CHAP. I.

IT is not at all the Deſign of the following Papers to expoſe or vilifie the Greek Tranſlation of the Old Teſtament, made by LXXII Elders of the Jewiſh Nation near three hundred years before Chriſt, and commonly called the Septuagint; but rather to leave it in the poſſeſſion of what is its juſt and undoubted right, the Firſt and Higheſt place amongſt all the Antient Verſions. Only reſerving, in the mean while, and Aſſerting, to the Original Hebrew its precedency, as well in Authority as Age; and conſequently, to all modern Tranſlations from it, a degree of Authority proportionable to their Accord with it; both which (I mean the Hebrew Original, and modern Tranſlations) have been ſtrangely trampled upon by ſome, in their undue cariere of zeal for the Septuagint.

The great Argument they urge, is the Uſe, which the Penmen of the New Teſtament make of the Septuagints Verſion, in thoſe Texts which they produce out of the Law and the Prophets. Boldly they have affirmed, that the Evangeliſts, Apoſtles, and the whole Chriſtian Church by perpetual conſent have acknowledged the Truth of the Septuagints Verſion: And hence they would inferr, that no where of right we may depart from it. Nay, not only all of the preſent Age, who prefer the Original to it, but even S. Hierom himſelf is ſeverely cenſured for ſo doing, and the Authority of any one of thoſe Seventy Interpreters (for it is ſuppoſed that ſome ſingle perſons of them came ſeveral times into Egypt, and tranſlated the Prophets and Hagiographa, the whole LXXII having at firſt tranſlated only the Pentateuch:) the Authority, I ſay, of any ſingle perſon of thoſe Elders is avowed of greater credit than all the Synagogues of the Jews ſince that time, or all the Learning of the Rabbies their Followers.

This Argument I have in effect denyed: and on the contrary, Truly I have affirmed, (§. 14.) That the Sacred Pen-men of the New Teſtament, have not always followed the Septuagints Verſion, that they very commonly take a Latitude, and content themſelves with the general ſenſe of the Text, not indeed following either that, or any other Verſion, that we know of, then extant. And hence I would infer, that the Authority of the Septuagint is not ſo Sacred as theſe men pretend, it having not ſo conſtant Vouchers as aſſerted; nay, it being left oftner by the Evangeliſts than followed; and eſpecially left, in moſt of thoſe Texts, which, by peculiar circumſtances, prove our Jeſus to have been the true Meſſias; which Texts, in the preſent Septuagint, are for the moſt part vitiouſly rendred, but in the Original Hebrew are intire, and clear as the Sun: In fine, that the Original therefore is to be acknowledg'd the only Authentick Old Teſtament.

Now, becauſe I will not, as ſome, expect to be believed upon my meer ſaying ſo: for a Tryal of the truth herein, we will take, at a venture, the ten firſt Texts, by each Evangeliſt reported out of the Old Teſtament, and collating them, both with the Septuagint and the Hebrew, as we ſhall find them, in particular, to accord with or recede from each or either, we will for the preſent make a more general Eſtimate. I could willingly have taken more, but theſe will ſuffice to try an ordinary Reader's Patience, as well as give us a proof what we might expect in the reſt, were all examined.

And for more clear proceeding herein, let it in the firſt place be granted, or ſuppoſed, that where the Phraſe, or principal Terms, in any Text are altered, however the ſame ſenſe be ſtill kept, there the Tranſlation of ſuch Text is not the ſame. For if both Phraſe and Senſe ſhould be altered, it would no longer be a different Tranſlation, but different Text. The alteration therefore of the Phraſe, or of the principal Terms, is ſufficient to warrant the name of a different Tranſlation.

This being taken for a Foundation, the Propoſitions which we are to prove, are diſtinctly theſe two:

I. That the Evangeliſts do not always follow the Septuagints Tranſlation.

And for clearer caſting up the account, let this Propoſition be known by the letter A. So that where ever it ſtands in the Margin, there may be obſerved an inſtance of this Propoſitions being verified.

II. That they uſed a Liberty, or took a Latitude, not following ever the expreſſions of any other known Tranſlation, or indeed of the Original it ſelf, but contenting themſelves generally to report (ſometimes only to allude to) the Senſe of ſuch or ſuch Texts, as they had occaſion to make uſe of. And let not this be thought the worſe of, becauſe it was of old S. Jerome's doctrine, who may be thought a party: The holy Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, ſaith he, commonly alledge Teſtimonies out of the Old Teſtament, according to the Senſe, not the Words: as indeed do the Fathers, and moſt Writers, out of all Authors.

And, as the other, let this Propoſition be known by its letter, viz. B. And further, becauſe upon this Enquiry there will ariſe matter of fact, which will prove other Propoſitions, to be treated of anon, all tending to vindicate the Authority of the preſent Hebrew Text (which I contend to be the Original, and alone Authentick) for the better making up our account, therein, alſo, let C ſignifie the ſingle Concord of the Evangeliſts and Septuagint: but CC the Concord of all three, Hebrew, Septuagint and Evangeliſts: and † Texts perverted in the Septuagint.

And now in the name of God, let us examine all without Prejudice or Partiality, not ſolicitous for Victory but Truth.

CHAP. II. Texts produced out of the Old Teſtament by S. Matthew.

THE firſt Teſtimony S. Matthew alledges out of the Old Teſtament, is from Iſai. vii. 14. This in the Hebrew runs (ſtrictly enough according to our Tranſlation) Behold a Virgin ſhall conceive and bear a Son, and thou ſhalt call his name Emmanuel. In the Septuagint it runs thus, Behold a Virgin ſhall receive in her womb, and then word for word, as in the Hebrew. But in the Greek of the New Teſtament, Behold a Virgin ſhall have [or carry] in her womb, which ſenſe our Tranſlators in the New Teſtament, Matth. i. 23. well expreſs, ſhall be with child. I ſay, to conceive, and to be with child, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are different Phraſes, if not things; and of more ſignification, perhaps, here, than at firſt thought of. Had our Lord according to the opinion of the old Valentinians, or later Mennonites in Germany, had only a Celeſtial body, which meerly paſſed through the Virgin Mary, not being formed of her ſubſtance; ſhe might have been ſaid to have received it in her womb: But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to be with child, being according to common uſe of the Phraſe, properly of Women, who are truly gravid, does more emphatically aſſert the Verity of our Lord's Humane Nature, by implying his being carried the full time in the womb; and therefore that his body was nouriſhed, and conſequently formed of his bleſſed Mothers ſubſtance, which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does not. And it may be no wrong to the Holy Ghoſt, to conceive he guided S. Matt. thus in Greek to word his Text, rather than as the Septuagint do. But beſides this variation, whereas the Septuagint, keeping cloſe to the Hebrew, have it, Thou ſhalt call, namely, Thou, O Virgin, ſhalt call, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 S. Matthew here alſo recedes, and that from both, ſaying, They ſhall call. And in truth, in the former point, he may be thought, alſo, to have a little left the Hebrew, as well as Septuagint: for, to receive in the womb, which was the Septuagints phraſe, more properly expreſſes what we mean by Conception, than being with child. In ſhort, his receding from the A. Septuagint in theſe two points, is a proof of the firſt Propoſition; his receding both from Septuagint, B. and from Hebrew, a proof of the ſecond.

