Antient Versions or Glosses can probably affix to the Originals But it is to be feared some men are enemies for Enmities sake Thirdly As to the difference §. XIV pleaded betwixt our present Reading and what is pretended to have been our Saviour's and his Apostles rendring the Hebrew text this may indeed stumble or gravel some who do not consider the following particulars 1. That it is a great mistake to say our Lord himself made use of the Septuagint or as far as can be proved any other Greek Version imaginable because the Authors of the Scriptures of the New Testament have done so For he being by Nation a Jew and preaching only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel as being an Apostle of the Circumcision according to S. Paul's term of him certainly spoke the Language of the then Jews and preached to them therein which haply though not strictly Hebrew was yet a Dialect of it namely Syriack And this appears from a multitude of passages spoken by him extant in the Greek Testament without change as often as those Authors thought fit to record the numerical syllables uttered by him such are Racha Mammon Corban Cephas Bar-jona Talitha Kumi Ephphatha Eli Eli lamma sabactani c. Therefore he in his ordinary preaching made no use of the Septuagint And it is most plain from Acts vii 2. c. and from ch xxi 40. and from diverse other places that the Apostles and their Adjutants when they preached to the Jews used the Hebrew tongue that is the Language then common to the Jews called as a-fore suggested in a large sense Hebrew And when they preached to others they had nothing to do to alledge Scripture much less therefore then did they use Greek Versions Therefore neither did the Apostles even in their ordinary preaching to the Jews ordinarily use the Septuagint 2. The main body of the Jewish Nation persisting in infidelity and the Gospel designing the Call of the Gentiles it was necessary the New Testament should be written in another Language than that wherein either the Doctrine of the Old was first recorded or the Doctrine of the New as we have seen at first preached and the Greek being then and in that part of the world the most universal language was the fittest for this purpose On this occasion was the New Testament written in Greek Now the Old Testament having been before known to have been publickly made Greek by a Council of LXXII Jews the number of the Elders in a great Sanhedrim who by the way designed no strict Translation but rather such a Paraphrastical one as might best recommend their Law and Nation to Foreigners the Authors of the New Testament finding that Version sufficiently clear true and exact for their purpose chose often times to make use of that as being known and in all mens hands and confest by all to contain the body of the Jewish Religion rather than to translate a-new according to strictness which would have been disputed and contradicted And on this account the Septuagint or old Greek Translation was used so often by the Penmen of the New Testament So often I say for those who bear the World in hand that the Septuagint Version is * See the Appendix to this purpose A. always observed by the Authors of the New Testament or even by the Evangelists themselves it is to be feared are abused persons or have not been at pains to examine the particulars For it is evident to all persons of consideration and diligence in such studies that these Sacred Authors took a * See Appendix B. latitude contenting themselves with the general sense of the Text not servilely following words of which would this Discourse admit I would give and possibly hereafter shall subjoin instances numerous enough In the mean while 3. That any Translation should be of more Authority than the Original and the Original as prior so not derive Authority to the Translation is a piece of sense only becoming such Doctors who scorn all mens reasons but their own or are resolved to set up their own Authority without reason If a Record Decree or Sentence were to be produced translated into another Language than that wherein it was conceived it would certainly be adjudged of so much the more validity by how much more strict accord it could be proved to have with the Original And the same being to be concluded of all Translations in like cases the Hebrew text must for that reason be of more Authority than the Septuagint or any other Translation of or from it self But that which must for ever §. XV. take off the force of this part of the Objection is 4. that the New-Testament-reading of any Texts which are taken out of the Old does if duly examined at the last result and in effect accord with the Old and however different the words appear the sense is coincident and the matter comes to the same pass I will instance in a Text of importance wherein at first sight the sense seems very different yet upon a little consideration proves as to matter the same It is Psal xl 6. We read David there in the person of Christ thus addressing himself to God Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not c. but mine ears hast thou opened Digged saies the Margin or rather Bored Then said I lo I come c. to do thy will O Lord. This the Apostle to the Hebrews following the Modern Editions probably not the Antient Version of the Septuagint reads But a body hast thou prepared me Now Opening Digging or Boring ears and Preparing a Body seem at first widely distant Notions but in regard of our Lord's incarnation and obedience to death even the death of the Cross the subject he had in hand they are in effect much identick or equivalent In other terms That I might in all things accomplish and be obedient to thy will thou hast framed me an Organised body in which particularly thou hast made me passages for the receiving or hearing thy commands that is thou hast digged or bored my ears Framing of ears was a part of framing the body and so Synecdochically the same And he had reason rather to take that part of formation than any other for the whole because he designed thereby to express prophetically the Messias's quickness and promptness to Obedience and offering himself up upon the Cross Or otherwise Mine ears hast thou bored that is according to the Ceremony of perpetuating mens services thou hast by my free consent and voluntary proposition taken me as thy Servant which that I might be it was necessary I should take the form of a Servant the Humane Nature wherefore thou hast prepared me a body which I may offer in obedience to thy will. The preparing the Son a body was as plain a Testification that he was made a Servant as to the ordinary Menial was the Boring of the Ear. By either of these short
