their Approbation to be of no Weight, to fay nothing worse of this Matter.

He argues, (x) from the Silence of Authors before the fecond Century, and especially of the Enemies of the Gospel, as to any Differences between the Hebrew and Septuagint; as alfo (y) from the Converfions wrought by the Apoftles, in Vertue of Citations or Proofs brought from the Septuagint, among the Jews; who, in Confequence of their Converfions, muft, according to him, have own'd thofe Citations for genuine and agreeable to the then known Bible among them; it being (z) impoffible, as he fays, for them to have been converted, if the Citations had been as different from what they found in their Bibles, as the like Citations frequently are now from what we find in ours.

But both these Confiderations will feem of little weight, if it be confider'd;

That we have no Jewish Authors of that Time extant, who treat of these Matters;

That perhaps no Jewish Authors did at that Time treat of thefe Matters;

That the Jews did, in general, approve of the allegorical Way of Reafoning used by the Apostles, tho' they might diflike the Application of it to JESUS CHRIST;

That PHILO the Jew, who wrote in the apoftolical Age voluminous Works, wherein there is not the leaft Notice taken of Chri

(x) Whifton's Eay. p. 11. (2) Ib. p. 15.

(y). Ib. p. 14.

tianity,

tianity, (which feems furprizing) cites, and Reasons from, the Old Teftament in the fame allegorical Manner with the Apostles; wherein

it

may be fuppofed that he follow'd the Method of his Nation, and efpecially of the prevailing Sect of Pharifees, who firft introduced it;

That Men might be fatisfy'd then, as Divines and others are now, notwithstanding the Citations, made by the Apoftles out of the Old Teftament, are fo different from what we now find therein;

That it appears from almoft every Part of the New Testament, that the Jews and the Apostles were perpetually difputing about the myftical Senfe of the Old Teftament; which, as it was the fole Foundation of Christianity, fo it was the fole Subject of Difpute; tho' we know not how the Jews, who were not converted, answer'd the Apostles;

That St. PAUL argues against fome Jews, as much concern'd for the Letter of their Law, in Oppofition to the Spirit of the Law, which he contended for; and that his Enemies and Accufers (a) among the Jews were the Sadducees, who contended for the literal Interpretation of the Old Teftament, the Pharifees, who contended for allegorical Interpretations of the Old Teftament, finding no Evil in him;

That the firft Converts among the Jews to Christianity were Pharifees, it not appearing that any (b) one Sadducee was ever

(a) Acts 23. 8. (b) Wotton's Misc. Discourse. Vol. 1. p. 95. converted

L 3

converted to the Faith in the whole New Teftament;

That the Body of the Jews did reject JESUS, whom they knew not to be the CHRIST, and whom they rejected as pretending to be the CHRIST, in Vertue of their Interpretations (whether literal or allegorical) of the Old Testament, which they took to be perverted and mifapply'd in Behalf of him ;

That it would have been no Wonder, if the Jews had not at first made Objections to the Apostles for their not citing, and reafoning from, the Letter of the Old Testament, when they had for a confiderable Time, before the Days of JESUS and the Apostles, (c) neglected the literal Senfe of, and used to allegorize, the Bible;

That when the Jews did attack Christianity by Writings and Books, they did cenfure the Apoftles and Chriftians (d) for citing falfely, and for arguing falfely, because not literally from the Old Teftament; and to expose them. more effectually they caufed other and more literal and faithful Tranflations to be made, than the Septuagint, which was much used by the Christians, and greatly receded from the Hebrew Text by its Additions, Omiffions, and falfe Tranflations.

That (e) FESTUS, the Heathen, who was expert in all Customs and Questions among the

(c) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. Teft. p. 97. (d) See Juftin Martyr, Origen, and Jerom, as cited in PEZRON Defenfe de l'Antiquité des tems. p. 136, 137, 174, 337, 398, 400. (c) Acts 26. 3, 6, 7, 22, 23, 24. Le Clerc fur cet Endroit.

Jews,

Jews, did, upon hearing St. PAUL declare his Manner of arguing from the Old Testament and proving from thence that Chrift Should fuffer and rife from the Dead, tell PAUL, that he was befide himself, and that much (Jewish) Learning had made him mad; wherein FESTUS has the fame Thoughts of the Manner of arguing of PAUL, which Mr. WHISTON has of the prefent, apparent, Reasoning of the Apostles from the Old Testament; (f) and that AGRIPPA, who believed in the Prophets, was almost perfuaded to be a Chriftian, by that very Way of Reafoning, whereby FESTUS Concluded St. PAUL mad;

That CELSUS, who feems the oldest Heathen Author, that has attack'd Chriftianity, whereof we have any Remains, did not only attack (g) Chriftians for their allegorical Interpretations of the Old Teftament, who, he faid, by a most astonishing Folly, and a Stupidity without Example, endeavour'd to find out Relations between Things, for which there was not the leaft Foundation; but for their Application of the Prophefies in the Old Testament to JESUS, which, he (b) faid, agreed to a thoufand other Perfons with equal or more Probability than to him, and were apply'd by forced Interpretations; feveral of which Prophefies ORIGEN (i) yields to CELSUS to be enigmatical and allegorical, and to be fo

(g) Origen contra Celf. p. 187.

(f) Acts 26. 27, 28. 196-198. (b) Ib. p. 39, 44, 78.

L 4

(i) Ib. p. 39. apply'd

apply'd by the Chriftians; and that CELSUS, fpeaking of fome of the Prophefies cited by the Apostles, fays, (k) moft fatyrically, that they are unintelligible, enthufiaftical, and perfectly obfcure Sayings, which no wife Man can understand a Tittle of, but only occafion Fools and jugglers to apply to their Purpofes;

That PORPHYRY, a most acute Pagan Philofopher, wrote a voluminous Work (now loft) against Christianity, to which EUSEBIUS of Cefarea wrote an Answer (now loft); wherein the faid PORPHYRY thus charged the Chriftians in general and ORIGEN in particular (1) with allegorizing the Old Teftament. Some being refolved, fays he, to find out Solutions for the Difficulties, which occur in the Writings of the Jews, rather than reject them, have Recourfe to inconfiftent Interpretations, nothing relating to what is written, and which are not fo much in Defence of those frange Doctrines, as in Confirmation and Praife of their own. For vaunting in great Words, that what Moses fpoke with all imaginable plainnefs are dark Riddles, they enthufiaftically give them out as fo many divine Oracles, pregnant with hidden Mifteries; and after confounding the Judgment with this fublime Language, they deliver their own Explications. For an Example of this Folly, let us take ORIGEN, a Perfon, with whom I had fome

(k) Origen contra Celf as cited and tranflated by Nichols in his Conference with a Theift. Vol. 3. p. 10.

(7) Apud Eufebii Hift. Ecclef. 1.6. c. 19.

Acquaintance