The ſecond Allegation by S. Matthew is out of Micah v. 2. which is again very well, and naturally, tranſlated from the Hebrew, in our Bibles, thus, Thou Bethlehem-Ephratha, though thou be little amongſt the thouſands of Judah, yet out of thee ſhall he come forth unto me, that is to be ruler in Iſrael. The Septuagint here render it, Thou Bethlehem the houſe of Ephratha art the leaſt, &c. In the reſt, nearly enough to the Hebrew. But S. Matthew, eſpecially in his Greek, recedes from both ſtrangely: Thou, O Bethlehem, the land of Judah, art in no wiſe the leaſt amongſt the Princes of Judah, Matth. ii. 6. Beſides the Variation, here is a plain contradiction to the Septuagint. [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Matth. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Sept.] greater difference both in Senſe and Phraſe cannot well be. And in the latter member, excepting the contradiction, the variation is not much leſs. For out of thee A. ſhall come forth a Ruler [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Matth. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Sept.] Who ſhall feed my people B. Iſrael. Except the proper names, here is nothing alike. What, in the name of God, did he think, who aſſerted a perpetual conſent?

The third Old Teſtament text is Hoſea xi. 1. which we render faithfully, word for word, out of the Hebrew, thus: Out of Egypt have I called my ſon. But the Septuagint, I have ſent for his children out of Egypt. S. Matth. ii. 15. agrees exactly with the Hebrew, A. the Septuagint being as foreign to his purpoſe, as it is to the Original.

A fourth Text is out of Jerem. xxxi. 15. in which again the faithfulneſs of our Tranſlators to the Hebrew, as well as to S. Matthew, is to be commended: In Ramah was there a voice heard, Lamentation and weeping and great mourning, [Lamentation and weeping of bitterneſs, Hebr.] Rachel mourning for her children, and [refuſed, Hebr.] would not be comforted, becauſe they were not, Matth. ii. 17. He who reads the xxxi. ch. of Jerem. in the Septuagints Verſion, of that Edition at leaſt, which Biſhop Walton, judging moſt correct, put into our Polyglott, ſhall find in the whole chapter nothing nearer this Text, than ver. 3. A voice of people crying out of Oronaim, deſtruction and great breaking in pieces. But in truth this was not deſigned by the Interpreters as a Tranſlation of what is cited by S. Matthew; as belonging to ch. 48. 3. For here the Copy is all in confuſion; and this, which ſtands, in order, the xxxi, is indeed the xlviii. And that which ſtands the xxxviii, is legitimately the xxxi. And ſo beſides the Hebrew, and our Bibles from it, even the vulgar Latin, and ſome later Editions of the Septuagint, have it. Now in the ſaid xxxviii. chap. v. 15. we have the text we look for, which is there rendred thus: Rachel all in A. weeping [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ſimply without any adjection: not as S. Matt. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which perfectly anſwers the Hebrew.] and would not ceaſe over her children, becauſe they were not.

A fifth Text is out of Iſai. xl. 3. where firſt we find S. Matthew to follow the Septuagints Verſion: But the reaſon may well be preſumed to be, becauſe they here follow the Hebrew: ſo that in CC. this text all three accord; eſpecially if we render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the ſenſe our Tranſlators very properly, as I conceive, take it. The little difference there is, is of S. Matthew, from both the Original and Septuagint: for he putting the Pronoun for the Noun, contracts the latter clauſe thus. Make ſtraight his paths, inſtead of, make ſtraight the paths of our God, which word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of our God, very material as B. it might ſeem, is in both, but omitted by S. Matthew.

The ſixth and ſeventh Texts, S. Matthew produces out of the Old Teſtament (if we wave one, which is mangled by the Devil, as I am apt to think it not diſagreeable to do, inaſmuch as his authority will not much credit any Tranſlation) are ſuch wherein Hebrew, Septuagint and Evangeliſt CC. CC. are all at ſufficient accord. The places are Deut. viii. 3. and vi. 16. in S. Matt. iv. 4, 7.

The Eighth is, Deut. vi. 13. alledged by S. Matth. iv. 10, where both Hebrew and Septuagint (and ſo indeed in parallel texts) read, Thou ſhalt fear the Lord thy God, but S. Matthew gloſſes the word more to his purpoſe, and receding from both, ſaith, Thou ſhalt worſhip the Lord thy God. A. The Temptation was, To fall down B. and worſhip the Tempter, v. 9. And the word Worſhip, which is compriſed in the fear of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , was more pertinent to oppoſe to the temptation, than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Septuagint, though that more exactly anſwered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Original. But in the latter clauſe here it is to be noted, that Emphatical reſtrictive term, only, is added by the Septuagint, and not in the Original Hebrew: And the Evangeliſt herein follows the Septuagint, not the Hebrew: C. which is the firſt inſtance we meet with of this kind.

The Ninth is out of Iſai. ix. 1. produced by S. Matthew iv. 15. Not to ſpeak here of the irreconcileable difference, as it ſeems to me, between the Septuagint and the Original, in ſuch turning aſide (I will not ſay perverting) the very ſcope of that whole Paragraph, as makes the principal part of it, if taken according to the Septuagints Verſion unapplicable † and impertinent to the Evangeliſts purpoſe, we will only view that part of it, broken off ſhort, which our Evangeliſt alledges—The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphthali, the way of the Sea beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. The people which ſat [ſaith S. Matth. walked, Hebr.] in darkneſs, have ſeen a great light, and to them that ſat in the region [Hebr. in the land] of the ſhadow of death, light is ſprung up, or, hath ſhined. Thus far exactly do S. Matthew and the Hebrew agree. But the Septuagint differ thus—The region of Zebulun, the land of Naphthali, and the reſt of the inhabitants of the Sea-coaſt, and Galilee of the nations beyond Jordan. Behold a great light, ye people that walk in darkneſs, and ye that dwell in the region of the ſhadow of death, light ſhall ſhine upon you. Any one may perceive by the Engliſh, theſe Tranſlations differ; but the Greek of S. Matthew, and of the Septuagint in this text, is much A. more different than the Engliſh: And S. Matthew here leaves the Septuagint, and keeps cloſe to the Hebrew.

In our Lord's Sermon on the mount, there are ſeveral conciſe old Precepts, and Doctrinal paſſages rather toucht and alluded to, than any intire text, that I have obſerved, produced. For, the Tenth and laſt inſtance therefore out of S. Matthew we will take what he alledges, Chap. viii. 17. expreſly, and by name, out of Iſaiah, chap. liii. 4. which had our Tranſlators thought good, might have been rendred word for word out of Iſaiah's Hebrew, as they have rendred it out of S. Matthew's Greek. But I confeſs the text is capable of a double ſenſe, and therefore they did very wiſely, according to the different ſcopes of the Contexts, to give it a double rendring. However in S. Matthew's text, Himſelf took our infirmities, and bare our ſickneſſes; every word anſwers to the Hebrew. But the Septuagint have tranſlated every word different (more pertinently, perhaps, to the Prophets ſcope, than to the Evangeliſts) thus. This [perſon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] bears our ſins, and is grieved concerning us. S. Matthew therefore leaves their tranſlation, and himſelf, as far as we know, tranſlates a-new.

