..^wmm^,. 
 
OF THE 
 
 Theological Seminary, 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 '^ Division 
 
 Case, y^S^i,..,,,,^ 
 Shelf , J 
 Book, Srf..*.. .1. 
 
\ 
 
 '■ V 
 
 f- i «-1 
 
DISCOURSE 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 GROUNDS and REASONS 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 Cristian Religion. 
 
 In two Parts : 
 The firft containing fome Considerations 
 
 on the Quotations made from the Old in the Kew 
 Teftament, and particularly on the Prophefies cited 
 from the former and faid to be fulfill'd in the latter. 
 
 The fecond containing an Examination of 
 the Scheme advanc'd byMr. Whiston in his JEjffhy 
 to--joardsrefioring the true T'ext of the OWTefiamevt ^ 
 and for v'mdicatwg the Ckations thence made 'm the 
 New Tefiament. 
 
 To which is prcfix'd an Apology for free debate and 
 liberty of writing, i v 
 
 - ^ ' ■ - ■ ■'' ' Y - '-'' - ' * ■ 
 
 W7)0 hath alfo made us able Minijiers of the New Tejfamtnty 
 not of the Letter^ but of the Spirit : for the Letter kilieth, but 
 the Spirit giveth Life, z Cor. iii. 6. 
 
 Omnia a M ose ordinata enumerans, oftendcre pofTem figuras 
 & notas & drnunciati^nes elle eorum qua; Ch r i sto even- 
 tura eraiit, eorumq; qui in ipfum ut crederent prxcogniti fu- ^ 
 crant, atq; item eorum qux C h r i s t u s ipfe erat fafturus. 
 JusTiNi Makt\kis Opera, f. 16 1, 
 
 Sin dixerint poft adventum Domini falvatoris & prxdicationem 
 Apoftoloaun libros Hebnos fuifle falfatos, cachinnum tenere 
 non potero : Ut Salvator, & Evangeliftx, & Apoftoli ita 
 teftimonia protulerint, ut judcei poftea falfaturi erant ! 
 
 HiERON. Oper. torn. 3. p. 64. c. 6. in Isaiam. 
 
 London. MDCCXXIV. 
 
[iii] 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 TO THE 
 
 READER: 
 
 CONTAINING, 
 
 An Apology for Mr. Whis- 
 ton'^ liherty of writing. 
 
 »y^^^MH E title of my book, and 
 m^s^^i^ the contents, which I Ihall 
 
 l_^£J^:li place at the end of this 
 
 ^ preface, will fufficiently 
 
 explain the fubjefl: and 
 
 method thereof, and make all further 
 
 preliminary to thofe ends needlefs, 
 
 A 2 But 
 
[Iv] 
 
 But It may not be improper to en- 
 deavour to prevent a mifconftruflion 
 and falfe inference, which the fe- 
 cond part, which more particularly 
 concerns Mr. Whiston, may perhaps 
 occafion. 
 
 It is very poffible, that in oppofing 
 the opinions of that ingenious and 
 learned gentleman, I may be unde- 
 fignedly inftrumental in railing up a- 
 gainfl him the paffions of fome rea- 
 ders ; who may think, that the opi- 
 nions he maintains, are fuch, as 
 fliould not be allow 'd to be advanc'd 
 or defended ; and that he ought to 
 fuffer in his perfon or fortune for 
 maintaining them. Wherefore, to 
 clear my own intention, and to pre- 
 vent, as far as I can, fuch thoughts in 
 my readers minds againfl: my adverfa- 
 ry, I will here offer a few particu- 
 lars by way of apology for his liberty 
 of writing ; which, in my opinion, is 
 not only juftifiable in itfelf, but high- 
 ly becoming a Man^ a ChriUian^ and 
 
 a 
 
a Protefianty and efpecially a Clergyman^ 
 a Scholar^ and a Philofopher. 
 
 t . In matters of opinion, it is eve- 
 ry man's natural right and duty to 
 think for himfelf, and to judge up- 
 on fuch evidence as he can procure 
 to himfelf, after he has done his 
 bed endeavours to get information. 
 Human decifions are of no weight 
 in this matter. Another man has 
 no more right to determine what Mr. 
 Whist on's opinions fhall be, than Mr. 
 Whiston has to determine what ano- 
 ther man's opinions fhall be. It feems 
 amazing to confider ; how one man 
 can prefume he has fuch right over a- 
 nother ; and how any man can be fo 
 weak as to imagine another has fuch 
 right over him. Suppofe^ fays (a) 
 Stillingfleet, a man living in the times 
 of the prevalency of Arianifmy tphen nl" 
 moU all the guides of the Church declard 
 A 3 in 
 
 (a) Stillingfleet'; A7i[''Joer to fsveral TreatifiSy ^c, 
 
 pt. X. p. Ifi, 
 
[vi] 
 
 in favour of it^ when fever d great Court' 
 cils opposed and contradiSied that of Nice, 
 when Pope Liberius did fubfcribe the Sir- 
 mian Confellion, and communicated with 
 the Arians, what advice would you give 
 fuch a one if he mujl not exercije his 
 own judgment ? Mufi he follow the prefent 
 guides ? Then he mufi join with the 
 Arians. Mufi he adhere to the Nicene 
 Council. But there were more numerom 
 Councils which condemned it. What rc' 
 medy can be fuppos'd in fuch a cafe, but 
 that every perfon mufi fearch and examine 
 the jeveral doHrines, according to hu 
 befi ability y and judge what is befi for 
 him to believe and praSlife ? 
 
 2. As it is every man's natural 
 right and duty to think, and judge 
 for himfelf in matters of opinion ; 
 fo he fhould be allow'd freely to prO' 
 fefs his opinions, and to endeavour, 
 when he judges proper, to convince 
 others alfo of their truth ^ provided 
 . thofe opinions do not tend to the di- 
 flurbance of fociety. 
 
 For 
 
[ vli ] 
 
 For unlefs all men be allow'd free- 
 ly to profefs their opinions ; the means 
 of information in refpefl: to opinions, 
 muft in great meafure be wanting, 
 and juft inquiries into the truth of 
 opinions almoft imprafticable ; and by 
 confequence oi/r natural right and 
 duty to think and judge for our- 
 felves muft be fubverted, for want 
 of materials, .whereon to employ our 
 minds. A man, by himfelf, can 
 make no great progrefs in know- 
 ledge. He is like to the (b) young 
 man at Chartres in France ; who, being 
 deaf and dumb from his birth till 
 the age of four and twenty, took 
 in but few ideas j and who, tho' 
 he had good natural parts, yer, for 
 want of communication with others, 
 did not even make fuch inferences 
 from the comparifon of thofe ideas, 
 as were very obvious and might be 
 expefted from him. A fingle man 
 
 A 4 is 
 
 {b) Hiftoire de 1' Academic Royale dcs Sciences An. 
 1703. p. 2 2, 25. de I'Edition d'Hollande. 
 
[ ^i" ] 
 
 is unable, by his own ftrength, to 
 take in the compafs of things necelTary 
 to underfland his own opinions fully ; 
 and befides, a man is indifpos'd to 
 ufe his own ftrength, when an un- 
 difturb'd lazinefs, ignorance, and pre- 
 judice give him full fatisfaflion as to 
 the truth of his opinions. But if 
 there be a free profeffion or com- 
 munication of notions ; every man 
 will have an opportunity of acquaint- 
 ing himfelf with all that can be 
 known from men ; and many, for 
 their own fatisfaftion of mind, will 
 make inquiries, and, in order to know 
 the truth of opinions, will defire to 
 know all that can be faid on any fide 
 of a queftion. 
 
 Unlefs men are allow'd to en- 
 deavour to convince others of the 
 truth of their opinions ; all teaching 
 muft be laid afide, and men will be 
 hinder'd from doing the greateft afl: 
 of humanity and charity for one ano- 
 ther. For no man can teach others, 
 but by endeavouring to convince 
 
 them : 
 
[ix] 
 
 them : nor ought any one to teach 
 another any thing, but that whereof 
 he himfelf is perfwaded : nor can 
 any man have any other rule of 
 teaching truth, but his own fenti- 
 ments. 
 
 If fuch liberty oi profejfmg and teach* 
 ing be not allow'd, err or ^ if autho- 
 rized, will keep its ground : and truthy 
 if dormant, will never be brought to 
 light ; or, if author i^d^ will be fup- 
 ported on a falfe and abfurd foun- 
 dation, and fuch as would equally 
 fupport error ; and, if received on 
 the foot of autority^ will not be in 
 the lea ft meritorious to its profeffors. 
 
 Nor are thefe all the ill confequen- 
 ces flowing from the difallowance of 
 this liberty : for nothing has been a 
 greater fource of mifchief among men, 
 than the violent means, that have 
 been us'd, and, indeed, are neceffary 
 to be us'd to deftroy fuch original and 
 fundamental rights and duties of men 
 as to think and judge for themfelves, to 
 profefs what they believe true, and 
 
 to 
 
to teach what they believe true to 
 others. 
 
 3. "Whoever defires that truth 
 fliould take place, lliould be weil- 
 pleas'd to have all men of learning, 
 penetration, and integrity, publilh 
 their opinions. For fuch men are 
 the molt capable of finding out truth 
 themfelves, and of fetting it in a due 
 light before others. Would not every 
 man of underftanding and honefty 
 be glad to know the mofi: intimate 
 thoughts of fuch men, as Hooker, 
 Hales, Chilli ngworth,^ Mede, 
 "w i l k i n s, av h i t c h c o t, m o r e, c u d- 
 wpRTH, Spencer, Tillotson, Bacon, 
 Falkland, Selden, Milton, Marsham, 
 Boyle, Temple, and Locke, (for 
 example) and be forry, that fuch 
 like men ever have been, or are, 
 under any reftraints from fpeaking 
 their minds, and wifli, that they 
 might fpeak their minds on all im- 
 portant queftions in philofophy and 
 theology, like Mr. Whist on ; who 
 has not many fuperiors in learning 
 
 and 
 
[ xl ] 
 
 and penetration, and feems fiiperior 
 hirafelf to moft in integrity ? Is it not 
 ridiculous, that men of the greateft 
 integrity and capacity fliould. be* un- 
 der any difcouragement from making 
 inquiries after truth, and under any 
 difficulties for publifhing writings in 
 confequence of their inquiries ; and 
 that none can fafely fpeak in mat- 
 ters of fpeculation, but the blind fol- 
 lowers of the blind, or the interefted 
 followers of the interefted ? 
 
 4. Not to permit and encourage 
 ingenious, learned, and honeft men 
 to profefs and defend their opinions, 
 when different from ours, is to di- 
 ftruft the truth of our own opinions, 
 and to fear the light. Such condufl: 
 mufl, hi a country of fenfe and learn- 
 ing, increafe the number of unbelie' 
 verSy already fo greatly complaint of^ 
 who, when they fee matters of o- 
 pinion not allow'd to be profefs'd 
 and impartially debated, juftly think 
 they have foul play, and therefore 
 rejefl: many things as falfe and ill- 
 grounded. 
 
C xH ] 
 
 grounded, which otherwife they might 
 receive as truths. And it muft do fo 
 efpecially, when it is confider'd, what 
 a numerous clergy we have ^ who 
 are all bred fcholars, and have litera- 
 ture chiefly in their hands, and are 
 many of them men of great parts, 
 learning, and leifure ; who under- 
 ftand, and praftife all the arts of 
 perfwafion, and have the common 
 people (I mean the common people 
 as to underftanding) devoted to them ; 
 who can never want able men among 
 themfelves (to fay nothing of their 
 followers and dependants), either in 
 the way of banter or ferioufnefs, poe- 
 try or profe, dialogue or difcourfe, 
 declamation or argument, ro anfwer 
 and expofe whatever can be alledg'd 
 in behalf of fallhood by men, who 
 cannot pretend to match them, with- 
 out truth on their fide ; and who 
 have the fole priviledge of fpeaking 
 frequently to the people from the 
 
 pulpit^ 
 
[ xiiJ ] 
 
 (c) pulpit, where, as Mr. Whlflon ob* 
 ferves, they may dogmatically afferty 
 and earneflly prejs what they would 
 hardly venture at all to juflify eljewhercy 
 in any learned converfation, or as Boileau 
 expreffes it, Cefi la que bien ou mal on a 
 droit de tout dire, (cc) 
 
 5. The grand principle of men con- 
 fiderd as having a relation to the 
 Deity and under an obligation to be 
 religious, is, that they ought to con- 
 fult their reajon ; and of Chriftians^ 
 and Protejlants, that they ought to 
 confult the Scriptures as the rule of their 
 faith and praBife, But how can thefe, 
 which are practical principles, be du- 
 ly put in praflife ; unlefs we be at 
 liberty^ at all times and in all points, 
 to conlider and debate with others, 
 (as well as with ourfelves) what rea* 
 fon and Scripture fay, and to profefs 
 and aB openly, according to whac we 
 are convinc'd they fay ? How can we 
 
 be 
 
 (c) 'Papers relat'wg to Mr. Whiflon'; cmi[e, &c. p. 1 70. 
 (cc) Sat. I. V. 149. 
 
[ xlv ] 
 be better inform'd than by ufing the 
 beft means of information ; which 
 confifts in confulting reafon and Scrips 
 ture, and calling in the aid of others ? 
 Of what ufe is it to confult reafon 
 and Scripture at all, as any means of 
 information , if we are not, upon 
 conviflion, to follow their diftates ? 
 And what principles of religion are 
 men to profefs (which all fay muft 
 be) openly, and afl: upon, but thofe, 
 whereof they are convinc'd ? 
 
 6. Clergymen, by being devoted 
 to the fervice of truth, and to preach 
 the gofpel of truth, are under a par- 
 ticular obligation to inquire into the 
 mind of God, and to impart the dif- 
 coveries they make to the worjd, and, 
 as fucceffors of the Apoftles, to go and 
 teach all nations. And they cannot 
 a£l: more efFeftualJy ag^inft the de- 
 fign of their own profeffion, than ei- 
 ther by being filent as to the difco- 
 veries they make, or by preaching and 
 writing contrary to their own light ; 
 to fay nothing of their obligations as 
 
 j- men 
 
[XV] 
 
 men to affift their neighbours by put- 
 ting them in the right way, and to 
 deal fincerely with all men. Will 
 any layman be fo ftupid and foolilh 
 as to fay, that he delires and expefts 
 it of the clergy y that they fhould know- 
 ingly deceive him, and lead him on 
 in an erroneous way ? Will any of 
 the clergy be fo abandoned as to fay, 
 that they ought thus to deceive the 
 laity ; tho' the laity themfelves fhould 
 defire it, and be pleas'd to be thus 
 deceivd ? And yet this ought to be 
 the- ftate of the cafe, if clergymen are 
 not to declare, what they take to be 
 the will of God, to the people. 
 
 7. Nothing can tend more to the 
 true honour of the clergy^ than that 
 they iliould have full liberty^ that is, 
 that they fiiould be under no impe- 
 diments in their inquiries after truth, 
 nor in the leaft fuffer for teaching 
 what they believe true. 
 
 For thofe learned clergymen ; who 
 for want of this liberty are now o- 
 
 blig'd 
 
[ xvi ] 
 
 blig'd (as a great Divine (d) juftly 
 complains) to turn themfelves to the 
 Heathen Hijiorians, Poets, Orators, and 
 Philofophers ; to fpend ten or tr^elvc years 
 upon Horace or Terence; and to 
 illuflrate biHet-doux's or drunken catches, 
 explain objcene jefls, and make happy 
 emendations of paffages, that a modeU 
 man would blujh at ; fuch learned 
 clergymen, I fay, would then apply 
 their jagacity and labour more HO NO' 
 RABLT, as well as more virtuoufly 
 and religioufly, to the fludy of religion 
 and the Scriptures, 1 fay, more HO- 
 NORABLT ; becaufe, fuch appli- 
 cation is honourable in itfelf, and any 
 other is difhonourable in them, what- 
 ever degree of (e) reputation it may 
 now give them. 
 
 And at the fame time, other learned 
 clergymen, who may think it their du^ 
 ty to inquire after religious truth, will 
 be under no temptation of profefling to 
 
 believe, 
 
 id) Hare'j 2>/^. a?id iDifcmrag. p. 28. 
 CO lb. p. i^. 
 
[ xvii ] 
 
 believe, what they believe not, but 
 may then afl: the honourable part of 
 fincerity. 
 
 And as this propofal tends to the 
 HONOUR of all thQ clergy, fo it can- 
 not be againft the intereft of any : and 
 it v/ill be greatly for the interelh of 
 Juch, who think themfelves oblig'd in 
 confcience to profefs opinions, which 
 happen to be contrary to thofe re- 
 ceived, and whofe cafe feems to be wor- 
 thy of confideration ; for they will 
 then be in no danger of lofing prefer- 
 ment on account of their integrity. 
 
 8. Men have no reafon to appre- 
 hend any ill confequence to truth (for 
 which alone they ought to have any 
 concern) from free debate ; but on the 
 contrary to apprehend ill confequence 
 to truth from free debate being dif- 
 allow'd. For truth propos'd to the 
 underftanding is like light to the eye: 
 it muft diftinguilh itfelf from error, as 
 light does itfelf from darknefs. And 
 while free debate is allow'd, truth 
 will never want a profeflbr thereof, 
 
 a not 
 
C xvlli ] 
 nor an advocate to offer fome plea 
 in its behalf ; and it can • never be 
 wholly banifh'd, but where human 
 decifions, back'd with power, carry 
 all before them. 
 
 Would Tranjuhflantiation pafs in 
 France without an attack made upon 
 it, if men could freely write againft it ? 
 Would truth fufier there, if that do- 
 ftrine were allow'd to be a fubjefl: 
 of debate ? Could that doflrine keep 
 the ground it now has there, under 
 free debate ? Would its fallhood, fet 
 forth in the utmoft light, have no 
 effeft on the underftandings of the 
 polite and ingenious French nation ? 
 Nay, is there any thing, that keeps 
 up that abfurdity, and ftifles the light 
 of truth, but autority ? And are not 
 the popifli ecclefiafticks fo fenfible of 
 the force of truth, and fo particular- 
 ly fearful of lofing that pearl of great 
 price^ the darling do6lrine of Tranftib* 
 fiantiationj that no man can with fafe- 
 ty, where they have influence, to 
 
 his 
 
[ xix ] 
 
 Ills perfbn, fortune, and reputation^ 
 call it in queftion. 
 
 Did popery get any gtound in Eng' 
 land by the liberty the papifts had in 
 the reign of king James the Jecond to 
 publilh whatever they pleas'd in be- 
 half of their religion ? On the contra- 
 ry, was not popery more exposed to 
 fcorn and contempt by being the fub- 
 jefl: of debate, than if nothing had 
 been wrote in behalf of it ? 
 
 Does proteflantijm decay in Holland, 
 where not only the papifts themfelves 
 print what apologies and controv^erfial 
 treatifes they pleafe, but where the 
 bookfellers print all manner of popifli 
 books, for which there is any demand, 
 and by confequence chufe fuch books 
 chiefly, which the papifts themfelves 
 deem moft ftrenuoufly written ? 
 
 9. If men did but confider, what 
 infinite variety of religions have pre- 
 vaifd, and do now prevail in the 
 world ; what variety of notions and 
 praSifes have prevailed, and do pre- 
 vail in the fame country ; what revo- 
 a 2 lutions 
 
lutions of opinions there have been 
 among Chriiiians, and how greatly 
 divided they have always been, and 
 now are in fentiment, and how much 
 departed every feft thereof is from 
 their primitive inftitution ; what a 
 fmall part of the world is poffefs'd 
 by Chriftians, and how very inconfi- 
 derable a part is poffefs'd by any one 
 fet of Chriftians, and what little fi- 
 gure the church of England fwhofe 
 members are infinitely divided in fen- 
 timent from one another) makes upon 
 the globe ; what monftrous abfurdi- 
 ties prevail in mofi: places, and what 
 exceffive ignorance every where ; and 
 how this rtate of things has endur'd 
 among men, who have been and are 
 chiefly con drifted by autority and com- 
 pell'd by force ; it lliould feem, that 
 autority and force are fo far from 
 being the way to put an end to er- 
 ror, or make men wifer, that they 
 have contributed to encreafe the er- 
 rors and follies of men. And if this 
 be fo, I muft conclude for the neceffi- 
 
[ xxl ] 
 
 ty of introducing free inquiry^ profefji" 
 on, and debate ; which cannot make 
 men more erroneous and foolilli than 
 they are ; ^nd feems to be the only 
 way to make men lefs erroneous and 
 more wife than they are ; and does 
 in fail make men lefs erroneous and 
 more wife in every country, accord- 
 ing to that degree of it, which prevails, 
 A facred author tells us, (/J Wifdom 
 is gloriom and never fadeth an' ay ; and 
 is EASILY SEEN of them that love her,. 
 and FOUND of fiich ^ s e e k her, in ma'^ 
 king herjelf firjl knoivn unto them. He 
 that jeeketh her early fl^all have no great 
 travels : for he /hall find her fitting at his 
 door. . To think therefore on her if per- 
 fe^iion of wifdom, and whofo rratcheth 
 for her fljall be quickly with out care. For 
 fhe goeth about feeking fuch as are worthy 
 of her, fljeweth herfelf favourably unto 
 them in the ways, and meeteth them in 
 every thought. So that if men were not 
 put out of their way by autority, but 
 were allow'd to feek, or would of them- 
 
 a 3 felves 
 
 (/) Wifdom 6. iz—i6. 
 
[ xxii ] 
 
 felves feek truth they could not fail of 
 finding her. 
 
 lo. If it be faid, that it is neceffary 
 to peace and quiet in the Jlate, that there 
 Jhould be no debates about [peculations ; 
 and that all men JJjould Jquare their prin' 
 ciples and praBiJes by what they find re- 
 ceivd in their country ; then let not 
 men pretend any concern for truth, and 
 againft faljhood ; for this removes truth 
 and falfl)ood out of the queftion. 
 Let them then fet up for Hobbifm or 
 Popery ; which by force and an inqui- 
 fition, perhaps^ may keep all things 
 quiet, as well as, certainly, molt, if 
 not all, men ignorant. But in reali- 
 ty, the allowance of free debate is the 
 method to obtain a more folid and 
 lafting peace [peace flowing from tem- 
 per and principle) than that mere 
 outward form of peace , which is fome- 
 times obtaln'd by foice and an inqui- 
 sition. For if debates are free, that 
 is, if no man gets or lofes by main- 
 taining particular opinions, the grand 
 motives which make men difturb one 
 
 ano- 
 
[ xxIH ] ^ 
 
 another about opinions will ceafe ; and 
 they will infenfibly fall into 3, due temper 
 of mind (which force can never prc- 
 curej and will be no more angry with 
 one another on account of different 
 fentiments, than for different features 
 of their faces or for different propor- 
 tions of their bodies. 
 
 Befides^ free debate tends to fhorten 
 and leffen the number of controver- 
 fies. Many points, notwithftanding 
 the prefent warm contefts, and learn- 
 ed books written pro and con about 
 them are fo plain, that they would 
 not then bear a long debate : ma- 
 ny others would be dropp'd, when 
 it was feen, that they were too ob- 
 fcure for the learned to mafter : and 
 all points of fpeculation whatfoever 
 would be dropp'd among the vulgar ; 
 who, when fpeculations ceafe to be 
 recommended to them as objects for 
 their zeal, and are neither matters of 
 faftion or intereft, will concern them- 
 felves no more about them, than they 
 do about mathematlcks or other mat- 
 a 4 ters, 
 
[ xxiv ] ^ 
 
 ters, whereof they are incapable of 
 underftanding any thing. 
 
 A learned (g) author gives us the 
 following account of the ftate of re- 
 ligious controverfy in Greece and the 
 parts about it, as it is fet out by 
 antient Authors, until the days of 
 Socrates. He fays, There rvere as 
 many Religions almoft as men ; for eve- 
 ry maris religion was his fancy ; and 
 they had moji credit and autority, that 
 could heU invent^ and make befl Jljevp, 
 Among fo many Religions there were 
 no contr over fie s^ but very good agree'* 
 ment and concord ; becaufe no reafon 
 us^d either to examine or to difprove. 
 There was no talk among men^ but of 
 dreams^ revelations^ and apparitions : 
 and they that could fo eafily fancy God 
 in whatfoever they did fancy^ had no 
 reafon to mifirufi or to queflion the re- 
 lations of others, tho* never fo ftrange, 
 which were fo agreeable to their hu- 
 
 mours 
 
 (g) Cafaubon of Enthttfwfm^ p. 6. 
 
[ XXV ] 
 
 motirs or difpofitions ; and by xphich 
 them/elves n?ere confirm d in their own 
 fuppos^d Enthufiafms, 
 
 After the days of S o c r a t e s, Greece 
 for a long time abounded in philo- 
 fophers, who were divided into all 
 poflible fentiments concerning the 
 moft important points of fpeculation, 
 and difputed with each other and 
 wrote books without number and 
 without controul in behalf of their 
 Schemes. And the variety and alter- 
 cation among them whetted and im- 
 proved the wits of Greece^ infomuch 
 that Athens by their means became the 
 theatre of learning and politenefs , 
 and was vifited by great numbers 
 of foreigners, who, either as travel- 
 lers or Undents fent thither by their 
 parents and guardians, came to be 
 inftru6led by the philofophers. Nor 
 did their different notions, under 
 the liberty allow'd, ever diftiirb the 
 civil government ; but on the contra- 
 ry kept the men of fenfe in good 
 humour, gave th^m entertainment 
 
 at 
 
[ xxvi ] 
 
 at their rcpafts and parties of pleafure, 
 where the chief diverfion often was 
 to debate with temper and ciA^lity 
 queflions of fpeculation i"; wherein 
 they imitated the philofophers them- 
 felves, who, tho' they wrote in be- 
 half of their feveral oppofite fenti- 
 ments, have not left a book behind 
 them wrote with the leaft fpirit of 
 rancour or malignity. There was 
 little or nothing got or loft by main- 
 taining opinions ; and therefore men 
 were not at all concern 'd to impofe 
 their opinions on one another ; nor 
 were they angry for diiTent in opi- 
 nions any more than for difagree- 
 ment in fortune, or tafte, or about 
 beauty in a miftrefs : nor was there 
 any application made to gain the com- 
 mon people to bawl in behalf of any 
 fet of notions ; which, as they un- 
 derftood not, fo they left wholly to 
 the men of learning and fenfe. How 
 unlike is this to the ftate of things 
 among us Chriftians ; whofe religi- 
 on exceeds the religion of thefe old 
 I Greeksj 
 
[ xxvli ] 
 Greeks, as much as they exceeded 
 us in pra6lile. Our difputes with 
 one another, for want of impartial 
 liberty, make convulfions in govern- 
 ment, involve neighbourhoods in feuds 
 and animofities, render men impolite, 
 and make converfation among friends, 
 of diiferent fentiments, often difa- 
 greeable ? Into what feuds did the 
 City of Hambourg run (to omit a 
 thoufand other inilances) on occafion 
 of a difpute between two miniflers^ 
 whether in the L orcCs prayer^ the firfl: 
 words fliould be tranflated Our Father, 
 or Father Our -, under whom the ci- 
 tizens were work'd up into great heat 
 and flame againft one another, and at 
 length divided themfelves into parties 
 that fought daily in the ftreecs ? No- 
 thing of which could happen under 
 liberty and a free debate ; to which 
 it is abfolutely neceffary (as I before 
 obferv'dj that no man get or lofe 
 by maintaining either fide of a que- 
 ftion. There would then be nothing 
 to raife or feed the fpirit of conten- 
 tion : 
 
[ xxvlii ] 
 
 tion : enthufiafm^ like love and other 
 paflions, would fpend itfelf by free 
 vent and amicable collifion : knavery 
 would want its fpur : and grojs non- 
 fenfe, when unfupported by enthufiafm, 
 and knavery, would link and fall by 
 being inquir'd into and expos'd ; for 
 as a true fenfe of things is only to 
 be got from trial and experience, or 
 comparifon, fo let fuch trial be 
 made, and the difference between 
 things will foon be feen, and the 
 right meafure of all things of con- 
 fequence to us, will foon be found 
 out. 
 
 • While Rome was in the height of 
 Its glory for arms, learning, and po- 
 litenefs, there were Jlx hundred diffe^ 
 rent religions (h) profefs'd and allow'd 
 therein. And this great variety does 
 not appear to have had the leaft ill 
 effefl: on the peace of the ftate, or 
 on the temper of men ; but on the 
 ^ con- 
 
 (;>)) ZiJ^fim deMagn. Rom. 1. 4. c. 5. 
 
[ xxlx ] 
 
 contrary, a very good effefl : for 
 there is an entire lilence in hiftory a- 
 bout the afljions of thofe antient diffe- 
 rent profeifors, who, it feems, liv'd 
 fo quietly together as to furnilh no 
 materials for an Ecdejiaflical Hiftory y 
 fuch as Chriftians have given occafion 
 for, which a reverend Divine (i) thus 
 defcribes. Ecclefiaftical HiTlory, fays he, 
 if chiefly /pent in reciting the wild opi- 
 nions of hereticks^ (that is, in belying 
 here ticks) ; the contentions between Em" 
 perors and Popes ; the idle and fuper^ 
 ftitiom canons^ and ridiculous decrees and 
 conftitutions of packed councils , their 
 debates about frivolous matters, and 
 playing the fool with religion ; the con- 
 fultations of fynods about augmenting 
 the revenues of the clergy, and efta-* 
 blifhing their pride and grandeur ; the 
 irnpoflures of monks and fryars, the 
 fchifms and factions of the church ; the 
 tyranny, cruelty, and impiety of the 
 
 clergy j 
 
 (i) EdwsLrds'' s New 2) ifccveries^ ^c. p. 40^ 41, 
 
[ XXX ] 
 
 clergy ; info much that the excellent Gro- 
 Tius, (k) fays, " He that reads eccle- 
 *' fiaftical hiftory reads nothing but 
 " the roguery and folly of bifliops and 
 *^ churchmen." 
 
 In fine, matters were happily (/) 
 ballanc'd among the antient Greeks 
 and Romans, " Reafon had fair play ; 
 *' politenefs prevaiFd ; learning and 
 *' fcience flouriili'd ; and wonderful 
 '^ was the harmony, temper, friend- 
 *' fliip, charity, and peace, which a- 
 " rofe from the contrarieties allow'd 
 " among them. Enthufiafm and fu* 
 ^^ perflition being mildly treated, and 
 " let alone, never rag'd to that de- 
 *' gree, as to occafion wars, or blood- 
 " ftied, or perfecutions, or devafta- 
 *^ tions in the world." 
 
 Are not the United Provinces^ re- 
 markable for liberty and p^ace ? There 
 all men, how different foever in no- 
 tions, live in fuch peace and friend- 
 
 lliip 
 
 (fe) Grofiz Epiftolje, p. 22. 
 
 (/) Shaftsbury'5 Lener of Entht^fiaftn. 
 
[ xxxl ] 
 
 fhip with one another, as is unknown 
 to men of the fame religion in other 
 countries ; where fome foolilh que- 
 ftion about the antiquity and autority 
 of hair^teeth^tearSj milker ags ^handkerchiefs^ 
 Jmocksy bones^ and other reliSls^ or a- 
 bout the immaculate conception of the 
 Virgin, or about habits and drefs, or 
 about (w) the manner of mens holding 
 their fingers when they crofs themfelves^ 
 and fuch like mere ceremonies, or a- 
 bout metaphyfical fpeculations (fome of 
 which are as httle underftood by the 
 difputants themfelves as by the vul- 
 gar) is fuel for the moft uncharitable 
 contention. There the lyon and the 
 lamb, I mean, the Fapift and the 
 Mennonite^ lye down in peace together; 
 the firft forgetting his wonted rage, 
 and the latter preferving that inno- 
 cence, which he was born with, and 
 which liberty and experience have 
 cultivated in him, (n) It if hardly to 
 
 be 
 
 {m) Perry'5 State of Rtiffia, p. 153. 
 («) Tejnple'5 Obfcrvat, on the Netherlands, p. acj. 
 Sec. 
 
[ xxxii ] 
 
 le imagindy fays Sir W. Temple, how 
 £ill the moleiwe and JJoarpnefs^ which ac-^ 
 companies the differences of religion in o^ 
 ther countries^ feems to be appeasd or 
 foftned in the United Provinces, by the ge^ 
 neral freedom which all men enjoy ^ either 
 hy allowance or conni'vance ,- nor how fa- 
 Uion and ambition are thereby difabled 
 to colour their interested and [editions de^ 
 figns with the pretences of religion^ which 
 has cofi the Chriftian World fo much blood 
 for thefe laft hundred and ffty years. 
 Ko man can here canplain of prejfure in 
 bis confcience ; of being forcd to any pitb^ 
 lick profejjion of his pri'vate faith i of 
 leing reftraind from his own manner of 
 worJJjip in his hoiife^, or obligd to any 
 ether abroad : and whoever asks more 
 /;/ point of religion^ without the undifpu- 
 ted evidence of a particular miffion from 
 heaien^ may be juftly jiifpeaed^ not to ask 
 for Gods fahy but for his own i ftnce pre- 
 tending to fo'vereignty^ injlead of liberty^ 
 in opinion^ is indeed pretending the fame 
 in ant or it y too. 'But in this commonwealth^ 
 no man haijing any reafon to complain of 
 
 oppreffwn 
 
[ xxxiii ] 
 
 opprejfwn in confcience i and no man ha- 
 zing hopes^ hy advancing his religion^ to 
 form a party ^ or break in upon the fiatey 
 the differences in opinion make none in 
 affeBio72Sj and little in converfation^ where 
 it ferves hut for entertainment and ^variety, 
 They argue without intereji and^ anger ; 
 they differ without enmity or [corn j and 
 they agree without confederacy. Men liz^e 
 together^ like citizens of the worlds affo- 
 ciated by the common tyes of humanity ^ 
 and b^ the bonds of peace y under the im- 
 partial proteUion of indifferent laws^ with 
 equal encouragement of all art and in- 
 duftry^ and equal freedom of [peculation 
 and enquiry i all men enjoying their ima- 
 ginary excellencies and acquifitions of know- 
 ledg^ej with as much fafety as their more 
 real poffeffions and improvements of fortune* 
 And as in other places^ tis in every mans 
 choice with whom he will eat or lodge^ 
 with whom go to market^ or to ccurt; 
 fo it feems to be here-, with whom he will 
 pray or go to churchy or affociate in the 
 fervice and worjhip of God i 7ior is any 
 wore notice taken or more cenfure pafsd^ 
 
 b of 
 
[ xxxiv ] 
 
 e?/ what every one chiifes in thefe cafes ^ 
 than in the other* 
 
 1 believe the force of commerce^ allian- 
 
 cesj and acquaintances^ fpreading fo far 
 
 as they do in fmall circuits^ {fuch as the 
 
 'Province of Holland) may contribute much 
 
 to make converfation and all the offices of 
 
 common life fo eafy^ among fo different opi- 
 
 nions^ of which fo many fever al perfons 
 
 are often in every mans eye j and no man 
 
 checks or takes offence at faces or cufloms 
 
 or ceremonies^ he fees every day^ as at 
 
 thofe he hears of in places far difiant^, and 
 
 perhaps by partial relations^ and comes 
 
 to fee late in his life^ and after he has 
 
 long been pojfefs'd by paffion or prejudice 
 
 ag^ainfl them. However it is^ Religion 
 
 may pofftbly do more good in other places^ 
 
 but it does lefs hurt here i and where-ever 
 
 the invifible eff'e'cis are the greateji and 
 
 mofi advantageous^ 1 am fure the vifible 
 
 are fo in this country^ by the continual 
 
 and iindifitirVd civil peace of their go- 
 
 vernment for fo long a courfe of years y 
 
 and by fo mighty an increafe of their 
 
 people^ wherein will appear to confift 
 
 chiefly 
 
[ XXXV ] 
 
 chiefly the 'vqft growth of their trade and 
 riches^ and confequently the Jirength and 
 greatnefs of their ftate. 
 
 I will conclude this article with an 
 obfervation of our moft judicious and 
 learned [p) Archbifliop. WhiJft inftead 
 of examining^ fays he, impartially^ where 
 the truth lyes^ men magifierially afjume to 
 themfel'Ves an autority to denounce anathe- 
 ma's againfl their hrethren^ who would 
 conmnce them of their deviations i it is 
 in 'vain to hope^ that either truth Jhould 
 prevail^ ^r P e a c e and Unity he eftahlijh'd 
 among us, 'But would they once he per- 
 fwaded to remo've this ohflacle out of the 
 way ; would they know themfelves to he hut 
 men-, and as fuch expos d to the fame frail- 
 ties and infirmities with others ,• would they 
 impartially fearch after truths out of the 
 alone certain and infallihle rule of it^ the 
 word of God ,• why flooidd we defpair^ hut 
 that the light of the glorious gofpel of Christ 
 
 b 2 mi^ht 
 
 (p) Wake'i Tref. before Sure and honed meanifof 
 the Q^nvsrfioii of Heretickj, p. ^» 
 
'[ XXXVl ] 
 
 might fo JJnne upon us, as to guide our 
 feet into the way 6/f Pe a ce. 
 
 1 1. The advantage of free debate 
 to fociety is infinite. It is not only 
 the way to true religion, and to true 
 peace^ but the way to knowledge and 
 artSj which are the foundations of 
 politenefsj order, happinefs, and pro- 
 Iperity ; as ignorance is the foundation 
 of brutality, diforder, mifery, and 
 declenlion in fociety. It is the way 
 to make men honeft and lincere in 
 the profeflion of religion (as impo- 
 fition is only the way to make men 
 knaves and hypocrites) ; and that 
 will introduce hone fly in other re- 
 fpeds, which is the befl -policy^ and 
 the befl improvement of man, 
 
 1 2. The bulk of men do, I con- 
 fefs, reafon and praftife very diffe- 
 rently from what I have afierted and 
 defended. Moft men, confcious of 
 their own weaknefs, fee plainly, that 
 they are unable, by any application 
 to inquiries, to judge for themfelves 
 in many points. Thence they con- 
 clude 
 
[ xxxvii ] 
 
 dude they ought to be govern'd in 
 their belief by the judgment of o- 
 thers. Then they take up with 
 fuch guides, as fome chance or o- 
 ther direfts them to ; who not only 
 form their opinions for them, but 
 make them zealous for thofe opini- 
 ons. 
 
 Upon which way of reafoning and 
 praftife, I will only obferve ; that 
 ^eal and ignorance are a-moft abfurd 
 and ridiculous compofition in the fame 
 perfons ; and that thefe men moft 
 manlfeftly determine the point be- 
 fore them wrong, by taking lides in 
 matters, wherein, as underftanding 
 nothing, they have no concern, and 
 fhould not pretend to have any opi- 
 nion at all. Would it not be ex- 
 ceffively ridiculous to fee ignorant 
 people zealoufly engaged for or a- 
 gainft propofitions (as led by diffe- 
 rent guides chofen at a venture) in 
 Aflronomy^ whereof they neither do, 
 nor can underftand any thing ? And 
 is it lefs ridiculous for ignorant po- 
 
 b 3 pk 
 
[ xxx^viii ] 
 
 pie zealoufly to concern themfelves 
 about other matters, (as led by guides 
 chofen at a venture) whereof they 
 know as little ? 
 
 13. Men have vary different tem- 
 pers and capacities from one another, 
 naturally ; have very different educa- 
 tions ; do improv^e themfelves very 
 differently by fludy, according to 
 their different capacities, application, 
 and opportunities ; have different in- 
 terefts, paffions, and infirmities, by 
 which they are influenc'd and afted ; 
 and are all fallible, not only in mat- 
 ters tliat depend upon reafon, but in 
 under {landing the Scriptures, which, 
 tho' true in themfelves, and delivered 
 to us by divine infpiration, are in 
 many places too obfcure for men to 
 be certain of their meaning. 
 
 Hence a foundation is laid for un- 
 avoidable differences of opinion among 
 men ; which differences are greatly 
 encreas'd by the dogmatick dijcipline 
 that is infinitely more promoted and 
 prevalent than thofe difciplineSj which 
 
 teach 
 
[ xxxix ] 
 
 teach men. to doubt and diftruft the 
 truth of matters proposed to them : 
 and God himfelf, by forming men as 
 he has done, and by placing them in 
 their prefent circumftances, feems to 
 have defign'd, that they fhould not 
 agree in opinion ; or, at leaft, feems 
 not to have defign'd, that they Ihould 
 agree. 
 
 What then can any violent attempt 
 or projefl: to hinder men from differ- 
 ing in opinipn from one another be, 
 but an attempt, to fubvert the com- 
 mon ftate of human nature and the 
 defign of God ; and not lefs ridiculous, 
 romantick, and impollible to fucceed, 
 than an attempt to hinder fpeech, or 
 to make all men of the fame fize or 
 height, or to quell the natural paffion 
 of love, or to build a tower up to 
 heaven ? 
 
 And mufl: not the men of this pro- 
 jefl: be perfefl: Don Quixot's, and the 
 greateft Fanaticks, in fetting about and 
 purfuing fo unaccountable a work ? 
 
 4 
 
 If 
 
[xl] 
 
 If fome great genius would but 
 give an account of the aftions of thefe 
 men (who may be properly call'd Saint* 
 err ants) in the Life and Adventures of 
 fome renown'd perfecuting Prince or 
 Ecclefiaflick^ who has fpent his time in 
 promoting and eftabHlliing unity and 
 uniformity in whimfies^drefsjand forms; 
 as the great Cervantes has done of 
 Knight-Errantry^ in the Life and AEiions 
 of Don QuixoT, who fpent his time in 
 Adventures to free the world of mon- 
 fters, and to tame gyants, and all in 
 honour of Dulcinea Del Toboso^ 
 whom, tho' homely and agreeable 
 only to his deprav'd tafte, all the 
 world lliould be oblig'd to bow down 
 before and to admire, as a confum- 
 mate beauty : he might give us a 
 more ufeful and entertaining work 
 than Cervantes has done. Saint'erf 
 rantry is a more common and natural 
 enthufiafm than Knight-errantry^ which 
 was an enthufiafm, but of yefterday 
 and of fmall duration and extent ; 
 and therefore Saint-errantry has fur- 
 
 nilli'd 
 
nifh'd materials in almoft all ages, 
 and infinite materials in particular 
 ages, which are recorded in hifloyyy 
 but efpecialjy in ecclejidlical hiUory. 
 
 But till a new Cervantes arifes 
 and performs this work, I would 
 recommend the Hiflory o/Don Quixot, 
 as in fome meafure fuited and appli- 
 cable to Samt'enantry, to be read in 
 conjunftion with ecclefiaflick hiflorians. 
 For the principle of enthufiafm being 
 the fame in tjie Saint ^ as in the Knight^ 
 and producing like efFefts ; the reader 
 may, by comparing things, and by an 
 eafy application in many cafes, take 
 Don Q.U i x o t for a Turmigant Saint^ 
 and a Turmigant Saint for a "PoN 
 Qui X ot. 
 
 14. It may be objefted to Mr. 
 W HI ST ON, that he has advanc'd a 
 multitude of paradoxes about very im- 
 portant matters, many of which are 
 founded on very flight appearances of 
 probability ; and, in particular, that 
 he calls in queftion the integrity of 
 our prefent copies of the Old Tefta- 
 
 ment. 
 
[ xli! ] 
 
 jnent, which he fuppofes corrupted 
 to that degree by the Jews in re- 
 fpeft to fome of the quotations made 
 from thence by the Apoftles, as to 
 make their reafonings from, and ufe 
 of, thofe quotations, feem weak and 
 enthufiafticaL 
 
 To which I anfwer. 
 
 That Mr. Whiston afls the part of 
 an honefl: man and lover of truth, by 
 thus propofing his conjeSbures and Jen" 
 timents^ and putting points of confe- 
 quence in the way of examination, 
 ^nd is fo much better than all o- 
 ther fuch learned Divines as him- 
 felf, as he exceeds them in the li- 
 berty he takes of propofing his cori" 
 jeSiures and jentiments : that the me- 
 thod, whereof he fets us an exam- 
 ple, tends to the information of all 
 men of fenfe, and both encreafes 
 the number of capable judges, and 
 renders the learned themfelves better 
 judges than they were before ; that, 
 in particular, the Old Teftament will 
 appear fo undoubtedly genuine and 
 
 un- 
 
[ xlili ] 
 
 uncorrupt in the refpefl: abovemen- 
 tion'd, when the queftion is debated, 
 that it mult unavoidably gain ground 
 as a genuine and uncorrupt book, in 
 that refpefl, in the minds of all in- 
 telligent men, who are not wedded to 
 an hypothefis : and that it ought to be 
 confider'd , that Mr. Wh i s t o n pro- 
 pofes his fcheme (o) of a corrupted 
 Old Teflament, as the bell: and on- 
 ly method of defending chriftianity, 
 which, according to him, had a ra- 
 tional dependance on the Old Tefta- 
 ment before it was corrupted ; and 
 that he apprehends, that the fcheme 
 or fuppofition of an uncorrupted 
 Old Teftament really deftroys the 
 truth of chriflianity, and gives the 
 Deifts, Jews, and Infidels, a juft fub- 
 jefl: of triumph over it, which, ac- 
 cording to him, is now in an (p) 
 irreconcileable flate with, and depends 
 
 not 
 
 Co) See alfo his Advertifement bef. re his Supplement 
 (/>) Whilton'j £/7^j, ^c. p. 2<r3. 
 
[xHv] 
 
 not on, the prefent Old Teftament : 
 whereby this matter amounts to no 
 more than a queftion between Chri- 
 ftians contending for the truth of 
 chriftlanity againft unbelievers, viz. 
 which is the beft method of defend- 
 ing chriftianity, whether by fuppofing 
 the Old Teftament corrupted or un- 
 corrupted. 
 
 But Mr. Wh I s t o n himfelf, in few 
 words, makes a juft and true defence 
 for liberty, and alfo a noble propofal 
 in htha\£ of Truth and Chriftianity^ when 
 he fays, (^) / wiJJ) that all unbelievers 
 were openly aUoxpct and invited to pro* 
 duce their real arguments^ [tibftantiai 
 obje5lions, and confiderabk doubts rpith- 
 out moleftation ; as being perjrvaded^ 
 fays he, they are capable of fatisfaflory 
 anfrvers and fohaions. For it is fuffi- 
 cient, that all the unbelievers argu- 
 ments can be anfwer'd. The anjwers 
 and folutions mention'd by Mr. W. 
 
 I which 
 
 (f ) Whifion'i Refle6lio'as on tlie 2)ifc. of Free-think-^ 
 iffg, p. 6. 
 
which are now wanting, would, if 
 produc'd, greatly weaken the caufe 
 of unbelievers ; who can now pre- 
 tend to have real arguments, and /«i- 
 flantial objections unanfwer'd, and con- 
 fiderable doubts unfolv'd ; and clamour, 
 becaufe they have not liberty to 
 fpeak for themfelves • and who have 
 a pretence to fay, that their adver- 
 faries^ confcious of the weaknefs of 
 their own caufe, dare not let them 
 fpeak or write againft it. And Mr. W. 
 is very far from being lingular in 
 thinking, that it would be a bene- 
 fit to allow infidels to publifii their 
 obje£Hons againfl: chrlftianity. 
 
 Gro Tius, in a letter to Peireski, 
 fays, (r) I fend you, moU noble Sir^ 
 jome paffages taken out of the vpritings 
 ^/Porphyry, by the Defenders of 
 the Chriflian Religion : from whence you 
 may eafily fee, horv many things might 
 have been produced out of his books for 
 
 the 
 
 (r) Gror/i Epift. p. 15)7. Ep. 505?, 
 
[ xlvi ] 
 
 the purpofe of chriftianity, if vpc had 
 them imire ; thofe hooks efpecially^ which 
 he wrote againfl the Chnflians^ wherein 
 he put many weapons into our hands 
 that might be employed againfi himfelf 
 and the Pagans, As to the poifon 
 contain d in thofe books^ fufficient an- 
 tidotes were to be had out of many 
 apologetick writings of the antient Chri" 
 Jiians, and efpecially out of the books 
 <j/"Origen againU Celsus, and of 
 Cyril agalnTi Julian. Wherefore I 
 fhould efleem it a publick benefit to 
 have thofe books in the hands of fuch 
 men who are willing and able to ufe 
 them, 
 
 (j) It were much to be desir'd, fays 
 the Great Joseph Scaliger, that 
 we had the books which Porphyry 
 wrote againU the Chrifiian Religion, 
 
 Le Clerc (0 f^ys? "hat the thirty 
 books of E u s E B I u s agamji Porphyry, 
 are the greatefi lofs that could be in 
 
 rc' 
 
 0) Scaligerana Art. ^orfbyrim. 
 
 (t) ZeOerc Bib. Univ. Tom. lo. p. 4P4- 
 
[ xlvil ] 
 
 refpeB to the worhs of Eusebius j for 
 by them we might ha-ve learn d the oh- 
 jeUions of the ahleft Thilofopher of his 
 time againft the Chriflian 'Religion^ and 
 the anfwer of the moji learned "Bijloop of 
 his age. 
 
 The late Biftiop (/() L o y d fays, Tho 
 fome of our T>eijis complain of the lofs of 
 P o R p H Y R y's books againft the Chriflian 
 Keligion^ yet they may be affurd for their 
 comfort^ they will not want the help of 
 our learned men to bring them to light. 
 We want them indeed on many accounts; 
 but efpecially^ to JJoew them^ that as 
 they ha've Porphyry 's malice^ fo if they 
 had his great learning too^ both thefe 
 joind together wotild not hurt the Chri- 
 ftian Religion, Js for his arguments^ it 
 cannot bf imagindy that there was any 
 thing of ftrength in them^ more than what 
 Julian the Apoftate took into the worh 
 that he writ afterwards on that fubjeU. 
 
 And 
 
 (n) "Loyd' s Chron. Account of VythagovASy &c.p. zi. 
 (x) lb. p. 23. 
 
[ xlviii J 
 
 Jnd to our comfort, as well as the T>eifls^ 
 that work is not loft. 
 
 The Church of Kome, fays {y) Dr. Sher- 
 lock, will not fiiffer her people to difpute 
 their religion^ or to read heretical hooks^ 
 nay not fo much as to look into the "Bihle 
 it f elf* 'But we allow all this to our peo- 
 ple-, as that which God not only allows^ 
 hut requires, and which all cojifidering 
 men will allow theinfehes, whoever for- 
 bids it. 
 
 Dr. Nichols and . Other learned 
 Divines have writ many elaborate 
 works, in behalf of chriftianity, by 
 way of Dialogue : wherein they in- 
 troduce DeiUs and Sccpticks, who mufl 
 be fuppos'd to argue for their feveral 
 hypothefes with the fame ftrength 
 real Deifls and Scepticks do ; for it is 
 not to be imagin'd, that the authors 
 of thofe dialogues, who cannot but 
 know that the nature of dialogue 
 requires a true reprefentation of cha- 
 
 ra£l:ers> 
 
 {y) Sherlock'^ Trefervative aga'mjt Top^ry^ Part i, 
 p. 3. 
 
[ xUx ] 
 
 raflers, and that juftice is due to all 
 men) fhould be fo illiterate and un- 
 fair, as to make their Dialogifl-Deifls 
 and Scepticks talk booty^ and in con- 
 cert with the Orthodox Dialogifly in or- 
 der to eftabliih the author's own opi- 
 nions. 
 
 In fine, the reverend Dr. J e n k i n 
 ftiould feem to be of the fame fen- 
 timent with the great men before- 
 mention'd, when he fays, (^ that all 
 the arguments brought againfl Chriflianity 
 are jo rpeak and injlgnificant^ that they 
 rather make for it. For I cannot fup- 
 pofe him willing to have Chriftianicy 
 depriv'd of any arguments that make 
 for it, and efpecially of arguments 
 brought by the Adverfaries of Chri^ia' 
 nity agalnU it, that make for it, 
 
 I 5. The greateft enemies to liber- 
 ty of debate in matters of religion 
 do allow certain religious queitions 
 to be publickly debated : and pur- 
 
 c fuant 
 
 («) Jenkin'j yr^/. to Reaf. of Chrift. Rel. Vol. i. 
 p. 3d. 
 
[1] 
 
 fuant thereto, there are ever fome 
 religious debates on foot, even in 
 thofe countries, where agreement in 
 doftrine and uniformity in worfliip 
 are the chief objefls of the care of 
 the Magiftrate, the Church, and the 
 Inquilition, and of the Zeal of the 
 Beggars ; which four, when united 
 in a common polity, make the ftrong- 
 eft band imaginable againft the jufl: 
 liberties of mankind. On the other 
 fide, the greateft contenders for liber- 
 ty of debate in matters of religion do 
 contend for fome reftraints upon that 
 liberty, and think, that there are cer- 
 tain propofitions, which ought not 
 to be call'd in queftion, as being ne- 
 ceffary to be profefs'd for the fupport 
 of peace and order in fociety, or at 
 leaf! not deny'd. 
 
 Both parties muft therefore allow, 
 that there is a juU medium between 
 reftraint and liberty. 
 
 This medium^ from the great impor- 
 tance of the matters conftantly de- 
 pending on it to fociety, Ihould feem 
 
 not 
 
[li] 
 
 not very diifficult to fix and deter- 
 mine in moft cafes. And it feems to 
 me fo plainly to difcover itfelf^ that 
 almoft any man, if plac'd in proper 
 circumftances, would judge rightly 
 and truely how far or in what parti- 
 culars, men Ihould have liberty in re- 
 ligion, and confequently wherein they 
 fliould be reftrain'd. 
 
 Let, for example, a member of the 
 church of England (whom I will fup- 
 pofe perfwaded, that he himfelf is o- 
 blig'd in confcience publickly to pro- 
 fefs the do&ine of the church of Enz' 
 land) go fucceffively into countries of 
 Prefiyterians, Papifls^ Mahometans^ and 
 Heathens : and by finding out the rea- 
 fonable liberty which he wants him- 
 felf, he can hardly fail of finding out 
 the reafonable liberty of men. 
 
 he cannot but think : that he 
 ought to be allow'd publickly to pro- 
 fefs his religion among the Prefoyteri' 
 ans ; tho' they may efteem' him fuper* 
 flitiow^ or fanatical^ or faSliou.% for 
 making a feparation from their ejla- 
 
 c 2 bllfi'd 
 
[ lii ] 
 
 bliJVd church about ceremonies and 
 matters of difcipline : that he ought 
 to be allow'd to profefs his religion 
 publlckly among the PapMs ; tho' they 
 may efteem him an heretick and fcij' 
 maticky and a deftroyer of all order 
 and uniformityjfor pretending to make 
 the fcriptures, interpreted by his own 
 judgment, his rule of faith, and for 
 denying the autority of the church : 
 that he ought to be allow 'd to pro- 
 fefs his religion publickly among the 
 Mahometans ; tho' they may deem him 
 impious, for denying the divine in- 
 fpiration of the Alcoran and the au- 
 tority of Mahomet, and an idola- 
 ter for worlTiipping the Son and the 
 Holy Ghoft, each, as fupreme God, 
 as well as the Father : and that he 
 ought to be allow'd to profefs his 
 religion publickly among the Heathens \ 
 tho' they may call him Atheiff^ as 
 the Heathens did the primitive Chri* 
 ftians, either for afferting the Unity of 
 a Deity y with whom they -were un- 
 acquainted, or for denying the exi- 
 
 Ilence 
 
[Hn] 
 
 ftence of the i r plurality of gods. Mo re- 
 over, it cannot be doubted, but that 
 he will be ready to own to thefe fe- 
 veral parties, from whom he expefts 
 liberty, that he ought to allow the 
 like liberty, in the like circumftan- 
 ces, for the like matters. 
 
 Here then is the liberty^ contended 
 for, fettled from an obvious and 
 common cafe, and from the funda- 
 mental principle of morality, of doing 
 as men woidd be done imto. 
 
 It is not to be fuppos'd, that men 
 fhould in many cafes make perfeft 
 laws, much lefs in this matter of li- 
 berty^ which the powerful fe6is com- 
 monly think they have a right to 
 deftroy in the lefs powerful : yet our 
 fiatefmen feem to have underftood 
 the matter in great perfeftion, and 
 to haA^e eftablilh'd a moft excellent 
 conUitmion in Carolina^ one of our 
 Plantations. There, driven by the 
 nature of things, they afted accord- 
 ing to the rules of equity and good 
 fenfe, and liave rivalled the Dutch^ and 
 
 c 3 even 
 
even the Chineje^ in their political (a) 
 CcYMitutions, 
 
 i6. Opinions, how erroneous fo- 
 ever, when the efFefl: of an impartial 
 examination, will never hurt men in 
 the light of God, but will recommend- 
 men to his favour. For impartial 
 examination in the matter of opinions 
 is the heft, that a man can do towards 
 obtaining truth : and God, who is a 
 wife, good, and jufl being, can re- 
 quire no more of men than to do 
 their beft, and will reward them, 
 when they do their beft ; and he 
 would be the moft unjuft being ima- 
 ginable, if he punifh'd men who had 
 done their beft endeai^our to pleafe 
 him. Befides, if men were to be 
 punifh'd by God for miftaken opinions, 
 all men muft be damn'd ; for all men 
 abound in miftaken opinions. 
 
 On the other fide, opinions, how 
 true foever, when the effefl of edu- 
 cation, or tradition, or intereft, or 
 
 paffion, 
 
 {a) See Fundameiital Conjlitutiom of Carolina, in a 
 ColkSiion of pieces of Mr. Locke. 
 
paffion, or any thing elfe befides im- 
 partial examination, can never recom- 
 mend a man to God. For thofe ways 
 have no merit in them, and are the 
 Avorft a man can take to obtain truth ; 
 and therefore may be objefts of for- 
 givenefs, but never of reward, from 
 God. 
 
 Let not therefore any man deny 
 Mr. Whist ON the liberty of profef- 
 fing and propofing his opinions on ac- 
 count of the dangeroufnefs of error 
 to his foul ; who, as far as we can 
 judge, feems, by his conduft, both 
 to do his beft endeavours to obtain 
 truth and to recommend himfelf to 
 God, and to decline the vvorft me- 
 thods of obtaining truth, and the mo ft 
 unacceptable to God. 
 
 17. If the queftion of the reafon- 
 ablenefs of the open profejjlon and de- 
 fence of what men take to be the truth ^ 
 in oppofition to prevailing opinions, 
 was to be determin'd by autority, 1 
 think, Mr. Wh i s t o n may lay claim 
 to the beft autority^ and has only the 
 worft againfc him, 4 He 
 
[ lyi ] 
 
 He has the aiitority of Jesus Christ, 
 who oppos'd the falfe traditions re- 
 ceived in the Jewifli Church of his 
 time ; of the Apoftles, who travell'd 
 throughout the world-,preaching down 
 the receiv'd notions both of Jews and 
 Gentiles ; of the fathers of the church 
 before the Empire became Chriftian, 
 who in their famous apologies written 
 to Emperors and Senates, and in their 
 other writings in behalf of chriftianity, 
 have,with the utmoft freedom, attacked - 
 all that the Heathens efteem'd facred; 
 of the noble army of martyrs in all 
 ages ; of the feveral chriftian coun- 
 tries, that fend mithonaries abroad to 
 convert Heathens, Jews, Hereticks, 
 and Mahometans, and of thofe coun- 
 tries, that hofpitably receive the faid 
 Miffionaries ; of all countries, that 
 allow toleration ; of all- true Chrifti- 
 ans and Proteftants ; of our firft re- 
 formers from popery ; of the greateft 
 philofophers and wifeft mjen of all 
 times, who have either openly pro- 
 fefs'd their fentimenrs, or elfe have, 
 
 t h 
 
[ Ivli ] 
 
 by their moderation and temper, or 
 by their oppofing perfecution, or by 
 their arts of concealment, fufficient- 
 ly fliown, what liberty they would 
 have been glad to have taken themfelves, 
 and would have allow'd to others; 
 of all men, who judge for themfelves ; 
 and in fine, of all bigots, impofers, 
 perfecutors, and enemies of liberty 
 themfelves ; for, as Archbilliop Til- 
 lot s o n (b) fays, there is onefeafon and 
 nick of time^ iv herein they will allorv any 
 of the people to examine and inquire in^ 
 to matters of religion, and that is when 
 they would gain a man to their reli' 
 gion. 
 
 And who have been or are the 
 men, that make up the autority on 
 the other fide ? The interefied, the pO' 
 liticianSy the hypocrites, the bigots, the 
 enthufiafls, and the ignorant ; who, all 
 wanting reafon to fupport their opi- 
 nions, either make decifions themfelves, 
 or are govern'd by the decifions of 
 others. 
 i8, I 
 
 (b) Tillotfon's Serm. Vol. 1 5. p. 3 3 5. 
 
[ 1-" ] 
 
 1 8. I will conclude this apology 
 for Mr. Whiston with thePaffage of a 
 great prelate of our church. 
 
 ^' Autority is the greateft and moft 
 ^* irreconcileable enemy to trmh, and 
 *^ argument y that this world ever fur- 
 " nilli'd out, fince it was in being. 
 " All the Jophiflry^ all the colour of 
 *' -plaufibility^ all the artifice and cun- 
 " ning of the fubtileft difputer in the 
 *' world, may be laid open, and turn'd 
 " to the advantage of truth, which 
 *' they are defign'd to hide, or to 
 *' deprefs. But againft autority there 
 *' is no defenfe. It is autority a- 
 *^ lone which keeps up the groffefl 
 u ^yrors in the countries around us. 
 " And where truth happens to be 
 *^ receiv'd for the fake of autority^ 
 ^' there is jufl fo much diminifti'd 
 " from the love of truth, and the 
 '' glory of reafon, and the accepta- 
 " blenefs of men to God, as there is 
 " attributed to autority. 
 
