they were first translated. But (beside that different copies were used, that Alexandria and Egypt followed the copy of Hesychius, Antioch and Constantinople that of Lucian the martyr, and others that of Origen) the Septuagint was much depraved, not only from the errors of scribes, and the emergent corruptions of time, but malicious contrivance of the Jews; as Justin Martyr hath declared in his learned dialogue with Tryphon, and Morinus* hath learnedly shown from many confirmations.7

:

Whatsoever interpretations there have been since have been especially effected with reference unto these, that is, the Greek and Hebrew text; the translators sometimes following the one, sometimes adhering unto the other, according as they found them consonant unto truth, or most correspondent unto the rules of faith. Now, however it cometh to pass, these two are very different in the enumeration of genealogies, and particular accounts of time for in the second interval, that is, between the flood and Abraham, there is by the Septuagint introduced one Cainans to be the son of Arphaxad and father of Salah; whereas in the Hebrew there is no mention of such a person, but Arphaxad is set down to be the father of Salah. But in the first interval, that is, from the creation unto the flood, their disagreement is more considerable; for therein the Greek exceedeth the Hebrew and common account almost 600 years. And 'tis indeed a thing not very strange, to be at the difference of a third part, in so large and collective an account, if we consider how differently they are set forth in minor and less mistakable numbers. So in the prophecy of Jonah, both in the Hebrew and Latin text, it is said, "Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown;" but the Septuagint saith plainly, and that in letters at length, τpɛis ĥμépaç, that is, *De Hebræi et Græci textus sinceritate.

7 which was after lost, &c.] This concluding sentence was first added in the 2nd edition.

8 Cainan.] How this second Cainan was foisted into the translation of the Septuagint, see that learned tract in Gregorye's Posthuma, p. 77, which hee calls Καινὰν δεύτερος. Hee [meaning Sir Thomas] might have called him Yevdoкaivav; which had been most sutable to this learned worke, of discovering comon errors.-Wr.

See also Dr. Hales's New Analysis, vol. i. pp. 90-94.

"Yet three days and Nineveh shall be destroyed." Which is a difference not newly crept in, but an observation very ancient, discussed by Austin and Theodoret, and was conceived an error committed by the scribe.9 Men therefore have raised different computes of time, according as they have followed their different texts; and so have left the history of times far more perplexed than chronology hath reduced.

Again, however the texts were plain, and might in their numerations agree, yet were there no small difficulty to set down a determinable chronology or establish from hence any fixed point of time. For the doubts concerning the time of the judges are inexplicable; that of the reigns and succession of kings is as perplexed; it being uncertain whether the years both of their lives and reigns ought to be taken as complete, or in their beginning and but current accounts. Nor is it unreasonable to make some doubt whether in the first ages and long lives of our fathers, Moses doth not some-time account by full and round numbers, whereas strictly taken they might be some few years above or under: as in the age of Noah, it is delivered to be just five hundred when he begat Sem; whereas perhaps he might be somewhat above or below that round and complete number. For the same way of speech is usual in divers other expressions: thus do we say the Septuagint, and using the full and arti-. culate number, do write the translation of seventy; whereas we have shown before the precise number was seventy-two. So is it said that Christ was three days in the grave; according to that of Matthew, " As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth :" which notwithstanding must be taken synecdochically, or by understanding a part for a whole day; for he remained but two nights in the grave: for he was buried in the afternoon of ́ the first day, and arose very early in the morning on the third; that is, he was interred in the eve of the sabbath, and arose the morning after it.1

scribe.] Writing y for μ, which might easily bee, not in the original, but in the second transcript.—Wr.

after it.] Before day: the whole being scarce 34 houres while he was in the grave, which is not the one halfe of three days and three nights, nor can be salved synechdochicallye.

Moreover, although the number of years be determined and rightly understood, and there be without doubt a certain

'Tis strange to see how all the nation of expositors, since Christe, as yf they were infected with a disease of supinity, thinke they have abundantly satisfied the texte, by telling us, that speech of Christe comparinge himself to Jonas, must be understood synechdochically, which is: 1. not only a weak interpretation; 2. but ridiculous to Jews, Turks, and Infidels; 3. and consequently derogatory to the trueth; who expressly puts in the reddition, 3 dayes and 3 nights, by an emphaticall expression. Which as itt was punctually fortold, the express time of 3 dayes and 3 nights; soe itt was as punctually performed (usque ad apices) for as Jonas was 3 days and 3 nights in the whale, which admits noe synechdoche; soe the sonn of man was in the grave 3 dayes and 3 nights without any abatement of a moment. That which begat this error was, a mistake of the dayes and nights, spoken of Jonas. And from thence not only unwarrantably but untruly applyed to Christ's stay in the grave. Wee must therefore distinguish of dayes and nights, and take them either in Moses' sense, for the whole revolution of the to the eastern pointe after 24 houres: which most men by like contagion of error, call the natural day, wheras itt is rather to bee cald artificiall, as being compounded of a day and a night, wheras the night is properly noe parte univocall of a day, but a contradistinct member thereto. Now in this sense yf the days and nights bee conceived; itt is impossible to make good the one halfe of 3 dayes and 3 nights by any figurative or synechdochical sense: for from the time of his enterring, very neer 6 at even on Friday to 6 at even on Saturday are but 24 houres: to which adde from 6 at even to 3 or 4 next morne (for itt was yet darke, when Mary Magd. came and saw the stone remooved), viz. 10 houres more, they will make in all but thirty foure houres, that is but 14 day and night of æquinoctial revolution. else in our Saviour's sense, Jo. xi. 9, where by the day Christe understands, the very day-light, or natural day, caused by the presence of the sun; to the which night is always opposed as contradistinct, as is manifest from that very place. For as itts alwayes midday directly under the O, soe there is midnight alwayes opposite to midnoone through the world. And these 2 have runn opposite round the world, simul et semel every 24 houres since the creation, and soe shall doe, while time shall bee noe more. I say therefore that thoughe in respect of Jesus' grave in the garden he lay but 36 houres in the earthe, yet in respect of the world for which he suffered, there were 3 distincte dayes and nights actually in being, while hee lay in the bowels of the earthe (which is to be distinctly noted to justifie of him, who did not, could not, æquivocate): Friday night in Judæa, and a day opposite therto in the other hemisphere, just 12 houres; Saturday 12 houres in Judæa, and the opposite night 12 hours; Saturday night in Judæa, and the opposite day elsewhere at the same time. And hee that denyes this, hath lost his sense for I ask were there not actually 3 essentiall dayes and 3 nights (sub coelo) during his sepulture. And yf this cannot be denyed