And now to ſumm up our Evidence out of S. Matthew: It is plain in ſeven Texts of Ten, he forſakes the Septuagint, and in 7 A. diverſe of them, as all reaſon induces us to think, becauſe they therein forſake the Hebrew, which he rather follows. In the other three of the Ten, we find S. Matthew, Hebrew and Septuagint all 3 CC. accord. In four of thoſe inſtances wherein S. Matthew tranſlates a-new, he takes that liberty which we aſſerted, receding in part from the very Hebrew it ſelf, in expreſſion, 4 B. I mean, though not ſo much in ſenſe. Finally, we have one inſtance, and that only, in one reſtrictive particle, which he 1 C. takes out of the Septuagints Verſion, not to be found in the Hebrew, but very pertinent and emphatical to his purpoſe.

Therefore, I. the Authors or Pen-men of the New Teſtament, do not always, or with a perpetual conſent, follow the Septuagints Verſion: but II. They take ſuch Latitude or Liberty, as ſeemed good to the Holy Spirit of God: which were the points to be demonſtrated.

CHAP. III. Texts produced out of the Old Teſtament by S. Mark.

SAINT Mark in the very beginning of his Goſpel, produces two Teſtimonies (indeed out of two Prophets, but) ſo, as they would ſeem at firſt ſight only one continued Prophecy.

The firſt is out of Malach. iii. 1. and in the Hebrew, it runs thus. Behold, I ſend my meſſenger, and he ſhall prepare [as by ſweeping or cleanſing] the way before my face. This the Septuagint thus render, Behold I ſend forth my meſſenger, and he ſhall view the way before my face. S. Mark paraphraſes it thus, Behold, I ſend, [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Mark. A. Only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Sept.] my meſſenger before thy face, who ſhall prepare thy way before thee. A liberty not only altering the words and B. Tranſlation, but enlarging the ſenſe at that rate, which nothing but preſent inſpiration could warrant. He follows neither Septuagint nor Hebrew.

The ſecond is the ſame with the fifth, out of S. Matthew, wherein S. Mark exactly agrees with his brother Evangeliſt; even to the uſe of the Pronoun, inſtead of the Hebrew emphatical Noun; both of them, in that minute difference, receding from Hebrew as well as Septuagint. But this difference is not ſufficient to juſtifie any mans ſaying, they here left the Verſion of the Seventy. Wherefore we will account all CC. here agreed.

There is a glance at a paſſage of Iſaiah, Mark iv. 12. but the text not ſo directly cited as in S. John: we will therefore defer the Examination of it, till we meet with it there. And ſuppoſing we paſs that; the third text produced by S. Mark out of the Old Teſtament, as far as I have obſerved, is Iſai. xxix 13. which, as to what is made uſe of by this Evangeliſt, runs thus, in the Hebrew. This people—honour me with their lips, but have removed their heart from me, and their fear towards me is taught by the precept of men, as our Tranſlators have rendred it: or, more ſtrictly, their fear towards me, is a taught precept of men. And in the Septuagint thus, This people—they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worſhip me, teaching commandments of men, and doctrines. This laſt clauſe indeed, S. Mark ch. vii. 6, 7. (we will ſuppoſe for perſpicuities ſake) a little alters, varying the order of the words, and omitting the conjunction (which makes no inconſiderable variation of the Septuagints ſenſe, indeed meliorates B. it, and is an inſtance of the liberty he uſed) thus, Teaching for doctrines [or, as Doctrines] the commandments of men. In the reſt, word for word he keeps to the Septuagint, who undoubtedly, as C. Grotius well conjectures, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 read, as eaſily they might in old Manuſcripts, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and according to that reading they naturally enough rendred the text as they did, and in vain do they worſhip me: for ſo read, it runs word for word thus, and in vain is their fear [that is, worſhip] towards me. Then the participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , teaching, was neceſſary to be ſupplied in the latter clauſe, (which their miſreading, or otherwiſe reading the former, had involved) to make the conſtruction more commodious, the ſenſe remaining ſtill the ſame.

The fourth paſſage is out of the Decalogue, Exod. xx. 12. wherein all accord: only in that CC. explicatory Supplement to this command, out of Exod. xxi. 17. He that curſeth father or mother; S. Mark ch. vii. 10. changes the verb from the Indicative to the Imperative, and more agreeably to the ſtile of a Law-giver, reads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Let him dy the death: but this difference is not worthy to come into account.

The fifth inſtance of any intire Text alledged (not to ſpeak of places meerly referred to, or toucht upon, where it is uncertain, whether the Evangeliſt more ey'd the Original or Septuagint) is touching the inſtitution of Marriage, Mark x. 6, 7, 8. Wherein again all three exactly accord: excepting only, that the Septuagint ſeem to have taken one ſmall, but Emphatical word, out of the 25. verſe, and put it into the 24. of Geneſ. ii. for they read, They two ſhall be one fleſh. Two, is not in the Hebrew, but notwithſtanding, C. taken from the Septuagint by our Evangeliſt, as being indeed very much to his purpoſe.

The ſixth inſtance is again in the Decalogue, and therein of the Repetition of the whole ſecond Table, ſummarily, Mark x. 19. Now the difference herein, is greater in the Greek of theſe Writers, than it appears in the Engliſh: ſo that we may ſafely ſay, the Tranſlation is not the ſame with the Septuagint. The prohibitive particle, the mood or way of ſpeaking, all along is changed, and the order of the Precepts totally inverted. And finally, inſtead of the Tenth Commandment, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Thou ſhalt not covet, in which the Septuagint exactly follow the Hebrew, S. Mark has 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , A. Degraud not, or, Deprive not; A manifeſt Variation, and no doubt deſigned to teach us what kind of Coveting is chiefly forbid in that command, namely, the nouriſhing ſuch deſires as put us upon contrivances to obtain what is our Neighbours, or to get to our ſelves, by depriving others of their B. right. A paſſage very remarkable. And this liberty even in the very text of the Decalogue, or Moral law it ſelf; I may ſay nothing, but our Lord's Authority, as the Chriſtian Law-giver, or preſent inſpiration could have warranted.

The ſeventh Teſtimony which S. Mark produces, we find in Chap. xi. 17. out of Iſai. lvi. 7. and CC. CC. the Eighth, Chap. xii. 10. out of Pſalm cxviii. 21. In both which there is no variation at all between Hebrew, Septuagint or Evangeliſt.

The Ninth is in S. Mark, Chap. xii. 19. where he expreſly indeed refers to the old Law, but we cannot think by his reporting it, he lookt upon himſelf concern'd to produce the words of the text. That Law we find extant, Deut. xxv. 5. Where in the Hebrew it is, If he have no Son; in the Septuagint, If he have no Seed; In S. Mark, If he leave no children. And again, ver. 7. The office of the ſurviving brother is termed in the Hebrew and Septuagint, Raiſing up his brothers name, [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .] by S. Mark, Raiſing up ſeed unto his brother. [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .] Indeed in an Hiſtorical relation of this cuſtom, before it was paſt into a formal Law, Geneſ. xxxviii. 8. both Hebrew and Septuagint have, with a very ſmall difference, this latter phraſe. However this muſt be allowed a proof of the liberty he takes, to report the ſenſe, not the words, of the Law, B. and ſo not to confine himſelf to any Tranſlation.

The laſt inſtance I will alledge out of S. Mark is, Chap. xii. 26. where he repeats God's words, Exod. iii. 6. which in the Septuagint run thus, I am God of Abraham, God of Iſaac, and God of Jacob. The Text conſiſting of proper names, there could not well be greater Variation, than by putting in all along the Article, which here bears a great Emphaſis to the purpoſe, for which our A. Lord alledged that Teſtimony; and that S. Mark does, reporting it thus; I am the God [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] of Abraham, the God of Iſaac, and the God of Jacob.

