Chriftians; not even the Lofs of ORIGEN'S Hexapla, a Work fo useful to all learned Chriftians; nor the Lofs of CLEMENT's Epi ftle to the Corinthians (a Book esteem'd (m) cannonical by the antients) for many hundred Years, and but lately brought to Light; nor even the taking the Bible out of the Hands of the People both of the Greek and Latin Church; which was fubmitted to as a Piece of true Religion by them, who very naturally thought their Priefts better Guides, than God in his Word appealing to their own Underftandings; I fay, none of these seem equal to the Impofition above-mentioned.

Befides, it is fo far from being evident; that the Septuagint, as it was in the Hands of Chriftians before ORIGEN wrote his HEXAPLA, was uncorrupt; and that ORIGEN contributed to render it corrupt; that, on the contrary, it is manifeft, that (n) ORIGEN found the Septuagint in a very corrupt State, and did really restore a better Text in innumerable Places, and That to the Satisfaction of many Christians, who approved of and ufed his Text as a standard Text, without thinking in the leaft, that they were deprived of any Argument for the Truth of Christianity, that had been urged from former Copies of the Septuagint.

(m) Wake's Prelim. Difc. to Genuine Epiftles, &c. p. 117. (n) See GRABE De Vitiis 70 Inter. ante Evum ORIGINIS, & de Remediis ab ipfo adhibitis in ejufdem Hexaplari Editione. Montfancon Prelimin. ad Origenis Hexapla. c, 4.

III. That

III.

That to fuppofe the Old Teftament fo corrupted, as Mr. WHISTON afferts, is to give up Christianity to Jews and Infidels.

CA

AN any Thing tend more to expose Christianity to the Contempt of Jews, and Infidels, and to justify all Unbelievers in rejecting it, than to fuppofe, as Mr. W. does, Christianity not grounded on the prefent Old Teftament, and therefore falfe, if confider'd as having its Dependence thereon?

Do not the Jews take it for granted, on vulgar Tradition among themselves, that they have a true Copy of the Books of the Old Teftament? And do not all Infidels take it for granted, upon the vulgar Tradition of Jews and Chriftians, that the present Books of the Old Teftament are the very Books, upon which not only Jews but Chriftians ground their Religion? And will not both Jews and Infidels think the Cause of Christianity fufficiently weak, if Chriftians once allow, that the New Teftament depends not on the [prefent] Old Teftament, contrary to what Chriftians have for many Ages paft afferted, and to what (the primitive Fathers and the Apostles themfelves, according to all Appearance, afferted before them? It has been thought by Divines (o) to be of very

(o) Kidderi Epift. ad J. Clericum apud Bib. Choif. To.n. 4. P. 379.

H 2

ill

ill Confequence to Religion, to fuppofe any Alterations have been made in the Old Teftament; and PEREIRA, HOBBES, SPINOZA, SIMON, and others have been severely cenfured, as giving up or attacking the Bible, for afferting, that fome few Interpolations, tho' not relating to the Effentials of Religion, have been made therein. Of how great Confequence then, muft fuch Alterations be deem'd, which affect the very Being and Reafon of Christianity?

Are not all Unbelievers of Chriftianity juftify'd for rejecting it, from the Time the true Copy of the Old Teftament was loft among Chriftians, to the Time Mr. W. publish'd his (p) Boylean Lectures and his Efay towards reftoring the true Text of the Old Teftament; wherein it is fuggefted to the World, that our present Text is not the true Text of the Old Teftament in Respect to those Places, on which the Apostles ground the Truth of Christianity? For if the Grounds and Reasons for Christianity, contain'd in the Old Teftament, were loft, Christianity was then loft.

And may not Men ftill justly reject Chriftianity? For can it be the Duty of Men to inquire after a loft Book (and That impoffible now to be recover'd) in Order to find out, whether Christianity had any folid Grounds or no at first, when all the prefent Appearances are, according to Mr. W. that it had no folid Grounds? Or can Men reasonably suppose

(1) Whifton's Boyl. Lect. p. 30, 67— 720

without

without Proof (for really That is all Mr. W. has to fupport his Hypothefis, to which he feems merely driven by the conceived Abfurdity of the allegorical Hypothefis; arguing herein like (7) FAUSTUS the Manichæan Bishop, who thought MATTHEW and LUKE interpolated and corrupted on Account of the Difficulties in their feveral Genealogies of JESUS, and of their Contradictions to one another; and alfo JOHN's (r) Gofpel corrupted, wherein CHRIST fays, MOSES wrote of him, because he could find no fuch Paffage in the Books of MOSES) I fay can Men reasonably suppose, without Proof, that the Apostles cited, interpreted, and argued juftly from the Old Teftament, when we fee (as Mr. W. fays) they did not; taking them to have cited, interpreted, and argued from the prefent Old Teftament?

4

Laftly, may not Mr. W. as well hope to convert Jews and Infidels by allegorical Reafoning from the Old Teftament, how weak and enthufiaftical That may feem to him to be, as

a loft Bible, now to be recover'd by Criticifm? Nay, may he not have better Hopes, fince That was manifeftly the Method of arguing used by the Apostles and first Fathers (by his own (s) Confeffion in all other Cafes, but That of Prophefies,) and has been deem'd (alfo by his own Confeffion) to have been the

(9) Fauftus apud Auguft. contra Fauft. 1. 3. c. 1. (r) Ib. 1. 16. c. 2. See alfo 1. 18. c. 3. & 1. 32. c. I. (s) Whifton's Boylean Lectures. p. 67. Ib. Efay. p. 91, 92. Method

H 3.

Method used by all Chriftians, in all Cafes, from the Days of JEROM; That is, from the End of the fourth Century to this Day; during which Time Chriftianity has greatly prevail'd over the World; tho' ftanding on allegorical Reasons, That is, according to Mr. W, on (t) weak and enthufiaftical Reafons; tho' (u) the Hebrew and Septuagint have been put upon the Wrack, and even tortured by the Criticks, to fee if by any Violence the Citations of the Apostles from the Old Teftament can be made to accord with the Texts cited; tho' the truly judicious and impartial know, that This has been hitherto done with little Success; and tho' the Old and New Teftament are in an irreconcilable State, to the great Perplexity of good Chriftians, and the open Scandal of Jews and Infidels?

If therefore Men have been converted to Christianity by the Books of the New Teftament, or by the Writings of Chriftians, they have been converted by the Jewish allegorical Method of arguing from the Old Teftament.

Typical and allegorical Reafoning was deem'd fo strong and useful by the most eminent of the primitive Apologifts for Chriftianity, towards the Convertion of Pagans, that they ufe this following Argument to them, which I fhall give you in the Words of JUSTIN MARTYR, who urges it in its full Strength; referring you farther to (w) TERTULLIAN,

(t) Whifton's Effay. p. 92, (w) Tertulliani Apol. c. 6.

(#) Ib. p. 282.

MINUTIUS