Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

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 application 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. al. m x unto the human nature and body of Christ, wherein he did the will of God, did certainly express the design and intention of the Holy Ghost in them. But who can imagine what should move the LXX. to render is a word of a known signification and univocal, by caus when they had translated it an hundred and fifty times, that is constantly elsewhere, by us and an ear, which alone it significs; or what should move them to render ♫ by zalagri¿w, 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 inclined 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 on 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.

$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 proba ble 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.

EXERCITATION VI.

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 per son 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. THE HE Jews at the time of writing the Epistle, (and their 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.

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;

114

but as I said, I shall only in general open the nature of that answer, which our apostle returns unto them, and on which he builds his reasonings with them.

§2. We shall have occasion afterwards at large to shew, that after the entrance of sin, God founded his church in the promise of the Messiah given unto Adam. Now though that promise was the support and encouragement of mankind to seek the Lord, and although as a promise absolutely considered it proceeded from mere grace and mercy; yet as it was the foundation of the church, it included in it the nature of a covenant, virtually requiring a re-stipulation unto obedience in them who by faith come to have an interest in it. And this the nature of the thing itself required; for the promise was given unto this end, that men might have a new bottom and foundation of obedience, that of the first covenant being disannulled. Hence in the following explications of the promise, this condition of obedience is expressly added. So upon its renewal unto Abraham, God required that he should walk before him and be upright. This promise then, as it hath the nature of a covenant, including the grace that God would shew unto sinners in the Messiah, and the obedience that he required from them, was from the first giving of it, the foundation of the church, and of the whole worship of God therein.

Unto this church so founded and built on this covenant, and by the means thereof to the redeeming mediatory seed promised therein, were all the following promises, and the privileges exhibited in them, given and annexed. Neither hath, or ever had any individual person, any spiritual right unto, or interest in any of those promises or privileges, whatever his outward condition was, but only by virtue of his membership in the church built on the covenant, whereunto as we said, they do all appertain. On this account the church before the days of Abraham, though scattered up and down the world, and subject unto many changes in its worship, by the addition of new revelations, was still but one and the same; because founded in the same covenant, and interested thereby in all the benefits or privileges that God had granted, or would at any time grant unto his church.

3. In process of time, God was pleased to confine this church, as unto the ordinary visible dispensation of his grace, unto the person and posterity of Abraham. Upon this restriction of the church, covenant and promise, the Jews of old founded a plea in their own justification against the doctrine of the Lord Christ and his apostles. We are the children, the seed of Abraham, was their continual cry; on which account, they presumed that all the promises belonged unto them, and indeed unto them alone. And this their persuasion hath cast

God

them, as we shall see, into a woeful and fatal mistake. granted two privileges unto Abraham, upon his separation to u special interest in the old promise and covenant.

First, That according to the flesh he should be the father of the Messiah, the promised seed, who was the very life of the Covenant, the fountain and cause of all the blessings contained in it. That this privilege was temporary, having a limited season, time, and end, appointed unto it, the very nature of the thing itself doth demonstrate. For upon this actual exhibition in the flesh, it was of course to cease. In consequence of this promise, the posterity of Abraham was separated from the rest of the world, and preserved a peculiar people, that through them the promised seed might be brought forth in the fulness of time, and be of them according unto the flesh, Rom. ix. 5.

Secondly, Together with this, he had also another privilege granted unto him, namely that his faith, whereby he was personally interested in the covenant, should be the pattern of the faith of the church in all generations; and that none should ever come to be a member of the church, or a sharer in its blessings, but by the same faith that he had fixed on the seed that was promised, to be brought forth from him in the world. On account of this privilege, he became the father of all them that do believe. For they that are of the faith, the same are the children of Abraham, Gal. iii. 7. Rom. iv. 11. As also heir of the world, Rom. iv. 13. in that all that should believe throughout the world, being thereby implanted into the covenant made with him, should become his spiritual children.

4. Answerably unto this twofold end of the separation of Abraham, there was a double seed allotted unto him. A seed according to the flesh, separated to the bringing forth of the Messiah, according unto the flesh and a seed according to the promise, that is, such as by faith should have interest in the promise, or all the elect of God. Not that these two seeds were always subjectively different, so that the seed separated to the bringing forth of the Messiah in the flesh, should neither in whole or in part be also the seed according to the promise; or on the contrary, that the seed according to the promise should none of it be his seed after the flesh. Our apostle declares the contrary in the instances of Isaac and Jacob, with the remnant of Israel that shall be saved, Rom. ix. x. xi. But sometimes the same seed came under different considerations, being the seed of Abraham both according to the flesh and according to the promise; and sometimes the seed itself was different, those according to the flesh not being of the promise, and so on the contrary. Thus Isaac and Jacob were the seed of Abraham according unto the flesh, separated unto the bringing forth of the Messiah after the flesh, because they were his carnal poste

« ZurückWeiter »