Mr. W. therefore has no reafon to charge the Jews with corrupting the Hebrew text because it differs from the Septuagint text cited by the apostles.

3. Thirdly, Jesus and the apostles might cite or ufe a copy of the Septuagint very different from those copies deriv'd down to us; for the (b) antient copies of the Septuagint (in all which there were additions which were not in the hebrew text) differ'd much from one another; and Mr. W. fuppofes LUKE to cite a (i) false copy: or they might ufe and cite other tranflations of the Old Teftament, which differ'd from the original hebrew, befides the Septuagint: for Dr. PRIDEAUX; on occafion of its being faid in (k) LuKE, that our Saviour read in the Synagogue at Nazareth a paffage out of ISAIAH, which paffage of ISAIAH, as reported by Luke, does not agree exactly either with the hebrew or Septuagint; tells (1) us, that it seems most likely, that he read it out of fome chaldee targum, that is, a chaldee paraphrafe or tranflation, which was read

L

(b) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. T. p. 235. Montfaucon Differt. Prelim. ad Originis Hexapla. c. 4. (i) See Whiston's Effay, p. 115, 116, 119. (k) Luke 4.

Prideaux's Connection, Vol. 2. P. $47. See Capelli Critica Sacra, p. 58, 59.

read in the fynagogue. And therefore no argument can be urged, for the corruption of the bebrew or Septuagint by the Jews, from the citations of the apostles out of the Old Testament, not being exactly found in either of those copies.

4. Fourthly, divers of the paffages, which Mr. W. mentions as corrupted, and divers of those which he mentions as wholly omitted in the Old Testament, were most certainly not taken from the Old Teftament by the authors of the New, notwithstanding he fays the apoftles took them from thence. For it is well known, that the Jews had feveral books deem'd facred among them, which were forged, under the names of their prophets, and are now either loft or not rank'd among the books of the Old Teftament; which forg'd books the primitive chriftians received as facred in fome degree from the Jews, and used them, and read them in their religious affemblies. Of this Mr. W. was inform'd by the läte learned Bishop LLOYD, who thus wrote to him. (m) VIGILIUS was one of those orthodox bishops, that were under the heavy perfecution of thofe Arian kings of the Vandals about A. D. 500, and then did write books

(m) Lloyd's Letter to W. apud W's Hiftorical Pref.

P. 34.

books against the reigning herefy; which, for concealment fake, he put out in the name of ATHANASIUS. Thus did fome of the Jews, in the times of perfecution, write books against heathen idolatry. One that is call'd the Wifdom of SOLOMON; another call'd the book of BARUCH ; whereof also a part is call'd the epiftle of JEREMIAH. I cannot commend them, that to conceal themfelves ufed fuch arts; but nevertheless, their books were highly approv'd; infomuch that they were read by the bellenift Jews in their fynagogues, and fo coming into the chriftians hands, they were alfo read in chriftian churches, in and next after the apostles times. We have alfo an (2) account, that there were seventy two of this kind tranflated into greek by the Seventy, when they tranflated and finifh'd the twenty two books of the Old Teftament. Some of these books were intituled ENOCH the Patriarchs the ; prayer of JOSEPH, the teftament of MOSES; the ELDAD affumption of MOSES; ABRAHAM; and MODAD; the pfalms of SOLOMON; the revelation of ELIAS; the vifion of ISATAH; the revelation of SOPHONIAH ; the revelation of ZACHARY and the revelation

L 2

(n) See Authors cited in Grabe's Spiceleg. §. 1. p. 134;

velation of ESDRAS; and divers others bore the names of HABBACCUC, EZEKIEL, DANIEL, and other prophets.

Now ORIGEN, TERTULLIAN, EPIPHANIUS, AUSTIN, and GEORGIUS SYNCELLUS, who faw and read many of these forg'd books of the Jews, do (0) affure us, that the apoftles took several of thefe quotations, in question, from them. And ORIGEN in particular, makes the following apology for the apoftles citing these forg'd books. He fays, (p) The apostles and evangelifts, who were fill'd with the Holy Ghost, might know what was fit to be cited out of those books, and what to be rejected; but that others cannot without danger do so, who have not so great an abundance of the Spirit.

We may learn from Mr. DODWEL a threefold fource of fome of the quotations, whereof I am now treating.

1. First, they might be taken from certain (pp) myftical paraphrafes of the Jews, on the Old Teftament; which myftical paraphrafes were frequently interpolated into the text of the Old Teftament 2. Or, fecondly, they might be the fay

(0) Grabe, lb. p. 129—140.

(P) Origines Prol. duar. Homil. in Cant. Cant. Opera. Vol. 1. p. 501. Baf. 1577. & apud Grabe, Ib. (pp) Apud Dodwel's Life, p. 508.

fayings, or revelations of chriftian (q) prophets, who in the christian affemblies gave interpretations of things deliver'd in the Old Teftament; which being approv'd by thofe, who had the difcerning of Spirits, were preferv'd, and known to be from God. 3. Or, thirdly, they might be cited (r) from writings, which were plainly taken for those of the old prophets, tho' in truth they were not fuch, yet cited as theirs, becaufe the perfons who cited them knew, that the perfons to whom they wrote accounted them as fuch. By which Mr. Dodwel does not mean fuch forg'd writings of Jews as are abovemention'd by me, but books compos'd by chriftians under jewish names; and particularly under the name of EZRA or EsDRAS. Which practise of citing fuch authors continu'd, as he fays, in ufe in the church, till MELITO had fettled the canon of the Old Teftament. This MELITO who liv'd late in the fecond century, and was esteem'd a prophet himself, did, it seems, in order to fatisfy the curiofity of his brother ONESIMUS, (s) go into the east to be certainly inform'd of the books of the Old Teftament; and did L 3 col

(q) For an account of which Prophets, fee the Hifto ry of Montanifm, p. 87.

(r) Dodwel's Life, p. 510.

(s) Euf. Hift, Ecc. 1. 4. c. 6.