. [...] collum tuum sicut turris eboris, quod statim sequitur de [...] Rege Messia, sc. Davidis filio exponat.] In Talmude Tract. Succah c. Hachalil dicto, verba Zachariae è c. 12.10. [...] & aspicient ad me quem transfixerunt & plangent super eum veluti planctum super unigenitum; Doctorum aliqui, (alii enim aliter) de Messia Josephi filio [...] qui in bello occidet, intelligi volunt. Eodem postea capite haec habentur, tradunt Doctores nostri, Dixit Deus benedictus Messiae filio David, Fili mi pote quid velis, & ego tibi dabo; secundum quod dictum est, Enarrabo decretum, Dominus dixit ad me filius meus tu, &c. Pete à me & dabo gentes haereditatem tuam & possessionem tuam fines terrae. Ille cum videret Messiam filium Joseph occisum esse, dixit coram eo, Domine Mundi non peto à te nisi vitam. Dicit ei Sanctus Benedictus, Antequam esses jam vaticinatus est de te David pater tuus, Vitam petiit à te, dedisti illi. Ac rursus illud Zach. I.20. & ostendit mihi [...] quatuor fabros, explicans. Quinam sunt inquit quatuor fabri isti? Dixit Rabbi [...] dixit R. Simeon Sanctus, isti sunt Messiah filius David, & Messiah filius Joseph, & Eliah, & [...] Sacerdos justitiae.

