Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

observed therein. And what in general may be concluded from the view which we have taken of them, I shall offer in the ensuing observations.

$15. First, It is evident that they are exceedingly mistaken, who affirm that the apostle cites all his testimonies out of the translation of the LXX. as we intimated that it is by some pleaded, in the close of the preceding discourse. The words he useth in very few of them agree exactly with that Greek version of the Old Testament which is now extant; though apparently since the writing of this Epistle, it hath grown in its verbal conformity to the citations in the New. And in most of them he varieth from it, either in the use of his own liberty, or in a more exact rendering of the original text. This the first prospect of the places and words compared will evince. Should he have had any respect unto that translation, it were impossible to give any tolerable account, whence he should so much differ from it, almost in every quotation, as it is plain that he doth.

ever,

§ 16. It is also undeniably manifest from this view of his words, that the apostle did not scrupulously confine himself unto the precise words either of the original, or any translation whatif any other translation or Targum were then extant besides that of the LXX. Observing and expressing the sense of the testimonies which he thought meet to produce and make use of, he used great liberty, as did other holy writers of the New Testament, according to the guidance of the Holy Ghost by whose inspiration he wrote, in expressing them by words of his own. And who shall blame him for so doing? Who should bind him to the rules of quotations, which sometimes necessity, sometimes curiosity, sometimes the cavils of other men, impose upon us in our writings? Herein the apostle used that liberty which the Holy Ghost gave to him, without the least prejudice unto truth, or the faith of the church.

§17. Whereas some of these testimonies, or a part of some of them, may appear at first view to be applied by him unsuitably unto their original import and intention, we shall manifest, not only the contrary to be true, against those who have made such exceptions, but also that he makes use of those which were most proper and cogent, with respect unto them with whom he had to do. For the apostle in this Epistle, as shall be fully evidenced, disputes upon the acknowledged principles and concessions of the Hebrews. It was then incumbent on him to make use of such testimonies, as were granted in their church to belong unto the ends and purposes, for which by him they were produced. And that these are such, shall be evinced from their own ancient writings and traditions.

$18. The principal difficulty about these citations, lies in those wherein the words of the apostle are the same with those

now extant in the Greek Bibles, both evidently departing froi the original. Three places of this kind are principally vexed by expositors and critics. The first in that of Ps. xl. 7. where the words of the Psalmist in the Hebrew, ok, my

ૐક

ears hast thou bored, or digged, are rendered by the apostle according to the translation of the LXX. σωμα δε κατηρτίσω μας, but a body hast thou prepared me. That the apostle doth rightly interpret the meaning of the Holy Ghost in the Psalm, and in his paraphrase apply the words unto that very end for which they were intended, shall be cleared afterwards. The present difficulty concerns the coincidence of his words, with those of the LXX. where apparently they answer not the original. The next is that of the prophet, Jer. xxxi. 32. □a nya 'D81, and I was an husband unto them; or I was a Lord unto them, or ruled over them, as the vulgar Latin renders the words. The apostle with the LXX. nay eλnca avtar, and I regarded them not, or despised them. The third is that from Habak. ii. 4. - hyn, behold, it is lifted up, his soul is not right in him; which words the apostle with the LXX. render και εαν υποστειληται ουκ ευδοκεί ή ψυχή μου εν αυτώ. But if any draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

[ocr errors]

§19. Concerning these, and some other places, many confidently affirm, that the apostle waved the original, and reported the words from the translation of the LXX. Capellus with some others proceed farther, and assign the rise of this difference unto some other copies of the Hebrew text used by the LXX. varying from those which now remain. Thus in particular, in that place of Jeremiah before mentioned, he conjectures that for inbya they read 'nby, I despised them; as another doth that they read to the same purpose; for of such conjectures there is no end. But as by may well signify as the apostle expounds it, and in other places doth so, as we shall see afterwards, so this boldness in correcting the text, and fancying without proof, testimony or probability of other ancient copies of the Scripture of the Old Testament, differing in many things from them which alone remain, and which indeed were ever in the world, may quickly prove pernicious to the church of God. We must therefore look after another expedient for the removal of this difficulty.

$20. I say then, it is highly probable, that the apostle, according to his wonted manner, which appears in almost all the citations used by him in this Epistle, reporting the sense and import of the places, in words of his own, the Christian transcribers of the Greek Bible inserted his expressions into the text, either as judging them a more proper version of the original, (whereof they were ignorant) than that of the LXX. or out of a preposterous zeal to take away the appearance of a diver

[ocr errors]

sity between the text and the apostle's citation of it. And thus in those testimonies where there is a real variation from the Hebrew original, the apostle took not his words from the translation of the LXX. but his words were afterwards inserted into that translation. And this, as we have partly made to appear already in sundry instances, so it shall now briefly be farther confirmed. For,

$21. First, Whereas the reasons of the apostle for his appli cation of the testimonies used by him in his words and expressions are evident, as shall in particular be made to appear; so no reason can be assigned why the LXX. (if any such LXX. there were) who translated the Old Testament, or any other translators of it, should so render the words of the Hebrew text. Neither various lections, nor ambiguity of signification in the words of the original, can in most of them be pleaded. For instance, the apostle in applying those words of the Psalmist, Ps.

