though in the original Hebrew there is no fuch term as Python used, either in the description of the art which the woman profeffed, or in the disguised king's application to her to inftruct him in the iffue of the fight, by the power the pretended to have, or indeed through the whole history; but a term fo remote in found from it as a Ob; nay, though even in the Greek verfion of the book, which was extant several hundred years before the Vulgate, no fuch word occur as Python, but one so different from it as teyyaspiμulos; that the Hebrew record of these tranfactions of Saul with this woman must be a pro

Ob,

+ This is the expreffion in the Septuagint verfion for Levit. xix. 31. xx. 6. 27. Deut. xviii. II. I Sam. xxviii. 3, 8, 9. 1 Chron. X. 13. 2 Chron, xxxiii. 6. and for yɔ bagnalath ob, two different times in the seventh verse of the chapter where this history lies. Deylingius, in his Obfervationes Sacrae, feems to have thought thofe perfons were ftiled tyyaspiμutor by the Greeks, who pretended to the art of evocating or bringing up the fouls of the dead, and exhibiting them in visible form, that they might answer questions and folve doubts, from their use of a veffel filled with pure water, called by the Greeks yasp, wherein were seen the images of the deceased; and that therefore this word was with propriety employed to turn the Hebrew here, fince obah, is a bottle, Job, xxxii,

19. whence the Latin obba is a kind of wooden cup. But others think they were fo called, who pretending to have a familiar spirit, made their bellies fwell like bottles or bags to a great fize, and then fent forth a small obfcure voice, which feemed to come from thefe lower parts of the body thus fwollen, where the divining spirit was believed to abide, and to dictate responses, themselves all the while not so much as moving their tongues or lips, from yasup the belly. And indeed in many copies of the Vulgate verfion, 1 Sam. xxviii. 3. there was a claufe, as Lucas Brugenfis tells us, though it be now expunged, which directed the reader's attention to this fpecies of belly diviners; for after these words, ' Et Saul abftulit magos et hariolos de terra,' there

duction or compofition fo late, in point of time, as the commerce of the Jews with the Greeks, after the time of Alexander. And by the fame medium he might have argued, that the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were also written after Alexander's victories: for there likewise in the Vulgate translation the obnoxious term Python is introduced, Lev. xx. 27. Deut. xviii. 1o. So would he have destroyed at once the genuineness of that part of the Hebrew code, which the Jewish nation have ever efteemed the moft facred and venerable; by confequence, have ftruck a blow at the root of all revelation.

But can any reafoning be more ftupid and abfurd, if a man is fincere in it, or be more perverse and petulant, if he is not? With much greater juftice might a perfon contend, that the book of Jofhua was only compofed after the irruption and fettlement of the Gauls in Afia, that is, about 260 years before Christ, because in the Greek translation of this book, which was long prior to the Vulgate verfion, the name as is given to a fpear, chap. viii. 8. 26. which being of Gaulifh original, could not be adopted into the Greek language till after that fuccefsful invafion; and indeed it hath been urged by Dr.

was added in them, Et interfecit eos qui Pythones habebant in ventre.' See his 'Romanae Correctionis in Latinis Bibliis Editionis Vulgatae, juffu Sixti V. Pont. Max. recognitis, loca infigniora.' In the Septuagint alfo, there is exprefs mention of this fort of diviners, for the Greek interpreters have Efai. viii. 1 9. Τις κενολογώντας,όι εκ της κοιλι ας φονευσιν. The prophetic daemons themfelves were allo called εγγαςριubor, for their agency in the one or the other way. Plutarch de Defect. Oracul. p. 414. Compare Potter's Greek Antiq. p. 301.

*

Hoddy and others, to fhew that that verfion of this book was not framed in Ptolemy Philadelphus's time, like that of the Pentateuch, but under the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes the younger. But however fuch arguments may be applied with strength, to ascertain the date of a tranflation, it is plain, they can never with any intelligent and confiderate perfon affect that of the original. Of this the unlearned may be very foon fenfible, when he is informed, that upon the fame principles upon which Mr. Voltaire reasons here, a perfon might with fuccefs undertake to prove, that the Hebrew book of Genesis was not written till the Saxons invaded Britain, becaufe many words which are used in the English tranflation of this book are of Saxon etymology or derivation. For why fhould not the English verfion have weight in deciding the era of a Hebrew book, as well as the Latin one? But who can forbear fmiling at the philofopher here, and pitying their underftandings, who are caught by such cavils at the genuineness and authenticity of the Sacred Books as this? Very inattentive they muft be, upon whom affling of this fort makes any hurtful impreffion.