Nescio an alias in Talmude Messiae hujus mentio occurrat. In his, quae inde excerpsimus, quaedam habemus fabulae istius vestigia, sed adeo obscura ut queratur R. David Kimchi, Doctores: illos haud apertius ea de re egisse. Sic enim ad Zach. 12. v. 10. Doctores nostri, inquit, haec interpretati sunt de Messiah filio Josephi, qui in bello occidendus [...] i. e. Miror autem ego interpretationem eorum, quod rem obscure tradiderint, nec totam explicaverint. Ut ut egerint▪ hinc ipsos traditionem hausisse haud altius derivatam liquet, tum è R. Salomone ad verba ista, & praedictum è capite primo locum, ubi tractatum istum Talmudicum, non traditionem aliquam antiquiorem citat. Ex lutulento igitur hoc rivo ad posteriores Rabbinos fluxisse videtur quicquid de Ephraimi seu Josephi filio isto nugantur, cujus sparsim in ipsorum commentariis fit mentio, dum fabricae haud altius fundatae facileque ruiturae fulcimenta minime sibi constantia hinc inde quaerunt. Interim cum nihil hac de re clari vel certi, ne ab ipsis quidem Doctoribus Talmudicis (nedum antiquioribus) acceperint, ipsi in cerebri sui officina fabulam male concinnatam cudere, & fragmentis undique conquisitis consarcinare coguntur; quam tamen si integram audire cupias haud adeo facile in ipsorum scriptis reperies, Author quidem libri Abkath Rocel, eum aliquatenus depingit lib. 1. part. 1. Signis 6o 7o 8o & 9o, asserens, tempore Regis cujusdam Romani, qui novem mensibus universo orbi imperabit, atque Israelitas graviter affliget, revelatum iri Messiam filium Josephi, cui nomen Nehemias filius Husiel, cum Tribu Ephraim, Manasse, Benjamin, & parte filiorum Gad, aliisque paucis, qui ex omnibus provinciis & urbibus ad ipsum congregabuntur, regemque illum superaturum, ipsumque interfecturum: deinde vero surrecturum regem alium nomine Armillum, quem Gentes, inquit, Antichristum vocant, monstrum hominis, quale nunquam finxerunt nobis poetae, utpote, statua marmorea faedis libidinibus contaminata prognatum, cui altitudo duodecim cubitorum latitudo totidem; contra quem etiam arma movebit Nehemias iste filius Husiel sive Messias Ben-Joseph, sed in praelio occidet; postea Messiam filium David cum Elia venturum, qui Armillum istum è medio tollet, & Messiam Ben Joseph è mortuis suscitabit, ac tum omnium gentium Reges totius orbis Israelitas humeris suis impositos ad Deum deducturos. Similia fere habet alter ille, quisquis tandem sit, cujus verba Munsterus ad finem notarum suarum in Malachiam refert de Nehemia isto, quem Messiam Josephi filium appellant. Sed & hi, ut & quos diximus, apud ipsos, Scripturae interpretes, aliique eorum Scriptores plerique, ita rem narrant, ut quae dicunt pro concessis haberi velint. Nihil probare satagunt. Nemo omnium, quos videre mihi contigit, id facere conatus est, praeter R. Saadiam Haggaon libro Emanoth cap. 8. nemo rem plenius quam ipse enarrat. Eam itaque, si operae pretium videbitur, fusius & qua potuit arte adornatam ipsius verbis accipite. Novimus, inquit, nisi perfecta fuerit [Page] poenitentia nostra expectaturos nos donec completum fuerit tempus captivitati nostrae à Deo praestitutum: