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 [Page 66] 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 Pen-men 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. [Page 67] 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 [Page 68] 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 [Page 69] 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 [Page 70] granted, or supposed, that where the Phrase, or principal Terms, in any Text are altered, however the fame 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. [Page 71] 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: [Page 72] 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 C C 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 [Page 74] 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, [...], 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 [...], to be with child, being according to common use of the Phrase, properly of Women, who are truly gravid, does more em­phatically [Page 75] 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 [...] 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, [...] 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 [Page 76] the Septuagints phrase, more pro­perly expresses what we mean by Conception, than being with child. A. In short, his receding from the Septuagint in these two points, is a proof of the first Proposition; B. his receding both from Septua­gint, 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 [Page 77] 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. [ [...]. 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. A. For out of thee shall come forth a Ruler [ [...], Matth. [...], Sept.] B. Who shall feed my people 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 [Page 78] 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. A. a­grees exactly with the Hebrew, 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 [Page 79] 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 xxxxviii, 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 xxxxviii. chap. v. 15. we have the text we look for, which is there rendred thus: A. Rachel all in [Page 80] weeping [ [...], simply with­out any adjection: not as S. Matt. [...], 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: CC. so that in this text all three accord; espe­cially if we render [...] 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 [Page 81] [...] of our God, B. very material as 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 CC. Evan­gelist are all at sufficient accord. CC. 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, faith, Thou [Page 82] A. shalt worship the Lord thy God. B. The Temptation was, To fall down and worship the Tempter, v. 9. And the word Worship, which is com­prised in the fear of God, [...], was more pertinent to op­pose to the temptation, than [...] of the Septuagint, though that more exactly answered [...] 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, C. not the Hebrew: 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 [Page 83] 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, [Page 84] 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 [Page 85] 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 [...], not [...]] bears our sins, and is grieved concerning us. S. Matthew [Page 86] 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: A. 7 It is plain in seven Texts of Ten, he forsakes the Septuagint, and in diverse of them, as all reason in­duces us to think, because they therein forsake the Hebrew, which he rather follows. CC. 3 In the other three of the Ten, we find S. Mat­thew, Hebrew and Septuagint all 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, B. 4 I mean, though not so much in sense. Finally, we have one instance, and that only, in one restrictive particle, C. 1 which he takes out of the Septuagints Ver­sion, [Page 87] 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 [Page 88] 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, A. Behold, I send, [ [...], Mark. Only [...], Sept.] my mes­senger before thy face, who shall pre­pare thy way before thee. B. A liberty not only altering the words and 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 [Page 89] 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. CC. Wherefore we will account all 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 [Page 90] 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 B. (which makes no inconsiderable variation of the Septuagints sense, indeed melio­rates it, and is an instance of the liberty he used) thus, Teaching [Page 91] for doctrines [or, as Doctrines] the commandments of men. C. In the rest, word for word he keeps to the Septuagint, who undoubtedly, as Grotius well conjectures, for [...] read, as easily they might in old Manuscripts, [...], 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 [...], 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. [Page 92] wherein all accord: C C. only in that 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 [...], 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, [Page 93] 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. C. Two, is not in the Hebrew, but notwithstan­ding, 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, [Page 94] [...] A. Thou shalt not covet, in which the Sep­tuagint exactly follow the He­brew, S. Mark has [...] Defraud 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 right. B. 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 [Page 95] Chap. xi. 17. out of Isai. lvi. 7. CC. and the Eighth, Chap. xii. 10. out of Psalm cxviii. 21. CC. 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, [ [...]] by S. Mark, Raising up seed unto his brother. [Page 96] [ [...].] 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. B. However this must be allowed a proof of the liberty he takes, to report the sense, not the words, of the Law, 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 [Page 97] to the purpose, for which our Lord alledged that Testimony; A. and that S. Mark does, reporting it thus; I am the God [ [...]] of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

So that in summ: A. 3 in Ten Texts out of S. Mark, we have three, wherein the Evangelist manifestly recedes from, or al­ters the Septuagints Translation. CC. 4 We have four, wherein both, Hebrew, Septuagint, and Gospel all agree. C. 2 We have two in which he may be said properly to follow the Septuagint, be­cause he keeps to their Version, even as to what is not in the He­brew in terms. B. 4 And we have, to omit other less variations, four instances of the liberty (in two of them, very great) which he takes, in leaving both Hebrew [Page 98] 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 [Page 99] 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 [Page 100] 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 [...], 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, [Page 101] concerning his son, thus: A. 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 children [ [...] strictly according to the Original. Not, [...], as the Septuagint have ordered it.] B. and 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, [Page 102] written there. The first-born, that openeth every matrice, as the Sep­tuagint exactly according to the Hebrew render it [ [...]] 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; [...]. 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. B. Wherefore we plainly see him use a liberty to depart from the words both of Septuagint and Hebrew.

The Third indeed is of small moment, yet to be just to our proposal, we must take notice [Page 103] of it. A. A pair of Turtles [ [...]] 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. CC. What the Septua­gint call [...], Plains, nearer the Hebrew, Isai. xl. 4. S. Luke stiles [...], 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. [Page 104] 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, A. Thou shalt worship, instead of, Thou shalt fear, Luke iv. 8. B. I refer my Reader to the note on S. Matthew.