will prevent Scriptures being useless and besides will both lead us to an higher pitch of knowledge and secure us from any dangerous Errours For amongst other parts of Christian duty we shall then practice Meekness Humility and a conceit of our selves we shall not therefore too much lean to our own understanding we shall not exceed our own measures And then Psal xxv 9 14. The meek will the Lord guide in judgment the meek will he teach his way The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him and he will shew them his Covenant These are the great Uses we should make of this sure Word of Prophecy Law and Gospel to value and reverence it in testimony thereof to capacitate not only our selves but all ours by moderate at least the lowest degree of Learning being able to read to make use of it and then diligently to read it and hold it fast But especially by getting into our minds a form of sound words a due understanding Carechetical doctrine and by living according to what we know to ensure to our selves the right use of it And if we thus take heed to this sure word 't is sure we shall do well We shall be sure not only of our Faith but of the End of it too We shall be certainly and unspeakably rewarded in Glory and Bliss everlastingly Which God grant c. FINIS APPENDIX 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 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 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
〈◊〉 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark. A. Only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
two shall be one flesh Luke iv 18. Recovery of sight to the blind This is virtually in the Hebrew For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render opening signifies properly the opening of the eyes or ears as beforesaid in which say the Hebrew Criticks it differs from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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-STVLATA 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was easily mis-read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
another And all these are collected by diverse and particularly are now extant in the Appendix to the English Polyglott But yet all these Diversities make only a great noise are indeed of no considerable importance For the instances of Diversity are such as no one but a superstitious Jew or some person who had a mind to unsettle foundations and for want of Arguments were concern'd to catch at any shadows of Probability would contend about them They are such mighty matters as these Whether the same word should be written with a long E or a short A whether another should be written with their longest O or with one somewhat shorter whether it should have an Accent of this kind or of that whether a supernumerary which they call a Quiescent letter should be written or whether being it might without dammage be spared it should be omitted Not much unlike hereto is also the noise made with what they call the Keri and the Ketib that is the Marginal and the Textual Reading as if there were some great repugnancy betwixt these Whereas in brief the thing or matter is still the same in both the manner of expression a little different And this occasioned partly by the Superstitious modesty of some Rabbies putting into the Margin certain words which they thought more honourable to be read instead of some other broader term in the Text as 2 Kings xviii 27. they would not read it Pisse but the water of their feet forsooth partly by reason of some letters or words dubiously written in some venerable antient Copies and so variously read From which Antient Copies out of reverence they would vary nothing in transcribing but copying the text exactly and entirely as they found it that which was by the most learned in ages of old judged the more correct reading they put in the Margin and called it Keri So that the summ of the difference is 't is one way in some Copies 't is otherwise in others and which way soever we take the matter is of no great moment we have liberty without danger to take either reading which pleaseth us best Now under favour such various readings as these are not Arguments of the Scriptures corruption but of Gods Providence and Humane industry to preserve Scripture from corruption And in conclusion of this point I may boldly aver there is not one Article either of Faith or Christian practice concern'd in all the various Hebrew Lections in the World. The knowledge of them to use the Rabbinical phrase is only an Hedge about the Law and our care to read aright in matters of the smallest concern keeps us from reading amiss in the greater The Third Objection is The Original §. XI is insignificant For besides that None no not the very Jews themselves can read it the words of that Language are Equivocal and so the Translations all vain and not to be credited as being taken from an Original which is in a manner whatsoever people will make it and much different from what it was as used by our Lord and his Apostles while on earth To be as brief and distinct as may be in Answer to this Objection as to its several parts First It is a pleasant thing to §. XII perswade men they cannot read when actually they do read and themselves