An excellent discourse proving the divine original and authority of the five books of Moses written originally in French by Monsieur Du Bois de la Cour, and approved by six doctors of the Sorbon ; to which is added a second part, or an examination of a considerable part of Pere Simon's critical history of the Old Testament ... by W.L.

An excellent discourse proving the divine original and authority of the five books of Moses written originally in French by Monsieur Du Bois de la Cour, and approved by six doctors of the Sorbon ; to which is added a second part, or an examination of a considerable part of Pere Simon's critical history of the Old Testament ... by W.L.

Table of contents

[1]

Title page

A PREFACE, Opening the true Nature and Reaſons of a Saving-Faith.

ERRATA.

The Epiſtle to the READER.

A DISCOURSE On the Proofs of the BOOKS of MOSES.

[2]

Title page

The Second Part.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

An Excellent DISCOURSE Proving the Divine Original, and Authority OF The Five BOOKS OF MOSES. Written Originally in French by Monſieur Du Bois de la Cour, and Approved by ſix Doctors of the Sorbon. To Which is added a SECOND PART, OR AN EXAMINATION Of a conſiderable part of PERE SIMON's Critical Hiſtory of the Old Teſtament, wherein all his Objections, With the Weightieſt of Spinoſa's, againſt Moſes's being the Author of the firſt Five Books of the Bible, are Anſwered, and ſome difficult places of Holy Scripture are Explained.

By W. L.

London, Printed for Tho. Parkhurſt, at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapſide near Mercers Chappel. 1682.

A PREFACE, Opening the true Nature and Reaſons of a Saving-Faith.

[Page]

[Page]

§. 1. THere is no Man that ever heard the Goſpel, and hath ſuch a care of his everlaſting State, as beſeemeth a reaſonable Creature, but muſt needs perceive of how great weight it is, to be well aſſured of the truth of thoſe ſupernatural Revelations delivered to us in the Sacred Scriptures. Much may be known by the well ſtudied Book of Nature: But not enough to quiet the mind of Man, by aſſured hopes of future Happineſs, and the way thereto: And therefore almoſt all the Heathen and Infidel World, have their Augures or Prophets on whom they depend, as Conſcious of the neceſſity of more than common natural Light: Beſides that, it requireth greater helps and longer ſtudies, to underſtand the Book of Nature, than the generallity of Mankind can uſe: whereas God by his word hath [Page] made all neceſſary truth ſo plain, that Children in a ſhort time, may grow wiſer than the Philoſophers.

§. 2. No wonder then if it be the great work of the Prince of Darkneſs, the Enemy of God and Man, to deprive the World of the benefit of the Sacred Sacriptures; which he doth, Firſt, By keeping moſt of the Earth from knowing it, for want of Teachers, moſtly kept out by the Perſecution of Tyrants and Idolatrous Prieſts. Secondly, By keeping thoſe that hear it from believing it. Thirdly, By keeping thoſe that believe it from the right underſtanding of it. Fourthly, By keeping thoſe that partly underſtand it, from a ſerious conſidering what they underſtand. Fifthly, By keeping Men from a willing obedience to what they know and think of.

§. 3. Among profeſſed Chriſtians it is the want of a ſound Belief, which is the great cauſe of all Ungodlineſs and Miſery. And no wonder: For it is an high and excellent work to live on the joyful belief and hope of an unſeen everlaſting Life. And in this dark State, believing muſt conquer many difficulties, which ſlothful Men will rather yield to, than duely ſtrive to overcome.

[Page] §. 4. Firſt, We have contracted ſo inordinate a Love to this kind of life in Fleſh, that corrupt Nature is loth to think of any other, becauſe it would not part with this. And when Men are convinced only of a neceſſity of looking forward beyond the Grave, this changeth not their love; but ſtill an unwilling backward heart receiveth the notices of the Life to come, but as unpleaſant Phyſick, which nothing but meer neceſſity will get down: And how ill a Receiver an unwilling mind is, experience telleth all the World. Yea ſo backward and ſenſeleſs is depraved Nature, that even this neceſſity is ſeldom ſeriouſly conſidered, till the Sentence of Death awaken the Soul; and are Men then fit to begin ſo hard a ſtudy, as muſt ſhew them the certainty of the Goſpel, and the Life to come; and to get Faith when they muſt uſe it.

§. 5. Secondly, And (I write it as neceſſitated, and with Lamentation,) it is not all Mens Lot to have Teachers that ſhew them the right way, even of founding their Belief, and diſcerning the certainty of the Goſpel, and the Immortality of Souls. If I ſhould tell you how many Pariſhes that have Weekly Sermons, [Page] in which Faith, and Chriſtianity, and Heaven, are mentioned, have Teachers that cannot confute an Infidel or Sadducee, or teach Men clearly how to be ſure, that their Faith and Hope are not meer Errour, and that cannot tell which way well to prove the truth of their profeſt Religion, ſome would be offended at it, that are not offended at their own ſad defect, who are ignorant of ſo needful a part of the Catechiſme, which every Chriſtian ſhould be taught.