,unto the human nature and body of Christ אזנים כרית לי .xl

wherein he did the will of God, did certainly express the design
and intention of the Holy Ghost in them. But who can ima-
gine what should move the LXX. to render a word of a
known signification and univocal, by raua when they had trans-
lated it an hundred and fifty times, that is constantly elsewhere,
by us and an ear, which alone it signifies; or what should
move them to render by lagi, to prepare, when the word
signifies to dig, or to bore, and is always so elsewhere rendered
by themselves? Neither did any such thing come into their minds
in the translation of those places whence this expression seems to
be borrowed, Exod. xxi. 6. Deut. xv. 17. When any man then
can give a tolerable conjecture, why the LXX. should be in-
clined thus to translate these words, I shall consider it. In the
mean time I judge there is much more ground to suppose, that
the apostle's expressions which he had weighty cause to use,
were by some person inserted into the Greek text of the Old
Testament, than that the apostle would adopt a translation,
whose authors forsake, without cause, what they knew to be
the
proper meaning of some obvious words.

$22. Secondly, It is certain that some words used by the apostle have been inserted into some copies of the Greek Bibles, which being single words, and of little importance, prevailed not in them all, as may be seen in sundry of the foregoing instances, And why may we not think that some whole sentences might on the same account be inserted in some of them, which being of more importance found a more general acceptance? And how by other means also that translation was variously changed and corrupted of old, even before the days of Hierome, learned men do know and confess.

§23. It is further evident that one place (at least) in this

Epistle, which is urged by the apostle, as a testimony out of the Old Testament, is inserted in another place of the text than that from which the apostle took it, and that where there is not the least colour for its insertion. This is the testimony out of Psalm xcv. 7. which the apostle cites Chap. i. 6. in words much differing from those wherewith the original is rendered by the LXX. This some of the transcribers of the Bible not knowing well where to find, have inserted in the very syllables of the apostle's expression into Deut. xxxii. 43. where it yet abides, though originally it had no place there, as we shall in the exposition of the words sufficiently manifest. The same and no other is the cause why non is rendered gados, Gen. xlix. And may we not as well think, nay is it not more likely, that they would insert his words into the places from whence they knew his testimonies were taken, with a very little alteration of the ancient reading, than that they would wholly intrude them into the places from whence they were not taken by him, which yet undeniably hath been done, and that with success? Nay, we find that many things out of the New Testament are translated into the Apochryphal Books themselves. As for instance, Ecclesiasticus, xxiv. 3. we have these words in the Latin copies, Ex ore altissimi prodii primogenita ante omnem Creaturam; which are cited by Bellarmine and others in the confirmation of the deity of Christ, whereas they are taken from Col. i. 15. and are in no Greek copies of that book.

1

§24. Upon these reasons then, which may yet be rendered more cogent by many other instances, (but we confine ourselves to this Epistle,) I suppose I may conclude, that it is more probable at least, that the apostle's interpretations of the testimonies used by him, all agreeably unto the mind of the Holy Ghost, were by some of old inserted into the vulgar copies of the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and therein prevailed unto common acceptation; than that he himself followed in the citation of them a translation departing without reason from the original text, and diverting unto such senses, as its authors knew not to be contained in them, which must needs give offence unto them with whom he had to do. It appears then, that from hence no light can be given unto our enquiry after the language wherein this Epistle was originally written, though it be clear enough from other considerations.

1. Oneness of the church. Mistake of the Jews about the nature of the promises. 2. Promise of the Messiah the foundation of the church. But as including the covenant. § 3. The church confined unto the person and posterity of Abraham. His call and separation for a double end. 4. Who properly the seed of Abraham. § 5. Mistakes of the Jews about the covenant. § 6. Abraham the father of the faithful and heir of the world, on what account. § 7, 8. The church still the same.

$1. posterity in all succeeding generations, follow their example and tradition,) were not a little confirmed in their obstinacy and unbelief, by a misapprehension of the true sense and nature of the promises of the Old Testament. For whereas they found many glorious promises made to the church in the days of the Messiah, especially concerning the great access of the Gentiles unto it; they looked upon themselves, the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh, as the first, proper, and indeed only subject of these promises, unto whom in their accomplishment, others were to be proselyted and joined, the substance and foundation of the church remaining still with them. But the event answered not their expectation. Instead of inheriting, merely upon their carnal interest and privilege, all the promises, which they looked for then, and which they continue to look for unto this day, they found that they must come in themselves on a new account, to be sharers in them in common with others, or be rejected, whilst those others enjoyed the inheritance. This filled them with wrath and envy, which greatly added to the strengthening of their unbelief. They could not bear with patience an intimation of letting out the vineyard to other husbandmen. With this principle and prejudice of theirs the apostle dealt directly in his Epistle to the Romans, Chap. ix. x.

THE Jews at the time of writing the Epistle, (and their

xi.

On the same grounds he proceeds with them in this Epistle. And because his answer to their objection from the promises, lies at the foundation of many of his reasonings with them, the nature of it must be here previously explained. Not that I shall here enter into a consideration of the argument of the Jews to prove that the Messiah is not yet come, because the promises in their sense of them, are not yet accomplished; which shall be fully removed in the close of these discourses;

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »