;

the High Prieft of the Jews, and other difobliged Refugee-Jews, firft, build a Temple in Oppofition to the Temple at Jerufalem; where Refugee-Jews, from the Time the Temple was built, continued frequently to refort and where, for the most Part from the fame Time, a Jewish-Temple-Worship has been kept up by Perfons, who have been called Samaritans, from Samaria, the Name of the Dif trict, wherein Mount Gerizim lyes. And this Corruption affects the Authority of the Samaritan Pentateuch the more, in that it was a defign'd Corruption, in Order to justify and authorize their new Place of Worship at Mount Gerizim. The Samaritans have alfo added a large Paffage to the fame Effect in their Pentateuch; which has no (†) Foot-steps in our Hebrew and Greek Copies. In both thefe Cafes, indeed, Mr. W. (u) declares, he fees no Reason to accufe the Samaritans, but the Jews, of Corruption. And he endeavours to fupport the Samaritan Readings by feveral (w) Reafons in his Book, and by (x) one added fince, which he thinks determines the Point in Favour of the Samaritans; which therefore, though equally precarious with the rest, I shall here examine.

There was, it seems, a Contest (y) between the Jews and Samaritans at Alexandria in Egypt, "Whether the Temple at Mount Gerizim, or That at Jerufalem was warranted

(u) Whilton's Effay. &c. p. 169. (w) Ib. p. 169-172. (x) Ad Finem Errat. (3) Jofeph. Antiq. l. 13. c. 6. () Exod. 20. 17. " and

M 2

"and authorized by the Mofaick Law?" The Caufe was, by Way of Appeal, brought before PTOLEMY PHILOMETOR, King of Egypt; who, upon hearing the Pleas on both Sides, (of which JOSEPHUS feems to give but a very general and imperfect Account) gave Judgment in Favour of the Jews against the Samaritans. But yet Mr. W. thinks it from JosEappears PHUS's Relation, that the Jews Copies had thofe Paffages then in them, and did not difagree from the Samaritan; and, by Confequence, that the Jews have fince corrupted their Copies.

But the Confideration of JOSEPHUS's Relation (which the Reader is defired to have be fore him) will, in my Opinion, produce a very different Conclufion, and induce the Reader to believe, that the Samaritan Readings were Corruptions, and that the Jewish Copies flood then as they do now in that Respect; as the Pleas, which the King heard, induced him to determine for the Jews.

It does feem poffible from JOSEPHUS's Relation, that the two Samaritan Advocates did infift before King PTOLEMY on those Paffages before-mentioned of their Pentateuch, for the Authority of their Temple at Gerizim, tho' it is not any where faid fo, or that their Pentateuch had then any fuch Paffages in it. For there seems no other Foundation in the Mofaick Law, from whence they are fuppofed to argue, for making Mount Gerizim the Place appointed for a Temple in Oppofition to Jerufalem, and for the great Confidence they had of being

able

able to prove their Point; all traditional Pretences in Favour of the Antiquity of the Temple at Gerizim before the Temple at Jerusa lem, being not only undoubtedly falfe, but ca pable of being eafily proved fo, as they could not but know themselves; for their Temple had been built but an hundred and fifty Years, whereas the Temple at Jerufalem had been built long before, in the Days of SOLOMON.

It may also be fuppofed poffible, that the Jewish Advocate might argue against the Samaritans from his Pentateuch, as not having the Samaritan Readings; for nothing appears, from whence it can be concluded he did not. Nay, if the Samaritan Advocates urged their two prefent Readings, we have Reason to believe he did fo; fince thofe Readings were certainly wanting in his Copies. For both the Hebrew and Septuagint Copies had been, before this Conteft, in the Hands of the Hea→ thens, and particularly in the Library of ProLEMY, who would never have given Judgment against the Samaritans, and condemn'd their Advocates to dye, if the Jewish Copies had favour'd the Authority of their Temple at Gerizim.

All therefore that can be fuppofed in Favour of the Samaritan Pentateuch from JOSEPHUS is, that it, alone, perhaps, then had the two Paffages mention'd; there being no Ground in JOSEPHUS (or elfe where) to fuppofe that the Jews Pentateuch then had them. this Suppofition, in Favour of the Samaritan

M 3

But

Pen

Pentateuch, will not prove the two Readings genuine.

But there are two Confiderations, which seem to me to determine the Corruption to be on the Part of the Samaritans.

1. First, there have been three different Sorts of People, who at different Times have inhabited Samaria, and been call'd Samaritans, and were different religious Sects. I. Those of the ten (x) Tribes, who under the Conduct of JEROBOAM revolted from the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and fet up a Worship at Dan and Bethel, in Oppofition to the Worship establish'd at Jerufalem. 2. The Heathens, who were fent to inhabit Samaria in the Room of the ten Tribes that were carried into Captivity and never return'd, were called Samaritans. 3. The apoftate Jews, who with SANBALLAT, first, built a Temple at Mount Gerizim in Oppofition to the Temple at Jerufalem, and their Succeffors were alfo fo call'd; among whom, perhaps, fome of the Samaritans last mention'd, at length became embody'd.

Now, neither the Jews, before the Separation of the Tribes into the Kingdoms of Ifrael and Judah, nor the first Sort of Samaritans, feem ever to have had the leaft Thought of worshiping at Mount Gerizim ; and the Contest between the Jews and Samaritans, after the Separation, was, whether Worship was to be perform'd at Jerufalem, or at Dan and

(z) 2 Kings 12. 27---29.

Bethel;

Bethel; for the Sacredness of which (zz) two laft Places, there was fome Pretence in Antiquity. It should seem therefore, that there was no Pretence at that Time in the Pentateuch for making Mount Gerizim a Place of Worship. And therefore it feems most probable, that those Samaritans, who confifted chiefly of apoftate Jews, and first built a Temple at Gerizim in Oppofition to the Temple at Jerufalem, and would be glad of an Authority for fo doing, or their Succeffors, corrupted the Pentateuch; and not the Jews, who, at a Time when they had no Interest nor malicious Purpofe to ferve, acted as if there had been no fuch Paffages in the Pentateuch as the Samaritans produced.

2. Secondly, our Saviour may not improbably be fuppofed to determine against the Samaritan Readings in his Conversation with the Woman of Samaria. That Converfation, which is but briefly reprefented, seems to admit and require the following Interpretation;

"Since you are a Jew, fays the Woman of· "Samaria to our Saviour, tell me, why the Jews contend, that God is to be worship'd at Jerufalem, fince our Fore-fathers worship'd "in this Mountain of Gerizim. To which JESUS anfwer'd, there is little Reason to. "trouble yourself about this Question, in"afmuch as the Occafion will foon be re"moved; for the Worship of God will not "much longer be confined to any Place; and "fo the Privilege, about which you contend,

(zz) Patrick on the first of Kings, 12. 29. M 4

" will