Commentary upon the Prophecy of Isaiah

Some translate the second part of the verse as if it were an exhortation, Let not him that believes make hast: but I rather take it in the future tense, in regard it agrees best both with the scope of the text, as also because it is approved of by the authority of S. Paul. I deny not but the Apostles followed the Greek translation, and in using their liberty, were content to give the sense of the place without looking curiously to the words: but they have in nothing altered the sense, but have rather truly and naturally delivered the same: respecting the drift to which it was rightly applied. As often then as they allege a text out of the old testament, they ⟨p. 277⟩diligently retain both the end and use of it. The Apostle alleging this prophecy translated it according to the Greek; Who soever believeth, shall not be confounded, Rom. 9.33. which agrees with the Prophet: for questionless his meaning was to say, That he which believes, ought to be quiet and still; so as to desire nothing besides; neither wavering in uncertainty, nor yet hasting to seek out new remedies, but shall fully content himself in his faith only. The translation is proper then as you see, in regard the word to hast notes out fervency, or trembling. In a word,¹ the Prophet meant to commend faith by this inestimable fruit; because in it we find assured rest and quiet. Whence it follows, that we shall always be in unquietness and vexation of mind, until such time as we have attained it: for no other haven remains for us to harbour in in safety,² but the truth of God, upon which, if our faith be firmly settled, we shall find it the only means to set us in rest and tranquillity of mind. The same Apostle in another place describes unto us the fruit of this faith, where he saith, That being justified thereby, we have peace with GOD, Rom. 5.1.

Some translate the second part of the verse as if it were an exhortation, Let not him that beleeues make hast: but I rather take it in the future tence, in regard it agrees best both with the scope of the text, as also because it is approued of by the authoritie of S. Paul. I denie not but the Apostles followed the Greeke translation, and in vsing their libertie, were content to giue the sense of the place without looking curiouslie to the words: but they haue in nothing altered the sense, but haue rather truely and naturallie deliuered the same: respecting the drift to which it was rightlie applied. As often then as they alleadge a text out of the old testament, they