cujus si advenerit finis antequam poenitentiam egerimus, fieri non potest ut contingat liberatio nobis peccare non cessantibus. Siquidem in captivitatem nos egit propter peccata: cumque diu jam extorres fuerimus, nec paenitentiam egerimus, nos nondum idoneos factos reducet? frustra hoc esset. Verum Majores nostri tradiderunt eventuras nobis afflictiones multas & graves, quibus ad paenitentiam adacti digni evadamus, qui redimamur. Hoc est quod dixerunt, Si paenitentiam egerint Israelitae, redimentur; sin minus constituet Deus super ipsos Regem, cujus decreta non minus gravia erunt, quam Hamanis, quo fiet, ut resipiscentes liberentur. Cujus rei causam futuram dicunt, quod in monte Galilaeae surrecturus sit è Tribu Joseph quidam, qui confluentibus ad ipsum è popularibus nostris paucis quibusdam Hierosolymam, postquam in potestate Edom (id est Christianorum) fuerit, profectus, ibi ad tempus cum ipsis subsistet; post quod adveniens Rex Nomine Armillus bellum ipsis inferet captaque urbe alios neci dabit, alios captivos abducet, maleque mulctabit: Eritque ille, quem diximus Josephi tribu oriundus è numero occisorum. Hinc magnis opprimetur gens nostra calamitatibus, inter quas non alia gravior futura, quam quod male se habiturae sint res eorum apud omnes ubique populos, dum faetidi ipsis reddentur, adeo ut in deserta ipsos ejecturi sint, ubi fame & siti cruciabuntur. Ac prae gravitate, quae passurae sunt, malorum fiet, ut multi à lege desciscant; erunt autem reliqui sordibus purgati ac mundati, quibus tum manifestabitur Elias, venietque liberatio. Haec, inquit, cum de calamitatibus istis dicta audirem, animum Scripturae adverti, atque in ea textum aliquem quo singula confirmarentur reperi. Ac primo, quod tempore redemptionis Hierosylyma in potestate Edom seu Idumaeorum (Romanos seu Christianos hoc Nomine indigitant, quo quae ipsis visum fuerit vaticinia de istis interpretentur) futura sit, inde probatur quod dictum sit Obad. 21. & ascendent servatores in montem Sion ad judicandum montem Esau: deinde quod bellum cum iis gesturus sit quidam è posteris Rachel (tribu scilicet Ephraim Josephi, ac proinde Rachelis, filii) è Jeremiae 49. v. 20 propterea audite consilium Domini quod consultavit super Edom, & cogitationes ejus quas cogitavit super habitationes Temam, si non traxerint eos [...] Parvuli pecoris. Et quod pauci futuri sint qui ad ipsum confluent, non admodum multi, ex eo quod dictum est Jer. 3.14. Et assumam eos unum de civitate & duos de familia. Quodque qui contra illos ascendet ipsos capturus sit & captivos abducturus atque interfecturus, è Zach. 14.1. Ecce dies venit Domino & dividetur spolium tuum in medio tui, & congregabo omnes gentes ad Jerusalem in praelium, & capietur civitas & diripientur domus. Quodque ille (Josephi filius scil.) qui regnum occupabit futurus sit è numero caeforum, ipsumque defleturi sint è Zach. 12. v. 10. [...] & aspicient ad illum (sic enim pro [...] legit [...] pro me, illum) quem transfixerunt, & plangent super eum veluti planctum super unigenitum &c. quodque afflictio gravis futura sit tunc temporis genti (Judaicae) è Dan. 12. v. 