In the Rpáflle'tO the H E l R vv S, 5;< of the OldTeffament. Very many others there are which he either alludes unto, or ex- pounds, that arenot of our prefent confederation. Neither are theft here propofed to be unfolded as to the fence of them, or as to theremoval of the difficulties that the Ap- plication ofthem by him, is attended withall. This.is the proper work of the Expo- ftion of the Epistle intended. All at prefent aimed a$; is to prefent them' in one view , with their Agreement ; and Differences from the Original and Tranflations, that we may the better judge of his manner of proceeding in the citingof them, and what Rule he obferved therein. And what ingeneral may beconcluded from that profpcd we have takenof them, I Ihall offer in the enfuing Obfervations. Firft,It is evident that they are exceedingly mistaken, who affirm that the Apfile cites 0. r 5 all his Tellimovies out of the TranflationoftheLXX. aswe intimated, that it is by forrìe pleaded, in the dole of the preceding Difcourfe, The words heufeth in very few of them agree exa ±ly with that G'reekVerfion of the Old Teffament which is now extant; though, apparently force the writing of this Epi(ile it bath grown in its Verball con- formity unto the Allegations as reported in the New. And in molt of themhe varieth from it, either in theufe of his ownLiberty, or ina more exaét rendring of the Original Text. This the brit proJbed of the places and words comparedwill evince. Should he havehad any refped unto that Tranflation, it were impoflìble togive any tolerable ae- Count, whence he Ihould fo much differ from it, almoft in every quotation, as is plain that he doth. di i It is alfo un 'eniably mattifeft from this view of his words that the Apo41edid not if. le. f-rrupulouly confine himfelf untothe precife words either of the Original, or any Iran.. Elation whatever, if any other Tranflationor Targum were then extant betides that ofthe LXX. Obferving and exprefling the feii boftheTeftimonies which he thought meet to produceand make ufe of;lie ufcd great Liberty,as did other holy Writersofthe New 2effa- ment,accordingtotheguidance oftheHoly Gho(t by whofe infpiration he wrote, in exprefíiug them bywords of his own. Bred who (hall blame him for fò doing ? Who fhouldbind hitn to the Rules of9,uotatións,which fometimes Necellity, fometimesCu- íioliey, fümetimes the Cavils of other men impofe upon its in our Writings ? Herein the Apottle ufed that Liberty which the Holy Ghoff gaveunto him, without the leaft pre- judice untoTruth, or theFaith of the Church. whereas any of thefe Teffimonies, or any part of any one ofthem may appear at . t7 firft view to be applyed by him unfuitably unto their Original importance and intention, we (ball manifeft, not only the contrary to be true, against thofe who havemade fuch . Exceptions, but alfo that he makes raft o thofe which were molt properand cogent,with refpeft unto them with whomhe had todo. For the Apoffle in this Epiffle, as (hall be fully evidenced, difpufes upon the acknowledged Principles and Conceflions of the Hebrews. It wasthen incumbent on him to make ufe of filchTeftimonies , as were granted in their Church to belong unto the ends and purpofes, for whichby hint they were produced. And that theft are filch, (hall be evinced from their own antient Wri- tings and Traditions The Principal difficulty about theft Citations, lyes in thofe wherein the words ofthe y. t&a Apolfleare the fame with thofe nowextant in the GreekBibles , both evidently depart- ing from theOriginal:. Threeplaces of this kind are principally vetted by Expotitors andCviticks. The hrft in that ofPfalm 40. v.7. where the words of the Pfd/miff in the Hebrew, +7 ET17 =INN, my ears bail thou bored, or Jigged, are rendredby the Apottle accordingto theTranflatron of the LXX. awlan 3 sa7npofaa µor, but a Body haft thoupre- paredme. That theAposle doth rightly interpret the meaning of the Holy Ghoff in the Pfàlm, and in hisParaphrafe apply the words unto that very end fOr which they were intended, (hall be cleared afterwards. Theprefent difficulty concerns the Coinci- deneof his words, with thofe of the LXX. cohere apparently they anfwer not the Ori- ginal. The next is that of the Prophet, jer. 31. 34. 01 in7yn,7i31, andI was an husband unto them; or I was a Lord unto them, or ruled over them, ad theVulgar Latin rendersthe words. TheApeffle with the LXX. icd2A ñp,,¿.nm'duaév, and I regarded them not, or defpi(ed them. The third is that from Habak 2.4. 111tÚ9] rrit0' Iz7 74yo rorr, behold, it is lifted up, his foul is not right in him ; which words the Apottle with the LXX, render, ÿ ido .ivoseírrna xu ûidbxw" ñ 4VVI í Iii ti murd. But if any draw back, my foulfhall have no pleafure in him. Concerning theft, and Come other places many confidently affirm, that the Apojile Ø. t9, waved the Original, and reported the words from the Tranflationof the LXX. Capellus H a with
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=