Teftament, should take them. But feveral of those Quotations being made after the Jewish Manner of quoting Authors, wherein great Liberty was taken in varying, both as to Words and Senfe, from the Authors quoted; the Learned are at a Lofs how to account for many Quotations, which neither agree to the He brew or Septuagint, and alfo how to account with Certainty even for fuch as agree either with the Hebrew or Septuagint.

Mr. W. (i) contends that the Apostles always quoted the Septuagint. But, if we may be govern'd in this Cafe by the Agreement of Quotations with their Originals, nothing feems more true, than what is imply'd in these Words of St. AUSTIN. (k) For my Part, fays he, being defirous to follow the Example of the Apostles, who made Ufe both of the Hebrew Text and Septuagint Verfion in citing the Prophets, I thought, that I ought to make Ufe of both, as being both the fame, and having both the fame divine Authority.

What can be more evident, than that the Apoftles fometimes cited the Hebrew? For if there be a Citation made by the Apostles from the Old Testament, which, Word for Word, agrees with the Hebrew Text and differs from the Septuagint, muft not the faid Citation be fuppofed taken from the Hebrew Text, to which it agrees, and not from the

(i) Whifton's Effay. p. 176, &c.
(k) Auguft. De Civitate Dei. 1. 18. c. 44.
N 4

Septuagint

Septuagint, to which it does not agree? Now This is the Cafe (1) of the famous Paffage cited by MATTHEW out of HOSE AH, "Out of Egypt have I called

my Son; " which is read Word for Word in the Hebrew Bible; but in the Septuagint is, "Out of Egypt have I called my "Sons.

And this Citation feems also to discover to us the Reason, why the Apostles do fometimes cite the Hebrew, as at other Times they do the Septuagint, when those two Texts differ, viz. because the Hebrew Reading feems fometimes more applicable to their Purpose than the Septuagint Reading. For in the Cafe before us, the Term Son, as the Hebrew reads it, seems more to favour the Application of the Paffage to JESUs, than the Septuagint Reading Sons, which, beyond all Difpute, determines the Citation to relate primarily to the Children of Ifrael.

Again, does not MATTHEW (m) manifeftly cite the Hebrew Text for these Words, (n) Behold my Servant, whom I have chofen, my beloved, in whom my Soul is well pleased;" which agree to the Hebrew, and not to the Septuagint, that differs (0) greatly

(1) See Hieron in Of. 1. 3. c. 11. & in Matt. 1. 1. c. 2. Capelli Critica Sacra, p. 55.

Dupin Differt. Prelim. fur la Bible, 1. 1. c. 4. p. 487. Le Note. (m) Matt. 12. 18.

(n) Ifaiah 42. 1.

(0) See Kidder's Demonftrat. of the Meffias, Vol. 2. p. 207, 208.

from

from the Hebrew and makes express Mention of JACOB and ISRAEL therein?

St. JEROM (p) fays, It is evident, that the Apostles and Evangelifts made Ufe of the Hebrew Scriptures. Our Lord and Redeemer, fays he, whenever he cites Paffages out of the Old Teftament takes them from the Hebrew. As for Example, "He that believeth

on me, as the Scriptures have faid, out of "his Belly shall flow Rivers of living Water;" and upon the Cross, "Eli, Eli, Lamazaback"thani;" That is to fay, "My God, my God, why haft thou forsaken me; " and not as the Septuagint has render'd it, and divers other Places. I fay not This, fays JEROM, to difcredit the Septuagint, but because I believe, that the Authority of the Apoftles and JESUS CHRIST is preferable to theirs.

I confefs, the Apostles do feem (9) much more frequently to cite the Septuagint, than the Hebrew (though herein it may be eafy to mistake, if it be true, what SIMON and Mr. W. affirm, that the Septuagint Verfion has (r) been accommodated to the Citations of the Apoftles; or what Mr. W. (s) himself alfo fays, who not only finds plain Indications of the frequent Accommodation of the Septuagint Verfion to the latter Hebrew, but the alike FRE

(p) Hieron. 1. 2. Apol. contra Ruffinum.

(9) See Earl of Nottingham's Answer to Mr. Whifton's LetCapelli Critica Sacra. 1. 2.

ter,
&c.

p. 105.

(r) Simon Hift, Crit. du N. Teft. p. 234, and Whiston's Essay,

P, 299.

(s) p. 48, 49. p. 228, 299.

QUENT

QUENT ACCOMMODATIONS OF THE READINGS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, as alfo in JOSEPHUS, and others, TO THOSE OF THE SEPTUAGINT, whence they were commonly fuppofed to have been taken); and it is particularly manifeft, that, in the famous (t) Speech before the Sanedrim, attributed to St. STEPHEN, the Septuagint, and not the Hebrew, is cited, in Respect to the Number of Souls, that went down into Egypt; the Septuagint reckoning Seventy five Souls, and the Hebrew but feventy. But I must own my Concurrence with Father (u) SIMON in his Conjecture, that it is not credible, that St. STEPHEN, in the original Speech deliver'd by him to the Jews of Jerufalem, recited the Words otherwise than they were in the Hebrew Bible; but that St. LUKE writing to thofe, who either understood no Hebrew, or who chiefly or wholly used the Septuagint Verfion, was the Author of that Change; which is fo different from what is contain'd in the Original of the Old Teftament. For it seems very unaccountable, that St. STEPHEN fhould, in his Defence before the Sanedrim, argue from an ancient Jewish Fact, which that Affembly by their Knowledge in the Hebrew Tongue were undoubtedly able to detect as a Mifrepresentation of the Jewish Story, and would not fail to do fo to the Confufion of St. STEPHEN.

(t) Acts 7. 14. 15.

(u) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. T. p. 186, 187. 1. 2. c. 2. See alfo Dupin Differt. Prelim. 1. 1. c. 4. Note. p. 486.

For

For farther Satisfaction in this Point of the Apoftle's citing the Hebrew Text (and That even in Places, where they seem to depart from the Hebrew) I refer him to the (w) truly learned Dr. (x) HODY; and to (y) SURENHUSIUS, who thows, how all the apoftolick Quotations, by being confider'd as Quotations made after the Manner of the Jewish Doctors, were (or might be) taken from the Hebrew. It is evident; that, in many Inftances, the Apoftles cite Paffages, from the Old Teftament, not only in a different literal Sense from what they bear in their Places both in the Hebrew and Septuagint, but whofe Words are to be found in neither of them; and, in particular, that many Parts of the Genealogies in the New Testament, which should feem to be taken from the Old Teftament, are very different from the fame Genealogies recorded both in the Hebrew and Septuagint. So that, the Citations of the Apoftles, whether confider'd as taken from either the Hebrew or Septuagint, must be accounted for from the Jewish Manner of making Citations fo as to serve the Purposes, for which they were produced. And therefore, with as great Reafon, many of the apoftolical Citations may be fuppofed taken from the Hebrew, as from the Septuagint.

(w) Whifton's Essay. p. 11.

(x) Hody De Text. Bibl. p. 243277.
(y) Surenbufii Traft. &

See p. 177, &c.

IX. That