So that in ſumm: in Ten Texts out of S. Mark, we have 3 A. three, wherein the Evangeliſt manifeſtly recedes from, or alters the Septuagints Tranſlation. We have four, wherein both, Hebrew, Septuagint, and Goſpel 4 CC. all agree. We have two in which he may be ſaid properly to follow the Septuagint, becauſe he keeps to their Verſion, 2 C. even as to what is not in the Hebrew in terms. And we have, 4 B. to omit other leſs variations, four inſtances of the liberty (in two of them, very great) which he takes, in leaving both Hebrew and Septuagint. Whereby it is evident, the Holy Ghoſt did not intend, in the ſtile of the New Teſtament, to Canonize any Tranſlation by a conſtant and perpetual obſervation of it. Q. E. D.

CHAP. IV. Texts out of the Old Teſtament cited by S. Luke.

THE firſt is in his Firſt Chap. ver. 16, 17. where he evidently cites a Verſe or two out of the Prophet Malachi, but with ſuch liberty as I have aſſerted. The Text in the Hebrew runs thus. Malach. iv. 5, 6. Behold I ſend you Elijah the Prophet.—And he ſhall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers. The Septuagints Verſion in this Chapter is very diſorderly, and perhaps has ſuſtained wrong: but I ſhall, as juſtly as I can, repreſent their rendring theſe words. Behold, I will ſend unto you, Elias the Tiſhbite. [A very corrupt Addition, whoſe, or with what deſign, God knows. Sure it is, that the Jewiſh Rabbies teach, and particularly David Kimchi upon this very Text, that Elias the Tiſhbite's ſoul is to come into a body, created like the former, which he had, and that he is to appear, and call together the Jews from the ſeveral parts of the world immediately before the coming of the Meſſias; Three days before, ſay ſome of them. Now how excellently the Verſion of the Septuagint favours this Fable, and whether this be not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to dote with, or on, the Rabbies, as ſome body taxes others to do, let the world judge. The Angel, in S. Luke, expreſly interprets the Prophecy of S. John the Baptiſts coming in the Spirit, and power of Elias, &c. But enough of this. The Septuagint again proceed, miſinterpreting.] Who ſhall reſtore the heart of the father to the ſon, and the heart of a man to his neighbour. How ſtrangely different from what we heard in the Prophet, and from what we find in S. Luke's Text! who tells us an Holy Angel ſpoke to Zachary, the father of John the Baptiſt, concerning his ſon, thus: He ſhall go before him [that is, John the Baptiſt before Chriſt] in the Spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the A. children [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] ſtrictly according to the Original. Not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the Septuagint have ordered it.] and B. the diſobedient to the wiſdom of the juſt. A free paraphraſe as to this latter clauſe.

The Second Text alledged by S. Luke, is in Chapter ii. 23. where he tells us: It is written in the Law of the Lord, every male that openeth the womb ſhall be called holy to the Lord. Now who would not expect to find this text in the Law, Hebrew or Greek, word for word? Yet is the ſenſe only, not the words, written there. The firſt-born, that openeth every matrice, as the Septuagint exactly according to the Hebrew render it [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] is commanded to be ſanctified to the Lord. Exodus xiii. 1. wherefore it may be juſtly ſaid, 'tis called Holy. Let us look further, and verſe 12. we find that Law repeated as to Beaſts, thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So again verſe 15. So Numbers viii. 16. But the Text, as S. Luke reports it, and ſeems to ſay, 'tis written ſo, I no where find but in him. Wherefore we plainly ſee him uſe a liberty to depart from the words both of Septuagint and B. Hebrew.

The Third indeed is of ſmall moment, yet to be juſt to our propoſal, we muſt take notice of it. A pair of Turtles [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] ſays S. Luke, Chap. ii. 24. two Turtles, ſay both Hebrew and Septuagint.

In the Fourth Text, there is a Concord betwixt all, except only in one word. What the Septuagint CC. call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Plains, nearer the Hebrew, Iſai. xl. 4. S. Luke ſtiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Chap. iii. 5. ſmooth ways. I do not eſteem this difference worth the accounting.

In the Fifth, S. Luke varies a little, both from the Hebrew, and the Septuagints and S. Matthew's Greek. The Hebrew runs thus. Deut. viii. 3. But upon all that proceeds out of the mouth of God, ſhall man live. The Septuagint gloſs it thus, upon every word that proceeds, &c. and S. Matthew, as we have ſeen, follows them. S. Luke takes it ſhorter, Chap. iv. 4. But by every word of God. I eſteem not this variation worth reckoning, and therefore here again account an Accord of all. C C.

In the Sixth, I cannot but take notice of the ſame Variation, made by S. Luke, both from the Hebrew and Septuagint, which S. Matthew alſo made, Thou ſhalt A. worſhip, inſtead of, Thou ſhalt fear, B. Luke iv. 8. I refer my Reader to the note on S. Matthew.

In the Seventh, which was alſo the ſeventh out of S. Matthew, we find S. Luke to accord with the Hebrew, Septuagint and S. Matthew. C C. 'Tis Luke iv. 12. and Deut. vi. 16.

The Eighth paſſage, has in it conſiderable both agreement and diſagreement to the Septuagint. 'Tis Iſai. lxi. 1, 2. Where, the Septuagint render what is in the Hebrew, The opening of the priſon to them that are bound, by recovery of ſight to the blind. This C. ſo different rendring, depends upon a Criticiſm, in the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . To open [properly ſay the Maſters, the eyes and ears.] However S. Luke follows it, Chapter, iv. 18. But withal, preſently adds another rendring, which plainly ſhews he had the Hebrew text in his eye. To ſet at liberty [or ſend away] them that are bruiſed. This, I ſay, is not in the Septuagint, and evidently anſwers, though it does not ſtrictly expreſs, the Hebrew Opening of the Priſon to them that are bound. So that conſidering both, he may be ſaid here to have followed both Septuagint and Hebrew: taking out of the Septuagint, what was there emphatical to his purpoſe, and yet not neglecting what in the Hebrew was not ſo fully tranſlated by the Septuagint, but giving a gloſs B. of it according to his liberty. And yet again, in this text, he moſt plainly recedes from the Septuagint, in the very next clauſe, rejecting their tranſlation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which was A. not pertinent to the ſcope of the text, and rendring it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is both pertinent to the ſcope, and ſtrict juſtice to the word.

The Ninth Old Teſtament Text, which I have obſerved, produced by S. Luke, is the ſame with S. Mark's firſt: 'Tis in Luke vii. 27. and out of Malachi iii. 1. The two Evangeliſts exactly accord, but both recede widely A. from the Septuagint, on which B. for the preſent I make no other note than there I did.

In Luke viii. 10. there is a ſhort touch upon Iſai. vi. 9. as indeed there was in S. Mark: but it occurs again more largely in S. John: we will therefore at preſent wave the examination thereof; and for the Tenth Teſtimony produced out of the Old Teſtament by S. Luke, we will take that which next follows in him, Chapter x. 27. which is ſo much the more worthy of our notice, becauſe it is repeated by the two former Evangeliſts, but our meaſure did not reach to it. 'Tis Deut. vi. 5. Thou ſhalt love the Lord thy God with all thy

Heart—Soul—Might. Hebr. Mind—Soul—Power. Sept. Heart—Soul—Strength, Mind. Luc. Heart—Soul—Mind, Strength. Mar. Heart—Soul—Mind. Matth.

