Chap.  III. 1. p. 131-2.

Such would be the evidence for that divinity, to accompany the Book of Wisdom, if we considered it to be as old as Solomon, or only as the Son of Sirach.  But I consider it to be much later than either, and actually a work of Philo’s. * * The language is very similar to Philo’s; flowing, lively and happy.

How is it possible to have read the short Hebraistic sentences of the Book of Wisdom, and the long involved periods that characterize the style of all Philo’s known writings, and yet attribute both to one writer?  But indeed I know no instance of assertions made so audaciously, or of passages misrepresented and even mistranslated so grossly, as in this work of Whitaker.  His system is absolute naked Tritheism.

Ib.

  The righteous man is shadowed out by the author with a plain reference
  to our Saviour himself. “’Let us lie in wait for the righteous’,” &c.

How then could Philo have remained a Jew?

Ib. 2. p. 195.

In all effects that are voluntary, the cause must be prior to the effect, as the father is to the son in human generation.  But in all that are necessary, the effect must be coeval with the cause; as the stream is with the fountain, and light with the sun.  Had the sun been eternal in its duration, light would have been co-eternal with it.

A just remark; but it cuts two ways.  For these necessary effects are not really but only logically different or distinct from the cause:—­the rays of the sun are only the sun diffused, and the whole rests on the sensitive form of material space.  Take away the notion of material space, and the whole distinction perishes.

Chap.  IV. 1. p. 266.

  Justin accordingly sets himself to shew, that in the beginning, before
  all creatures, God generated a certain rational power out of himself.

Is it not monstrous that the Jews having, according to Whitaker, fully believed a Trinity, one and all, but half a century or less before Trypho, Justin should never refer to this general faith, never reproach Trypho with the present opposition to it as a heresy from their own forefathers, even those who rejected Christ, or rather Jesus as Christ?—­But no!—­not a single objection ever strikes Mr. Whitaker, or appears worthy of an answer.  The stupidest become authentic—­the most fantastic abstractions of the Alexandrine dreamers substantial realities!  I confess this book has satisfied me how little erudition will gain a man now-a-days the reputation of vast learning, if it be only accompanied with dash and insolence.  It seems to me impossible, that Whitaker can have written well on the subject of Mary, Queen of Scots, his powers of judgment being apparently so abject.  For instance, he says that the grossest moral improbability is swept away by positive evidence:—­as if positive evidence (that is, the belief I am to yield to A. or B.) were not itself grounded on moral probabilities.  Upon my word Whitaker would have been a choice judge for Charles II. and Titus Oates.