1. & erit tempus angustiae cujusmodi non est factum ex eo tempore quo fuit gens usque ad diem hunc. Quodque odium magnum futurum sit inter ipsos & multos è gentibus, adeo ut ipsos in deserta pellant ex Ezek. 20. v. 35. Et adducam vos ad desertum populorum & ibi vobiscum judicio contendam: quodque famam & sitim & angustiam passuri sint quemadmodum passi sunt patres eorum, ex ejusdem cap. v. 36. & judicio contendam vobiscum ibi facie ad faciem, sicut judicio contendi cum patribus vestris: quodque futurum sit ut ibi expurgentur & explorentur, a prout ferre poterunt, & secundum firmitatem fidei ipsorum è v. 37. & transire faciam vos sub virga, & adducam vos in vinculo faederis: quodque haec in causa futura sint illis, quorum fides infirma est, ut à religione sua desciscant dicantque b Hic est in quo sperabamus atque hoc est quod ab eo nobis contigit è ver. 38. & repurgabo è vobis rebelles & praevatricantes in me: quodque illis qui supererunt manifestandus sit Elias, & corda eorum conversurus, è Malac. 4.5. Ecce ego mitto vobis Eliam Prophetam, antequam veniat dies Dominimagnus & terribilis, & convertet cor patrum super filios. En (inquit) [...] verborum istorum sensus in scriptura perspicuè traditos. Hoc autem addiderunt priores seu majores nostri, quod singula in ordinem digesserint prout scripta sunt. Celebretur autem qui magnam in nos misericordiam exercuit dum calamitatum istarum nos praemonitos esse voluerit, ne nos improviso invadentes ad desperationem adigerent: de quibus eventuris rursus dicit Is. 24.16. ab extremo terrae cantus audivimus &c. usque ad finem capitis. His praemissis dico (inquit) ob duas simul rationes viz. vel, si non convertamur poenitentia, adeo ut contingant accidentia filii Joseph, vel si convertamur & non evenerint; subito nobis appariturum Messiam Ben David. Quod si ante ipsum venerit (ille Josephi filius) erit ipsi instar nuncii & qui idoneam reddat gentem (ei recipiendo) viamque ipsi paret (quemadmodum dixit Malac. 3. v. 1. Ecce ego mitto angelum meum & praeparabit viam ante me: & ut qui explorat igne, illis qui gravia commiserint peccata & ut qui abluit sordes smegmate, illis qui leviorum rei fuerint, sicut postea dicit v. 2. & [Page]quis sustineat diem adventus ipsius & quis poterit stare cum apparuerit? Nam ipse est tanquam ignis conflantis, & tanquam smegma fullonum. Quod si non venerit, tum veniet Ben David cito, sicut dixit, v. 1. Et statim veniet ad Templum suum Dominus quem vos quaeritis, &c. adducetque secum populum Hierosolymam usque; & si fuerit ea in potestate Armilli, ipso interfecto, eam capiet, & hoc est quod dixit Ezek. 25.14. Et dabo ultionem meam in Edom per manum populi mei Israel, vel si in alterius cujusdam potestate fuerit; erit etiam ipse ex Edom, & quoniam non venit filius Joseph, ideo consecuturi sunt à filio David, quod cor ipsorum stabiliat, & fracturam sanet, & animos erigat, sicut Isai. 61.1. dixit, Spiritus Domini Dei super me, ea propter unxit Dominus me ad Evangelizandum mansuetis, misit me ad ligandum contritos corde, ad praedicandum captivis libertatem, &c. ad praedicandum annum beneplaciti Domini,