Or

truth herein, yet the text speaking obscurely or dubiously, there is ofttimes no slender difficulty at what point to begin or terminate the account. So when it is said, Exod. xii., the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years, it cannot be taken strictly, and from their first arrival into Egypt, for their habitation in that land was far by any but a madman, I aske againe did Christe suffer for Judæa only, or for the whole world? least of all for Judæa, which for his unjust death was exterminate and continues accursed. Soe that henceforth wee shall need no synechdoche to make good the prophetick speech of him that could not lie: who sayde, sic erit Filius hominis in corde terræ tribus diebus et tribus noctibus: and this was truly fulfilled usque ad momenta, and therefore I dare believe it, and noe Jew or Turk can contradict itt. (Hee that made the several natures of day and night in this sense; sayd hee would lye in the grave 3 of these dayes and 3 nights.)-Wr.

This is ingenious, and to its author it seems abundantly satisfactory, proceeding on the hypothesis that as our Lord suffered for the whole world, the duration of his suffering must be understood with reference to the whole earth. The Dean adds to the two nights and one day which elapsed in Palestine, the corresponding two days and one night, which elapsed at the antipodes of Judea. But this is liable to objection. It is just as truly synechdochical as the interpretation of Sir Thomas :-only that it takes two points on the earth's surface instead of one for the whole. Besides the ingenuity is needless. The Jews were in the habit of speaking synechdochically in that very respect that they speak of each part of a day and night (or of 24 hours) as a day and night—vúkonuɛpa. So that if Jonah was in the deep during less than 48 hours, provided that period comprised, in addition to one entire 24 hours, a portion of the preceding and of the following 24 hours,-then the Jews would say that he had been in the deep 3 day-nights or 3 days and 3 nights. As if we should say of a person who had left home on Friday afternoon and returned on Sunday morning, that he was from home Friday, Saturday, and Sunday-this might be thought to imply considerable portions of the day of Friday and of Sunday but certainly it would not be necessary to the accuracy of such a report that he should have started immediately after midnight of Thursday, and returned at the same hour on Sunday. And yet he would otherwise not have been from home on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday-but only during parts of those days. With the Jews common parlance would only require that our Redeemer should have been in the heart of the earth, from the eve of the (Jewish) sabbath, however late, to the morning of the first day, however early, in order to justify the terms in which they would universally have spoken of the duration of his abode there-as comprising three days and three nights. We may observe too, that three days are uniformly spoken of as the time of our Lord's abode in the grave, whether it is spoken of typically or literally. Thus he says of himself, "I do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I am perfected."

less; but the account must begin from the covenant of God with Abraham, and must also comprehend their sojourn in the land of Canaan, according as is expressed Gal. iii., "The covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was 430 years after cannot disannul." Thus hath it also happened in the account of the seventy years of their captivity, according to that of Jeremy, "This whole land shall be a desolation, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.' Now where to begin or end this compute, ariseth no small difficulty; for there were three remarkable captivities and deportations of the Jews. The first was in the third or fourth year of Joachim, and first of Nabuchodonozor, when Daniel was carried away; the second in the reign of Jeconiah, and the eighth year of the same king; the third and most deplorable in the reign of Zedechias, and in the nineteenth year of Nabuchodonozor, whereat both the temple and city were burned. Now such is the different conceit of these times, that men have computed from all; but the probablest account and most concordant unto the intention of Jeremy is from the first of Nabuchodonozor unto the first of King Cyrus over Babylon; although the prophet Zachary accounteth from the last. "O Lord of hosts, how long! wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years ?" for he maketh this expostulation in the second year of Darius Hystaspes, wherein he prophesied, which is about eighteen years in account after the other.

Thus also although there be a certain truth therein, yet is there no easy doubt concerning the seventy weeks, or seventy times seven years of Daniel; whether they have reference unto the nativity or passion2 of our Saviour, and

2 nativity or passion.] The learned thinke they have reference [that is of their determination] to neither of them. For most of the learned conceive, that those 70 weeks, or seven times seventy [viz. 490 years] ended with the destruction of the citye; which was 70 yeares after the nativitye, and 38 after the passion of Christe: and then 'twill bee noe hard matter to compute the pointe from whence those 490 yeares must bee supposed to begin which wee shal find to bee in the 6th yeare of Darius Nothus; at what time the temple being finished by Artaxerxes commaund, formerly given Ao. Regni 20°. the commaund for the build