know and others hear them so to do Or that now of old that way of Reading has been lost which yet has been transmitted as all Ordinary Arts are but with infinitely more care from hand to hand by people who have in their Generation made it their whole business as to this day many Jews do meerly to read and write their Law. It is sure and some of the fiercest of our Contradictors confess the true way of reading was known in Origen's time for he transcribed the Hebrew text both in Hebrew Characters and exprest again as well as it could be in Greek letters into his Hexapla It was known in Hierom's time For he had that Hexapla and amended his Copy of it by the more Authentick one in the Library of Caesarea and out of the Hebrew text by help of that Copy made his Translation Thus for at least 400 years after Christ we are as I think it must be acknowledged secure About the year 1000 at furthest if not sooner all men confess the Tradition of the present reading to have been in use and sithence at least to have been currant in the world by the industry of the Masorites of Tiberias In the interval then of 600 years this the old Art of Reading must be lost and a new one invented by that people whose Original native Language this Hebrew was Which negligence first and afterwards most laborious Artifice of the Jews how improbable it is especially seeing we have left to us the several Prophecies at least so many several Prophecies of the Messias and of the Jews dealing with him so intire in the text even against the supposed inventors themselves is so notorious that I need not speak Besides what cause or even appearance and likelihood of any cause can in any History be shewn why in that Period of time rather than any other the Jews should lose the Reading of their Language Indeed considering that their Law that is their Religion was written in this Language considering they ever were and to this day are a Nation so stubbornly tenacious of their Religion and Law considering lastly that no small numbers amongst them as just now was said made the Reading and Copying of their Law the business of their life did so in our Saviours time have done so since it is not credible the Reading of it should in that period have been lost And if not then lost never Secondly As to Hebrew words §. XIII having several significations 't is very sure some of them have but so have the words in all Languages which are known to have been commonly spoken upon the face of the Earth at least 't is notorious the same may be said of either Greek or Latin. And we know even in them as well as in the more modern Lingua's we are daily put to it from the juncture of some words with other c. to determin the true acceptation or sense Which in our Translating the Hebrew text if we cannot do we ordinarily set down both or all the senses one in the Text and the other in the Margin of our Translations So that this is no just plea either against the Hebrew or our Translations thereof We may take the Hebrew where dubious in all senses it will bear and our Translations the modern ones especially and above others the English set down the several senses So does not the Septuagint however highly contended for by some which always confines us to one of the several senses and sometimes misses all of them In a word our Translations have or may have all the Senses the present Originals can bear and besides them any which
Paraphrases others have made larger we see the discrepancy is naturally removed either phrase being the same in effect and both pertinent to the scope or design of the whole Paragraph And the like accommodation might be made of other seemingly discordant passages would the bounds of this discourse permit To put into one all which has §. XVI been said to this last Objection The summ of our Answer is Our Saviour and his Apostles in their ordinary preaching to the Jews used not the Septuagint part therefore of what our Adversaries object is false in the Penning of the Gospel or New Testament because a then received though not exact Version was Argumentum ad Homines a fit proof to many of that age and people and would besides serve well enough for all in general the Version of the Septuagint was used ordinarily and yet very * See herein the Appendix A. frequently deserted There is therefore still more falsity in our Adversaries clamours But it were Non-sense to infer hence as some do that therefore the Septuagint is more Authentick than the Hebrew that is a Translation than its Original Besides after all this coil the authority both of Old Testament and New stands firm above the attempts of its enemies Wit Learning or Malice For generally in both the Sense is the same the way of expressing only different The Old Testament as extant in our English Bibles is translated Grammatically or in a manner word for word What is produced out of the Old in the New Testament is often a Paraphrase of the Original text as being translated from a kind of Greek Paraphrase rather than a simple Version commonly called the Septuagint and thence arises that seeming discrepancy I conclude therefore upon the whole the Scriptures of the Old Testament to be a sure word of Prophecy notwithstanding those loud imputations of Corruptions of various Readings of None or Indeterminate sense All which imputations for the main are false and where they are not affect not any considerable substantial part of Scripture that is of DIVINE VERITY or point of Christian Faith and Practice And the same by the premises is conclusible also of the New Testament Therefore Scripture is Authentick It remains now in the next §. XVII place to propound terms on which we may be ascertained of our Faith from the Scriptures which have been thus proved to be sure And they shall be very brief few and reasonable terms which I will propound The first Article shall be That in all controverted points of Faith for there are points of Faith at least points which some men obtrude