En vobis Messiae Josephi filii à Judaeis toties praedicati (dum venisse eum, qui à Patribus expectatus fuerat, pertinaciter sibi negandum statuunt) historiam, dicam, an fabulam Prophetice descriptam? i. e. corrasis undique Prophetarum verbis contextam, quam qui veram crediderit, vel eventu comprobatum aliquando iri speraverit; eadem facilitate, Quicquid inane Nutrit, Judaicis quae pingitur India velis, fide dignum censeat. Gratulatur Haggaon majoribus suis qui haec ordine tam concinno disponere potuerunt; sibi potius gratulari debuit, qui quicquid vel ab illis, vel à se, fictum fuerat, testimoniis tam luculentis è Scriptura petitis, probatum dare potuerit. Quis unquam Prophetarum verba tam misere torsit, vel tam impudenter prostituit? Quid tandem tam absurdum, tam à ratione alienum excogitari potest, quod non pari ratione è disertis Scripturae verbis authoritatem sibi conciliet? Haud difficile foret, pleraque ab eo allegata, aliter tam ab antiquis quam à recentioribus etiam Rabbinis intellecta probare, nec ad Messiae ben Joseph, vel ex eorum sententia, rem facere. Singulis ne immorer, quae vel recensuisse, abunde refutasse est, illud, quo uno è posteris Josephi futurum aliquem, qui se ducem Israelitis adversus hostes suos praebeat, quique ab illis pro Rege habeatur, probare nititur, Jer. scil. XLIX.20. ubi à parvulis pecoris trahendi dicuntur (non alio puto pixum fundamento, quam allusione ad nomen [...] quod ovem denotat) quam futile? quam non modo aliorum apud ipsos Doctorum Interpretationibus, sed & inconcussis fidei Judaicae fundamentis plane contrarium? Hoc enim, teste c Maimonide, inter fidei eorum articulos de quibus dubitare nefas est, locum habet [...] Non futurum Israeli Regem nisi Davide oriundum, cumque è progeni [...] Salomonis. Posito hoc fundamento, quis Regi è Josephi posteris locu [...]? Corruit quicquid de Messia isto nugantur. Cautè ergo hic agit Abarbinel atque, ideo in bello occisum iri ait Regem istum Messiam Ben Joseph quod imperium sibi vendicaverit, cum è Tribu Ephraim, non Judae, ad quam jure id pertinebat, fuerit: adeo ut erroris sui moniti Judaei, cum illum in quo spes suas colloc [...] verant periisse viderint, exclamaturi sint, Annon quod regnum familiae Davidicae deseruimus, haec nobis mala contigerunt, o [...]ciditque Messias iste? & ad Dominum Deum suum & Davidem Regem suum se conversuri. At Messiam interim istum Ephraemitam virum pium, Domini timentem, eique carum futurum, quique nec ob pe [...]atum suum neci dabitur, nec ob peccata eorum qui ipsi adhaeserint, cum nec ipsi impii aut peccatores futuri sint, sed pii, si qui alii, ac sancti: adeo ut ipsius caedem in omnes gentes ulturus sit Deus (ipsique hanc repositurus mercedem (teste R. Saadia capite jam laudato) ut primus ad seculi futuri gaudia resurgat.) At quam sunt haec [...] & à ratione prorsus aliena, ut morte mulctetur vi [...] tam Sanctus, tam Deo carus unaque pereat virorum qui [...] sanctitate Angelis pares, multitudo, quod illud fecerint, quod ante tot secula Deus per Prophetas suos futurum praedixerat, quodque ut exitum sortiretur, ille mittendus erat, ut dictum, Ecce ego mitto, &c. vel illum, vel illos ita comparati cum essent, illud facturos quod legi contra [...]ium Deoque ingratum esset? unumque ac idem facinus sceleri imputatum, ac mox vita aeterna remuneratum iri? Nec minus mirandum quod Haggaon postquam tot vaticiniis praenunciatum Messiam istum ostenderc conatus fuerit, rem in dubio tandem relinquat, venturus unquam sit necne; si enim Judaei poenitentiam egerint non venturum. Quo ergo tot illustres Prophetiae? omniumne eventus à Judaeorum arbitrio pendet? si illi poenitentiam egerint frustrà erit quod hic Malachiae pr [...]econio publicatum, Ecce ego mitto nuncium meum, qui praeparet viam ante faci [...]m meam; frustra illud Zachariae oraculum, Et asticient ad me quem transfixerunt▪ & plang [...]nt super [...]um veluti planctum super unigenitum, &c. qui certè locus è praecipuis qui ipsos ad commentum hoc de Messiâ isto Ben Joseph excogitandum impulit, videri possit. Nam cum in eo de Messia agi negare non poss [...]nt, eoque transfigendo ac mala passuro, qualia Messiae Davidis filio, cui omnia in hoc enam seculo prospera auspicantur, pati turpe & inglorium putant, alium sibi finxerunt, cui & Messiae titulum & dignitatem Regiam tribuerent, licet [...] tribu fastigii istius non capaci, quo Christianorum argumenta contra ipsos vati [...]inio illo pugnantium, Christumque per adversa & mortem ad regnum idque spirituale, non terrennum [Page] pervenire debuisse probantium, eludant. Ac [...] Q [...]i [...] concedat ut loco isto pro [...] Elai ad [...] substituere liceret [...] Elau ad eum, & aspicient ad eum quem transfixerunt. Quam illud percupiant, ex eo patet, quod tam in Talmude qua [...] R. Saadia ita citentur verba. Hoc eni [...] pacto rec idem esset transfixus iste, cum eo qui initio versus se super habitatores Jerusalem spiritum gratiae & deprecationum effu [...]u [...]um dicit▪ (ac proinde ipse Deus; cum haec solius Dei sit, praestare) ipsisque injuriae illi factae scelus à se ad alios amolirentur. At cum hoc non liceat, frustra est quicquid moliuntur ne argumento hoc premi videantur, & solutionem suam habet [...] Betziddo (ut vel ipsius Lipmanni verba contra ipsos, ac suos populares retorqueamus) à latere sibi conjunctam. Neque enim patiuntur Grammaticae leges, ut aliter exponamus verba quam aspicient ad me quem transfixerunt, ut non ad illum quem ita nec ad me, propter eos quos transfixerunt, ut David Kimchi ipseque Lipmanus.