 '' It 
 
[ Hx ] 
 
 '' It was autority, which crufh'd 
 the noble jentiments of Socrates, 
 and others J in the heathen world ; 
 and prevented the reception of 
 them among men. It was aiitorhy 
 which hinder'd the voice of the 
 fon of God himfelf from being 
 heard ; and which alone flood in 
 oppofition to hu powerful argU' 
 mentSy and his divine doEtrine ; 
 whilft it was a more moving que- 
 ftion, among the people, to affc, 
 Do any of the PharifeeSy or Doftors 
 of the Mofaick Larp believe in him ? 
 than to afk, whether ever manfpake 
 or livd, or worked wonders like him ; 
 and whilft excommimication^ or be- 
 ing put out of tht fynagogne^ was 
 the mark fet upon thofe who 
 ftiould embrace his religion. It 
 was autority among Heathens^ which 
 afterwards put all the flop to 
 C H R I s t's profeffion , which this 
 world could put. And when 
 Chriflians were increased into a ma* 
 jority ; and came to think the fame 
 
 '^ method 
 
[Ix] 
 
 ** method to be the only proper one, 
 '^ for the advantage of their caufe, 
 '^ which had been the enemy and 
 " deftroyer of it : then^ it was the 
 ^^ autority of Chriflians^ which, by 
 ^' degrees, not only laid wafte the 
 '' honour of cbriftianity^ but well 
 *^ nigh extinguilh'd it from amongft 
 *^ men. It was autority^ which. 
 ^^ brought in all that mercilefs heap 
 ^^ of ufelefs and burthenfome foppe- 
 '^ ries ; prayers in an unknown 
 ^^ tongue ; prayers to multitudes of 
 beings ; and the whole load of 
 abjurdities and depravations of true 
 religion, under which the chrifti- 
 " an people were in captivity, till 
 they became grofs and weighty 
 enough at laft, to break the props 
 that fupported them. It was auto- 
 rity^ which would have prevented 
 all reformation^ where it is; and 
 which has put a barrier againft it, 
 ^^ where-ever it is not. It was 
 *' human autority in religion^ which 
 ^' alone fet up itfelf agamft the be- 
 
 " ginnings 
 
^' ginnings of this Church of England 
 " itfelf : and which alone now con- 
 " tefts with it the foundation upon 
 " which it ftands. This autority 
 '' was at firft exercis'd in little by 
 ^' thofe, who were fo far from pre- 
 " tending to fuch enormities, as it 
 '^ afterwards arrived at, that they 
 '' would have detefted and abhorred 
 '' the thought of them. And fo it 
 " will be, for ever, and every where. 
 ^' The calling in the affiftance of 
 ^^ mere autority, even againft errdrSy 
 ^' or trifles, in religious matters, at 
 '' firft, will by infenfible degrees come 
 '' to the very fame iflue, that it has 
 ^' been ever hitherto feen to end in. 
 " And how, indeed, can it be ex- 
 ^' pefled, that the fame thing, which 
 '' has in all ages, and in all coun- 
 '^ tries, been hurtful to truth and 
 " true religion, among men, ftiould in 
 " any age, or in any country, be- 
 " come a friend and guardian of 
 " them ; unlefs it can be ihewn that 
 ^ the nature of mere autority, or the 
 
 '^ na" 
 
€C 
 
 nature of man, or both, are intire- 
 *' ly alter'd from what they have 
 " hitherto been. For it is not in 
 " religion, as it is in the civil cori' 
 " cerns of human life. The end of 
 " human fociety is anfwer'd by out' 
 " w^^r^ behaviour, and anions ; which 
 " therefore, ought to be reftrain'd 
 ^^ and govern'd by civil autority. But 
 " the end of religion, and of the C/^r/- 
 " y?/<^^ Religion, in particular, is flf^- 
 '^ flroyd, juft in proportion to the 
 " influence of ^r^^f w/^w^j ; and to 
 ^' the efFe(3: of worldly motives, and 
 " *w^r^ autority of men, feparated 
 " from the arguments of reafon, and 
 
 the motives and maxims of the 
 " ^(?j^^/ itfelf 
 
 THE 
 
THE 
 
 CONTENTS- 
 
 I 
 
 Page 
 NtrodttUion i 
 
 PART I. 
 
 Of the Grounds and Reafons of Chriflianity, 
 
 I. I'hat Chrifti unity is founded on Judaifm^ 
 or the New T^ejlament on the Old 4 
 
 II. T'hat the Apoflles ground and prcve Chri- 
 Jiianity from the Old Tefiament 5 
 
 III. That the Old Tejlament is the Canon 
 of Chrifiians 1 3 
 
 IV. That it is a common and neceffary me- 
 thod for new Ke'velations to he hiilt and 
 grounded on precedent Revelations 2 o 
 
 V. That the chief Troofs of Chriflianity 
 from the Old Tefiament are urgd by the 
 Jpofiles in the New T.e[tament 26 
 
 yi. That 
 
The CONTENTS. 
 
 VI. That if thcfe T roofs are 'valid^ Chri- 
 fiianity is inznncihly ejiahlijjjd on its 
 tnie foundation id. 
 
 VII. That if thofe T roofs are in'valid^ then 
 is Chriftianity falfe 3 1 
 
 VIIL That thofe Troofs are Typical or 
 Allegorical Tr oofs 39 
 
 IX. The nature of Typical or Allegorical 
 ^roofsy and Keafoning 5 o 
 
 X. The nature of Allego^'-ical Reafoning fur- 
 ther Jhewn hy application of it to fever al 
 particular inftances cited from the Old 
 and iirgd in the New Tejiament 6 1 
 
 XL An Anfwer to an Ohje'clion^ that^ the 
 Allegorical Reafonings of the Apoftles 
 were not defign'd for abfolute proofs of 
 Chriftianity, but for proofs ad hominem, 
 to the Jews, who were accuftomed to that 
 way of reafoning 79 
 
 PART 
 
The CONTENTS. 
 
 PART IL 
 
 Containing Confiderations on the Scheme 
 TPhich Mr, Whifton fets up in Oppo^ 
 fition to the allegorical Scheme^ 
 
 I. Mr. WhistonV Scheme reprefentedi 
 which confijis chiefly in maintaining ; 
 that the Hebrew and Greek of the Old 
 Teftament agreed in the times of Jesus 
 and the Apoftles ,• that the Jpoft/es ci- 
 ted exaUly and argud literally from 
 the Greek or Septuagint Tranjlation ,• 
 and that fince their times both thefe 
 Copies of the Old T^eftament have been 
 corrupted by the Jews^ which makes 
 it feem as if the Apoftles had not ar- 
 gil d literally, from the Old I'eftament i 
 and in propofing^ by 'various means ^ 
 to reftore the text thereof as it flood 
 in the days ^/ J e s u s and his Jpo- 
 files 97 
 
 JI. I'hat it is incredible^ that the Old 
 Cteftament Jhoidd be fo corrupted as 
 Mr. Whiston afferts 1 03 
 
 III. That tofuppofe the Old Teflament fo 
 
 corrupted as Mr. Whiston afferts , 
 
 is to gi've zip Chriflianity to Jews and 
 
 Infidels III 
 
 d IV. T:hat 
 
The CONTENT S. 
 
 IV. That Mr, Whist on is not aUe to 
 reftore one Prophetical Quotation made 
 out of the Old in the New T^efiamenty 
 fo as to make that literally apply d 
 'which now feems allegorically /ipplyd 
 
 I20 
 
 V. That the Jews ha've not corrupted ths 
 Old Teftament in refpeU to the pajfages 
 cited from thence in the New 131 
 
 VI. That the Septiiagint Verfton was not^ 
 in the days of Jesus and the JpoftleSy 
 apjeeahle to the Hebrew Text 162 
 
 VII. That the Samaritan Pentateuch is 
 not an uncorrupt Copy of the 'Books of 
 Moses, and originally deri'vd from the 
 
 fir ft feparation of the ten Tribes them- 
 fehes in the days of Jeroboam i 84 
 
 VIII. That the Jpoftles did not always 
 quote the Septiiagint Verfion 2 09 
 
 IX. That the means^ whereby Mr, W. 
 propcfes to reftore the true text of the 
 Old Teftament in refpeU to the citations 
 made from thence in the New^ will not 
 reach that end 2 1 5 
 
 X, Typical 
 
The CONTENTS- 
 
 X. Typical or Allegorical reafoning de* 
 fended againji Mr» Whijion j wherein is 
 a digrejfwn that compares together the 
 Allegorical Scheme and Mr. Whiftons 
 Literal Scheme, and that pro'ves his lA- 
 teral Scheme falfe and ahfurd 227 
 
 XL That Mr. W h i s t o n V firfi Tropofi- 
 tion isfuh'verted by his "Book 270 
 
 The CONCLUSION. 
 
 Containing an Account of Mr. Whis t o n 
 himfelf 273 
 
 A Great Mathematician^ Thilofopher^ and 
 Tiimne id, 
 
 A mofl Acute 'Perfon id. 
 
 A good Chriftian 274 
 
 The Ke'verfe of mofl other T)i'vines 27 5 
 
 A Zealous Member of the Church of Eng- 
 land 277 
 
 Tieficient in judgment 278 
 
 Has 
 
The CONTENTS. 
 
 'Has tahen all proper methods in his power 
 to promote what he thinks to he the 
 'Truth 279 
 
 Jlis con'verfation and its effeUs 281 
 
 HisTrojeUs 28 z 
 
 His Temper 284 
 
 His Service to the Church of Scotland 284 
 
 THE 
 
[ n 
 
 THE « 
 
 Grounds and Reasoh? 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 ^Chriftian Religion, 8cc. 
 
 I N A 
 Letter to a Divine o£ North Britaik 
 
 ..'KeverendSl'K^ 
 
 OU feem extreamly furpriz'd 
 upon having occafionally heard 
 (i. Mr. WhistonV ^J[^y to^ 
 wards reftor'in'g the true Text 
 of the Old T'efthment j which 
 • iTitle^j ' according to yoii^ im- 
 ■pliesVa xrip{i-yAfiti*^hriJiian- Paradox^ whd 
 h2i\Q alwayS'kfQ\iQV''d., with, the greateft part 
 of Proteftants, that the_ text of the Oldj dk 
 well as New 'J'eftammt^ has been the pecit^ 
 liar care of Tromdence\ and conjfaiitly pre- 
 fer'vd pure and uncornipted,: And I am 
 no lefs lurpriz'd, that you Hiould defire fome. 
 account ^ of tiiat. -Book j who~^very lately 
 would have thought fuch cu.riofity to be an 
 evil inclination and temptation of the De^ 
 vilj^ who never- en^uir'd after '• any Books 
 
 B " ' written 
 
f ^ 3 . . 
 
 written by our Epifcopal Dimities, but thofe 
 of Dr. John Edwards o^ Cambridge; and 
 who us'd' to deteft Anti-T^rinitarian more 
 than ^opijh Authors^ as introducing not only 
 equally dangerous errors in doctrine, but the 
 ufe of reafon and prwate judgment:, which 
 utterly fubvert ail Church Authority^ the 
 fole Foundation of Unity and Uniformity 
 in matters of Religion. 
 
 But, it feems, cnriojity^ the effed of li-* 
 berty, fenfe, and learning, begins to reach 
 even the Divines of Scotland ^ who of all 
 Proteftant Divines, aremoft tenacious of their 
 Orthodoxy; and who are no lefs charmed 
 with the pure dodtrine and holy difcipline re- 
 ceiv'd from their Anceftors of the Reforma- 
 tion, than we are with the heanty of hoU^ 
 nefs in our Common-Grayer 'Book^ which was 
 firit composed one hundred and feventy four 
 years ago by the {a) Aid of the Holy Qhofi^ 
 and has, fmce that time, been {})) fi've 
 times reform'd I and confequently, ^heO" 
 logy (than which nothing is more naturally 
 changeable, and which neither art nor power,, 
 nor difcipline, could ever long fix or afcer* 
 tain among Heathens, Jews, Chriftians, or 
 Mahometans) may foon receive a new Form 
 
 i9 
 
 C^) A^for efiablipwg the Liturgy in tJie zd ofEd- 
 ward the Sixth. 1548. 
 
 (i^) Nichols'j Treface^ to Comme7itar^ on ti^e Coau 
 "mcH-^rayer* 
 
m the Kirky as it daily does in all other 
 Churches* 
 
 You dcfii-e alfo feme account of Mr. Whi- 
 sTdi* himfelf, and would know what fort of 
 a man, or monfter, he is, of whom you hear 
 fo much, when you meet your Brethren in 
 'Presbyteries and Synods ^ who, upon mere 
 reports, reprefent him under the various 
 chara(5ters, of Ignorant and Learned, Rich 
 and Poor, Serious and jMad, Heretick and 
 Atheift, Churchman and Papift, Arian and 
 Socinian, and aknoft every Thing but Cal" 
 'vinift:, Treshyteriaii^ and Jt ban aft an. 
 
 To gratify, therefore, your curiofity in 
 the beft manner I am able, I fend you Mr. 
 Whist on's Book itfelf,- together mthfome 
 Conjiderations on the fubjejt matter of it, 
 and fome R^w^r^j" on his Scheme^ TrojeBy 
 or Theory; which I clofe with an account 
 of the Gentleman himfelf. 
 
 B i PART 
 
t4] 
 
 Part L 
 
 Of the Grounds akd Reason's '"d-^^ 
 
 CHRlStlANITY. 
 
 L 
 
 Chriflhtnity is founded on Juddifniy 
 or the New I'ejfament, on the Old, 
 
 GHrisTiai^ty^s'- founded on Jiidaifm;^ 
 and the New Teftament on the Old ; 
 and Jesus is the Perfoii faid in the New Te- 
 ftament to be promis'd in the Old, under the 
 charadter of the Messias of the Jews, who, 
 as fuch only, claims the obedience and fub- 
 miffion of the world. Accordingly, it is the 
 defign of the Authors of the NeWy to prove 
 all the parts of Chriftianity from the Old 
 Teftament, which is faid to contain (r) the 
 words of Eternal Life ^ and to reprefent 
 Jesus and his Apoftles, as {d) fulfilling^ by 
 their milTion, dodririej^^ and works, the 
 
 pre- 
 
 (c) John 5. 39. 
 (4) Matt. 5. 17, 
 
[5] 
 
 ,predidIons of the TrophetS:, the hiilorical 
 parts of the Old Teftament, and the Jewijh 
 Law, which kft is exprefsly faid to {e) pro- 
 phecy of, or tipify, Chriftianity. 
 
 l^hat the Apojlles ground and proz^e Chrifii- 
 anity from the Old 'Tefiament* 
 
 ST. Matthew proves feveral parts of 
 Chriftianity from the Old Teftament; 
 either by fliewing them to be things foretold 
 therein as to come to pafs under the Gofpel- 
 Difpenfation^ or to be agreeable to, or found- 
 ed on, the notions of the Old Teftament. 
 
 Thus he proves (f) Mary's being with 
 Child by the Holy Ghoft, and the Angel's 
 telling her flie floall bring forth a Son^ and 
 Jhall call his Name Jesus, and the other 
 circumftances attending his miraculous birth ; 
 Jesus's(^) birth at 'Bethlehem -, His (/^) Flight 
 into Egypt i The (/) Slaughter of the Infants ; 
 (y^)jEsus's dwelling at Nazareth ^ The (/) 
 Preaching of John the "Baptifti Jesus's {ni) 
 leaving Nazareth and dwelling at Caper- 
 naum:, in the Borders of Zabidon and Nap- 
 thali y His {n) cafting out T>evils^ and 
 
 B 3 healing 
 
 (e) Matt. II. 13. (/") lb. i. 18. 23. {g) lb. 2. 
 5, 6. {h) V. 15. (0 "^. 17, 18. {k) V. 23. 
 
 (/) lb. 3. (jn) lb. 4- 13. («) lb. 8. 16, 17. 
 
in 
 
 dealing {he Si ch; His (^) eating with Tuh^ 
 Ijcans and Sinners t, His (/>) charging thofe 
 he heal'd, that they jhould not make him 
 known ; His {q) [peaking in T arables^ that 
 the Jews might not zinderJiandKim-y His (r) 
 fending his l3ifciples to fetch an Jfs and a 
 Colt j The ( J-) Childrens crying in the T'em- 
 pie-. The {t) lawfulnefs of taking corn in 
 the fields, when an hungred^ on the Sahhath^ 
 UDay j The {ti) ReftirreUion of the 'Dead ; 
 {w) Jesus's being betray'd by Judas, and 
 his Apprchenfion ; And (.r)JuDAs's returning 
 back the thirty Tieces^ (the Reward he had 
 for betraying Jesus) and the Prieft's htying 
 the Totter sf eld with them, and his hang- 
 ing himfelf. 
 
 Jesus himfelf is reprefented as proving the 
 truth of Chriftianity thus: He, {y) joining him- 
 felf, after his refurre(5lion, to two of his 
 *Difciples^ who knew him not j and finding 
 out their miftakes about his Perfon, whom 
 they now took not to be the Messias, be- 
 Caufe he had been cMidemnd to deaths and 
 crucify d -^ and obferving their difbelief of 
 his refurredtion, which had been reported 
 to them by certain women of their acquain- 
 tanccj upon the credit of Angels ,• (2;) [aid 
 
 nnio 
 
 I. : ^- — • 
 
 (0) Matt. 9. II — 15. (p) lb. 12. 16 — ar. 
 
 (7) lb. 13. 13. {r) lb. a I. 2—7. (s) v, 15, \6. 
 
 U)Vo. c.iz. (u) lb. i2. 31,32. hv) lb. 2^. 
 
 54. 5tj. (^) lb. 27. 5" 10. {y) Luke 24. 
 
 15-- 22. {z>) V. 25—27. 
 
[7] 
 
 tinto theni:, Tools ^ and flow of hearty to 
 believe all that the Trophets havefpoken ! 
 Ought not Christ to ha'vefufferd thefe 
 things^ and to enter into his glory ? And 
 beginning at Moses, and all the TrophetSy 
 be expounded unto them^ in all the Scrip- 
 turesy the things concerning himfelf, 
 
 FABRiciusy^j", Hie {a) fermo ejus a miil- 
 tis non immerito anxie defideratus, & a 
 Luc A fortafle auditus, nufqnam extat. 
 
 But our Learned (^^^)M^^^ has endeavour'd 
 to fupply this lofSj by pointing out thofe 
 I'ery Scriptures which our Saviour expound- 
 ed to his 1)ifciples, 
 
 Again, he difcours'd to all his difciples, 
 putting them in mind, that before his death, 
 he told them, that {h) all things muft he 
 fulfill' d^ which were written in the Law of 
 Moses, and in the TrophetSj and in the 
 ^falms concerning him -, adding, thus it is 
 written J and thus it hehoveth Christ to 
 fuffer^ and to rife from the T>ead the third 
 day, and that repentance and remiffion 
 of fins fhould he preach' d in his name among 
 all nations J beginning at Jerufalem. 
 
 When the People of feveral nations were 
 (r) amazd at the Apoftles fpeaking in their 
 feveral tongues i and when many mocked 
 
 B 4 the 
 
 {a) Fabridi Codex Apocrypluie, Nov. Teft. p. 321' 
 
 (aa) Mede's 13th Diic. 
 
 \h) Luke 24. 44. 4^» 47- (c) J^sz.jz—J^- 
 
[8] 
 
 the Apoftles, faying, they ^qxq full of new 
 ■wine; St. Peter makes a Speech in publick, 
 wherein, after faying, j^^^j; were not drunk- 
 en^ hecaiife it was hut the third hour of 
 the day^ he endeavours to fliew them, that 
 this was fpoken of by the Trophet Joel ^ 
 and he concludes, with proving the refur^ 
 reUion of Jesus from the Tfalms, 
 
 St. Peter and St. John tell the people 
 affembled at the Temple, that {d) God had 
 Jhewd hy the mouth of all his Trophets ; 
 that Christ Jhotild fuffer\ and alfo that 
 Jesus Jhould come again, 
 
 St. Peter, to juftify his preaching to the 
 Gentiles, concludes his difcourfe with fay- 
 ing, {e) T'o Jesus gi've all the Trophets 
 witnefsj that thro his name^ whojoe'ver 
 (that i5, Jew or Gentile) helie-veth in him 
 Jhall recei've remijfwn of fins, 
 
 St. Paul alfo endeavours to prove to the 
 Jews, in the Synagogue of Antioch^ (/) that 
 the hiftory of Jesus was contain'd in the 
 Old Teflament, and that he and Barnabas 
 were commanded^ in the Old Teftamentj to 
 preach the Gofpel to the Gentiles, 
 
 On Occafion of a (g) difpute among the Chri- 
 {lians, whether the Gentile Converts were 
 to be circumcised after the Law <?/ Moses, 
 and to obferve the other parts of the Jewiili 
 
 Lawj 
 
 (d) Afls 3. 18. 20—24. (^e) lb. 10. 43, 
 (/jib. 13, (^)lb. 15. 
 
[9] 
 
 Xawi a Council of Jpoflks and Elders 
 was held at Jenifalem^ wherein, after ?;2f/(;/& 
 difptitingj and fpeeches made by Peter, 
 Barnabas, and Paul , James concludes 
 the point from the Old Teftament, (citing 
 Amos and Moses ,• ) from whence, in all 
 probability, all their arguments were taken; 
 the things in debate being fuch as had long 
 before been matters of controverfy among 
 the Jews in relation to their Trofelytes of the 
 Gate ; fome Jews being , fo narrow as to 
 think circumcilion and a ftrid obfervance of 
 all the Laws of Moses neceflary in all who 
 pretended to be Trofelytes to them^ and 
 others requiring a conformity from Trofe- 
 lytes in fuch matters only as fliould keep 
 them at a di fiance from all Idolatrous Pra- 
 <^ices. And James, fuitably to the latter 
 more gentle determination and common pra- 
 <6lice of the Jews in relation to their ^rofe- 
 lytes of the Qate^ infers, that the Gentile- 
 Converts to Chriflianity, were to be bound 
 by no other Laws of Moses, but thofe" 
 which requir'd the ahfiinence from politic 
 tions of Idols ) and from fornication^, and 
 from things fir angled^ and from hlood i 
 the pradice of thofe things having too great 
 a connexion with Heathen Idolatry, and 
 rendering men too impure for fociety with 
 Qhriftians^ who were now the Real and 
 True Jews. Upon which the Affembly came 
 to a determination to that effet^, and or- 
 
 dcr'd 
 
'der'd Letters to be written to notify th^ 
 fame to all concern'd. 
 
 The 'Bereans are highly extoll'd for {h) 
 fearching the Scriptures^ that is, the Old 
 Teflament, daily ^^ in order to find out, whe- 
 ther the things preach'd to them by the 
 Apoftles were fo or no j who, if they had 
 not prov'd thofe things^ that is, Chriftiani- 
 ty from the Old Teftament, ought to have 
 been rejeded by the 'Bereans^ as Teachers 
 of falfe Do(^rine. 
 
 St. Paul, when aecus'd before Ac rip - 
 PA by the Jews, faid, (/') I fi and and am 
 judgdfor the hope of the promife made of 
 God unto our Tathers^ that is, for teaching 
 Chriftianity or the true do(5trine of the Old 
 Teftament: And to this accufation he pleads 
 guilty, by declaring in the fulleft manner, 
 that he taught nothing but the Dodrine of 
 the Old Teftament. {k) Ha'ving^ therefore-^ 
 fa}'s he, obtain d help of Qod^ I continue 
 mito this day^ witnejfmg both to [mall and 
 greats faying none other things than thofe 
 which the Prophets and Moses did fay 
 flmdd come: 'That Chkist flwuld fnffer^ 
 and that he flooidd he the firji who fhould 
 rife from the dead:, and fJjotdd floew light 
 unto the People and to the Gentiles, 
 
 St. Paul fays, (/) Jesus rofe again the 
 third d^y^ according to the Scriptures y that is, 
 
 according 
 
 (h) A£ts i-j. II. (i) lb. 26. 6. See lb. 25. 19. &c. 
 and z'y ap. (k) lb. z6, 22, 13. (I) i Cor. 15. 4, 
 
according to the Old Teftament : And he is 
 fuppos'd to ground this on the Hiftory of the 
 Prophet Jonas, who was three days in a 
 whale*s belly, and then came ouu 
 
 But moft divine is St. Paul's argument 
 in his Epifile to the Qalatians^ to prove 
 Chriftianity to the Jews from the Old Te- 
 ftament. {m) T^ell me^ fays he, ye that de- 
 fire to he under the Law, ^(? not ye hear the 
 Law ? For it is written^ that Abraham 
 had two Sons; the one by a "Bond-maidj the 
 other hy a Free-woman, 'But he who was 
 of the lond-woman was horn after the 
 fejlo j hut he who was of the free-woman 
 was hy promife. Which things are an 
 Allegory ; for thefe are the two Coi'enants ; 
 the one from the mount Sinai, which gen- 
 dereth to bondage^ which is Agar, But 
 this Agar is mount Sinai, in Arabia, and 
 anfwereth to JeruHilem that now is^ and is 
 in bondage with her children, But Jeru- 
 falem, which is abooe^ is free, which is the 
 mother of us all. For it is written^ {ii) Re- 
 joy ce thou barren that beareft not; break 
 forth and cry, thou that travailleft not ; for 
 the defolate hath many more children than 
 ilie which hath an huiband. Kow we. 
 Brethren^ as Isaac was^ are the Children 
 of the Promife, But as then he that was 
 lorn after the flefl) perfecuted him that was 
 
 horn 
 
 im) Gal. 4. ii-" («) Ifu. 54. I. 
 
%orn after the fpirit^ e'ven fo it is now* 
 JS[e<verthekfs^ What fays the Scripture ? {o) 
 Caft out the bond-woman and her Son, for 
 the fon of the bond- woman fliall not be 
 heir with the fon of the free-woman. So 
 then^ "Brethren^ we are not Children of the 
 IBond'Woman^ hut of the Free, Stand fafl^ 
 therefore^ in the liberty:, wherewith Christ 
 hath made tis free, and be not intangled^ 
 again with the yoke of bondage. 
 
 In fine, St. Paul, throughout his Epi- 
 Jiles^i reafons in the fame divine manner from 
 the Old Teftament, which, according to him, 
 {p) was able to make men wife unto faha- 
 tion i alTerting himfelf, and others, to be {q) 
 Minijiers of the New T^eftament^ as beihg 
 Minifiers not of the Letter^ but of the Spi- 
 rit^ of the Law, that is, of the Old Tefta- 
 ment fpiritually underftood ^ and endeavour- 
 ing to prove, efpecially in his (r) Epijile to 
 the Hebrews yth^iX. Chriftianity was contain'd in 
 the Old Teftament, and was imply'd in the 
 Jewiili Hiftory and LaWy both which he 
 makes T^ypes and Shadows of Chriftianity. 
 
 The grand and fundamental Article of 
 Chriftianity was, that Jesus of Nazareth 
 was the Messias of the Jews^, prediUed in 
 the Old Teftament. And how could that 
 
 appear, 
 
 (o) Gen. 2 1. 10. iz. (/) 2 Tim. 3. 15. 
 
 (q) 2 Cor. 3. 6. 14. (r) Heb. 8. 5. 10. i. See 
 
 aljb Col. 2. 16 f 17. 
 
appear, and be prbv*d, but from the OlJ 
 'J^eftanieht ?' 
 
 *''In a word, tliie Books of the Old Te- 
 flament were the fole Canonical Scriptures , 
 and the fole Scriptures during the life of 
 Jesus, and for near thirty years after his 
 death, (tho' Chriftianity had by that time 
 niade a (j) mighty progrefs :) and from 
 them did the moft Primitive Fathers, Bar- 
 nabas, PolicArp, Clemens Romanus, 
 Ignatius, and Justin Martyr, as well as 
 the Apoftles and Authors of the Books of the 
 New Teftament, declare and endeavour to 
 prove Chriftianity to the world : with all 
 TiA^hom the Church. of England concms m 
 fenfiment, when fhefays, that {ss) in the Old 
 ^efiament e'verlafting life is offer d to^ 
 fnankind hj CnKisr.. 
 
 Srhtt the Old ieflainent is the .Canm of 
 
 ''f* '':■'■' Chrijiians. '•■ '•'' ' -^ 
 
 INdeed, to fpeak properly, the Old Tefta- 
 ment is yet the fole true Canon of Scrip- 
 ture (meaning thereby a Canon eftablifh'd 
 by thofe who had a dimne authority to efta- 
 bliflia Canon ^ and in virtue thereof did efta- 
 
 blifti 
 
 (5) MafTueti Annot. in Irieneum,^, 43, &c. 
 
 (si) Article the 7?/;, 
 
[14] 
 
 blifli a Cnnoii) as it was in the beginning of 
 Chriftianity. For the Books of the New 
 Teftament are all occafional Books, as Mr. 
 Whist ON (^) has clearly ihown, and not ^ 
 ^igefl or Sjjlem of Laws for the {m) go'vern-- 
 ing the Church -y and I add, were not join d 
 together in one Body or Colle^^ion, nor de- 
 clared by any human authority to be all Ca^ 
 7Wnica/y till the feventh Century, when the 
 Controverfy about the laft Book of Canoni-r 
 cal Scriptures, fo call'd, (w) feems to ha've 
 heen brought to an eud^ as fays the Reve- 
 rend Mr. John Richardson, our moft 
 learned Defender of the Canon of the New 
 n'eftament. They are Chriftian Books, and 
 contain proofe of Chriftianity from the Old 
 Teftament J but contain Chriftianity itfelf, 
 no otherwife, than as explaining, illuftrating, 
 and confirming the Chriftianity taught in the 
 Old Teftament. They all feem, what {ja) 
 Grotius exprefly fays of the Books of Luke, 
 fio'ujly and faithfully written^ and upofi 
 fuhjetis oj great concern to fahation^ and 
 therefore made Canonical by the Church, 
 Which was plainly an accidental event, and 
 
 did 
 
 (r) WhiftonV Effay on the Jpjlol. Co7ijlitut'mis, 
 p. 159—1^4. 
 
 in) See Hare*i Sermon of Church Authority^ p. 44. 
 
 (130) Richardfon'i Canon of the New lejiament vin- 
 Mcate^ againji Tohndy p- i?- 
 
 (:«•) Gror/i-Votum pro Pace, &c. Oper. Thcologi«?, 
 Tom. 3. p.^7i»^7^ 
 
[ «5] 
 
 (did befal thofe Books (ji) gradually, and 
 after long difputes about their authority, and 
 might have befel other pious Books, which 
 tho' deem'd Scripture, and declar'd (z) Ca- 
 nonical by the Ancients, have been fince re- 
 jci^ed, as fpurious and Apocryphal. 
 
 It is alfo to be obferv'd, that our Saviour, 
 who afTures us, that he came to {a) fulfil the 
 Law and the Trophets^ and not to deflroy 
 the Religion of the Jews, (many of whom 
 were, long before the coming of Christ, 
 deem'd {h) real Chrifiians^ and equally to 
 believe the Qofpel or Chriftianity, with thofe 
 who were converted by the Apoftles) lefc 
 nothing in writing to eftablifli his new JLaWy 
 if it may be fo calFd, which was not pro- 
 perly a new Law 3 but Judaifm(r) explain'd,^ 
 and fet in a due light. In a word, Jews 
 and Chriftians had one and the fame Canon 
 of Scripture-^ nor would there have been 
 any difference between them, or any fepa- 
 ration of the latter from the former, wath 
 
 * w^hom 
 
 {y) Nye*i 2)efe7ice of the Cano7i of the New I'ejiam^ 
 p. 122. 
 
 Floyer'i ^ref. to the Prophecies of Efdras, p. 5. 
 
 iz) Lafi Jpojiolick Canon. 
 
 {a) Matt.^ 5. 17. Simo7i^ Supplement aux Ccremo 
 jiies des Juifs, p. 28, 29. 
 
 (b) Gal. 3.8. Hcb. 11. See Barlow'j Remains^ 
 P- 577—593- 
 
 (c) ^(?f Sclden dcSynedriis, \. i. c, S. p.;ii5. 
 
1.6] 
 
 %hom they continu'd many years In Com^ 
 
 munion after the death of Jesus, if the Jews 
 
 had iinderftood the fpiritual fenfe of their 
 
 own Books, as declar'd and explain'd to 
 
 •them by the Apoftles, who (d) Jaid none 
 
 other things to any, than thofe which th^ 
 
 Prophets and Moses did fay, 
 
 ' In fine, Jesus and his Apoftles do fre- 
 
 'quently and emphatically ftyle the Books of 
 
 the Old 1 eftament the Scriptures^ and refer 
 
 men to them as their ^ule and Canon : And 
 
 St. Paul fays^ {e) After the [Ghriftian'J 
 
 "way^ which ye call' Herefy^ [o ■ worfhip 1 
 
 the God of my Fathers^ heliemng all things 
 
 that are written in the'. Law and the Tro- 
 
 -fhets. But no new Books are declar'd by 
 
 them to have that character : Nor was there 
 
 (/) any new €anon of Scripture^ or any Col- 
 
 ieUion of 'Books of Scripture made ^ whether 
 
 -of Gofpels or Epiftles^ during the lives of 
 
 the Apoftles \ as is confefs'd by the Knowing 
 
 in Antiquity, and particularly by our leam^ 
 
 ed Grabe and Mill, who, lateft of all 
 
 Authors,, have fearch'd, and that with great 
 
 diligence, into thefe matters. And if Jesus 
 
 and his Apoftles ha\e declar'd no Bociks 
 
 to be Canonical^ I would ask, who did, or 
 
 " could 
 
 ,-..V.^. . ..:.-.: 
 
 (d) Afts 2 5. 2 2. {e) lb. 24. 14. (/) Grabt 
 
 Spicil. Sec I. p. .320. MiUii Proleg. -ad Nov. Teftam, 
 p. 23. 
 
r '7 ] 
 
 tould afterwards declare, or make any bodies 
 Canonical? If it had been deem'd proper, 
 and fuited to the ftate of Chriftianity, to 
 have given or declar'd a nezs) Canon or 2)/- 
 geft of Laws^ it fhoiild fecrri moft proper to 
 have been done by Jesus, or his Apoftles, 
 and not left to any after them to do,- but 
 efpecially not left to be fettled long after 
 their times by weak, fallible, fadious, and 
 interelled men, w^ho were difputing with one 
 another about the genuinnefs of all books 
 bearing the names of the ApoftleSj and con*- 
 tending with one another about the autority 
 of very different Books. 
 
 I have given thefe fbort hints concerning 
 the true Canon oj Scripture of Chriftiansi 
 not only as they relate to my argument, but 
 as Conjiderations^ which put an end to all 
 the controverfies of Chriftians about the Ca'- 
 non of Scripture^ and which may alfo ferve 
 to fet Mr. Whiston right; who (^) adds, 
 to the prefent books of the New Teftament, 
 the two -E/?/y?/fx^/ Clement to the Corin- 
 thians ', (both which, after having been 
 wholly loft for feveral hundred years, were 
 but lately recover'd, and that but imperfeftly, 
 efpecially the fecond); the T>oUrine of the 
 JpoJiieSj (a book loft, which Mr. Jr,{h)im3.^ 
 
 C gin'd 
 
 (g) Whifton'i Ep.yonthe ApoftoL Conftit. P- 33- 34^ 
 ^7.<J8. 71. 
 
 Qj) lb. Advertifement kfore Primitive Chriftianity, 
 
[ i8 ] 
 
 gin'd he had found) ; xhQEpifrk ^/Barna- 
 bas ^ the Taftor of Hermasj the (^■) fe- 
 cond hook of Jpocryphal E s d r a s ; the 
 lEpiflle of PoLYCART i and, the larger Epi- 
 ^/^joflcNATiuSi andwhofeeing plamlyjthat 
 the books of the New Teftament are no Sy- 
 J} 6711 of Laws for the governing the Churchy 
 nor defign'd for that pnrpofe ^ and being per- 
 fwaded, that Chriftians ought to have fiich a 
 Syftemj fets up that manifeftly forg'd modem 
 book of the JpoJioUck Conjiitntions^ as con- 
 taining that fyftem, tho' {k) doubtful as to 
 the antiquity of fome of its parts, interpola- 
 ted in others, and firfi ptthlifljd in the mid- 
 dle of the fourth century. Which book has, 
 indeed, the form of a Law^, and pretends 
 itfelf to be the work of all the Jpoftles 
 affemhled together at Jertifalem-, tho' (/) 
 inconfiftent in many inftances with the books 
 of the New Teftament, and that by the con- 
 feffion of Mr. Whiston {ni) himfelf, who 
 fays that fuch inconfiftency is a plain cha- 
 raUer^ peculiar to the original and genu- 
 ine records of chriftianity^ and at leafi 
 
 equally 
 
 (0 See Floyer'i "Preface to Prophecies of Efdras, p. 7. 
 
 f fe; Whifton'i EJfay on Jpji, Coufi. p. 233—236:. 
 122. (f73,&c. 150. 
 
 (I) Smalbroke'i Pretended Authority of the ApoftoU 
 ConptiLt. confuted. 
 
 {in) Whifton'i St. Clement, and St. Irenieus'i Vi?jd. 
 . cfthe Apfi. Conji, p. 5. See alfo "Proceedings in Co?tvoc» 
 p. 103. 
 
r '9 J 
 
 equally true of the four ■ Gofpels^ and the 
 reft of our prefent Canonical 'Books^ corn- 
 par d with one another -, and tliat the Con- 
 ftitutions are the moft authentick and exaU 
 of the two, and that the prefent copies of 
 the Gofpels are rather to he correUed hy 
 them than the contrary, 
 
 I will finilli this article with obferving, 
 that tho' Mr. Whiston calls the Books of 
 the New Teftament Scriptures^ and Canoni^ 
 cal Scriptures^ according to the common 
 language of Chriftians; Yet it is apparent, 
 that he cannot think them dicinely infpird 
 books, or of that autority w'hich other Chri- 
 ftians do. For he not only thinks them to 
 have been (;;) altered and chartg'd, and to be 
 contradidory to one another,-' but that the 
 Authors themfelves may be {o) mifraken: 
 and he corrects a diforder of Luke's ma- 
 king j wherein he acfts like the famous Ju- 
 RiEu, who (/?) puts in crder^ as he fays, 
 thofe things which the Holy Ghoft had 
 placd in diforder. Nor does Mr. Whis- 
 
 C 2 TON 
 
 ('^^j Whifton'i 'Trcceed'wgi in Conv. p. 87. J)^; Id. 
 ^ref. to Letter to'B.AxX of Nott. p. 35, s*?". Id. Chron, 
 and Harmony^ p. 100. Id. St. Clement and St.Xxo.- 
 njeusV Vind. Sic. p. 5. Id. '■Trodeed. in Conv. p. 103. 
 Id. Efjay to-ivards rejlor. &c. p. 119. and Efpiy on Re' 
 "jclntioui^ p. 129. 135. 
 
 (0) Id. Chron. and Ilarm. p. icoi . 
 
 (J>) Jurieu AccompL dcs Prophcin Vol. a. p. 2IU 
 
E ^o ] 
 
 TON herein much differ from many other 
 great Divines i who feem to pay little defe- 
 rence to the Books of the New Teftament, 
 the text whereof tliey are perpetually mending 
 in their fermons, commentaries, and writings, 
 to ferve piirpofcs ; who pretend (pp) we 
 flwtild hcit'e more of the true text by being 
 lefs tenacious of the printed one^ and in 
 confequence thereof, prefume to corred by 
 critical {q) emendations^ feveral capital 
 places m the /'acred JFriters ; and who, by 
 requiring men's alfent to, and urging the 
 belief of, traditionary explications of Scrip- 
 ture, and of Catechifms, Creeds, ConfelH- 
 ons of Faith, and fuch like Compofitions, 
 which men, under penalties every where, 
 are obliged to believe the Scripture fupports, 
 do virtually fetafide the autorityof the Scrip- 
 ture, and place thofe compofitions in it^ 
 itead. 
 
 IV. 
 
 That it is a com7no7i and necejjary method 
 for new Ke'velations to be built and 
 grounded on precedent B^e-velatioits, 
 
 THIS method of introducing Chriflia- 
 nity into the world by building and 
 grounding it on the Old Teflament, is agree- 
 able 
 
 ipp) HareV Clergyman s I'hanks to Phil. Lipfienfis, 
 &c:p. 57. 
 (7 J Id. Scripture Vindicated ^ &c. p. 150* 
 
able to the (r) commoa method of introdu- 
 cing new ]^ e'velations (whether real or pre- 
 tended) or any Changes in Religion, and 
 alfo to the Natttre of 'Things, For if we 
 confider the various Ke'velations^ and Chan- 
 ges in Religion, whereof w^e have any tole- 
 rable hiftory, in their beginning, we fliall 
 find them for the moft part to be grafted on 
 fome old {lock, or founded on fome preced- 
 ing Re'VelationSy which they were either to 
 fupply, or fulfil, or retrieve from corrupt 
 glofles, innovations, and traditions, with 
 w^hich by time they w^ere incumber'd : and 
 this, which may feem matter of furprize to 
 thofe^ who do not refled on the changeable 
 State of all things, has happen'd ^ tho' the 
 old Kez'elations^ far from intending any 
 change, engraftment, or new difpenfation, 
 did for the moft part declare they were to 
 laft/^r ever^ and did forbid all alterations 
 and innovations, they being the lafl difpeu- 
 fations intended. 
 
 Thisgrafting on old ftocks^ we fee by Expe- 
 rience to be the Cafe of all the SeUs^ which alike 
 and according to the natural courfe ofthings,rile 
 up in the fevcral great and domineering Religi- 
 ons of the world. Nor is it lefs true of the domi- 
 neering Religions themfelves j fome of w'hich 
 
 C 3 wc 
 
 (r} StanKope'i Qsiirrou ofWifdonh 1. 2. c. 5. p. 103. 
 
we know to have been originally, but fuch 
 Se^s themfelves. . 
 
 Thus the million of Moses to the Ifrde- 
 lites fuppos'd a {J) former Revelation of God 
 (who from the beginning feems to have been 
 conftantly giving x fucceiTion of Difpenfa- 
 tions and Revelations) to their Anceftors: 
 and (?) many of the Religious Precepts 
 of Moses were borrow'd, or had an agree- 
 ment with the Religious Rites of the Hea- 
 thens, with whom the Ifraelites had corre- 
 fpondepce, and particularly with the Religi- 
 ous' Rites of the "Egyptians^ (who upon that 
 account feem {ii) confounded with the Ifrae- 
 lites by fome Pagans, as both their Religious 
 Rites were equally and at the fame time 
 {w) prohibited by others j ) to whofe Reli- 
 gious Rites the Ifraelites feem to have been 
 \x) Conformifts during their abode in Egypt ; 
 not excepting {y) Joseph himfelf, who by 
 his poft in the Adminiftration of the Govern- 
 ment,, his match with the Prince or Triefi 
 pf 0ns daughter, made up by Pharoah 
 
 him- 
 
 is) Exod. 5. (f) Simon. Hifl. Grit, du VieuxTefl-, 
 p. 50- Spencer dc X>egibus, &c. Stanhope's Diflert. 
 in Charron of TV^fdomy Vol. 2, p. 55, 97. Mar- 
 
 pam Canon Chronicus, &c. p. 181. 
 
 (u) Strabo. 1. i(>. & 17. {iv) T'aciti Annales. 1. z. 
 Suet on. in Tiber. (.r) Jof. 24. 14. Amos 5. 2(5". 
 
 A6ts 7. 45. (y) Gen. 41. /|.o. 4J. lb. 42. 15. 32, 
 
 |b. 44. j. 
 
[ ^3 J 
 
 hlmfelE, his manner of [wearing:, his eating 
 with the Egyptians J his pradife of Heathea 
 Tii'vination-, and, above all, by his Politi- 
 cal Conduct, feems to have been a moft 
 true Member of, and convert to, the efta- 
 blifli'd Church of Egypt, 
 
 The MilTion of Zoroaster to the T^erji- 
 'cns^ fuppos'd the Religion of the Magians ,• 
 which i^z) had been for many^ ages pnft^ the 
 antient national Religion of the Medes as 
 well as Terjians. 
 
 The Million of Mahomet fuppos'd Cir/- 
 ftianity^ as that did Judaifm, 
 
 And the (^) Siamefe and (Z>) 'Brachmans^ 
 both pretend, that they have had 2ijuccejfmi 
 of Incarnate deities among them, who, 
 at due diftances of time, have brought new 
 Revelations from heaven, each fucceeding 
 one depending on the former ^ and that Re- 
 ligion is to be carry'd on in that way for 
 ■ever. 
 
 And if we confider the nature of things^ 
 we iliall find, that it muft be (r) difficult, 
 
 C 4 if 
 
 (^') ^rideaux's Co7ineEi. Vol. i,p. 214. ^ococl. 
 Spec. Hifi. Ar<xh.-}p. 1^1 — 149. 
 
 (a) Gervaife^ Hilt, de Siam. ;^./r. c. i. T'c.chari^^ 
 Voyage dcSiam. Vol. i,p. 39(J, &c. 
 
 (h) Delon Des Dieux Orient, p. 10 — 3c. Plulof. 
 Tranfac. Ann. 1700, p. 794, &c. 
 
 {c) Char r 011 ofWifdom^ 1. 2. c. 5. 
 
C M ] 
 
 if not impoflible, to introduce among men 
 (who in all civiliz'd countries are bred up in 
 the belief of fome Reveard Religion) a Re- 
 yeal'd Religion wholly new, or fuch as has 
 no reference to a preceding One : For that 
 would be to combat all men in too many 
 refpeds, and not to proceed on a fufficient 
 number of Principles neceflary to be alfent- 
 ed to by thofe, on whom the firft imprelTions 
 pf a new Religion are proposed to be made, 
 
 Perfedt novelty {d) is a great and juft ex- 
 ception to a Religious Inftitution -, whereof 
 Religious Sects of all kinds have been fp 
 fenfible, that they have ever endeavour'd to 
 give themfelves, in fome manner or other, 
 the greateft antiquity they well could, and 
 generally the utmoft antiquity. Thus St. 
 Luke fays, that {e) God fpake of the Re- 
 deemer hy the month of all his Trophets^ 
 %(ohich ha-ve been fince the world hegaiu St. 
 Paul defends himfelf and the Chriftian Re- 
 ligion from the charge of novelty, when he 
 fays, (f) after the way^ which ye call He- 
 refy^ Jo worfiip I the God of my Fathers^ 
 heliemng all thin^.s that are written in the 
 JLiaw and the Trophets-, declaring hereby, 
 that Chriftianity was fo far from being He- 
 refy^ or' a new opinion, that it was the 
 
 dodrine 
 
 (^) Defenilo S. jlugufiini contra J. ThcrepmmM 
 p. 185. 187. 
 
 (e) Luke i. 70,. (f) Afts 24. 14, 
 
[i5] 
 
 Hoflrlne of the Old Teftament. And Chrl- 
 ftian {£) Divines date the antiquity of Chri- 
 ftianity from the time of the fall of A i> a My 
 aiTcrting; that Christ was then promised 
 in thefe words, {h) the feed of the woman 
 JJjall break the Serpent^ head^ which they 
 f^y contain (/) the Gofpel in miniature ,• 
 and that, from that time, men have been 
 fav'd by faith in the faid promife of Christ 
 to come, who was (k) the JLamhJlain from 
 the foundation of the worlds Christ's (/) 
 death looking backward as well as for- 
 wards* 
 
 And an eminent Divine thinks he can 
 with great probabiHty fettle the precife time, 
 when the Chriftian Co'venant began. He 
 fays, (jn) that Adam was created on the 
 fixth day at nine in the morning ; that he 
 fell about noon^ that being the time of eating ; 
 ^nd that Christ was promised about three 
 a-clock in the afternoon. 
 
 So that the truth of Chriftianity depends, 
 as it ought, on ancient Revelations, which 
 are contain d in the Old Teftament, and 
 
 more 
 
 (g) Taylor'; ^refervat. agawjl Tteifniy p. 213, &c. 
 Wiiifton'i- Sermons md EJpiySy^. 59—78. Stilling- 
 fleet'i Sermom^ fol. p. 187. 
 
 (^) Gen. 3. 15. (/) Taylor, lb. (k) Heb. 
 
 p. 24, i5, z6. lb. II. 7. 13. (/) TiliotfonV Ser- 
 
 fnojts. Vol. 5. p. 66, 61, {?n) Lightfoot'i JVorhy 
 
 Vol. z, p, 1324. 
 
[ z5 3 
 
 more particularly and ini.medlately on the 
 Ke-velattGns made to the Jews therein. 
 
 V. 
 
 I'hat the chief proofs of Chriftianity from 
 the Old T'eftament^ are urgd hy the Jpo^ 
 files in the New Tefiament, 
 
 HO W Chriftianity depends on thofe Ke* 
 I'eliations^ or what proofs are therein 
 to be met withal in behalf of Chriftianity, 
 are the Subjefts of almoft all the numerous 
 Books written by Divines and other Apolo- 
 'gifts for Chriftianity ; but the chief and prin- 
 cipal of thofe proofs i may be juftly fuppos'd 
 to be urg'd in the New Teftament by the 
 Authors thereof i who relate the hiftory of 
 the firft preaching of the Gofpel, and were 
 themfelves, either Apoftles of Jesus or Com- 
 panions of the Apoftles. 
 
 VI. 
 
 That if thofe Proofs are 'valid ^ Chriftia^ 
 nity is inmncihly efiahlijiod on its true 
 Fozmdation, 
 
 THOSE Proofs have in fome meafure 
 been already produced by me. And 
 if they are valid Proofs^ then is Chriftianity 
 ftrongly and invincibly eftabliili'd on its true 
 
 founda- 
 
foundations. It is eftablifh'd on Its true foun- 
 dations , becaufe Jesus and his Jpoftles 
 grounded Chriftianity on thofe proofs : And 
 it is ftrongly and invincibly eftabliili'd on 
 thofe foundations j becaufe a proof drawn 
 from an Infpird 'Book:, is perfectly conclu- 
 five i and Trophecies deliver'd in an Infpir'd 
 Book, are, when fulfill'd, fuch, as may be 
 juftly deem'd {ii) fiire and demonftrathe 
 proofs; and which {p) Peter prefers as an 
 argument to the miraculous atteftation , 
 whereof he himfelf and two other Apo- 
 ille's were witneffes, given by God him- 
 felf to the milTion of Jesus Christ. His 
 Argument fecms as follows. " Laying this 
 ^' foundation, that Prophecy proceeds from 
 ^^ the Holy Ghoft, it is a ftronger argument, 
 ^^ than a miracle, which depends upon ex- 
 r ^'ternal evidence and teftimony." 
 
 Bciides , according to our (^) Saviour, 
 Moses and the prophets are, not only with- 
 out further miracles, but tho' miracles fliould 
 be wrought in opposition to them, a fufficient 
 foundation of faith. 
 
 In building thus on 'Prophefy as a Princi- 
 ple ,• Jesus and his Jpoftles had the concurr 
 rencQ of all Scd:s of Religion among the Ta- 
 
 gans. 
 
 (n^ OrigeTiQowtv. Cels. p. 54. 
 
 (c) 2 Pet. I. 19. ^^e Whitby in locum. Wbiftoni 
 OLeft. p. 4. Q;,) Luke 16. 31. Matt. 24. 2^.44, 
 
 Mark 13. 21,22. 
 
pagans j who (^) univerfally built their re- 
 ligions on T^K'ination y and alfo made a 
 great part of their Religion to lye in the pra- 
 aife of that Jrt, They learnt that Jrt in 
 Schools^ or under difcipline, as the Jews did 
 (r) prophecnng in the Schools and Colleges 
 cfthe Trophets ; where the Learned Dod- 
 w EL fays, the Candidates for Trophefywero 
 taught the mks of T)wination prattisd by 
 the Tagans^ who were fkill'd therein, and 
 in pofiellion of the Art long before them. 
 Befides, this miraculous gift of Prophefy, 
 among the Jews, was not occafional, but a 
 common matter of faft, and a ftanding proof 
 of the divine autority of Judaifm. For, 
 fuitably to the words of Moses, (j) a Prophet 
 'Will the Lord Godraife up unto thee like 
 wito me-y to him fluill ye hearken; (which 
 imply an (t) eftabhfliment of an order and 
 fuccefTion of Prophets in analogy to the Hea- 
 then Diviners) there were great {u) numbers 
 of Prophets among them ; who not only in 
 the moft important affairs of government, but 
 in the difcovery of {w) loft goods^ and in 
 
 telling 
 
 {q) Cicero de Divinatione. (r) BullV Sermom^ 
 p. 419. V^hQ^tlQfs Schools of the 'Prophets, DodwelV 
 Zetters of Jdvice, &c. p. 214, &c. (s) I>eut. 18. 
 
 15. 18. (0 2)odzvet, lb. Stillivgjieet\ Orig. 
 
 Sacrc-e. 1. 2. c. 4. n. i. Ui) lb. n. 2, Burnet. 
 
 Arch^ol. p. 43, 44. (ik) I Sam. 9. 6. 20. i King, 
 
 14. a. 3. a King. 8. 8. 10. i Sam. 9. 7. 8. 
 
l\9l 
 
 telling fortunes^ fliew'd their divine Infpim- 
 tion j and who were paid for it by thofe 
 who confiilted them, either in liUnah or 
 money:, or prefevts. Whereby the meaneft 
 Perfon in ytiddsa had the oppotunity of ha- 
 ving this miracle wrought for him, whenever 
 he had occafion, which therefore we may ea- 
 iily judge muft have been a common indif- 
 puted matter of fad ^ for the frequent wants 
 of the People muft have made them often 
 attend the Trophets^ as the livelihood the 
 Prophets got by it muft have caus'd them 
 to have made conftant ufe of their divine 
 faculty. 
 
 It may alfo be juftly fuppos'd^ that the 
 divine power of Interpreting^ T)reamsy 
 (which was a prophetick Science pretended 
 to in all nations) prevalent among the Jews, 
 gave daily occaiion to numbers of People to 
 have their dreams interpreted which were 
 ufually thought to fignify fome good or evil 
 that was to befal them, and were common- 
 ly interpreted in relation to things to come. 
 
 Laftly, Trophejies fidfilfd^ feemthemoft 
 proper of all arguments, to evince the truth 
 of a revelation, which is defign'd to be uni- 
 verfally promulgated to men. For a man, 
 for example, who has the Old Teftamcnt 
 put into his hands, which contains ^rophe- 
 jies^ and the New Teftament, which con- 
 tains their completions, and is once fatisfy'd, 
 as he may be with the greateft eafe, that the 
 
 Old 
 
[36] 
 
 old Teftament exifted before the New, may 
 have a compleat, internal, divine demonftra- 
 tion of the truth of Chriftianity, without 
 long and laborious Inquiries. Whereas, Ar- 
 guments of another nature, fuch, for inflance, 
 as relate to the autority and genuinnefs of 
 books, and the Perfons and Charaders of* 
 Authors and WitnelTes, require more appli- 
 cation and underftanding than falls to the 
 fliare of the bulk of mankind ; or elfe are 
 very precarious in themfelves, as we may 
 judge by the reprefentation of the flate of 
 primitive Antiquity given us by ourmoft 
 learned Divines. The pious and learned 
 Bp. jp^//fays, (x) 'Taut a jiiit primisjdecuUs 
 fingendi Ucentia^ tarn prona in credendo 
 facilitas-, tit reriim geftamm fides gramter 
 exinde labor a'ver it ,• nee orhh tantum ter-- 
 rartim^fed& 1>ei ecclefia de temporihus fiiis 
 mythicis merito qiierattir. Bifhop Stil- 
 LiNGFLEET fays, (j/) that Antiquity is mofl 
 dejeUi've^ where it is mofi ttfeful^ namely in 
 the time immediately after the Jpojilcs. 
 And Dr.HicKES fays, {z) that there were in 
 the x\poftles times as many^ and as great 
 Herejies^ and Schifms^ as perhaps ha've 
 leen Jince in any age of the Church. So 
 
 that 
 
 (x) Fell, in Prremiffa Monit. ConfefT. fuppof. Cypri- 
 ani. fjv) StiUihgfleefs Irenicum. p. 296". 
 
 (z) Hickes's Apol, Vind. of the Cfmrch of Erglantf, 
 p. 124. 
 
that fetting afide the before-mentlon'd inter- 
 nal proofs from Trophefy^ (which are Apo- 
 flolical proofs, and fufficient of themfelves) 
 Chrillianity fliould feem, by this reprefenta- 
 tion of its primitive ftate, to be deftitute of 
 other or external, arguments , And nothing 
 fhould feem more falfe and more remote from 
 the original ftate of things, than the affertion 
 of the Reverend Mr. Reeves, {a) that if 
 Chriftianity he a Cheat ^^ 'tis a cheats [fo 
 prov'd or contriv'd] that we are hound to 
 emhrace and follow* 
 
 VII. 
 
 That if thofe Troofs are in-valid^ then is 
 Chriftianity falfe, 
 
 ON the other fide, if the proofs for Chri- 
 ftianity from the Old Teftament be 
 not valid ,• if the arguments founded on thofe 
 books be notconclufivej and the ^Prophefies 
 cited from thence be not fultilf d j then has 
 Chriftianity no juft foundation : for the foun- 
 dation on which Jesus and his Apoftlesbuik 
 it is then invalid and falfe. Nor can rnira- 
 cles^ faid to be wrought by Jesus and his 
 Apoftles, in behalf of Chriftianity, avail 
 any thing in the cafe : for miracles can 
 
 never 
 
 (jO Rcsvefs M^ol Vol. 2, p. I- 
 
 i/' 
 
f 5^ 
 
 never fender a foundation valid, which Is iii 
 itfelf invalid ; can never make a falfe infe^ 
 rence true ; can never make a Trophefy ful- 
 fill'd, which is not fulfill'd ,• and can never 
 mark out a Messias, or Jesus for the Mes- 
 S1AS5 if both are not mark'd out in the Old 
 Teftament. Befides, miracles^ faid to be 
 wrought, may be often juftly deem'd falfe 
 reports, when attributed to Perfons, who 
 claim an autofity from the Old Teftament, 
 which they impertinently alledge to fupport 
 their Pretences. God can never be fuppos'd 
 ojten to permit miracles to be done for the 
 confirmation of a falfe or pretended million : 
 and if at any time he does permit miracles 
 to be wrought in confirmation of a pretende'd 
 miftion, we have diredions from the {li) Old 
 Teftament not to regard fuch miracles ^ but 
 are to continue firm to the antecedent reve- 
 lation confirm'd by miracles, and contain'd 
 in the Old Teftament, notwithftanding any 
 miracles i which (in the opinion of fome Di- 
 vines, (^) as fplendid gifts as they are^ are 
 no demonfirations of the truths but) under 
 the circumftance of attefting fomething con- 
 trary to an antecedent revelation, conhrm'd 
 by; miracles, are certainly no proofs of the 
 truth. No new Revelation, however proved 
 by 
 
 (h^ Deut. 13. I. 2. (c) Hickes'i Apol Vind, cf 
 
 the Qmrcl) of Enghnd^ p. 23, 24. StiUiugflc9t*s Qrig. 
 
[35] 
 
 by miracles, ought ever to be received, uii' 
 lefs it confirms^ or does not contradid the 
 preceding ftanding true Revelation. 
 
 Moreover, (c) T!hofe among the J^w.^^ 
 who expected a Messias or deliver er^ (for 
 all the Jews did not (^) in our Saviour's time, 
 and perhaps none before the captivity) ever 
 expected a Real or Temporal ^eli'verer* 
 Such the (<?) Apoftles before the death of 
 Jesus expected he would be. Such they ex* 
 peded he would be after .his refurredtion^ 
 when they afk'd him, whether (/) at this 
 time he would reft ore again the kingdom of 
 Ifrael j in which notion he feems to leave 
 them, by not fetting them right as to the re- 
 floration of the kingdom of Ifrael j but taking 
 their notion for granted, he only anfwers as 
 to the time^ by telling them, that it was not 
 for them to know the time^ when he would 
 reftore the Kingdom of Ifrael : And all the 
 Primitive Chriitians were, for a confiderable 
 time after the afcenfion of Jesus, in the vul- 
 gar error of expeding him to come in the 
 clouds and reign perfonally and triumphantly 
 upon earth in a kingdom that was at hand* 
 The Jews expected a Messias, who was to 
 change their miferable condition into a happy 
 one, and to govern them by their own Law, 
 
 D with- 
 
 er Luke a. 58. {d) Lc Gere, fur i'endroit, 
 
 lb. Hi(l. Eccl. p. 4. (e) Luke 24. 21. 
 
 (/; iVas J. <J. Sse Tillotfon'; S^rmom^ Vol, 10,^. zatf. 
 
[34] 
 
 without the leaft imagination of a mere {g) 
 Spiritual deliverance or any alteration of 
 their divine law, (which they thought was 
 (^b) to he eternal) in vertue of a new Legi- 
 slative Power conferred on him by God. Pur- 
 fuant to which they thought the Perfon and 
 Doctrines of Jesus to be fo far from being 
 held forth in the Old Teftament, that they 
 (i) knew not whence he was^ and look'd on 
 him to be in many refpefts different from the 
 Christ they expected from thence -y and 
 thought Qz) no greater contradiUion could 
 he formd, nothing in nature or terms more 
 'irreconcilable -f than affirming the fame 
 Perfon to he Christ (that is, a triumphant 
 Prince) and to he crucify d. Wherefore the 
 numerous and wonderful miracles wrought 
 ijy Jesus, tho' equal (/) to what the Jews ex- 
 .pedted from their Messias, were no proofs 
 to them, that he was the Messias. They 
 were not in the leaft difposM to take him for 
 the Messias on (m) account of them ,• but 
 on the contrary they procur'd him to be cru- 
 cify 'd for pretending to be the Messias, (;/) 
 not knowing the Lord of Gldryy from his 
 miracles. Nor 
 
 (g) Scripta Jud^i apud Limhcrchii Amic. Collat. 
 p. ']6. 115. (h) Wloitbys Kote on Gal. 4. 2-1. 
 
 (U John p. 2 p. {k) Stanhope'; ^oyl. LeB. Firji 
 
 Sermon for 1700, p. 7, 8. (/) John 7. 31. 
 
 {m) Luke 2. 34. {n) Ads 3. 17. 
 
