are more or lefs clear, and which agree better or worse with the Context, going before, or following after, and which makes the Sense more or lefs perfect. There is none where the Hebrew, or LXX, or any other Verfion, teaches a dangerous Falfhood or manifeft Error, even though a Sentence be in the one, and be wanting in the other; or where there is an apparent Contrariety between the one and the other. Thus, for Inftance, Pfal. xxviii. 1. Unto thee will I cry, O Lord, my Rock, be not filent to me: L if thou be filent to me, I become like them that go down into the Pit. Here the LXX have omitted the Words thou be filent to me, that is, the Repetition of them as they are in Hebrew, which, though it may make the Paffage lefs emphatical, it alters not the Senfe. So Pfalm xxxiii. 10. the Hebrew reads, The Lord bringeth the Counsel of the Heathen to nought: He maketh the Devices of the People of none Effect. So the Verfe ends; but the LXX add, He bringeth to nought the Counsel of Princes. Thefe Words contain what is most certainly true, and very probably were in the original Hebrew, from whence the Tranflation of the LXX was made; but omitted in the prefent Copies, by an Overfight of a Tranfcriber. But whether it be fo or not, it affects neither Faith nor Morals, the Doctrine it teaches may be abundantly proved by other undoubted Texts; fo that if we fhould grant (which I fee no Reafon to do) that the LXX have here added to the Text what in this Place was not in the truly original Hebrea, yet it makes no Addition to the Doctrine of the Scripture, which will continue the fame as to this Particular, whether this Sentence belong to this Place or not.

Nay, where there is an apparent Contrariety between the Hebrew and the LXX, and other Tranflations, as in the Genealogies in the fifth and eleventh Chapters of Genefis, which Genealogy foever we follow, whether that of the Hebrew, or that of the LXX, it affects neither our Faith nor our Morals. The Hebrew fays, Adam lived 130 Years, and begat Seth; the LXX fays he lived 230 Years, and begat Seth, and fo on for the ten Generations before the Flood; the LXX add 100 Years to the Age of each Patriarch before he begat his Son, except to Jared and Methufala, to the Age affigned him in the Hebrew. The Samaritan agrees with the Hebrew in the Age of each Patriarch before he begat his Son, excepting that it makes Jared 100, Methufala 120, and Lamech 139 Years younger when they begat their Sons than the Hebrew docs. Thus the Hebrew makes it 1656 Years from the Creation to the Flood, the LXX 2262, and the Samaritan 1307. In like Manner, from the Flood to Abraham, the LXX make almost all thofe Patriarchs to be 100 Years older when they begat their Sons than the Hebrew docs; and alfo between Arphaxad and Sala put in Cainan, and make him 130 Years old when he begat Sala; but in this Period there is no fuch Name as Cainan in the Hebrew Text, but he is named by St. Luke iii. 36. The Samaritan in this Period agrees with the LXX, only that it has not the Name of Cainan in this Genealogy. So the Hebrew number 448 Years from the Flood to Abraham, the LXX 1169, and the Samaritan 1039. But this different Chronology between the Hebrew, the LXX, and the Samaritan, affects neither any Thing that is necessary to be believed or practifed. What is material and neceffary

D 4

neceffary for us to know and believe, in this Part of the facred Story, is, the fame in all, there is no Difference between them. They all give us the fame Account of the Creation of the World, the Fall of Man, the Promife of the Seed of the Woman, the Deftruction of Mankind, and of all Creatures living on the Earth, except what were preferved in the Ark, the repeopling of the World by Noah and his Sons, the Confufion of Languages at Babel, and fuch like material Parts of facred Hiftory, the Memory of which the Holy Ghost thought fit fhould be transmitted to future Ages, unto the End of the World. But as to the Knowledge and Belief of thefe Things, what does it fignify, whether Adam was 230, or but 130 Years old when he begat Seth? whether Cainan was the Son of Arphaxad, and Father of Sala; or whether there never was such a Perfon as this Cainan; and that Sala was the Son, not the Grandson of Arphaxad? That which God defigned we should learn from the facred History contained in these eleven firit Chapters of Genefis is not at all affected by this Difference in the Chronology of the Hebrew and LXX.