Where it is obſervable that our Evangeliſt, firſt, recedes from the Septuagint, as indeed do both the other, to keep with the Hebrew in the firſt term, with all thine heart. Secondly, both from the Hebrew and Septuagint in B. making the Scheme conſiſt of four terms, as alſo doth S. Mark; whereas Originally it has but three. And thirdly, he renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the Septuagint. Which are ample A. evidences of his not following, here, the Verſion of the Septuagint.

In ſumm, Of Ten Texts taken by S. Luke, out of the Old Teſtament, we find him to recede conſiderably from the Septuagint, 6 A. in ſix; in three we find him to accord both with the Septuagint (though not exactly) and 3 C C. Hebrew; In one, he neither accords with Hebrew nor Septuagint, as to words, but only as to ſenſe, taking the liberty (uſual with all Writers) of his own expreſſion: But beſides this, there are five other inſtances of this liberty, 6 B. as to ſundry members of Texts. And there is only one inſtance, and that in one clauſe of a Text, wherein he keeps to the Septuagint apart from the Hebrew. 1 C. Whence I preſume both our Propoſitions again demonſtrated.

CHAP. V. Texts of the Old Teſtament cited by S. John.

THE Firſt, Chapter i. 23. Here S. John recedes both from A. the Septuagints Verſion, which the other three Evangeliſts exactly followed, and from them alſo. Where they all have, Prepare ye the way, (Iſai. xl. 3. Matt. iii. 3. Mark i. 3. Luk. iii. 4.) He ſays, B. Make ye ſtrait the way, which was one ſort of preparing it, but not at all, that intimated in the Original Hebrew word.

The Second, I have obſerved S. John to produce, is out of Pſalm lxix. 9. which he reports, Chapter ii. 17. exactly according to Hebrew and Septuagint, C C. The zeal of thine houſe hath eaten me up.

The third Text by him produced (for of little glances and alluſions no judgment can be made in this caſe) is out of Iſai. liv. 13. which the Septuagint, ſupplying the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as very properly they might) out of verſe 12. render, And I will make—all thy children taught of God. This Text S. John thus reports, Chap. vi. 45. It is written in the Prophets, And they ſhall be all taught of God. A new Verb, a Pronoun for a Noun (departing, herein, both from Hebrew and Septuagint) and yet the text brought in abruptly, as if it had been written in ſo many words or ſyllables, And they, &c. 'Tis A. plain, he intended not to follow B. the Septuagints Verſion, though he kept both their, and the Original ſenſe.

The fourth Teſtimony is very ſhort, (but with ſuch, out of this Evangeliſt, we muſt be content) from Pſalm lxxxii. 6. produced John x. 34. I ſaid ye are Gods: C C. And herein all accord.

The fifth Teſtimony, I have obſerved, ſtill I mean, alledged at any length by S. John, is out of Zech. ix. 9. which in the Hebrew and Septuagint runs thus: Rejoice greatly O daughter of Sion, ſhout, [Proclaim, Sept.] O daughter of Jeruſalem. Behold thy King cometh to thee, Juſt, and having Salvation [Saved, Hebr. Saving, Sept.] is he, lowly [rather poor, Hebr.] and riding upon an Aſs, and upon a colt the fole of Aſſes, [upon a beaſt accuſtomed to the yoak, and a young fole, ſay the Sept.] This † S. John hath varied and contracted thus. Ch. xii. 15. Fear not daughter A. of Zion, Behold thy King cometh ſitting B. upon an Aſſes colt. There are ſcarce three words, and thoſe ſuch too as could not be varied, of the Septuagints Greek, in the Evangeliſts text.

The ſixth Old Teſtament-text, S. John has, is again a ſhort one. 'Tis Iſai. liii. 1. Lord who hath believed C C. our report? John xii. 38. And here all agree exactly. Indeed in a text ſo ſhort, and plain, it could not well be otherwiſe. But in

The ſeventh, which is larger, we ſhall find difference enough. The Prophet Eſaias ſaid again, ſaith S. John, Chap. xii. 40. He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they ſhould not ſee with their eyes, nor underſtand with their heart, and be converted and I ſhould heal them. But Iſaiah's words run thus, Iſai. vi. 10. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and ſhut their eyes; leſt they ſee with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and underſtand with their hearts, and convert and be healed; as our Tranſlation, only making the Hebrew Engliſh, excellently renders them. The Septuagint varies a little from the Hebrew, turning the Imperative Active into a Paſſive Preter (which a ſmall difference of punctation does in the Hebrew) and read thus, The heart of this people is waxed fat, and they hear heavily with their ears, and their eyes have they cloſed, leſt they ſhould ſee with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and underſtand with their heart, and ſhould convert [or, return] and I ſhould heal them. Which Verſion of the Septuagint S. Matthew follows, word for word, Matth. xiii. 15. So does S. Luke. Acts xxviii. 27. Notwithſtanding it is plain, both from Hebrew, from the Septuagint, and from both thoſe Evangeliſts, does S. John's text A. differ. 1. Whereas the text conſiſts of two Climaxes or gradations, B. one anſwering the other, S. John cuts each ſhort by one ſtep. 2. The Septuagints Verſion, and the Evangeliſts from them, impute all to the people, as their own Act or Choice. Their heart is grown fat, they hear heavily with their ears, and they have cloſed their eyes. S. John aſcribes all this (following herein the Hebrew) to God and his judgment. 3. The principal Greek words are in a manner all diverſe. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ſaith S. John. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Septuagint. Matth. Luk. Further as to this Text, it is worthy our notice, that it is in three other places of the New Teſtament alledged, at leaſt in part: namely by S. Luke in his Goſpel, Ch. viii. 10. who there contracts it, and otherwiſe varies from the Septuagint. By S. Mark Chap. iv. 12. who in the beginning holds with the Septuagint, but in the cloſe inſtead of, I ſhould heal them, puts paraphraſtically, and their ſins ſhould be forgiven them, which is one part of healing, leaving herein Hebrew, as well as Septuagint. And laſtly, by S. Paul, Rom. xi. 8. who gloſſes on it, differently from all, thus, God hath given them the Spirit of ſlumber [inſtead of made their hearts fat] eyes that they ſhould not ſee, ears that they ſhould not hear; with S. John and the Hebrew, attributing the Act to God. So that (to note this by the bye, though not to bring it into account) in one and the ſame place ſix times produced in the New Teſtament, there ſeems twice a new Verſion clearly made, viz. by S. John one, and by S. Paul another: Twice is the Old Septuagint followed by S. Matthew, and S. Luke in the Acts; but alſo twice again varied in a good part, the very ſame Evangeliſt in terms varying from himſelf; All, an ample proof of the Latitude, which is to be acknowledged in theſe Authors ſtiles.