C C. 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. '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 [Page 105] the Hebrew, The opening of the prison to them that are bound, by recovery of sight to the blind. C. This so different rendring, depends upon a Criticism, in the Hebrew word [...]. 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 [Page 106] to his purpose, and yet not neg­lecting what in the Hebrew was not so fully translated by the Septuagint, B. but giving a gloss of it according to his liberty. And yet again, in this text, he most plainly recedes from the Septuagint, A. in the very next clause, rejecting their translation of [...] by [...], which was not pertinent to the scope of the text, and rendring it [...], 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 of Malachi iii. 1. A. The two Evangelists exactly ac­cord, but both recede widely from the Septuagint, B. on which [Page 107] 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.
• [Page 108]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. B. Secondly, both from the Hebrew and Septuagint in making the Scheme consist of four terms, as also doth S. Mark; whereas Originally it has but three. And thirdly, he renders [...] by [...] not [...] as the Septuagint. A. Which are ample 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 [Page 109] considerably from the Septua­gint, in six; A. 6 in three we find him to accord both with the Septua­gint (though not exactly) and Hebrew; CC. 3 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, B. 6 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 apa [...]t from the He­brew. C. 1 Whence I presume both our Propositions again demon­strated.

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

A. THE First, Chapter i. 23. Here S. John recedes both from the Septuagints Version, which the other three Evangelists exactly followed, and from them also. Where they all have, Prepare ye the way, B. (Isai. xl. 3. Matt. iii. 3. Mark i. 3. Luk. iii. 4.) He says, 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 [Page 111] 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 [...] (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 [Page 112] or syllables, And they, &c. 'Tis A. plain, he intended not to follow the Septuagints Version, B. though he kept both their, and the Ori­ginal sense.

CC. 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: 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, [Page 113] 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. A. Fear not daughter of Zion, Behold thy King cometh sit­ting upon an Asses colt. B. 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. C C. Lord who hath believed 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 [Page 114] 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 [Page 115] 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. A. Notwithstanding it is plain, both from Hebrew, from the Septuagint, and from both those Evangelists, does S. John's text differ. B. 1. Whereas the text con­sists of two Climaxes or gradati­ons, 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 [Page 116] principal Greek words are in a manner all diverse. [...], saith S. John. [...], 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 [Page 117] 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 [Page 118] 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, [...] 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 [Page 119] his seamless coat, alledged Chap. xix. 24. wherein all agree. C C.

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 A. [or of 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 [Page 120] [or, to me] whom they have pierced. And S. John only vary­ing the person of the object, re­ports it, Chap. xix. 37. A. They shall look on him whom they have pierced. But the Septuagint most strange­ly, indeed so, as not without difficulty to be reconciled with sense. [...] [even here­in not with S. John, [...]] [...] † 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 [...], for that? If we will retain that sig­nification of the Verb, the tran­slation [Page 121] 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 [...] They danced [or wantonly skipped, like Rams, as the word is used, Psalm [Page 122] cxiv. 4.] for [...] 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, [...] For though Hezekias render [...] only by [...] [ they rejoiced against] and Sui­das adds only [...] [ 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 [...] is to Dance deliciously to the pleasing and transport of the Spectators, or else Mimically and reproachfully. The former of these I take to [Page 123] 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 [Page 124] 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 [Page 125] 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; A. 6 of ten, I say, he leaves the Septuagints translation in six: and in four of these six, B. 4 takes the liberty we 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. CC. 4 But there is not any one instance, I have been-able to ob­serve, in this Evangelist, where­in he follows the Septuagint [Page 126] 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 translated a-new in twenty two; A. 22 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 B. 18 taken the Latitude we asserted, 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.

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

Again, There are Four in which the Evangelists have fol­lowed [Page 128] the Septuagint, singly C. 4 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.

† 5 Lastly, There are five Texts of the number of those, wherein the Evangelists have left the Sep­tuagint 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 [Page 131] 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 [Page 132] 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 PO­STƲLATA, 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 [Page 133] 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 [Page 134] First Proposition, in order to making a clear estimate of the Accord of the Evangelists and Apostles with the Septuagin [...], 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 premitted, 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 [Page 135] 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 [Page 136] 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, [Page 137] there was one word, viz. [...] which was easily mis-read [...] and so mis-rendred, (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 be 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 [Page 138] 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, [Page 139] 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 [Page 140] 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 [Page 141] text. It marvelously com­ports with the Evangelists Greek. As to the great objection from Psalm xxii. 16. that we have there [...] As a Lion, for [...] they pierced, in which, say they, the Septuagint has set us right: be­sides that, even P. Simon himself, in his late Disquisitions, confesses [...] 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 [Page 142] 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 [Page 143] & 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. [Page 144] In S. Jerom's days the Septuagints Version had [...], or [...] 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 [Page 145] 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 'I 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, [Page 146] 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 [Page 147] 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 [Page 148] 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 Gospe. 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 [Page 149] 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 [Page 150] pretences, of more Necessaries than we find in Scripture, from others; nor lastly, by a third sorts pompous ostentation 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. [Page 151] 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.