The Jews have a Tradition recorded in their Gemara, that as the World was created in fix Days, it fhould continue 6000 Years, and then have an End, because it is written, Pfal. xc. 4. A thousand Years in thy Sight are but as Yesterday, that is, are bet as one Day. Therefore fay they, as the Creation of the World was finished in fix Days, fo in fix thoufand Years fall all Things be accomplished. That this Tradition is older than Chriflianity is certain, because it is ufed by St. Barnabas, the Companion of St. Paul, in an Epiftle written by him in the Apoftles' Days, and feveral other of the earliest Fathers appear to have been of this Opinion. Therefore fays Mr. Mede, (See p. 897 of his Works) "That Difference of the Accounts of the Years of the World, was ordered by a "fpecial Difpofition of Providence to fruftrate our Curiofity in fearching the Time of the Day of Judgment." For our Saviour has taught us (Acts i. 7.) that it is not for us to know the Times and the Scafons, which the Father hath put in his own Power. And nothing has caufed fo great a Difference between the ancient Chriflian Chronologers who follow the LXX, and the prefent Chronologers who follow the Hebrew, as this Difference between the Hebrew and Greek of the Age the most ancient Patriarchs were of when they begat their Children.

. Many Times the Difference which is found between the Verfion and the Original, or betwixt the Verfions themfelves, as betwixt our English Vertion and the LXX, comes from this; that Interpreters do not always tranflate literally; neither indeed can they, if they will write Senfe. For all Languages have their particular Idioms or Forms of Speech, which literally tranflated into another Tongue, will appear harth and abfurd. This will oblige the Tranflator to give the Senfe of fuch Paffages in a Kind of Paraphrafe, and not in a literal Tranflation. There are indeed many Cafes in which a Tranflator may be obliged to vary from the ftrict Letter of the Original. This may cause a verbal Difference between the Tranflation and the Original, and likewife between two Tranflations of the fame Book. But these Differences diminish nothing from the Authority of either the Original or Tranflation, and hinder not but both may pafs as a Rule of our Faith

and

and Manners. These different Readings, and fmall Faults; which are generally met with in different MSS, and various Editions of all ancient Authors, facred and prophane, both in the Originals, and the Verfions, do not prevent our certainly having the authentick Works of thofe Authors, nor hinder our knowing their true Sentiments.

Whatever Differences therefore we find to have happened through the Carelefnefs, or Ignorance, or rash Boldness of Tranfcribers, or by any other Means, with Regard to the Hebrew Text we now have, and the different Copies of the LXX, or other Verfions, are by no Means fufficient to invalidate the, Authority of the Old Teftament, or to give any one juft Occafion to fay that the Scriptures of the Old Testament we now have are not the Word of God. For notwithstanding these various Readings, even as to whole Sentences, the Providence of God has taken Care, that no fuch Errors have crept either into the Hebrew, or LXX, or other ancient Verfions, as may lead Men into Opinions and Practices contrary to the Defign of the Revelation given. As to Things of lefs Confequence, where neither the Interest of the divine Government, nor the Happiness of Men are concerned, to affert it ne celary that God fhould interpofe in an extraordinary Manner to prevent all Mistakes, fo that there fhould be no Difference between one Copy and another, is to affirm it neceflary that God fhould interpofe in an extraordinary Manner, where there is no extraordinary Occafion for it. The great End of a Revelation from God can only be to acquaint Men with his Will in reference to their Duty, and to encourage thereby proper Motives to the Performance of it; that fo they may obtain his Favour, and fecure their own Happiness. This End is equally to be obtained, whether we follow the Reading of the Hebrew, or LXX, or other ancient Verfions. And therefore all the Objections formed against the facred Books, upon Account of the Differences found in the feveral Copies of the Originals or Verfions we now have, will appear to be of no Force to prove that the Scriptures we now have were not written by divine Authority, till it can be proved that the original Defign of them is hereby obfcured, and that they are infufficient to make Men virtuous and happy. Till this be made out, the Objection carries in it this manifeft Contradiction; That the Scriptures we now have cannot be the Word of God, because there is in them fuch a Number of various Readings as render them infufficient to accomplish that great End for which they are abundantly fufficient.