In the xv. of S. John, ver. 25. there is a tranſient and occaſional alluſion to an expreſſion Pſalm xxxv. 19. And though I might reaſonably ſay, the Evangeliſt here ſeems rather to have followed ſome other Verſion, or reading, than that of the Septuagint (for he produces the text as an intire Propoſition, with a cauſal particle in its beginning, as connecting it with what, in the Original context, is ſuppoſed to have gone before, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . whereas it is only the ſubject of a Propoſition, or rather of a Petition, both in our Septuagint and Hebrew) though I might, I ſay, take notice of this difference, yet I wave it, and as the Eighth Teſtimony produced by S. John, reckon that out of Pſal. xxii. 29. touching the ſouldiers dividing our Lord's garments amongſt them, and caſting lots upon his ſeamleſs coat, alledged Chap. C. C. xix. 24. wherein all agree.

Reckoning as we have done, the Ninth Old Teſtament-text, I obſerve, alledged by S. John is Chap. xix. 36. which whether taken out of Exod. xii. 36. or Num. ix. 2. varies conſiderably both in phraſe and ſenſe. Ye ſhall not break a bone from off it, in the former place: They ſhall not break a bone from off it, in the latter: But S. John has it, a bone of him [or of A. it, viz. of the Paſſeover, a Figure of Chriſt crucified] ſhall not be broken. I ought not to wave this difference.

The laſt paſſage I have obſerved S. John to produce out of the Old Teſtament, is Zechariah, xii. 10. which in the Hebrew ſtands exactly as we have it tranſlated to us, They ſhall look upon me [or, to me] whom they have pierced. And S. John only varying the perſon of the object, reports it, Chap. xix. 37. They ſhall A. look on him whom they have pierced. But the Septuagint moſt ſtrangely, indeed ſo, as not without difficulty to be reconciled with ſenſe. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [even herein not with S. John, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Words of † moſt ambiguous meaning, whereas the Original is moſt expreſs and plain: But put what ſenſe we can upon them, nothing can well be more foreign from the Original Prophecy and the Evangeliſts purpoſe, than they are. Some render them, They ſhall look upon me, for that they have inſulted. But why 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for that? If we will retain that ſignification of the Verb, the tranſlation would be better, for thoſe things wherein they have inſulted, or, for thoſe perſons, over whom they have inſulted: Either is more natural than the firſt. However, this text was not produced as a Prophecy of the Jews inſulting over, or ſcoffing at, the Meſſias, but of their piercing him. And indeed the Authors of this tranſlation ſeem not to have underſtood the text of the Meſſias at all. For if we follow, what ſome men tell us is the beſt Edition of the Septuagint, it is not ſaid therein, they ſhall mourn over him, but over themſelves. Beſides, give me leave to offer an old conjecture of the ground of all this miſinterpretation. The Interpreters read undoubtedly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They danced [or wantonly skipped, like Rams, as the word is uſed, Pſalm cxiv. 4.] for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They pierced. How eaſie the miſtake is, any one that knows the Hebrew letters, may ſee. And ſo reading it, they could not have better tranſlated it than as they did, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For though Hezekias render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 only by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [they rejoiced againſt] and Suidas adds only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [they mocked] both which together may make up, They inſulted; yet is none of theſe the proper, much leſs the only, ſignification of that word. Budaeus, a perſon of better judgment and accuracy, who alſo brings ever fair Vouchers for what he ſays, proves 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to Dance deliciouſly to the pleaſing and tranſport of the Spectators, or elſe Mimically and reproachfully. The former of theſe I take to have been deſigned by the Interpreters, as being the more uſual ſignification of the word. The Jewiſh Doctors, we muſt know, have a ſaying, that in all the Plagues which befel their Nation, ſince their forefathers guilt in the matter of the Golden Calf, there are ſtill ſome grains of the Aſhes of that Calf in them. Now I verily believe, the Interpreters, in the rendring this text, reflected upon thoſe Idolatrous ſports of the old Jews (as being leavened with the aforeſaid Doctrine) and underſtood it to be a Prophecy of a deep National humiliation for that National ſin in the Wilderneſs, Exod. xxxii. Thus then I judge their Greek text here ought to be rendred, They ſhall look upon me for what they Danced, that is, for their Lewd dancing, and voluptuous ſports and ſolemnities before their Idol, when they held that Feaſt, wherein They ſat down to eat and drink, and roſe up to play. And thus we have a Prophecy of the Jews repentance, for Crucifying the Meſſiah, perverted to the occaſion (as I conceive) of the Golden Calf, by the miſreading of the Interpreters. Miſreading, I ſaid; for that they did herein miſinterpret is plain, elſe S. John miſinterprets; and I think no better account can be given of their miſinterpreting, than that which I have ſuppoſed, from S. Hierom, of their miſreading. But if any will make better ſenſe of their text, I ſhall be glad to hear it. I am ſure if any text, which ſo peculiarly touches the proof of Chriſtianity as this does, had been ſo awkwardly read in the Hebrew, we ſhould have heard largely of Rabbinical corruptions, and malicious frauds of the Modern Jews.

But it is time to ſumm up our account here alſo. Of Ten Texts, which are all this Evangeliſt has (as far as I have obſerved) of any tolerable length, whence to judge of a tranſlation; of ten, I ſay, he leaves the Septuagints 6 A. tranſlation in ſix: and in four of theſe ſix, takes the liberty we 4 B. have aſſerted, of departing from the ſtrict expreſſions as well of Hebrew as Septuagint. In the other four texts, indeed he follows both Hebrew and Septuagint. 4 CC. But there is not any one inſtance, I have been able to obſerve, in this Evangeliſt, wherein he follows the Septuagint alone, that is, receding from the Hebrew Original text. Wherefore I conceive both the Propoſitions again evidenced by theſe deductions out of S. John.

CHAP. VI. The Summ of all the Accounts.

TO draw all the Accounts now into one. Of forty Texts out of the Old Teſtament, the Evangeliſts have clearly departed from the Septuagint and 22 A. tranſlated a-new in twenty two; generally keeping cloſer to the Hebrew than the Septuagint does.

In diverſe of theſe Twenty two, as well as in others particularly notified, to the number of Eighteen in all, they have taken the Latitude we aſſerted, 18 B. varying from the expreſſion of the Hebrew, as well as of the Septuagint, and contenting themſelves to report the general ſenſe of the Teſtimonies they produce.

Which Summ of Inſtances being found, within ſo ſmall a compaſs, amply proves both the Propoſitions above aſſerted, but not needful here to be repeated.

Further it appears, there are Fourteen texts of the Forty, wherein Hebrew, Septuagint, and 14 CC. Evangeliſts all accord.

Again, There are Four in which the Evangeliſts have followed the Septuagint, ſingly 4 C. at leaſt, as to ſome expreſſion, or expreſſions, which are not, or ſeem not to be in the Hebrew: which expreſſions that it may appear juſtly of what moment they are, though they are before ſet down a-part, and as they did occurr, yet I will here repeat them together.

Matt. iv. 10. Him [only] ſhalt thou ſerve.

Mark vii. 7. [Howbeit, in vain do they worſhip me, teaching commandments of men, and Doctrines. Sept. Teaching for Doctrines the commandment of men. Mark] This is only thus far virtually in the Hebrew Text. Their fear towards me is taught by the precept of men. [in vain do they worſhip me] is an Addition of the Septuagint, not in the Hebrew, crept in by miſ-reading, though agreeable enough to the ſcope of the text: but followed by S. Matthew, as well as Mark. Mark x. 8. They [two] ſhall be one fleſh.