* See Hoddy, De Bibliorum textibus originalibus, verfionibus, &c. Pp. 178---196.

+ If there could be any apology for fuch a reflection by Mr. Voltaire, as this which we have been examining, it would be, that he imagined Python was the term in the Hebrew. But for this defence there is no room. For in his Treatife on Toleration, chap. xiii. p. 191. in a note, having observed there is but one paffage in the whole Mofaic law, from which one might conclude, that Mofes was acquainted with the opinion of the foul's furviving the body, Deut. xviii, where it is faid, • There shall not be found among you a confulter with familiar spirits, Python,' he adds, But what is very ftrange and worthy of obferva

SECTION II.

Of his charge against Daniel's prophecies, as forged after the deftruction of the Perfian empire by the Greeks, in the fame Philofophy of Hiftory.

6

LET us next confider his accufation against the prophecies in Daniel, that they were forged after the overthrow and fubverfion of the empire of the Perfians by the Greeks. For, fays Mr. Voltaire in a paffage above produced from the forty-fixth chapter of his Philosophy † of History, Jaddus instantly displayed prophecies, which clearly indicated that • Alexander would conquer the empire of Perfia; 'prophecies that were ever made after the event had "happened.' And it is the ftale calumny of Porphyry, who, in the twelfth book of his work against the Christian religion, according to Jerome, affirmed,

tion is, that the word Python fhould be found in Deuteronomy, fo long before that Greek term was known to the Hebrews. And in 'deed the term is not to be found in the Hebrew, of which we have

a good translation.' So that he himself confeffes it was not read in the Hebrew bible. There is indeed fomething unaccountably inconfiftent here; for, if it was not in the Hebrew, how could there be a translation of it either good or bad? but let Mr. Voltaire and his admirers explain this. If Python had been used by the Greek translators who were Jews, which however is not the cafe, there would have been nothing ftrange in it at all upon Mr. Voltaire's own hypothefis, because it is allowed that even the five books of Mofes, which were earlieft tranflated into the Greek tongue, were not fo rendered by them, till after the erection of the Macedonian empire through Alexander's conquefts.

† Page 221. See Part 1. fect. 5. p. 28.

• That the book of Daniel * was not written by him ⚫ whose name it bears, but by another who lived * in Judea in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; and ⚫ that it does not foretell things future, but relates things which had already happened.' In this, however, Porphyry acted as unreasonable a part as a man would do now, who should deny the Aeneid to be a poem of the † Virgil who lived in the days of Auguftus, after it hath been acknowledged for his production through all the intermediate centuries from his age to the prefent; for, in like manner, it appears the book of Daniel had been reckoned the book of Daniel the captive, who flourished in the fucceffive reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Belfhazzar, and Darius the Median, and not of any Daniel who was cotemporary with Epiphanes, through that long period which preceded Porphyry's attack upon the genuineness of it.

Of the fenfe of the Jewish nation to this purpose, Jofephus, who wrote about two hundred years before Porphyry, must be allowed a good witness. Now he every where, without any hesitation or doubt, fupposes it to have been written by the famous Daniel, who was carried away from Judea to Babylon in the

⚫ Contra prophetam Danielem duodecimum librum fcripfit Porphyrius, nolens eum ab ipfo, cujus infcriptus eft nomine, effe com'pofitum; fed a quodam, qui temporibus Antiochi, qui appellatus eft Epiphanes, fuerit in Judaea. Et non tam Danielem ventura dixisse, quam illum narraffe praeterita.' See Jerome's preface to his Commentary on Daniel, tom. 3. p. 1071.

+ So however did father Harduin, and thereby expose himself to univerfal ridicule; as alfo by contending, that none of the pieces which are printed under Horace's name were genuine, except the satires and epiftles.