§. 6. Sad numerous inſtances are too clear a clear a proof.

Firſt, It is become ſo great a controverſie, whether Faith have any Evidence or not, and whether we can certainly prove the Goſpel to be true, or rather muſt merit the more by believing it without proof, that the Papiſts are together by the Ears about it; and thoſe Proteſtants that handle it, differ among themſelves. But the moſt keep their peace by not daring to decide it. And how can thoſe Teachers ſhew the people the aſcertaining Evidence and Proof, who hold that there is none to be ſhewn. The objects of Faith are not evident to Senſe, (not ſeen, not taſted, &c.) but the truth of the Revelation hath aſcertaining [Page] proof: And nothing is provable but by intelligible Evidence,

Secondly, The whole Papal Church almoſt holds, That the method of believing the Goſpel, is to believe it on the Authority of the Church's propoſal, or affirmation. As if Men muſt believe that Chriſt hath a Church, and that it is thus Authorized, before they believe that he is the Chriſt, and hath Authority himſelf, or any Law that gives Authority. A multitude of impoſſibles are here ſuppoſed, before Man can be a true believer, (which I have fully manifeſted elſewhere.)

Thirdly, Some that ſee how unable the vulgar and unlearned are, to manage a matter of ſuch weight and difficulty, and fearing leaſt a tryal of their Faith againſt hard objections, ſhould but overturn it, perſwade the weak only to believe, and not to doubt, but not to ask, why? nor to ſearch for Reaſons for their Faith; leaſt diſputing the caſe, and hearing objections which they cannot anſwer, ſhould make them Infidels, or crack their Brains.

Fourthly, Some tell them that it is only the inward witneſs of the Spirit in themſelves that can aſſure them that the Scriptures are the word of God. Not telling [Page] them well what that Teſtimony is, nor how thoſe that yet hear it not ſhall be convinced of unbelief.

Fifthly, Some by overdoing, tell us that the Scripture ſo ſhineth, propria luce, and conteineth its own evidence of Divinity ſo clearly, that a Man that doth but read it, though he found it by the high-way, and never before heard of it, may there ſee ſufficient evidence that it is all of God.

Sixthly, Some by greater overdoing, diſtinguiſh not the Eſſentials of Religion, from the Integrals or Accidents, nor the words from the matter, nor the Law and Goſpel from the ſubordinate parts of the Bible, in point of evidence and neceſſity. and ſo would tempt Men to think, that if any ſentence in our Bibles, tranſlation or original be miſtaken, we can have no certainty of the truth of any of the reſt.

Seventhly, And theſe by overdoing would perſwade us that every word in the Bible is as much Divine as the Decalogue, or Lords Prayer, and hath nothing in it of humane imperfection in ſtile or order; but is all ſuch, as God himſelf would have written, if he had made no uſe of Man.

Eighthly, And ſome are ſo afraid of Popery, [Page] and the name of (Tradition and the Teſtimony of the Church,) that they diſable their own Faith by rejecting the neceſſary uſe of Tradition, and the Churches Teſtimony, not being able juſtly to diſtinguiſh.

Ninthly, And too many diſtinguiſh not Hiſtorical Evidence from the Churches pretended Authoritative determination.

Tenthly, And ſome cannot tell what Hiſtorical Evidence is alſo Phyſical, and what maketh it ſo, as differing from Moral uncertain Teſtimony.

And if Teachers of the Foundation have all theſe groſs defects and more, is it any wonder if unſtudied Lay-men are here puzled in the dark.

§. 7. I am not now to write a Treatiſe to tell Men the true method of Preaching Faith: I have done that elſewhere, eſpecially in [The Reaſons of Chriſtian Religion,] [The unreaſonableneſs of Infidelity,] [The Life of Faith,] and a ſmall Book called [The certainty of Chriſtianity without Popery.] But I ſhall here give the unfurniſhed Reader a few neceſſary Diſtinctions and Concluſions.

§. 8. Concluſion I. Divine Faith is a ſort of knowledg with Truſt to the credit of [Page] God revealing, and therefore muſt have evidence, 1. That it is the word of God that is propoſed. 2. And that God doth not lie or deceive us.

Concluſ. II. It is the matter ſignified which is the prime neceſſary object of our Faith: and the words only as the vehicle or ſigns of the matter.

Concluſ. III. No one particular word in the Bible, or the World is of abſolute neceſſity to be known; but another may ſerve that hath the ſame ſignification. If any word were abſolutely neceſſary to be known, if it be Engliſh, none could be ſaved but Engliſh-men: if Greek or Hebrew, none could be ſaved but Grecians or Hebricians, &c.

Concluſ. IV. The Goſpel is not thoſe ſame words that Chriſt ſpake, but a Tranſlation of them. Its ſuppoſed that he ſpake in the Language then uſed by the Jews, which was a mixture of Chaldee and Syriack; but the Goſpel is written in Greek, ſo that our Original thereof is but a Divine Tranſlation of Chriſts words.