The Truth is, we have Reason to admire and adore the Providence of God; that notwithstanding the Holy Scriptures have been difperfed into almost all the Nations of the World, and tranflated into most Languages, have been tranfcribed by Chriftians of many different Perfuafions and Opinions; and that, befide the various Readings, which have proceeded from Overfights or Ignorance, or Rashness, there are fome which may feem to have been made to ferve the particular Opinions of a Party; yet, not any Article of Faith, any Doctrine or Duty, any Promife or Threatening, has been affected thereby, or rendered precarious by any various Reading or Corruption. The most that can be faid, where a various Reading, which may give a different Senfe to

any

ány Text, does occur, that Text, fo varioufly read, will not be a fufficient Proof of that Doctrine it may be alledged for; and the Doctrine might be judged uncertain, if it could not be proved from other Texts, wherein all Copies (except fuch as are apparetly faulty) are agreed. But God be praised, all the Doctrines of Chriftianity, as received and taught by the Primitive Catholick Church, and from thence by the Church of England, may be clearly proved from fuch Texts of the Old and New Testament as have no various Readings, at least none fuch as make any Difference in the Senfe; for most of the various Readings caufe no Difference in the Senfe.

However, in many Places, I believe, I may fay in moft, if not in all, where the Readings are various, we may pretty well judge and fatisfy ourselves concerning the true Reading, by obferving the following Rules. As first, when any Part of the Old Teftament is quoted in the New, and in the Place from whence that Quotation is taken, there be a various Reading, we may, I think, aflure ourfelves, that the Words, as quoted there, are the true Reading, whether they be quoted according to the Hebrew or the LXX. And whereas the Old Testament is often quoted in the New according to the Senfe, and not according to the Letter either of the Hebrew or LXX, and there be there a various Reading, that which comes nearest the Senfe of the Quotation in the New Teftament is to be preferred. In the next Place, where a Hebrew Word has one Signification, as pointed by the Maforites, or as interpreted by the Jews, and may well bear a different Signification from that Jewish Interpretation; and the LXX have followed that different Signification of the Word, of which Bishop Pearson has given feveral Inftances in his excellent Preface to the Cambridge Edition of the LXX, then, I conceive, we may fafely follow the LXX; because we may reasonably fuppcfe they understood the Hebrew better than the modern Jews. And the fame may be faid when and Ɔ, and, and other fimilar Letters might be miftaken by Transcribers the one for the other; because the LXX tranflated from correct Copies, taken immediately from the Autographum preserved in the Temple. Again, when we find a Sentence or Period in the Hebrew, which is not in the LXX, or in the LXX, and not in the Hebrew; if we find it agreeable to what goes before, and follows after in the Context, we may conclude that Sentence or Period was in the Original, but omitted in the Copies we now have, either of the Hebrew or LXX, by the Overfight of Tranfcribers. For the Omiflion of a Sentence may eafily happen through Overfight; but the Addition of a Sentence must be made on Purpose. However, if the Sentence which is found in the Hebrew, and not in the LXX; or in the LXX, and not in the Hebrew, be manifeftly incoherent, and breaks the Senfe of the Context, then there is Reason to believe it an Addition, occafioned by a Note fomebody had made in the Margin of his Book, which an ignorant 'Tranfcriber put into the Text. By thefe and fome other critical Rules, we may form a pretty good Judgment which Reading we ought to follow, whether of the Hebrew or the LXX, in moft Places where they differ the one from the other,

Thus,

Thus, Reverend Sir, I have anfwered your Queftion as well as I can; and, perhaps, more largely than you expected or defired. In deed, if I had only faid, that the Reafon of the Difference between our English Verfion and the LXX, was because they were made from two different Copies of the Hebrew, it had been a full Anfwer to your Query: But, I hope, my enlarging upon it may be more to your Satisfaction, and that, upon that Account, you will excufe my not anfwering you fooner.

Octob. 17,
1729.

I am,

Reverend Sir,

Your most humble Servant,

T. B.