Luke iv. 18. Recovery of ſight to the blind. This is virtually in the Hebrew. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which we render opening, ſignifies properly the opening of the eyes, or ears, (as beforeſaid) in which, ſay the Hebrew Criticks, it differs from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which ſignifies the opening of the mouth: but S. Luke, as we have ſeen, to be ſure of expreſſing the full Hebrew ſenſe, both takes the reſtrained tranſlation of the Septuagint, which would emphatically touch ſome of our Lord's Miracles, and adds a more general one of his own. For we found he there receded from the Septuagints, as well as they from the Hebrew expreſſions. Thus far then, only, in theſe forty Texts, the Evangeliſts have departed from the Hebrew, to hold with the Vulgar Greek Tranſlation then in the hand of the Greciſing Jews.

Laſtly, There are five Texts of the number of thoſe, wherein the Evangeliſts have left the Septuagint 5 † clearly, and held with the Hebrew, in which the Septuagint have ſo diſtorted or perverted the ſenſe, that had the Evangeliſts reported them, as the Septuagint rendred them, they would have proved Teſtimonies rather againſt the Truth than for it. At leaſt there would have been ſo many Teſtimonies loſt. It would be too tedious here to repeat them.

CHAP. VII. Obſervations upon the former Account, and the Concluſion.

AND now things ly thus before us, a man would think we might be able to ſee in a manner into the depth of this mighty pretended accord of the Evangeliſts, ſo peculiarly, with the Septuagint, and what Authority it derives to the Septuagint, or detracts from the Hebrew: In which, that we may proceed with as clear and demonſtrative evidence as we can, let me premit, by way of PO-STƲLATA, what I think all the world cannot deny.

I. Foraſmuch as it cannot be reputed a meerly caſual and accidental Act in the Evangeliſts, that they thus or thus report any Text out of the Old Teſtament; therefore their receding from, or agreeing with the Septuagint, was with deſign, or an Act of deliberation and choice.

II. Their great deſign in Allegation of Teſtimonies out of the Old Teſtament, being to aſſert and prove Chriſtian Truth, eſpecially to the Jews, therefore as it was rational when they ſaw any Emphaſis or Advantage more in the Septuagint, than in the Hebrew (becauſe the Septuagint was commonly known, and ſacredly received by the Jews) to uſe it as an Argumentum ad homines, to their purpoſe: ſo if at any time we find the Hebrew text to ſerve more to their purpoſe than the Septuagint, and them to have followed the Hebrew text, leaving the Septuagint, we cannot but conclude in ſuch caſe they deſignedly left the Septuagint, as leſs comporting with the Chriſtian Truth, and kept to the Hebrew, as being therein more firm and favourable to Chriſtianity.

Now from hence it muſt follow (which I advance as my Firſt Propoſition, in order to making a clear eſtimate of the Accord of the Evangeliſts and Apoſtles with the Septuagint, and ſo of the Authority as well of the Hebrew text, and the Tranſlations from it, as of the Septuagints Verſion.) From hence, I ſay, it muſt follow, that where the Hebrew text and the Septuagints perfectly agreeing, the Evangeliſts keep to the Septuagint, for as much as it appears by what was laſt permitted, they would not have kept thereto, had the Hebrew made more for their purpoſe; that therefore it is not the Septuagint, abſolutely, which is in ſuch caſe obſerved or kept to, but the Septuagint as agreeing with the Hebrew. That is, the Evangeliſts in thoſe fourteen Texts, wherein they agree both with Hebrew and Septuagint, principally eyed the Hebrew as moſt Authentick, that is, the Hebrew is principally Authentick.

Secondly, I ſay further, whether the Evangeliſts accord with the Septuagint, or tranſlate anew from the Hebrew, they generally confirm the Hebrew text, as Original and Authentick. For of the Forty texts above examined, there are 22. in which the Evangeliſts having left the Septuagint, and either in exact expreſſion, or in general ſenſe, or in both, kept to the Hebrew, have confirmed the Hebrew againſt the Septuagint. And there are 14. in which the Septuagint agreeing with the Hebrew, it comes to paſs that the Evangeliſts agree with both: in which therefore the Evangeliſts have confirmed the Hebrew with the Septuagint. That is, in 36. Texts of forty; that is, generally, the Evangeliſts rendring confirms the Hebrew.

Thirdly, I fear not to advance further, and ſay, the Evangeliſts agreement or accord with the Septuagint, yea, even wherein the Septuagint ſeem to go by themſelves, without or from the Hebrew, does not take off the Authority of the Hebrew in thoſe very Texts. For in two of them, viz. Matth. iv. 10. and Mark x. 8. There are only two new Emphaſes, as I may call them, added to the old Text. And in the other two, namely in Mark vii. 7. and Luke iv. 18. as, in the former, there was one word, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which was eaſily miſ-read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and ſo miſrendred, (yet not ſo as to alter the main ſenſe or ſcope of the Text) ſo in the other, there was a word capable of two ſenſes; Now S. Luke gives both, one from the Septuagint, another of his own accord. But as he who makes any argument fuller and clearer, by varying the terms, ſtill keeping to the main ſenſe, or by unfolding all the force which a word of manifold ſignification bears, or by inſerting ſome new Emphatical term, which ſhall more preſs the Adverſary, takes not off the Validity of that Argument; ſo neither doth the Evangeliſts thus uſing or manageing Texts of the Old Teſtament, with all the Emphaſes, which either by the Septuagints or their own rendring them, at all detract from the Original Hebrew, which both only improve. Had the Septuagint contradicted the Hebrew, and the Evangeliſts, in ſuch contradictions, kept with them, the caſe had been otherwiſe. But the main Doctrine and ſenſe being the ſame ſtill, by this following the Septuagint, there is no impeachment at all of the Hebrew.

Fourthly, On the other ſide, I do and muſt affirm, the Septuagints receding from the Original Hebrew does derogate from the authority of the Septuagint. For, (1.) It is plain the Evangeliſts, in the inſtances brought, generally leave the Septuagint, where they leave the Hebrew. Now as the Evangeliſts uſe of the Septuagint, is the great Mean which conciliates Authority to the Septuagint; ſo their departing from the Septuagints Verſion, to keep with the Hebrew, derogates. (2.) It appears, by the deduction of Particulars, that the preſent Verſion of the Septuagint hath in forty Teſtimonies out of the Old Teſtament perverted five important (and ſome of the moſt conſiderable) Prophecies, relating to the proof, that Jeſus Chriſt is the true Meſſias. A greater derogation from its authority cannot be conceived, except in multiplying inſtances of that kind.

Fifthly, The proof of Chriſtianity more relies upon the Hebrew Text, than on the Septuagints Verſion. For it appears, the Evangeliſts, who deliver the Doctrine thereof unto us, make more uſe of the Hebrew Text; diverſe Prophecies, by the Septuagint diſtorted and mangled, are in the Hebrew intire and direct to our purpoſe; and though we ſhould ſuppoſe, as verily I believe, that the Evangeliſts being to write in Greek, did, to render their writings more unexceptionable to the Jews, follow, as much as they could, the Jews Greek Tranſlation, that is, the Septuagint; yet we find in ſeveral Prophecies of the greateſt moment, as well as in other points, they could not follow them, and be true to their own Cauſe.