[35] 
 
 Nor had his miracles any effed on his own 
 {o) hrethrEii^ and kindred^ and family^ who 
 feem to have been more incredulous in him, 
 than other Jews. Nor had they the effcd, 
 which naturally they ihould feem fitted to 
 produce, among his Immediate Followers, 
 and Difciples : Some of whom did not (p) 
 h&lleve in him^ but deferted him, and parti- 
 jcularly had no jaith in him, w4ien he fpake 
 of his fufferings \ and thought he could (^) 
 not be the Messias, when they faw him 
 fuffer ; notwithftanding his miracles and fre- 
 quent declarations to them, that he was the 
 Messias. And the Jews were fo rooted in 
 their notion of a Temporal Deliverer, even 
 after the refurrcclion and afceniion of Jesus, 
 and the progrefs of Chriftianity grounded on 
 .thejsclief of Jesus to be the Messias, that 
 they have in all times of diftrefs, and parti- 
 cularly in the (r) Apoftolical times \xv great 
 numbers foliow'd Impoftors^ who have fet 
 up for the Messiah with force and arms, asthe 
 way to rejiore the kingdom of Ifrael. So 
 that the Jews, who miftook in this moft impor- 
 tant matter, and after the mod egregious 
 
 D 2 manner 
 
 (o) Mark <$■. 4. John 7, 5. (/) lb. 6. 54. 66. 
 Marks. 31. (q) Luke 24. 21. (r) Jofepb 
 
 Antiq. 1. 20. c. 2. & 6. lb. De bello Jud. 1 3. *c. 23. 
 .1.7. c. 50. Jjint De Pfeudo Mefllis. Vandak Dif- 
 fert. dc Origine Idol, &c. p. 127, ,&c. TillotfonV Sir* 
 mom^ Vol. 13. p. ii<j~-iJ9. iji, 
 
r 30 
 
 manner the meaning of their own books, 
 might, 'till they were fet right in their in- 
 terpretations of the Old Teftament^ and 
 were convinc' d from thence, that Jrsus was 
 the Messias, as juftly rejed; Jesus alTerting 
 his mifTion and dodrine with miracles^ as 
 any other Perfon, who, in vertue of miraclesj, 
 would lead them into Idolatry -^ or into any 
 other real breach of the Mofaick Law* 
 And the Gentiles, who ought regularly to be 
 converted to Judaifm, before they could be- 
 come Chriftians, and ought to ground their 
 Chriftianity on the Old Teflament, had a 
 right to the fame fatisfa6lion ^ and might 
 want it (as (s) Celsus did) no lefs than the 
 Jews, whom they might perhaps allow to 
 underftand their own books better than the 
 Apoftles, who manifeflly put new interpre- 
 tations upon them, and thofe not agreeable 
 to the obvious and literal meaning of thofe 
 books, and contrary to the Senfe of the Jew- 
 ifb Nation. And for this both Jews and 
 Gentiles might plead the example of the Apo- 
 Itlesj who, at firft, did, like other un- 
 believing Jews, exped a temporal Prince, 
 and did difbelieve Jesus to be the Messias on 
 account of his fufferings, notvvithftanding his 
 7mracksy who continu'd in thofe thoughts 
 till they came to underftand the Spiritual 
 
 Senfe 
 
 (0 Orige'ri contra Celfum, p. 78. 343. 
 
[37] 
 
 Senfe of the ScripHires^ which they reccivM, 
 partly by converfation with Jesus after his 
 death:, and partly by (^) infpiratioiij and. 
 who might feem to ad an inconfiftent part, 
 in interpreting the Scriptures in fo many re- 
 fpe6ts about Jesus as they did, according to, 
 the traditional rules and explications of the 
 Jews, and yet rejecting their traditional ex- 
 plication in refped to the temporal kingdom 
 of their Messias. 
 
 In fine, the miracles wrought by Jesus 
 are, according to the gofpei-fcheme, no 
 abfolute Proofs of his being the Messias^ or 
 of the truth of Chriftianity. 
 
 Thofe miracles were prophefy'd of in the 
 Old Teftament, like the other matters of the 
 Gofpel i And therefore they are no other- 
 wife to be confider'd as proofs of thofe points, 
 than as fulfilling the fayings in the Old Te- 
 {lament, like other gofpel-matters and events, 
 or (as a 'Boylean Ledurer well expreflbs it) 
 (ji^ as comprehended iri:, and exaUly confo- 
 nant to the Trophefies concerning the Mes- 
 sias. In that fenfe they are good proofs^ and 
 in that fenfe only: For, as I have before 
 obferv'd. If Jesus is not the Perfon prophe- 
 fy'd of as the Messias in the Old Teftament, 
 his miracles will not prove him to be fo, nor 
 prove his divine million. And in that fenfe 
 
 D 3 only 
 
 {t) Afts 26. 22, (?^) Stanhope'5 jSo^t, l>c6i, 
 
 1 701 Serw. 8, p. i^» 
 
only Jesus himfelf urges his miracles to prove 
 his being the Messias. For when (zc;) John 
 the 'Ba^tlfty who had heard in prijon ofth& 
 works or miracles <?/ Christ, but yet doubt- 
 ed whether he was the Messias, as perhaps 
 expefting, like other Jews, and like theJ 
 Apoftles themfelves, a Temporal Prince, and 
 one who would deliver him from his prifon, 
 fent two of his Difciples to him, to know, 
 whether he was the Messias, or they were 
 to look for another y Christ declares him- 
 felf to be the Messias, by JJ:>owing^ that tha 
 (x) Characters of the Messias as extant in 
 the Prophets manifeftly agreed to him in 
 thefe words, {y) Go and floew John again 
 thofe things^ which you do hear and fed: 
 *Ihe blind recei've their fight ^ and the lamd 
 walk:, the lepers are cleans d^ and the deaf 
 hear^ the dead are raisd up^ and the 
 ^cor have the gofpel preach' d unto them. 
 Jndhlejfed are they who Jh all not he offend- 
 ed in me. Which characters confift of two 
 parts, firft in doing miracles^ and fecondly, 
 jn appearing in a low ftate and teaching the 
 ^oor (which laft was much miftaken by, and 
 gave great offence to, the Jews j for as to 
 the hrflj the Jews (z) agreed to it.) Nei^ 
 
 ther 
 
 iw) Matt, 11.2,3, Vijd. Har/nmndum Si Ckrictim 
 in Locum. 
 
 C-r) See Hammond, iicho cites Ifaiah, ns 7-cferr'd to 
 a?, i8,ip5 21.13 35'5><^' (y) Matt. ti. ^—6, 
 (z) John 7. 31. 
 
[ 39 ] * 
 
 ther of which would, ofitfelf, be fuflficient 
 to prove Jesus to be the Messias, without 
 the otherj nor both together, but as they are 
 the Charadcrs of the Mess.ias in the Pro- 
 phets. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 ^'hat tbofe Troofs are T'ypiGal or Allegorical 
 Troofs. 
 
 OF x.hQflreiigth or weaknefs of the Proofs 
 for Chriflianity out of the Old Tefta- 
 meiit we feem well qualify'd to judge, by 
 having the Old and New Teftament in our 
 hands i the firft containing the Proofs of 
 Chriflianity, and the latter the application 
 of thofe proofs. And we fhould feem to 
 have nothing more to do, but to compare 
 the Old and New Teftament together. 
 
 But thefe Troofs taken out of the Old, 
 and urg'd in the New Teftament, being, 
 fometimes, either not to be found in the Old., 
 or not urg'd in the NeWy according to the 
 literal and obvious fenfe, which they feem 
 to bear in their fuppoi'd places in the 0/r/, 
 and therefore not proofs according to Scho- 
 laftick Rules ,• almoft all Chriftian {a) Co- 
 
 D 4 mentator-s 
 
 (a) Or i gen, Eufcbius, Jerom,(w/70 fays direElly, to 
 Pammachius, that the 'Pajfages alkd£d by Paul, out 
 
 of 
 
[ 40 3 
 
 unentators on the Bible, and Ad'vccates for 
 the Chriftian Religion, both antient and 
 modern, have judg d them to be apply'd in a 
 fecondary, or typical, or myftical, or alle- 
 gorical, or enigmatical fenfe, that is, in a 
 ifenfe different from the obvious and literal 
 fenfe, which they bear in the Old Tefta- 
 ment. 
 
 I. Thus for example, St. Matthew af- 
 ter having given an account of the concep- 
 tion of the Virgin Mary, and of the birth 
 of Jesus, fays, \h) all this was done that 
 it might he fulfill d^ which was fpoken hy 
 the Trophet^ f'^ying^ "Behold a Virgin 
 " ihall be with child, and fliall bring forth 
 5"^ a Son, and they fliall call his name Im- 
 
 MANUEL." 
 
 oft}3e Old ^ejlament, aliter in fuis locis, aliter in Epi' 
 ftolis Paulinis fonant) Cyril, Chryfoftom, Auflin, a- 
 wong the Antients. And mnong the ModernSy Sextus 
 Senenfisiw Bihl. San6laj Giaffius in Philologia Sacra 5 
 Grotius 172 Vetus a72d Nov. Teft. & ficut at in Ifa. 5 3. i. 
 ?';; Pfal. 22. I. and z« Matt. i. 225 Cnneiis dans fa 
 Republique des Hebreux. 1. 9. c. 8. Vol. i. p. 57^5 
 Simon Hift. Grit, du V. T. p. 97, 98, — Hift. Grit, du 
 Nov. Teft. c, 21.&22 — Suppl. aux Ceremonies des 
 Juifs. p. 7 J Jenkins'; Reafon. of the Clmfiian Religion 5 
 j!^icho\s Conference ivith aT'heiJi. Vol. 3d. White 0;/ 
 Ifaiah 5 ^ufin Difiert. Prelim, fur la Bible. 1. i. c, 
 JO J and Le Clerc Bib. Ghoilie, Vol. 27. p. 388 — 399. 
 See Whiston's Confefficn of this Matter in ^^■ii)[i^(;-. 
 p. 92. (^) Matt. 1.22, 25, 
 
[ 
 
 41 ] 
 
 MANUEL." But the words^ as they ftan'd in 
 Isaiah, (c) from whom they arefuppos'd to be 
 taken, do, in their obvious and literal fenfe, 
 relate to a yoting woman in the days of Aha z. 
 King oiyudah^ as will appear by confider- 
 ing the context. 
 
 (d) When Rezin, King of Syria^ and 
 Pekah, King of Ifrael, were Confederates 
 in arms together, again ft Ahaz^ King of 
 Judah; Isaiah the Prophet w^as fent by 
 God firft to comfort Ahaz and his Nation, 
 and afterwards to allure them by a fign or 
 miracle, that his Enemies fhould in a little 
 time be confounded. But Ahaz refiifing a 
 fign at the Prophets hands, the Prophet faid, 
 {e) T'he Lord Jlodl gwe yon a fign ; be- 
 hold a Virgin (o\(f)yoimgworiiaii) Jloall 
 concei've and hear a fon^ and flmll call his 
 name Immanuel. Gutter and Honey flj all 
 he eat j that he may know to refnfe the evil:, 
 and chtife the good. For before {g) the 
 Child Jh all know to refufe the evil and chiife 
 the gj)od^ the land flmll beforfaken of both 
 her kings. And this fign is accordingly gi- 
 ven Ahaz by the Prophet, who {h) took two 
 witneffesy and in their prefence went nnto 
 the faid Virgin or young Woman, call'd the 
 (/) Trophetefsy who in due time conceivd 
 
 and 
 
 (c) Ifa. 7. 14. C^)c. 7. (e')v. i^-id. (f)Vide 
 Erafmum /« Matt. c. i-v. 30. (g) See K&iah 8.4. 
 
[40 , 
 
 md hare a foii^ who was nam'd (Jz) Imma- 
 NUEL ; after whofe birth, the Projeds (/) of 
 Kezin and Pekah were foon confounded, 
 according to the Trophefy and figip given by 
 the Prophet. 
 
 And the Prophet himfelf puts it paft di- 
 fpute, by exprefs words, as well as by his 
 whole narration, that his own Child was the 
 Jtg7i mention'd, when he fays, {pj) heboid I 
 and the Children^ whom the Lord hath 
 gwen me^ cvfe for figns ajtd for wonders in 
 Ifraely from the Lord of Hoftsy that dwelr 
 leth in Mount Sion^, 
 
 This is the plain drift and defign of the 
 Prophet, literally, obvioufly, and primarily 
 iindcrftood ; and thus is he underftood by 
 one of the moft Judicious, of Interpreters, the 
 great Grotius. Indeed, to underftand the 
 Prophet as having the conception of the Vir- 
 gin Mary and birth of her fon Jesus lite- 
 rally and primarily in view, is a very great 
 (;/) ahfurdity^ and contrary to the very in- 
 tent and defign of the fign given by the Pro- 
 phet. For the fign {o) being given by the 
 Prophet to convince Ahaz, that he brought 
 a meilage from the Lord to him to affure 
 him that the two Kings fliould not fucceed 
 
 againft 
 
 {K) See Grotius in Matt. 1.22. (I) Ifa. 8. 8. 10. 
 
 lb. 7. 14: 8.4. On) lb. V. 19- («) White 
 
 in hunc locum, & Pref. p. zo. (0) Ifa. 7. 143 8.4 
 
f 43 ] . 
 
 againft him ,• how could a Virgin's concq)- 
 tion and bearing a fon fevea hundred years 
 afterwards, be '^fign to Ahaz, that the Pro- 
 phet came to him with the faid mefTage from 
 the Lord? And how ufelefs was it to Ahaz, 
 as well as abfiird in itfelf, for the Prophet to 
 fay, {p) before the Child^ born feven hun- 
 dred years hence, fhall diftinguifh between 
 good and eiil^ the Land flmll he forfaken 
 of both her Kings? which fhould fcem a 
 banter inftead of a lign. But a Prophefy of 
 the certain birth of a Male Child, to be born 
 within a year or two, feems a propery^;/ ; 
 as being not only what could not wnth cer- 
 tainty be foretold, except by a Perfon in- 
 fpir'd by God ; but as immediately or foon 
 coming to pafs, and confequently evidencing 
 itfelf to be a dwine Jign^ and anfwering all 
 the purpofes of a Jigiu And fnch s.Jtgn is 
 agreeable to the divine Con dud on the like 
 Occafions. God gave {q) Gideon and (r) 
 Hezekiah immediate y/^z/j" to prove,- that he 
 fpoke to them ,- and that the things promised 
 to them fhould come to pafs. Had he given 
 them rem-ote figns^ how could they ha\'o 
 known, that thofigns thcmfelves would ever 
 have come to pafs? And how could thofe 
 Jigns evidence any thing ? Thofe //^//j- would 
 
 have 
 
 (/) Ifa. 8. -y. 1 5, i6. (q) Judg. 6, 
 
 (r) 2, K-ing. io. f 
 
[ 44 ] 
 
 have flood in need of other yF^/zj- to manifeft, 
 that God would perform them in time. 
 
 This prophefy therefore not being fulfill'd 
 in Jesus according to the literal, obvious, 
 and primary fenfe of the v^ords, as they Hand 
 in Isaiah j It is fiippos'd, that tiiis, like all 
 the other Prophefies cited by the Apoftles, is 
 (j) fulfill'd in a fecundary, or typical, or 
 myftical, or allegorical fenfe ^ that is, the 
 faid Prophefy, which was then literally ful- 
 fill'd by the birth of the Prophet's Son, was 
 again fulfill'd by the birth of Jesus, as be- 
 ing an Event of the fame kind, and intended 
 to be fignify'd, either by the Prophet, or by 
 God who direded {he Prophet's fpeech. I 
 fay, like all other Prophefies cited hy the 
 Jpoflles^ not only upon having myfelf par- 
 ticularly confider'd all thofe Prophefies, but 
 upon what I find afferted by an Eminent Di- 
 vine, who fays, (?) "Tis pojfihle in the confix 
 deration of fingle Prophefies to find out 
 fome other Terfon or Bt'enty (befides Jesus 
 and the matters relating to him) to which 
 thefe might he adapted without great 'vio- 
 lence to the text. And this fuppos'd Allegory 
 or Ohfcnrity (which indeed reigns in all Pro- 
 phefies that ever were, whether Pagan, Jew- 
 illi, Chriilian, or Mahometan, that have 
 
 ex- 
 
 (s) Le Cierc Bib. Univ. Tom. 20. p. 54. 
 
 (r) Stanhope's Soyl. Le£i. $erm. -j, 1701, p. i7« 
 
[45] 
 
 exifted before the events to which they have 
 been referr'd) is fo far from being made mat- 
 ter of Objedion, that the necejfity {u) there- 
 of is contended for, in order to make the 
 Prophefies of the Old Teftament reach the 
 end for which they were defign'd. The 
 great clearnefs of Prophelies has ever been 
 deem'd a mark among Intelligent People, 
 whether Believers or Unbelievers in Prophe- 
 fy, that they have been made after the Event,- 
 And thus from their great clearnefs, as well 
 as from other topicks, almoft all Criticks 
 now condemn the prefent colled:ion of Sybil- 
 line Oracles as forg'd. 
 
 If the Reader defires farther fatisfadiiion, 
 that the literal, obvious, and primary fenfe 
 of this Prophefy relates to Isaiah's ownfon, 
 or not to Jesus, I refer him to {w) Gro- 
 Tius ,• to (."<:) HuETius (who confirms his 
 explication with the autority of Eusebius, 
 Basil, Jerom, Cyril, Tkeodoret, and 
 Procopiusj ) {y) to Castalio j {z) to 
 
 EpISCOPIUS j to {a) CuRCELLitUSj to {b) 
 
 Hammond ; 
 
 (u) MontaguV ABs and Monummts^ &c. c. 2. %. 2, 
 &c. Atignftin De Doftr. Chriitian. 1. 2. c, 5. Stan- 
 hoj)e^ lb. p. II— 32. Jenkins's Reafo7i of Cbrifi. Vol. 2. 
 p. 1 59—1 70. (''jv) Grotiiis in Matt.& Ifaiara. 
 
 ix) Htietii Demon. Evang. p. 352 — 355. Hue- 
 tiana , p. 206". (y) Cafialionh^ Biblia. 
 
 (•z)Epifcopii Inftit. 1. 3. c. 13. §. 14, 
 {a) C'urcelljei Initit. p. 220. 
 (b) Hm7?m7id's Annotations, ^c. 
 
C 4S ] 
 
 jHammond; to (c) Nichols j to (d) Si- 
 mon ,• to (e) Le Clerc; to (/) Lamy j to 
 •(<?) ICiDDERj (who, tho' he endeavours in 
 •many pages to prove the words of Isaiah 
 applicable to the birth of Jesus in their literal 
 fenfe, yet confelTes there are 'very confidera- 
 hie difficulties in the matter^ and after all is 
 forc'd tohaverecoiirfeto^^'/'^ and Allegory) -^ 
 -to our learned and ingenious Commentator 
 ••{h) White ,• and even to (i) Mr. Whiston 
 iimfelf, who .(hows the words of Isaiah not 
 to be applicable to Jesus's birth in their lite- 
 ral fenfe, according to the prefent text of 
 Isaiah j which is deem'd by all Chriftians, 
 .buthimfelf, the true text o^Isaikh, 
 
 2. Again, St. Matthew gives us another 
 Prophefy, which he fays w^sfidfilld. He 
 -tells us, that Jesus w^as carry'd into Egypt ^ 
 jfrom whence he return'd after the death of 
 ,Herod, {k) that it might he julfiU d which 
 ''WCisJfoken of the Lordhy the Prophet ^ fay- 
 ■ing 5 " Out of Egypt ha\'e I call'd my 
 " Son." Which words being word for word 
 in Hoseah, (/) and no where elfe to be found 
 
 in 
 
 (c) NicMs's GoD^ar. with a Theift, Vol.. 3. 
 (4) Simon Hirt. Crit. du K. Teft. c. zi. 
 (0 Le Clerc. Nov. Teft. 
 {f^Lc.my Harmon, p. %6. 
 
 (^) Kidder's .^e7n. of the 'MeJJiaSj .Vol. 2. p. a8 5-3 1 5. 
 p. 292.509, &c. 
 {h) White'j Comment, en Ifaiah. 
 
 (i) Whifton'i EJfay, 6ic. p. 2x9, Sic. 
 (k) Mat, J. 15. (V;.Hof. II. 
 
 II, r. 
 
[ 47 I 
 
 in the Old Teftament, are fuppos'd to be ta- 
 ken trom thence ; where, according to their 
 "obvious fenfe, they are no prophcfy, but re- 
 late to a (in) pait adion, and that to the 
 calling the children of Ifrael out of Bgypt ,- 
 as, I think, is deny'd by few. This pallage 
 •therefore, or, as it is ftil'd, Trophefy of Ho- 
 SEAH is faid by learned Men to be myftically 
 or allegorically applyM in order to render 
 Matthew's application of it juftj And they 
 ■fay, all other methods of fome learned 
 ■men to foke the difficulties arifing from the 
 citation of this prophcfy, hate prcSd imfiic- 
 cefsfuL 
 
 3. Matthew fays, {71) ijtsvs came and 
 'dwelt at Nazareth, that it might he fidfilfdy 
 
 which was J poke n by the Trophets faying^ 
 '*' He lliall be call'd a Nazareney Which 
 -citation does not ^a,;/?^^/?)' occur in any place of 
 the Old Teftament, and therefore the Old Te- 
 ilament cannotbe literally fuitiU'd therein. 
 
 4. Jesus fays of John the "Baptiji^ (0) T:his 
 -is the Eli AS that was for to come : Wherein 
 I he is fuppos'd to refer tothefe words of Ma- 
 -LAGHi, (p) "Behold, I will fend you Eli- 
 " jAH the Prophet before the coming of the 
 
 " great 
 
 (w) SeeWhi&on'sZe^. p. 12. lb. Effay\^c. p. 
 '88, &c. Simoiz Hift. Crir. du N. Teft, c. 2 r. p. 160. 
 Ciindd^is kep. DcsHcb. Vol. i. p. 375. Hiietii Dem. 
 Evang. p. 7 30. (r\) Matt. a. Z3. {p) Matt. 1 1. 
 
 J4. C/) Mai. 4, 5. 
 
[48] 
 
 €C 
 
 great and terrible day of the Lord^" which, 
 according to their litteral fenfe, are a Pro* 
 phefy, that Elijah or Elias was to come 
 in Perfon, and therefore were not literally 
 but myftically^ fulfiird in John the 'Baptift, 
 5. Again Jesus (^) cites this Prophefy of 
 Isaiah, (r) " By hearing, ye fliaii hear 
 " and fhail not underftand ;" and he afTures 
 us, that it was julfiUd in his time in thofe 
 to whom he fpoke 'm parables -, tho' it is ma- 
 nifeft, that, according to the litteral fenfe, it 
 relates to the obftinate Jews, who liv'd in 
 the time of Isaiah. 
 
 In fine, the Prophefies, cited from the Old 
 Teflament by the Authors of the New do 
 fo plainly relate, in their obvious and prima- 
 ry fenfe, to other matters than thofe which 
 they are produc'd to prove j that to pretend 
 they prove, in that fenfe, what they are pro- 
 
 - duc'd to prove, is, (j) to give zip the caiife 
 of Chriftianity to Jews and other B^iemies 
 thereof; who can fo eafily iliow, in fo many 
 undoubted inftances, the Old and New Te- 
 
 •ftamenttohave no manner of connexion iii 
 
 -that refpect, but to be in an (t) irrecojici- 
 lahle ftate, 
 
 X-- t Nay 
 
 (^) Matt. 15.- 34, 55. ('r)Ifa.tf. 9. 
 
 (5) Cnneus Rep. des Hebr;1.3.c. 8. Vol. r, p. 277, 
 &c. Simon Bibl. Crit. Vol. 4. p. 513. lb, Hift, Crit. 
 <lu Nov. Teft. c, 21. & 22. 
 
 (t) Whifton'i EJJay, &c. p. 282, 
 
[,49] 
 
 Nay, this Inconiiftency is fliown to their 
 Hands by the moft learned men of the Chri- 
 ftian Church j who , according to Mr. 
 Whiston, (u) have taken no fmall pains to 
 fhow, that the Apoftles arguments from the 
 Old Teftament are not grounded on the lite- 
 ral fenfe thereof. Grotius {w) Tnows this 
 of mod, if not all, of the Propheiies and 
 Citations quoted from the Old in the New 
 Teftament. Dodwel, {x) in a pofthumous 
 work, does (with the learned {y) Sir John 
 Marsham) refer even the famous Prophefy 
 in Daniel about the Weeks to the times of 
 Antiochus Epiphanes; wherein he iliows, 
 that the exprejfions taken from thence by {z) 
 Christ, and urg'd by him as foretelling the 
 deftrudion of Jerufalem by the Romans^ 
 have only in a fecundary fenfe a refpeU to 
 that deJintUion. And "that famous palfage 
 in the Pentateuch, (^) J Trophet will the 
 Lord God raife up unto thee^ like mito me ; 
 to himfljallye hearken i (which fome inter- 
 pret literally to mean Jesus Christ, and 
 which (/>) Luke in two places refers to as 
 
 E fpoken 
 
 (ii) Whifton's £^jy, &c. p. 92. Ih. Ze£iureSfTp. 13. 
 ip. ao. 58. 47, 48. 
 
 (wj Grot ins, in Novum Teftament um. 
 (.r) Apud Srookeshy^s 1)odivel^s Life, p. 508. 
 (y) Marpam Canon Cronicus, Sic. p. 5(J8— 576'. 
 fs;^ Matt. 24. (a)T)Q.yxt. 18. 15. iS. 
 (^)Aas 3. Z2. 7. 37. 
 
[ 5o] 
 
 fpoken of Jesus Christ) is generally (r) 
 tinderftoody and particularly by Grotius 
 and Stillingfleet, to {ignify in its imme- 
 diate fenfe Tromife of a fttccejjion of Tro- 
 phetSy to the judicious reafonings of which 
 laft author, on this occafion, I refer the Rea- 
 der. Which condud of thefe eminent Di- 
 vines and Advocates for Chriftianity can on- 
 ly be owing to the piainnefs of the cafe it- 
 felfi which {d) Mr. W h i s t o n himfelf 
 acknowledges is fuch in divers inftances, 
 that, taking the prefent Old Teftament for 
 genuine, it is impolTible to account for thofe 
 citations on any other foundation than on the 
 
 Allegorical Scheme. 
 
 IX. 
 
 I'he nature of Tjpical or Allegorical T roofs 
 and Reafoning, 
 
 IN order therefore to underftand the full 
 force of the Troofs for Chriftianity, 
 it is neceffary to underftand the nature and 
 
 rules 
 
 (c) VarJale DiflC de Origine Idolokt. &c. p. 187. Si- 
 mon Hift. Crit. du N. Teii p. 227. Id. Apologie centre 
 ]e Vajjor. p. 127. Grotms in locum. StiUingpeet\ Orig. 
 Sacr«. 1. 2. c. 4. n. i. p. 100. Dodwel'^- Let ten of Ad" 
 vice^ Sic. p. 214. 
 
 (^; V/hilion'i ZeBares^ p. 2 z (J, 227. lb. 25^. lb. 
 JE^^ujj;, &c. p. 5>2. 
 
[ 51 ] 
 
 rules of typical, myftical, and allegorical 
 reafoning. Which, is what I ihall now en- 
 deavour to explain to the reader. 
 
 To fuppofe, that an author has but one 
 meaning at a time to a proportion (which 
 is to be found out by a critical examination 
 of his words ), and to cite that proportion 
 from him, and argue from it in that one 
 meanings is to proceed by the common rules 
 of grammar and logick ; which, being hu- 
 man rules, are not very difficult to be fet 
 forth and explain'd. But to fuppofe pafiages 
 cited, explain'd, and argu'd from in any 
 other method, feems very extraordinary and 
 difficult to underftand, and to reduce to rules* 
 Accordingly, notwithftanding it is fuppoj'd 
 by the learned interpreters of the New Te- 
 flament and the feveral chriftian Apologifts, 
 that the Apoftles apply 'd the paiTages they 
 cite out of the Old 'rellament to their pur- 
 pofes after a typical, or myilical, or allego- 
 rical manner j and notwithftanding, both an- 
 cients and moderns do almoft univerfally make 
 application of pallages of the Old Teftament 
 (to fay nothing of their manner of interpreting 
 the New Teftament, and the Rece/ation of 
 St. John in particular) in fome fuch manner, 
 not only as to matters, that relate to the Gof- 
 pel of JeoUS, but to the matters and events of 
 all times : yet the rules of thus applying 
 palTages of fcripture feem not underftood by 
 many of thofe perfons, who contend, that 
 
 E 2 the 
 
[5-] 
 
 the Apoftles us'd that method, or who ufe it 
 themfeives. For I find it lamented by a "Boy- 
 lean Le^urerj that (/) tbe Jewiflo T'radi- 
 ticns or Rules for interpreting Scripture^ 
 'which had hosn recei'vd among the ancient 
 Jewijh Rabbins, and were foilow'd by the 
 Apoftles in their interpretations of the Old 
 Teftament, were lofl. And fo lately as 
 1708, I find in the Reverend Dr. Jen kin 
 the following pailage: He, on occafion of 
 St. Stephen's giving an hiftorical account 
 of feveral matters contrary to what we read 
 in the Old Teftament, and arguing before the 
 Sanedrin from thence, fays, that {g) St. 
 Stephen would net'er haoe producd any 
 thing out of the Old Teftament before the 
 Sanedrin^, nor would St. Luke ha-ve record- 
 ed itjoon after^ if it had been capable of 
 any difproof or confutation^ whatever diffi- 
 culties at this diftance of time there may 
 appear to us to be in it. And fo in all other 
 cafes we may depend upon it^ that the Jpo- 
 ftles and other "Difcipies^ who had fuch 
 demonft.rati've etidence for the conviUion of 
 TJnbeliet'ers^ by a conftant power of mira- 
 cles^ would necer make ufe of any argu- 
 ments to the Jews from the Old Teftament^ 
 hut fuch as they well knew^ their Adverfa- 
 t ries 
 
 (f) Stanliope'^ Soyl. LeB. Serm. 8. 170 1, p. 15. 
 {g) Jenkin'5 Keafonab, of the CJorifi,Relig. Vol. 4. 
 p. 320. 
 
[53 ] 
 
 ries cotdd never he able to difpro've or deny. 
 For there were then certain methods of in- 
 terpretation^ as we may learn from Jose- 
 PHUs (/^) which are now loftj and they di^ 
 fputed from acknowkdgd maxims and 
 rules: the only difference and matter of 
 difptite^ ' was in the application of them to 
 the particular cafe ^ howe'ver cur ignorance 
 of things-, then generally known ^ may now 
 make it diffictilt to reconcile fome texts of the 
 New Tefiament with thofe of the Old^ from 
 whence they are cited, 
 - But iince that time, the learned Suren- 
 Husius, ProfefTor of the Hebrew Tongue in 
 the illuftrious School of Jmfterdam^ has 
 made an. ample difcovery to the world of the 
 rtdes., by which the Apoftles cited the Old 
 Teftament, and argu'd from thence, in a (/) 
 Treatije; wherein the whole myftery of the 
 Apoftles applying Scripture in a fecondary or 
 typical, or m.yftical, or allegorical fenfe feems 
 unfolded. I fliall therefore ftate this matter 
 from Sup.ENHusius j who himfelf gives the 
 fubfiance as well as the occafion of his work 
 in his preface. 
 
 E 3 He 
 
 {h) fofepb. De Bcllo. Jud. 1. 7. c 14- 
 
 {i) Tradatus in quo fecundum Veterum Theologo- 
 rum HcbrEorum formulas allegandi, & modos inter- 
 pretandi, conciliantur loca ex V. In Nov. Teft. allegata. 
 Amllel. 17 1 3. p. 712. 
 
[54] ^ 
 
 He fays, (k) " That when he confider'd 
 ^^ the various opinions of the Learned about 
 ^' the paflages of the Old Teitament quoted 
 " in the New, he was Ji/fd with griefs not 
 ^' knowing where to fet his foot, and being 
 '^ much concern'd that what had been done 
 ^^ with good fuccefs upon profane Authors, 
 *^ could not be fo happily performed upon the 
 " facred." 
 
 He tells us, " That having had frequent 
 occaiions to converfe with the Jews, (on 
 *^ account of his application to Hebrew li- 
 '^ terature from his youth), who infolently re- 
 " fieded on the New Teftament j affirming 
 ^' it to be plainly corrupted, becaufe it fel- 
 dom or never agreed with the Old Tefta- 
 ment, fome of whom were fo confident in 
 this opinion as to fay they would profefs 
 the Chriftian Religion, if any one could 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 cc 
 cc 
 
 '* reconcile the New Teftament with the Old; 
 " he was the more grievdj becaufe he 
 
 cc 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 cc 
 cc 
 
 knew not how to apply a remedy to this 
 evil. But the matter being of great im- 
 portance, he difcours'd with feveral learn- 
 ed men about it, and read the books of 
 others, being perfwaded, that the authors 
 
 " of 
 
 (Ji) For this extraEi ottfofSvRKvsHvsivs, I am for 
 the ?nofl par: ohlig'd to the learned and hgeniom Monf. 
 De la Roche 5 from "jchofe Memoirs of Literatuce I have 
 in great meafiire taken it< 
 
cc 
 
 [ 55] 
 
 " of the Books of the New Teftament had 
 writ nothing, but what was fuited to the 
 time, wherein they liv'd, and that Christ 
 ^' and his Apoftles had conftantly foilow'd 
 " the method of their Anceftors. After he 
 " had long revolv'd this hypothefis in his 
 " mind, at laft he met with a Rabbin well 
 " fkill'd in the Talmud, the Cabalay and 
 '^ the alloporical liooks of the Tews. That 
 '^ Rabbin had once embrac'd the Chriftian 
 " Religion, but was again relaps'd to Juda- 
 " ifm, on account of the idolatry of the Pa- 
 '^ pifts, yet not perfedly difbelieving the in- 
 '^ tegrity of the New Teftament. Mr. Su- 
 RENHUSius afk'd him, what he thought 
 of the paflagesof the Old Teftament, quoted 
 in the New, whether they were rightly 
 quoted or not ? and whether the J ews had 
 any juft reafon to cavil at them? And ac 
 the fame time he propos'd to him two or 
 three pafTages, which had very much ex- 
 ercis'd the moft learned chriftian Commen- 
 tators. The Rabbin having admirably ex- 
 plain'd thofe paffages, to the great furprize 
 of our author, and confirm'd his explica- 
 tions by feveral places of the (/) Talmtid^ 
 and by the writings of the Jewifti Com- 
 mentators and allegorical writers j Mr. 
 SuRENHUsius alk'd him, what would be 
 the beft method to write a treatife, in or- 
 E 4 " der 
 
 (V) «S(?^ Scaligcrana, p. 2^5. 
 
 cc 
 
[ 56] 
 
 ^^ der to vindicate the paffages of the Old 
 '' Teftament which have been quoted in the 
 " New ? The Rabbin anfwer'd, that he 
 " thought the beil way of fucceeding in 
 ^^ fuch an undertaking, would be to perufe 
 ^^ a great part of the T'ahmtd^ and the alle- 
 ^^ goricai and literal Commentaries of the 
 '^ moft ancient Jewifli writers ; to obferve 
 ^*^ their feverai ways of quoting and inter- 
 '' preting Scripture •„ and to colled as many 
 ^^ materials of that kind, as would be fuffi- 
 ^"^ cient for that purpofe. Mr. S, took the 
 ^^ hint immediately : he read feverai parts 
 " of the Talmud y he perus'd the Jewiih 
 ^'^ Books abovemention'd, and obferv'd eve- 
 " ry thing that might be fubfervient to his 
 ^^ defign. And having made a large col- 
 *^ ledion of thofe materials, he put all his 
 '^ T^hefes into order, and digefted them into 
 ^^ four Books: The firft- whereof treats of 
 " the jorym of quotings ilhifirating^ and 
 '' reconciling the Scriptures in 59 T^he- 
 " fes : the fecond treats of the manner of 
 " quoting in 2 o T^hefes : the third treats of 
 the manner of interpreting in 2 5 T'hefes : 
 and the fourth treats of the manner of ex-- 
 pounding and reconciling the Genealogjes 
 in 35 Thefes'^ Then he proceeds in a 
 fifth book to explain and juftify all the 
 quotations made from the Old Teftament in 
 the NeW) by his foregoing 1^'hefes, 
 
 As 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
[ 57] . 
 
 As to the forms of quotings which is the 
 fubjeft of his lirft book, he lays, " that in 
 " order to vindicate and reconcile any paf- 
 " fage of the Old Teftament quoted in the 
 " Kew, one muft in the firft place obferve, 
 " what form of quoting the Apoftles made 
 '^ ufe of i becaufe from thence one may im- 
 mediately know, why they alledge the 
 following words in a certain manner, ra- 
 ther than in another, and why they de- 
 part more or lefs from the Hebrew Text. 
 ^^ Thus a different fenfe is imply'd in each 
 ^'^ of the following forms of quoting ufed by 
 '^ the facred writers of the New Teftament: 
 '' it has been [aid : it is written : that it 
 *^ might he fulfilfd which was fpoken : 
 ^^ the Scripture fays : fee what is faid : 
 '' the Scripture for efeeing: is it not writ- 
 '^ ten : wherefore he [ays : hat'e you net'er 
 '^ read: what fays the Scripture: as he 
 '' fpcke^ &c. Befides, he fays, it ought to be 
 '' confider'd, why in thofe quotations God 
 '^ is introduced under the name of Lord or 
 '^ Qod or Holy Ghofi^ and fometimes the 
 *' writer himfelf, or the Scripture j and like- 
 '^ wife, why the Perfons or Things, in que- 
 ^'^ (Hon are introduc'd fpeaking. Laftly, 
 '*^ it ought to be obferv'd, when and why a 
 ^^ palfage of the Old Tellament is alledg'd 
 '^ in the New without any previous form of 
 '^ quoting i and why fome traditions, and 
 " h^flory almolt forgotten, arc fometimes 
 
 " occa- 
 
" occafionally brought in, as if they made 
 *^ a part of Scripture ?" In the fecond book, 
 which treats of the manner of quotings . he 
 fliows, " that the books of the Old Tefta- 
 *^ ment have been difpos'd in a different or- 
 *^ der at different times, and hav^e had difib- 
 *' rent names, which is the realbn, why a 
 *^ writer or a book, is fometimes confound- 
 *^ ed with another in the New Teftament." 
 Befides, he produces feveral reafons, " why 
 *^ the facred writers of the New Teftament 
 *^ might, and even were oblig'd to aliedge 
 *^ the paiTages of the Old Teftament other- 
 *^ wife than they are exprefs'd in the original, 
 '^ mz, becaufe the ancient Hebrew Doctors 
 " affirm'd, that in the time oftheMnssiAS 
 ^^ fome obfcure- and difficult paffages of 
 Scripture ihould be clear'd, and the im- 
 propriety of words mended, the intricacy 
 of the ftile remov'd, words difpos'd in a 
 better order, and a myftical fenfe drawn 
 " out of the literal, that the vail being taken 
 "^ away, truth might plainly appear to every 
 *^ body. The author infers from thence, 
 '^ that the Jews cannot reafonably find fault 
 *' with XhQ Apoftles for putting a fpirituai 
 ^^ fenfe upon feveral pafl'ages of the Old Te- 
 ^^ ftament." In the next place he fhows, 
 **^ that the Jewish Dodors take a prodigious 
 '*^ liberty in quoting the Scripture, and gives 
 " us feveral inftances of it." The laft is ve- 
 ry remarkable, and made Mr. Surenhu- 
 
 sius 
 
 <c 
 
 cc 
 
[ J9 ] - 
 sius very angry with the feeming abfur- 
 dity of the Rabbins. But, fays he, " when 
 " I faw St. Paul do fo too, my anger was 
 " appeasd. 
 
 In the third Book, which treats of the 
 manner of interpreting the Scriptures, he 
 fhows, " how the Authors of the Gemara^ 
 '* and the ancient allegorical writers, and 
 '^ others, interpreted the Scripture in fuch a 
 '^ manner, as to change the mean literal 
 '^ fenfe of the words into a noble and fpiritual 
 " fenfe. To that end the Jewifh Dodors 
 " ufed ten ways of citing and explaining 
 " the Old Teflament \' which for their cut- 
 riofity and importance, I fhall here recite 
 at large after my author. 
 
 1. The firft is, "reading the words, not 
 " according to the points plac'd under them, 
 
 but according to other points fubftituted in 
 their ftead^ as we fee done by Peter, 
 Acts 3.3J by Stephen^ AUs 7. 43; 
 and by Paul, i Cor. 15. 54 ^ 2 Cor* 8", 
 1 5 j and Heh. 3. i o ^ 9. 2 1 i 12. 6." 
 
 2. The fecond \s,^ " changing the letters, 
 " whether thofe letters be of the fame organ 
 ^^ (as the Jewifii Grammarians fpeak) or no j 
 " as we fee done by Paul, i^om, 933; 
 " I Cor. 1 1. 9 i Heh, 8. 9. and 10. 5 ; and 
 " by Stephen, JUs 7. 43." 
 
 3. The third is, " changing both letters 
 *' and points ,• as we fee done by Paul, A^s 
 " 13. 415 and 2 Cor, 8. 15." 
 
 4. The 
 
[60] 
 
 4. The fourth is, " adding fome letters and 
 " taking away others." 
 
 5. The fifth is, " tranfpofing words and 
 *' letters." 
 
 6. The fixth is, " dividing one word into 
 ■ two. 
 
 7. The feventh is, " adding other words 
 *^ to thofe that are there, in order to make 
 *^ the fenfe more clear, and to accommodate 
 ^^ it to the fubjedt they are upon ; as, is ma- 
 *^ nifeft, is done by the Apoftles throughout 
 *^ the New Teftament." 
 
 8. The eight is, " changing the order of 
 words/' " which he fhews to be done in ma- 
 ny places of the New Teftament." 
 
 9. The ninth is, " changing the order of 
 5^ words, and adding other words ; which 
 " are both done by the Apoftles in citing 
 -*^ paffages out of the Old Teftament." 
 
 10. The tenth is, " changing the order of 
 " words, adding words, and retrenching 
 " words i which is a method often us'd by 
 '' Paul. 
 
 Thus by a moft lucky accident of Mr. Sir- 
 RENHusius's m.eeting and conference with a 
 learned allegorical Kabhin^ are the Utiles^ 
 by which the Apoftles cited and apply 'd the 
 Old Teftament, difcover'd to the world ^ to 
 which they had been for feveral ages loft, as 
 has been obferv'd from the Rev. Drs. Stan- 
 hope and Jen KIN, abovemention'd. Which 
 
 confe- 
 
[5I] 
 
 conference feems not, in its nature and confe- 
 quence, much unlike that between Luther 
 and the 2)^/7. Luther reports himfelfto 
 have had frequent conferences with the De- 
 vil j in one of which he pretends he receiv'd 
 from him the arguments for the abolition of 
 the fa orifice of the mafs^ which he urges in 
 his Book, T>e Ahrog. Miff, Trimt. The 
 Hahbin eltablillies Chriftianity^ and the 
 'De'vil Proteftantifm 1 
 
 X. 
 
 I'he nature of Allegorical 'Keafoning further 
 Jhewn by application of it to fei:eral par- 
 ticular inflances cited from the Old T^e- 
 fiament and urgd in the New T^eftament. 
 
 TO compleat this account of the nature 
 of myftical or allegorical reafoning, I 
 fhail conclude with fhowing, how my au- 
 thor applies fome of the I'hefes laid down by 
 him in his three firft books to the prophefies 
 cited above by me as not literally^ but my- 
 fiically fulfili'd. 
 
 I. The firft Prophefy is contained in thefe 
 v/ords of Matthew, [m) all this was d^one-, 
 that it might be fulfill' d^ which was fpoken 
 by the Trophet^ frying:, " behold a Virgin 
 
 " ihall 
 
 {m) Matt. I. 42, 23. 
 
cc 
 
 cc 
 
 iTiall be with child, and iliall bring forth a 
 Son, and they fhali call his name Imma- 
 
 KUEL." 
 
 Mr. SuRENHusius(;/) obferves, that Ma t«- 
 THEw urges the quotation from the Prophet, 
 as a confirmation of what is [aid ^ juft be- 
 fore (</) by the Angel to Joseph. As if the 
 Jngel had faid^ " what I have faid to you 
 " concerning your wife Mary being with 
 " child by the Holy Ghoft ought not to ap- 
 *' pear fo wonderful and unheard of a thing 
 ^^ to you ,• for it was foretold of the Lord, 
 ^'^ by the Prophet Isaiah, that a Virgin fhould 
 " be with child without the concurrence of 
 '^ a man, whofe off-fpring fhould be call'd 
 " Immanuel. This palTage ought not to 
 ^^ have been unknown to you, but lince you 
 " did not know it, I refer you to it, and bid 
 you carefully conlider it, that you may 
 more ealily apprehend the unufuai concep- 
 tion of your wife Mary, and take her 
 home to you." And he proves this to be 
 the fenfe from the form of quoting* For he 
 bbferves, that the form of words, " that 
 " it might be falfili'd which was fpoken," 
 often {pyignifies, according to the Gemarick 
 'T)oUors, " that it might be confirm'd which 
 " is faid." So that the fenfe of the place is 
 
 as 
 
 (n) Surenhufius^ p. 150, 151. {0) Matt. i. 20. 
 (p) Thefis ada formulis allegandi. 
 
[^3 ] 
 
 tis if the E<vangeliji had faid^ " By this 
 means, by what has now happen'd in Ma- 
 " RY, is confirm'd this place of Isaiah, 
 " where it is foretold, that a virgin ihall 
 " conceive without the concurrence of a man." 
 And he adds, that the defig^i of the 'Evan- 
 geliftwas not to oppofe the Jews ^ and pro<ve 
 tothem^ that]^svs> was the /r^J^^ Messias ^ 
 hut tojhew to thofe^ who did helie've Jesus 
 to he the true Mess i as, how the whole di- 
 'vine {cj) economy of former times ^ having 
 always the Christ, as it were^ in 'view-i 
 had fmmd all things to refemhle him. 
 Which notion ( r ) my author fuppofes to 
 have prevail'd always among the Jew^s, and 
 makes to be the general key, whereby to un- 
 derltand all the Old Teftament, and efpeci- 
 ally this prophefy before us, which he ex- 
 plams at large by this key, as we fhall fee 
 by and by. So that the reader may obferve 
 how the mrgins conception in Ijaiah^ as 
 apply'd by Matthew, relates to the Virgin 
 Mary in an allegorical fenfe, ziz, as a 
 ^ype^ like all the ceremonies of the LaWy 
 and the paffages of hiftory in the Old Tefta- 
 ment, which are all deem'd 'Types of Jesus, 
 as reprefenting beforehand what he was to 
 go through and ordain j and, in particular, 
 
 like 
 t 
 
 (^q) I Pet. I. 20. a Cor. lo. ii. Gal. 4. Eph. r. 
 (r) SwenhufmSi p. 159, i<^o.- 
 
like (j) Sarah's conception in her old age of 
 Isaac, which by the Antients and Moderns 
 is made a Type of the Virgin MAry's con- 
 ception of Jesus j like (j) Abraham offer- 
 ing up Isaac, which was a type of Christ's 
 being offer'dup on the crof^; ; like (j) Isaac's 
 carrying the wood on his fhoulders, which 
 was a type of Christ's carrying his crofs; 
 and like the (.r ) lifcing up of the brazen Ser- 
 pent in the Wildernefs, which was a type of 
 Christ's being lifted up on the crofs. 
 
 But this moft important prophefy being, as 
 it lyes in Isaiah, and as it is referr'd to the con- 
 ception of the virgin Mary, fubjecl to very 
 great difficulties, and much objected to by 
 the Jews (all whofe objections Mr. Suren- 
 Husius endeavours to anfwer and obviate at 
 large), I Hiall draw the fubftance of what 
 he fays into an explication and defence of the 
 whole prophecy, fetting down the words of 
 Isaiah in one colum,n, and Surenhusius's 
 explication and defence in another. 
 
 Isaiah 7. i — 15. Surenhusius, 
 
 p. 150—155. 
 
 j^nd it came to ^ In the days of Ahaz, 
 
 pafs in the days of ' King of Jtidah^ R e z i n 
 
 hnKz^thefon of "^ King of^j^r/^/^, andPE- 
 
 Jo- '^ kah 
 
 {s)lLt{[&f s initio of Chrifl. demonjl. p. 132,155. 
 JenkinV Remarks on WhiftonV Sermom^ p. 54. lb, 
 Reafonableiiefs of Chrift. Rel. Vol. i. p. 235. 
 
L^n 
 
 Isaiah. 
 
 THAM t^e Son of 
 UzziAH, King of 
 Jndah^ that Ke- 
 ziN the King of 
 Syr i ah and"?^ k a h 
 the Son ^/Rema- 
 LiAH, King of If- 
 rael^ went tip to 
 yerufakm to war 
 againfi it. And 
 it was told the 
 Hoiife of David, 
 faying^ Syria is 
 confederate with 
 Ephraim, And 
 his heart was 
 'ino'ved^ and the 
 heart of his people 
 as the trees of the 
 wood are mo-ved 
 with the wind, 
 Then faid the 
 Lord mitolsKiK\i^ 
 Go forth now to 
 weet Ahaz, thou 
 andthyfon Shear 
 "jASHUR, at the 
 end of the conduit 
 of the Zipper pool^ 
 in the high way 
 of 
 
 S U R E N H U S I U S. 
 
 "^ kah King of Ifrael be- 
 ' fieg'd Jeriifalem. Up- 
 *^ on the dread which this 
 ^ occalion'd to Ahaz 
 and his people, Isaiah 
 is commanded by the 
 Lord to bid Ahaz take 
 courage and not fear; 
 for that their dcfign a- 
 gainft Judah and to 
 dethrone him, fhouid 
 not fucceed. But Ahaz 
 doubting about the mat- 
 ter, the Lord fent Isai- 
 ah again with this mef- 
 fage, Ailc thee a figti 
 as a proof that I come 
 to you from the Lord. 
 But Ahaz refufing a 
 iign, Isaiah fays to 
 the houfe of David, 
 the Ivord lliall give 
 you a Iign. Behold a 
 Virgin is with Child, 
 or Hiall miraculoufly 
 conceive the Messias, 
 fe\tjn hundred years 
 hence , and call his 
 name Jesus, (Immanu- 
 EL and Jesus being of 
 ?^ 'the 
 
[66} 
 
 SURENHUSIUS. 
 
 the fame import) who 
 tho' born miraculoiifly, 
 iliail live upon the com- 
 mon food of the coun- 
 try. By which it is 
 manifeft, that the houfe 
 of David fliall not be 
 deftroy'd, nor Jerufa- 
 lem come under the 
 power of Damascus, 
 before the birth of the 
 Messiasj and there- 
 fore You, Ahaz, have 
 nothing to fear from 
 thofe Enemies, for Je- 
 rtifaleyn or the houfe of 
 David, if you will 
 confider, that the Mes- 
 siAS is to arife out of 
 that houfe. For if the 
 *^ houfe of David is to 
 ' continue till the birth of 
 ^ the Mess IAS, neither of 
 thefe two, nor any of 
 the enemies of that 
 houfe fhall prevail a- 
 gainft it. And as cer- 
 tainly as the Messias 
 is to be born in a mira- 
 culous manner of a vir- 
 ' gin 
 
 Isaiah. 
 
 oj the fuller 5 field : 
 and fay unto him^ 
 Take heed and he 
 quiet i fear not^ 
 neither he faint- 
 hearted; for the 
 two tails of thefe 
 fmoaking fire- 
 hrands^ for the 
 fierce anger ofR e- 
 ziN with Syr lay 
 and of the Son of 
 Re MALTA II : he- 
 catifeSyriayEphra 
 -im^ and the Son of 
 Re MA LI AH have 
 taken evil counfel 
 againfl thee^ fay- 
 ing i Let us go np 
 agaii/fi Judahy 
 and 'vex ity and 
 let us make a 
 hreach therein jor 
 2ts^andfet a King 
 in the midft of it^ 
 even the Son ofTA- 
 BEAL. Thus faith 
 the Lord Godj it 
 Jloall not fland^ 
 neither fiall it 
 come' 
 
Isaiah. 
 
 come to pafs. 
 For the Head 
 of Syria isT)a- 
 m a feus 5 and 
 the bead of T>a- 
 mafcus is Re- 
 ziNi and with- 
 in threefcore 
 and five years 
 Jlmll Ephraim 
 be broken^ that 
 it he not a peo- 
 ple, And the 
 head of Ephra- 
 im is Samaria^ 
 and the head of 
 Samaria is Re- 
 MALiAHj Son: 
 if ye will not 
 belie've^ fiirely 
 ye ffloall not he 
 efiahliJJjd, 
 Moreo'ver the 
 Liord fpake a- 
 gaimtnto h.nAz 
 JayingiJskthee 
 a Sign of the 
 Lord thy God^ 
 ask it either 
 in the depths 
 or 
 
 [67] 
 
 S U RENHUSIUS. 
 
 gin ofthehoufe of David, 
 fo certainly will the houfe 
 of David be preferv'd 
 from whence he is to 
 fpring, and that for the 
 fake of him, who is to be 
 iMMANUfL, God and 
 Man in one perfon, and 
 to reconcile men to God, 
 and God to men. By all 
 which the conne6;ion ap- 
 pears, and the reafon of 
 the lign is plain, 'viz. that 
 the Jews might confider 
 the promife of the Messi- 
 ah, which was confirm'd 
 to them by fo many mira- 
 cles and prophefies, that 
 it could not reafonably be 
 cali'd in queftion by them. 
 For that promife being 
 fteadily believ'd by them, 
 was a fecurity to them, 
 that the houfe of David 
 fliould not be deftroy'd 
 before that time. And 
 thus the prophet put A- 
 HAZ under a neceility ei- 
 ther not to credit God's 
 promife of his own fafety, 
 F 2 'or 
 
[62] 
 
 SuREKHUsius. Isaiah. 
 
 ^ or to be guilty of impiety or in the height 
 
 ' ill dilbelieving the fniida- aboce. ^tit 
 
 ^ mental promife given to Ahaz /aid, I 
 
 *^ the JewiiTination concern- ^/// not ask -i 
 
 '^ ing the Messias in time to neither will I 
 
 ^ be born of the houfe of tempt the Lord. 
 
 ^ Da7id. To the objciftion, Jnd he faid^ 
 
 ^ that it does not follow hear noWj 
 
 ^ froni hence, that Jernfa- houfe ^/David, 
 
 '^ km and Ahaz would Is it a fmall 
 
 ^ now be preferv'd from the thing for you to 
 
 ' power of thofe two Kings, weary men^ hut 
 
 ' which yet was the chief will ye wea- 
 
 ' end of the fign j fmcc the ry my God ah 
 
 '^ houfe of David might fi ? Therefore 
 
 ^ continue till the times of the Lord him- 
 
 ^ the Mhssias, and Jerii- [elf (hall gi've 
 
 *^/?2:/c^??nnight be taken, and yon a fign. 'Be- 
 
 ' Ahaz made captive, and hold^ a cirgin 
 
 ' live as fach j it is anfwer'd, JJoall conceice-, 
 
 ' firit, that the primary de- andhear aSon^ 
 
 ^ (ign of God was to pre- ajid floall call 
 
 ^ ferve the houfe of David, his iiame Im- 
 
 ' which God often evinces, manuel. Bnt- 
 
 ^ by the promife of the Me s- ter and Honey 
 
 ' siAs. Secondly, that from fiall he eaty 
 
 ' this general promife an that he may 
 
 ^ argument may thus be hiow to refitfe 
 
 ^ drawn for the prefer vation the evil and 
 
 *- of Ahaz and his people chtfe the good, 
 
 from Lor 
 
Isaiah. Surenhusius. 
 
 Tor before the ^ their enemies. If God is 
 
 Child Jloall "" not only true in his pro- 
 
 hiow to refufe '^ mife of a Messias, but 
 
 the evil and ^ powerful enough to pre- 
 
 chtife the goodj ' ferve the houfe of D a vid 
 
 the land that ' till the times of the Mes- 
 
 thou ahhorreft ^ sias^ he ought to be 
 
 fball be for/a- ^ deem'd fufficiently true 
 
 ken of both her ^ and powerful to fulfil his 
 
 Kings, ' promife in preferving A- 
 
 ' HAZ and his people from 
 
 ' the power of thefe two 
 
 ^ Kings. And this may 
 
 ^ more ftrongly be conclii- 
 
 ' ded (for tho' ablolutcly 
 
 ' fpeaking, the promife of 
 
 *^ the MtssiAS might be 
 
 ^ fulfiU'd without it, yet 
 
 ' hypothetically it could 
 
 ' not, becaufe God propo- 
 
 ' fed that as the means of 
 
 ' performing his promife ; 
 
 ^ for whofoever deiigns an 
 
 ^ end, defigns fome means 
 
 ^ to eftedt it) after this man- 
 
 ' ner. He who is willing 
 
 ' to give, and can give, 
 
 '^ and certainly will give 
 
 ^ in time, more^ he is wil- 
 
 ' ling to give, and can give, 
 
 F 3 'and 
 
[7o] 
 
 SURENHUSIUS. 
 
 ^ and will give lefs. But 
 ^ the prefervatioa of the 
 ' houfe of David, to the 
 ^ times of the MESsiASjand 
 ^ bringing him into the 
 *^ world at a fix'd time is 
 ' a greater and more ex- 
 ^ cetlent good than the pre- 
 ' fervation of Ahaz and 
 ' his people : if therefore 
 ^ God would fulfil that pro- 
 ^ mife, much more would 
 ' he fulfil this. Befides, it 
 ^ was (<^)ciiftomaryforthe 
 ' Prophets to confirm the 
 ' truth of all other matters 
 ^ by alledging the promife 
 ^ of the Messias, which 
 ^ was the bafis and founda- 
 'tionofthem. Laftly, the 
 ' promife of the Messias 
 ' comprehended in it, that 
 ' the land floould he jorfa- 
 ' lien by the two Kings ; 
 ^ and therefore both a Mes- 
 
 * SI AS to be born of a Vir- 
 
 * gin, and prefent delive- 
 ' ranee were promis'd to 
 
 * the Jews by the Prophet. 
 
 2. The 
 
 (^) Ifaiah 9, Jer. 23. 
 
[ 71 ] " 
 
 11. The fecond Prophefy mention 'd by 
 me was, Oztt of Egypt hat'e t called my Son; 
 which Matthew applies (^)tojEsus's com- 
 ing out of Egypt^ and introduces with the 
 fame fonn of^ttothg ufed in the preceding 
 prophefy, that it might he fulfilled which 
 was f poke n of the Lord by the 'Prophet fay- 
 ing, 
 
 1. Firft, Mr. S, (c) fays, that it appears 
 by the form of quoting ufed, that the words 
 of HosEAH, which relate primarily to the 
 children of 7/J"/i'^/'s being call'd out o^ Egypt, 
 are ^c?7//z;7;2V by Jesus's coming out of Egypt : 
 that is, the coming of the children of Ifrael 
 out of Egypt was a type or figure of Jesus's 
 coming out of Egypt ; and fo the latter con- 
 lirm'd the former. 
 
 2. Secondly, he fays, the Jewifli Dodors 
 are ufed to detach pailages from their con- 
 nection, and put a fenfe upon them, which 
 has no relation to what goes before or fol- 
 lows after, as he fhows in T^hefis 9. 1. i. 
 
 3. Thirdly, the words of the Prophet are, 
 (^) when IJ'rael was a Child^ then I lo'ved 
 him^ and called my Son out of Egypt. By 
 which my author thinks, that the Prophet 
 marks out the time of the coming of Christ, 
 and may be thus underftood. " When the 
 " People of Jfrael were in their infancy as 
 
 F 4 " to 
 
 (li) Siirenlnifiu^^ p. 1B2, 183. 
 
 (0 lb. & 1. I. Thef. 2. id) lb. 183, 184. 
 
■[70, 
 
 "^ to light (which happeii'd ip the time of 
 " our Lord, when Religion was w^hoUy 
 ^' corrupted by falfe traditions) God called 
 " his Son out of £^j;/?if- to preach the Gof- 
 '^ pel in Judear ' And this avfwer he 
 thinks ought to fcitisfy the Jews^ heing 
 Juited to the manner of explaining Scrip- 
 ture iifed by the old JewiJJj ^oUors^ whom 
 Mat rni.\v follow d. But ifthislafl: be not 
 deem'd fatisfadtory, Mr. ^S*. has another way 
 of drawing out the allegorical Senfe^ which 
 he wants fpr his purpofe, or would tind out : 
 and thus he interprets Matthew citing the 
 Prophet. " You Jews know, that the pro- 
 " phet Ho SEA fliys, when Ifrael was a 
 '' Child^ then I loced hi?nj and called my 
 " Son out of Egypt ; which words feem, ac- 
 ^^ cording to their Letter, to relate to the 
 children of Ifrael : but I will explain 
 them to you in a more ufeful manner, 
 which is by you call'd Allegory, I grant 
 indeed, that the children of Ifrael {e) may 
 ^^ in a fenfe be call'd the fon of God or of 
 *^^ the Lord : but if you can believe it;, that 
 *^^ very Jesus Christ, v/ho was born a- 
 '*^ mong you at Hethlehem-i he, I fay, is 
 '^^ properly the fon of God, w4io almoft in 
 '^ the fame manner as tlie children of Ifrael 
 ^^ were obiig'd to go into Epypt on account 
 
 " of 
 
 (i?) ]£xod. 4. Z2. Jer. 31. p. 
 
[73l 
 
 (C 
 
 ^^ of the fomincj was oblig'd to go thither 
 - to avoid the tyranny of Herod. So tliat 
 '*^ you may fee, for the confirmation of 
 " your faith, that this did not befal the 
 " Me SSI AS by chance, but by divine ap^ 
 " pointment, as it happen'd formerly to your 
 " fathers. Wherefore the Prophet faid, tliat 
 " the Lord ca/fd bis Son out oj Bgypt^ and 
 ^^ that at a time when you in refpect of true 
 " religion were in a ftate of infancy. Be- 
 " fides the form of qtiotiug ufcd on this 
 " occafion , that it inight he fidfiUd 
 " which wds fpoken of the Lord by the 
 '' T^rophet^ always (f) refers to a myftical 
 " fenfe hid under the literal one. But to 
 fay all in a word, the people of Ifrael 
 were the firft born adopted fon of God, 
 and Jesus was the natural fon of God. 
 Ifl. The third Prophefy mention'd by me, 
 as not literally fulfill'd, is contain d in thefe 
 words, {g) And he came and dwelt in a city 
 calfd Nazareth, that it mi?Jot he fulflld 
 which was fpoken hy the Trophet^ " He 
 ^^ fhall be call'd a Nazarene.'' Which pro- 
 phefy is found by Surenhusiu^. in three 
 places of the Old Teftament, and very in- 
 gcnioufly explain'd by him j tho' it feems 
 ^ot to occur any where, 
 
 [i.] ri/ft 
 
 (f) L. 3. Thcf I+. C5)Matt. 2. 
 
 cc 
 
[74] 
 [i.] Firft, he obferves, {h) that tlie Pro- 
 phets not only foretold things by T'ypes and 
 Allegories^ but by Enigmas, They foretold 
 things by the former, when the things them- 
 felves were imply 'd without any change of 
 words j and they foretold by Enigmas 
 when the things were to be found out by 
 a change of words : and when a Prophefy 
 of one or the other fort was accomplifh'd;^ 
 the Jewiili Dodors ufed to fay, that it 
 might be fiilflfd which was fpoken. 
 This being fo ,• Isaiah (/) having foretold, 
 that the Messiah fliould dwell in Gali- 
 lee^ it was almoft the fame thing, as if he 
 had faid, the Messiah fiiould dwell at Na- 
 zareth^ which was a city of Galilee. It 
 being thus foretold, that the Mess i as was 
 to dwell at Nazareth^ it i$ thereby imply'd, 
 that he fhould be intituled to, or cali'd by 
 the name Nazarene: for, tho' he was ne- 
 ver caird a Nazarene^ yet being intituled 
 to that name by dwelling at Nazareth^ it 
 was prophefy 'd, Hejhall be calTd a Naza- 
 rene -y to be cali'd by a name being all one 
 as to be intituled to a name. This enigma- 
 tical Prophefy therefore of the Messias*s 
 being to dwell in Galilee^ rightly underftood, 
 was as much as to lliy. He Jloall he calfd 
 (or be intituled to the name) Nazarene ; 
 
 which 
 
 (h) SttrenJmJiiis, p. 15)5—204. 
 (/} Ifaiah, c. c>. 
 
