Acquaintance when I was very young. He was then and still remains in great Efteem with the Teachers of this Doctrine, who loudly Spread his Fame for the Volumes be left behind bim. As for his Opinions concerning the Divinity, and other Things, he was a Difciple of the Greek Philofophers, and endeavour'd by their Principles to fupport the exotick Fables of the Jews. Moreover the Writings of PLATO were never out of his Hands; nor those of NUMENIUS, CRONIUS, APOLLOPHANES, LONGINUS, MODERATUS; nor those of N1CHOMACHUS, and the most celebrated Pythagoreans. He read likewife the Books of CHEREMON, the Stoick; and of CORNUTUS; of whom having learnt the allegorical Method of explaining the Grecian Mysteries, he did accommodate it to the Writings of the Jews;

That JULIAN did attack (m) the Apostles for misapplying Paffages of the Prophets, and applying them to JESUS;

That FAUSTUS, the Manichæan, not only fpeaks (n) of divers particular Quotations from the Old Testament, as unfaithfully made and urged in the New Teftament, because not literally made and urged; and therefore charges the New Teftament (o) with Corruption, as Mr. WHISTON does the Old;

And that St. AUSTIN, who was not inferior in allegorical Interpretations to ORIGEN

(m) Julian apud Cyril. 1. 8. p. 253, 261, 262. Grotius in Mat.. 1. 22. (n) Fauftus apud Auguft. contra Fauftum. (0) Ib. 1.

1. 3. c. 1. 1. 16. c. 2. l. 18. c. 3. 1. 32. c. I.

12. C. I.

himself,

himself, and who had the fame Old Teftament we now have (which Mr. W. fuppofes corrupted) and who contended that the Jews never (p) corrupted the Old Teftament, tells us, how effectual That was for the Conviction both of Jews and Pagans in thefe (q) Words. Propterea Judæi adhuc funt, ut Libros noftros portent in Confufionem fuam. Quando enim volumus oftendere, Chriftum effe Prophetatum, proferimus Ethnicis iftas Literas; & ne forte illi duri ad Fidem ducant, nos Chriftianos illos compofuiffe Libros, & una cum Evangelio confinxiffe, hinc illos convinci mus, quod omnes illa Literæ, quibus CHISTUS prophetatus eft apud Judæos funt. Proferimus ergo Codices ab Inimicis Judæis, ut confundamus Inimicos infideles. Codicem portat Judaus, unde credat Chriftianus;

And that therefore the Truth feems to be what a very learned Man (r) afferts, that the Apostles in their Writings, as well as JESUS CHRIST in his Difcourfes, cited the Texts of the Old Teftament according to the commonly received Senfe of the Synagogue; and that the Authority of thefe Proofs in that received Senfe, did not a little contribute to the Converfion both of Jews and Gentiles. Which Thought Mr. W. (s) himself feems to fear may be true, when he fays, He affuredly HOPES the Difficulties themselves (That is, the Incoherency

(P) Auguftin. de Civ. Dei. 1. 15. c. 13. in Pfalm 56.

(9) Auguftin. (r) Allix's Judgment of the Jewish (s) Whifton's Effay.

Church against the Unit. p. 49.
P. 264, &c.

of

4

of the New on the Old Teftament) were not GENERALLY in being in the first Century.

Laftly, Mr. W. (t) argues from the apofto lick Citations of the first Century out of the Pentateuch and Pfalms; out of the first, as agreeing to the Samaritan Pentateuch, which he calls the Original Hebrew; out of the latter, as agreeing almost exactly to the Septuagint Verfion of the Pfalms, as attefted by the Roman Pfalter. From whence he infers, that fince the Samaritan Pentateuch and Greek Pfalms do fo nicely answer the Citations of the firft Century, it is next to Demonftration, that the Vulgar Hebrew and Septuagint did then anfwer the one to the other. But granting, that the apoftolical Citations agreeing to the Samaritan Pentateuch and Greek Pfalms demonstrate an Agreement fo far between the Hebrew and Septuagint; how is it demonftrated from thence, that there was an Agreement between the Hebrew and Septuagint in Refpect to Paffages not cited by the Apoftles, or to the Books of the Prophets, which are the Books of the Old Teftament, whofe Agreement in both Copies we are chiefly concern'd to know in the present Argument? Befides, the Criticks pretend; that (u) the Pentateuch (of the Septuagint Verfion) was tranflated long before the-other Books of the Old Teftament, and by different Hands; and that the latter Books were not near so well translated as the Pentar

(t) Whifton's Eay. p. 16.

(z) Ib. p. 113. teuch.

teuch. And it is now (w) known, that long before the Days of ORIGEN the Septuagint Verfions of EZEKIEL and DANIEL were laid afide and loft, and other Verfions substituted in their Stead; and that the Verfions of EZECHIEL in particular was fo much better done than the Septuagint Verfions of the other Books, that JEROM, who took that Verfion to be done by the Seventy, was furprised, how it came to pass, that it agreed fo much better. with the Hebrew than most of the other Books of the Old Testament.

As thefe general Topicks of Mr. W. feem of very little Force, fo they ought to be deem'd of no Force, when it is confider'd that the Jews themselves had (x) a Tradition, that thirteen Pallages of Moses were with Defign falfely tranflated by the Seventy; that many antient Jews, and efpecially the (y) Jerufalem. Jews, feem to have been far from concurring with the (x) Alexandrian Jews, who, as they were the Tranflators, fo they feem the chief Applauders of the Septuagint Translation that the Antients give an Account of great (a) Omiffions and Additions, which were all noted in ORIGEN'S Hexapla; that there is now in Fact a great Difagreement between the prefent Hebrew and Septuagint; and that to affert an

(w) Whifton's Essay. p. 113.

Sep. Int. p. 11,

(x) Uferii De Edit. (y) Lightfoot's Works. Vol. 1. p. 488. (a) Simon Hift. Crit, du

(z) Hody De Text. 1. 3. Vieux Teftam. p. 103. Montfaucon Differt. Prelim. ad Origenis See Origen. Hom. 12. in Jerem. Hieron.

Hexapla. c. 1. & 4. in c. 17. Jerem.)

;

antient

antient Agreement is (b) new and contrary to the general Belief of the Learned, both in the prefent and paft Ages; but efpecially when fuch Agreement feems fo contrary to undeniable Matter of Fact; for, by the mere comparing of the Hebrew and Septuagint together, notwithstanding the Changes either or both of them may be fuppofed to have received, it will appear to be (c) an ill Verfion of a very bard Book, and must be allow'd by thofe, who can judge of it, to be far from being exact and true; and fhould any Body now a-days make a Verfion fo imperfect, instead of Admiration and Efteem, his Work would be much defpifed by the modern Criticks. Let any one compare (d) the Citations out of the Septuagint, to be met with in PHILO and JOSEPHUS, with the Hebrew Text (I fay, thofe Citations, that it may not be pretended that the Paffages, which the Seventy have ill tranflated, have been corrupted); and he will find these Interpreters to have had but a very moderate Knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue, and to have proceeded by no certain Rules in their Tranflation.

But by the Account given of the Septuagint Tranflation in our learned Divine and Hebrician LIGHTFOOT, no Tranflation was ever more unfaithful, or more remote from its Original, than the Septuagint was from the Hebrew.

(b) Whifton's Eay. p. 3. (c) Hare's Difficulties and Difcouragements. p. 6. See also Capelli Quæftio de Parallel. §. 7. (d) See Le Clerc. Bib. Univ. Tom. 22. p. 478.

He