Sixthly, It does not appear by any thing we have examined, that any corruption, or the leaſt eſcape, can be affixt to the Hebrew text. It marvelouſly comports with the Evangeliſts Greek. As to the great objection from Pſalm xxii. 16. that we have there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 As a Lion, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they pierced, in which, ſay they, the Septuagint has ſet us right: beſides that, even P. Simon himſelf, in his late Diſquiſitions, confeſſes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in the very Text, or is the Ketib in ſome antient Copies, 'tis enough to me if it were but the Keri, or Marginal reading. But I think more cannot be deſired for ſatisfaction, and in ample vindication of the Hebrew, than the great Dr. Hammond has given us upon that Pſalm.

Laſtly, In the Septuagints Verſion it is apparent, there muſt be acknowledged groſs Errours. Five places are above marked and aſſigned, where we muſt ſay, either the Evangeliſts have erred, or the Septuagint: and I have found no one yet ſo hardy as to caſt the Errours on the Evangeliſts, ergo, &c.

Thoſe, whom what I have ſaid, may a little ſurpriſe, finding things thus notoriouſly otherwiſe than ſome have aſſerted, and haply themſelves too thought, may be ready to ask, what thoſe Aſſerters have to ſay for themſelves in caſe of theſe, and ſuch other Prophecies, thus being perverted rather than tranſlated.

My deſign permits me not to take notice of all: Let it ſuffice to repreſent and animadvert upon their chief anſwers. It is not to be denyed, ſay ſome of them, but that the books of the Septuagint are in many places [Inquinati & interpolati] corrupted and vampt with the Verſions of Symmachus, Theodotion, &c. At another time, Septuaginta Interpretes ſic vertiſſe ſtultum eſt exiſtimare. 'Tis a ſilly thing to imagine the Seventy thus rendred. And as to that very Prophecy of Zech. xii. Whether theſe Errours came in, out of Aquila, &c. or any other, or by caſual miſreading, 'tis needleſs to enquire. It is enough to ſay, the Septuagint undoubtedly rendred it otherwiſe.

Theſe anſwers, or defences, are perhaps more wonderful than the firſt aſſertions. The Septuagint, ſay they, did not tranſlate thus, 'Tis a ſilly thing to think they did. But the beſt Copies of the Septuagint, extant, do contain and exhibit theſe Tranſlations. In S. Jerom's days the Septuagints Verſion had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hieronym. in loc. They who at this time of day ſhall contradict S. Jerome, and ſay, he had only vitiatum & interpolatum Codicem, a corrupt and interlined book, when he elſewhere tells us he had Origen's Hexapla corrected by himſelf according to the beſt Copy; They, who to boot, ſhall, when they liſt, that is, when they are not able to defend the Septuagints Verſion, reject all the Copies of that Verſion which paſſes every where for the Septuagints, and ſay, 'tis a ſilly thing to believe in this or that, it is the Septuagints, when in another breath, they ſhall cry up the very worſt Copy of the Septuagint, far above all other Tranſlations, and even the Original it ſelf, are indeed perſons to be admired, but I will not ſay, for what. Only I will deſire them, if they expect to be believed, to bring better Proofs than they have done, that is, than their own Word and Scorn.

But to wave what I might ſay more largely of this nature, I only reply, I accept the Anſwer. Behold then, good Reader, how excellently we are helpt up by thoſe, who reject the Hebrew text, and all Tranſlations from it. What, will they reject all Scripture? Some of them would be at that, if they durſt; but they'l tell you, By no means. What then will they ſet up inſtead of the Hebrew? The Septuagints Verſion. Who now would not expect, that this were moſt perfect, ſubject to no various readings, much leſs corruptions or interpolations. No ſuch matter; beſides infinite various readings, theſe books are corrupted in many places, interpolate with the Verſions of Symmachus, Theodotion, Aquila, and God knows what others. This is their own confeſſion. Again, they are Books, which they will deny at their own pleaſure. Laſtly, Books, which if we will believe the Holy Evangeliſts, have in them many groſs Errours, inconſiſtent with the very Hiſtory, as well as Doctrine, of the Goſpel, and which, as has been proved, the Evangeliſts could not have followed, and together have been faithful to their Cauſe.

To conclude all: We have ſeen the Aſſertion of a perpetual, or even general Agreement of the Pen-men of the New Teſtament with the Septuagint to be groundleſs and falſe: boldly advanced by ſome, and too credulouſly taken up by others. (S. Paul perhaps, a Perſon more converſant with the Helleniſts, moſtly uſed the Septuagint, though not conſtantly: others much leſs.) Contrarily to the aforementioned Aſſertion, The preſent Hebrew text is confirmed by the Evangeliſts Verſions and agreement with it; it is not impeached by their very receſſions or ſiding with the Septuagint: it ſtands therefore above blemiſh. The Text of the Septuagint, beſides its diſorders, confuſions and mutilations (which we might have ſaid much more of) departs many times groſly from the truth: It is indeed the Antienteſt and moſt honourable Verſion; it gives excellent light and confirmation in moſt things to the truth, but it is many times, as ſaid, unhappy. Perhaps it has been purer than it is; yet above theſe thirteen hundred years, it is ſure, it has had ſome of thoſe groſs Errours in it, which we find at this day remaining; and we cannot always hold to it, and together hold to the Goſpel. The proof of Chriſtianity chiefly, and in ſome points (as to Teſtimony) ſolely relies on the Hebrew Text; In which, by all thoſe paſſages, which have been examined, it does not appear that there is any defect, errour, or ſo much as rational pretence of any depravation.

Upon the whole then it remains, That we adore and magnifie the Providence of our good God, in reſtoring to loſt mankind in general, the knowledge of God and themſelves, when they had extinguiſht that given by natural Reaſon, in preſerving to us in particular, the Original Oracles of Salvation ſo intire as we ſee they are, in raiſing up to us Perſons ſo exquiſitely skilled and verſt in them, as of old, ſo eſpecially within theſe two laſt Centuries, by whoſe indefatigable labours we have many admirable Tranſlations of thoſe Oracles into the common ſpeech of each Nation; to none of which Tranſlations, bleſſed be the ſame good God, is our laſt Engliſh one inferiour: That therefore we keep cloſe to theſe, and ſtand unſhaken in our Faith, not ſuffering our ſelves to be impoſed upon by the Cavils, and ſubtle Sophiſms of ſome, or the ſpecious pretences, of more Neceſſaries than we find in Scripture, from others; nor laſtly, by a third ſorts pompous oftentation of Learning. Truly, theſe laſt ſeem to have written, only to ſhew the World, how plauſibly they can maintain the moſt miſchievous Paradoxes.

I had many more things to have ſaid: eſpecially, as to that objection of the loſs of the true old Hebrew ſpeech. I could ſhew, the ſame pretences of reaſon may be brought for the loſs of the old Greek, nay, even of the old Latin it ſelf. In all dead Tongues the true antient Pronunciation, in proceſs of time, muſt needs be loſt; often alſo the firſt, and true ſignification of many words, whence words muſt neceſſarily grow equivocal or ambiguous, &c. Now it would be thought very extravagant to ſay upon theſe reaſons, the old Greek and Latin are both loſt. We dote if we ſay we have either. Let the ſame Plea be admitted for the old Hebrew. Theſe and other things I thought once to have diſcours'd of in this Appendix. But it is much ſwoln already, and I conceive I have ſaid enough to ſettle ſuch, who may be ſhaken, but are deſirous of ſatisfaction: And as to Scepticks, or men of an Inveterate Faction, I have not ſuch thoughts of my ſelf, as that I am able to recover them.