,[75] ^ 
 
 which was fulfiU'd by Jesus's dwelling at 
 Nazareth, 
 
 [2.] Secondly, he conceives Matthew 
 alluded alfo to this paflage of Isaiah, (Jz) 
 Jnd there JJoall come forth a Kodout of the 
 Jf em of ]^ssi J and a 'Branch {^q^^qt) Jh all 
 grow out of his roots. Where the argument 
 lies in the word Netfer y which is by the 
 Hebrew Dodors call'd , Jn argument 
 drawn from the fimilitude of words^ 
 without regard had to the fenfe of the 
 place i the term Netfer^ approaching to, 
 and therefore enigmatically iignifying Na- 
 zarene. So that Jesus's dwelling at Na- 
 zareth^ which intituled him to the name 
 Nazarene^ fulfiU'd the Prophefy, He flmll 
 he calfd a Nazarene^ or Netfer. 
 
 [3.] Thirdly, he cites another (/) text, 
 wherein the Messias is call'd Tfemahy that 
 is to fay, a branch. Now the word Tse- 
 MAH having the fame fignification with 
 Netfer j Netfer may be put in the room of 
 T'femah^ whereby the Prophet may be faid 
 to call the Messias Netfer^ which is to call 
 him Nazarene. 
 
 Thefe texts of the Old Teftament arc fome 
 of thofe, which my author, after the JewifK 
 Doctors, fuppofes referv'd for explanation 
 till the times of the Messias j when the 
 
 Bniz- 
 
 (k) Ifaiah 11. i. See Zigbtfoot*i works, Vol. r. p. 
 498. (/; Zach. 6. 12. 
 
Lin 
 
 Enigmas contain'd in them were to be nn- 
 ridied, or the prophefies contain'd in them 
 were to be ihown to be faltiU'd. 
 
 IV. The next prophefy cited by me as not 
 fultiU'd literally, but myftically and allego- 
 rically, is contain'd in our Saviour's (jn) ma- 
 king John the ^aptiji to be the Elias pro- 
 phefy 'd of as to come before the Messias. 
 Jvly author {ii) fays, there was a tradition 
 among the Jews, that Elias was to come 
 before the Messias • and becaufe he w^as not 
 come, they could not believe, the Messias 
 was come. Jesus knowing this, told then!, 
 that John the 'Baptifi was the Elias -, who 
 was very juftly to be deem'd Elias, as ha- 
 ving the (o) virtues of Elias. And to 
 confirm this Interpretation, my author re- 
 fers to (/?) one of his T'hefes^ where he 
 iliows, that, by proper names_, the Jews did 
 not always mean thofe very perfons who are 
 fo nam'd, but thofe who refemble them in 
 their lives and actions. 
 
 V. As to the prophefy of Isaiah cited by 
 Jesus {q) as fulfiU'd in the Jews of his times, 
 "By hearing ye JJjall hear^ and fljall nop 
 widerftandi That^ according to my (r) au- 
 thor, is fultiU'd as typifying, like all the 
 
 Jew- 
 
 (ni) Matt. ir. 14. («) Surenhiifms^ p. 329— 
 
 351. (0) SeelMko, 1. I'l. (^)i5Therdc 
 
 inodis inter pretandi. ('(/j Matt. 13. 34, 35. 
 
 (r) Surenlntfms^ p. 241, 242. 
 
^77] 
 Jewiili hidory, fomething to happen In the 
 times of the AIessias. For the ignorance 
 and obftinacy of the Jews being the fame, 
 in our Saviour's time as in the time of the 
 Prophet Isaiah, was the anti-type to the 
 type J or the completion of Isaiah's pro- 
 phefy. 
 
 Thus I hope, I have given fuch a ftate of 
 the cafe from (j)SuRENHusius, as may qualify 
 the readers to judge of that Scheme and its 
 rtiles^ which the Apoflles follow'd in arguing 
 from the Old I'eftament, and to underfland 
 the force of the Apoftles arguments, which 
 were grounded thereon. But if not j I refer 
 them to the Treatife itfelf of Surenhusius ; 
 wherein the moft ingenious and learned au- 
 thor has fet in the jufteft light the rnks of 
 reafoning ufed by the Jews and follow'd by 
 the Apoltles, and iliown the pertinency of 
 all the quotations made by the Apoftles from 
 the Old Teftament, according to thofe rtiles; 
 and confequently has truly defended chrifti- 
 anity, by fhowing how the Apoftles ground- 
 ed it on the Old Teftament, beyond what 
 any author ever did before him. It is indeed 
 pofifible, that in the application of the Jewifh 
 rules of interpretation and reafoning, to the 
 pafTages cited and urg'd by the Apoftles out 
 
 of 
 
 Cs) See OakleyV Letter at the Fnd cf Wottoa'i^ 
 Trefc.ce to MifceUaveovs 2)ifcwrfes, cic 
 
[ 78 ] 
 
 of the Old Teftament, he may not always 
 have hit upon thofe peculiar ndes^ which 
 the Apoftles had, in every citation, more 
 particularly in view: for many of thofe 
 rules will equally ferve the fame purpofe ,• 
 and therefore thofe, which he does not on 
 fome occafions make ufe of, may have been 
 the rules^ which the Apoftles had in view, 
 as alfo thofe, which he does make ufe of, 
 may not fometimes be the ndes^ which the 
 Apoftles had immediately in m^-^. But yet 
 nothing can be plainer, from the reafonings 
 of the Apoftles, and from the common way 
 of reafoning ufed among the Jews, known 
 both by their praciife and rules^ as they are 
 both explain'd with the greateft clearnefs by 
 SuRENHUSius i than that , the Apoftles, 
 who manifeftly argu'd not by Schoiaftick 
 rules, and interpreted not the pafTages they 
 pited out of the Old Teftament according to 
 the obvious and literal fenfe they bore there- 
 in, did proceed by fuch {t) niles as are fet 
 forth by him. 
 
 XL 
 
 (t) LeCkrc. Bibl. Choif. torn, 25. p. 413, 
 
[ 79 ] 
 
 XI. 
 
 An Anfwer to an objedlion, that the Allego- 
 rical Keafonhigs of the Apofiles is: ere not 
 defignd for ahfolute Troofs ofChriftia- 
 nity^ hut for proofs ad hominem, to the 
 Jewsj who were acctiftomed to that 
 way of re af oiling, 
 
 IT may be objeded, from divers learned 
 authors, to what I have advanc'd, " that 
 " Chnftianity is not grounded on the pro- 
 "" phctical or other quotations made from 
 " the Old in the New Teftament ; but that 
 '' thofe quotations being allegorically ap- 
 " ply'd by the Authors of the New Tefta- 
 ^^ ment are only aii'guments ad hominejity 
 " to convince the Jews of the truth of chri- 
 " ftianity, who allowed fuch a method of 
 " arguing to be valid j and are not arguments 
 '^ to the refl of mankind. 
 
 To which I anfwer ; 
 
 I. Firft, that this diftindion is the pure 
 invention of thofe who make the objedion, 
 and has not only no foundation in the New 
 Teftament, from whence only it fhould be 
 taken i but is utterly fubverted by it. For 
 the authors of tiie books of the New Tefta- 
 ment always argue abfolutely from the quo- 
 tations they make out of the books of the 
 Old Teftament. Moses and the Trophets 
 
 are 
 
[ 8o ] 
 
 are every where reprefented to be a juft 
 foundation for chriftianity. And Paul ex- 
 prelly fays, that {ti) the Gcfpel which was 
 kept [ecret fince the world began ^ was now 
 made manifeji hy the Scriptures of the Tro^ 
 phets (wherein that Gofpel was feCretly con- 
 tain'd) to all nations^ by the means of the 
 Preachers of the Gofpel, who gave the fe- 
 cret or fpiritual fenfe of thofe Scriptures, 
 Befides, the authors of thofe books, being 
 convincM long before the publication ^f 
 them, that the Gofpel was to be preach'd to 
 the Gentiles as well as Jevv^s, muft be fup- 
 pos'd to defign their books for the ufe of all 
 men, for Gentiles as well as Jews. To both 
 whom therefore they reafon'd allegorically 
 in thofe books ,• as particular {vj) Apoftles 
 alfo did in their fermons^ therein recorded, 
 with greater fuccefs on Gentiles than on Jewsj 
 and as Paul did before Felix, when he 
 faid, he took his Herefy or Chriitianity from 
 {x) the Law and the Trophets^ as well as ■ 
 before Agrippa. It fliould therefore 
 feem ftrange, that ^oohs written to all 
 the world by men equally concern Vi to con-^ 
 vert Gentiles as well as Jews, and T)ifcoiirfes 
 made exprelly to Gentiles a^ well as to Jews, 
 
 fliould 
 
 (jl) Rom. 16. a 5, z6. 
 
 (iv) A6ls 13. 15 — 48. z6. 22 J 23. TO. 37— 4^ ♦ 
 
 (x) lb. 24. 14. lb. z6. V. 6. 7. 22, 25, 
 
[8I ] 
 
 ihould be defigu'd to be pertinent only to 
 Jews: much lei^s to a very few Jews. For 
 (y) from the time tlie Jews began to ailego-" 
 rize their facred books (which was long after 
 the captivity) there was an oppoiition made 
 to that method ; and the Saddiicees m par- 
 ticular, who were a numerous Sett, oppo^.^, 
 for a confiderable time before and in our 
 Saviour's time, the new explications, and 
 profefs'd to follow the pure text of Scripture, 
 or to interpret it according to the literal 
 fenfe. And tho' the Tharifees^ who made 
 up the body of the Jews, (as well as the 
 JEiffenes) ufed the allegorical method in the 
 times of Jesus and the Apofties ,• yet (s) they 
 in great meafure quitted that method, when 
 chriflianity prevaii'd, which was built on 
 that method ^ and argii'd, as is well known, 
 againft the New Teltamenr for allegorizing 
 the Law and the Trophets, And there 
 has been for a long time, and is at this 
 time as little ufe of Allegory in thofe refpeds 
 among them, as there feems to have been 
 during the time the books of the Old Tefta- 
 
 G ment 
 
 (y) Simon. Hift.Crit. du Vieux Teft. p. 92. 97. 
 
 {z) Allix'i Judgment of the jfe-xip Church againfi 
 theUnitariamy c. 23. Simon. lb. p- 371- lb. Hilt. 
 Crit. du Nov. Teft. p. 245. Mangey'i Remarks on 
 Toland'j Nazarenus. p. 37. Speficer de Leg. Hebr. 
 
 p. 185. 
 
[8z] 
 
 ment were written, which {a)feem the moft 
 plain of all ant lent writings -^ and wherein 
 there appears not the leaft trace of a typical 
 or allegorical intention in the authors, or in 
 any other Jews of their times. All the books 
 {h) written by Jews againft the chriftian Re- 
 ligion 
 
 (^) Jenkin'j Kea[. Vol. 2. p. 155. LeClerc. Bib. 
 XJiuv. torn. 10. 234. lb. Bib. Cho. torn. 27. p. 391, 
 392. Cf/?z«'?/i' Rep. (ies Hebr. Vol. i. p. 377, 578. 395. 
 
 (b) Scripa Judjei in Limborchii Arnica Collatione ; 
 &WAGENSEL11 ^Tcla Ignea Sarance^ 'which h a coUeBi- 
 CTty rfjfeivifU Sooks c'.gainfi Chrifiifjiity^ -ivherem Rab- 
 bi Ifaafr's Muni men ii.dQi77iakes the chief figure. 
 
 Seme eft hefe are cited and a-yifixefd by Kidder in 
 his Second and Third F'olnr/ies oj' his Demonftration of 
 theMeffias- and ethers are cited by Basnage in his 
 Hiftoire de Juifs. Sift the mo ft important feera to me 
 to be three bpanifh Ma-diifcrifts. i. Fortification de 
 la fe J ivhich is a tranf.atwn of the aforefaid Munimen 
 fidei pnblip'dby Wagenseil. 2. Providentia Divi- 
 na de Dios con Ifrael, by Saul Levi Mortera. 
 'This Mortera -was the Mafler of the famous SriNo- 
 zA 3 and this ivcrk of his is ejteem'd by the Jews to be 
 thepre-zvdejt book they have againft Chriftiamty. They 
 are forbid^ under fain of excomviiunicativii^ to lend it 
 to any Chriftian^ for fear of dra-zving a form upon 
 thcmfelves for producing fiich frong objections againft 
 the chriftian Religion. Wherefore no copies arc to be 
 procur d of it but by the greateft' accidents. 3. Preven- 
 ciones Divinas contra la vana Ydolatria de las gcntes, 
 by Isaac Orobio, idoo was that learned Jew, that 
 hadthehmoxis ControvcrCy with IjImbokcu concer?!- 
 ingthe truth of the chriilian Religion mention d above. 
 He had been Trofef/or of Thilofophy and Thyjick in the 
 Univerfities of Aicala, a?2d Sevil, and ivas a great Ma- 
 fier in School-'Divinity after the mode of the Spanifh 
 
 Uiiiver- 
 
[ 83 ] 
 
 ligion, (fome whereof are printed ; and o- 
 thers go about Europe in Manufcript) chiefly 
 attack the N.Telkment(^)forthe allegorical 
 interpretations of the Old Teftament therein^ 
 and that with the greateft infolence and con- 
 tempt imaginable on that account, and op- 
 pofe to them a literal and fingie interpreta- 
 tion as the true fenfe of the Old Teltament. 
 And accordingly the {d) allegorical inter- 
 pretations given by chriftian Expofaors of 
 the propheiies, are now xhe grand ohftacle 
 and fiiimhling-hlock in the way of the con- 
 'verjion of the Jews to chriftianity. 
 
 2. Secondly, there will be no ground for 
 this diftindtion, if we confider how much 
 Allegory was in ufe amon^ the Pagans j be- 
 ing cultivated by many of the Philofophers 
 themi'elves as well as by Theologersi by 
 fome as the method of delivering do6trines ^ 
 but by (^Jmoft as the method of explaining 
 
 G 2 away 
 
 Unherfities, 'The hifiory he gave of himfelf and efps- 
 dally ofbisftifferingsin the Liqtiifition to Mrs. Lim- 
 30KCU andl-j^ Clerc, is extrcamly curious. Lim- 
 EORCH Hift. Inquif. p. 158,159. 223. Le Clerc, 
 Bib. Univ. torn. 7. p. 289, &c. 
 
 {c) AUix'i- Judgment of the Jewijh Church againfi 
 the tfnitarianSy p. 423. 
 
 (d) Whifton'j LeBures^ P- i S* Mangey'^ Remarks 
 on TolandV Nazarenus, p. 125. 
 
 (e') Cicero De Nat. Deor. 1. 2 & 3. 
 
 Le Clerc Bibl. Chois. torn. 7. p. 80. &c. Spencer ^^ 
 legibus Hebr. p. 9. 
 
[ 24 ] 
 
 away what, according to the letter, appeared 
 abfurd in the antient fables or hiilories of 
 their gods. 
 
 Religion itfeif was deem'd a (/) myfte- 
 rious thing among the Pagans, and not to 
 be pubiickly and plainly declar'd. Where- 
 fore it was never fimply reprefented to the 
 people, but was moit obfcurely deliver'd 
 and vail'd under Allegories^ or T arables^ 
 or Hieroglyphicks \ and efpecially among the 
 (^) 'Egyptians^ Chaldeans^ and the Orien- 
 tal Nations. Si qiiis no'verit perplexe loqui^ 
 loqnatur: Sin mimis taceat ^ was a {Jj) 
 maxim of the Jews, but equally thought 
 right and true by the Pagans. I'hey alie- 
 goriz'd many things of nature, and particu- 
 larly the heavenly bodies ^ whence came 
 the faying, tota eft jahila coclnm. They 
 allegoriz'd all their (/) antient fables and 
 ftories, and pretended to difcovef in them 
 the fecrets of natural philofophy, medicine, 
 politicks, and, in a word, all arts aiid fci- 
 ences. The works of Homer in particular, 
 have furniili'd infinite materials for all forts 
 of allegorical Commentators to work upon ; 
 
 and 
 
 (f) spencer ^t\tg\h\x$,Y. 182, &c. 
 (q;) S'nmn Hift. Crit. des Commentateurs, p. 4. 
 (b) Robinfon'i Natural Hifiory of Cumberland, 
 &c. pt. 2. IntroA. p. 9, 
 (i) Clerici Hitt. Ecclef. p. 23, 24. 
 
and there is an antient (k) book yet extant 
 treating expreily of the Mleppries tJ/HoMER, 
 written by the fomous Heraclides of Ton- 
 tus. 
 
 (/) The antient Greek Toets were reputed 
 to invoke dwine^ and natural^ and hifto- 
 rical notions of their gods under wyflical 
 and parabolical ey:prejfions j and are ac- 
 cordingly fo interpreted by the Greek Scho- 
 Hafts. 
 
 The Syhilline Verfes^ the Jnfwers given 
 at Grades^ Sayings delivered under agita- 
 tion^ and T)reaws (all which the Antients 
 cali'd {ni) diTtnations by //^r^') ^v^Te feidom 
 or ever plain, and ufually receiv'd fome al- 
 legorical interpretation by the fkilfiil in di- 
 vination ^ as did alfo the numerous Signs 2ind 
 TrodigieS:, which, in the courfe of things, of- 
 ten happen'd. 
 
 The Pythagorean Philofophy was wholly 
 deliver'd in myftical language ; the fignifi- 
 cation whereof was intirely unknown to the 
 world abroad, and but gradually explain'd 
 to thofe of the fe6t, as they grew into years, 
 or were proper to be inform'd. And in this 
 Pythagoras came tip to Solomon's cha- 
 racter of wife men^ iii) who dealt in dark 
 
 G 3 hyings.-, 
 
 (k) Apud G^rle Opufcula Mythologica. 
 (/) Dodwell's Letters of Advice, &c. p. i-jz. 
 (m) Cicero De Divinatione. 
 . («j Pro.v. I. 6. 
 
[85] 
 
 fayings^ and aded not much unlike the moft 
 divine teacher that ever was. Our Saviour 
 (o) [pake with many parables the word tm- 
 to the multitude^ as they were able to hear 
 it : but without a f arable [pake he not 
 unto them : and when they were alone^ he 
 expounded all things to his difciples. 
 
 The Stoick Phiiofophers are particularly 
 famous for allegorizing the whole heathen 
 theology, and all the fables of the Poets. 
 And Cicero, in the perfon of Balbus, (/?) 
 the Stoick', gives us a curious fpecimen of 
 their method m his ^Books of the nature of the 
 Gods. 
 
 We have feveral {q) Treatifes of heathen 
 Phiiofophers on the fubjed of allegorical in- 
 terpretation : from one of which, written by 
 CoRNUTus the Stoick, and from fome other 
 Phiiofophers, Tlatonifts and Stoicks^ the fa- 
 mous O RIG EN is faid (r) to have deriv'd a 
 great deal of his Ikill in allegorizing the 
 books of the Old Teftament. And Origen 
 thought the allegorical method not only juft 
 and true in itfeif, but (j) proper to give 
 the Tagans a more exalted notion oj the 
 Holy Scriptures^ which feemd too low and 
 
 mean 
 
 {p) Mark 4, 33, 34. 
 
 (p) Cicero De Nat. Deorum. 1. 2. 
 
 (q) Gale Opufcula Mythologica, &c. 
 
 (r) 'Porphvrms apud Enfeb. Hift, Eccl. 1. 6. c. ip. 
 
 (s) SimonB.i£t. Crit. du V. Teft. p. 391. 
 
[87] 
 
 mean to them^ and tifeful to cowvert the 
 learned of his time to the chrifiian Religion. 
 Nor was the great St. Austin lefs allegorical 
 (^) than Grig EN in his interpretations of 
 Scripture i in which method he greatly im- 
 prov'd himfelf by ftudying Platonick au- 
 thors. 
 
 Many of the primitive Fathers, and apo- 
 logifts for chriftianity, who for the moft part 
 wholly addrefs themfelves to Pagans, rea- 
 fon allegorically, not only from natural and 
 artificial things (proving j that Christ was 
 to fuffcr on the Crofs^ from things {71) made 
 after the jafl:>ion of a Crofs -, that there muft 
 be {w) four gofpels and no more, from the 
 font winds and foiir corners of the earthy 
 and that Christ was to have {x) T'wel've 
 Apoftles^ becaufe the gofpel was to be 
 preach'd in the four parts of the world, in 
 the name of the "trinity^ three times four 
 making twelve-^ and becaufe there were (jj;) 
 T'wehe "Bells which hung at the bottom of 
 the Jewifh High Prieft's garment) but from 
 
 G 4 the 
 
 rO lb. p. 5P9. 
 
 (u) Jujlin Martyr and M'ln. Felix, 
 
 (1x1) Ire?Z(3£tts. 
 
 {x^ St. Atifiin. 
 
 (j^ Jtipn Mcirtyrh Opera, p. z6o. See nlfo Mon- 
 T A G u Origines Ecclefiaiticae, 'wherei7i there is a 
 learned ^ijfertation ii^07itheTy^ Twelve, p. 121. 
 &c. pars Poilerior. 
 
[88] 
 
 the Old Teftament exa^^ly in the fame man- 
 ner with the Apoftles ; which implies, that 
 they look'd on allegories to be proper topicks 
 for Pagans : and fome of them had particu- 
 lar reafon to do fo from their own ey^perience, 
 who while they were Philofophers them- 
 felves, and before they {z) became chrifti- 
 anSy were accuftom'd to it. It is alfo well 
 known, that (<^) Theophilus Antioche- 
 Nus, Clemens of Alexandria^ (who was 
 the Difciple of PANTyENus) and Origen, as 
 well as the Gnqfiicks^ allegoriz'd, in their 
 explications and commentaries, the books of 
 the New Teftament j which commentaries 
 may be juftly fi.ippos'd written for the ufe 
 of Pagans as well as Jews and ChriiUans, in 
 order to give them all a more exalted notion 
 of chriilianity and of the New Teftament. 
 
 In a word, {h) this method of writing in 
 matters of religion, (pradis'd by Jpoftles^ 
 Companions of the Jpoftles^ and moft primi- 
 tive Fathers) 'was generally iifed^ not only 
 among the JewSy hut among the wifer and 
 more philcfophical part of the Gentiles too : 
 and from both came to he ahnoft tm<verfally 
 receivd among the primiti've Chrijiians : 
 
 as 
 
 (z,) Wake's 'Prelim, to Gemime EpifM of St, Cle- 
 ment, &c, p. 75. 
 
 C^) Simon Hift. des Comment, p. 3, 4, 5. c. i. 
 
 (h) Wake, lb. p. 71 -7 5. See alfo Lenfant. Preface 
 Gen. fur fpn Nov. Teft. p. 3. 
 
[89] 
 
 as fays our moft learned and judicious Arch- 
 hifliop Wakf. And our learned (^) Do d- 
 WELL fays, that Oneirocriricks and Hiero- 
 ghphichs^ and other Tagan myftical Arts 
 of concealment are of tife towards under- 
 ftanding the prophetical hooks of the Old 
 T^eftament (the (^) whole inditlf[ence of God 
 in granting the fpirit ofprophefy to the Jews 
 heing^ plainly accommodated to the heathen 
 prattife of di'vination)-^ and that {e) the 
 Recelations of the Qofpel being made for 
 the fake of all fnankind^ its reafonings 
 (w'hich for the mod part are allegorical) 
 werejuited to the tinder ft an ding of the ge- 
 7ierality of the people of that age (and by 
 confequence to the people of future ages) 
 and in particular to that of the ThilofopherSy 
 who w^ere the leaders a^nong the Gentiles, 
 Wherefore the arguments of the Apoflles 
 Were fo far from being arguments ad homi- 
 nem to the Jews, that they were then equal- 
 ly concluiive to great numbers ^iimong the 
 Gentiles : and the Trophefies cited from the 
 Old in the New Teftament, tho' (/) jloining 
 in a dark place^ were a light both to Jews 
 and Gentiles. 
 
 t And 
 
 {c) DodweH'i Letters of Advice^ &c. p. 208. 
 (d) lb. p. 113. 
 
 {e^ Dodwelli Prolegomena ad Steam De Obftina- 
 tione. 
 
 (/; ^ Pet, I. ip. 
 
[9o] 
 
 And I add, that almoft all modern Re- 
 ligionifts, whether Chriftians, Pagans, or 
 Mahometans, are as fond of allegories, as 
 the antients were. Which feems to make 
 allegorizing the moil faitable method of ap- 
 plying to the underftanding of men. And 
 therefore the allegorical arguments of the, 
 Apoftles were proper for all forts of religi- 
 ous men, as well as Jews, and at p^efent 
 are more proper for others than Jews, (a- 
 mong whom there has been for a long time 
 a dired anti-allegorical Sedt call'd Caraites) 
 who, as they knew nothing of the allego- 
 rical method till long after the captivity, 
 and when they became (^) Hellenizd^ io 
 they rejefted that method, as to all propbe- 
 fies and other quotations taken from the Qld 
 Teftament by the Apoftles, foon after the 
 rife of chriftianity, and now contend for 
 one (ingle fenfe againft any allegorical mean- 
 ing of them, and argue againft allegorical 
 interpretations as abfiird in themfelves, no 
 iefs than Atheifts and ^eifts^ and Saddu- 
 cees (who, as is before obferv'd, never re- 
 ceiv'd (Z?) the allegorical interpretations of 
 their Brethren- Jews) or fuch (rational) Chrir. 
 flians as Mr. Whiston : tho' herein the 
 Jews feem to ad a moft inconfiftent part ^ 
 
 for' 
 
 (g) Clerici Hift. Ecclef. p. 24. 
 (/?) Siraon Bib. Grit. Vol. 4. p. 508. 
 
[91 ] 
 
 for unlefs they ufe the allegorical method, 
 {i) they "Ml not he able to eftahlifh their own 
 belief of a Messias to come^ which yet is one 
 of the fundamental articles of their Keli- 
 gion. That article, in the judgment of the 
 fam-ous Rabbi (Ji) A l b o, has no other foun- 
 dation than the authority of tradition. Tor^ 
 fays he, there is not any prophefy^ either in 
 the law-, or the prophets^ that foretels his 
 coming by any necejjary expojition of it^ 
 with refpeU to him^ or which may not from 
 the circnmftances of the text be well ex- 
 plain d otherwife. In a word, a learned 
 (/) author maintains, " that the books of 
 " the Old Tedament are of little ufe for 
 " the Converfion of the Jews. For almoft 
 " all which is laid to be fpoken in the Old 
 ^^ Teftament of the Messias muft be inter- 
 ^^ preted myftically, before it can appear to 
 " to be fpoken of him, and by confcquence 
 " very reniotely from what the words do 
 ^^ naturally iignify." 
 
 3. Thirdly, in anfwer to the objedion I 
 obferve, that chriftianity is wholly (7/2) re- 
 ceafd in the Old Teflament^ and has its 
 divine authority from thence ,• that it is not 
 
 literally. 
 
 (i) Simon Hift. Crit. du Nov. Tell:, p. 24(5', -47. 
 (k) Albo Oratio i. c. i. apud AUix^ Judgment of 
 the Jewifh Church againft the Unitarians, p. 411. 
 (/} Smalcius apud lb. p. 414. 
 {rn) Dodwell's Letters of Advice ^ ^c. p. itTf), ^. 
 
[9^] 
 
 literally, but myftically or allsgorically 
 revealM therein ; and that therefore chrifti- 
 anity is the allegorical feiife of the Old Te- 
 ftament, and is not improperly call'd (//) 
 myflical Judaifm. 
 
 If therefore chriftianity is grounded on ah 
 legcry^ converted Gentiles muft be convinc'd 
 by allegory, and become Jilegorifls or my- 
 fiical Jei!cs^ no lefs than converted Jews. 
 For the religion itfelf, to which they were 
 to be converted, was allegory or chriftiani- 
 ty as taught allegoric ally in the Old Te~ 
 ftament. 
 
 The Apoftle Paul in his firft Epiftk to 
 the Corinthians^ ^ ift and id Chapters {o) 
 (wherein it is to be obferv'd, that he argues 
 againft the Greeks^ and the Thilofophers^ as 
 well as the Jews) feems to difclaim all 
 other methods of arguing befides thealkg^o- 
 rical when he fays, that {p ) the wifdom 
 he [poke was wisdom among them that were 
 perfeU ; that is, among them, who under- 
 ftood the fecret, myftical, and fpiritual fenfe 
 of things ; that his wifdom was the wifdom 
 of God^ hidden from the world, which 
 God had ordain d hejore the world-, thai: 
 is, that it was the fecretj divine, and fpiri- 
 tual 
 
 (ii) lb, One Altar and one Triefthood^ p. 2 5 (J. 
 . (0) See Whitby on both Chapters. 
 
 (/) I Cor. c. I C5? i. lb. c. z. V. (5", 7, 8. 10. 14, 15. 
 ac, 21. 
 
[93] 
 
 tual fenfe of Judaifm which the world that 
 interpreted Judaifm literally knew nothing 
 of; that this wifdoyn and method of difcourfe 
 or reafoning was reveald to him and the 
 other Apoftles by God, who alone knew 
 his own fpiritual meaning j and that the 
 natural man receives not the fpiritual fenfe 
 of things, for they are foolifljuefs unto him 
 and cannot be known by him^ becaufe 
 they are not to be difcernd by the com- 
 mon rules of wifdom or Thilofophy^ or dif- 
 pnting^ but are to be difcernd only by a 
 man who has the fecret. Spiritual^ or my- 
 ftical meaning of things, or the rules by 
 which to find it out, imparted {q) to him 
 by God. In fine, is there the leaft ground 
 from the literal fenfe in Qenefis^ to fuppofe 
 (r) Abraham's ^Ziyc^/j^/^j, IsAAcandlsHMAEL, 
 fignify'd the Two Covenants ? Does not St. 
 Paul himfelfcall fuch interpretation (^//?^<7- 
 rical? And can fuch a fecret, fpiritual, 
 meaning of fo plain a Piece of hiftory, have 
 any other foundation than divine difcern- 
 ment? And w^hat foundation is there for 
 St. Paul's arguing from the Old Teftament, 
 that Jesus fhould (j) rife the third dayy 
 but by an allegory of Jonas's being three 
 
 days 
 
 {q) Afls 16. 22. 
 
 Ir) Gal. 4. 21, ^c. 
 (j) I Cor. 15. 4. 
 
[ 94 ] 
 
 days and three nights in the Whale's belly ? 
 Which former argument could be no argument 
 ad hominem to the Jews, becaufe, as Dr. 
 Whitby (?) obferves, they maintain'd their 
 Law to be eternal^ and had not the leaft 
 imagination of two Covenants, So that I 
 look upon all other methods of reafoning 
 ufed by Phiiofophers, except that manner 
 of reafoning ufed by the Apoftles, and par- 
 ticularly by St. Paul, to be wholly difcard- 
 ed, and the allegorical reafoning to be fet 
 up by them, as the true and only reafoning 
 proper to bring all men to the jaith of 
 Christ : and the Gentiles were to be whol- 
 ly beat out of the literal way of arguing, and 
 to argue as became Jews. And the event 
 of preaching the Gofpel has been fuited 
 to matters confider'd in this view and light. 
 For we knov/, that {ii) the "wife did not 
 receive the Gofpel at urii-, and that they 
 were the lateft converts ^ which plainly 
 arofe from their ufing maxims of reafoning 
 and difputing wholly oppoiite to thofe of 
 Chriftians : out of all which maxims they 
 w^ere indeed at length beaten by the fpi- 
 ritual reafoners, who have now brought the 
 wife into the Gofpel. 
 
 t 4. But, 
 
 (t^ Whitby in Gal. 4. v. 21, 
 (ti) I Cor. i,z6. 
 
'[ 95 ] 
 
 4. But, fourthly, the objedion will appear 
 to have no weight or difficulty in it, if it 
 be coniider'd, that Gentiles, before they 
 could become Chriftians ought to believe 
 Judaifm to come from God, and to receive 
 the Jewiili fcriptures as of divine autllority ,• 
 which, when they had once receiv'd as 
 fuch, they were in an equal condition with 
 the Jews of being converted by type and 
 allegory. And confequently, all the typi- 
 cal and allegorical arguments of the Apo- 
 ftles from the Laiii\ the Tfalms^ the Hiftoryy 
 and the ^Prophets oiiho, Old Teflament were 
 of equal force to Gentiles as to Jews^ a- 
 niong whom they were in effe(5t included 
 with refpe(fl to thefe arguments. Nay, it 
 feems veiy probable, that the allegorical 
 arguments of the Apoftles from the Old 
 Teftament, as being divine and moft fublime 
 arguments and (w) infinitely better than all 
 human reafonings, did of themfelves, or 
 with little ufe of other topicks, convince 
 the Gentile-Chriftians at the fame time, 
 both of the authority and divinity of the Old 
 Teftament, and of the truth of chriftianity. 
 Which matter may not perhaps be untruly 
 illuft rated by the cafe of St. Lu kg. He is 
 judg'd by many learned Divines to have been 
 
 a 
 
 (w) Bentley'i Sermon on Revelation and the MeJJi- 
 asy p. 30, 
 
[ 95 ] 
 
 a Gentile Con-vert i and, being a great com- 
 panion of St. Paul, was no doubt intruded 
 by him in the Cahala of the Jews and in 
 the fublime fenfe of the Old Teftament. 
 Accordingly we find St. Luke, in his Gof- 
 pei, slftd Acls^ reprefenting the grounds of 
 chriftianity, and arguing for it, in the fame 
 typical manner, from the Old Teftament, 
 with St. Paul and the other JpofileSj who 
 were originally Jews : in which two books 
 he may not untruly be fiippos'd, to declare 
 the grounds of his own convidion, and to 
 deiign to reprefcnt thofe grounds to other 
 Gentiles^ as fufficient for their conviction 
 alfo. But the {x) preaching of St. Peter to 
 Cornelius puts the matter paft difpute. He 
 declares to him that word which had been 
 pihlifl^' d thro all Juddoa^ that is, the Gof- 
 pel as founded on the Old Teftament and as 
 preach'd to the Jews. He then gives a re- 
 lation of the life and actions, and of the fuf- 
 ferings, death, and refurre6tion of Jesus, 
 and of his commands to his Difciples. And 
 concludes with faying, Ti? Jesus gi^e all the 
 Trophets witnefs-, that thro his name^ 
 whvfoe'ver helie'veth in him (loall receiz'e re- 
 mi jfwn of fins. Which is juft the fame way 
 of arguing ufed throughout the New Tefta- 
 ment to mere Jews. 
 
 PART 
 
 {x) Ads lo. 57, 38-41, 4^, 43- 
 
[97] 
 
 Part II. 
 
 Containing Confiderations on the Scheme 
 which Mr. Whifton fets up in Oppo- 
 Jition to the allegorical Scheme. 
 
 I. 
 
 3^r. Whist ON V Scheme reprefented ; "j)hich 
 confifis chiefly in maintaining -, that the 
 Hebrew and Greek of the Old Tefta- 
 ment agreed in the times of Jesus and 
 the Apoftles ; that the Apofiles cited ex- 
 aUly and argud literally from the Greek 
 or Septuagint Tranflation; and that 
 fince their tiw.es both thefe Copies of the 
 Old Teftament hai'e been corrupted by 
 the Jews^ which makes itfeem as if the 
 Apoftles had not argtid literally from 
 the Old Teftamentj and in propofing^ 
 by 'various means to reftore the T'ext there^ 
 cf as it [food in the days of]Esvs and his 
 Apoftles. 
 
 MR. Whist ON highly condemns the 
 allegorical Scheme when ufed in ex- 
 plaining the prophefies cited out of the Old 
 
 H in 
 
[98] 
 
 in the New Teftament. In his ^oykan JLe- 
 Utires he fays, {a) If a double fevfe in Tro- 
 phefies he allow dhy tis Chriftians^ as to 
 tbofe TrediUions^ which were to be fulfilTd 
 in our Saviour Christ, and if we own 
 that we can no otherwife floew their com- 
 pletion^ than by applying them fecundarify 
 and typically to otir Lord^ after they had 
 in their firft and primary intention been 
 already plainly fulfilfd in the times of 
 the Old Teftament^ We kfe all .the real 
 advantages if the ancient Trcphejies^^ as 
 to the proofs of our common chriftianity^ 
 and take a metliod which expofes the chri- 
 llian Religion to the laughter of Infidels, 
 ' In the book before us, he calls the {Jb) alle- 
 gorical Scheme weak and enthufia(tical^ 
 and one of the moft ill-grounded and per- 
 nicious things that e^ver was admitted by 
 Chrifiians : and he fpeaks of it, as a great 
 reproach to the Gofpel^ and tending to 
 harden the Jews in their infidelity i tho' 
 he confefl'es, that taking the prefent text of 
 the Old Teftament for genuine, it is im- 
 pojfible to expound or apologize for the 
 Apoftle's application of the prophefies they 
 cite from the Old 'Teftament upon any 
 other foundation : and he particularly calls 
 
 the 
 
 {a) Whiflon'5 Soy'lean Ze£iurei\ p. i6. 20. 29. 
 (^; Whiflon'; JSJfaf, ^c. p. i?2. 
 
[99] 
 
 the Uypothefes or allegorical fcheme dlfco- 
 ver'd and explain'd by Surenhusius ahfiird 
 and ridiculous. 
 
 I fhall therefore confider, how Mr. Whis- 
 TON mends the matter, and what Scheme 
 of things he would fet up in the room of 
 what he calls the ^7^/f^r<j^aliegorical Scheme j 
 which he owns to be founded on the prefent 
 text of the Old Teftament. 
 
 He contends, that the (^) Apoftles made 
 their quotations out of the Old TeftamenC 
 rightly and tndy^ from the Septtcagint^ 
 which was in their times in vulgar ufe and 
 then {d) agreed with the Hebre'W i and 
 that as they made exad quotanoni, fo they 
 argu'd juftly and logically from the obvious 
 and literal fenfe of the faid quotation., as 
 they then flood in the Old Teirament : but 
 that fince their times both the Hebrew and 
 Septuagint copies of the' Old Teftament have 
 been fo greatly (e) corrnpted^ and fo many 
 apparent diforders and diflocations intro- 
 duc'd therein, fo as to occaiion many r<?- 
 markahle Jijferences., incovjifteiiciesy and 
 contradrcii'Vis ^ between the Old and New 
 Teftament, in refped to the words and fcT^fe 
 of the quotations made from the Old in the 
 New Teftament j all ^\i\d\ corruptions dt 
 
 H 2 the 
 
 (c) Whifton'; Ejfay, &c. p. 12. \6. 87. 116. aSi. 
 ^28. ('^)Ib. p. 3. (e) i8a. 2(5"2, 2(J3. 
 
[ loo ] 
 
 the Old Teftament and differences and in- 
 confifiencies between the Old and New Te- 
 ftament he accounts for in the following 
 manner. He fays, that the (f) Jews did 
 in the fecond century, greatly corrupt and, 
 alter both the Hebrew and Septuagint co- 
 pies of the Old Teftament, and efpecially 
 with refpect to the places cited in the 
 New Teftament, out of oppofition to chri- 
 ftianity, and with exprefs {g) defign to make 
 the reafonings of the ApofUes from the Old 
 Teftament inconclufive and ridiculous j that 
 the Jews did in the third century give Ori- 
 gin one of thefe corrupted copies of the 
 Septuagint^ which O rig en, miftaking for 
 genuine, put into his Hexapla^ and thereby 
 occafton'd the Chriftians to receive that cor- 
 rupted copy, inftead of the authentick copy 
 they had before among them j that, in the 
 latter end of the fourth century, the Jews 
 put into the hands of Chriftians, who till 
 that time had been almoft univerfaily {h) 
 ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue, a copy 
 of the Old Teftament in Hebrew corrupt- 
 ed like the Septuagint^ which copy they 
 greedily receiv'd as a great treafure from 
 the Jews ^ and that therefore the difagree- 
 ment between the Old and New Tefta- 
 ment 
 
 (/) 220. {g) p. i5>. 112. 254. 26-4, ^c. 
 
 {h) lb. p. 224. 
 
[ .01 ] 
 
 ment in refpe(5i: both to the exaftnefs and 
 fenfe of the faid quotations has no place be- 
 tween the geniune text (now not exifting in 
 any copy) of the Old Teftament, but only 
 between the prefent corrupted text of the 
 Old Teftament and the New Teftament. 
 And therefore^ in order to juftify the argu- 
 ments and reafonings of the Apoftles, he pro- 
 pofes to reft ore the text of the Old T^efta- 
 went as it ftood before the days of Origen, 
 and as it ftood in the days of Jesus and his 
 Apoftles. From which text^ fo reftord^ he 
 doubts not, but that it will appear, that 
 the Apoftles cited exadily, and argued juftiy 
 and logically, from the Old Teftament. 
 
 The method by which he propofes to re- 
 ftore us the trtit text of the Old Teftament, 
 or a new and better Bible, than that we 
 have, is (not by the means of any one intire 
 copy that has been loft, and is now found 
 by him, but) by the help of (/) the Sama- 
 ritan Tentateuch j the Greek Tfalms^ as 
 attefted by the Romaii T falter ,• the Anti- 
 quities of JosEPHUSi the Trefent Hehrezs) 
 ^exty the federal Greek Editions and Ma- 
 imfcripts of the Septuagint Verfion^ and the 
 antient T^r an flat ions made from it ; the 
 Old Syriac Verfion^ made from the Hebrew 
 before the Copies of the Hebrew werefo cor- 
 
 H 3 rzipt 
 
 Ci) lb. p. 325).; 
 
[ 102 ] 
 
 rupt as tbey jiow are i the Chaldee Tara^ 
 phrafes y the remains of the later Greek 
 f^erjions^ particularly thofe of Aq^uila, The- 
 ODOTioNj andSYMMACHUSi \hQ works o^ 
 Philo • the remains of the Old Italick or 
 Vulgate Verfion; the Jpoflolick CoiifHtu- 
 tions i the Fathers and Hereticks^ who liv'd 
 before^ or not long after the T)ays of O ri- 
 ce n; the Hebrew Copies that have never 
 come into the hands of the Masoretes, and 
 the Greek Copies of the Septuagint Verfion, 
 read in Churches in the firfi ages of chri- 
 Jiianity^ or any parts of them ; and, above 
 all, by the help of Criticipmy whereby he 
 alters fonie paffages and changes the places 
 of others, which he fuppofes {k) dijloca" 
 ted. 
 
 Upon this Scheme, which confifts of great 
 variety of parts, I fhall make the following 
 obfervations j fome of w^hich will, in my 
 opinion, fhow it to labour under as great 
 difficulties as Mr. AVhiston and others fup- 
 pofe the allegorical fcheme attended with, 
 and iliould lead them either back to the alle- 
 gorical fcheme or to {ome other fcheme which 
 may better account for all the feeming dif- 
 ferences, and want of ccnneftion betweea 
 the Notions in the Old and New Tefta- 
 ment. 
 
 IL 
 
 (k) lb. p. 2 25>, and divers other places. 
 
C^oj] 
 
 II. 
 
 ^hat it is incredible^ that the Old Tefta- 
 ment JJmild be fo corrupted as Mr. Whis- 
 TON ajjerts, 
 
 IT feems incredible, that Oricen (who 
 was certainly a good man and good 
 Chrilljan, as well as the moll: learned Apo- 
 logill: of all the antients for chriftianity) and 
 other Chriftians of his time ; flioald be ca- 
 pable of having their (/) Vidgar Greek 
 ^ible^ or Old Teftament (of which the Gen- 
 tiles had copies as well as the Chriftians) ta- 
 ken from them, or letting it drop into obli- 
 vion and be loft, which inconteftably prov'd 
 the truth of chriftianity by exactly recording 
 the pailages cited from thence in the New 
 Teftament by the Apoftles, and by manifeft- 
 ing to all intelligent readers, that the Apo- 
 ftles cited, interpreted, and argu'd from, 
 thofe paffages juftly and truly i and fhould 
 receive an Old Tefcament, (and that with 
 the greateft applaufe for its integrity, and as 
 afiandard ^^ext) from enemies, v/hich fub- 
 verted the truth of chriftianity, by making 
 the Apoftles, to all appearance, cite falfely, 
 and argue falfely from the books of the Old 
 , H 4 Tefta- 
 
 (I) y^«r(?« Defence de I'Antiquite des terns, p. 304.. 
 
[ I04 ] 
 
 Teftament. This was being impos'd on in 
 religion, and facrificing chriftjanity, which 
 was dearer to them than their lives, in too 
 grofs a manner to be conceiv'd. The Chri- 
 ftians of old were capable of having feveral 
 grofs things put upon them by difboneft peo- 
 ple among themfelves j {m) {lying for God 
 and religion being deem'd by many, either 
 m crime at ally or, howe^ver^ a I'ery par- 
 donahle one ; ij not perhaps meritoriotis) : 
 as for example, the {it) ftory of the Cells at 
 Alexandria-, and other lyes which they re- 
 ceived and improv'd from the Jews ^ who 
 were fuch celebrated JLyars^ that a (^) Zjyar 
 and a Jew fignify'd the fame thing ; the {p) 
 Hiftory of the Thenix to illuftrate and prove 
 the Refurredion,- the {q) account of St. 
 John's being boil'd in a cauldron of oyl, 
 and coming out unhurt ; and his conftant (r) 
 lifting up and ftirring the earth over his 
 grave, as a man in lleep does his bed-cloaths, 
 to prove John alive, as it was fuppos'd to 
 be foretold by Jesus in the Gofpel he fhould 
 
 t be 
 
 (m) Ib.p, 224. 
 
 (n) ^uftin Martyry Aliiq; 
 
 (0) 'Juvenal Satir. 6. v. 547. Rutil Itinera t. 1. i. 
 V. 593. See alfo Simon Suppl. aux Cerem. des Jui& 
 p. 12, 
 
 ip) Clement. Epift. ad Corint. 
 
 (q) 'Terndlian. De Prafcrip. c. 4«J. 
 
 (r^ S. ^///?/;^ in John 21. 22,23. 
 
[ I05 ] 
 
 be till Jesus came again ,• (j) the tranfadi- 
 ons between Peter and Simon Magus 
 and other fham-miracles i forg'd (f) Gofpels, 
 and books under the names of the Apoftles; 
 divers forg'd {tt) paffages put into authors, 
 and books {w) corrupted and forg'd in fa- 
 vour of chriftianity and orthodoxy y the (x) 
 account of a ftatue ered:ed by the Romans to 
 Simon Magus as a god, and of v^orfhip, 
 paid to him by them -, and that impudent for- 
 gery of the Syhillive Oracles (wherein the 
 hiftory and dfodtrines of the Gofpels were 
 taught by fuppos'd antient Pagan Prophetefles 
 in as clear a manner as in the New Teftament 
 itfelfi and the doctrines of the Chriftians, in 
 that age, wherein the Syhilline Oracles were 
 forg'd, more clearly than in the New Tefta- 
 ment) which the antient Chriftians fo gene- 
 rally receiv'd as to be call'd by the Heathens 
 in contempt {y) Syhillijis: to which may be 
 
 added. 
 
 (5) Apoftol. Conft. 1. 6, c. 9. Arnob'mi^ 1. 2. p. <S'4. 
 Le Clerc. B. C. torn. 4. p. 203. 
 
 (0 Vid. Fabricit Cod. Apoc. N. T. 
 
 (it) Ap. jfofe^hi Antiq. & Luciam Opera. 
 
 fw) Patres Antiqui. Hermes Trifmegipes, HyJlaJ}es^ 
 Orpheits^ Anfioteles de Porno. Jamcs'i Corruption of 
 the Fathers. Whifton'i Ejfay on ihe Apofi. Cojift. p. 
 J 58. 6-] 5, ^c. lb. 'Pref. to Letter to Earl of Nott. p. 9. 
 ^c. lb. Athanasius conviBed of forgery . R u f i n u s , 
 Jerom, and Cassiodore, --were rcmcirkable Forgers 
 for the benefit of Orthodoxy. 
 
 {x) Jiifiin Martyr^ k\ni\:, Patres. 
 
 (y) Origen contra Celftm^ 1. 5. 
 
[ ^o6 I 
 
 added, the fabulous and lying accounts of 
 numbers of Martyrs^ which even the credu- 
 lous and fuperltitious Dodwell has in fome 
 meafure expos'd in his {z) "Dijfertation con- 
 cernhig the 'Pmicity of the Martyrs i being 
 reftrain'd from proceeding farther from his 
 {a) great 'veneration for the goodnefs a^id 
 piety of fever al of the fathers^ who^ he 
 fays, were too eafy of belief of matter of 
 faB^ not filfficiently attefied. 
 
 They might be, I fay, and were capable 
 of having fuch things impos'd on them in 
 favour of chriftianity, but cannot be deem'd 
 capable of having fuch a grofs matter (Z^) a- 
 gainft chriftianity impos'd on them, as that 
 beforemention'd. And it feem-s much more 
 reafonable to fuppofe, that there has been 
 no fuch corruption of the [acred Text of the 
 Old Teftament, and no fuch impofition of 
 Jews on Chriftians, as Mr. Whist on (and 
 that without juft proofs) pretends j but ra- 
 ther, that the Apoftles cited, interpreted, 
 and argu'd from, the Old Teftament after 
 that allegorical manner they feem now to 
 have done ^ efpecially, fince the authors of 
 the books of the New Tefl:ament, and all 
 the firft Fathers, and Origen in particular 
 
 do 
 
 (sj) A pud Dillert. Cyprianicas. 
 (a) Fonr Letters hcnveen the ^ipop of Sarum itnd 
 Mr. Dodwell, p. 29, 50. 
 {b) LightfootV ivorks. Vol. i. p. 375. 
 
[ '07 ] 
 
 do undoubtedly often allegorize the books 
 of the Old Teftament (as {c) Mr. Whis- 
 TON himfelf allows both the Apoftles and 
 Fathers do in all other cafes but that of 
 Trophejles) i and fince they all feem to look 
 on allegorical reafoning as a method no lefs 
 conclulive, than by rational proofs, nay to 
 be a truly rational way of reafoning, and 
 to look on reafoning from the letter to be 
 mean and low. 
 
 This will appear yet ftronger, if it be con- 
 fider'd, that, as the {d) Body of Chriftians 
 had the Septuagint Verlion, which was read 
 in their Churches, among them, from the 
 time of Jesus, fo there were many among 
 the primitive Chriftians who underftood He- 
 brew* Matthew is faid by all the Fa- 
 thers to have wrote his Gofpel in Hebrew 
 for the ufe of fuch Chriftians who underftood 
 Hebrew : the {e) Nazarean Chriftians, who 
 were fkilful in the Hebrew tongue, conftant- 
 ly ufed the Hebrew books of the Old Tcfta- 
 ment, as well as the Hebrew of Matthew's 
 Gofpel: Ignatius, Papias, Hegesippus, 
 and other Antients ufed the Gofpel according 
 to the Hebrews^, which was wTitten in He- 
 t brew : 
 
 (c) Whifton's 'Boylean Le6i. p. 27. 43. 51. lb. Ef 
 fay, ^c. Tp. 92. 
 
 (d) ^ezron Defen. de TAntiq. des Terns, p. 304. 
 Grige-fi Horn. i. in Cant. Cant. 
 
 (e) Ep^han, Her. 25). 
 
[ io8 ] 
 
 brew : the Church of Cefarea in ^aleftine^ 
 ufed the Hebrew of Matthew's Gofpel, a 
 copy whereof was^ as Jerom (/) informs us, 
 preferv'd to his time in the library of Cefarea^ 
 coUeded by Pamphilus the Martyr: the 
 Church of Alexandria receiv'd a copy of 
 MATTHEw'sGofpel in Hebrew fromPANT^- 
 Nus : and Origen^ who was learned in the 
 Hebrew tongue, plac'd the Hebrew Ttext^ 
 (which he look'd on as authentick, tho' {g) 
 agreeable to the prefent [fuppos'd corrupt] 
 Hebrew Text\ as well as the prefent [fup- 
 pos*d corrupt] Septuagint, and the feverai 
 Greek Verfions made from the [fuppos'd cor- 
 rupt] Hebrew, in his famous Hexapla-, a 
 work receiv'd by the Church in his time, 
 with the (h) great eft applaufe. All which 
 ihould feem to be fufficient fecurity againft 
 the Jews making any alterations in the He- 
 brew Text to the prejudice of Chriftianity. 
 Befides, we are inform'd by (/) Tertul- 
 LiAN, that the books of the Old Teftament 
 in Hebrew, which the Jews prefented to 
 Ptolemy King of Egypt^ were fhown in 
 his time among the curiofities of the Ttolo- 
 mean library \ which, as well as the Sep- 
 tuagint Verfion, preferv'd in the fame libra- 
 
 C/j Hieron Defc. Ecc. in Mat. 
 
 ( g) Whifton'j Effay, p. 25* 7- 
 
 {]}) Hody De Text. Origen. 1. 9. pt. i. c. 5. 
 
 (0 'Tertullian'i Apologeticus. c. 18. 
 
[ IC9 ] 
 ry, muft hinder the Jews from being able to 
 corrupt the Old I'eftament, as charg'd upon 
 them by Mr. Whist on, without being de- 
 tected. 
 
 In fine, no one could \vell imagine that 
 the primitive Chriitians, and Origen in par- 
 ticular, fhould be capable of fuch a degree 
 of ftupidity to be fo impos'd on, but Mr. Whis- 
 ton: who, notwithftanding the antient 
 Fathers do {k) unanimoufly affirm, that St. 
 Matthew's Gofpel was originally written, 
 and was extant among them in Hebrew, yet 
 (/) maintains, they were all miftaken in that 
 fadti which one would think, fome, if not 
 all, thofe antient Fathers iliould know to be 
 true. For no real Inftances of the monftrous 
 corruptions, and impofitions, and folly, and 
 ignorance, and negligence, prevalent among 
 Chriftians : not even the lofs of Origen s 
 Hexapla^ a work fo ufeful to all learned 
 Chriftians: nor the lofs of Clement's Epi^ 
 file to the Corinthians (a Book efteem'd (m) 
 canonical by the antients) for many hundred 
 years, and but lately brought to light: nor 
 even the taking the Bible out of the hands of 
 the people both of the Greek and Latin 
 
 Church i 
 
 {K) Simon Hift. Crit. Hu Nov. Teft. c. 5. 
 (/; Whillon'i- EJfay, p. 182. 
 {.m) Wake'i Treliw. ^ifc. to Ge',im?ie £j>iJiJeSy ^c 
 p. 117. 
 
[ "o] 
 
 Church j which was fubmitted to as a piece 
 of true Religion by them, who, very natu- 
 rally thought their Priefts better guides^ than 
 God in his word appealing to their own 
 underftandings : I fay, none of thefe feem 
 equal to the impofition abovemention'd. 
 
 Befides, it is fo far from being evident j 
 that the Sepmagint^ as it was in the hands 
 of Chriftians before Origin wrote his 
 Hex A PL A5 was uncorruptj and that Origen 
 contributed to render it corrupt,- that on 
 the contrary, it is manifeft, that {n) Origen 
 found the Septucigint in a very corrupt State, 
 and did really reflore a better text in innu- 
 merable places, and that to the fatisfadion 
 of many Chriftians, who approv'd of and 
 ufed his text as a flandard Text^ without 
 thinking in the leaft, that they were de- 
 prived of any argument for the truth of chri- 
 ftianity, that had been urg'd from former 
 copies of the Septuagint. 
 
 III. "that 
 
 {n) See Grabe fZ)e v'ltih 70 Inter, ante Mvzim 
 Originis, ^ de Remediisab ipfo adhihitis in ejufdem 
 Hexaplari Editione. And Montfaucon Prelimin, ad Oj:!- 
 genis Hexapla. c. 4. 
 
III. 
 
 fhat to fttppofe the Old T'eftament fo cor- 
 rupted^ as Mr. WHiiTON afferts^ is to 
 give up Chrijlianity to Jews and Infi- 
 dels, 
 
 CAN any thing, tend more to expofe 
 cbriftianity to the contempt: of Jews 
 and Infidels^ and to juftify all unbelievers in 
 reje<5ling //, than to fappofe as Mr. W. does, 
 chriftianity not grounded on the prefent Old 
 Teftament, and therefore falfe, if confider'd 
 as having it:) dependence thereon ? 
 
 Do not the Jews take it for granted oa 
 Vulgar tradition among themfeives, that they 
 have a true copy of the books of the Old 
 Teflament ? 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 Chriftians. 
 ground their Religion ? And. will not both 
 Jews and Infidels think the gaufe of chriftia- 
 nity fufficiently weak, if Chriftians otice al- 
 low, that the New Teftament .depends not 
 on the [prefent] Old Teftament, contrary to 
 what Chriftians have for many ages pafc 
 afferted, and to what the primitive Fathers 
 and the Apoftles themf^lves, according to 
 all appearance, afferted before them ? It has. 
 
 been 
 
been thought by Divines {o) to be of very 
 ill confequence to religion, to fuppofe any 
 alterations have been made in the Old Tefta- 
 menti and Pereira, Hobbes, Spinoza^ 
 Sim ON 5 and Others have been feverely cen- 
 fur d, as giving up or attacking the Bible, 
 for afferting, that fome few interpolations, 
 tho' not relating to the elTentials of religion, 
 have been made therein. Of how great con- 
 fequence then, muft fuch alterations be 
 deem'd, which affect the very being and 
 reafon of chriftianity ? 
 
 Are not all unbelievers of chriftianity ju- 
 ftify'd for rejecting it, from the time the true 
 copy of the Old Teftament was /off among 
 Chriftians to the time Mr. W. publiflVd his 
 {p) Soy lean LeUttres and his Ej[ay towards 
 reftoring the true text of the OldTeftament ; 
 wherein it is fuggefted to the world, that our 
 prelent text is nof the trite text of the Old 
 teftament in refped to thofe places, on 
 which the Apoftles ground the truth of 
 chriftianity > For if the grounds and reafons 
 for chriftianity, contain d in the Old Tefta- 
 ment were loft^ chriftianity was then loft* 
 
 And may not men ftiil juftly reject chri- 
 ftianity > For can it be the duty of men to 
 
 in- 
 
 (o) Kidder i Epift. ad J. Clericimt apud Bib. Choif. 
 torn. 4. p. 579. 
 (/) Whiiton'i SoyL Le6i. p. 30. (J7--72. 
 
r "3 ] 
 
 inquire after a loft book (and that impoflible 
 now to be recover'd} in order to find our, 
 whether chriftianity had any folid grounds 
 or no at firft, w^hen all the prefent appearan- 
 ces are, according to Mr. W. that it had 
 no folid grounds ? Or can men reafonably 
 fuppofe without proof (for really that is all 
 Mr. W. has to fupport his Hypothejis^ to 
 which he feems merely driven by the con- 
 ceived ahfurdity of the allegorical Hypothe- 
 ftSi arguing herein like {q) Faustus the 
 Manich:£an Bifhop, who thought Matthew 
 and Luke interpolated and . corrupted on ac- 
 count of the difficulties in their feveral ge- 
 nealogies of Jesus, and of their contradidi- 
 ons to one another ^ and alfo John's (r) 
 gofpel corrupted, wherein Christ fays, 
 Mosis wrote of him^ becaufe he could find 
 no fuchpaflage in the books of Moses) I fay 
 can men reafonably fuppofCj without proof,that 
 the Apoftles cited, interpreted, and argu'd 
 juftly from the Old Teftament, when we fee 
 (as Mr. W. fays) they did not j taking them 
 to have cited, interpreted, and argu'd from 
 the prefent Old Teftament ? 
 
 Laftly, may not Mr. W. as well hope 
 to convert Jews and Infidels by allegorical 
 reafoning from the Old Teftament, how 
 weak and enthufiajiical that may feem to 
 
 I him 
 
 (^) Faujlus apud Auguft. contra Fauft. 1. 3. c. i. 
 (rj lb. 1. 16. c. z,See alfo 1. 18. c. 3. & 1. y- c. i. 
 
[ 114 ] 
 
 him to be, as by a Iqft Bible, now to be re-^ 
 cover'd by criticifm? Nay, may he not 
 have better hopes, lince that was manifeftly 
 the method of arguing ufed by the Apoftles 
 and firft Fathers (by his own (i-) confefifion 
 in ail other cafes, but that of 'Prophejies)-^ 
 and has been deem'd (alfo by his own con- 
 felfion) to have been the method ufed 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 
 chriftianity has greatly prevail'd over the 
 world j tho' ftanding on allegorical reafons, 
 that is, according to Mr. W. on (t) weak 
 and enthiifiaftjcal reafons ,• tho' (ji) the 
 Hebrew and SepHiagint ha've been put upon 
 the wrack and even torturd hy the Criticks 
 to fee if hy any violence the citations of the 
 Apoftles from the Old Teftament ca7i be 
 made to accord with the texts cited j tho* 
 the truly judicious and impartial hiow-^ 
 that this has been hitherto done with little 
 fuccefs I and tho' the Old and New Tefta- 
 ment are in an irreconcilable ftate^ . to the 
 great perplexity of good Chrifiians^ and the 
 open f can dal of Jews and Infidels ? 
 
 If 
 
 (s) Whiilon's Soykiiu Le5inres. p. 5;. lb. Ep.y, 
 p. 91, 9f. 
 
 (t) lb. p. 92. 
 iu) Ib.p 28i- 
 
 i 
 
[ ''5 ] 
 
 If therefore men have been converted to 
 chriftianity by the books of the New Tcfca- 
 ment, or by the writings of Chriftians, they 
 have been converted by the Jewiili allegori- 
 cal method of arguing from the Old Tefta- 
 ment. 
 
 Typical and allegorical .reafoning was 
 decm'd fo ftrong and ufeful by the moft emi- 
 nent of the primitive Apologifts for chriftia- 
 nity, towards the converfion of Pagans, that 
 they ufe this following argument to them, 
 which I fhall give you in the words of Justin 
 Martyr, who urges it in its full ftrength ; 
 referring you farther to (zjv) Tertullian, 
 (a:) MinutiusFelix, and others. Says Jus- 
 tin to the Pagans, (xx) T^he Crofs is the 
 char act eriftick of Christ's power and ^o- 
 fernment^ and is 'vijible ahnoft in ecery thing 
 we fee ,• for caft your eyes upon the worlds 
 and tell me^ whether any thing is tranf- 
 aUed^ any commerce rnaintaind without 
 the refemhlance of a Crofs. Without this 
 trophy of ours^ you cannot go to fea ; for 
 navigation depends upon fails^ and they 
 are made in the fafhion of a Crofs. There 
 is neither plougjjing^ nor digging-, nor any 
 handicraft work pefform'd^ without />;- 
 I 2 Jirtcments 
 
 (■iv) 7*erniUia77i Apol. c. 6. 
 