Sed ut eo unde digressi sumus revertamur. Quam male interim (si in eorum potestate situm sit) de se & Messia isto suo merentur. Judaei, quod mala sibi ipsius adventu impendentia, maturata poenitentia praevertere nolint, cum (ex Haggaonis sententia) si resipuerint nec venturus sit ille, nec ipsi gravia ista passuri? si (quod senti ut nonnulli, & probare conati sunt Raimundus & Galatinus, è libris pauois, sic ubi extant, Christianorum visis, (quique an omnino extent dubitari possit) non alium Messiam, quem dixerunt Josephi filium, ab illo Davidis voluerint antiquiores Judaei, non alia de causa illi nomen hoc ab ipsis inditum putaverim, quam quo [...] describerent, quique Josephi Jacobo filii instar male multandus esset, graviaque passurus. Nisi forsan qui primum hanc fabulam confinxerunt ansam arripuerint à nomine Josephi Mariae sponsi, Messiam, Josephi filium comminiscendi, quod mul [...]to probabilius, quam quod ait Abarbinel Christi discipulos, multa de Messia Josephi filio à Patribus accepta, dogmatis suis immiscuisse. Sed revera non hoc inter [...] dicta, nec vel inter antiquiores traditiones numerandum censeo, sed magis nuperum sequioris aevi commentum, multis post Christum ea passum annis, effictum, ob eas quas superius innui rationes, quodque nunquam universalis apud ipsos traditionis nomen meruit. Huic adstipulatur etiam Maimonidis authoritas, qui de praecursore Messiae verba faciens, quem Sapientum nonnullos Eliam fore, statuere ait, addit [...] haec & quae eo spectant omnia nemo distincte noverit antequam exitum habuerint: obscura sunt quae à Prophetis de iis dicuntur [...] nec apud sapientes de illis traditio est, praeter illud quod ex scriptura necessario infertur. Quae & sic ex ipsius mente enarrat c R. Tanchum [...] quomodo se habitura fit res in istis promissis, tum demum distincte percipietur cum extiterint, nec est cuipiam de iis traditio aliqua certa, verum unusquisque profert quod sibi videtur ex iis, quae apud ip [...]um praeponderant, scripturae interpretationibus. Sapientem illum Rabbinum (Maimonidem intelligo) alias religionis Judaicae assertorem satis pertinacem, putidi isti us de Messia Ben Joseph commenti puduisse videtur. Ubi enim quaecunque ad Messiam spectant exponenda sibi proponit, ea quibus duo Messiae innui videantur non de aliis intelligi vult quam de David▪ eoque qui ipso oriundus sit, nulla Josephi filii facta mentione. Deque ipsius praecursore (quem R. Saadias, & Aben Ezra ut vidimus, Messiam Ben Joseph autumant) licet Eliae nomine appelletur, non tamen certo constare ipsum futurum Eliam, sed saltem Prophetam aliquem viz. qui Eliae dignitate, gradu, & scientia par sit, (explicante eam sententiam R. Tanchum) ac de hoc certe apud antiquiores Judaeos olim disceptatum videtur, ex eorum verbis, qui ad Johan. Baptistam à synedrio missi percunctatum quis esset, interrogarunt? essetne Christus? essetne Elias? essetne Propheta ille? Messiam ergo expectabant illi unum, Davidis filium; expectabant etiam, vel Eliam, vel prophetam aliquem in [...]ignem. Nihil de Ephraimi aut Josephi filio quaerunt. Facessant igitur commenta hominum, indubitatae Dei veritati, mendacia à se conficta praeferentium. Facessat [...] iste Messias; Hosanna filio David. Quisquis animo non praesumpta opinione corrupto, prophetarum verba inspexerit, quicquid ab Angelo ante Domini faciem seu Apparitoris vice, mittendo expectandum erat, in Johanne Baptista; quicquid ab Angelo illo foederis, seu ipso Messia, in Jesu Christo exitum habuisse, adeo ut extra dubium sit, illum fuisse qui venturus erat, nec alium expectandum, facile perspiciet.

FINIS.

[Page]

Notes

a

Arab. sicut argentum & aurum, ut dignoscatur quomodo se habeat patientia, & quomodo fides ipsorum

b

Arabo huc non expectabamus.

c

Ad Sanhed. c. 10. fund. 12.

*

Ad Malac. 4. [...]ad, Melac. c. 11.

Information about this book

Title statement

A commentary on the prophecy of Malachi, by Edward Pocock D.D. Canon of Christ-Church, and Regius Professor of the Hebrew tongue, in the University of Oxford

Pococke, Edward, 1604-1691.

Edition statement

1677

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2005-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A55226

ID [STC]

Wing P2661A

ID [STC]

ESTC R216989

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

99828697

ID [PROQUEST]

99828697

ID [VID]

33128

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A55226)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 33128)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1957:5)

Source

— A commentary on the prophecy of Malachi, by Edward Pocock D.D. Canon of Christ-Church, and Regius Professor of the Hebrew tongue, in the University of Oxford, Pococke, Edward, 1604-1691..

Extent

[4], 109, [5] p.

printed at the Theater,. Oxford :: M. DC. LXXVII. [1677]. (Includes appendix.) (Reproduction of the original in the Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.