Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

church; which was fubmitted to as a piece of true religion by them, who, very naturally thought their priests better guides, than God in his word, appealing to their own understandings: I fay, none of these feem equal to the impofition abovemention'd.

Befides, it is fo far from being evident; that the Septuagint, as it was in the hands of christians before ORIGEN wrote his HEXA- · PLA, 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 fatisfaction of many christians, who approv'd of and used his text as a fandard text, without thinking in the leaft, that they were depriv'd of any argument for the truth of christianity, that had been urg'd from former copies of the Septuagint.

III. That

(n) See GRABE de vitiis 70 Inter. ante Evum ORIGINIS, de Remediis ab ipfo adhibitis in ejufdem Hexaplari Editione ? And Montfaucon Prelimin, ad Originis Hexapla. c. 4.

III.

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

CAN, any thing tend more to expofe

christianity to the contempt of Fews and Infidels, and to juftify 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 dependance thereon?

Do not the Jews take it for granted on vulgar tradition among themfelves, 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 prefent books of the Old Teftament are the very books, upon which, not only Jews, but Christians ground their religion? And will not both Jews and Infidels think the cause of chrifianity 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

been thought by divines (0) to be of very ill confequence to religion, to suppose any alterations have been made in the Old Testament; and PEREIRA, HOBBES, SPINOZA, SIMON, and others, have been severely cenfur'd, 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, must such alterations be deem'd, which affect the very being and reason of christianity?

Are not all unbelievers of christianity justify'd for rejecting it, from the time the true of the Old Teftament was loft among copy christians, to the time Mr. W. publish'd his (p) Boylean Lectures and his Essay 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 refpect to thofe places, on which the apoftles ground the truth of christianity? For if the grounds and reafons for christianity, contain'd in the Old Testament were loft, christianity was then loft.

And may not men ftill justly reject chriftianity? For can it be the duty of men to in

(o) Kidderi Epift. ad J. Clericum apud Bib. Choif. tom. 4. p. 379.

(P) Whitton's Boyl. Left. p. 30.67-720

[ocr errors]

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 firft, when all the prefent appearances are, according to Mr. W. that it had no folid grounds? Or can men reasonably fuppofe without proof (for really that is all Mr. W. has to fupport his hypothefis, to which he feems merely driven by the conceiv'd abfurdity of the allegorical hypothefis arguing herein like (9) 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 contradicti ons 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 fuppofe, without proof, that the apostles cited, interpreted, and argu'd justly from the Old Teftament, when we fee (as Mr. W. fays) they did not; taking them to have cited, interpreted, and argu'd from the prefent Old Testament?

3

t

Laftly, may not Mr. W. as well hope to convert Jews and Infidels by allegorical rea Joning from the Old Teftament, how weak and enthufiaftical foever that may feem to

him

(q) Fauftus apud Auguft. contra Fauft. 1. 3. c. i.
(+) Ib. 1. 16. c. 2. See also 1. 18. c.3. & 1. 32. c. 1)

him to be, as by 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 ufed 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 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 christianity has greatly prevail'd over the world; tho' ftanding on allegorical reafons, 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 tortur'd by the criticks, to fee if by any violence the citations of the apoftles 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 fuccefs; and tho' the Old and New Teftament are in an irreconcilable state, to the great perplexity of good chriftians, and the open fcandal of Fews and Infidels?

(s) Whifton's Boylean Lectures, p. 67.

P. 91, 92.

(t) lb. p. 92.

(*) Ib. p. 282,

If

Ib. Effay,

« ForrigeFortsæt »