 (x) Reeves's Apol. Vol. 2. p. 144, £^f, 
 
 Cxx) ib. Vol. I. p. 97. 
 
fimments of this figure \ nay a man is 
 diftingui(lo d from a beqft hy the upright" 
 nejs of his hody^ and the exteiifion of his 
 arms J , and the prominency of the ncfe he 
 Ireathes thro ^ which are all reprefenta- 
 tions of the Crcfs^ in aUufion to which the 
 Prophet [peaks ^ (r) The breath of our 
 Noitrils Chrift the Lord. Moreot'er^ yoitr 
 hanners declare the power of this figure -y 
 and the trophies you life every where in 
 your puhlick procejfions^ are fymhols of 
 power and dominion^ altho in your pra- 
 Uife you have no regard to the reafon of 
 the figure-, and the images of your de- 
 parted Emperors yozi confecrate zipon Cross- 
 LIKE engines^ andinfcribe them Gods, Since 
 therefore we invite you hy reafon and the 
 cerem.ony of the Cross, fo much in vogue 
 among you^ we know we fball he hlamelefs 
 for the future^ whether yoti embrace the 
 Chriftian Faith or not^ for we have done 
 our heft (that is, we have argu'd typically 
 and allegorically with you) to make you 
 Chriftians. 
 
 The fam'd I re n^ us proves j that there 
 cannot be more, nor fewer than {z) four 
 Gcipels j hecaufe there are four corners of 
 
 the 
 
 (y') Lament. 
 
 (2:.) IrenaPuS; 1. 2. :;. ti» Vide Fetiardentii Annot. 
 in locum. 
 
[ "7 ] 
 
 the world:, and jour principal winds ^ and 
 from many other fuch topicks. And an 
 eminent critick (^) obferves of all the pri- 
 mitive Fathers, that they, omnia gentium 
 faUa^ diUa^ fcripta ita interpretahantur 
 m ea omnia propofito fiio accommodarentj 
 aliquando contra Gentium went em. 
 
 But what feems furprizing, Mr. W. him- 
 felf is not inferior to laENiEUS in typical 
 argumentation ,- by arguing in the fame man- 
 ner, and with the fame ftrength for the 
 Jpoftolical Conflitutions (which is with him 
 the mofl f acred hook of theNew Teftament) 
 as Ire N^ us does for the four Gofpeh, 
 T'hefe (b) Conftitutions^ fays he, appear 
 plainly to he genuine^ and to he derivd 
 hy the Jpoftles from our Saviour^ hecaufe 
 they ha've thofe diftinguiflnng charaUers 
 helonging to dicine appointments^ which 
 thofe parallel fettlements tinder the Law 
 of -Moses, that were undouhtedly divine^ 
 exhihit to us. Ke mentions thefe following 
 among others, as fome of the mcft ohviou^ 
 particulars. 
 
 I . Js the Jewijh Laws^ thofe in par- 
 ticular which typify d the chriftian dif^ 
 penfdtion^ were gicen^ as to place^ on a 
 mountain :, Sinai j and as to time^ in juft 
 
 I 3 forty 
 
 {a) Def Heraldus in T^ertiillian. Apol. p. 7 7. 
 
 {}?) Whifton'j Bffc^y 07% the Jpficl. Conjiit. p. 171. 
 
[ ii8] • 
 
 forty days fpace : So is: ere thefe Comsti- 
 TUT.oNs or Chriftian Laws 9 hen as to 
 place, on a motmtain^ Sion \ (for which 
 imaginary place of the delivery of his ima- 
 ginary ApoftoUck Conftitutions, he can 
 have no (^) proof i) and as to time:, in 
 pift forty days Jpace alfo^ (for which ima- 
 ginary term he has equal proofs) before our 
 Lord's final afcenfion. And thefe circnm- 
 ftances are fo ohfer'vable under the GcfpeU 
 that memorials both of the place and time 
 continiid many ages in the chriftian Church 
 (which memorials are likewife without proof) ^ 
 and by them the antient types und prophefies 
 •zs^ere eminently fulfiWd^ as 'tis eafy to ob- 
 fer'vefrom what has been f aid. 
 
 2. Js the whole body of the Laws of 
 Moses /^^w to hai'e been dimded into two 
 ryiain branches^ the one fecret, but the other 
 open, and publiJJjd to the whole worlds 
 written for their daily ufe^ and put into 
 ecery bodys hands , nay part of it at leaft 
 written in pillars alfo j (which tirft branch 
 has no foundation in the Bible, and is the 
 mere invention of modern Jews, who, a 
 great deal above a thoufand years after 
 Moses, publiili'd an oral Law-, which they 
 pretended had been fecretly given to Mo- 
 ses at mount Sinai at the fame time that 
 
 the 
 
 {c) See his t maided proofs^ c. i. 
 
C 119 ] 
 
 the 'written Law was given j) fo it was 
 inore certainly as to the Laws of Christ. 
 That part which is contain d in the hooks 
 of the New Teftament being in like man- 
 ner open to all., and conftantly read in fa- 
 milies and puhlick ajfemhliesy hit the 
 other part J contain d in thefe hooks., in- 
 trufted fecretly with the governors of the 
 churchy as the proper ride of their puh- 
 lick courts^ affemhlies^ and, adminiftrations^ 
 as we hd've already feen. 
 
 He has other fuch typical confiderations, 
 which I omit, referring my reader to them. 
 I fhall only obferve, upon thefe two cited, 
 that Mr. W. by much out-typifies iREN^tus : 
 for iRENitus only makes things which are 
 fuppos'd to have a real exigence, and have a 
 fimilitude in fome refpedt, to be Type and 
 Anti-Type : But Mr. W. invents things tirft, 
 and then invents type and anti-type. 
 
 If Mr. W. therefore will duely confider 
 the conftant pra<5life and great fuccefs of 
 allegorical argumentation, and the mighty 
 force of allegorical and typical arguments 
 upon himfelf j he need not have recourfe to 
 the fuppofition of a loft Old Teftament to 
 avoid the allegorical Hypothefisi nor need 
 he be fo apprehenfive of the (d) injults and 
 I 4 re- 
 
 (d) WhiftonV Soj/f^w Le5i. p- ^^' *^' ^9- i^- 
 ^JP^y, ^c. p. 92. 
 
[ I20 ] 
 
 repraaches of Jews and Infidels on that 
 account, who have never been able to 
 withftand the fuccefs of that hypothefis i 
 but fhouid rather apprehend and fear their 
 ivifiilts and reproaches upon himfelf, who 
 proceeds with them on the fuppofition of a 
 loft Old Teftament. 
 
 nat Mr, Whist ON is not able to reftore- 
 one prophetical flotation made out of 
 the Old in the New Teftament, fo as to 
 make that literally apply d which now 
 feem-s allegorically apply d, 
 
 BU T to confute Mr. WV Hypothefis ef- 
 fedually, I obferve, that he is not able, 
 either by the means of various readings 
 drawn from the fources beforementiony, or 
 by critical emendations, or by taking out 
 palfages, or by placing right fuppos'd diflo- 
 cated palfages, or by all thefe together, fo 
 to reftore any citations of Trophefies made 
 from the Old Teftament and faid to be ful- 
 fill'd in the New, as to make them obvioufly, 
 and literally, and agreeably to the con- 
 text where he places them, relate to the 
 purpofes, for which they are cited by the 
 authors of the New Teftament. And if he 
 is not, then is his Hypothefis a vain Hypo- 
 ibefis^ and ferves np pufpofe whatfoeverj 
 
 unlefs 
 
. [ 121 ] 
 
 unlefs he thinks .: fufficient to fuppofe^ from 
 the mere authority of the New Teftament, 
 the citations pertinent in his fenfe, without 
 being able to fhow, that it is poflible for any 
 one of them to be fo ,• and then he need 
 not have wrote his Bjf^ay to rejiore the true 
 text of the Old T^ eft anient. 
 
 I fliall go thro' thofe few citations of pro- 
 phefies made from the Old Teftament, and 
 faid to be fulfill'd in the New, which he pro- 
 duces in his Bjj[ay^ and pretends fo to place 
 in the Old Teitament as to make them re- 
 late, in their obvious fenfe, to the purpofes 
 for which they are aliedg'd by the authors of 
 the New. 
 
 I. I begin with that of St. Matthew, 
 who, on occaiion of our Saviour's being car- 
 ry'd into Egypt^ and being brought back, 
 fays, this was done, {e) that it might he 
 jtilfiird which was fpoken of the Lord by 
 the Trophet^ faying^ " Out of Egypt have 
 " I call'd my Son." 
 
 Upon which words Mr. W. (/) very juft- 
 ly obferves, that St, Matthew's citation, 
 " Out of Egypt have I call'd my Son," no' 
 where now appears in the Old Teftament as 
 apply d to the Son of God or Messias, either 
 in Hebrew or Greek-, but is word for word- 
 in 
 
 {e) Matt. 2. 1 5. 
 (/).Whi{lon'i Ejfay, p. 88. 
 
[ I2i ] 
 
 'in Hose AH, where it is apply d to the 
 Teople of Ifraeh whom God^ by Moses, 
 had antiently call'd or hrotight out of 
 JBjgypt. Which paffage is therefore fuppos'd 
 by all chriftian Commentators (and perhaps 
 by all chriflians but himfelf) to be taken 
 from HosEAH by St. Matthew, and to be 
 apply'd by him in a fecundary or allegorical 
 fenfe to Jesus's being calld out of Egypt, 
 
 Where then does Mr. W. place thefe 
 words in the Old Teftament fo as to make 
 St. Matthew cite and apply them accord- 
 ing to the obvious and literal fenfe, which 
 they bear in the Old Teftament, that is, ac- 
 cording to Mr. W, pertinently > 
 
 He (g) conje'ciuresy Matthew had in 
 his Eye this noble prophefy of Isaiah con- 
 cerning the Messiah ^ which I fhall fet 
 down, according to the prefent copy of Isai- 
 ah in one column, and accordingly to Mr. 
 W's amendment, by the force of criticifm, 
 in the fecond. 
 
 Ifaiah 
 
 fe) WhiflonV Bjfay, f. 90. 
 
['^3] 
 
 Ifaiah 41. 8, 9. 
 
 'But thou Ifrael art my 
 feri'ant^ Jacob, whom 
 I ha've chofen^ the feed 
 cf h.'RKAHhu ^my friend. 
 ^hou whom I ha've ta- 
 'ken fi'om the ends of 
 the earthy ^;/<^ called 
 thee from the chief men 
 thereof^ and faid unto 
 thee^ Thoit art my Ser- 
 I'antj Ihaz'e chofen and 
 not cafi thee away. 
 
 Whiflon,/?. 91, 
 
 Thou Ifrael art my 
 Son : I have chofen 
 thee : the feed of 
 Abraham my friend. 
 Whom I have taken 
 from the borders of 
 the land, and called 
 thee out of ^gypty 
 and faid, Thou art 
 my Sony I have cho- 
 fen thee, and not caft 
 thee away. 
 
 Now let this paffage of Isaiah, wherein 
 Mr. W. by conjecture puts in the words Out 
 of Egypt-, inftead of the more general words 
 from the chief men^ be fuppos'd to be the 
 paffage referred to by St. Matthew (which 
 yet I prefume not one reader will allow),- 
 How does the literal and obvious fenfe there- 
 of in Isaiah appear to concern Jesus*s com- 
 ing out of Egypt^ any more than the obvi- 
 ous and literal fenfe of the pafl'age in Ho- 
 SEAH? Does not the whole Chapter in Isai- 
 ah as plainly concern the body of the Jews, 
 fpoken of in the text under the term Souj as 
 the chapter of Hoseah, where the Jews are 
 fpoken of under the fame term Son ? And 
 
 docs 
 
[ IM ] 
 
 does not {h) Grotitis fo interpret the place ; 
 the* he conjedtures with Mr. W, that the 
 Prophet had Egypt in his view, as (/) others 
 do Cbaldea? 
 
 It is certain, that the words of Isaiah are 
 literally and obvioufly applicable to the paft 
 calling of the Jews out of Egypt. And if 
 fo, it is not reafonable to make them a 'Pro- 
 phefy and to relate to the future calling of 
 Jesus out of Egypt^ which feems very re- 
 mote from the thoughts of the Prophet, who 
 has no one circumftance in the whole chap- 
 ter to lead an unprejudic'd reader into fuch 
 a thought. And therefore, if thefe words 
 of Isaiah are referr'd to by St. Matthew, 
 commentators will be no lefs oblig'd to con- 
 fider them as apply'd by St. Matthew in 
 a fecundary or allegorical fenfe, than they 
 do the words of Hose ah ; to which it can- 
 not well be doubted St. Matthew does re- 
 fer ', they being the exprefs words of Ho- 
 SEAH, and no where elle to be found in all 
 the Old Teftament. 
 
 2. The next quotation, which Mr. W. {k) 
 endeavours to place right in the Old Te {la- 
 ment is contain'd in thefe words of St. Mat- 
 thew. (/) "Then was fulfilTd that which 
 t was 
 
 (<&) Grotms in locum. 
 {i) White in locum, p. 297. 
 {k) Whifton'5 Ejfny, p. 93, 
 (/) Matt, z-j. 9. 
 
ijocu fpoken by Jeremy ^i?<? Tropbet faying^ 
 " And they took the thirty pieces of lilver, 
 " the price of him, that was valu'd, whom 
 *-^ they of the Children of Ifrael did value ^ 
 " and gave them for the Potter's field, as 
 ^'^ the Lord appointed me." 
 
 Now this quotation is not in Jeremy the 
 Prophet, but is {in) thought to be in Z a cha- 
 ry y where, according to its literal and. ob- 
 vious fenfe, it bears not that meaning, which 
 St. Matthew puts upon itj and where in 
 Mr. W's opinion, (jt) it hardly hears any 
 good fenfe at all. 
 
 What is it now Mr. W. does on this oc- 
 calion ? 
 
 He helie'ves^ (o) that St. Matthew cited 
 what was then in his copy^ not out ofZk- 
 chary, but Jeremy: and he belieces, that 
 not only this TrediUion^ Init fet'eral others^ 
 now inferted in Zachary, really belong to 
 Jeremy, belief is a notable proof] But 
 granting this Prophefy, now to be found in 
 Zachary^ did, in St. Matthew's time, 
 exift in Jeremy j why does he not plant 
 this quotation in fome particular place of 
 Jeremy ? For till that be done, we cannot 
 judge of the pertinency of it. To fuppofe 
 it pertinent without giving it a place in Je- 
 remy, 
 
 (m) Whiflon. lb. p. 94. Zach. ir. 3. 12. 
 {n) Whifton. lb. p. 5)5. (0) p. 54. 
 
[ 126 ] 
 
 RE MY, is to beg the queflion about the per- 
 tinency of the Apofties quotations in their 
 literal fenfe. He fays, the quotation is {p) 
 good fevfe^ as it is cited in St. Matthew* 
 But how does that fliow it to be apply' d ac- 
 cording to the literal fenfe it bears in Jere- 
 my ? And yet this is all Mr. W. does to- 
 wards placing this quotation, or refloring the 
 true text of Jeremy, \\\ this inftance. 
 
 But to fet the matter of this quotation in 
 its due light, and effedually to confute any 
 chimerical fcheme of placing this quotation 
 in our prefent book of Jeremy, or in any 
 other authentick book of Jeremy ^ it ap- 
 pears, that it cannot be plac'd in him, 
 but by fuch a method as will place any 
 quotations, or prophelies, in him. For the 
 quotation was made from an Jpocryphal 
 iiooky afcriljd to Jeremy, as Jerom {q) 
 afliires ws^ who faw and read that Apocry- 
 phal 'Book. 
 
 I add here, by the way, that the Syriac 
 and Terfic Verfions, and thofe other copies 
 of St. Matthew, which have (r) not the 
 name of the Prophet, but barely mention 
 the Trophet^ feem corrupted on purpofe to 
 make St. Matthew not guilty of citing Je- 
 remy 
 
 ' ip) Whidon s Ejfay, p. 95- 
 (q^ Hieron. apud Grabe Spicil. Sec. i. p. 155. 
 {r) Kiddi^rs Demontt. of theMefTiaSjVoi.z.p. i^S^ 
 191' 
 
[ 1^7 ] 
 
 REMY falfelyj the tranflators or tranfcribers,' 
 either not knowing whence St. Matthew 
 had this citation, or thinking that St. Mat- 
 thew fhould not have cited a book forg'd 
 under Jeremy's name, as a book of the ^ro^ 
 />to Jeremy. 
 
 3 . A third prophefy, which Mr. AV. en- 
 deavours rightly to place and regulate in the 
 Old Teftament fo as to make it pertinently 
 apply'd is the famous prophefy cited by ^"^^ 
 Matthew, " Behold a Virgin fl:iall be 
 " with Child, 6^." 
 
 He owns, (y) that the words cited by St. 
 Matthew, " Behold, a Virgin ihall be 
 '' with child, and iliall bring forth a fon, 
 *' and fhall call his name Immanuel," as they 
 ftand in the Hebrew and Septuagint of 
 Isaiah, do include fucb an additional 
 clatife as feems no way applicable to the 
 Messiah; and Jo occajtons the Jews to tri- 
 nmph^ as if the prediction were meant 
 not of a Virgin^ but only of a Toiing Wo- 
 man in the days of hiiAz, For fo runs the 
 context^ as he fays, /;/ the Hebrew -y and 
 the prefent Septuagint for the main agrees 
 to it: (/) " And the Lord added to fpeak 
 " unto Ahaz, faying, Aik thee a Sign of 
 " the Lord thy God. Alk it either in the 
 
 " deep 
 
 (s) Whifton'i- Ej}ay\ ^c. p. zz^ ^c. Matt. i. 23* 
 (r) Ifaiah 7. 10— icT. 
 
cc 
 
 deep, or in the hight above. But A h a z 
 " faid, I will not aik ,• neither will I tempt 
 *' the Lord. And he faid. Hear ye now 
 *' O houfe of David, is it a fmall thing for 
 you to weary men ? But will ye weary 
 my God alfo ? Therefore the Lord him- 
 felf fliall give you a (ign : Behold, a vir- 
 gin fhall conceive, and bear a Son, and 
 ^^ lliail call his name Immanuel. Butter 
 ^^ and honey iliall he eat; that he may 
 " know to refafe the evil, and chufe the 
 " good. For before the Child iliall know 
 ^^ to refufe the evil, and chufe the good, 
 " the land that thou abhorreft fliall be 
 '^ forfaken of both her kings." 
 
 Upon which palTage Mr. W. (u) thus ar- 
 gues. Wl^at has the birth of the Messias, 
 the trite Immanuel, oj a Virgin to do with 
 the hirth of another child,, before whofe 
 coming to years of difcretion,, Resin king of 
 Syria, and Pekah king of Ifrael were to 
 leave the land ^/ Judah in the days of king 
 Ahaz? And therefore to make this quota- 
 tion of St. Matthew pertinent, Mr. W. 
 ftrikes out, by mere force of criticifm and 
 conjedure, and without any foundation from 
 pretended various readings, thefe words, 
 which he calls an Additional Claitfe^ and 
 
 which 
 
 (ji) Whifion'5 EJfay, ^c. p. 230. 
 
[ ^^9 ] 
 
 which plainly limit the prophefy to a Hiort 
 time to come j {w) Gutter and Hone\^ fhall^ 
 he eat; that he may know to refufe the 
 evil andchufe the good* For before the Child 
 floall know to refiife the evil and chiife the 
 good-, the land that thou abhor reft Jhall be 
 for f alien of both her Kings, I fay, by the 
 mere force oj criticifm ,• for as to his pre- 
 tences, that, in the copies (^) ufed by Jus- 
 tin Martyr andTERTULLiAN, the text of 
 Isaiah is not wholly in the fame order 
 wherein it now is y and that the Jpoftolical 
 Conftitutions quote a part of the text of 
 Isaiah, not as it is in the prefent copies i 
 I anfwer, i. that whatever variations from 
 the Septuagint there may be in Justin's 
 and Tertullian's quotations of this chap- 
 ter of Isaiah, the additional clanfe^ which 
 deftroys the literal application of the prophe- 
 fy to Jesus, appears io its place, both in {y) 
 Justin and (z,) Tertullian : and fecond- 
 ly, I anfwer, that the {a) Jpoftolical Con- 
 ftitutivns cite only one verfe of Isaiah, viz. 
 the I4th5 without a word about what pre- 
 cedes or follows, 
 
 K Now 
 
 ifjo) Ifa. 1.V, 15, \6. 
 (x) Whilton'i- Bjfay, ^c. p. 252. 
 (.y) jfiifiiiti OY>trz. p. i6i. 290. 
 (s;) TermUimii Opera, p. i^i, 
 (_a) Confi, 1. 5. p, 321. 
 
[ IJO ] 
 
 Now piirfuant to this firft change he reads 
 Tlrgi'Uy according to the Septuagint, and 
 not Toting Woman -, tho' the original Hebrew 
 word {])) Tignities, as appears by its life in 
 other places and by the prefent context, as he 
 allows, A Toiing Womany who might, or 
 might not be a Virgin, 
 
 But what will Mr. W. get by thefe chan- 
 ges, except a pofl'ible application of words, 
 taken by themfelves without their context, 
 to the event of Mary's conception of Jesus ? 
 Which will never convince areafonable man, 
 that the original, obvious, and literal fenfe 
 of Isaiah, was to prophefy of the concep- 
 tion of Jesus by the Virgin Mary. 
 
 Nothing will be obtain'd, even by reading 
 (inftead diToung Woman sheingwith child) 
 Virgins being with child: for that cxpref- 
 {ion afl'erts no miraculous or extraordinary 
 conception, fince it does not necelTarily im- 
 ply, that a Virgin fhall conceive without 
 the concurrence of a man ; or, if it does, 
 points not dbvioufly and primarily at the 
 Virgin Mary. Nor will any thing be ob-: 
 rain'd, by fuppofing the clatife beioremen-' 
 tionVi to be difhcated or taken from its 
 proper place and added to this prophefy, 
 befides the taking away one demonflration 
 out of feveral that appear in Isaiah, that 
 
 the 
 
 {U) JSraf?/ms in Matt. i. 50. 
 
[^3' ] 
 
 the prophet had the birth of a male child of 
 a Virgin or T^oiing Woman in the time of 
 Ahaz, and not tlie birth of Jesus by the 
 Virgin Mary in his firft thoughts. For the 
 whole context will ftill fpeak againft him, 
 and even in his opinion, not perfedly ferve 
 his purpofe. For after he has correded 
 Isaiah as abovemention'd, and after he has 
 divided Isaiah's prophefy into fevcraKpro- 
 phefies, and made thofe prophefies indepen- 
 dent of one another, he confefTes, that (r) 
 the prefent order of the parts of thofe pro- 
 pheiies and their prefent coherence and con- 
 text will ftiil. make them look diforderd. 
 Mr. W. muft therefore, if he will go on 
 to endeavour to make this quotation per- 
 tinent, make further alterations,- for what 
 he has done already, does not, by his own 
 confeilion, place it to full fatisfaiflion. 
 
 V. 
 
 That the Jews ha've not corrupted the Old 
 T.'eftament in refpeci to the pajfages cited 
 from thence in the New- 
 
 MR. AV. endeavours to Hiow, that (d) 
 the Jews have greatly comipted the 
 Old Teftamcnt, and more efpecially, as to 
 
 K 2 the 
 
 Ccj Whifton, p. 232. 
 
 \d) p. 1 7- HZ. 220— z8 1, p. 87, 88, ^c. I2p. 
 
[ 13^], 
 
 the quotations made from thence in the New 
 Teftament. 
 
 To prove this laft point he {e) produces 
 
 fome paflkges cited by the Apoftles, which 
 
 are not apply'd according to the obvious 
 
 meaning, which they iignify in the places 
 
 where they ftand in the Old Teftament ^ 
 
 fome paffages, which feem not exadly cited 
 
 by the Apofties \ others (/) wanting in the 
 
 Hebrew; and many (^) pafTages, fuch as 
 
 Hejhall he called a Nazarene:^ (^c, which, 
 
 he fays, are jntirely wanting in all copies 
 
 of the Old T^eftament, He alfo urges the 
 
 following paffage of Justin- Martyr to 
 
 prove his charge againft the Jews. 
 
 " I would have you know, fays (^) Justin 
 *^ toTRYpHo, That your Rabbins have in- 
 '^ tirely taken away many texts of Scripture 
 '^ from that verfion which v/as made by 
 ^^ the Elders that were with P t o l o m y, 
 " wherein it was exprefly declar'd, that this 
 " Jesus, who was crucify'd, was God 
 
 **^ AND man, and was TO BE CRUCIFy'd 
 
 *^ AND DIE. Which Texts, becaufe I know, 
 " that all thofe of your Nation do rejed, I 
 ^^ do not infift upon fuch inquiries j but fhall 
 '' content myfelf in thefe debates with ma- 
 " king ufe of thofe texts, that are ftill ex- 
 
 " tant 
 
 ("(?; Whifton, p. 87, ^c;. 103. 125). 22p. 321. 
 (f) F- <^3. 
 {g}^. 104— no, 
 {Jo) p. 140. 
 
[ '33] 
 
 *^ tant in your allow'd Bibles. For as to 
 ^^ what texts I have hitherto alledg'd to you, 
 ''^ you allow of them all ; excepting that 
 " fhort citation, 'Behold a Virgin jh all he 
 " with Childr Then Trypho faid, " I de- 
 " fire, that you will firft tell us, which are 
 "^ thofe texts of Scripture, that you fay have 
 ^^ been corrupted. To which I reply'd ,• I 
 " will do as you defire me. From what 
 " EsDRAS explain'd concerning the Law of 
 " the PalTover_, they have taken away this 
 " part of his explication. And Esdras faid 
 " to ihe people, T'his Tajfover is your fa- 
 " ziotir mid your refuge : and if you will 
 " confider it^ and it come into your hearty 
 " that we jhall hmnhle him for a ftgn^ 
 " and afterward JJoall believe on hiWy 
 " then this place Jhall not he made defo- 
 " late for e^ver^ fays the Lord of hojts, 
 '^ Btit if you JJoall not helie've on him^ 
 '^ nor hearken to his preachings yon floall 
 " he rejoyced O'Ver among the Nations. 
 " And from the words {i) of Jeremiah, 
 " they have cut off this : I was an {inno- 
 ^^ cent) Lamb:, that was led to he facri- 
 ^' fed. TJhey deoizd devices again fi 
 " w^, faying^ Let us caji wood into his 
 " hread^ and let m thruft him out of the 
 " land of the limng ; and let his name 
 ^' he remember d no more. Now this text, 
 " which is taken out of the words of Jere- 
 
 K 3 MIAHy 
 
 CO Jer; ii. ii». 
 
^^ MiAH, IS ftill found written in fome copies, 
 '*^ that are in the Jewiili Synagogues : for they 
 ^' have taken them away but a little while 
 ^' ago j and that on account of the demon- 
 '^ ftration that arifes from them, that the 
 ^^ Jews would take council about Christ 
 ^' himfelf, to take him away by crucifying 
 "^ him i and that after fuch council they 
 ^^ have crucify'd him. Befides, they have 
 ^^ in like manner taken away what follows 
 '"^ from the words of the fame Jeremiah ; 
 T^he Lord J the God of Ifraely reinem- 
 hred thofe of his^ that i:!)ere dead^ that 
 were ajleep in the dttft of the earth j 
 and he defcended to them^ and preach' d 
 his fahatian to them. They have alfo 
 taken away thefe few fhort words from 
 the Tfahns of David, {Jz) Trom the tree. 
 For when the words were thefe, fay ye 
 among the Gentiles^ that the Lord hath 
 reign d from the tree; they left it thus^ 
 fay ye among the Gentiles^ that the 
 Lord hath \eigiidr Mr. W. (/) fur- 
 ther fupports this charge againft the Jews, 
 by producing a pafiage from the fame Jus- 
 tin, wherein is contain'd a quotation out 
 of the Prophet Z a chary, which, he fays, 
 is not now to be found in Zachary. Jus- 
 
 tin'§ 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 cc 
 cc 
 cc 
 cc 
 cc 
 cc 
 cc 
 cc 
 cc 
 
 {k) Pfalm ii,6, lo. 
 (J) Whii^on. p. 144. 
 
Tin's words {m) are, '* Now what the Jews 
 will fay and do when they fee Christ a 
 coming in glory, we are foretold by the 
 Prophet Zachary, in thefe words : / 
 will command the four 'winds to gather 
 together my difpersd children: 1 will 
 command the north to bring them^ and 
 the fouth not to hinder them. And then 
 there Jhall he a great wailing in Jeni- 
 ^ falem-, not a wailing of the mouths or 
 ^ lips^ hut a wailing of the heart : and 
 '' they Jhall not rend their garments hut 
 their minds. One tribe floall wail ano- 
 ^ ther tribe : and then flmll they fee him 
 ' whom they have pi ere d -^ and they floall 
 ^ fay^ whv hall thou, O Lord, made us to 
 ^ wander from thy way > The glory with 
 ^ which our Fathers have blefs'd us, is bc- 
 ^ come a reproach 'to us,'' 
 
 In fine, Mr. W. {n) fays, the Jews have 
 cliang'd this claufe, they piercd my hands 
 and my feet^ which he thinks evidently 
 foretold the piercing the hands and feet 
 of Jesus of Nazareth^ and inftead thereof 
 read, As a lion my hands and my feet. 
 
 Before I anfwer to thefe objections, I will 
 readily confcfs to Mr. W. that the books of 
 the Old Teftament are g/eatly corrupted^ 
 
 K 4 ' that 
 
 {m") *^ujlmi Apologia, i. f. 6i. 
 
 {n) Whifton, p. 78^ 79. Pf. 22. :'. i^. 
 
that is, greatly chang'd from what they were 
 when they proceeded from the authors of 
 them. He has himfelf acknowledg'd, and 
 in many refpedts prov'd, that thofe books are 
 {p) greatly corrupted '^ and particularly, that 
 they are fo frequently corrupted in the 
 names ^ and nimhers therein fet down^ efpe- 
 cially the hooks written after the capti'vity^ 
 that it is almoji endlefs to enter into the 
 detail of them ; many fuch changes happen- 
 ing, without any form'd defign, from the 
 nature of things. And it is now generally 
 allow'd by the mail judicious and learned 
 (^) criticks, fuch as Huet, Simon, Du- 
 PIN, Le Clerc, and particularly, of late, 
 by our excellent P r i d e a u x j that, after 
 the Captivity, fe'veral places were ad^ 
 ded throughout the Holy Scriptures : or 
 that there are fe'veral interpolations^ which 
 occur in many places of the Holy Scriptures -^ 
 for that there are fuch interpolations is iin- 
 
 deniabky 
 
 ((?) Whiflon, p. ^5- 44— 8(5^. 11; — 129. 14c. 202, 
 
 Ste alfo Simon Hift. Crit. du V. Teft. 1. i. ^ capUi 
 Critica Sacra. 
 
 (/) iZ//^*/'/ Demonft. Evangel. 
 
 Simon, lb. 
 
 'Dupin Difler-t. Prelim, fur la Bible. 
 
 Le Clerc in Vet. Teftam. & fentimens des Quelque* 
 TheoL 
 
 Vx\i^^z.\x^ s Connexion, ^c. Vol. i. p. 342, ^c. 
 
 See nlfo Epifcopii inftit. Theol. 1. 3.C. i.p. 217. 
 
 X^imhirgii Amic* Cpllatio. ^c. p. 181, 
 
C '37] 
 
 deniaUe^ there heing many paffa^es thro 
 the whole [acred writ^ which create diffi'^ 
 ctdtieSy that can never be folod^ without 
 allowing of them. 
 
 Which Interpolations being allow'd to be 
 made long after the captivity, it iliould feem, 
 that there are more others than are com- 
 monly thought on, and particularly, that 
 many of the prophetical paffages with their 
 completions have been added. For if once 
 it be allow'd, that books coUeded into one 
 volume have been retriev'd from obfcurity, 
 and have had additions made throughout to 
 them, and that without any exprefs notice 
 given of fuch additions^ which are only to 
 be found out by a critical examination of 
 thofe books themfeives,- prophejies with 
 their completions recorded in thofe books, 
 or fulfiil'd before thofe books were pub- 
 lifh'd with additions^ may be juftly fu- 
 fpeded to be interpolations or additions. 
 For plain prophejies^ with exaU comple- 
 tions^ are not matters in themfeives very 
 credible without the beft and moft unde- 
 niable atteftations, that the former exiflei 
 before the latter : and it feems moft natural, 
 upon the firft view of a prophefy plainly ful- 
 fiil'd, to fuppofe the prophefy made for the 
 fake of the event, or both prophefy and 
 event invented ^ as we do in the cafe of 
 Homer and Virgil and other Pagan au- 
 thors, who make telling things by way of 
 
 prophefy. 
 
['3n 
 
 prophefy, a method of writing,- founded hi 
 all likelihood on a deiign to keep up pro- 
 phefy (which made fo great a part of the 
 Pagan religion) among the Pagans. 
 
 The Tentateiich^ or Book of the Law, 
 {the grofs {q) whereof feems only contended 
 for as genuine and faithfully preferv'd) muft 
 in a particular manner have been liable to 
 great alterations ; as having been antiently 
 much negleded by the Jews, who, both 
 during their common wealth and monarchy, 
 were for the moft part idolaters and fubject 
 to fome other religious law^ ,• and as having 
 been reduc'd for a conliderable time to (r) 
 One Copy^ which was alfo loft fo long, 
 that the contents of it were become un- 
 known. And the alterations have been ac- 
 cording to (j-) Simon, fuch and fo many, 
 as to hinder us from difcerning now, what 
 truly helong^s to jMoses, from that which 
 has been added by thofe who fiicceeded 
 himj or by the authors of the laft colleUi- 
 on of the books of Moses. Which altera- 
 tions made Jerom {t) fay. It was indif- 
 ferent 
 
 (q) Stanhope'5 Soj)'/c^;2 Le5lttreSy i7or, Sermon 2. 
 p. a 3. 
 
 (r) 2 Kings 22. 
 
 Prideaux'i Connexion, Vol. i.p. 373. See alfo p. 47. 
 
 330- 
 is) Simon Hift. Grit, du Vieux Teftam. p. 50, 
 (f) Hieron. adv. Helvidium. 
 
[139] 
 
 ferent to him, whether you [aid Moses 
 was the author of the Pentateuch:, or that 
 JisDRAs re-efiahUJlod it, 
 
 Moft of the books of the Old Teftament 
 were hable to great corruptions during the 
 captivity, when the Jews, who went idola- 
 ters into Captivity, did before the exv 
 piration of it lofe their native tongue: as 
 all the books afterwards were, when they 
 were tranfcrib'd, as is ufually (f^) fuppos'd, 
 out of the Hebrew into the Chaldee Cha- 
 racter j which feems to fuppofe the body of 
 the Jews unable to read their own Hebrew 
 books, and confequently eafy to be impos'd 
 on in fuch a tranfcript, which in its {w) de- 
 fign and nature did in all probability produce 
 many changes. 
 
 There feems alfo to be another, and that 
 no inconiiderable fource of alterations, tho' 
 not before obferv'd as I know of by any 
 body, in tlie books of the Old Teftament,- 
 which the reader mull bear in mind were, 
 by the confefTion of all, confiderably alter'd 
 by EsDRAs, or fome body elfe after the cap- 
 tivity. It is to be obferv'd, that the Jews, 
 who were greatly departed from the Law of 
 MosESj and efpecially from the doctrine of 
 the Unity of God^ went (.v) idolaters into 
 
 cap- 
 
 (ii) Simon lb. p. 48. 
 
 (■ix) Whijlcns Bilay, ^.166,161, i<^S- 
 
 ix) 2. Kings. ; Chron. 
 
[ 140 ] 
 
 captivity ,• that they went into Chaldea^ a 
 country, where (j) One God had from re- 
 mote antiquity been believ'd and worfhip'd j 
 that the religious books {y) of that nation 
 give a relation of matters from the creation 
 to the time of Abraham fo little differer^t 
 from that contain'd in the Tentateuch^ that 
 one of the accounts muft in all probability 
 be borrowM from the other ^ that particu- 
 lar care {z) was taken among the Chaldees 
 to inftniU the Jewifti Touths of quality 
 and parts in the Chaldean difcipUne and 
 learnings that the Jews came out at ditfe- 
 rent times from Chaldea fuch firm believers 
 and worfliippers of One God^ and that unr 
 der the high patronage and protedion of 
 the kings of Chaldea ordaining fuch belief 
 and worfhip among them^ that they have 
 continu'd in that belief and worihip ever 
 {ince ,• that it feems more natural for a bo- 
 dy of (laves and captives to be form'd by 
 their mafters and conquerors, than that the 
 conquerors iliould be form'd by them, and 
 that the flave fhould rather receive hiftories, 
 and antiquities, from the mafter, than the 
 
 t mafter 
 
 (y) Hide Religio Vet. Perfarum. 
 ^rideaiix'i Connection, Vol. r. 
 JjOrd\ Religion of the Prefees. 
 '^occck Specimen Hift. Arabum, p. 148. 
 Sercfm apud. Joseph, cont. Ap. I. i. 
 {2;) lb. Antiq. i. 10. c. 11. 
 
[ HI ] 
 
 mafler from the flav^ j that, particularly, it 
 feems improbable, that the Jews, who 
 chang'd their own idolatrous notions and 
 pradtifes for thofe of the Chaldeans^ fliould 
 have fo much credit with the Chaldeans^ as 
 to introduce new hiftory and antiquities a- 
 mong them j and that it feems more proba- 
 ble, that the Jews, who became compleat 
 converts to the notion of God receiv'd among 
 the Chaldeans^ and were in many refpe(5ts 
 form'd and difciplin'd by them, fhould re- 
 ceive their hijlory and antiquities from 
 the Chaldeans^ who were an antient, po- 
 lite, and learned people, and muft have 
 fome hiftorical fcheme of things going a- 
 mong them, which they receiv'd not only as 
 truths, but as religious truths. From all 
 w^hich (as w'eli as from many other confi- 
 derations which I now omit) it iliould feem 
 very probable, that the Jewiili books, which 
 were new form'd, aicer'd, and publilli'd af- 
 ter the Chaldean, or Babylonian, or Perfian 
 captivity, (call it as you pleafe) might alfo 
 receive Chaldean alterations) no lefs than 
 thofe other undifputed alterations. 
 
 It may alfo be fuppos'd, that numerous 
 changes were introduc'd in all the books of 
 the Old Te (lament, when the Maforetes 
 invented points and accents, and thereby firft 
 fix'd a text, which, every one before was 
 to find out for himfelf by conjecture and 
 his own judgment, 
 
 Laftly, 
 
[ H^ ] 
 
 Laftly, the Jews themfelves {a) allow of 
 the lawjnlnefs of fnaking alterations or 
 emendations of their facred hooks ; provided 
 they think them for the honour of God and 
 for religion. 
 
 Many changes therefore in the Old Tefta- 
 nient 1 readily yield to Mr. Whist on,- the 
 nature and reafon whereof I referve for ano- 
 ther occalion. But what I deny here, and 
 is the queftion between Mr. W. and me, is, 
 that the Jews have with defign greatly or 
 at all corrupted the Old Teftament as to any 
 of thofe paflages cited from thence by the 
 authors of the New Teftamentj and to the 
 proofs he has offer'd to make good his charge 
 againft the Jews, I anfwer as follows : 
 
 I. Firft, I fay, that the Apoftles might 
 cite and apply the pallage^ they cited out 
 of the Old Teftament after the Jewiili man- 
 ner i as they feem to have done, and as al- 
 moft all Chriftians alTert they have done. 
 And therefore* Mr. W. manifeftly begs the 
 queftion about the Jews corruption of the 
 books of the Old Teftament in all his Inftan- 
 ces i which, let them feem ever fo remote 
 from the Septuagint or Hebrew text of the 
 Old Teftament, may be juftify'd by the 
 known pra<5tice of citing and applying Scrip- 
 ture ufed by the Jewiili allegorical writers. 
 
 2. Se- 
 
 (a) Whifton'5 Epy, p. 210. 
 
[ H3 ] 
 
 2. Secondly, the Apoftles might cite the 
 Septnagint for divers of thofe places, which 
 Mr. \V. fuppofes corrupted in the Hebrew. 
 For the Septuagint was not only a falfe 
 tranflation in innumerable inftances, but con- 
 tain'd {Jb) additions to the text ^ fome where- 
 of were made by the S€-vent% who were fup- 
 pos'd by many to be infpird'm making them, 
 no lefs than in the tranflation itfclfj and 
 others by the Hellenifi JewSy who ufed that 
 tranflation in their Synagogues i (which Jd- 
 ditions plainly fliow the rcafon, why (f) 
 there are not near fo many texts cited in 
 the New Tefiament out of the Old^ either 
 different frctn^ cr wanting in the Greek 
 Verfion now extant^ as in the Hebrew Ori- 
 ginal.) And, I find both antient and mo- 
 dern criticks defend the Apoftles, for citing 
 palTages out of the Septnagint ^ which either 
 <iid not at all occur in the Hebrew of the 
 Old Teliament, or were not rightly tranfla- 
 ted from the Hebrew, after the following 
 manner: T'his is generally to he obfervd^ 
 fays i^d) Jerom, that whenet'er the Jpc- 
 
 files 
 
 (U) Capelli Critica Sacra. 
 Shnon Hitt. Crit. du V.T. lb. p. 57. 105. 
 Ujfer De Sept. Intcrp. Edit. p. 8. 
 Snnon Hift. Crit. du. N. Teit. p. 240. lb. H. C.du 
 V. T. p. 294. 
 
 (c) Whifton'i- Fpy\ ^c p. 128. 
 
 \d) Hieron Quxft. Hcbr. in Gen. c 40, 
 
[ M4 ] 
 
 files fpeak to the people^ they cite fuch 
 paffages of Scripture as were known among 
 them j and in fpeaking of a pailage in the 
 (e) J^Sy wherein St. Lule follows the 
 Septuaginty which fays, the Family of Ja- 
 cob were feventy five Souls^ contrary to the 
 Hebrew, which fays, they were but jeventy 
 Souls y he fays in juftiiication of St. I.uke, 
 that St. Luke ought not to write contrary 
 to that Scripture^ which z^jas fo commonly 
 ufed as the Septuagint^ and which at that 
 time had more credit y than what St.'LuKs, 
 could fay himfelf Simon (/) fays, ^> is 
 fmjufl to accufe the Fvangelifts and Apo^ 
 files with being falfifyersy hecaufe they cite 
 Scripture otherwife than it is in the ori^ 
 ginalj fince they made ufe of that Scrip- 
 ture^ which was in ufe among the Jews, 
 And Capellus (^^) fays, T^he Apoflles fol- 
 low d the Septuaginty lefi they floould fcan- 
 dalize the more weak Hellenifts and 
 Gentile Chrifiians {to whom the Hebrew 
 tongue was unknown-^ and who therefore 
 didy and could only ufe the Septuagint) ; 
 whOy if the Apoftles had cited genuine Scrip- 
 .ture, would have thought they had forgd 
 Scripture to ferve a purpufe-, and their 
 credit would have been call d in queftion. 
 
 Mr. 
 
 CO AHs 7. 14. 
 
 (f) Simon Hill. Grit, du V. T. p. 233. 
 
 (g) Ca^elli Critica Sacra, p. 54* 
 
C H5 ] 
 
 Mr. W. therefore has no reafon to charge 
 the Jews with corrupting the Hebrew 
 text becaufe it differs from the Septtiagint 
 text cited by the Apoftles. 
 
 3. Thirdly, Jesus and the Apoftles might 
 cite or ufe a copy of the Septuagint very 
 different from thofe copies deriv d down to us ^ 
 for the {h) antient copies of the Septuagint, 
 (in all .which there were additions which 
 were not in the Hebrew text) differed much 
 from one another , and Mr. W. fuppofes 
 Luke to cite a {t)jalfe copy : or they might 
 ufe and cite other tranflations of the Old 
 Tef^ament, which differ'd from the original 
 Hebrew, befides the Septuagint : for Dr. 
 Prideaux y on occafion of its being faid 
 in {k) Luke, that our Saviour read in the 
 Synagogue at JSLazareth a palfage out of 
 Isaiah, which paffage of Isaiah, as re- 
 ported by Luke, doe§ not agree exaUly ei^ 
 ther with the Hebrew or Septuagint ; tells 
 (/) us, that it fee?ns moft likely^ that he 
 read it out of fome Chaldee Targum^ that 
 is, a Chaldee Paraphrafe or Tranflation, 
 
 L which 
 
 (h) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. T. p. 23 5. 
 
 Montfmicon Diflert. Prelim, ad Origenis Hexapla. 
 
 c. 4- 
 
 (2) Sce\Nh\&ons Ejjay, p. 115, 11 d". p. 11^. 
 (k) Luke 4. 
 
 (I) ^rideaux's Conneflion, Vol. 2. p. 547. 
 SeeCaJ'eUi Critica Sacra, p. jS, 55>' 
 
which was read in the Synagogue, And 
 therefore no argument can be urged, for the 
 Corniption of the Hebrew or Septuagint hy 
 the J&ws^ from the citations of the Apoftles 
 out of the Old Teflament not being exad- 
 ly found in either of thofe copies. 
 
 4. Fourthly, divers of the paffages, which 
 Mr. W. mentions as corrupted^ and divers 
 of thofe which he mentions as wholly o- 
 mitted in the Old Teftament, were moft 
 certainly not taken from the Old Teftament 
 by the authors of the NeW:, notwithftand- 
 ing he fays, the Apoftles took them from 
 thence. For it is well known, that the 
 Jews had feveral books deem'd facred a- 
 mong them, which were forg'd, under the 
 names of their Prophets, and are now either 
 loft or not rank'd among the books of the 
 Old Teftament i which forg'd books the 
 primitive Chriftians receiv'd as facred in 
 fome degree from the 7^ws, and ufed them_, 
 and read them in their religious alfemblies. 
 Of this Mr, W. was informed by the late 
 learned Bifliop Lloyd, who thus wrote to 
 him. (in) Vigilius was one of thofe or- 
 thodox "Bilhops^ that were under the hea'uy 
 perf edition of thofe Arian kings of the Van- 
 dals about A 2). 500, and then did write 
 
 hooks 
 
 (m) Lloyd'5 Zetter to W. apud \Ts Hifiorical Tref 
 p. 34. 
 
[ M7 ] 
 hooh againft the reigning berefy i which^ 
 for concealment fake^, he put out in the 
 name of Athanasius. T^htis did [vine of 
 the Jews^ in the times of perfecution^ write 
 hooks againft heathen idolatry. One that 
 is call a the wifdom of Solomon ,• another 
 calfd the Book of Baruchj whereof alfo a 
 part is caUd the Epiftle of Jersmah. J 
 cannot commend them^ that to conceal them- 
 fehes iifed piich arts ; but ne-verthelefs^ 
 their hooks zojere highly appro'vd ^ info- 
 rmich^ that they were read hy the Helle^ 
 nift Jews in their Synagogues, and fo com- 
 ing into the Chriftians hands^ they were 
 alfo read in Chriftian Churches :, in and 
 next after the Jpoftles times. We have 
 alfo an («) account, that there were feventy 
 two of this kind tranflated into Greek by the 
 Seventy^ when they tranflated and tinifh'd 
 the twenty two books of the Old lefta- 
 ment. Some of thefe books were intituled, 
 Enoch j the Patriarchs; the Grayer of 
 Joseph i the Tefiament of Moses j the 
 Jffiimption of Moses ; Abraham ; Eld ad 
 and MoDADj the ^falms of Solomon ; 
 the ~R.e^' elation of Eli as ,• the J^ijion of 
 Isaiah i the Revelation of Sophoniah,- 
 lh.Q Revelation of Zacharyj and the j^^- 
 
 L 2 'velaticn ■ 
 
 (n) See Jmbors citsd i?i Grabe*; S^kileg. $. i . p. 1 3 4, 
 
[ .48 ] 
 
 relation of Esdras i and divers others bore 
 the names of Habbaccuc, Ezechiel, Da- 
 niel, and other Prophets. 
 
 Now Origen, Tertullian, Epipha- 
 
 Kius, Austin, and Georgius Syncellus, 
 
 who faw and read many of thefe forg'd 
 
 books of the Jews, do((?)afiijre us, that the 
 
 Apoftles took feverai of thefe quotations, 
 
 in queftion, from them. And Origen in 
 
 particular, makes the following apology for 
 
 the Apoftles citing thefe forg'd books. He 
 
 fays, {p) 'The /Apoftles and E'vavgelifls^ ijoho 
 
 ip:ere filtd with the Holy Ghofi^ might 
 
 hicw what was fit to he cited out of thofe 
 
 hooks ^ and what to he rejeUed ; hut that 
 
 others cannot without danger do fo^ who 
 
 hai'e not Jo great an ahiindance of the Spi- 
 
 fit. 
 
 We may learn from Mr.DoDWELa three- 
 fold fource of fome of the quotations, where- 
 of I am now treating^ 
 
 I. Firft, they might be taken from cer- 
 tain (/>/?) Myftical Taraphrafes of the Jews 
 on the Old Tefiament \ which myfti-^ 
 cat 'Paraphrafes were frequently inter- 
 polated into the Te:>:t of the Old Tefla- 
 ment. 2. Or, fecondly, they mJght be the 
 t fay- 
 
 {0) Gr^^^". lb. p. 129— 140. 
 
 ip) Origims Prol. duar.Komil. in Cant. Cant, Opera. 
 Vol. I. p. 501. Ba^ i57 7.&apud Grnbc, lb, 
 C//) Apud 'Dod-ivefs Life^ p. 508. 
 
[ H9 ] 
 fayings, or Keielations of 'Chriftian {q) 
 Prophets J who in the chriflian auembhei 
 gd'Ve interpretations of things delit'erd in 
 the Old Teftament j which, being apprc-vd 
 hy thofe, who hcfd the difcerning of Spirits^ 
 were prefervd^ rmd known to be from 
 God. 3. Or, thirdly, they might be cited 
 (r) from writings^ which were plainly ta- 
 ken for thofe of the Old Trophets^ tho in 
 truth they were not fnch^ yet cited as 
 theirs^ hecanfe the perfons who cited them 
 hiew^ that the perfons to whom they wrote 
 accounted them as fitch. By which Mr. 
 ^odwel does not mean fuch forg'd writings 
 of Jews as are abovemention'd by me, but 
 books compos'd by Chriftians under Jevvilli 
 names; and particularly under the name of 
 Ezra or Esdras. Which pradife of citing 
 fuch authors continu'd, as he fays, in nje 
 in the church, till Melito Z'^^/^//-/^^ the 
 Canon of the Old Teftament, This Melito 
 who liv'd late in the fecond Century, and 
 was efteem'd a Trophet himfelf, . did, it 
 feems, in order to fatisfy the curiolity of 
 his brother Onestmus, (j) go into the eaft to 
 he certainly informed of the books of the 
 
 L 3 Old 
 
 {q) For ail account of 'which Prophets, fee the Hi- 
 fiory of Montanifm. p. 87. 
 (r) Dodwel'i Life^ p. 510. 
 (s) Eu[. Hift. Ecc. 1. 4. c. 6. 
 
[ »5o] 
 
 OldTeflmnent; and did colIeU ftich paffa-^ 
 ges mit of the Law and the Trophets as 
 related to oitr Sa'viour and the [everal parts 
 oj the chrjf^ian faith. 
 
 5; Fifuiry, I proceed to Confider Mr. W's 
 charge againft the Jews founded on the 
 two pafl^'-gejj of Justin Martyr : 
 
 I, As to the ..rft pailage, I obferve, that 
 Justin objects to the Jews five places ; a 
 place in Is^.ah, "Behold a Virgin flmll he 
 ^^ith child; a place taken away from 
 EsDRASi two places taken away from Je- 
 remiah; and the words from the tree-, ta- 
 ken away from the 96th Tfalm : Of all 
 which (except the place in Isaiah) Dr. 
 Grabe (t) fays, Ne miretur Ledlor, quod 
 vmtilationes facri textus^ qtias Justin us 
 M. 'pRypKONi Judico exprohrai'jtj hand 
 exewpli loco attiderim : fiquidem pericopas 
 ohjecias non a Judisis ahlatas^ fed potitis 
 a TrimismsChrifiianis expUcationis gratia 
 ad marginem adfcriptas^ indeqi in ipfmn 
 textum pqftea illatas cenfeo^ czijus mea opi- 
 ■nionis rationes daho^ ahi^ deo z'olente^^ jD/^ 
 alogtim JiiftivA edidero. 
 
 The tirft place, Behold a Virgin Jhallhe 
 with Child^ was only reje^^ed by the Jew^s 
 as a falfe tramlation of the Hebrew ; which, 
 Recording to thein, fhould have been ren- 
 
 der'd. 
 
 (t) Gr^^ff Pe vitiis Septuag. Inter, p. 34. 
 
[ '51 ] 
 
 derM, behold a Toung Woman fhall he 
 with Child^ and as AauiLA and Theodo- 
 TioN render'd it : and it can by no means 
 be faid, that the Jews fo much as attempt- 
 ed to take away the place, either out of 
 the Hebrew or Septtiagint, The Jews had 
 a right in the time of Justin, and have 
 now, to argue with the Chriftians concern- 
 ing the import or ufe of the Hebrew word 
 Almah (render'd Virgin by the Septitagint) 
 without being in the leafl: liable to the 
 charge of corrupting the Bible. And it 
 feems to be a very proper topick for them 
 to infift on to Chriftians, who lay ftrefs 
 on the places tho', in reality, the words, 
 A Virgin Jhall he with Child^ feem of 
 themfelves to (ignify no miraculous con- 
 ception of a Virgin, and efpecially not 
 in their place in Isaiah, as appears by the 
 [w) context, which fhows the term tran- 
 flated Virgin to have reference to a Toung 
 Woman in the days of Ahaz. 
 
 As to the place of EsDR AS, it is not ci- ' 
 ted any where by the Apoftles in the New 
 Teftamenti and by confequence it is not 
 an inftance of the Jews corrupting para- 
 ges of the Old Teftament cited in the New. 
 Befides, it is in no Hebrew {x) Copies of 
 
 L 4 ESDRAS, 
 
 ("Jo) Whifton'i- EJfcty, ^c. p, 229, t^x. 
 ix] Clcrici Hift. Ecdcf. p. 'ji6. 
 
[ I^^ ] 
 
 EsDRAs, nor is it cited by any Antients^ 
 except by Justin and Lactantius. Sa- 
 tis patet^ fays (j;) Thirlby, ah Jliquo 
 Chrijiiano^ verba conficla effe, non a Jii- 
 dMs deleta. Dr. Grabe, who difcharges 
 the Jews from taking away this place, 
 would, indeed, alfo clear the Chriftians 
 from forging it by fuppofing it (s) a 
 '^rimi&ms Chriftianis explicationis gratia 
 ad marginem adfcripiiimy indeq-, in ip- 
 film textum poflea illatum. But to that 
 Mr. Thirl BY {^d) anfwers, ^torfum 'vero 
 qu<efo tarn accurata imitatio Jiyli faerie 
 jcriptur^e^ dy Septnaginta interpretiim^ Jl 
 nihil fuber at doli ? Jut qiiomodo hac ex- 
 plicationis gratia ad marginem adfcribi po- 
 tuerunt, cum nihil in toto 'Esub.k Jit^ quod 
 aut ah his explicari, aut ullis rnachinis 
 hue trahi pojjit^ imo cum neq-, in Esdra 
 canonico^ neq-y in apocryphisy tilla extet ejus 
 ad popuhim de pafcha oratio^ unde h<sc 
 Judifi refecare potuerint ? And the learned 
 Croius {h) fcruples not to fay, Jrhitramur 
 hanjo effe piam fraudem Justiki, CJ Lac- 
 tan tii, qtii fequitur Justin um dticem^ 
 qui locum hunc^ ut pleraqi omnia Syhilla- 
 rum Oracula^ (^ plerafq-y omnes Mercurii 
 
 Jententias 
 
 (jy) I'birlbii J'ujiin Martyr, p. 2,92, 
 (s) Grabe De vitiis fept. Inter, p. 54, 
 
 (a) I'hirlby, lb. 
 
 (b) Croii Obfer.inNov. Teft. p. 205, 
 
C «53 ] 
 
 fententias^ ad doUrina ChrifUcince proha- 
 tionem finxerint^ (^ in lucem ediderint. 
 
 The two places of Jeremiah, and the 
 words from the tree are no where cited in 
 the New Teftament ^ and confequently they 
 are not inftances of the Jews corrupting pat 
 lages of the Old Teftament cited by the 
 Apoftles in the New. Befides, the firft place 
 of Jeremiah was (^) quoted\\o'&i by Ori- 
 GEN and Lactantius_, long after Justin's 
 tinfie, and is Jiill extant after a fort (which 
 is enough for a quotation made by the Fa- 
 thers) both in the Hebrew and Septtiagint. 
 Nay, the words were by Justin's own (^d) 
 confeflion, found written^ in his time, i?i 
 fome copies that were in the Jewifh 
 Synagogues. Mr. Le Clerc (^) fays in 
 vindication of the Jews with relation to 
 thofe words, ^tis credat del eta in ^verfi- 
 one Gr<scd^ ftudio certe (j data operd^ dtim 
 Uehraice leguntttr^ Suntne 'verba adeb 
 clara (j propria Chrifto, nulli tit alii con- 
 <venire ullo modo poffint? At qui de Jere- 
 miah fat perfpicue dicuntur. 
 
 As to the fecond place faid to be taken 
 from Jeremiah, nothing feems more evi- 
 dent 
 
 (c) WhiftonV Bffay.^c. p. I45- 
 
 {d) p. 142. 
 
 (^; Cl^rki Hift. Ecclef. p. 52<^- 
 
 S^e c.l[o I'hirlby in Juftin Martyr, p. 4^3. 
 
[ IJ4] 
 
 tient than that it is a chriftian forgery, (f) 
 llle qiiidem nufqucim^ neque in Hehraicis^ 
 7ieq\ in Gracis codicihus^ comparet-y nee 
 wirum-, cum fit conficius a male feriato 
 ChrifiianOy qui defcenfum Chrifti ad Infe- 
 ros in Jeremiah reperiri mhiit. The place 
 is cited feveral times by ( j^) iRENi^sus, who 
 fometimes afcribes it to Isaiah, fometimes 
 to Jeremiah, and oftner to a Trophet ; 
 fo that he feems not to have taken it from 
 a {landing text, not to have known to whom 
 it belong d. 
 
 The words from the tree^ of which there 
 is no footftep either in the Vulgate Verfion^ 
 or in Origen or Jerom, or in any Hebrew 
 or Greek Copy^ are deem'd by feveral learn- 
 ed men to be {h) either a fraudulent or ca- 
 fual addition made by fome Chriftian ; by 
 which Justin (to fpeak the beft) was im- 
 pos'd upon. 
 
 But however that be, they are now re- 
 ftor'd by Justin, and may be argu'd from 
 with the fame force, as if they were ex- 
 tant in all copies, both of the Hebrew and 
 
 Sep- 
 
 (f) Clerici Hlfl. Ecclef.p. $i6. 
 
 (g) Iren(ftiSy 1. 3. c. 23. 1. 4. c. 39. 55. 66. 1. 5. c.31. 
 (^) Grothis in Pfalm ^6. 
 
 Clerici Hift. Ecclef.p. 526". 
 T'hirlby in Juftin Martyr, p. 292. 
 Simoi? Bib. Grit. Tom. 5. p. 48(^—458. 
 Le Moyne not. ad Var. Sacra, p. 485). 
 
[ lyj ] 
 
 Septnagint : and I can fee no reafon, why 
 they are not reftor'd to their place, but that, 
 either the criticks think them fpurious, or that 
 they ferve no chriftian piirpofe, or that they 
 think them both fpiirioiis^ and impertinent to 
 any chriftian purpofe. 
 
 2. As to the fecond palfage {i) of Justin 
 wherein a quotation is made from Zachary, 
 a great part^ if not the whole^ of which 
 is^ according to Mr. {F) W. now dropped 
 both in the Hehrew and Septnagint \ I an- 
 fwer, that this paffage is not cited any where 
 in the New TeftAmentj that it might be 
 taken out of fome apocryphal book attribu- 
 ted to Zachary \ that Justin does not 
 fay it is left out of Zachary j and that the 
 citation, if taken from Zachary, feems to 
 be accounted for by a learned perfon (/) in a 
 note thereon, fviz, that the citation conjtfts 
 of ^mriotis pajfages out of the prophet Za- 
 chary, as they occur d to the memory of 
 Justin, and the feiife and not the exprefs 
 words fet down by him, which way of 
 citation feems the common (7^) method of 
 the Fathers, and makes it very abfjrd to 
 pretend from thence, that the Bible is cor- 
 rupted. 
 
 (i) Jujlin Apol. I. ^.61, 
 
 {k) 'Whiflon'.v Bjjay, p. 144. 
 
 {l) Reeves's Juitin's Apology, p. 92. 
 
 -5*6^ I'hirlby in locum, & alibi in notis, 
 
 (w.) SeeKeeves^ lb. p. 38. 
 
[ 155] 
 
 rupted, and that it ought to be correded 
 by their citations. 
 
 6. Sixthly, Mr. W. {n) charges the Jews 
 with introducing into their copies a grofs 
 and grotmdlefs alteration into the 22 d 
 Pfahn, whichy he fays, is one of the mofl 
 eminent prophejies C07icerning the fufferings 
 and pajjion oj the Messias, that is in all 
 the Old T^efiament, Inftead of io) 'They 
 piercd my hands and my feet^ the Jews 
 read, as a Lion my hands and my jeet. 
 But in this matter {p) there feems to be on- 
 ly a various reading of the Hebrew ^ and no 
 manner of defign to make any alteration of 
 the text. For the Jews, tho' they have 
 generally ptit the reading, as a Lyon into 
 the text (which reading of the Masoretes 
 (q) Grotius thinks defeniible) yet they 
 have left the readings They pierced, in 
 the text of a few copies and in the margin of 
 many other copies-^ and they have con- 
 tinu'd the reading They pierced in all 
 copies of the Septuagint^ which yet Mr. 
 
 W. 
 
 C7z; Whiflon'jiS/;^', p. 78. 
 
 (o) Pfalm 22. 16. 
 