on our Faith that are controverted and rejected too very commonly and justly I say that in such controverted points of Faith That doctrine wherein both Originals and Translations generally agree whether in a deep silence or a contradiction thereof be adjudged either spurious or no point of Faith. This will at once strike off all the new Articles of the Tridentine Creed I mean the Creed framed from the Decrees of the Council of Trent together with all Doctrines favoured there though not expresly decreed for Faith but since improved and received as Faith by the Romanists And particularly the Popes Infallibility will be gone for if Scripture had asserted Infallibility to any Vicegerents of God on earth it would be to Kings not to Popes Prov. xvi 10. A Divine Sentence is in the lips of the King his mouth transgresseth not in judgment Which text though it manifestly restrain it self to the Administration of Civil justice wherein none of our Church ever thought of any Appeal from a Royal Decree or in any other case of resistance to the Royal Authority yet doth it suppose a more generally infallible conduct and superintendency of God's Providence over the Decrees of Kings than is any where in Holy Scripture asserted over the Sentences or Determinations of any other Judges on Earth in any cause whatsoever And I would fain see produced from any part of Holy yea even of Apocryphal Writ so fair and express a Text for an Infallibility of Popes or any other on Earth But this by the bye Secondly I propound only further That whatsoever Originals and Translations generally agree in asserting as necessary to be believed or done in order to Salvation be admitted as such And I am sure then the whole Doctrine both of Faith and Practice of the Protestants stands establisht For our Foundation is Scripture and that interpreted by the Vniversal Tradition of the Church in its first and purest ages even when the boldest Adversaries we have dare not say those corruptions of Scripture of which now they make so clamorous pretences were in being and in Scripture our Foundation is not dubious Texts perplext with Criticisms uncertain by various Readings suspected for Corruptions Interpolations c. but plain express undoubted and repeated ones And as long as our Foundation thus is Scripture if that be a sure Word our Faith is sure Whether then some men dispute against Scripture meerly §. XVIII out of wantonness and to shew their Learning or for other ends it concerns not us to enquire But both they and all our Enemies must know 't is past time of day to put us out of conceit with our Bibles or to perswade them out of our Hands or Hearts Graecum est non potest legi might down in Monkish ages it will not now no not even with those whom some disdainfully and with a greater pride than is due to the Merits of their own Learning call Laicks And God be blessed for this glorious Light. Upon the whole therefore We remain sure both of our Scriptures and of our Faith. And here by the way I must §. XIX take the liberty to say All other imaginable ways of making us sure of our Faith without Scripture in the present state of things are idle and vain And whatever carries any plausible pretence of certainty will at length resolve it self into this of Scripture There has been a long time and still is a great cry in the world about Tradition But if we look into the case it is not Tradition that is the Constant consent of the Antient and Catholick Church which the Romanists have to vouch for their present Traditions or peculiar Doctrines but the late corrupt use and bold say-so of their Church Thus in the Council of Trent when the Evidence of any of these their new at least comparatively new Doctrines had been sifted and could be found neither in Scripture nor Fathers or any antient Councils it was but saying the point was so held or practised by the Church and the Church was Infallible therefore being the Church taught it it must be an Apostolick Tradition though not extant in Scripture and so whatever they pleased to give this venerable name to was thereby presently dub'd an Article of Faith. And particularly thus was the matter carried in the question of the Sacrifice of the
Mass of the present Canon of the Mass of the Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Vnction in the Interdict of Priests marriage not to name more points of like nature For if indeed truly named that is Vniversal Tradition Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus c. were the thing urged upon us we are and ever have been as much for it as any men To this day we cry Let us go to tryal on this issue in the name of God. But such Tradition as this we shall find amongst all the controverted points only for Scripture I will be bold to say we have not so unvariable Tradition for the Articles of the Creed which we call the Apostles Creed as we have in behalf of the Books of the Old and New Testament So that according to these measures we are but where we were before Universal Tradition must prescribe our Faith and so absolutely Universal Tradition we have for no point controverted but for the Original Scriptures nay indeed scarcely for any other point of Faith so uniformly Original Scripture therefore as before still stands unshaken But these Rules will some say §. XX. are for Learned men who understand and can search Originals compare Versions and see wherein they agree What shall the unlearned Common people do I say still Keep to your English Translation good people keep to what you are Your English Bibles to you are the surest word of Prophecy and Gospel too that you can meet with The Translation of the Old Testament has been confest by Foreigners of excellent judgment usque ad invidiam aliarum gentium elaborata Accurate even to the envy of other Nations That of the Gospels is no less so especially taking in the Margin And though it were to be wisht the Epistles had been translated with that strictness according to the letter