 (p) See Clatis Scrip. Hottivgeri,-^ 191— 198. 
 
 Sh7ion Hift. Crit. du V. Teit. p. 229. 
 
 Id. Bib. Grit. torn. 5. p. 481—488. 
 
 Whifion, lb. p. 79- 
 
 {q) Grotim in locum. 
 
[ '57] 
 
 W. (r) pretends they have throughout cor- 
 rupted to ferve their purpofes. 
 
 So that there is not the leaft colour of 
 proof, that the Jews have corrupted any 
 paffages of the Old Teftament, which can 
 be apply 'd to matters of chriftianityi much 
 lefs any pafTages cited from thence by the 
 Apoftlesj but on the contrary^ it feems 
 plain by the few inftances of Justin Mar- 
 tyr to fupport his charge of corruption 
 againft the Jews, that the Chriftians had fo 
 careful an eye upon the Old Teftament in 
 refped to all paiTages, which could be 
 ftrain'd fo as to feem to allude to chriftia- 
 nity (for of fuch only do the paflages pro- 
 duc'd by Justin (j-) confift, not withftan ding 
 he fays, that they exprefly declare^ that 
 Jesus who was cnicifyd^ was God and 
 waii^ and zs)as to he crucify d and dye); 
 that it was impoflible for the Jews to make 
 any alteration either in the Hebrew or Sep- 
 tuagint^ without being found out and de- 
 teded by the Chriftians. Chriftians {t) 
 themfelves were abfolute fecurity againft 
 fuch corruptions of the Jews. Some others 
 indeed, of the Fathers as well as Justin 
 Martyr did charge the Jews with ma- 
 
 licioufly 
 
 (r; Wh'ipn, lb. p. 1%. 
 
 (^) yifz/fm apud Whifton'i EJJay,;p. 140. 
 
 (t) Aiigujt. De Civit. Dei. 1. 15. c. 14. 
 
licioufly Corrupting the Scripture to the pre- 
 judice of Chrifliany : but Origen, Jep^om, 
 'Austin, and other Fathers, vindicated (tc) 
 them from that charge ; as have done divers 
 learned (w) moderns, who contend, that 
 thofe Fathers who charg'd the Jews with 
 malicioufly faliifying the Old Teflament 
 were miftaken in that matter, by laying too 
 great a ftrefs on the Septtiagint^ which was 
 a very faulty copy and tranflation^ and by 
 imagining, that the Jews produced corrupt- 
 ed Scripture, when in their controverfies 
 with Chriftians they produced either the 
 original Hehrew-y or the {x) accurate and 
 pure verfion of Aq,uila, in oppoiition to 
 the SepHtagint, 
 
 The Jews were fo little difpos'd to cor- 
 rupt the Old Teflament in refped of the 
 paflages cited from thence, or capable of 
 
 being 
 
 {u) Simon Hift. Crir.^ du V. Teft. p. 6, 
 
 ^ezrou Defence de I'Antiquite des Terns, p. 133. 
 
 Capell. Critica Sacra, p. 2. &c. 
 
 (w) Grabe De Vitiis Sept. Interp. p. 34. 
 
 Clerki Hift. Ecclef. p. 525—527. 
 
 Martianey Defence du Texte Hebrcu. 
 
 Simon lb. p. loa — 104. 
 
 Capllm lb. p. 2, 3. 
 
 Rivet. N. Fuller. GkJJius. 
 
 liupin^ Hottetiger^^c. 
 
 {x) Origen ill Cantica. lb. Epjl* ad Afhica 
 
 NUM. p. 224. 
 
 HiERON. Epift. ad Marcellam. Tom a. Col 7071 
 lb. Epiftola ad \DAma^2im> 
 
[ 'J9 ] 
 
 being made ufe of, in behalf of chriftianity; 
 that Aq,vila himfelf, tho' a Jew and a 
 great enemy to chriftianity, cannot be juft- 
 ly charg d with tranflating unfaithfully any 
 one paflage conceiv'd to have relation to 
 chriftianity, as is prov'd by Montfaucon, 
 (y) who iliews the weak arguing of all 
 thole Fathers, who charg'd Aq,uila with 
 fuch unfaithfulnefs, in refped to all the 
 pafTagcs on which they grounded their 
 charge j that (z) Jerom, who had Origen s 
 Hexapla before him, when he made his 
 latin tranllation, generally preferred the fenfe 
 of AauiLA and Symmachus, as being bet- 
 ter interpreters than the Seventy^ tho' both 
 Jews, and tranflators after the rife of chri- 
 ftianity^ and that (<^) AauiLA, Theodoti- 
 ON, and Symmachus, tranllate the famous 
 paflage of Hose ah which St. Matthew 
 applies to Christ's coming out of Egypt, 
 exadly as St. Matthew does, not imitating 
 the tranflation of the Sepmagint which gives 
 no literal ground for St. Matthew's ap- 
 plication of it in the manner he does. And 
 indeed I cannot imagine, w^hy the Jews of 
 any underftanding or common fenfe, lliould 
 have endeavour'd the alteration of any fuch 
 
 paflages 
 
 iy') Montfancony Praelim. ad Or'ig^uii Hexapla. c. J* 
 
 (z) lb. c. <r. & 8. 
 
 ia WhiftonV EJJ'ayj p. po. 
 
[ '^0 ] 
 
 paflages of the Old Teftament; it being a 
 matter of no manner of moment to them, 
 but of great mifchief to them fo to do. 
 For the Old Teftament, literally underftood, 
 not any where ferving the purpofes of Chri- 
 ftiansj and the Jews rejeding all the alle- 
 gorical reafonings and interpretations of 
 Chriftians; and likewife plainly feeing, that 
 the whole Old Teftament in any copy, or 
 however tranflated, or however chang'd by 
 them, was as capable of being allegorically 
 apply 'd to prove chriftianity, as their own 
 Vulgar Hebrew, or the copies of the Sep- 
 tuagint in the hands of Chriftians ,• there was 
 no fenfe nor reafon in making the few 
 changes charg'd upon them by fome Fa- 
 thers,- much lefs thofe vaft changes now 
 charg'd upon them by Mr. W ; or indeed in 
 making any changes at all. And befides 
 doing what ferv a not their purpofe, the 
 Jews would therein have been certainly de- 
 teded and expos'd to the juft cenfures of 
 Chriftians ; who, as appears, watch'd them, 
 aAd charg'd them with fuch attempt, even 
 without proper {b) materials to make good 
 the charge. Mr. W. himfelf iliould allow 
 the Jews to be under fome reftraints, how 
 much foever they were difpos'd to corrupt 
 the Bible j when he can fuppofe, that (c) 
 
 m 
 
 ih) Simon Hift. Grit, du V. T. p. 6. 
 (^) Whillon'i Mffay^ p. 220. 
 
[ '61 ] 
 
 in the days of Josephus, the yews durfl 
 not make any alteration in the f acred books'^ 
 and that (^) direU corruption was in cer- 
 tain cafes hy no means praUicahle. 
 
 In fine, Origen himfelf j one of the moil: 
 zealous Chriftians that ever was j and who, 
 by the time wherein he iiv'd, and by his 
 great learning and ability, and by com- 
 piling his Hexapla^ confifting of the He- 
 brew text in Hebrew and Greek. Chara6ters, 
 the Verfions of Aq,uila, Symmachus, the 
 Seventy^ and Theodotion, in fixcolumes;* 
 was the moit capable of all men to know, 
 whether the Jews had corrupted the Old Te- 
 ftament in refped to the citations made from 
 thence in behalf of chriftianity ^ But yet 
 he never charg'd the Jews, as far ,as appears, 
 with any fuch corruptions, either in the nu- 
 merous notes J which he made on his Hex- 
 apla^ or in any of his other works j which 
 if he had found out, he would not have 
 £iird to have difcover'd. And this nega- 
 tive argument is the ftronger, inafmuch as 
 Origen has treated of the Jewiili corrup- 
 tions of the Bible in a (<?) letter to Africa- 
 Nus i wherein he only charges the Jews 
 
 M with 
 
 {d) Whil^on, lb. p. 238. 
 
 {e) Ongenii Epiit. ad Africamm. Apud Whifton i 
 
 EJfay^ P-i3v It h printed at theendcj WETSiEiM'i 
 
 io7t cfO^iGzus !Z)ialcgus ^gainji tte Maraofjites* 
 
 Edit 
 
with corrupting fuch places of their holy 
 books as feem'd to derogate from the ho- 
 nour of their Rulers in the eyes of the 
 world. Whereby he fliould fecm to fup- 
 pofe them free from all charge of corrup- 
 tion in refped to all paifages, wherein he, 
 as a Chriflian, was too much concern'd to 
 be filent, at a time when he was treating 
 of their corruption of their holy books in 
 other refpe^fcs, and that of corruptions fup- 
 pos'd by him (/) to be made by the Jews, 
 {ince the days of the Apoftles. Nay, wc 
 are informed by two (g) learned authors, 
 that Origen has fome where in his works 
 particularly vindicated the Jews in this 
 matter. 
 
 VI. 
 
 That tbe Septuagint Verfwn was not^ in the 
 days of Jesus aiid the JpqfileSy agreeable 
 to the Hebrew l^ext» 
 
 MR. Whist ON (Z')afrerts, that the Sep- 
 tuagint Verfan was in the days of 
 Christ and his Jpoftles agreeable to the 
 genuine Hebrew T^ext of that Jge* 
 
 But 
 
 C/J Apud Whifion lb. p. 139, 140. 
 C^) Simon Hift. Grit, du V. Teft. p. 6. See alfo 
 Clafjii Philologia Sacra, p. 11. 
 (Jo)^\i\^ovi& Epy, p. 3— 17- 
 
[ '^3 ] 
 
 But for proof of this aflertion he produces 
 nothing but mere fuppofitions, all chimeri- 
 cal or improbablcj ridiculous commendations 
 of partial and ignorant Jews, and forg'd 
 tales. 
 
 He argues fuch agreement (/) to he 
 a natural confequence^ from the common 
 ftate of books tranflated out of one langu- 
 age into another^ and efpecially in the 
 cafe of [acred hooks j, ownd for fuch hoth 
 hy Tranjlators and Copyers. Whereas it is 
 as probable, that books fhould be /// as 
 'Well tranflated : and it is more probable, 
 that books deem'd f acred fhould be /// than 
 well tranflated -y for the directors in fuch 
 tranflations, tho' real believers of the fa- 
 crednefs of the books, are very capable of 
 finifter views and being govern'd by them, 
 as having ufually departed in many refpeds 
 from the original fenfe of their facred books, 
 and- having divers ill-grounded things re- 
 ceiv'd among them to fupport and maintain -, 
 to fay nothing of their ignorance. And ac- 
 cordingly, if we may be govern'd in this 
 cafe by feeming fad:, the Septuagint feems 
 the work both of ignorant and unfaithful 
 Tranflators, as will particularly appear in 
 the fequel of this article. 
 
 M 2 He 
 
 COIb. p. 4, 5. 
 
[ 154 ] 
 
 He argues that agreement from the Sep- 
 tuagint's reception {k) among Jews and 
 Chrijiians^ as a faithful Verdon ; info- 
 much, that it -was made ufe of in their piil}- 
 lick worflnpy where it would be impojfihle 
 to introduce a Verfion^ unlefs it were known 
 to he a juft and accurate t'erfion; and 
 he argues, from its reception among the 
 former as an (/) infpird Verfion. In which 
 laft he might aifo have join'd the (m) Chri- 
 ftians, who for many ages after the rife of 
 chriftianity, received the Septtiagint^ as an 
 infpird Verfion i but that fuch junction 
 would have fpoil'd his argument : for Mr. W. 
 dates the corruption of the Septuagint in 
 the hands of Chriftians long before the Chri- 
 ftians quitted their original notion and con- 
 ftant tradition of the divine infpiration of the 
 Septuagint Verfion y and consequently muft 
 have fuppos'd them to have look'd on what 
 he deems, a greatly corrupted booki ^s 
 divinely infpird. But nothing feems more 
 eafy, than to get /// veriions of books to be 
 receiv'd as faithful or dicine^ and to be 
 read as fuch in places of publick w'orfhip, 
 
 where 
 
 (k) lb. p. 5. 
 
 (I) lb. p. 9. 
 
 {m) Simon Hift. Crit du V. T. 1. i. c. 18 & 19. 1. 2. 
 c. 2. 
 
 Feuardentii Knnot. in Irendemn, p. 157, Edit. Mcf- 
 fuet. 
 
C '65] 
 
 where (if we will refled on the pra(fllfe 
 of the Popifli Church, to fay nothing of 
 other Churches, where people feem little 
 to unclerftand what is r^^^^ and ftrnp^ we 
 may judge, that nothing is too abfurd and 
 too grofs to be in ufe. And I am furpriz'd 
 that Mr. W. who charges both Jews and 
 Chriftians with receiving into their canon of 
 Scripture a mod: ohfcene fong^ {ii) which they 
 both fo grofly miftake as to take not only 
 for a moral but divinely infpir'd y^?2^j who 
 charges the Jews with wilful and great cor- 
 ruption of the Old Tefcament, part of which 
 \% read in Synagogues, and almoft all read 
 in chriftian churches j who has fo abjed an 
 opinion of the primitive Chriftians, as to 
 think them capable of having their "Bihle 
 taken f om them and of receiving a falfe 
 'Bible in its ftead; who takes all the an- 
 tient Chriftians to be {o) deceived in belie- 
 ving Matthew's Gofpel to be written 
 originally, and extant .among them, in He- 
 hrew ; who thinks the Chriftians reject the 
 v^ofi facred hook of the New Tefcament, 
 viz. The Jpofiolical Covflitutions from their 
 Canon as well as other canonical hooks i 
 who thinks the primitive Chriftians for many 
 centuries almoft wholly (/?) ignorant of the 
 
 M 3 Hebrew 
 
 ill) Stippl. to Ejfay. 
 
 (c) Whitton'5 Effciyy p. 182. 
 
[ i66 ] 
 
 Hebrew tongue, from which language the 
 Septuagint was tranflated, and in which 
 only the grounds of chriftianity could be 
 authentickly contain'd -, who is fo deeply 
 fendble of the anti-chriftianifm of popery, 
 and of the numerous and grofs impofitions 
 in moft churches j and who thinks the Jtha- 
 itafian Creeds not only to be a modern, 
 forgM work, but to be contrary to the moft 
 exprefs and plain meaning of the Gofpel, 
 to all primitive antiquity, and to the clear- 
 eft didates of reafon, tho' it be received 
 by almoft all Chriftians as the Faith once 
 delwerd to the Saints and repeated in 
 churches with the utmoft devotion by the 
 people, and contended for with the great- 
 eft zeal by the clergy i I am furpriz'd, I fay, 
 Mr. \V. fhould not think the Jews and an- 
 tient Chriftians capable of receiving the Sep- 
 tuagint and reading it in their religious 
 affemblies, on fuppolition, that the Septu- 
 agint was not an accurate Verfton of the 
 Hebrew, and that there was fo great a 
 difcordance then between the Septuagint 
 and Hebrew as now appears to be ! This 
 will yet feem more furprizing, when it is 
 confidef'd ,• that the copies: {q) of the Sep- 
 tuagint in the Apoftles times differ'd greatly 
 t from 
 
 iq) Simon H. C. du V. T. p. z% 5. 
 Montfaticon Prelim, ad Origenis Hex, c. 4. 
 
[ ^^7 ] 
 
 from one another ; that Luke himfelf cited 
 (r) a falfe copy of the Septiiagint -, that 
 the whole chriftian world fought (j-) one 
 agaijift another about three different edi- 
 tions of the Septnagint^ as fays Jerom i 
 that the Septiiagint \t) had been corrupted 
 by the Jews and by them deliver'd to Ori- 
 GEN3 upon whofe credit their corrupt copy 
 became in time to be generally receiv'd j 
 and yet, that during thefe firft ages the Chri- 
 ftians look'd on the Septuagint as ditnnely 
 infpird^ and as fuch read it in their churches. 
 
 He (^/) argues the fame agreement from 
 the extravagant applaufes given to the Sep- 
 ttiagjnt tranflation by the antient Jews. 
 But thefe appiaufes plainly proceeding from 
 their ignorance and partiality are of no more 
 weight, than the excefs of difparagement 
 they afterwards run into ^ for, notwithftand- 
 ing thefe exceifive applaufes, when they 
 found the Chriftiaiis ufed the Septuagint in 
 their controverfies with them, they readily 
 took hold of all advantages they could ^ 
 and not contenting themfelves with fhow- 
 ing, that the Chriftians did not argue literal- 
 ly and logically from the Old leftament, 
 
 M 4 they 
 
 (r) Whifton'i- Ejfay^ p. 119. 
 (ij lb. p. 115, \\6. 
 (r) Whifton, ai cited c.bove by me. 
 («) lb. p. 6, 7, 8. 
 
[ 168 ] 
 
 they charg'd them with arguing from paf- 
 fages of the Old Teftament falfeiy tranflated 
 in the Septuagint^ about which pafTages 
 they were little or not at all concern d, 
 till the Chriftians, by citing and applying 
 them, made them review the Septuagint 
 Tranflation, and gave them this advantage 
 over them. 
 
 He argues {w) it from the mirciciiloiis 
 fiorj of the fez'eral Interpreters being fimt 
 lAp in cells apart j each • whereof tranfla- 
 ted the whole by infpiration^ and concur- 
 red word for word with one another. 
 Which ftory he himfelf allows cannot he 
 jufiifyd; and tho' it fhows a great appro- 
 hation of the work, yet it fliows the ap- 
 provers to be weak men and their approba- 
 tion to be of no weight, to fay nothing worfe 
 of this matter. 
 
 He argues, (.r) from the y//^;?^^ of authors 
 hefore the fecond century^ and efpecially of 
 the enemies of the gofpel^ as to any diffe- 
 rences between the Hebrew and Septtiagint ; 
 as alfo (j;) from the cont'erfions wrought 
 by the Apoftles, in vertue of citations^ or 
 proofs brougiit from the Septuagint^ among 
 the Jews 5 who, in confequence of their 
 
 con- 
 
 (nsf) Whifion lb. p. Jo. 
 (^■x) lb. p. 1 1. 
 , h) lb. p. 14. 
 
[ '^9] 
 
 converfions, mufl-j according to him, have 
 ownd thofe citations for geymine and agree- 
 able to the then known Bible among them; 
 it being {z) impojjible^ as he fays, for them 
 to have been converted, if the citations 
 had been as different from what they found 
 in their "Bibles^ as the like citations fre- 
 quently are now from what we find in ours. 
 
 But both thefe conliderations will feem 
 of little v/eight, if it be confider'd : 
 
 That we have no Jewifh authors of that 
 time extant v/ho treat of thefe matters : 
 
 That perhaps no Jewiili authors did at 
 that time treat of thefe matters ; 
 
 That the Jews did, in general, approve 
 of the allegorical way of reafoning ufed by 
 the Apoftles, tho' they might diflikc the 
 application of it to Jesus Christ: 
 
 That Philo the Jew, who wrote in the 
 Apoftolical age voluminous works, wherein 
 there is not the leaft notice taken of chri- 
 ftianity (which feems furprizing) cites, and 
 reafons from, the Old T-eliament in the fame 
 allegorical manner with the Apoftles j where- 
 in it may be fuppos'd that he follow'd the 
 method of his nation, and efpecially of the 
 prevailing Sed of Pharifees, who firft intro- 
 duc'd it : 
 
 That 
 («) lb. p. 15. 
 
[ 17° ] ^ 
 
 That men might be fatisfy'd then, as Di- 
 vines and others are now, notwithftanding 
 the citations m2LdiQ by the Apoftles out of 
 the Old Teftament are fo different from 
 what we now find therein : 
 
 That it appears from almoft every part of 
 the New Teftament, that the Jews and the 
 Apoftles were perpetually difputing about 
 the myftical fenfe of the Old Teftament i 
 which, as it was the fole foundation of chri- 
 ftianity, fo it was the fole fubjed of difpute ; 
 tho' we know not how the Jews, who were 
 not converted, anfwer'd the Apoftles : 
 
 That St. Paul argues againft fome Jews, 
 as much concern'd for the letter of their 
 Law, in oppofition to the fpirit of the Law, 
 which he contended for^ and that his ene- 
 mies and accufers {a) among the Jews 
 were the Sadducees who contended for the 
 literal interpretation of the Old Teftament, 
 the Tharifees^ who contended for allegori- 
 cal interpretations of the Old Teftament, 
 finding no evil in him : 
 
 That the firft converts among the Jews to 
 chriftianity were Tharifees^ it not appear- 
 ing that any {h) mie Sadducee was ever 
 converted to the faith in the whole New 
 l^efiammt : 
 
 That 
 
 {a) .Ach 23. 8. 
 
 {b) Wotton'j Mif.2)ijcmrfey Vol. r./. ^5-. 
 
[ 171 ] 
 
 That the Body of the Jews did rejed 
 Jesus, whom they knew not to be the 
 Christ, and whom they reje(5ted as pre- 
 tending to be the Christ,- in virtue of their 
 interpretations (whether literal or allegorical) 
 of the Old Tefcament, which they took to 
 be perverted and mifapply'd in behalf of 
 him: 
 
 That it would have been no wonder, if 
 the Jews had not at flrft made objections to 
 the Apoftles for their not citing, and rea- 
 foning from, the letter of the Old Tefta- 
 ment, when they had for a confiderable 
 time, before the days of Jesus and the 
 Apoftles, (^) negleUed the literal fenfe of-y 
 and lifed to allegorize:, the ^ible : 
 
 That when the Jews did attack chriftianity 
 by writings and books, they, did cenfure the 
 Apoftles and chriftians {d) for citing falfely, 
 and for arguing falfely, becaufe not lite- 
 rally from the Old Teftamentj and to ex- 
 pofe them more effedually they caus'd other 
 and more literal and faithful tranflations to 
 be made, than the Septiiagint^ which was 
 much ufed by the Chriftians, and greatly 
 receded from the Hebrew text by its additi- 
 ons, omifTions, and falfe tranflations. 
 
 That 
 
 (c) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. Tell. p. 97. 
 (^d) See Juftin Martyr, Origen and Jcrom, as cited 
 i« Pezron Defenfe do I'Antiquitedcs terns, p. i,*}", 
 
 157, 174- 537. 35'8. 400. 
 
[ nO 
 
 ' That {e) Festus., the Heathen, who was 
 expert in all cujioms and quejlions among 
 the Jews^ did, upon hearing St. Paul de- 
 clare his manner of arguing from the Old Te- 
 ftament and proving from thence, that Chrifi 
 /Imild fuffer and rife from the dead^ teii 
 Paul, that he was hefide himfelf^ and that 
 much (Jewiili) learning had made him 
 mad i wherein Festus has the fame thoughts 
 of the manner of arguing of Paul, which 
 Mr. Whist ON has of the prefent, apparent, 
 reafoning of the Apoftles from the Old Te- 
 flament: (/) and that Agrippa, who he- 
 lievd in the 'Prophets^ was almofl per- 
 fwaded to he a Chrifiian by that very way 
 of reafoning whereby Fes r us concluded 
 St. Paul mad : 
 
 That Celsus-, who feems the oldeft Hea- 
 then author, that has attack'd chriftianity, 
 whereof we have any remains, did not only 
 attack (^) Chriftians for their allegorical 
 interpretations of the Old Teftament, who^ 
 he faid, hy a moft aftonijlnng foUy^ and a 
 jtupidity without example endeavour d to 
 find out relations between things^ for which 
 there was not the lea ft foundation ; but for 
 
 their 
 
 (e) Afts i6. 3, 6", 7, 22, 23, 24. 
 Le Clerc fur cet cndroif. 
 
 (f) Afls, lb. V. 2 7, 28. 
 
 (g) Origeii conti^a Gels, p. 187. 196-1^%. 
 
[ '73 ] 
 
 their application of the prophefies in the Olti 
 Teftamcnt to Jesu^ which ^ he {h) faid, 
 agreed to a thoiifand other perfons with 
 equal or more prohahility than to him^ and 
 were apply d by forcd interpretations ; fe- 
 veral of which prophefies Origen (/) yields 
 to Celsus to be enigmatical and allegori- 
 cal^ and to be fo apply 'd by the Chriftians: 
 and that Celsus, fpeaking of fome of the 
 prophefies cited by the Apoftlcs, fays, (Ji) 
 mod fatyrically, that they are itnintelligjbley 
 enthiifiaftical^ and peii'ecily ohfcnre fayings^ 
 which no wife man can nnderftand a tittle 
 cfj but only occafion jools and jugglers to 
 apply to their pitrpofes : 
 
 That Porphyry, a mofl: acute Pagan Phi- 
 lofopher, wrote a voluminous work (now 
 lod) againft chriftianity, to which Eusebius 
 of Cefarea wrote an anfwer (now loft); 
 wherein the faid Porphyry thus chiirg'd 
 the Chrifrians in general and Origen in par- 
 ticular (/) with allegorizing the Old Tefra- 
 ment. Some being refokSd^ fays he, to find 
 out foliitions for the difficulties which oc- 
 cur in the writings of the Jews^ rather 
 than rejeU them^ hai'e recourfe to incon- 
 
 fiftent 
 
 ih) lb. p. 3 p. 44. 78. 
 
 (0 P- 39- 
 
 {k} Ongen contra.^ Celi. as cited ami tranflated by 
 Nichcts in his Conference with a Theift, Vol. 3. p. ic. 
 (/; Apud JLi^fclpii HLft. Ecclef. 1. 6, c. 19. 
 
[ n4 ] 
 
 fiftent interpretations^ nothing relating to 
 what is written:, and which are not fo 
 much in defence of thofe Jirange doUrines^ 
 as in confirmation and praife of their own. 
 For vaunting in great words^ that what 
 Moses [poke with all imaginable plain- 
 nefs are dark riddles^- they enthuftaftical- 
 ly gi've them out as fo many divine ora- 
 cles' pregnant with hidden mifteries; and 
 after confounding the judgment with this 
 fublime language^, they deliver their own 
 explications. For an example of this folly^ 
 let us take Origen, a perfon^ with whom 
 1 had fome acquaintance^, when I was 
 very young. He was then and ft ill re- 
 mains in great efteem with the Teachers of 
 this doUrine^ who loudly fpread his fame 
 for the volumes he left behind him.. As for 
 his opinions concerning the divinity and 
 other things^ he was a difciple of the 
 Greek Thilofophers^ • and endeavour d by 
 their principles to fupport the exotick fa- 
 iled of the Jews. Moreover the writings 
 cf Plato were never out cf his hands-, 
 nor thofe of Numenius, Cronius, Apol- 
 
 LOPHANES, LOT^GINUS, MoDERATUS ; nOV 
 
 thofe of NicHOMACKUs, and the mofl ce- 
 lebrated Pythagoreans. Tie read likewife 
 the books of Cheremon, the Stoick\ and 
 of CoRMUTusj of whom having learnt the 
 allegorical method of explaining the Gre- 
 cian 
 
[ ^75 ] 
 cian myfteries, he did accommodate it to 
 the writings of the Jews : 
 
 That Julian did attack {m) the Apoftles 
 for mifapplying palTages of the Prophets^ 
 and applying them to Jesus : 
 
 That Faustus, the Manichsean, not only 
 fpeaks (??) of divers particular quotations 
 from the Old Teftament, as unfaithfully 
 made and urg'd in the New Teftament, 
 becaufe not literally made and urg'd, and 
 therefore charges the New Teiiament (o) 
 with corruption, as Mr. Whist on does the 
 Old: 
 
 And that St. Austin, who was not in- 
 ferior in allegorical mterpretations to Ori- 
 GEN himfelf, and who had the fame Old 
 Teftament we now have (which Mr. W. 
 fuppofes corntpted) and who contended 
 that the Jews never {p) corrupted the Old 
 Tejiament^ tells us, how effedliual that was 
 for the convidion both of Jews and Pagans 
 in thefe {q) words. Tropterea Judai ad- 
 hue flinty lit lihros nojiros portent in con- 
 fujionem fuam. ^lando enim 'vohimiis 
 
 oflendere 
 
 {m) Julian apud Cyril,!. 8. p. 253. 2(fr, 2(^4, 
 Grotms in Matt, r, 22. 
 
 (^) Faiifins apud Aiignfi' contra Fanftimy 1. 3. c. r, 
 1. 16. c. a. 1. 18. c. 3. 1. 3i. c. I. 
 (d) lb. 1. 12. c. I. 
 
 ip) jitignjlin. de civ. dei 1. 15. c. 13. 
 iq) Anguftin. in Pfalm ^6, 
 
[ n^l 
 
 ejfendere^ Chriftitm effe prophetatum^ pro^ 
 ferimus JEthnicis iftas lit eras : (j ne forte 
 illi diiri ad Jidem ducant^ nos Chriftianos 
 illos compoffiiiffe lihros^ (j' tma cum E^van- 
 gelio ccnfinxjffe^ hinc illos conmnctmiis^ quod 
 omnes ilia lit era ^ qui 1ms diRisr v s propbe^ 
 tatns eft apud Jud^cos [tint, ^rojerimus 
 ergo codices ah inimicis Judisis^ ut con-- 
 fundamus inimicos infideles. Codicem por- 
 tat Judtsiis^ unde credat Chriftianus : 
 
 And that therefore the truth feems to 
 be what a very learned man (r) afTerts, 
 that the Jpoftles in their writings^ as 
 well as Jesus Christ in his dicoiirfes^ 
 cited the texts of the Old T'eftament accord- 
 ing to the commonly receidd jenfe of the 
 Synagogue ,• and that the antority of thefe 
 proofs in that receivd fenfe^ did not a lit- 
 tle contribute to the cowverfion both of Jews 
 andGentiles, Which thought Mr, W.(i-) him- 
 felf feems to fear may be true, when he fays. 
 He affuredly no^is the difficulties them- 
 fekes (that is, the incoherency of the New 
 on the Old Teftament) were not generally 
 /;/ being in the firft century. 
 
 Laftly, Mr. ^^^ (?) argues from the Jpofto- 
 lick Citations of the firft century out of the 
 
 Pentateuch 
 
 (r) AUix'i Judgment of the Jemjh Church againft 
 the Unit. p. 4.0. 
 
 (s) Whifton'i Ejjayy p. i<^4, ^^• 
 (0 Whiflon'i EJJayy p. 16, 
 
I >77 ] 
 
 Pentateuch and Pfalmsi out of the firft, as 
 agreeing to the Samaritan 'Pentateuch^ , 
 which he calls the Original Hebrew j out 
 of the latter, as agreeing almoji exaUly 
 to the Septuagint Verfion of the Pfalms, 
 as attefied by the Roman ^P falter. From 
 whence he infers, that fince the Samari* 
 tan Pentateuch and Greek Pfalms do fo 
 nicely anfwer the citations of the firfi cen- 
 tnryj it is next to demonftration^ that^ the 
 Vulgar Hebrew and Septuagint did then 
 anfwer the one to the other* But grant- 
 ing, that the Apofiolical Citations agreeing 
 to the Samaritan Pentateuch and Greek 
 Pfalms demonftrate an agreement fo far be- 
 tween the Hebrew and Septuagint j how \^ 
 it demonftrated from thence, that there was 
 an agreement between the Hebrew and 
 Septuagint in refpe^t to paflages not ci- 
 ted by the Apoftles, or to the books of 
 the Prophets, which are the books of the 
 Old Teftamenr, whofe agreement in both 
 copies we are chiefly concern'd to know in 
 the prefent argument. Beddes, the criticks 
 pretend ,• that {ti) the Pentateuch (of the 
 Septuagint Verfion) was tranllated long be- 
 fore the other books of the Old Teftament, 
 and by different hands; and that the latter 
 
 N books 
 
 ('«; Whifton, lb. p. 113. ^.- 
 
[ '78 ] 
 
 books were not near fo well tranilated as 
 the Tentatetich, And it is now {w) known, 
 that long before the days of Ortgen the 
 Septuagint 'Verfions of Ezekiel and Daniel . 
 were laid afide and loft, and other Verfions 
 fubftituted in their ftead^ and that theVer- 
 fion of EzECHiEL in particular was fo much 
 better done than the Septuagint Veriions of 
 the other books, that Jerom, who took 
 that Verlion to be done by the Seventy^ 
 was fztrprizd^ how it came to pafs^ that 
 it agreed fo much letter with the Hebrew 
 than moft of the other books of the Old Tefta- 
 ment. 
 
 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 conftder'd 
 that the Jews themfelves had {x) a tradi- 
 tion, that thirteen pajfages of Moses were 
 with deftgn faljely tranjiated by the fe- 
 'venty, that many antient Jews, and efpe- 
 cialiy the (y) Jerufalem Jews, feem to 
 have been far from concurring with the (2;}" 
 Alexandrian Jews^ who, as they were the 
 Tranflators, fo they feem the chief applau- 
 dersofthe Septuagint tranflation ,• that the 
 
 Antients 
 
 (ly) Whifton, lb. p. 113. 
 ■ (x) UJJh-u De Edit. Sept. Int. p 11. 
 CjO Lightfoot'i TVorks, Vq1» 1. p. 48&. 
 {•z) Hody De Text. 1. 3. 
 
Anticnts give an account of great (a) oimf- 
 fions and additions^ which were all noted 
 in O RIG en's Hexapla; that there is now in 
 fa(5t a preai difagreement between the pre- 
 fent Hebtew and Septnagint \ and that to 
 afTert ^n antierit agreement is (^) new and 
 contrary to the general belief of the learn- 
 ed^ both in the prefent and pafi ages : 
 but efpecially when fuch agreement feems 
 fo contrary to undeniable matter of fa(5t : 
 For, by the mere comparing of the Hebrew 
 and Septitagint together, notwithftanding 
 the changes cither or both of them may be 
 fuppos'd to have received, it will appear to 
 be (^) an ill verfion of a 'very hard book^ 
 and miift be allow' d by thofe who can judge 
 of ity to be far from being exaU and true : 
 and Jhonld any body now adays make ^ 
 verfion fo imperfeU^ inflead oj admira^ 
 tion and efteem^ his work would be much 
 defpisd by the modern criticks. Let any 
 one compare {d) the citations out of the 
 
 N 2 Sep- 
 
 (a) Simon Hift. Crit. in Vicux Tcitam. p. 103. 
 
 Mo7itfaucon Diflert. Prelim, ad Ongenii Hexapla, 
 
 I. & 4. 
 
 See Origen. Horn. 12. in Jcrem. 
 
 Jiieron. in c. 17. Jcrem. 
 
 \b) Whillon, lb. p. 3. 
 
 (c) Hare's Tiijficiilties and Tiifcouragementi^ p, C* 
 
 See a/fo Capelli Qnx,i\\o de Parallel. %. 7. 
 
 (4^) SeeLe Clerc Bib. Univ. Tom aa. p. 478. 
 
[ ,8o ] 
 
 Septuagintj to be met with in Philo and 
 JosEPHUS, with the Hebrew text (I fay, 
 thofe citations, that it may not be pretend- 
 ed, that the pafTages which the Seventy 
 have ill tranflated, have been corrupted) j 
 and he will find thefe 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 Septua- 
 gint tranflation in our learned Divine and 
 Hebrician Lichtfoot, no tranflation was 
 ever, more unfaithful, or more remote from 
 its original, than the SepHiagi7it was from 
 the Hebrew. 
 
 He fays, {e) " That the Seventy did that 
 " work unwillingly, and for fear : for the 
 " Scripture was the treafure of the Jews, 
 *'^. which made them more glorious, than 
 " any nation under heaven. Therefore, to 
 ^^ communicate this their riches to the Hea- 
 " then, whom they abominated and de- 
 "^^ tefted, was as much againft their heart, 
 ■*' as what was moft. So that had not the 
 ^^ fear (J) of the power of Ptolemy 
 '^ brought them to the work of the tranfla- 
 '^^ tion, more than their own good will, 
 
 " there 
 
 (e) lA^tioox's Works y Vol. i. p. 488, ^c. 
 
 (f) 560 Ujjerii De Editione Sept. Inter, p. 2 14, 2 1 5. 
 
[ i8i J 
 
 there had been no fuch thing done. 
 Ptolemy Lag us, the Father of Ptole- 
 my Philadelphus, for whom they tran- 
 flated, had carry 'd away an hundred 
 thoufand Jews captive into Egypt ^ as faith 
 Aristeas, fo the fear and dread of that 
 houfe lay upon them, that they durll de- 
 ny it nothing, which otherwife they would 
 moft vehemently have done fuch a thing 
 as this, to have communicated their Scrip- 
 tures to the Heathen in a yuigai tongue. 
 
 ^' Secondly, the tranflation being then 
 undertaken for fear, and with fo ill a will, 
 and that they kept a mournful iaft every 
 year, forrowing for the work of that tran- 
 flation y it cannot be expected, that the 
 tranflation will be done without any more 
 fidelity, than barely what will keep the 
 tranflators out of danger. 
 
 " Thirdly, therefore they drive as much 
 as they can, to conceal the truth and 
 treafure of the Scripture from the Heathen, 
 and as much as they dare to delude 
 them. Their chief means for this is to 
 ufe an unprick'd Bible, in which the 
 words written without vowels, might be 
 bended divers ways, and into divers fen- 
 fes, and different from the meaning of the 
 original, and yet if the tranflation were 
 queflioa'd, they might prick or vowel 
 
 N 3 ■ "the 
 
[ ^^^ ] I 
 
 ^^ the word, fo as to agree to their tranfla- 1 
 
 '^^ tion. How they have dealt in this kind, ^ 
 
 ^' there is none that ever laid the Hebrew 
 
 '' Bible, and the Septuagint together, but 
 
 *^ hath obferv'd. 
 
 " Fourthly, their differences from the 
 original, which were innumerable, were 
 ^^ partly of ignorance, they themfelves not 
 ^^ being able to read the text always true 
 ^^ in a copy unvowell'd. But this igno- 
 ^'^ ranee was alfo voluntary in them, they 
 '^ not caring to miftake, fo they might do 
 ^^ it to their own fecurity.*' 
 
 <cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 CC 
 
 Their general care was, that fince of 
 necefifity they muft translate the Bible, as 
 little of it might be imparted and reveal'd 
 by the tranflation as was poiTible. 
 
 " Their particular and fpecial heed was 
 ^^ alfo, that thofe places of the text, which 
 '^ tranflated literally, or according to their 
 ^' true meaning, might prove dangerous any 
 '"^ ways to the nation of the Jews, or bring 
 «^ them into diftafte with the potent king, 
 ^'^ for whom they were tranflated, fhould 
 '^ be fo tempered and qualify 'd, that no ha- 
 c*^ zard might arife, nor any fuch matter 
 c^ might be feen/' 
 
 In- 
 
"I '83 ] 
 
 In fine, there is fo great difagreement 
 between the prefent copies of the Septuagint 
 and the Hebrew^ (tho' the former (^) has 
 been correUed to the latter) and that to all 
 appearance between the antient ones ; that 
 many learned men, and particularly our 
 great (i?) Usher, have been miftakenly in- 
 duc'd to believe, that there were two Greek 
 Verilons of the Hebrew before Christ ; 
 and that the firft, which was an accurate 
 verfion of the books of Moses only, and 
 was the work of the Seventy under the 
 reign of Ptolomy Philadelphus, and was 
 conformable to the Hebrew, is now loft ; 
 but that the fecond, falfely call'd the Sep- 
 tuagint ^ and now receiv'd as the true Sep- 
 tuagint^ was a fubfequent and unfaithful 
 tranflation made in the fourth year of Pto- 
 lemy Physcon. 
 
 So that nothing can feem more remote 
 from all appearance of truth, than to fuppofe, 
 that fo /// a "jerfion as the prefent Septua^ 
 gint Verfion feems to all learned men to be, 
 fhould ever have agreed w^ith the original 
 Hebrew. 
 
 N 4 VII. 
 
 C^) Whifton'i- Bffay, p. 48, 49- 
 {h) UJJehi De Edit. Sept". Interp. 
 
[ ^24 ] 
 
 VII. 
 
 That the Samaritan Tentateiich is not an 
 incorrupt copy of the hooks of Moses, 
 and originally derivd from the fi^ft 
 feparation of the ten Tribes themfehes 
 in the days ^/Jeroboam. 
 
 MR. Whist ON (/") deems the Samari- 
 tan Tentateuch (which is one of the 
 means, whereby he propofes to reftore the 
 tni£ text of the 'Books of the Old Tefta- 
 ment) an uncorrupted copy of the "Books 
 of Moses, and to be originally deri'vd 
 from, the fir ft feparation of the ten Tribes 
 theviif elves in the days <?/ Jeroboam. 
 
 I . Whereas, if the ten tribes, that under 
 the condud of Jeroboam fet up a worfhip 
 at {k) T>an and Bethel^ had a Pentateuch 
 among them (which may juftly be fufpeded 
 and cannot be prov'd) : yet that proves no- 
 thing in relation to the prefent Samaritans 
 and thofe from whom they are deriv'd. 
 For the ten tribes were all carry'd (/) cap- 
 tive by Shalmanesser into Jffyria^ where 
 
 they 
 
 ii')WhiJtcn& Eflay, p. 2. 16. 48, 4p. 16^, 175. 185. 
 
 (k) I Kings 12. 28. 
 (^^)z Kings 17. 5—18. 
 
they were (m) difpers'd and loft : and thofc 
 who were font to inhabit Samaria in their 
 fteadj and had foon the name of Samari- 
 tanSy appear (;/) not for a long while to 
 have had the Pentateuch among them. For 
 they were all (<?) Heathens^ and contimid 
 fo for many ages, as the Bible informs us ; 
 which reprefents them as idolaters at firft, 
 and as being like what they were in the be- 
 ginning at the time:, when the fecond hook of 
 Kings was publifli'd : and the Jemfalem 
 Jews conftantly gave them the name of Ctir 
 theaitSy as coming from Cuthab in Jffyria; 
 thereby fignifying them to be idolaters and 
 Heathens, as well as originally Heathens. 
 Had the Samaritans^ fays {p) Prideaux, 
 recei'vd the Law of Moses from the firft 
 (that is, from the time of the Ifraelitiili Prieft 
 being fent (^) by Eserhaddon among them, 
 as is fuppos a by many) and made that the 
 ride of worfhipy 'which they paid the God 
 of Ifrael^ they cotdd not har^e continued in 
 that grofs idolatry^ which on all hands it 
 is agreed they did^ till the building the 
 
 Tewr 
 
 (m) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. T. p. CC. 
 
 (n) lb. p. 55. 
 
 (0) z Kings 24. 29---41. 
 
 See Pridecmx'i Connection, Vol. i. p. 416", 417. 
 
 (p) ^rideaiix Ih. 
 
 (7) 2 Kings 17.28. 
 
[ i85 ] 
 
 Temple on mount Gerizim in the time of 
 Alexander the Qreat. 
 . 2. There is a corrupted paffage of great 
 importance in the Samaritan Tentateticbi 
 which enjoins, an Jltar to he Iniilt^ and fa- 
 crifices to be offer'd, (not at (r) mount Ebal 
 as all our Hebrew and Greek copies have it, 
 but) at mount Gerizim ^ where (j) Sanbal- 
 LAT, above a thoufand years after the times 
 of M0SES3 did, at the inftigation and with 
 the afliftance of Manasseh, fon of Joiada, 
 the High Prieft of the Jews, and other difo- 
 bhg'd Refugee-Jews, firft, build a Temple 
 in oppofition to the Temple at Jeriifalemi 
 where Refugee- Jews, from the time the Tem- 
 ple was built, continu d frequently to refort ^ 
 and where, for the moft part from the fame 
 time, a Jewiili-Temple-Worfliip has been 
 kept up by perfons, who have been call'd 
 Samaritans^ from Samaria^ the name of the 
 diftrid, wherein mount Gerizim lyes. And 
 this corruption affects the autority of the 
 Samaritan Tentatetich the more, in that, 
 it was a defignd corruption, in order to 
 juftify and authorize their new place of "wor- 
 fliip at mount Gerizim* The Samaritans 
 have alfo added a large palfage to the fame 
 effect in their Tentateuchi which has no {t) 
 
 foot- 
 
 er) Deut. 27. 4. 
 
 rO 7€^f^^' Antiq. 1. II. c. 8» 
 
 (j) Exod. 20. 17. 
 
[ i87 ] 
 
 foos-fleps in our Hebrew and Greek copies. 
 In both thefe cafes, indeed, Mr. W. {ii) de- 
 clares, he fees no reafon to acciife the Sama- 
 ritans-, hut the Jews of corruption. And 
 he endeavours to fupport the Samaritan 
 readings by feveral (^w) reafons in his book, 
 and by {x) one added iince, which he thinks 
 determines the point in favour of the Sama- 
 ritans j which therefore, tho' equally pre- 
 carious with the reft, I iliall here examine. 
 
 There was, it feems, a conteft {y) be- 
 tween the Jews and Samaritans at Jlex- 
 iindria in Egypt .^ " Whether tlie Temple at 
 " mount Gerizi^n^ or that at Jernfalemy 
 " was warranted and authoriz'd by the Mo- 
 '^ faick Law?" The caufe was, by way of 
 appeal, brought before Ptolemy Philome- 
 TOR, king of Egypt 'y who, upon hearing the 
 pleas on both lides, (of which Josephus 
 feems to give but a very general and imperfed 
 account) gave judgment in favour of the 
 Jews againft the Samaritans. But yet Mr. 
 W. thinks it appears from Jo sep hub's rela- 
 tion, that the Jews copies had thofe paflages 
 then in them, and did not difagrce from the 
 Samaritan y and, by confequence, that the 
 Jews have fince corrupted their copies. 
 
 But 
 
 (ti) Whifton'j EJJay, ^c. p. 169. 
 
 (w) lb. p. 169- -172. 
 
 (^x) Ad finem Errat. 
 
 h^ 5W/^. Amiq,L 13. c.(f. 
 
[i88] 
 
 But the confideration of J ose p hus's relation 
 (which the reader is defir'd to have before 
 him) will, in my opinion, produce a very 
 different concluiion, and induce the reader 
 to beheve, that the Samaritan readings were 
 corruptions, and that the Jewiili copies flood 
 then as they do now in that refped^ as 
 the pleas which the king heard induced him 
 to determine for the Jews. 
 
 It does feem pofTible from Josephus's re- 
 lation, that the two Samaritan Adt'ocate^ 
 did infift before king Ptolemy on thofe 
 paflages before-mention'd of their Pentateuch, 
 for the autority of their Temple at Gerizifn^ 
 tho* it is not any where faid fo, or that their 
 Pentateuch had then any fuch parages in 
 it. For there feems no other foundation in 
 the Mofaick Law^ from whence they are 
 fuppos'd to argue, for making mount Geri- 
 zim the place appointed for a Temple in 
 oppofition to Jerufalem^ and for the great 
 confidence they had of being able to prove 
 their point: all traditional pretences in fa- 
 vour of the antiquity of the Temple at Qeri- 
 zim before the Temple at Jerufalem^ being 
 not only undoubtedly falfe, but capable of 
 being eafily prov'd fo, as they could not but 
 know themfelvesi for their Temple had 
 been built but 150 years, whereas the Tem- 
 ple at Jeriifalem had been built long before, 
 in the days of Solomon. 
 
 It 
 
It may alfo he fuppos'd pofliblcj that the 
 Jewiili advocate might argue againft the 
 Samaritans from his Tentatench^ as not 
 having the Samaritan readings : for nothing 
 appears, from whence it can be concluded 
 he did not. Nay, if the Samaritan advo- 
 cates iirg'd their two prefent readings, we 
 have reafon to believe he did fo; fince thofc 
 readings were certainly wanting in his copies* 
 For both the Hebrew and Sepmagint copies 
 had been, before this conteft, in the hands 
 of the Heathens, and particularly in the 
 library of Ptolemy, who would never have 
 given judgment againft the Samaritans^ and 
 condemn'd their ad<vocates to dye^ if the 
 Jewish copies had favour'd the autority of 
 their Temple at Gerizim, 
 
 All therefore that can h^fiipposd in favour 
 of the Samaritan Pentateuch from J o se p hus 
 is, that it, alone, perhaps, then had the two 
 paffages mentioned i there being no ground 
 in JosEPHUs (or elfe where) to fuppole, that 
 the Jews Tentateuch then had them. But 
 this fuppofition in favour of the Samaritan 
 Pentateuch, will not prove the two readings 
 genuine. 
 
 But there are two confiderations, which 
 feem to me to determine the corruption to be 
 on the part of the Samaritans. 
 
 I. Firft, there have been three different 
 forts of people, who at different times have 
 inhabited Samaria^ and been call'd Sama- 
 
 ritansy 
 
[ ipo ] 
 
 iritans^ and were different religious Se6ls. 
 
 1. Thofe of the ten (2:) tribes, who under 
 the condud of Jeroboam, revolted from 
 the tribes of Judah and 'Benjamin:, and fet 
 up a woriliip at ^an and Bethel^ in oppo- 
 fition to the worfhip eftablifh'd at Jemfakm, 
 
 2. The Heathens, who were fent; to inha- 
 bit Samaria in the room of the ten tribes 
 that were carry 'd into captivity and never 
 return'd, were call'd Samaritans, 3. The 
 apoftate Jews, who with San ball at, firll, 
 built a Temple at mount Qerizim in oppo-? 
 fition to the Temple at J-ernfalem^ and their 
 fucceffors, were alfo fo calFd i among whom 
 perhaps, fome of the Samaritans laft men^ 
 tion'd, at length became embody'd. 
 
 Now, neither the Jews\ before the Sepa- 
 ration of the tribes into the kingdoms of Ij- 
 rael and yudah^ nor the firft fort of Samari^ 
 tans^ fcem ever to have had the leaft thought 
 of worfliipping at mount Qerizim -, and the 
 conteft between the Jews and Samaritans^ 
 after the Separation, was, whether worfhip 
 was to be perform'd at Jemfalem^ or at T)an 
 and 'Bethel \ for the facrednefs of which 
 two izz) laft places, there was fome pre- 
 tence in antiquity. It fliould feem there- 
 fore, tMt there was no pretence at that 
 
 time 
 
 («) 2 Kings 12. 2 7-2p. 
 
 Ifiz,) Tatrick on i Kings 12. 29. 
 
[ '9t ] 
 
 time in the Pentateuch for making mount 
 Gerizim a place of worfhip. And therefore 
 it feems moft probable, that thofe Samari- 
 tans, who confilted chiefly of apoftate Jews, 
 and firft built a Temple at Gerizim in op- 
 pofitiOn to the Temple at Jerufalem^ and 
 would be glad of an autority for fo doing, 
 or their fuccelVors, corrupted the Pentateuch j 
 and not the Jews, who, at a time when they 
 had no intereftnor malicious purpofe to ferve, 
 aded as if there had been no fuch paflkges 
 in the Pentateuch as the 4S'j777^r/Y<^7;j" produced. 
 
 2. Secondly, our Saviour may not impro- 
 bably be fuppos'd to determine againft the 
 Samaritan readings in his converfation with 
 the woman of Samaria. That converfation, 
 which is but briefly reprefented, feems to 
 admi^ and require the following interpre- 
 tation : 
 
 {x%z) " Since you are a Jew, fays the wo- 
 " man of Samaria to our Saviour, tell me, 
 " why the Jews contend, that God is to be' 
 *' worfhipp'd at Jeriifalem^ fmce our fore-fa-" 
 " thers worfliipp'd in this mountain of Ge^ 
 " rizim. To which Jesus anfwer'd, there 
 '^ is little reafon to trouble yourfelf about 
 " this queftion, inafmuch as the occafion 
 " will foon be remov'd : for the worfhip of 
 " God will not much longer be confin'd to 
 '^ any place j and fo the privilege about 
 " which you contend, will come to nothing. 
 ^^ Nevcr- 
 
 {xzz) Jchn 4. 
 
[ '92 } 
 
 " Neverthelefs, to fatisfy your prefent que- 
 " ftion, I tell you, you Samaritans^ who 
 '^ are moderns and can know nothing but 
 from us, worfhip God without knowing 
 his precepts: but we Jews, who are 
 from all antiquity, know all his lawsj 
 and that Jerufalem is the place of wor- 
 fhip appointed by God, and that the 
 true worihip is only among the Jews, 
 who worfhip at the true place appointed 
 by God. 
 
 To confirm this interpretation and para- 
 phrafe I will offer three particulars : 
 
 I. Firft, if Jesus be fuppos'd to affirm, 
 according to the vulgar tranflation, that the 
 Samaritans worjhipp'd they knew not whaty 
 (meaning thereby, that they woriliip'd not 
 the God of the Jews) it is to make him affert 
 what was falfe in fad : for the Samaritans of 
 that time had the fame fole objed of worfhip 
 with the Jews, whom they knew-, or under- 
 ftood as well as the Jews : and they do not 
 then appear to have oppos'd the Jewifh Law 
 in any other refpett, than about the place 
 of worfhip {which was indeed a matter en- 
 join d and was fo {a) judg'd by Jesus); 
 for in differing from the Jews about tradi- 
 tions, they adher'd more Uridly to the 
 Jewifli Law, than the Jews themfelves; and 
 
 our 
 
 {a) V. 2z. 
 
[ >93 ] 
 
 our Saviour himfelf concurr'd with the Sa- 
 maritans in rejecting thofe traditions. Be- 
 fides, Jesus, in this very converfation_, fnp- 
 pofes {)}) them to know what they worjhip- 
 pedj when he fuppofes them equally with 
 the Jewsj to worJJoip the Father. And 
 this very Samaritan Woman and other Sa- 
 maritans {c) do by their fpeedy conviction, 
 that Jesus was the Messias they expeUed^ 
 manifeftly fhow themfelves to be better pre- 
 par'd by their fentiments to receive chriftia- 
 nity, than the Jenifalem Jews. 
 
 2. Secondly, to tell the woman, Te 
 worjhip ye know not what^ relates not to 
 the woman's inquiry about the place of 
 worfhip, but to a matter wholly foreign. 
 And the anfwer of Jesus feems only perti- 
 nent by being underftood to the effect I have 
 above mention'd, that is, as relating wholly 
 to the ignorance of the Samaritans about 
 the place of worfhip, which was the io\Q 
 matter in queftion. 
 
 3 . Thirdly, the words, for fahation is 
 of the JewSj imply a foregoing refolution 
 in general of the queftion concerning the 
 place of worfhip. For the fole reafon, why 
 fahation was of the Jews^ and not of the 
 Samaritans^, was only, that the Jews did, 
 
 O and 
 
 (h) V. 21. .'' 
 
 (c) V. 25. 19. 39. 41. 
 
[ '94 ] 
 
 and the Samaritans did not Vv/'oriliip at the 
 place appointed by God. 
 
 But fetting ailde this interpretation, I con- 
 tend, that our Saviour has determin'd for 
 Jerufakm^ by faying, fakation is of the 
 JewSy and by what he adds in relation 
 to the times comings when men might wor- 
 jliip any where, and when nothing would 
 be requiiite but to worfliip God or the Fa- 
 ther -^ in Spirit and 'Trtith. For if the time 
 was to come, when men might worlliip any 
 where, then they might not worfhip any 
 W'herew^hen Jesus fpakc j and either mount 
 Gerizim or Jeriifalein was then the fole 
 true place of worfliip and falvation. But 
 one only of thofe places being then the true 
 place of worfliip ^iwdfalvatiouy Jesus plain- 
 ly declares which of the two was that place, 
 by faying, Jahation w^as of the Jews. 
 
 (^d) [Tho' the nature of the privilege 
 and advantage imply'd in the term fal- 
 'vationy ufed by our Saviour, be not the 
 matter here in queftion ^ and it does not im- 
 port me to fettle its fignitication : yet I beg 
 leave to interpofe fo far here as to obferve, 
 
 Firji:, that I do by no means think it fig- 
 
 nifies, as it may be vulgarly fupposM, the 
 
 eternal reward of heavenly happinefs j and 
 
 that I cannot without horror fuppofe the 
 
 t blelTed 
 
 {d) 2)igreJfio?t. 
 
i^9n 
 
 blefled and charitable Saviour imply'd there* 
 by, that the Samaritans and all other men^ 
 befidcs the Jenifalem Jews, were to be eter- 
 nally damiid^ and efpecially for fuch a 
 matter, of no confequence in itfelf, as the 
 mere place of wordiip, whether on this or 
 that mountain. Such a notion, fo manifeflly 
 abfurd and uncharitable, can only be ground- 
 ed on the fpirit of SeUariamfm^ and can 
 only proceed from the moft weak and 
 felf-interefled men. 
 
 God in dealing with the ten Tribes, after 
 their revolt from the tribes of Judah and 
 Benjamin and fetting up a w^orlliip in 
 Samaria^ throughout the Old Teftament al- 
 ways adts with fuch of them as his people^ 
 who fell not into idolatry : and in a very 
 general defedion of thofe tribes to the wor- 
 ship of Baal, God owns fe'ven thoiifand o( 
 them to be his people; when he (e) fays, yet 
 1 hace left me fe-ven thoiifand in Ifrael^ 
 all the knees which have not howdtoii^AL^ 
 and et'ery month which hath not kiffed 
 him, 
 
 Moft of the Prophets {f) themfelves, whofe 
 works make a part of the books of the Old 
 Teftament, were of the Samaritan fchifm, 
 HosEAH was of the tribe of Issachar ; 
 
 O 2 Joel 
 
 (e) I Kings 19. 18. 
 
 (f) Safnage Hift.des Juifs. 1. a. c. la. p, 277—488, 
 
[196] 
 
 Joel was of the tribe of Ruben ; Jonah 
 was of the tribe of Zabulon i and Obadi- 
 AH was born at Bethacad in the neigh- 
 bourhood of the city of Samaria, And yet 
 I prefume no one will fay, thefe Prophets 
 are damnd. 
 
 Elijah and Elisha, two renown'd Pro- 
 phets and workers of many miracles, always 
 liv'd in the fchifm j the firft whereof had a 
 miraculous paffage to heaven, going thither 
 in his life time in a fiery chariot i which is 
 a more evident proof of his not being damn- 
 ed:^ than can be had of any man of the moft 
 orthodox church. 
 
 Nor do we ever hear of any of thefe Pro- 
 phets going to Jenifalem to worfhip, or 
 exhorting the People of Samaria to do fo ; 
 tho' it was the known pi adife of other Jews 
 to come annually from very remote places to 
 worAiip at Jerufalem : and they feem con- 
 cerned only to keep up the worfliip of God, 
 according to the inilitution of Moses, in 
 Samaria^ and to prevent and root out ido- 
 latry. '^ ;■• ' 
 
 From all which it' fhould feem, that the 
 Samaritan feparation, or worfhip fet up at 
 Samaria^ in opposition to the worfliip efta- 
 blifiiM at Jertifalem^ did not damn ail thofe 
 who were engag'd in it, but was a way to 
 heaven no lefs certain than the feme worfhip 
 at Jcriifakm, 
 
 Belides^ 
 
r 197 ] 
 
 Beficlcs, our blefTed Saviour (g) by his 
 parable of the good Samaritan feems to fup- 
 pofe the Samaritans in a better way to hea- 
 ven, than even the Jewifli Levites : and it 
 {h) feems, that he iliould not condemn the 
 Samaritan woman with whom he convers'd, 
 and other Samaritans whom ilie brought to 
 him i who all believed him to be the Messia s, 
 and that with more readinefs than the 
 Jeriifalem Jews. 
 
 Secondly, that Salvation is of the Jews 
 feems to me (/) to fignify only, that the 
 Me SSI AS, ox Sa'viour^ ov Redeemer of Ifrael^ 
 fliould arife out of thofe Jews who wor- 
 Ihipp'd at Jeriifalem^ and not from among 
 thofe Jews who worlliipp'd at Samaria^ or 
 mount Gerizim.^ 
 
 3. But in relation to the Samaritan 'Pen- 
 tatetbch^ I would afk Mr. W. whether that 
 has not the fame account of Moses's death, 
 and burial, and comparifon between him 
 and the fucceeding Prophets in Ifrael^ ^og^- 
 ther with the other allowM interpolated paf- 
 fages, which are to be found in the vulgar 
 Hebrew and Septiiagint Pentateuchs ,• which 
 interpolated paftages are ufually (upon tra- 
 dition or conjedure) attributed to Esdras, 
 who, on his return from the Babyloniili cap- 
 
 O 3 tivity 
 
 (g) Luke 10. {h) John 4. 
 
 (;) Luke i. <?^— 77. lb. a. 30. 
 
, [ '98 ] 
 
 tivity is fuppos'd to have publifli'd the Old 
 Teftament, or a great part of it, correded 
 and enlarg'd? And if it has them ; how can 
 that Tentateiich be deriv'd from a copy ex- 
 tant feveral hundred years before the time of 
 EsDRAS ? Muft it not be 'from a copy made 
 long ajter the feparation of the ten trihesy 
 even long after the firft return from the Ba- 
 bylonifb captivity ? Jll the p^jjages^ Tays 
 SiMONj {k) which I have prmiicd to 
 proz^ey that Moses was not wholly the 
 author of the Tentatetichy as we now 
 have ity are exaUly the fame in the Sa- 
 maritan Tentatetich i and therefore we can- 
 not fayy that the Samaritans have kept a 
 copy of the original as it was before the 
 captivity of the Jews* 
 
 4. I obferve, alfo, that there is a great 
 agreement in chronology after the deluge, be- 
 tween the Samaritan and Septuagint Ten- 
 tateiichsy wherein they both differ from the 
 original Hebrew about 700 years j which 
 chronology (/) may be juftly deem'd invent- 
 ed and forg'd and inferted into the Septua- 
 ginty in order to render the books of the 
 Jews more credible to the Heathens, and 
 from thence, like other particulars, added 
 
 to 
 
 (K) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. Teft. p. 66. 
 
 (I) lb. -p. 6%, 207. 
 
 LightfootV Works, Vol. 2. p. 701. 
 
[ 199 ] 
 
 to the Samaritan Pentateuch. And this 
 the Jews of Jenifalem^ Mexandria^ and 
 other places, and the Samaritans^ might 
 all probably concur to pradife as a 
 pious fraiidy like the Miiiionaries of our 
 days to China ^ who, tho' they may think 
 the Septuagint chronology falfe^ yet ufe that 
 chronology (in oppoiition to their Bible) 
 the better to prepare the Chinefe for the 
 reception of the Gofpel : for which wife 
 CGudtiU the Miil'ionaries are much {m) com- 
 mended. . // [era tottjonrs permis aux Mif- 
 Jionaires de la Chine de fe fewir de hz 
 Chronologie des 70 tottte faiiffe qiielle eft^ 
 dans les B^ntretiens qiiils out at^ec les 
 Chinois. Cette fage OecouGmie^ dont les 
 Jefiiites qui prechent fE'vangile en ce pais 
 la fcavent Ji Men fe ferz^ir^ & a^-jec tant 
 de fruity na jamais ete def endue. Les 
 *Peres (^ mefme les Jpoftres {11) font mife 
 en pratique^ fans imire a la z'erite de la 
 Religion Chretienne^ comme le TereV^rxu 
 fa demontre par phifietirs exemples^ dans 
 la 'pldicieiife preface quil a mife a la tete 
 du fecond tome defes 7)ogmes Theologiqnes. 
 Mr. W. in a former {p) work makes it one 
 of his Toftulata or Axioms^ that the He^ 
 
 O 4 brew 
 
 (m) Simon Bibl. Crit. Vol. 2. p. 472. 
 
 (n) See Brafrnus in Afta Apoft. c. 17. v. 25, 
 
 {0} WhiftonV jhoi't Fiezv of the Cbron. p. 2, 3. 
 
[ 200 ] 
 
 hrew text of the Old T^eftament^ heing the 
 Original itfelf^ is reajonaUy to he allow d 
 our moft authentick Guide in the Chro- 
 nology ojthe Old T^eftament^ and not the 
 Septuagint T'ranflation ; and by confequence 
 not the Samaritan Pentateuch, Which 
 paflage I urge to Mr. W. no further than 
 the reafon imply'd in it will bear. For I 
 am feniible Mr. W. has much {p) chang'd 
 his thoughts in refpedt to the chronology 
 of the Hebrew and Samaritan texts ^ the 
 firft whereof he now thinks jalfe^ notwith- 
 flanding he formerly thought it fo evidently 
 true as to lay it down for an Axiom to be 
 granted him without conteft^ and the latter 
 true. Nor do I in the leaft blame him for 
 fo doing j who has a right to follow his 
 judgment, in all matters where-ever it leads 
 him : but, perhaps, he may need to be told, 
 that it very much becomes him, to bear with 
 the differences of others from him \ who by 
 his owm great change of opinion, and by the 
 difficulties wherewith he fees himfelf encom- 
 pafs'dj fhould naturally think moft of the 
 theological ftihjeUs he treats of to be of the 
 utmoft uncertainty, and, bating their curio- 
 fity, to be in themfelves of no manner of im- 
 portance to the world. 
 
 5. To 
 
 i^) Whiflon'? Effa}\ to rcftor(,\ Sec. p. ^14. 
 
C ^01 ] 
 
 5. To derogate yet further from the au- 
 tority of the Samaritan Tentateiich^ I ob- 
 ferve with the learned Prideaux, that tho' 
 that Tent at each be faid to be written in the 
 Old Hebrew (or Thocnician^ or Canaani- 
 tijlo) Chara'cier:, and fo may feem to have 
 fome advantage over the Vulgar Hebrew 
 Pentateuch, which is written in the Chaldee 
 Charader, yet is that Tentateuch^ accord- 
 ing to him, but a tranfcript from the Vul- 
 gar Hebrew out of the Chaldean into the 
 Old Hebrew Charader. jPijr, {of) fays he, 
 firfi^ it has all the interpolations^ that 
 EsDRAs'j'r^pj/(that is, the Vulgar Hebrew) 
 hath ; whereas had it been antienter than 
 EsDRAs J copy^ it mufi ha've been withvut 
 them. Secondly^ there are a great many 
 'variations in that copy^ which are mani- 
 feftly cans'' d by the miftake of the fimilar 
 letters in the Hebrew Alphabet -, which 
 letters having no fimilitude in the Samari- 
 tan Character^ this evidently proves thofe 
 ^variations in the Samaritan copy were made 
 in tranfcribing that from the Vtilgar Hebrew 
 andnot in tranfcribing the Vnlgar Hebrew 
 fro7n the Samaritan. From whence it feems 
 paft doubt, that the Samaritan T^entatevxhy 
 fuch as it now is, was not in being among 
 
 JthS 
 
 {q) PrideauxV CcnneBien^VoX. i. p. 416'. 
 Seealfo Simon H. C. du V.T. p. 66, 6-]. 
 
[ 202 ] 
 
 the Samaritans till after the compilation of 
 the Vulgar Hebrew Pentateuch by Efdras^ 
 and tranfcript of it into Chaldean Chara^^ters. 
 How long after I pretend not to determine. 
 Dr. Prideaux (r) fuppofes, or conjedtures, 
 that Manasseh, when he fled to the Sama- 
 ritans with other Jpoflate Jews and fettled 
 in Samaria firfl brought the law <?/ Moses 
 among them-^ which was not long after the 
 fuppos'd compilation of Esdras, and was 
 about 400 years before Christ. I fliould 
 fuppofe they had their prefent ^Pentateuch-, 
 firft, among them, much later. For about 
 i5o years before Christ they feem to me 
 to have had as little occafion for the Law 
 of Moses, as the mQVQ Ctithean- Samaritans 
 (j-) had from the time of their eftablifhment 
 till long after the return of the Jenifalem 
 Jews from the Babylonifli captivity ; during 
 all which time they (?) ferv'd their own 
 WQ2i\hen gods. For fo lately, as i5o years 
 before Christ, they {11) petitioned Antio- 
 CHiJS King of Syria^ to whom then all 
 Judica was tributary, that their Temple 
 on Gerizim^ which had been dedicated 
 to no efpecial T)eity rnight thenceforth be 
 
 made 
 
 (r) 'Prideaux, lb. p. 416', 417. 
 (s) 2 Kings 1 7. 
 
 (w) 'PridemiXf lb. Vol. a. p. 17 7, 178. 
 
[ 203 ] 
 
 made the 'Temple of the Grecian Jupiter, 
 and he fo calf d for the future: And An- 
 TiocHUS gratify'd their reqiieft \ and caus'd 
 their Temple to be confecrated to the Greci- 
 an Jupiter, by the name of Jupiter the 
 Protector of strangers; which addi- 
 tional title^ they themfelves alfo defirdy 
 that it might thereby be exprefsd^ that 
 they were ftr angers in that land^ and not 
 of the race of IfraeL 
 
 Mr. W. labours {w) to prove, that Es- 
 ^DRAS was not the tranfcriber of the Old Te- 
 ftament out of the Old Hebrew into the 
 Chaldee Charadier; as is ailerted by Pri- 
 de aux and others, in vertue of fome con- 
 jectures ; and he {x) guelfes, that it was a 
 work done about the end of the fir ft or he- 
 ginning of the fecond century of the GofpeL 
 Now, if the Samaritan Pentateuch was 
 tranfcrib'd from the Vulgar Hebrew Bible, 
 after that was tranfcrib'd into the Chaldee 
 CharaUer ; and if the Vulgar Hebrew Bible 
 was not tranfcrib'd into the Chaldee Cha- 
 raUer^ till the time Mr. W. mentions ^ then 
 is the prefent Samaritan Pentateuch not on- 
 ly not derived originally from the firfl fe- 
 par at ion of the ten Tribes in the days of 
 jEROBOAMj but very modern, and not 
 
 even 
 
 (nx) Whifton'j Ejf^'y^ p. 149. 
 {x) lb. p. 1 55>. 
 
[ 204 ] 
 
 even of autorlty and antiquity enough to 
 fettle the Hebrew text, as it flood in the 
 times of Jesus and his Apoftlesj to fettle 
 which was the end for which Mr. W. lays 
 fo much ftrefs on the Samaritan Tenta- 
 tench. 
 
 But after all, luppofing with (^y) Simon 
 and many other learned men j that the pre- 
 fent Jewifl? (whith is, the Chaldean or 
 Jffyrian) CharaUer^ was the CharaUer al- 
 ways in ufe among the Jews j and that the 
 Samaritan (that is, the Thccnician^ or Ca^ 
 iiaanitifljj or, as it is alfo call'd, the Old 
 Hebrew) CharaUer was never ufed by the 
 Jews before the captivity, in any manner, 
 either in books or medals: it will then fol- 
 low, that the Samaritan Tentatetich:, as 
 written in the Samaritan CharaUer^ could 
 not be the Tent at each in its original Cha- 
 raUer^ but muft have been tranltrib'd into 
 that character^ either to give it a pretence 
 to antiquity, or to diftinguiili it from tlie 
 Jews Tentateiich^ or to render it legible to 
 the inhabitants of Samaria^ who, upon the 
 TentateticFs being firft introduc'd among 
 
 them. 
 
 {y") Simon Bibl. Grit. Vol. 2. p. 38^—435. 
 ^oinard apud Le Clerc Bibl. Univ. Tom 21. p. 131. 
 jillix apud Sfanhemei DeNumifm. Vol. i. p, ^5). 
 
 Rbenferd O^evsi Philolog. p. 225 — 253. 
 See Safuage Hifl. des Juifs. 1. 6. c. 44. 
 
[ 205 ] 
 
 them, might be vers'd in no other character 
 but the Samaritan characier. And there- 
 fore the Samaritan Pentateuch is of lefs au- 
 tority and antiquity jor heing written in 
 the Samaritan charaUer y and muft for 
 that very reafon have been tranfcrib'd from 
 the Pentateuch of the Jews written in the 
 Chaldean or Jjjyrian charaUer -, to fay no- 
 thing more here of the other reafons to prove 
 it was fo tranfcrib'd. 
 
 6, D0S1THEUS5 a Samaritan, who (z) 
 liv'd after the times of Jesus, is faid by ya^ 
 Phot I us to have adulterated the 'Pent a- 
 tench (by miftake {h) call'd the QUateiich) 
 of Moses with many corruptions. This 
 adulterated Pentateuch our learned Usher 
 takes to be the prefent Samaritan Penta- 
 tench: and he fuppofes, that Dositheus 
 compifd this Mew Hebrew "Book out of the 
 Hehrew Copies of Palefiine and "Babylon 
 and the Greek Verfion recei'vd by the nel- 
 lenifi yews y adding and taking away fome 
 pajfages^ and changing ethers^ according 
 to his pleafure. And he particularly fup- 
 pofes him to have corrupted that Pentateuch 
 by inferting therein fome of the Septuagint 
 Chronology \ which alfo was a corruption 
 
 firft 
 
 (a) Origen contra CeU. 1. i. & in Matt. 27. TraiS. 
 (/>) UJjkrii DeEdit. Sept. Int. p. %i6. 
 
[ 206 ] 
 
 firft introduc d in the Septiiagint, (By which 
 the Reader may eafily fee, why the Sep- 
 tuagint is more conformable to the Samari- 
 /^z/^than to the Hebrew text; and alfo how 
 {c) improper it is to fettle the true readmg 
 of the Tentateiich^ even as it was in our 
 Saviour's time, by the Samaritan Tenta- 
 teuch.) But whether or no, Dositheus, 
 the* Samaritan, was the compiler of the Sa- 
 mar it an Pentateuch -, it is not improbable, 
 according to {d) Dupin, to fuppofe, that 
 fome modern Samaritan compil'd it chiefly 
 out of the different copies of the Talejii- 
 nian and Babylonian Jews and the Septua- 
 gint (the fources, from whence Usher fup- 
 pofes DosiTHEUS compil'd it)j becaufe it 
 fometimes agrees with the Hebrew copies of 
 ^alaftine^ fometimes with thofe of 'Babylon^ 
 and fometimes with the Septuagint, 
 
 I would not be thought in this matter of 
 DosiTHEUS, cJt. which I borrow from the 
 Great Usher, and from Dupin, to efpoufe 
 either of their Hypotbefes; to which they 
 feem driven by their judgment on the ftate 
 of things, and by their inclination to folve 
 difficulties purfuant to their religious no- 
 
 tions. 
 
 But 
 
 (c) lb. p. 218, 219. 
 
 {d) Du^in DifTert. Prelim. &c, p. 533» 534- 
 
[ ^o7 ] 
 
 But I life thofe Hypothefes here, as I do 
 the Hypothefes of other learned Divines in 
 relation to many parts of the difpute between 
 Mr. W. and myfelf, merely to oppofe Mr, 
 WnisTONi who every where proceeds on 
 the moft precarious- Hypothefes^ becaufe 
 fecmingly proper to folve difficulties, in his 
 way. And the fole Inferences I would make 
 from fuch topicks, againft Mr. W. are -, that 
 there is no end of Hypothefes ,• that they are 
 fo uncertain, tliat nothing fervmg to efta- 
 blifh an opinion can be jullly inferr'd from 
 them^ and that by their number and uncer- 
 tainty, they feem the effeds of not under- 
 ftanding rightly the Chriftian Religion itfelf^ 
 and the true grounds and reafons of it. 
 
 7. Laftly I obferve, that Origen ,• who 
 underflood Hebrew well, and liv'd and con- 
 vers'd much with the Jews in Takjline-y who 
 was greatly Ikilfd in the literature of the 
 Old Teitament , and who compleated three 
 moft laborious and ufeful works towards un- 
 derftanding the Old Teftament, 'viz. his Tl?- 
 trapla^ Hexapla^ an-d OUapIa (in the two 
 laft whereof he inferted the Vulgar Hebrew 
 text)j wholly omitted the Samaritan Pen- 
 tateuch^ and gave the Hebrew Text in the 
 Vulgar Jewifh^ and not (J) in the Sama- 
 ritan 
 
 f^J Montfau<:ony Pralim. ad Orige7iis Hexapla. p. 2 1. 
 
IL ^p8 ] 
 
 ritan Chara^en tho' bethought fit to give 
 the Hebrew text over again in Greek Cha- 
 racters, Nor does he appear to have ufed 
 the Samaritan Tentateuch in his notes on 
 the Hexapla^ towards fettling the text in 
 any refpe6t. And confequently O rig en 
 muft have judg'd the Samaritan Tentateucb 
 of no importance towards fettling the read- 
 ing and fenfe of that part of the Old Tefta- 
 ment. 
 
 8. So that I think I may venture to con- 
 clude, that Mr. W. has not the leaft ground 
 to date the Samaritan Pentateuch fo high 
 as the times of Jeroboam, againft which 
 there have appeared feveral demonftrative 
 arguments ^ and for which he has as little' 
 colour, as the Samaritans themfelves have 
 for a Manufcript copy of their Tentateucb 
 (f ) pretended to be deriv'd to them from the 
 times of Phineas, contemporary with Mo- 
 ses; whereby they are equally abfurd with 
 the Jerufalem Jews and others, who make 
 Moses author of the account of his own 
 death and burial and of the comparifon be- 
 tween himfelf and the Prophets in Ifrael^^ 
 who fucceeded him ; to fay nothing of the 
 abfurdity in pretending to have a Manu- 
 fcript of a (g) book, whereof it. will he 
 
 diffi- 
 
 (7) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. Tefl. p. 1 30. 
 (l^)Ib. p. jii. 
 
[ ^^9 ] 
 dljfictilt to Jin d one of above 600 or 700 
 years old, 
 
 VIII. 
 
 That the Jpofiles did not always quote the 
 Septuagint Verfion. 
 
 IT has been (Jo) long difputed among the 
 Learned^ whether the citations made 
 from the Old in the New Teiiament were 
 taken from the Hebrew or Greek 'Bible, 
 Which feems a flrange difpute : for it fliould 
 feem eafy to know from whence a man who 
 makes feverai hundred quotations from the 
 Old Teftament, iliould take them. But fe- 
 verai of thofe quotations being made after 
 the Jewifli manner of quoting authors, where- 
 in great liberty was taken in varying, both 
 as to words and fenfe, from the authors 
 quoted ^ the learned are at a lofs how to 
 account for many quotations, which neither 
 agree to the Hebrew or Septuagint^ and 
 alfo how to account with certainty even for 
 fuch as agree either with the Hebrew or 
 Septuagint, 
 
 Mr. W. (/) contends, that the Apoftles 
 always quoted the Septuagint. But, if we 
 
 P may 
 
 {h^ \Vhiaon'5 Ejfay, p. 87. 
 (0 p. 175, &c. 
 
may be govern'd in this cafeby the agree- 
 ment of quotations with their originals, no- 
 thing feems more true, than what is imply'd 
 in thefe words of St, Austin, {k) For my 
 part^ fays he, being defirous to follow the 
 example of the Jpofiles^ who made life hoth 
 of the Hebrew l^ext and Septuagint Ver- 
 fton in citing the Trophets^ I thought ^ that 
 I ought to make nfe of both^ as being both 
 the fame^ and having both the fame dl- 
 <vine atitority. 
 
 What can be more evident, than that 
 the Apoftles fometimes cited the Hebrew ? 
 For if there be a citation made by the Apo- 
 ftles fr.om the Old Teftament, which, w^ord 
 for word, agrees with the Hebrew text and 
 differs from the Septuagint j muft not the 
 faid citation be fuppos'd taken from the He- 
 brew text, to which it agrees, and not from 
 the Septuagint J to which it does not agree ? 
 Now this is the cafe (/) of the famous paf- 
 fage cited by Matthew out of Hoseah, • 
 *' Out of Egypt have I called my Son i' 
 which is read w^ord for w^ord in the Hebrew 
 Bible i but in the Septuagint is, " Out of 
 " Egypt have I called my SonsT And this 
 
 citation 
 
 (k) Angnjl. DeCivitateDei.l. i8, c. 44. 
 (I) See Hieron in Of^ 1. 3. c. i r. & in Matt. 1. r. c. 2. 
 C^/f/Zz Critica Sacra, p. 55. 
 
 2)?//mDiflert. Prelim, fur la Bible, 1. I, 0,4. p. 487. 
 Ls note. 
 
citation feenis alfo to dilcover to us the rea- 
 fon, why the Apoftles do fometimes cite the 
 HehreW:, as at other times they do the Sep- 
 tuagint^ when thefe two texts differ, viz. 
 becaufe the Hebrew reading feems fome- 
 times more applicable to their purpofe than 
 the Septuagint reading. For in the cafe be- 
 fore us, the term Son^ as the Hebrew reads, 
 it, feems more to favour the application of 
 the pall'age to Jesus, than the Septuagint 
 reading Sons^ which beyond ail difpute, 
 determines the citation to relate primarily to 
 the children of IfraeL 
 
 Again, does not Matthew {yri) mani- 
 feftly cite the Hebrew text for thefe words, 
 " {ii) Behold my fevant, whom I have 
 '' chofen, my beloved, in whom my foul is 
 " well pleafed /' which agree to the He^ 
 hrew^ and not to the Septuagint^ that differs 
 (o) greatly from the Hebrew and makes ex- 
 prefs mention of Jacob and Israel there- 
 in? 
 
 St. Jerom (/>) fays. It is evident, that 
 the Apofiles and JE'vangelifls made ufe of the 
 Hebrew Scriptures, Otir Lord and Re^ 
 
 P 2 deemerj 
 
 (m) Matt. 12. 1 8. 
 (n) Ifaiah 42. i. 
 
 (0) See Kidder's Denionilnt. of the Meffias, Vol a, 
 p. 207, 208. 
 (/>) Hieron, 1. 2, ApoL contra RuflSntun. 
 
[ ^^^ ] 
 
 deerner^ fays he, isohenever he cites pajjages 
 out of the Old Teftament takes them from the 
 Hebrew : Js for example^ " He that be- 
 " iieveth on me, as the Scriptures ha've 
 " (aid^ out of his belly iliall flow rivers of 
 '^ living water ;" and upon the Crojs^ " Eli^ 
 "^ Eli, Lamazabackthani," that is to fay^ 
 '^^ My God, my God, why haft thou forfa- 
 " ken me /' and net as the Septnagint has 
 render d ity and di'vers other places. 1 
 fay not this^ fays Jerom, to difcredit the 
 Septnagint^ hit hecatfe I helieve^ that the 
 autority of the Apofiles and Jesus Christ 
 is prejerahle to theirs. 
 
 I confefs, the Apoftles do feem {q) much 
 more frequently to cite the Septnagint^ than 
 the Hebrew (tho' herein it mxay be eafy to 
 miftake, if it be true, what Simon and Mr. 
 W. affirm, that the Septuagint Verfion has I 
 (r) heen accommodated to the citations of 
 the Apoftles ,• Or what Mr. W. (j-) himfeif 
 alfo fays, who not oxA^ finds plain indications 
 of the frequent accommodation of the Sep- 
 tnagint Verfon to the latter Hebrew^ but 
 tiie alike frequent accommodations of 
 
 THE 
 
 (q) See Earl of Nottingham'^ Jnfiz'er to Mr. Whi- 
 ilon'5 ZerrerySic. p. 105. 
 C^pelli Critica Sacra. 1. 2. 
 (r) Simon Hift. Crit. du N. Teft. p. 234, e<vJ Whi- 
 
 (5} p. 48, 49. p. a<?8, 2p5>. 
 
[ ^'3 ] 
 
 The readings in the New Testament, 
 CIS alfo in Josephus, and others^ to those 
 OF THE Septuagint, whcuce they were 
 commonly fiippos d to ha^ve he en taketi) ; and 
 it is particularly manifeft, that, in the fa- 
 mous (/) fpeech before the Sanedrim^ attri- 
 buted to St. Stephen, the Septnagint^ and 
 not the HehreW:> is cited in refpeft to the 
 immher of Sottls^ that went down into E^ypt; 
 the Septiiagint reckoning Se'venty fi^e Souls ^ 
 and the Hebrew but Se'venty. But I muft 
 own my concurrence with Father {ti) Simon 
 in his conjecture, that it is not credible, that 
 St. Stephen in the original 7/?^,?^^ delwerd 
 hy him to the Jews of Jenifalem recited the 
 words otherwife than they were in the He- 
 brew l^ihle -y but that St. Luke writing to 
 thofe who either underftood no Hebrew, or 
 who chiefly or wholly ufed the Septiiagint 
 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 feems very unaccountable, that St. Ste- 
 phen iliould in his defence before the Sane- 
 drim argue from an antient Jewiili faft, 
 which that aifenibly by their knowledge in 
 the Hebrew tongue were undoubtedly able 
 
 P 3 to 
 
 rO Aasy. 14, 15. 
 
 (?/) Simon Hift. Grit du V. T. p. iSdT, 187. 1. 2. c. 2. 
 
 See alfo Du^'m DiCfcrt. PrcUm. 1. i.e. a^.l^ote. p. 486. 
 
[ ^H ] 
 
 to deted as a mifreprefentatioii of the Jew- 
 iili ilory, and would not fail to do fo to 
 the confafion of St, Stephen. 
 
 For farther fatisfaftion in this point of the 
 Apoftle's citing the Hebrew text (and that 
 even in places, where they feem to depart 
 from the Hebrezio) I refer him to the -{w) 
 truly karned Dr. {x) Hody -, and to {y) Su- 
 RENHusius, who fhows, how all the Jpo- 
 ftolick Q^iotations^ by being coniider'd as 
 quotations made after the manner of the 
 Jewifh Dodors, were (or might be) taken 
 from the Hebrew » It is evident \ that, in 
 many inftances, the Apoftles cite palTages, 
 from the Old Teftament, not only in a dif- 
 ferent ■ literal fenfe from what they bear in 
 their places both in the Hebrew and Septtia- 
 fjnty but whofe words are to be found in 
 neither of them^ and, in particular, that 
 many parts of the Genealogies in the New 
 Teftament, which fhould feem to be taken 
 from the Old Teftament, are very different 
 from the fame genealogies recorded both in 
 the Hebrew and Septttagint, So that, the 
 citations of the Apoftles, whether confider'd 
 as taken from either the Hebrew or Septua- 
 gintytsiv& be accounted for from the Jewifh 
 
 man- 
 
 i'vc) Whiflon'5 Bjfay^ p. ii. 
 
 (x) Body De Text. Bibl. p. 24.3—277. 
 
 \yy Surenhtifi2lir^&.. ^c. See ^. 177, ^c. 
 
[ ^'5 ] 
 
 manner of making citatiops fo as to ferve 
 the purpofes for which they were produc'd. 
 And therefore with as great reafon, many of 
 the Apoftolical citations may be fuppos'd ta- 
 ken from the Hebrew j as from the Septtia- 
 gint, 
 
 IX. 
 
 That the means wherehy Mr, Whtston 
 propofes to reftore the true l^ext of the 
 Old Teftament in refpeU to citations 
 made from thence in the New^, will not 
 reach that end, 
 
 THE Aoli^^p. of Mr. Whiston is to vin- 
 dicate the citations made from the 
 Old in the NezjD T'efiament j and particular- 
 ly fuch, as now feem either wholly wanting 
 in the Old Teftament, or feem unaccurately 
 cited, or feem not juftly apply 'd by the au- 
 thors of the New Teftament j of ail which 
 fort of citations he gives us divers (s;) exam- 
 ples. 
 
 This difcordance between the Old and 
 New Teftament, he attributes to the Jews, 
 whom he charges with corrupting the Old 
 Teftament in refpect to thofe citations, with 
 
 P 4 exprefs 
 
 (s) p. z8i, 282. p. 88— I op. 301—317, 5ai.52(f. 
 
exprefs deGgn to make the reafonings of the 
 Apoftles appear groundlefs and impertinent. 
 
 To cindicate thefe citations he propofes 
 to reftore a true text of the Old Teftament, 
 as it ftood in the days of Jesus and his Jpo- 
 Jlles (not the original text, which may have 
 been {a) very different from that cited by 
 the Apoftles) j which true text is to manifefl 
 the truth and juftnefs of the Apoilles citati- 
 ons and reafonings. 
 
 The {h) means, by which he propofes to 
 reftore this trtte text^ arc, The Samaritan 
 Pentateuch i the Greek Tfalms^ as attefled 
 ly the Roman T falter -, the prefent Hebrew 
 i'ext-^ the fetter al Greek Editions and Ma- 
 mifcripts of the Septuagint Verfion^ i^ith 
 other tranflations antiently made from it ; 
 the old Syriac Verfion made from the He- 
 brew:, before the Copies of the Hebrew 
 'were fo corrupt as they now are ; the 
 ChaldeeTaraphrafes ; the Remains of the 
 later Greek Verfions^ particidarly thofe of 
 AauiLA, Theodotion, and Symmachus ; 
 the Jntiqiiities of J os-EVHvs ; the Works of 
 Philo ; the Jpoftolick Confiitiitions ^ the 
 Fathers and Hereticks^ who liv'd before^ 
 or not long after the days <?/Origen ; the 
 Remains of the Old Italick or Vulgar 
 
 Ver-^ 
 
 (a) Simon Hift. Crit. du V.T. p. 494. 
 'jf) Whiilon,p. 325?, t^c. 
 
Verfion-y Hebrew Copies^ which hm'e ne^ 
 ^'er come into the hands of the Masoretes, 
 and Greek Copies of the Vulgar Septiiagint 
 Verfion read in churches all the firft ages 
 of chriftianity^ or any parts of tbem; and, 
 above all Criticifm [tho' he places it not 
 among his means,) whereby he propofes to 
 alter Ibme pafTa^ges, and to change the pla- 
 ces of others, which he fuppofes di (located. 
 Upon all which means I iliail make tile fol- 
 lowing obfervations. 
 
 1. As to all the prefent known Hebrew 
 and Septiiagint copies j they being them- 
 felves greatly comtpted^ and particularly 
 as he fays, corrupted by the Jews w^ith 
 exprefs delign to confound the applications 
 of the Jpofiolick Citations from the Old 
 Tellament j and their true text^ with refped: 
 to thofe corriiptiojis being the thing propos'd 
 to be rejiord; the true text cannot be 
 rejiord by any of, or all, thofe copies. 
 
 2. The Chaldee Taraphrafes were^ ac- 
 cording to him, all {c) made for the fup- 
 port of the iV^fjy Hebrew (or corrupted) 
 lext^ and for fecuring its reception oiwr 
 all the world. And the later {d) Greek 
 Verfions plainly follow that Hebrew lext^ 
 and were made, {e) as it were^ on purpofe 
 
 to 
 
 (c) p. 241, 241. 249. 
 (c) p. 233. 
 
to eftahlijh and fpread the new correUed or 
 corrtipted Hebrew copies ; and fome of 
 them with (/) exprefs defign to oppofe the 
 Septuagint^ which the Apoftles and firft 
 Chriftians cited as favourable to chriftiani- 
 ty. So that thefe can no more reilore a true 
 text^ than the Hebrew or Septuagint them- 
 felves. 
 
 3 . As to the Syriac Verfion, the copies of 
 it are lefs (^) exaU^ than the Hebrew ttxt of 
 the Jews^ and the Greek Verfion of the 
 Septuagint ; And as to the Remains of the 
 Old Italick^ or Vtdgate Verfion , that was 
 cited in a very {To) inexaU manner by the 
 Fathers, and was a verbal, barbarous, and 
 unintelligible tranflation from the Septuagint 
 by an author, who underftood no Hebrew \ 
 was 'Very different in different countries \ 
 and was correded by Jerom chiefly from 
 the (corrupt) Hebrew: from whence it 
 jliould feem, that the Remains of it, which 
 have been collected, are not much to be de- 
 pended on. But to invalidate both the be- 
 foremention'd and all other antient tranfla- 
 tions \ it is fufficient to obferve, that Mr. W. 
 does not pretend from thence to render per- 
 tinent any citations made from the Old Te- 
 
 .ftam.ent. 
 
 (/; p. 241. 246-, 247, 249. 
 
 ig) ^/»2c??2Hifl:. Crir.du Vieux Teftam.p. 277. 
 (}3) p. 243. 244. 
 
[ ^19 ] 
 
 {lament, which feem at prefent not pertinent, 
 as they ftand in the Old -Teftament. 
 
 4. As to the Samaritan ^Pentateuch 
 (vvhofe autority we have already particular- 
 ly confider'd) and the Greek Tfalms^ as 
 attejhd by the Roman Tfalter -, they can 
 afted very few important citations, and par- 
 ticularly but few of the prophetical citations. 
 And as to the citations they do afieci, it is 
 fufficient to obferve, that the dilierences (/) 
 between the Hebrew Original or the Greek 
 Verfion of the Septuagint, and the New 
 Tejfameut-Citaticns^ are biit few-, except- 
 ing in points of chronology^ throfigh the 
 whole Pentateuch -, and ftill fewer in the 
 Pfalms of David, as they now ftand in the 
 Greeh So that in the Pentateuch we ha-ve 
 commonly the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and 
 the Septuagint j and in the Pfalms, the Sep- 
 tuagint, and the Roman Pfalter, agreeing in 
 their readings. Wherefore, the Sama- 
 ritan Pentateuch^ and Greek Pfalms^ as 
 attefied by the .Roman Pfalter^ cannot re- 
 ftore to us the true text^ which Mr. W. 
 contends for, in any important Apoftolick 
 citations, whereon the truth of chriflianity 
 is grounded. 
 
 5. As 
 
 (/) Whifton, p. 300. 
 
[ 220 ] 
 
 5. As to the Antiquities of Josephusj 
 the (Jz) greateft Liberty is taken therein to 
 recede from the manifeit fenfe of the Old 
 Tellament according to all copies thereof j 
 the Old Teftament is cited in fuch manner, 
 as makes learned men difpute, whether he 
 ufed the Hebrew or Septnagint text, or 
 fometimes one and fometimes the other, or 
 a different tranflation from the Septnagint y 
 they have been (/) accommodated to the 
 Septnagint^ as the Septtiagiiit has been ac- 
 commodated to him j and (w) the chrono- 
 logy has been greatly changed and alter d: 
 fo that it would be difficult to fettle any 
 certain readings of the Old Teffament in 
 virtue of his (7?) Antiquities. And as to 
 the works of Philo, there are but few ci- 
 tations therein out of the Old Teifament; 
 and thofe only out of the Septnagint Ten- 
 tatetichy whereof he had a very {0) incor- 
 reU copy. So that neither Josepkus nor 
 Philo concern the important citations iw 
 
 que- 
 
 ik) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. T. p. 1. i. c. 17. 
 Gregory Tlifc.of the 70 Interpr. p. 32, &c. 
 Wotton'^ Preface to Mifc- Tfifc p. 33, &c. 
 Whifton'^ EJJayy p. 157. 21 6". 218. 299. 
 (/) p. 299. 
 
 (;?z) p. 2t. 28. 195, I9'5', i97- ^op- 
 (it) For the State of Josephus'5 Antiq. fee Fabricii 
 Bibliotheca Grjcca & Huetiana. p. 94. 
 lb. p. 532. 
 (o) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. Teft. p. 98. 
 
[ III ] 
 
 queftion: nor does Mr. \V. (/>) pretend to 
 reft ore a trtte text of the Old Teftament from 
 thefe two Authors, in refped to any impor- 
 tant citations made from the Old in the 
 New Teftament. 
 
 6, As to the Hebrew Copies^ that hace 
 never come into the hands of the M a so- 
 re tes, and the Greek Copies of the Vulgar 
 Septttagint Verfion^ read in Churches all the 
 firii ages of Chriftianity^ or any parts of 
 them; they no where appearing, and being 
 themfelves {q) to be recover d^ cannot, till 
 reccverd^ be of any ufe towards reftoring 
 a true text. They are themfelves to be 
 rejiord^ in order to reft ore a true text. 
 
 7. ksioihQ J poftolical Confti tut ions ^ the 
 Fathers^ and the Hereticks ,• it is futlicient 
 to obferve of them, as I have done of feveral 
 of his former means (without taking notice, 
 after what manner they cite the Old Tefta- 
 ment), that Mr. W. is not able to fettle by 
 their help any Apoftolick quotations in the 
 Old Teftament, fo as to make them perti- 
 nently apply'd, which now feem, according 
 to him, to be impertinently apply'd. And I 
 add, that thefe and all the foregoing means-, 
 will be fo fir from efteding what he pro- 
 pofes, that they will on the contrary ihow, 
 
 that 
 
 C/) Whirton, p. ^30. 2i>r, j(>a. z%^, 
 W P- 335- 
 
[ 222 ] 
 
 that the Apofties cited, and reafon'd from:, 
 the Old Teftament, juil as they now appear, 
 from our prefent view of the Old and New 
 Teftament, to have done. All which muft 
 be unnaccoun table on Mr, W' ' s Hy pot befis : 
 for it cannot be fuppos'd, that if the jews 
 have io greatly corrupted the Old Teftanient 
 as Mr. W. pretends, but it would appear in 
 fome one infknce at leaft, in fome one Copy 
 or Author exhibiting to us what would ju- 
 ftify the pertinency of the application of what 
 now feems impertinent. 
 
 8. The laft means are, making altera- 
 tions by the force of Criticifm ; which, tho' 
 he has omitted among his means^ is by ihe 
 ufe he makes of it, and by the necelTity he 
 has of it, his principal, and, indeed, only 
 means, and will, . if any can, ferve his pur- 
 pofe. For that extends to every quotation 
 made from the Old in the New Teftament, 
 and gives him liberty andfcope to chop and 
 change the whole Old Teftament as he plea- 
 fes. Belldes, the books of the Old Tefta- 
 ment feem to give a juft occaiion for making 
 many alterations, and efpecially to him, as 
 will appear, if we conlider the original con- 
 dition of thofe books, (of whofe method and 
 order the Kahhins (r) had/Z^/i- common max-- 
 
 ilUy 
 
 (r) LightfootsV Works^ Vol. z, p. 666^ 
 
[ ^^3 ] 
 
 m^ that there is no firft and lafi in the 
 Holy Scripture); if we confider the great 
 changes and alterations which from time 
 to time they have receiv'd j if we confider 
 his opinion (x) of the corrupt ftate of thofe 
 books, and efpecially of the books of the 
 Prophets,- which were not only corrupted^ 
 according to him, in common with, the 
 other books of the Old Teftament, before 
 the coming of Christ, but have lince the 
 coming of Christ been corrupted by the 
 Jews with exprefs deiign to . render the 
 quotations made by the Apoflies from thence, 
 feem impertinent j and laftly, if we confi- 
 der his rejeding the {t) Song oj Songs from 
 the Canon^ as an impious, loofe, and obfcene 
 book, which pions {ti) Chriftians in all 
 ages ha've efleetnd an alleg^orical ^Dialogue 
 between God and his Church, And it \s 
 not to be doubted but that his own inclina- 
 tion to admit the m^ofl: precarious Hypothefis, 
 which he thinks neceffary to fupport religi- 
 on, will carry him to great extreams in al- 
 terations with the refped to the whole, as 
 it has done already with refped to fome 
 parts of the Old Teflament. For can 
 there be, for example, a greater liberty 
 taken in making alterations than by the mere 
 
 force 
 
 (s) Whiflon'i 'Boyl LeB. p. <^7, d.nd Bjfciy, &c 
 
 (t^ Snppl.to Ejfay. 
 
 in) Nichols'i Co?:/, Vol. 3. p. 57. 
 
[ ^M ] 
 force of Criticifm^ to ftrike out paffages, 
 which evidently determine the fenfe of pro- 
 pbejies to perfons living in or near the fup- 
 pos'd times of the Prophets, and the applying 
 thofe prophefies to Jesus as the Messias^ or 
 to very remote events from the times when 
 the prophefies were deliver'dj as Mr. W. 
 does in feveral {w) iqftances ? For herein 
 Mr. W. makes prophefies ,• which being mi- 
 racleSj and not things naturally to be fup- 
 pos'd and credited, are at all times liable to 
 jufpicion^ without the beft proofs, that they 
 were really made at the time they were 
 faid to be made. A man may fairly, with 
 many Chriftian Divines, ilrike out the laft 
 chapter in DeiLtronomy-, and fuppofe, that 
 Moses did not write hiftorically of his 
 own death:, and burial:, and of matters 
 which came to pafs long after his death: 
 but to ftrike {x) out a paflfage in Samuel, 
 which limits 2i prophefy to Solomon, and 
 to ftrike out a paffage in Isaiah, which 
 limits a prophefy to a year or two from the 
 time Isaiah deliver'd it, in order to make 
 a prophefy of the Messias in the firft cafe, 
 and a prophefy about tlie birth of Jesus of 
 the Virgin Mary in the latter, is diredly to 
 make prophefies relate to perfons, not only 
 
 not 
 
 (•■w) Boyl. Lea. p. 255. Eflay, p. 229, ^c. 
 (x) Boyl. Left. p. 247, ^V. 2 vSam. 7. 14, ElTayj 
 p. 22<?. Ifaiah 7. 15, 16. 
 
[ "5 ] 
 not thought of, but exchided, according to 
 the literal fenfe of the Prophets, by the Pro- 
 phets themfelves ; which is enthuiiaftical and 
 abfurd to the higheft degree, and criticiling 
 and mending authors by rn/es the moft im- 
 probable, and inconfiftent with all true rules 
 oi criticifmy which fhould lead a man fre- 
 quently to lefTen, but never to multiply, mi- 
 racles. Mr. W. (j) is himfelf of opinion, 
 that the miracles themfelves reported by 
 St. Athanasius in the Life of St, Antho- 
 ny do both denote their own faifhood, and 
 create a fnfpicion of the integrity of St. 
 Athanasius j tho' he relates them partly 
 from St. Anthony himfelf, partly from the 
 atteftation of witneffes, and partly from his 
 own knowledge. 
 
 So that I will venture to fay, that a 'Bihle 
 reftord^ according to Mr. W's Theory ^ will 
 be a mere Whistonian Bible; a Bible 
 confounding, and not containing the true 
 text of the Old Tefiament, 
 
 In fine, Mr. W. {z) tells us himfelf, that. 
 he finds plain indications of the frequent 
 accommodation of the readings in the New 
 Tefiament to thofe of the Septnagint. Which, 
 if true, fcems to render an Effay towards 
 rejioring the true text of the Old Tejiamenty 
 Q. in 
 
 (jjO Whifton'^ Hift. 'Pref. p. 120, 121. 
 (s^) Whiflon'i J::jjay, p. 25»«, 199- 
 
[225] 
 
 in order to indicate the Jpofiolich Citati- 
 ons-i a moft unaccountable work. For by 
 this account, the true or original Apo- 
 ftolick citations are not themfelves alJ 
 known : and if all the prefent citations are 
 plac'd according to Mr. W's mind in the 
 Old Teftament, we fliail not have a true 
 text reftord^ but a text frequently accom- 
 modated to the corrupted text of the Sep- 
 tuagint, introduced into the Old Teftament. 
 And the work of reftoring a true or genuine 
 text of the Old Teftament with refped to 
 the Apoftolick citations from thence, feems 
 a moft impracticable work; when all the 
 copies of the Old Teftament are corrupted 
 with exprefs defign to make thofe citations 
 feem impertinent ; and when the citations 
 themfelves, as ftanding in the New Tefta- 
 ment, have received changes and alterations 
 there. 
 
 X, Typical 
 
[ ^^7 ] 
 
 X. 
 
 Typical or Allegorical reafoning defended 
 againfi Mr, Whist on i wherein is a 
 digre[fion that compares together the 
 allegorical Scheme^ and Mr. WhistonV 
 literal Scheme^ and that proves his lite- 
 ral Scheme falfe and abftird, 
 
 MR. Whiston {a) condemns fo high- 
 ly the typical or allegorical interpre- 
 tations of the Trophejies cited from the Old 
 in the New Teftament^ which yet the pre- 
 fent ftate of the Old Teftament makes ne- 
 cefTary ^ that rather than come into that 
 weak and enthufiafiical method, as he 
 calls it, he runs to the fuppofition of a lofi 
 . text^ of the Old Teftament. 
 H<S *i . But yet he (/>) juftiries typical arguing 
 from the ritual laws of Mosts, and from 
 pafTages of Hifiory in the Oldlieftament^ by 
 the example of St. Paul,- who (being bred 
 up (^) at the feet of Gamaliel, the great 
 C^ 2 Rahhiy 
 
 (a) Whifton'5 Efjfay.p. 92. 
 
 (h) Whifton'5 So)'/. LeB. p. 27. 45- 
 
 U) Jenkin'i- Kea^onab. cfCbr. Relig. Vol. 2. p. 321, 
 
 3' -• 
 
 CuNEus Rep. des Hebr. Vol. 1. 1. 3. c. 8. p. 373 — 
 
 ^'simofi Hift. Grit, du V. Teft. p. 96. 
 
[ "8 ] 
 
 Rabbit by whom he was inftruded in He- 
 brew literature, and by confequence in ail 
 rbe 7nyfteries of the Jewijh Cabala) ap- 
 pears by his writings to be a great proficiesit 
 in T'ypes and Allegories^ and is efteem'd by 
 fome Jews themfeives as a great MehibaX 
 and profoundly fkill'd in the fublime fenfe of 
 the Wble, Indeed, he pretends, {d) this 
 laft to be quite another thing from the 
 odd (typical) application of Trophefies, 
 For^ fays he, the antient ceremonial infii- 
 tutions were^ as to their principal branches 
 at leaft^ in their own nature (e) Types and 
 Shadows of future good things under the 
 Chriftian ^ifpenfation. And fever al re^ 
 marl^able events and hiftories of old time, 
 feem to have been particularly recorded for 
 the fake of fome future truths and difco^ 
 verieSj which were to be drawn from them, 
 ^ut the cafe of the ancient prophefies^, td be 
 alledgdfrcm the old Scriptures for the con- 
 firmation of Chriftianity^ is quite of am- 
 ther nature^ and of a more nice and exaU 
 confi deration. 
 
 But how are thefe things diftercnt ? For 
 are not the ritual laws of Moses, by being 
 'in their own nature types and fliadows of 
 future good things, prophejies ? And are not 
 
 the 
 
 (d) Whiflon, lb. p. 
 (0 Heb. i6.i. 
 
[ "9 ] 
 
 the events and hiftories of old time^ by be- 
 ing recorded for the Jake of fome future 
 truths and difco'ueries^ which were to he 
 drawn from them^ if) prophejies aifo ? 
 And does not our Saviour himfelf fay fo, 
 when he affirms, that the i^g) Law prophe- 
 fieSj and that he came to fulfil the LaWy 
 as well as the ^Prophets ? And do not Mr. 
 \VV prophetical types confirm chriftianity ? 
 And may not typical prophejies confirm it in 
 the fame manner ? 
 
 Mr. W. therefore ought to own, either 
 that our Sa'viour and St« Paul talk'd weakly 
 and enthufiaftically^ when they interpreted 
 the ritual laws of Moses, and the paff ages 
 of hiftory contained in the Old Teflament 
 (which they look'd on as prophefies) typi- 
 cally j or elfe to allow the typical and alle- 
 gorical method of interpreting the pajjages 
 cited in the New Teftament from the Pro- 
 phets (which he now calls weak and enthic- 
 Jiajiical) to be excellent and divine. Be- 
 iides, as to ftrength of argument ; what is 
 the differenc3 between an allegorical inter- 
 pretation of a prophefy, and an allegorical 
 interpretatio i of a Law or paffage of hi^ 
 ftory ? Is not there as much force in the 
 allegorical interpretation of any prophefy, 
 0.3 as 
 
 (f) See Juftini Martyris Opera, p. 16 1.] 
 
 (g) Matt. II. 13. 
 
■ [ ?30 ] 
 
 as there is in the two following typical ar^ 
 guments in the Jpojt click Conjtitiitions^ 
 which Mr. W. deems the moft [acred of the 
 canonical hooks of the New Teftament ? (h) 
 T'ythes belong to thcfe who minifter to 
 Christ, hecaufe Tenths of Sahation are 
 the firft letter of the name of Jesus, i. e. I, 
 Iota. — Hear^ O thou Holy Catholick 
 Churchy who haft recelvd the Ten Com- 
 mandments^ and haft efcapd the Ten 
 Tlaf^ues. Ergo, pay Tythes to the Prieft.— ^ 
 (?) Let a widow who is the Altar of God 
 fa at home: for the Altar of God never runs 
 about ^ hut is fix d in one place. 
 
 Why cannot Mr. W. as well allow of the 
 force of t)^pical interpretations of prophefies as 
 of the typical arguments of St. Barnabas^ 
 who is one of his canonical authors ? Barn a- 
 BAs's Epiftle is wholly made up of typical 
 reafoning; of which take this one Specimen. 
 " {k) I'he Scripture fays, that Abraham 
 circumcisd three hundred cmd eighteen 
 men of his houfe. But w^hat therefore 
 was the myftery that was made known 
 unto him ? Mark firft the Eighteen, and 
 next the Three Hundred. For the nu- 
 meral letters of Ten and Eizht^ are I. H. 
 t " " And 
 
 (h) Afoftol.ConJiit. 1. 2. c. 25. 
 
 (/■) lb. 1. 3. c. 6. 
 
 (k) Wake'i Gemi'im Efiflles, ^c. p. 175, lytf. 
 
cc 
 cc 
 
 cc c 
 cc 
 cc 
 
 [ ^31 3 
 
 And thofe denote Jesus. And becaufe 
 the Crofs was that by wiiich we were to 
 find grace j therefore he adds, T/jree Imn- 
 dredy the note of which is T {the figure 
 of his Crofs). Wherefore by two letters 
 " he figniiy'd Jesus, and by the third his 
 " Crofs. He who has put the engrafted 
 " gift of his dodrine within us, knows that 
 '' I never taught to any one a more certain 
 " truth." And accordingly this argument 
 was deem'd of fo much v/eight, that our 
 learned Archbifhop tells us, in a note, that 
 (/) many others of the ant tent fathers con^ 
 ciirrd'with Barnabas /> this i and he -re- 
 fers us to authors for proof thereof. 
 
 In fine, is there not as much force in ty- 
 pical prophefies as in the typical arguments 
 of Sx, Clement, another of Mr. W's ca- 
 nonical authors? To lay nothing here of 
 St. Clemen tV Hiftory of the Pn'Emx, which 
 he (m) makes a Type of the KefhrreUion^ I 
 defire Mr. W. attentively to confider the fol- 
 lowing paflage. 
 
 " {n) The Spyes gave Rahab moreover 
 
 " a Sign i that ilie ihould hang out of her 
 
 " houfe a {o) Scarlet Rope : fliewing there- 
 
 " by, that by the blood of our Lord there 
 
 (i 4 " fhould 
 
 (/) p. 175. 
 (wj lb. p. 21. 
 («} lb. p. 10. II. 
 {0) Jofh, 2.18, 
 
cc 
 
 [ ^3^ ] 
 
 fliould be redemption to all that believe 
 " and hope in God. Ye fee, beloved, how 
 " .there was not only faith, but Prophesy 
 '^ too in this woman." Which words con- 
 tain not only a typical argument for chrifti- 
 anity, (which was deem'd fo ftrong as to be 
 ip) apply d by many of the Fathers to the 
 fame purpofe)^ but affert RAHABtomake a 
 prophefy in hanging out the Scarlet Rope. 
 From whence it appears, that l^vpes are !Prc- 
 fhefies^ and that the diftinction Mr. W. 
 would make between them, is groundlefs 
 and falfe. 
 
 ■2. Mr. W. (^) fays, Jerom was one of 
 the firft Chriftian writers now extant^ that 
 ever ga've fuch firange interpretations of 
 thefe antient prophefies. 
 
 I find (r) indeed Jerom reprefented as 
 thinkings that the paffages of the Old Te- 
 flament were quoted, tifq\ deq\ in the New 
 Te (lament. Upon which account he was 
 neceffarily driven into the allegorical Hypo- 
 thejes. But yet, he feems to me, to have 
 adted like all others before him, and not to 
 have been one of the firft Chriftian writers^ 
 new extant^ who ga^'e allegorical inter- 
 pre- 
 
 ts f) WaJce, lb. p. II. 
 
 (q) Whjiion'5 l^jfay^ p. 91, «?2. 
 
 ir) Surenbufi't Prefat. ad Concil. p. 4. 
 
 |b. Concil. p. 177, 
 
[^33] 
 
 pretations of the prophejies cited in the New 
 Teftament. 
 
 [i.] Firfl, it is notorious^ and has been 
 made (j) appear by others, and is confefs'd 
 by Mr. W. himfeif, that the Jpoftles and 
 primitive Fathers interpreted the ritual ce" 
 remonies of the Law^ and the hiftorical 
 paffages of the Old Teftament, typically : 
 which, as appear'd juft now, is interpreting 
 prophejies in that manner. As to the com- 
 mentaries of the Fathers on, and their inter- 
 pretations of, the Old Teftament, they are 
 fo wholly allegorical, that it would be diffi- 
 cult to find many paftages, not fo inter- 
 preted, if interpreted at all by them. They 
 were no Criticks, and defpis'd the literal 
 fenfe of the Old Teftament as low and mean, 
 and imploy'd their invention to find out fu- 
 blime fenfes thereof. 
 
 [2.] Secondly, Mr. W. {t) fays, that the 
 Apoftles themfelves do fo feem to have cited 
 and apply d the prophejies they take from 
 the Old Teftament, that if you confider them 
 as taken from the prefent Old Teftament, it 
 is ill a manner impojfible to expound or apo- 
 logize for thofe applications of the Old Tro^ 
 
 phefies 
 
 (s) Platonifme Devoile. p. 1^2—197. 
 Simon Hift. Crit. du V. Teft. p. 5)7. 
 WhiftonVXe(^. p. 27. 
 
 W^'ke's prelim, to Genninc Epift. p. 71 — 75, 
 (t) Whiilon'i EJJ}>yy p. 92. 
 
[ ^34 ] 
 
 phejtes tifon any other foundation^ than by 
 the faid typical, myftical, fecundary, or al- 
 legorical way of application ^ and that {u) 
 the antient predictions concermng the Mes- 
 siAS and his character^ tho' of fo great 
 importance to he eafily iinderftood^ are (ori- 
 ginally) fome of them fo ohfure and doubt- 
 ful in their defignation of perfons^ or in 
 their exprejjions-j and others of them fo hid- 
 den in unfzii table places j and introduced 
 upon very remote occaftons^ in a word {w) 
 framd on pttrpofe to be long conceal' d^ as 
 to haz'e given a handle to the introdudion 
 of the allegorical Hypothefis, Which two 
 confiderations make it feem a very difficult 
 matter to lay afide the allegorical Scheme y 
 and not to admit it as the Scheme by which 
 the Apoftles themfelves proceeded. For, if 
 the prefent ftate of the Old and New Tefta- 
 ment, in refped to the quotations made from 
 the former in the latter, does admit of no 
 other Scheme to juftify their application but 
 the allegorical Scheme ^ and, if the original 
 ftate of the antient predidions w^as fuch, 
 that they were obfcure and dotibtful in their 
 defignation of perfons (that is, that they 
 feem'd as applicable or more applicable to 
 others, than to the Messias), or hidden in 
 
 un- 
 
 {it) lb. Boyl. LeB. p. 58. 
 fw) lb. p. 15. 
 
[ 235 ] 
 
 mtfnitahle places and introdticd upon re- 
 mote occajions (that is^ that by their context 
 they feem'd not to bear the fenfe put upon 
 them by the Apoftles) and thereby ^^^'? a 
 handle for the allegorical Scheme : what is 
 fo natural, as to fuppofe, from the faid pre- 
 fent and original Itate, the allegorical Scheme 
 to be the Scheme by which the Apoftles 
 made application of the prophefies they cited 
 from the Old Teftament ? 
 
 But Mr. W. himfelf feems to meb y many 
 particulars, which he advances, to give up his 
 own literal or rational Scheme^ and to lay 
 a juft foundation for us to fuppofe, that the 
 Apoftles proceeded on ih^ allegorical Scheme. 
 
 He fays, (:«) Scarce ^;;j; of the quotations 
 in the E'vangelifts are taken out of thofe 
 prophefies^ 'which by evident circiimfiances 
 belong to any other perfon^ hut the Mejftas. 
 W hereby he owns, or, at leaft diftrufts, that 
 fome of the quotations in the Evang/lifis 
 are taken out of prophefies ^ which by evi- 
 dent circumfiances belong to fome other 
 perfons^ than the Messias. And confe- 
 quently, he muft fuppofe thofe quotations 
 out of the prophefies to be typically apply'd j 
 the very nature of typical application lying, 
 in applying palGTages, which, in their literal 
 
 - and 
 
 Cr) lb. p. 45. 
 
[ ^30 
 
 and obvious fenfe^ belong to one perfon, to 
 another. 
 
 Again he fays, (y) Much tbe great eft 
 part oftbofe prophejies^ which are alledgd 
 by the E^vangelijis are plainly and certain- 
 /v meant of the Messias. Which implies, 
 that fojne of the quotations alledgd by the 
 JEj<vange lifts are not plainly and certainly 
 meant of the Messias; and, by confequence, 
 that they are, or may be, typically apply 'd by 
 the Evangeiifts. 
 
 He fays, that feveral {z) of the quotati- 
 ons taken out of the Old Teftament by the 
 Evangeiifts, do letter and more literally 
 agree tv the Messias than to thofe of whom 
 they are ordinarily expounded^ and hace 
 COMMONLY Jome one or more charaUers^ 
 which will agree to no others hut him. 
 Which is a confclfion againlt himfelf, and in 
 favour of the allegorical Scheme, For if 
 the prophelies cited ag^ree to others, tho* 
 not fo well nor fo literally^ as to the Mes- 
 sias, and have not always fome character, 
 which will agree to none but him; then 
 thofe prophefies do agree to others, and can, 
 with certainty, be only urg'd typically. 
 
 He fays, there are {d) quotations which 
 dofeem by the coherence of their places in 
 
 the 
 
 Cy) lb. p. 48. 
 (->; lb. p. 49. 
 (a) lb. p. 5 1™ 54. 
 
[^37] 
 
 the • old Teftament to heloitg to others 
 than the Messias j nay, are contrary to the 
 coherence y wherein they appear there. 
 AVhich fliould make thofe quotations feem 
 allegorically apply 'd, as being apply 'd in a 
 fenfe not only feemingly different from, but 
 contrary to that fenfe they bear in the Old 
 Teftament. For, as the Apoftles could be 
 guilty of no miftakes, and could not intend 
 to apply thofe quotations literally^ and yet 
 apply them in a fenfe contrary to their lite- 
 ral meaning, that is, could not miftake their 
 literal meaning in the application of them, 
 fo, by not applying them in their true literal 
 fenfe, but in a fenfe contrary to that, they 
 muft, by confequence, intend to apply them 
 in an allegorical fenfe. 
 
 He feems to allow St. Paul argu'd typi- 
 cally from the Scriptttre-Trophefies in thefe 
 words. (Z») / do not^ fays he, tmdertake 
 to account for all the quotations of St. Paul, 
 out of the Old Teftament in his Epiftles^ 
 (that is^ he does not undertake to iliow, 
 that they are literally apply'd) ; not only 
 hecaufe his ftyle is peculiar:, and he toge- 
 ther with his Felkw-Worker St. Barnabas 
 didy more than all the reft of the Jpoftlesy 
 make tije of allegorical notions and inter- 
 pretations:, then ownd among the Jews; 
 
 hut 
 
 (h) p. 43- 
 
• [ 238 ] 
 
 Int alfo hecaufe few or none of his quota" 
 tions of this nature are taken from the 
 Scripture-Propheiies, but generally either 
 from the hiftories or ceremonies contain d in 
 the Old Teftament. For if fome few of his 
 quotations are taken from Scripture-prophe- 
 fies, and if his quotations are, but generally^ 
 or for the moft part, taken from the hifio- 
 ries and ceremonies recorded in the Old 
 Teftament, the point is yielded with refped 
 to St. Paul. 
 
 Mr. W. is reduc'd to great (c) iliifts by 
 his literal or rational Scherne. Not being 
 able to reconcile the {d) application made 
 by St. Matthew, of a quotation out of Je- 
 remy ((?) in relation to the {laughter of the 
 children in "Bethlehem^ by his Scheme,- he 
 •denies that quotation to he a prophefy (tho* 
 St. Matthew cites the words of Jeremy 
 as fulfill' d'y which is the very term he ufes 
 in relation to all the prophefies cited by him) 
 alledging, that it is a Toetick T)efcription 
 or Lamentation fulfiltd or 'verify d. Which 
 is, at the bottom actually running into the 
 allegorical or typical Hypotheiis, that he 
 pretends to avoid and to dread. For what 
 is a Toetick ^efcription fulfiltd^ but a Ty- 
 pical 
 
 (c) lb. p. 5 5, 5(?. 
 id) Matt. 2. 17, 18. 
 (e) Jer.31. 15. 
 
C 259 ] 
 
 pical Prophefy fulfilfd? And why does he 
 call the quotation in queftion a Toetick 2)(?- 
 Jcriptio7ii but becaufe it is a moft manifeft 
 defcription of another la^t, and not of that 
 £i<5t, for which it w^as cited ; wherein con- 
 fifts the very nature of an allegorical quo- 
 tation ? The quotations made from the Old 
 Teftament and faid to be fulfilfd in the 
 New, had fome of them, perhaps, no mean- 
 ing in the minds of the Prophets, who fome- 
 times ( /) tinder flood not what they ineant 
 themfehes : and ail the quotations, as far 
 as we can underftand them, feem to have 
 as remote a Jejife given them from the Pro- 
 phets words, as the quotation in queftion ; 
 which Z?;;/^, would have had no founda- 
 tion had not the infpir'd Apoftles put that 
 fenfe upon them ^ nay, many of thofe quo- 
 tations would feem not to be prophefies^ did 
 not the Apoftles fay, they w^ere fiilfilfd or 
 prophefies ftdfilfd. This being the cafe of 
 the quotations made by the Apoftles, they 
 are faid by the learned to be typically or 
 allegorically apply'd by them. Now this 
 is alfo the cafe of the quotation, which 
 Mr. W. calls a Toetick T>efcriptiou fulfdPd. 
 It confifts of words, which as they ftand in 
 Jeremy, bear a diiferent literal fenfe from 
 
 that 
 
 (f) lb. p. 78. 
 
 l^ichoWsConf, nsoitha Theift Vol. 3. p. 69. 
 
[ 240 ] 
 
 that for which they are cited, and are there 
 apply'd to another matter and would not 
 be deem'd to (ignify that for which they 
 are cited, nor even deem'd a prophefy, did 
 not the Apoftle fay, they v^erQ fulfill'' d. Mr. 
 W. therefore plainly has recourfe to the alle- 
 gorical Hypothefis in this one cafe. And 
 imce he admits it in one cafe, he may as 
 well admit it in all cafes. For if it be a 
 weak and enthufiaftick hypothefis, as he 
 affirms, it is an equal imputation on the Apo- 
 ftles to make them once argue weakly and 
 enthifiafiically^ as to make them always ar- 
 gue fo. And if it be a good method of arguing, 
 as he muft allow it to be in this inftance, it 
 is a good one in all cafes. 
 
 He is reduc'd to the {g)Jhift of denying a 
 quotation made by our Saviour himfelf to be 
 taken from a place, whence it is manifeftly 
 taken. To whieh he is merely driven, by 
 the faid quotation s manifeftly belonging to 
 another matter in its literal fenfe, in the 
 place where it ftands in the Old Teftament, 
 than that for which it is cited. Our Saviour's 
 quotation {h) in thefe words (7 [peak not of 
 you all\ I know whom I ha've chofen : ^But 
 that the Scripture may he fulfiirdj " He 
 
 that eateth bread with me hath lift up 
 
 his 
 
 Cg) Ib.p.5(f. 
 (h) John i3,iS. 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
cc 
 
 [ MI ] 
 
 his heel againil me" ) is plainly taken 
 from Tfalm 41.9. where the words are, 
 ^he man of my peace^ which eateth my 
 hread^ hath lift up his heel againfi me. 
 But Mr. W. feiifible that that Pfalm does 
 not in its literal fenfe belong to the Messtas, 
 does, to fave his Hypothefis^ and for fear 
 of having recourfe to the allegorical Hypo- 
 thefis for a folution of our Saviour's applica- 
 tion of the paffage cited by him, believe it 
 taken from another place j which place no 
 one ever found out before him, and plainly 
 cannot be intended by Jesus, and only 
 ferves to furniili matter for wrangling. 
 
 But Mr. W. himfelf fecms to me diredly 
 to fet up the allegorical HypotheJtSj and to 
 make it ufed univerfally by the Apoftles. 
 He contends {k) the prophefies of Scripture^ 
 which relate to chrifiianity^ are co^jerd^ 
 myftical _ and enigmatical. Thus in the 
 prophefy of HosEAH (/) referred to and cited 
 by Matthew, " When Ifrael was a Child, 
 " I loved him, and called my Son out of 
 " Egypt, " he underilands without any 
 grounds from language, Israel^ to be a 
 prophetick name of Christ (tho that lan- 
 guage is with him fo incertain, that he has 
 
 R fmce 
 
 (i) Whifton'i Ze(5?. p. 5 7, 58. 
 (k) Ih.p. 7. 9. II, xa. 
 C/} Jlofea II. I. 
 