and so unbyast judgment with which the other parts of our Bibles are yet this may be said even as to them What the Text has less exact according to the Original or dubious not only the Margin but the very different Character of several words in the Text directs to a genuin or wholesome sense of My meaning is whereas it is not possible to translate Hebrew or Greek into English strictly word for word and to make such translation sense the Idiom or propriety of the languages so vastly differing that we must in English put in several particles or little words to make good sense with us all those words so put in or supplied are printed ordinarily in a different sort of letter from the rest by which means we may easily discover any word that is not in the Original and from such discovery know what weight to lay upon that text so translated So that there is no danger of peoples miscarrying in their Faith who humbly and soberly keep to their English Bibles which God be blessed now we have extremely cheap and frequent in our hands Only the people are here to be minded in case of doubts to have recourse to their spiritual Guides By these means then we are or may be as sure of our Faith from Scriptures as we are of the Scriptures themselves Now To put a due Conclusion §. XXI to this Discourse there are some Christian Practices which the scope of it does naturally recommend and some advices which it may occasion And First Let the reflexion on what has been discoursed touching the certainty of Holy Scriptures and their Authentick Verity raise in our hearts a due Esteem and Cordial Reverence of them as not being from Man nor meerly by man but given by inspiration of God and in a peculiar and marvellous manner preserved and transmitted by his special Providence from age to age through multitudes of hands down to us who live probably near the end of time It was once the great priviledge of the Jews that to them were committed the Oracles of God that priviledge is now common to us with them Though perhaps therefore we may not keep those Oracles with so superstitious a care and curiosity as they did yet let us both keep and treat them with as cordial adherence and as awful esteem But especially let us take care that we use not passages out of them in our ordinary discourse slightingly in Jest and Drollery to create Laughter to our selves and others Holy things should not be plaid with and we are to remember that if we do play with them we teach people to think we do not believe them to be Holy. Secondly Let not a Prize be put into our hands and we such fools as not to have hearts to use it Have we the Word of Prophecy surer than other Miraculous Revelation Have we the Gospel of Truth too both mutually confirming and confirmed by one another and shall we be so idle and gross as to be any of us in a manner uncapable of using either Why should there be a person in a Christian Church or Nation to whom the Holy Scripture should be as a Book sealed who should know no more by the Book open and laid before him than if fast closed up I mean who should not be able himself to read the glad tidings and terms of his Salvation Good people deny not your selves that which an excellent Person has most justly stiled the CHRISTIANS BIRTH-RIGHT the use of Holy Scriptures Take care and endeavour that both you and yours be able to read And being so whatever Book you read not through or rarely look into let not the Bible be that neglected one Rather account such a day lost in which you have not attentively and considerately read some part thereof Thirdly Remember him who said Hold fast till I come that no man take thy Crown He sits at the right hand of his Father ready to give it and will in good time come and give it us if we faint not And Lastly As most excellent means to insure to our selves a right use of Scriptures and to preserve us from misinterpreting or misapplying them let us be careful of the two following particulars First To furnish our minds with a form of sound Doctrine gathered out of Holy Scripture This it is to be hoped we had in some degree in our early years by Catechism and without this both Scripture and Sermons are in a great measure unserviceable It is the Apostle's Rule that they who Prophesie that is in the New Testament notion of Prophesying interpret Scripture do it according to the proportion of Faith Rom. xii 6. his meaning seems to be that understanding first the several Articles of Christian Faith we should interpret or take Scripture in consistency therewith This rule will prevent the abuse of Holy Scripture to Errour and Novelty Secondly To endeavour the Honest and Impartial practice of what we know in the fear of God and as we shall answer the not Doing according to our Lords will when we have known That his will. This most assuredly
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. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt not covet in which the Septuagint exactly follow the Hebrew S. Mark has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by S. Mark Raising up seed unto his brother 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strictly according to the Original Not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is commanded to be sanctified to the Lord. Exodus xiii 1. wherefore it may be justly said 't is 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 't is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. 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. 'T is Luke iv 12. and Deut. vi 16. The Eighth passage has in it considerable both agreement and disagreement to the Septuagint 'T is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was A. 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 'T is 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 'T is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 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 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