[ ^4^ ] 
 
 fince changed his mind, and by (m) Ifraet 
 in this place does not now underftand Christ, 
 but the IfraeHtes\ and literally (that is, as 
 he owns himfeif, coTcrtly^ mvjiically-, and 
 enigmatically) to (ignify him. What then 
 is the difference between him,, and his weak 
 and enthttfiaftical adverfaries ? They fay, 
 that Israel lignihes, firft, literally in Ho- 
 SEAH the children of Ifrael^ and then typi- 
 cally {ignifies Christ, grounding this laft on 
 Matthew, who puts that typical, myftical, 
 ,or fecundary meaning upon it. And Mr. W. 
 fays, the Prophet m.eant by Israel, Christ 
 only : which is exactly equal myfticifm with, 
 ■and juft as remote from the real literal 
 fenfe of Hoseah as the myfticifm of, the 
 Ailegorifis^ and is altogether as obfcure to 
 the underftanding. And I do not fee, why 
 Mr. W. may not as well fuppofe two mean- 
 ings, the one literal and the other allegori- 
 cal or myflicdli as to lay afide the trfie 
 literal meanings and yet contend for the 
 fame (myftical) meaning with his adverfa- 
 ries, under the notion of that myftical mean^ 
 ing being the literal meaning^* ' Certainly 
 he would be lefs abfurd, if he contended at 
 the fame time for the true literal, meaning 
 together with his myftical- literal mean- 
 ing. 
 
 (m) WhiilonV JBfaf, ^c. p. 88, S<ff . 
 
[ 245 ] 
 
 Thus again Mr. W. underflands the fa- 
 mous paflage {n) in Genefis^ {The Lord 
 God [aid unto the Serpent^ hecaiife thou 
 haft done this thou art curfed aho^'e all 
 cattle^ and above ecery heaft of the field i 
 tifon fhy 'belly JJoalt thou go^ and duft jhalt 
 thou eat all the days of thy life . and I will 
 put enmity between thy jeed and her feed; 
 he Jhall briiife thy head and thou, Jhalt 
 bruife. his heel) to be all {o) 'Prophet ick 
 'DiakU:, and that the Serpent in that dia- 
 led fignifies the l^eml^ and the feed oj wo- 
 ^?}7a?!j Chjiist; tho' no words can more 
 -plainly exprefs, nor any context more evi- 
 .dently prove, that Serpent^ ^gnifies a real 
 Serpent, a beaft of the fields and that the 
 feed of the woman fignifies the defcendants 
 .of Eve y and fome Theologues {p) them- 
 felves confefs, they would not chtife this 
 prophefy to con'vert an Infidel, 
 
 So that it is plain Mr. W. is as great a 
 typift, myftift, or allegorift, as his adverfa- 
 ries i and he muft make the Apoftles fuch 
 as himfelf. 
 
 R 2 And 
 
 (?2J Gen. 3. 14. 15. 
 
 Co) Whifton'i Le6i. p. 35.82—93. 
 
 Sec Grotius & Clericus in Locumv 
 
 Blackmore'5 Redemption, p. 6z. 
 
 Spencer Dc leg. Heb. p. 181. 
 
 (/) NicholsV Coi2f "jcitle a I'heifi. Vol. 3. p. 34' 
 
[ M4 ] 
 
 (^) And I add, that if the Allegorijis 
 Scheme be weak and enthufiaftical^ his 
 fcheme is yet more fo, by receiving the 
 'Weak and enthujiajiical part of their fcheme 
 and rejedling the rational "^^rt. 
 
 The AUegorifis do in the firft place, en- 
 deavour to tind out the true literal fenfe of 
 the Prophets, in the fame manner that good 
 criticks do with refped to all other authors , 
 which certainly is a method highly rational 
 in itfelf. When they have done this, if they 
 find quotations of the Prophets apply'd by 
 the Apoftles in another fenfe, or not accord- 
 ing to the literal fenfe which they bear in 
 the Prophets themfelves, they put that fenfe 
 alfo upon them^ in which the Apoftles ap- 
 ply'd them. Thus they a6t the part of good 
 interpreters with refped to the Old Pro- 
 phets themfelves, and with refped to the 
 Apoftles, and to the Holy Ghoft, whofe 
 fenfe of the Prophets the Apoftles declar'd. 
 This is the method of the great Grotiusj 
 w^hofe commentaries on the Bible will ever 
 be efteem'd by all thofe who delire truly to 
 underftand itj notwithftanding the imputa- 
 tion of fome upon him, that he could nei- 
 ther find the Messias in the Old l^eftamenty 
 nor the Tope in the New* But the Anti- 
 allcgorifts rejc<5ting the method of Grotius, 
 
 of 
 
 (q) A T)igreJJion c.gainjt Mr, W'^' Literal Scheme, 
 
[ 245 1 
 
 of a critical examination of the writings 
 of the Prophets by the common ufe of lan- 
 guage, and fuppofmg the Prophets to ufe 
 common words in^a peculiar and enigmatical 
 fenfe, and moft remote from vulgar accepta- 
 tion, and making that remote-enigmatical 
 fenfe to be the literal fenfe, are guilty of the 
 higheft abfurdity imaginable. For they not 
 only put a fenfe upon the Prophets words, 
 which is remote from the literal fenfe (where- 
 in they fo far concur with the allegorifls) ; 
 but proceeding by rules contrary to all ufe 
 of language and to common fenfe, they 
 put a fenfe upon the words fubverfive of the 
 true literal fenfe; whereby properly fpeak- 
 ing they are no interpreters at all, or rather 
 worfe than none, being mere indulgers of 
 fancy. And there has never been a typift, 
 mylHft, or allegorift (no, not Burma n or 
 Altinc, or Allix, or the great Cocceius 
 himfelf, all celebrated for putting remote 
 allegorical fenfes on the Old Teftament) that 
 have exceeded Mr. W. in extravagancy : 
 who, for example, finds (r) the T)eJiniUion 
 of Jerufalem by the Komans in the four firft 
 verfos of the 29th of Isaiah,- the {s) Hie- 
 finiUion of the Tttrksat Armageddon in the 
 
 R 3 four 
 
 (r") W'/jiJlon's Eflay en the Revelationf?, p. 303. 312. 
 0) lb. p. 351.553. 
 
[ m5 ] 
 
 four next verfes j the fame {t) lyeflmUjon 
 oj 'Jenifalem by the ^omans^ in the firft 
 20 verfes of the 24th chapter; the {ti) re- 
 fi or at ion of the Jews to their own country^ 
 in the 23d verfe of that chapter; and, what 
 is ft ill more extravagant, the {w) T>efiriiUi-- 
 on of the Tnrks^ O'C. in verfes 17 — 25 of 
 the fame chapter, whereby the fame verfes 
 have, according to him, at the fame time 
 feveral remote-abfurd -pretended-literal mean- 
 iilgs : tho' Isaiah's view and intention in all 
 thefe places have no obfcurity or difficulty 
 in them, and do moft plainly relate to the 
 great ravage the Aifyrian army lliould make 
 in yttdceaj and of the deftrudion of that 
 army. And Mr. W. to fupport this Hypo- 
 thefis of fuch remote - literal meaning, is 
 forc'd to reprefent the Prophets, as the moft 
 incoherent and (<x?) abrupt writers imagina- 
 ble, and to break their feveral books,, whofe 
 parts are conneded and depend on each other, 
 into independent prophefies: fordid he con- 
 fider them as authors having the leaft con- 
 nexion in their writings, that connexion 
 would limit their fenfe to fome very obvious 
 
 matter. 
 
 (t) lb. p. 503. 5 10. 
 
 iu) p. 322. 325. 
 
 (w) p. 3dr, 3^2. 
 
 (x) Wliifton'^ Le5i. p. cry. Ses alfo his ColkBion of 
 Scripure-^rophefies at the end of his Ejfay on the Re- 
 vshtion. 
 
[ ^47 ] 
 
 matter, and take away all colour for fiich 
 increafe of prophefies, and for the chimerical 
 meanings he puts upon thofe his fictitious pro- 
 phefies. . 
 
 He endeavours {y) to fupport his Hypo- 
 theiis by faying, If the propbefies are al- 
 low d to have more than one epent in view 
 at the fame time^ we can never he fatif- 
 fled J hut they have as many as any vifi^ 
 onary pleafes i and fo inftead of hein^ ca- 
 pahle of a direU and plain expofition to 
 the jatisfaUion of the judicious^ will he 
 lyahle to the foolijh application of fanciful 
 and enthufiafiick men. As if his method, 
 which, as has appeared, fubjedls the prophe- 
 (les to the very fame kind of chimerical 
 meanings, and often to the very fame mean- 
 ings with the allegorifts, was lefs abfurd, 
 becaufe every fmgle vifionary can have but 
 one fuch chimerical meaning at a time, or 
 exercife but one {z) extravagant liherty of 
 fancy or of interpretation. As to his fay- 
 ing? (<^) ^^^^ ^f ^^i^ doiihle intention in 
 prophefies he allow d hy us Chrijfiansy we 
 lofe all the real advantages as to the proof 
 of our common chrijiianity; and, hejldesy 
 expofe ourfelves to the infults of Jews and 
 R 4 . Infidels 
 
 Cjy; Whifton'; LeSi. p. 1 5. 
 
 iz) lb. EJfay on the Revelation^ p. 24- 
 
 (a) lb. Le^ureSy p. i(i. 
 
[ 248 ] 
 
 Infidels in our difcoiirfes with them : I an- 
 fwer, how can he hope lefs to expofe him- 
 felf to Jews and Infidels than the all ego- 
 rifis^ by putting the fame remote meaning 
 on the prophefies with them under t^e notion 
 of that remote meaning being the literal 
 meaning ? Will not^ nay muft not the Jews 
 and Infidels fee each of their meanings to 
 be equally remote from the true literal mean- 
 ing, by what ever names their meaning is 
 cali'd ? And, by confequence, muft they not 
 reject with equal contempt the enigmatical- 
 literal meaning of Mr. \V. as well as the 
 allegorical meaning of others ? And will not 
 they in a particular manner infult, when they 
 find him (fi) changing and altering the Holy 
 "Bihle^ according to his pleafure, in order to 
 avoid the fcheme of a double fenfe of p'O- 
 phefiies^ and to introduce his own coiefd 
 wyftical^ enigmatical-literal Scheme. 
 
 I know he pretends inbehalf of his7r^^;;2f ; 
 that there is a peculiar (r) frophetich lan- 
 guage j and that the words of the Prophets, 
 tho' not underllood according to their com- 
 mon fenfe or in the fame fenfe as in any other 
 difceurfes, have yet a fingle, fix'd, and de- 
 terminate fignification. And he and others 
 
 fup- 
 
 (y) mux's Rem. on Whiflon's Papers, p. 7. 
 (c) Whifton's Boyl. Led:, and EfTay on the Revel; 
 |ion of St. John. 
 
[ M9 ] 
 
 fuppofe, that they have in divers refpeds 
 found out the certain rules of that language j 
 in virtue of which they pretend to be no 
 lefs pofltive in their interpretations of cer- 
 tain prophefies, than if they were hiftorical 
 palTages, wherein words are ufed in their 
 common fenfe. And it muft be confefs'd, 
 that many prophefies explain'd and apply 'd, 
 according to thofe ntles^ to certain paft 
 events, have fuch an agreement to thofe 
 eventSj as to occafion many to think thofe 
 prophefies rightly explained, and even to {d) 
 excufe fome difagreement between the pro- 
 phejies and the e'vents^ as a defed only in 
 the explainers. 
 
 But fuch agreement ought to carry no real 
 convidion along with it. For the reafon of 
 fuch agreement is plainly this, that the explai- 
 ners have had both the prophefies and events 
 lying for a long time before them, with a 
 view to make them accord. In confequence 
 whereof, they have, by mending and piecing 
 of fyftems, and varying and changing ideas 
 to words, found out the moft plaufible mean- 
 ings poffible for certain words in the prophe- 
 fies, in order to apply thofe prophefies to 
 the events they would have to be intended 
 in them. For nothing is eafier than for art- 
 ful and learned men to make accommoda- 
 tions, 
 
 (d) NicholsV Conf.wirh a Theifi. Vol. 3. p. 107. 
 
[ 2$0] 
 
 tions, in this cafe, between things, to a cer- 
 tain degree. But perfed accommodations 
 feem impoflible : and accordingly, no expli- 
 cations grounded on the before-mention'd 
 pretended rf^/^j, of any prophefies exifting 
 before the events and referred to paft events, 
 will perfedly agree to thofe events (tho' the 
 pretended peculiarity of the language gives 
 the explainers the utmoft latitude to allign- 
 what ideas they pleafe to words) ; as (for an 
 example) may be feen by the feverai expli- 
 cations invented in relation to Daniels 
 Weeks, or any other fuch prophefies. For 
 as to Dakiel'j" /T^^Z^j-j let them underfland 
 by Weeks, weeks of years (tho* there be no 
 (^) foundation in the Old Teftament for fuch 
 ufe of the word) or what other portion of 
 time they think fit ; let them underftand by 
 a year, the Jewifh or Chaldean, a lunar or 
 folar year, or a myftical year (which, it 
 feems, confifts (/) of 343 ciays-^ let them 
 begin the Weeks in the reign of Cyrus, or 
 Darius, or Xerxes, or in the feventh or 
 twentieth of Artaxerxes Longimanus, or 
 when Daniel had his vifion (for the (g) 
 going forth of the commandment to Uifld 
 and reftore Jeriifalem, which is fuppos'd to 
 
 fix 
 
 {e) Le Clerc Bibl. Chois. torn. 15. p. 201. 
 
 (f) Crenii Fafcic. primus, p. 4c5. 
 
 (g) Dan. 9. 25, 
 
[mi ] 
 
 fix the time when the Weeks begin, is thus 
 varioufly underftood); let them fix the time 
 of Jesus's birth, or beginning to preach, or 
 death, when they pleafe (for very different 
 years are alTign'd for each of thefe); and let 
 them allign the time of the expiration of the 
 70 Weeks J which is very varioufly fix'd^ 
 when they pleafe ; yet cannot this prophefy 
 be made to fquare to the event they would 
 refer it, and it will after all be fubjed to 
 great {h) difficulties, Biiliop Mount ague, 
 after having finifh'd his explication of this 
 prophefy, (/) fays, that Trophejies are ac- 
 company d with extenfions^ not eiwr precije- 
 ly at, or upon, hit about fuch a time^ to he 
 accompliflo d \ and therefore they are not 
 to he fireightend to an hour^ a day^ a 
 months or certain fet period punUtially^ 
 hut left unto a latitude or extent. The 
 learned {Jz) Isaac Vossius fays. Nulla 
 Chronologic pars 'vexatior eft:, ac illa^ qua 
 agit de 'JO hehdomadihus Danielis. Jb 
 Jpoftolicis temporihus ad mfiramufq-y teta- 
 tern labor a'vere in hoc argument complures^ 
 Viri fanUi & eruditi, Sed fi tifquamy 
 certe hie vanus dx irritus fuit ipfonnn la- 
 bor. Teccai'ere tarn in principio quam Ji-' 
 
 ne 
 
 (b) Prideaux'i- Cmnection^ Vol. i. p. 'i,o6. 
 
 {ij Mountague'j Jets aiid Mommetits. ^. 149. 
 
 (k) VoJJii de Sept. Interp. &c. p. 183. 
 
[ ^y^ ] 
 
 ne hehdomadihiis iftis adfignando^ adeoq^ 
 £1 fe inmcem longe ahwere^ ut fi quis 
 difcrepantes eorum emhat fententiaSi fa- 
 cile intelUgat^ iihi tanta eft contention ihi 
 vel imllani 'vel incertam effe 'veritatem^ Dr. 
 Nichols, in his (J) elaborate work againft 
 the *Deiflsn fays in relation to this prophefy 
 of Daniel, T^he wife providence of God 
 hath ftifferd thefe matters to lye in fome 
 manner of confujion^ that our faith might 
 lie founded on a nobler principle than that 
 cf chronological niceties^ And the ingeni- 
 ous and learned Sir John Floyer, one of 
 the lateft explainers of this prophefy, fays, 
 (m) T^hat the Holy Spirit feems always 
 to defign a i^arieiy cf computation in most 
 prophefies^ that the completion might not he 
 exaUly known j and the defign of the com- 
 putations is only to point out the age when 
 the great events are to happen-^ and begin 
 or end. 
 
 But the agreements beforemention d, be- 
 tween explications and events being of- 
 ten fuch as greatly afted men, who are 
 willing and forward to believe certain pro- 
 phefies rightly explain d, I will make a fur- 
 ther obfervation ; which will in my opinion 
 confound this fcheme o^ literal-myfiical pro- 
 phefy 
 
 (I) Nichols'5 Co7tf. with a 'Theifi- Vol. 3. p. 107. 
 Qn) Floyer'j Tro^hejies of Efdras^ ^c. p. 139. 
 
[m5] 
 
 phefy founded on the pretended intelligibility 
 of prophetick language as a peculiar Ian- 
 guage; and that is as follows. If Mr. 
 Whiston^ and others, have, as they pre- 
 tend, found out the rtiles of the prophetick 
 language of the 'Bihle^ they muft be as able 
 to explain, in virtue of thofe riiles^ the pro- 
 phefies therein contain'd, which relate to 
 events to come, as thofe which relate to 
 events that are paft. For if the language 
 be fix'd and certain, there can be no 
 more difficulty in underflanding the former 
 than the latter. But there have been no ex- 
 plainers of the Re'velation of St. John (for 
 example) but are at endlefs and at the 
 greatelt contradi(5tions with each other a- 
 bout the trumpets^ the feals^ the lials^ and 
 the ijohite horfe^ &c. and time has and 
 daily does difcover their egregious miftakes 
 (not excepting the miftakes of Mr. Whis- 
 TON himfelf, who has liv'd Long enough to 
 fee himfelf miftaken in fome of the prophe- 
 tick language of the Revelation) in ex- 
 plaining the fiiid book, which has been ap- 
 ply'd to all ages of the church, as ha- 
 ving a view to the feveral herefies, fchifms, 
 battles, and revolutions, which have hap- 
 pen'd. 
 
 This fcheme of a prophetick language^ 
 therefore, being not yet underftood by any 
 mortal, fhould be wholly laid afide; and 
 by confetiuence a literal prophefy in Mr. 
 
 Whis- 
 
c ^54 i 
 
 Whis ton's fenfe is a mere chimera^ that 
 ■never exifted, but in the explainer's brain. 
 
 [3.] Thirdly, the allegorical method of 
 -explaining and applying prophefies fhould 
 feera very proper for the Apoftles i who 
 were Jews; and who were ufed not only 
 -to the parabolical and myftical difcourfes of 
 our Saviour (many of which are fuppos'd 
 *to 'have been common (7^) among the Jevt^'s 
 :and are now to be found in their Talmud\ 
 (but to his myftical prophefies. 
 ■ He often fpoke only to thofe who {p) had 
 •ears to hear^ and fometimes fo as {^-p) not 
 to be tmderftood by any body at the time he 
 fpoke. He fpoke of breads and of water-, 
 -and of the temple j and of being born again^ 
 but meant contrary to the judgment of his 
 hearers (fome of whom he knew, as he in- 
 tended they fhould, would underftand him 
 according to the letter) fpiritual breads my- 
 ftical water^ the temple of his body^ and 
 jpiritiial birth. He prophefy'd of his own 
 death and refurredion in fo typical a man- 
 ner (faying for example, {q) deftroy this 
 temple :, and in three days I will raife it 
 
 up 
 
 . (n) Fahricii Cod. Apoc. Nov. Teft. pars. 3. p. 431. 
 , ficklefs Letter before Wotton's Mifc. Difc. 
 ^ (6) Luke 14. 35, 
 '■(f) lb. 9.45. Johni(>, 17, 18, 
 U) John 2.19. 
 
i 2^ ] 
 
 np—{r) Js Moses lifted tip the Serpen^ 
 in the wildernefs^ fo miift the [on af man 
 he lifted lip — {s) Js Jonas laas.a fign to 
 the f^ine'vites^ fo (Imll the fon of man he to 
 ,this generation) that his difciples expeded 
 no fpch thing iis hi^ refurret^tioxij and when 
 they were iirlt told of it by very unexcepti- 
 'onable witnefles, 'women of their acquain- 
 tance, iook'd on it as an {t) idle tale. 
 • "VVhich ignorance of theirs in this cafe feems 
 fl muft confefs, furprizing,- becaiife the Jews 
 thiemfelves underflood our Saviour to have 
 plainly declar'd, while (u) he was alive, 
 that after three days he would rife again 
 _and therefore watched his grave, left his 
 difciples fliould take away his body. 
 ^.w-,, His prophefy about his {w) coming again, 
 .which he exprelly limits to the lives of fome 
 of his auditors, and to the prefent generation 
 is wholly my ft i call for it is manifeft, that 
 'the Apoftles, who underftood him literally, 
 {■at firft) and expected his fpeedy reign upon 
 earth, were all {x) miftaken and ihould 
 ■;lhave underftood him myfiically^ as they did 
 
 at 
 
 ■^W'- i. \ \ . — 
 
 {r) John 3. 14. 
 (s) Luke II. 30. 
 (t) lb. 24. ir. 
 (fO Matt. 27. 6y--66. 
 
 (to^ John I. 51. Matt. i(f. 28. Luke 21. 2 7--3<5. 
 Whifton'i Bffay on the Revel, p. 129— 1 55. 
 
 {x') Millii Proleg. a(i Nov. Tellam. p. i4<y, col. i. 
 
[ 2^6 ] 
 
 at length, when they came to underftand 
 that {y) a thonfand years 'were with the 
 Lord as one day^ and one day as a thon- 
 fand years. Our Lord himfelf no lefs my- 
 Itically declar'd the time of his coming to 
 reign, when he faid to thofe who ask'd him 
 about it, that his reign would begin, {z) am 
 duo erunt unum^ O' quod foris^ ut quod 
 intus (?/?, & mafculum cum famind-y neq-y 
 mas^ neque famina. In like myftical manner 
 our Saviour Christ defcrib'd, or prophefy'd 
 of, the flate of his kingdom^ which was 
 foon to come. I willj fays he {a) to his 
 difciples, appoint you^ a kingdom^ that ye 
 may eat and drink at my table in my king- 
 dom^ and Jit on thrones^ judging the 
 twehe tribes of Ifrae'L But this, he feems 
 to have done in the ampieft manner in a 
 paffage recorded by Iren^^us, upon the au- 
 tority of Pa pi as and fome Old Men^ who 
 had it from St. John, that our Lord (h) 
 fliould fay, The days JJoall come^ in which 
 there JJoall he mnes^ which flmll [ever ally 
 have ten thoufand branches ^ and every of 
 thofe branches JJoall have ten thoufand lejjer 
 branches J and every of thefe branches fhall 
 
 have 
 
 iy) 2 Pet. 7. 4. 8. 
 
 (z) Clemem apud Grah^ Spicil. Vol. i. p. 35. 
 
 (a) Luke 22. 29, 30. 
 
 (f) Iren^nis, 1. 5. c. 33. 
 
[ M7 ] 
 
 hd'Ve ten thoufand twigs^ and e-very one cf 
 thefe ti^oigsfloall hm^e ten thoufand chifters 
 of grapes^ and in ei'ery one cf thefe clufters 
 there Jhall he ten thoufand grapes^ and 
 e-very one of thefe grapes being prefs d fhall 
 yield 275 gallons of wine j and when one 
 Jhall take hold of one of thefe facred 
 hunches^ another hunch Jloall cry out^ I 
 am a hetter bunchy take me^ and hlefs the 
 Lord by me, I omit what our Lord adds, 
 of every g^rain of wheats and of appleS'y 
 feeds^ and herbs. 
 
 The few denyers, of a kingdom^, immedi- 
 ately^ to come^ among the primitive Chrifti- 
 ans, attempted {c) to allegorize the places 
 produc d for it, and upon that account were 
 call'd allegorijis y as on the contrary Pa- 
 PIAS5 Justin Martyr, iRENitus, Origen, 
 EusEBius, Epiphanius, and others, who 
 believ'd it foon to come, were call'd !D/- 
 fciples of the Letter, And all Chriftans 
 may now be juftly ftyTd allegorijis ; fince 
 {d) none of them agree with the primitive 
 Chriftians in the literal interpretation of thefe 
 matters. 
 
 But the Revelation of St. John is cer- 
 tainly a mafter-piece of myjiical-prophefy^ 
 
 S being 
 
 Cf) See Whitby'i Trectife of the MUlemiium. 
 (d) lb. p, 254. 
 
being (e) written, as tis faid, in the caha-- 
 lyfiickjtyle : and no doubt but it will ap- 
 pear fo ; when things, the moft remote from 
 the literal fenfe of the words ufed, appear 
 intended to be foretold ^ and fhall come 
 to pafs, and by coming to pafs fhall fliow 
 the fenfe of the prophefies contain'd therein, 
 perhaps to the difappointment of every in- 
 terpreter that it has hitherto had. 
 
 [4.] Fourthly, the primitive Fathers or 
 authors before Jerom do apply pafl'ages of 
 the Prophets in the fame typical manner 
 with the Apoftles, who were models to them 
 in that refpeCl j tho' they may not (any more 
 than the Apoftles) diredly fay, they apply 
 thofe pailages typically ^ which they might 
 think neediefs to obferve to the reader, who 
 . could not fail to obferve it himfelf. 
 
 Among other inftances that might be 
 given out of the Catholick Epiftle of Bar- 
 3SIABAS (whom Mr. W. feems to give up (/) 
 as an allegorical interpreter of prophejies of 
 the Old leftament, and whofe Epiftle he 
 deems canonical Scripture) take that which 
 follows. He cites thefe words of Isaiah, 
 as containing {g) a prophefy both of the Crofs 
 
 and 
 
 (f) RbeiifordO^QTiVh.WoXog.'Dx^. i. 
 ' Vitringce Obfer. Sacr. 1. i.e. 10. 
 
 (/; Whiflon'i Lect. p. 43. lb. BJJay on Jpfid-. 
 Cc77ftit. p. 35, 54. 61. . 
 
 (g) V\^Si\it's Aj^oftol. Fathers, p. i75>. i8<!r. 
 See Irenieus, L 4, c, 66- 
 
[ ^59 ] 
 
 and of him that was cmcifyd upon it^ *^ I 
 " have ftretch'd out my hands all the day 
 ^' long to a people difobedient, and fpeak- 
 " ing againft my righteous way." Which paf- 
 fage, as it lies in Isaiah, has not, in its 
 literal and obvious fenfe, the leaft relation 
 to Jesus fir etching out his hands on the 
 Crojs^ but with its context feems to bear 
 this fenfe. " {h) Tho' the Jews deferve it 
 " not, yet I will redeem them from capti- 
 " mty^ and would never have fuffer'd them 
 '' to fall into fuch misfortunes had they had 
 '' any regard to my commands ^ but 1 
 '^ [pre ad out my hands e'very day to a re- 
 '^ hellions people^ who v/ere obftinately re- 
 '' foiv'd to follow the condud of their cor- 
 "^ rupt imaginations; I call'd upon them by 
 " the voice of my Prophets, and earneftly 
 '^ intreated them to be guided by me^ 
 and fo he goes on drawing fuch a cha- 
 rader of the Jews, as cannot be ap- 
 ply 'd to them at any time after their re- 
 turn into their own country." 
 Justin Martyr (^) cites the before 
 mention'd palTage of Isaiah to the fame 
 purpofe with Barnabas : as alfo the follow- 
 
 S 2 ing 
 
 (;b) White in locum. 
 
 CO Ke&veih Juftin. Apol. p, 6%, 
 
[ 260 ] 
 
 ing (k) paflage of the fame Prophet, "Unto 
 " us a child is born, and a young man given, 
 '^ and the government fhall be upon his 
 " ihouldersj" iiohich^ he fays, is a Tro- 
 phetick defcription oj the power of the crof^^ 
 to which Jesus apply d his fhciilder at his 
 crucifixion i tho' the palTage, as it ftands in 
 Isaiah, relates in its obvious and primary 
 fenfe to Hezechiah, and that part of it, 
 whereon Justin lays ftrefs, mod manifeftly 
 relates to the bearing the office of a civil 
 magiftrate^ and not to carrying of a crcfs. 
 
 Justin (/) alfo makes Moses to (m) pro- 
 phefy of Christ in thefe words, "Binding 
 his foal unto the <vive^ and waflnng his 
 garments in the hlood of the grapes. Which 
 are, according to him, a fignifxative fymhol 
 of what Christ was to do and jvffei' : 
 for there fiood the foal of an Jfs tyd to 
 a 'vine at the entrance of a certain lillagey 
 which he order d his difciples to go and 
 bring him^ upon which he got and rode in- 
 to Jeriifalemj where the Jiately temple of 
 
 the 
 
 (k) Ifaiah 9. 6. See aljo Origen in John p. 42. 
 
 Eafil. Tom. 2. p. 212. Aliiqi Patres. 
 
 See Grotius a7id White in loc. & Clerici Hifl. Ecclef. 
 p. ^23. 
 
 {1} . Reeves, lb. p. 6^. 
 
 (772) Gen, 45. II. , 
 
 See other explkatiom of the Fathers of this place 
 cited hy Whitby, in Stri^ur^ Patrum. p. 13, & 
 
[ 26l ] 
 
 the Jews then was. And to fulfil the fe- 
 quel of the Prophesy he was afterwards 
 crucify d. For wailiing his garments in the 
 blood of the grapes, prefi^^urd the pajjion 
 he was to undergo^ purifying hy his blood 
 juch asfljould believe in him--, for what^ by 
 the Prophet, the diz'ine Spirit calls his 
 garments, are the Faithful^ in whom the 
 Logos, the feed of God dwells. 'The blood 
 of the grapes typifies^ that he who 7soas to 
 come JJjould hm^e bloody but not of human^ 
 hut of di'vine generation — And m man had 
 no hand in making the blood of the grape-, 
 hut God only^ fo this is an emblem^ that 
 the blood of the Logos was of no human 
 extraUion^ but defcended from the power 
 of the moft High. Upon this paiTage, as it 
 again occurs and is urg d by Justin in his 
 ^Dialogue with Trypho^ the ingenious and 
 learned Mr. Thirlby makes the following 
 remark, very pertinent to the quelHon of the 
 Fathers applying the prophefies of the Old 
 Teftament allegorically,. whereof I am now 
 treating. {ii) Fan d em interpretationem ad 
 Gentiles quoq-y con-vertendos adhihuit JpoL 
 I. p. 52. fat is earn quid em ridiculam hdc 
 (£tate plerifq-, in fur am ^ at iis autem tern- 
 poribus tolerabilem. Jndjoi certe non ha- 
 S 3 bebant 
 
 (n) I'hlrlby in ^ufi'm Martyr, p. 14^. 
 
[ 252 ] 
 
 helant quod aut reprehend event aut ride- 
 rent^ id quod norunt omnes qui ingenium 
 dr doUrinam Jud£orum non penitns igno- 
 rant, Sed neq; Ethnicis^ fi've doUis five 
 indoUis^ Allegorica 'vetefum fcriptorum^ 
 prafertim facronim & VaticinoruMj ex^ 
 planatiOj mirtim aut mviim zideri pote- 
 rat* 
 
 The fame Justin (tf) affords many more 
 inftances of the like kind in hxsfirft Apology \ 
 to which I refer the reader. His dialogue 
 with Tbrypho alfo abounds with fuch ,• of 
 which work Basnace, the learned author of 
 the late Hificry of the Jews^ gives {p) us 
 this account, Je remarquerai^ fays he, feu-^ 
 lement que comme Justin atmt lu fort exaU- 
 ement les ecrits des Vrophetes^ il a fait 
 fon fort deles entajfer les unes juries au- 
 tres fans heaucoup aart^ (^ peut-etre fans 
 leaucotip des cboix-, (^ le Juif auroit eu 
 raifon de hi dire plus fout'ent qtiil na 
 fait^ que ces citations ne prom^ent pas ce 
 quil 'veutprotwer. 
 
 Thus alfo do Iren^ius, Tertullian, 
 Origen, LacTantius, Eusebius, Basil, 
 and all the other {q) Fathers, both before 
 as well as after Jerom, who cite the books 
 
 t of 
 
 {o) ReeveSy lb. p. ^8-94. 
 ip) Safmge Hift. des Juifs. 1. 8. c. i. §. 15. 
 (q) See Whitby Striciura Patrum apud Differ, de 
 Scrip. Interp. 
 
[ ^^3 J 
 
 of the Prophets^ as fiilfiird in the Gofpel^ 
 make application of the pafTages they cite 
 from thofe Prophets i whofe words are only 
 pertinent to the purpofe for which they pro- 
 duce them in an allegprical fenfc. This 
 the learned well know. And Simon, in 
 particular, fpeaking of Eusebius's Evan- 
 gelical Preparation, (r) fays, that if 
 you will examine with any care many of the 
 Prophesies which Eusebius underftands 
 of Jesus Christ, his reafonings are not 
 always conchijit'e^ becaufe thefe Prophe- 
 sies feem to ha've another literal fenfe : but 
 therein he follow d the method^ which was 
 (j) recei'vd before him in the , Church, 
 How could Justin Martyr {t) pretend 
 to prove from the Books of the Prophets^ 
 that Jesus who was to come into the worlds 
 was to he horn of a virgin^ flwidd cure ei'e- 
 7j difeafe and malady in nature and raife 
 the deadj and he treated with fpite and 
 ignomy^ and at length Omdd he faflned 
 to a crofs^ and dye^ and rife again^ and 
 afcend up into hea^'en; and that he was 
 truly the (on of Godj and fhotdd he wor- 
 JJoipp'd under that title j and that he 
 Jhould f^nd out fome to preach thefe ty- 
 
 S 4 dings 
 
 (r) Smon Bib. Chois. Vol. i. p. 40. 
 
 0) See Grabe apud T'inrlhii J.MArtyr^ p. B2,Sa'. 
 
 \t) Juftin Martyr'5 Apology^ by Reeves, p. 6iy 65- ■ 
 
[ 2^4 ] 
 
 clings to every nation ; and that the Gen- 
 tiles fhould come ot'er to the faith in great- 
 er numbers than the Jews ; and that the(e 
 very prophejies went of him^ thoufands and 
 hundreds of years ^ before his coming-, but 
 by arguing from the allegorical fenfe of 
 thofe prophefies, which, literally underftood, 
 have no manner of relation to thefe matters, 
 and fo vifibly relate to other matters, that 
 it is hard to conceive Justin could be fo 
 ignorant as not to know he argu'd allegori- 
 cally, and not from the literal fenfe of 
 them? 
 
 [5.] But fcveral chriftian authors before 
 Jerom ,not contenting themfelves with ar- 
 guing (and that knowingly as it ought to be 
 judg'd) from the propheiies of the Old Te- 
 flament, in the fame allegorical manner with 
 the Apoftles, do diredtly aflTert (contrary to 
 what Mr. W HIS TON affirms of them) a two- 
 fold fenfe of thofe propheiies, a literal and 
 a myftical, and make them applicable in 
 a myflical fenfe only to our Saviour. 
 
 Thus Justin Martyr (//) afferts a double 
 fenfe of fome propheiies. He gives us an 
 account, how the i)eci/s introduc'd into the 
 P^gan religions feveral things in imitation 
 of what they found prophefyd of Christ, 
 in the Old Teftament j but fays, they did 
 
 not 
 
 (ti) Juftin Martyr'? y^/r/. Oy Reeves, (^.71. 
 
[ 2^5 ] ^ 
 
 not caufe (w) one of JoveV Sons to he 
 crucify dj becaufe that being Symboli- 
 cally reprefented in the Old 'Teftament 
 they could not fpell out the meaning of the 
 Symbol ,• tho the crofs^ according to the 
 Trophet^ was the great charaUeriftick of 
 his power and government. 
 
 Thus Origen {x) diredlly advances fuch 
 a diftindion, and defends the myfticalfenfe 
 of the prophefies of the Old Teftament a- 
 gainft Celsus, who attack'd the Chriftians 
 for their myftical and forc'd interpretations 
 of the Old Teftament. 
 
 Thus EusEBius (j;) of Cefarea^ in inter- 
 preting the celebrated prophefy of Isaiah 
 of a Virgjns conceiz'ing and bringing forth 
 a Son^ faid to be fultill'd in Jesus by St. 
 Matthew, refers it primarily to the Pro- 
 phet Isaiah's own fon, whom he exprefly 
 makes a type of Christ ^ as does alfo (2) 
 St. Basil. And Eusebius {a) affirms in ge- 
 neral, that there are many allegjjrical ex- 
 plications of the Prophets in the G of pels 
 and Epiftles of the Apoftles^ and efpeci- 
 ally in the Epiftle to the Hebrews -, and 
 
 that 
 
 C-t-; Sea 72. 
 
 {x) Origen contra C^^s.^. 39. 345. 
 See Simc7i Hift. Crit. du Kov. Teftam. p. i6i. 
 iy ) Eufebii Demon. Evang. 1. 7-p- 328--35 5. 
 (z) mafil apud Hiiefii Dcm. Evang. p. 355. 
 in) Enfibii Hifi Ecclef. \.z. c. 17 . 
 
[ 166 ] 
 
 that fitch was the method of explaining 
 fcripture nfed hy the T)o^ors of the chri- 
 ftian church. 
 
 The Gofpel according to the Egyptians^ 
 which was extant before any of the four 
 Gofpels, and fuppos'd to be one of thofe 
 Gofpels referr'd to by Luke,- was, as {li) 
 appears hy the remaining fragments^ a Gof- 
 l^elfufficientiy Mystical <f;/<^ Allegorical, 
 according to the genitis of the Egyptian 
 Nation* And tho* among thofe few frag- 
 ments which remain of it, there appear no 
 allegorical interpretations of prophe/ies, yet 
 it may be juftly fuppos'd, to have as much 
 or more abounded with them than St. Ma t- 
 THEAvV Gofpel itfelf J which being written 
 chiefly for the ufe of the Jews, has in it 
 more allegorical application of prophelies 
 than the other Gofpels, according to the 
 genius of the Jewifli nation at that time. 
 Nor can this be much doubted, if it be con- 
 {ider'd, that the (r) T'herapeiitce (who are 
 fupposM to be thofe ChrilHans of Egypt ^ 
 that receiv'd the Gofpel according to the 
 Egyptians^ explain d all the Scriptures of 
 the Old Ifefiament in an allegorical and 
 
 myftical 
 
 (h) Whifton'j .Ey2?y, on the- ApofioL Conftit. p. 74, 
 
 Grahe Spicil. Vol. r. p. 3 1. 
 (c) Whifton, Ib.p. 74. 
 Bi'S^h. Hift. Eccl. 1, 2. c. 1 7. 
 
I ^^7 ] 
 mjiftical manner-, and took the Gofpeh 
 and Epiftks of the New T^eftament to be 
 myftical hooks^ and proper to guide them 
 in their myftical explications of the Old 
 Teftament. 
 
 We may alfo fairly judge {d) the Gofpel 
 according to the Hebrews^ which was alfo 
 publiih'd before our four Gofpels for the 
 ufe of the Nazarenes^ (as the firft Chri- 
 ftians were call'd) was written in the fpi- 
 rit of allegory: fmce their fuccelTors aiie- 
 goriz'd the Bible in the fame manner with 
 the Pharifees, who began the method of 
 allegorizing among the Jews, which was af- 
 terwards followed in the chriftian church. 
 But however that be^ The Nazarenes be- 
 fore Jerom's time were undoubtedly alle- 
 gorifts^ as appears by the proofs Simon 
 brings out of Jerom. 
 
 In fine, Mr. W. (^)himfelf fays. He will 
 not affirm^ that what Predidlions the Fa- 
 thers alledge out of the Old Teftament do 
 always hear that feitfe they afcribe to them^ 
 yethQ thinks they generally, if not whol- 
 ly^ helievd them to do fo. So that he here- 
 by allows; that the Fathers did argue after 
 a typical and allegorical manner from the 
 Predictions of the Prophets j and that they 
 
 might 
 
 (//) Simon Hift, des Comment, p. 1--3, 
 (i) Lectures^ p. aS. 
 
[ ^6Z ] 
 
 might fometlmes^ tho' not generally^ be- 
 lieve they interpreted thofe predidions, not 
 in a literal, but allegorical fenfe. 
 
 [5.] The fyftem therefore or fcheme of 
 things fet up by Mr. W. feems to me to 
 combat the chriftian fcheme receiv'd in all 
 ages and times, and afferts what is contrary 
 to the mofc notorious fad, and to the moft 
 univerfal practife of all Chriftians before, as 
 well as after, Jerom. For if any one chri- 
 ftian fact be true, it is, that Chriftians in all 
 ages and times, and more efpecially in the 
 primitive times, have both underftood the 
 Apoftles to have argu'd allegorically from 
 the prophelies cited by them out of the Old 
 -Teftament, or have themfelves argu'd alle- 
 gorically from the prophefies they themfelves 
 cited out of the Old Teftament ^ which laft 
 feems fufficient to prove the Apoftles to 
 have been allegorical interpreters of the Old 
 Teftament, according to the common topick 
 of Divines, who contend that the earlieft 
 Fathers beft teach us the fenfe and doctrine 
 of the Apoftles. And Mr. W. is the firft 
 Theorift-Divine, who, to alTert the autority 
 of the New Teftament, has pretented, that 
 the Old Teftament (in really genuine palTa- 
 ges) is corrupted'^ all other Chriftians af- 
 ferting the integrity of the Old (and fome 
 even with refped to corrupted paffages) to 
 prove the autority of the New. And I be- 
 lieve he is the firft chriftian author, who 
 
 ever 
 
[ 2^9 ] 
 
 ever afferted, either that all the prophefies 
 cited by the authors of the new 1 eflament 
 from the Old, were fulfili'd in their literal 
 fenfc ; or that to confider the Apoftles as 
 applying any of them in an allegorical man- 
 ner, was a weak and enthufiajiical fcheme : 
 all others, as far as I can learn, contending 
 at moft for the literal fenfe of fome prophe- 
 fies only : and fome (/) making it the glory 
 cj chrijlianity to be founded on allegory^- 
 and not in criticifm^ which, they fay,'; 
 would have render'd the writings of the 
 Apoftles, ten times more liable to exceptions . 
 than now they are-, and alfo to be a won- 
 der Jul confirmation of chrijlianity^ that the 
 Jpoftles^ who were men of no literature 
 and education^ and nez'er [pent their time 
 in the fchools of the R ahbis^ fhoul d he fuch 
 eminent majiers in allegory or Rabbinical 
 learnings and fhould he fo excellently n:ersd 
 in their traditionary explications of pro-^ 
 phefies. 
 
 It feems therefore moft deftrutflive of chri- 
 ftianity to fuppofe ^ that typical or allego- 
 rical arguing is in any refped: weak and^ 
 enthnjiajiical; and that the Apoftles al-' 
 ways argu'd in the matter of prophefies ac- 
 cording to the literal fenfe of the prophe-^ 
 fies and the way of reafoning ufed in the 
 
 fchools: 
 
 (/"} Kichols'j Co77f, '•jc'ith a I'kcifi Vol. 3. p, <^4, 6y. 
 
[ 270 ] 
 
 fchools •• fince it is mOft apparent , that the 
 whole Gofpel is in every refped founded on 
 type and allegory^ that the Apoftles in moft, 
 ifnotin all cafes reafon'd typically and al- 
 kgorically ; and that, if the Apoftles be 
 fuppos'd to (g) reafon always after the 
 rules ufed in the fchools, and if their wri- 
 tings be brought to the teft of thofe rtileSy the 
 books of the Old and New Teftament will 
 be in an irreconcileahle fiate^ and the diffi- 
 ciilties againft chriftianity will be incapa- 
 ble of being folv'd. Any that call them- 
 fekesChriftianSj fays {h) Dr. Allix, Jhould 
 take heed how they deny the force and au- 
 tority of that way of traditional interpre- 
 tation', which has been antiently receivd 
 in the Jewijh Church, 
 
 XL 
 
 That Mr, WhistonV firfl Tropofition is 
 ftihverted by his booh 
 
 MR. W*s firft Propofition, {i)rh^t the 
 prejent text of the Old Tejiament is^ 
 generally fpeaking^ both in the hifiory^ 
 
 the 
 
 ig) Simon Hift. Crit. du N. Teft. c. 21 ^ 22. 
 CmietisK&T^. des Heb.Vol. i. p. 37<J, 577' 
 (b) Allix'5 judgment of the Jeijoijh Church againfi 
 the Unitarians. Y- 51- 
 (/; Whifton'5 EJfay, p. i. 
 
[ ^71 ] 
 
 the laws^ the prophefies^ and the dimne 
 hymns i or as to the main tenor and current 
 ofthe whole ^ the 'very fame now that it ever 
 has been from the utmoft antiquity ,• is fub- 
 verted by and inconliftent with the whole 
 fcheme, and mod of the following parts of 
 his hcok-i which chiefly confifts in afferting 
 and proving, that the text of the Old Te- 
 ftament is {k^ confiderahly and greatly diffe^ 
 rent from what it was in the fecond centu- 
 ry -^ and not a little corrupted ^ and that the 
 Old and New Teftament are in fo irrecon- 
 cileahle aftate^ hy xi\Q^i'\s oi di/locations in 
 the Old Teftament, and ofthe introdudion 
 of fuch other changes therein, which make 
 the moft apparent inconjiftencies and con-- 
 tradiUions between the Old and New Te- 
 ftament^ as to overthrow the proofs of the 
 truth of chrirtianity cited by the Apoftles from 
 the Old Teftament j which great corruptions 
 are the foundation and reafons of Mr. Whis- 
 tonV -Ej^j/ towards rejioring the true text 
 ofthe Old J'ejfarnent, 
 
 The 
 
 (ftj lb. p. 15. 18. 33. 49.88.115—11^.128. 182, 
 183. 220. 2^2, z6i. i8i"28s>. 
 
[-73 ] 
 
 The Conclusion: 
 
 Containing an Account of Mr* AVhiston 
 himjelf. 
 
 HAviNG made an end of my remarks 
 on Mr. ^W -E^ys I proceed to give 
 you fome account of the gentleman himfelf j 
 who for fome time paft has made no fmall 
 noife, not only in England but in divers 
 parts oiJLtirope^ by his numerous writings. 
 
 He is a perfon of extraordinary natural 
 parts j and of great acquired learning, par- 
 ticularly in philcfophy and mathematicks , 
 but, above all, in theology j which he has 
 ftudy'd with the greateft application and in- 
 tegrity in the Scriptures^ and in the wri- 
 tings of the antients -, defpifing the cate- 
 chifms^ coirfejfwnsj or articles of faith and 
 traditions of all modern churches, and the 
 cornrnentaries on Scripture, and fyfiemical 
 hooks of all modern theoiogues. 
 
 He knows how to make the beft of every 
 argument he takes in hand. By his fagacity 
 and quicknefs, by the compafs of his read- 
 ing, and by his great memory, he omits no- 
 
 T thing, 
 
[ ^74 ] 
 thing, that can be urg d or wiredrawn to 
 fupport any fentiments he efpoufes i as is 
 manifeft from many of his theological works. 
 He is an upright and very religions man, 
 and a moft zealous Chriflian ; leading a 
 moral life , as is common to moft who are 
 ftyl'd hereticks : cultwating {a) in himfelf, 
 and promoting in others fnch 'virtue and 
 learnings as he thinks would conduce moft 
 to the honour of Godj by manifefiing the 
 greatnefs and wifdom of his works : re- 
 nouncing glory, riches, and eafe (which he 
 might have had with the applaufe of all, and 
 envy of none), and willingly and courage- 
 ouily undergoing obloquy, poverty, and per- 
 fecution (all three whereof have been his 
 lot, and the two former will be always) for 
 the fake of a good confcience : deeming pru- 
 dence to he the worldly wifdom condemn d 
 hy Christ and his Apoftles^ and conceal- 
 ment of religious fentiments to be a great 
 crime j and unmov'd by the example of fe- 
 veral (If) learned Divines, who, as is well 
 known, have great prudence^ and, thro' 
 fear of the Ignorant^ the 'Bigots^ and the 
 
 Crafty, 
 
 t 
 
 {¥) Erafmi Epiftolse, p. 501. 507. 585. 6iz.- See 
 eiTfo Whifton'i RefieEiions on a Tiifcmrfe of Free-think- 
 i''g^ ?• 55- 
 
 Id, Prim, Chrift. Vol. i. Hift. Pref. p. 27. 
 
Crafty, (who govern the two former) do, 
 moft of all men, conceal their religious fen- 
 trments^ from the world ^ which^ if they 
 happen in confidence to difcover to him, he 
 without fcruple publiflies (^) in print : fa- 
 crificing his underftanding to the obedience 
 of faith^ and believing mifteries j and not 
 rejecting even the Athanafian Creed itfelf 
 (tho' in his opinion, contradidor)' in itfelf, 
 and to reafon), but only as not grounded 
 on Scripture and Antiquity : following fome 
 practifes how rigid and feemingly ridiculous 
 foever, and how remote foever from the pra- 
 (ilifes of the age and country, wherein he 
 lives, which he thinks requir'd by Christ 
 and his Apoftles (which has made fome peo- 
 ple wonder, that he continues, as in the time 
 of his darknefs, to Jloa'De his heard^ contra- 
 ry to the exprefs declaration of the (^) ApG- 
 ftolick Conftitutions) : finding out and fee- 
 ing clearly the' revolutions of all the follow- 
 ing ages, both pad: and to come, in the 
 writings of the Trophets^ and in the 'R.e've- 
 lation of iSaJohn : taking up with all man- 
 ner of falfe proofs in behalf of chriflianity, 
 fuch as forg'd books, forg d paifages, preca- 
 rious fuppofirions, tales, and fliam-miracles, 
 as well as with the moft fubftantial proofs : 
 
 T 2 en- 
 
 (c) See his Hijlor. \Pref. cud AUix j Kenuirki &n 
 Whiiion'i 'Papers, 
 
 (d) Jpfiol. Conjlit. 1. I. c. j. 
 
[ ^7^ ] 
 
 endeavouring {e) to explain Scripture DifH- 
 ciilties 'y wherein, tho' he, like others^ who 
 ha-ve meddled with the fame fubjeU^ has 
 not fucceeded^ as Dr. Hare fays, yet he has 
 iliown his zeal : holding ( /) a fociety in his 
 own houfe of hoveft and inq^iifiti've men of 
 all parties and notions among Chrifiians^ 
 in order to fearch after, and find out, genii^ 
 ine and original Chriftianity ^ and in fine, 
 as much in earneft_, as fome others feem to 
 be in jeft. 
 
 He is the very reverfe of many moft emi- 
 nent Divines, He thinks himfelf oblig'd in 
 confcience to be dutiful, fubmillive, and loyal 
 to his Majefty, to whom he has fworn alle- 
 giance ; and it is not a Church Toint with 
 him to aU one way and pray and [wear 
 another, or not to be in earnefl in thofe two 
 moft ferious and folemn a(^l:ions. He fpeaks 
 what he thinks, and is not guilty of the con- 
 tradiction of making the Chriftian Religion 
 a matter of great importance, and yet con- 
 cealing his thoughts about the particulars of 
 that religion : any more than he is of pro- 
 fefling a religion which he does not believe. 
 He pays no regard to fafhionable doctrines ; 
 nor to falliionable Divines, v^hoin obedience 
 
 to 
 
 {e} Hare'; 2>/^c. nndDifiourag. p. 7. See^\ii^on^s 
 dedication to hi sChron. p. 4. 
 
 (/; Whifton'i- Tref. to Letter to the Earl of Notting- 
 ham, p. 7. 
 
[ ^77 ] 
 
 to one another and in harmony, vary, change, 
 and regulate the faith of the Vulgar. He 
 will not be bound by Articles which he has 
 fubfcrib'd, but renounce them, when he judges 
 them erroneous j nor will he fubfcribe Arti- 
 cles which he does not believe true or fub- 
 fcribe them in fenfes contrary to thofc de- 
 fign'd by the impofers. He renounces all pre- 
 ferments, and will not fo much as receive 
 money from {g) infidel hands. And he thinks 
 himfelf oblig d to imitate the Apoftles in their 
 low ftate j and he believes it no lefs incon- 
 fiftent with chriftianity, to aim at and con- 
 tend for, and to poflcfs that worldly great- 
 nefs and wealth, which their pretended fuc- 
 ceffors of the Romifh Church enjoy and con- 
 tend for as due to them by the Gofpel, than 
 to contradid the Apoftles in other refpeds. 
 
 He is a zealous member {h) of the Church 
 of England^ as by law eilabliAi'd : keeping 
 to that Church j tho' feveral parts of the 
 worfhip therein perform'd be, in his opinion, 
 blafphemy and contradiction ^ tho' he knows 
 he hears daily the moft abfurd, fophiftical, 
 declamatory, and fadious difcourfes from 
 the pulpit ; tho' he be attacked and abus'd 
 on moft fundays from that high place to the 
 underftanding of the auditory, who on fuch 
 
 occa- 
 
 (g) Second Append, to Hi(i. 'Pref p. 58. 
 (h) papers relative to Mr. Whifton'; Caufe. p. i<J8- 
 171. 
 
[ 278 ] 
 
 occafions turn their eyes upon him ; tho' he 
 be refus'd to partake of the blefled Sacra- 
 ment, which (i) goes near his heart ,• and 
 tho' he be forbid coming to church by the 
 Redor of his parifh, who has endeavour'd 
 to fet the mob upon him. 
 
 But his judgment does not feem to be equal 
 to his fagacity, learning, zeal, and integrity. 
 For, either thro' the prejudices of education, 
 which he ft ill retains, or thro' fome fuper- 
 ftition, which, notwithftanding his examina- 
 tion, flicks by him, he feems ftill qualify 'd to 
 admit the moft precarious fuppoiitions, and 
 to receive many things without the leaft foun- 
 dation = The warmth of his temper difpofes 
 him to receive any fudden thoughts, any 
 thing that ftrikes his imagination, when fa- 
 vourable to hii preconceiv'd fcheme of things, 
 or to any new fchemes of things, that ferve, 
 in his opinion, a religious purpofe. And his 
 imagination is fo ftrong and lively on thefe 
 occafions, that he fometimes even fuppofes 
 fails, and builds upon thofe fails. Thus, 
 for example, he aded in the {Iz) cafe of an 
 ArahickManufcript (w^hereofhe under ftood 
 not one word), wiiich he hoped was or took 
 to have been a tranflation of an antient book 
 (/) of Scripture, belonging to the New Te- 
 
 ftament, 
 
 {i) ToJlfcr'ipT to his Hifi. Tref. p. 72. Taprs rela- 
 tivg n his CaiifCy p. 1 5<J, &c. 
 
 (k^ Avertif before Trim. Chrijf, Vol. i. p. i. 
 (/; Reply to Allix, p. 33. 
 
[ ^79 ] 
 
 ftament, and written by the Apoflks^ ftyl'd^ 
 the IJcUrine of the Apofiks-, and proposed 
 to piibliili it as fuch. But when it came to 
 be read by men jkilful in the Arahicktonguey 
 it prov'd a trailation of another book before 
 extant in print m its original language. And 
 thus, tho' he be a lover of truth, yet 
 by his warmth of temper, he is drawn in 
 and engag'd fo far in the belief and defence 
 of many things, as gives a turn to his under- 
 iiandmg^ and thereby makes his convidion 
 of millakes in fome cafes difficult, and in 
 others perhaps, impolfible. 
 
 He did, foon after his convidion of the 
 errors of his education, in a proper manner, 
 both by difcourfes and writings, declare o- 
 penly his religious fentiments, which as an 
 honeii: man he could not conceal. And he 
 molt fuhmifliveiy addrefs'd {m) himfelf, in 
 particular, to both th*e Archbifhops, and to 
 feveral of the Biiliops, and other learned 
 Divines, and to the Convocation, and to 
 both the Univerfities, offering to lay before 
 them papers for their examination, w^hich 
 have been fince publifli'd j wherein he pre- 
 tended to difcover the true, old, original 
 chriftianity, from which all Chriftians had 
 for many ages before the Reformation de- 
 parted, when, according to him, a part only 
 of primitive chriftianity was reviv'd. But 
 
 this 
 
 (w) iSV^/b/i Hiftorical Preface, 
 
[ 280 ] 
 
 this free, open, chriftkn proceeding, had no 
 other pubJick effed, than to draw upon him> 
 an arbitrary and illegal expuliion (;/) from 
 the Unwerfity of Cambridge and from his 
 Mathematick-Trcfeffcr-Jhip there, by the 
 Heads of honfes^ and that without confer^ 
 ring with him in relation to his notions, they 
 urging, that it was {^o) not iifiial to argue 
 with hereticks ,• an Addrefs of the Cowvo- 
 cation to the Queen againft him,, wherein 
 they deiire to be put into a method how to 
 punifli him ,• a Reprefentation of him, by 
 the faid Convocation to the Qttee^t and the 
 Nation^ as a perfon carrying on the caufe of 
 irreligion ,- the Convocation's fecret cenfure 
 (p) of divers of his poiitions, which cenftire 
 has fmce llolfe out into print ; and their open 
 refufal (q) to examine his papers and to 
 hear him in his own defence, tho* he de- 
 manded it of them, a's a matter of right ; 
 and laftly, a profecation commenc'd againft. 
 him by Dr. Felling, which upon the death 
 of her late Majefty dropp'd. 
 
 He lives for the moft part in London^ the* 
 place of the greateft refort of men of under- 
 ftanding, . birth, fortune, and learning in the" 
 univerfe. There he^Vifits perfons of both 
 
 fexeSy 
 
 (n) Appendix to Hi ft. Tref, p. \6o. 
 
 (o) Accctmt of his Sanipmenty 8cc. p. 38—42. 
 
 (jf) Supplement to Hi ft. "Pref. ^. 6^, 
 
 (q) Second Append, to Hift.'Pref, 
 
[22l ] 
 
 fsxes^ and of the higheft rank, who are de*' 
 lighted with his plainnefs, integrity, fenfe, 
 and learning,- and to whom he difcouries 
 with the greateft freedom about many im- 
 portant points, and efpecially about Athana- 
 fianifm^ which feems his moll peculiar con- 
 cern. He frequents the moft publick coffee-^ 
 houfes, where moft are prone to fhow him 
 refpeCl, and none dare fhow him any dif- 
 refped ,• the clergy, either flying before 
 him, or making a feeble oppofition to him. 
 By all which he has made a multitude of 
 converts to the belief i that the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghoft are three different intelligent 
 agents, and not three intelligent agents ma- 
 king but one intelligent agent ,• that the 
 Father was before and is greater than the 
 Son ,• that the Son is not the fame being 
 with the Father : and that the Father is the 
 One God^ (as fay both the (r) Scripture and 
 Nicene Creed)^ or that there are no other 
 Gods but him j all doctrines contrary to the 
 prefent orthodoxy. And he has foften'd the 
 zeal of many more, who ufed to call for 
 fire from heaven, or the fword of the ma- 
 giftrate to defend their fentiments. He has 
 at this time fo much credit, that he now fays 
 and prints what he pleafes, without incurring 
 U any. 
 
 (r) Matt. 1 2. 3a, John 17.3, i Cor, 8. 4* ^ 
 
 I Tim. 1, 5. 
 
[ ^Si ] 
 
 any hazard of perfecution from real or pre- 
 tended zealots ; who are fore d to yield to 
 the fuperior fplendor and power of his ho- 
 nefty, fenfe, and learning, and fear drawing 
 upon themfelves fomething of more fatal con- 
 fequence, than the prefent converfions that 
 he makes. And I am perfwaded, that if 
 any country could but furnifh twenty fuch 
 men as he j that they would, without pay 
 and with mere liberty to fpeak their fenti- 
 ments, put to flight twenty thoufand lifted to 
 fupport error. 
 
 He is a perfon, who forms vaft projefls 
 and defigns for the defence of Natural and 
 'Ke'ueal d KeUgien^ and for reftoring what 
 he calls, Trimith^e Cbriftianity amongft us ; 
 ^s appears by his Theory of the Earth ,- his 
 Chronokgy of the Old T^eftament and Har- 
 mony of the Four Gofpels ^ his E/fay on the. 
 He'v elation of St, John j his Trimiti'veChri'' 
 fiianity re'vwd -, his 4flronomical Princi- 
 ples of Natural and Ke'veafd Religion j 
 his Effay to reft ore the true text of the 
 Old ^Jeftament ^ and his T>efign of a New 
 inter lea'vd 'Bible with large additions and 
 divers particulars to confirm and illuflrat^^ 
 the fame, that fo all honeft enquirers may 
 he able to judge for themfelves^ about the 
 truth of thofe Scriptures; and to under" 
 ft and the gnat eft Tart of them impartially^ 
 without the dangler of impofition from com- 
 mon prejudices j from any later partial 
 
[285 ] 
 
 expofitions or miftakes wbatfoe'ver , to fay- 
 nothing, or not to enter into the detail of 
 his lelier numerous TrojeUs^ ^fy-^:> 2)^^ 
 /ig7is, and T'heories in behalf of religion. 
 Nor is he without great defigns for the 
 improvement of philofophy, and for the 
 welfare and trade of his country : as ap- 
 pears by his attempts to explain the philofo- 
 phy of Sir Isaac Newton, and his other 
 works in Mathematicks and Thjficks^ but 
 above all, by his attempts to difco'ver the 
 Longitude:, for which he deferves the re- 
 ward promis'd by Parliament ^ tho' he 
 iliould not fucceed. But the greateft good, 
 that he promotes, feems, to me what he does 
 mt defign i and that is, by putting men upon 
 enquiries, to make them fee further than 
 himfelf^ and to reject his narrow opinions. 
 
 He is a very ferious and grave perfon, but 
 yet chearful, and no enemy to innocent 
 mirth j and he is, even, capable of laugh- 
 ing (j) heartily at egregious nonfenfe, ftu- 
 pidity, and folly in the mod folemn perfonSy 
 when they fpeak about the moR fole7nn things, 
 
 I will conclude this account of him, witli 
 obferving, that all the reform'd churches^ 
 and efpecially your church of Scotland 
 (which is in a peculiar manner the object of 
 theological fpite among us) are highly o- 
 
 bhg'd 
 
 (0 See 0126 of his j^rinted Letters, 
 
tz84] 
 
 blig'd to him for a moft ingenious defence 
 of the validity of their miniftry in his Jrgtt- 
 ment to pro've^ that either all perfons fo- 
 lemnly^ tho irregularly fet apart for the 
 Miniftry are Real Clergymen^ and all their 
 minifterial JUs are 'valid ^ or elfe then 
 are now no Real Clergymen or Chriftians in 
 the world. Wherein your miniftry, which is 
 fo undefervediy contemptible in the eyes of 
 our clergy, who do not make a juft compa- 
 rifon between themfelves and their neigh- 
 bours, is, as it ought to be, fet upon as good 
 a foot as any miniftry whatfoever. 
 
 I have nothing further to add, but that I 
 hope this letter, tho' long delay 'd, will not 
 be unacceptable to you, from, 
 
 Rg'verend SIRy 
 
 Tour moft htmhle Ser'vant;^ 
 
Date Due 
 
 ii - 
 
 
 
 
 .lllN 1 f 
 
 1986 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $) 
 
 
 
 
3?rJ. 
 
 ALiftXfc'fUi 
 
 '^Mm