Concluſ. V. Chriſt promiſed and gave his Spirit to his Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, to bring all things that he had taught them to their remembrance, and to lead them into [Page] all truth, and teach them what to ſay, ſo far as to perform their Commiſſion, To Diſciple the Nations, Baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, Teaching them to obſerve all things that he had Commanded them. And thus far they were infallible.

Concluſ. VI. The words therefore of the ſeveral writers are ſo far Divine, as to be the true and certain ſignifiers or expreſſions of ſo much of Chriſts Life and Doctrine, as he ſaw needful for the uſe of Man, to the end of the World to be made known.

Concluſ. VII. But all the Goſpel writers recite not the ſame matter juſt in the ſame words, nor in the ſame Order, nor in the ſame Stile: And as all humane Language ſavoureth of humane imperfection, and the faculties of Men are not all of one degree of ſtrength, and cuſtome varyeth wiſe Mens Stile; ſo the Apoſtles were but Men, and the very Words, Stile and Order of their writing had the effects of ſinleſs humane imperfection, and were not ſuch as that God himſelf could not have done it better: But its all of God, as ſuited to its proper uſe.

[Page] Concluſ. VIII. The Goſpel was God's word Preached by them, before they wrote it: Eight Years before St. Matthew wrote, and about Sixty Seven, or Sixty Eight Years before St. John wrote the Goſpel: And it is not to be imagined, that in their Preaching they ſpake juſt all the ſame words which they wrote, and no more.

Concluſ. IX. All the Miracles that were then wrought, were firſt to confirm the Goſpel as Preached before the Books were written.

Concluſ. X. But God knowing that the Apoſtles muſt die, and the Goſpel muſt be infallibly delivered to the end of the World, inſpired them to write, not only the Eſſentials, but all that was neceſſary for the World to know in all Generations, and leave it as the Sacred Record of his redeeming Work, his Doctrine, and his univerſal Law, written infallibly by the Spirit of Jeſus which he ſent as his Agent for that work; ſo that the ſame Miracles which confirmed their words, are now equally a Seal of the Divine Authority of their writings.

Concluſ. XI. All the words in the Goſpel are not Eſſential to Chriſtianity, nor of [Page] equal neceſſity to be explicitely known, the Doctrine of Baptiſm and the Lords Supper, with the Decalogue and Lords Prayer, contain all the Eſſentials of Chriſtianity truly underſtood; which Doctrine of Baptiſm the Church ever expounded in a few plain Articles called the Creed: And they always took thoſe Sacraments and that Creed, with the Lords Prayer and the Decalogue expounded by Chriſt, as the ſummaries of our Belief, Deſires and Practice, to be the Goſpel and Chriſtian Religion; The Miniſtry and Church Order inſtituted by the Spirit of Chriſt, being an Integral part: and theſe they diferenced from the Subſidiary and Ornamental parts of Scripture, in point of Neceſſity and Evidence. And they that believed theſe were ſaved, whether it was before the reſt was written, or if they never heard or underſtood the reſt.

Concluſ. XII. And before Chriſt, the Law of Moſes muſt be greatly diſtinguiſhed from the other Hiſtorical Books and Propheſies. As the Law of this Land by which all men hold their Lands and Lives, and muſt be governed, greatly differ from daily verbal Mandates, or written Commiſſions which the King may give to particular [Page] Perſons; ſo the Covenant of Grace, and the Law of Moſes much differ from the particular Meſſages of Prophets, and the words of Prieſts about that Law, or the deeds of men. Univerſal and Common Laws are of Univerſal and Common Obligation, and therefore all muſt be certain of their Authority: But the Obedience and Salvation of the Land or World, was not laid on, e. g. the Prophets Meſſage to Saul, to Jeroboam, to Hezekiah, &c. Therefore, in theſe Caſes, the People are left ſometimes to ſee whether Predictions come to paſs, and its harder for them to know who is a true Prophet, the neceſſity being leſſer.

Concluſ. XIII. It is therefore greatly to be noted, that, 1. The Law of Nature needed no Miracles to Confirm it, being legible in the Nature of Man and of all about him. 2. The Law of Moſes which that Nation was to be ruled by, had ſo full evidence of Divine Authority, that it was ſcarce poſſible for the Jews of that Age to doubt of it: The ten Plagues of Egypt, the opening of the Red Sea, and the Raining of Quails, and the forty years feeding them with Manna, the Flaming Mount, the terrible Sight and Voices, the [Page] Glory of God and the Cloud before the Tabernacle, the ſwallowing up of Thouſands by the opened Earth, with other ſuch ſigns, muſt needs convince the Nations of Gods Revelation: And the Paſſeover, and many other means, were from the firſt, appointed to be a practical Tradition of it, uninterrupted. But the Prieſts that were but to obey and teach this Law needed no new Miracles, the Law being once ſo fully ſealed. 3. And ſo when Chriſt came with a new and more perfect Revelation to ſettle the Law of Grace in the laſt Edition, he ſealed it by multitudes of uncontrouled Miracles, and his own Reſurrection, and the miraculous effuſion of the Holy Ghoſt, by which the Apoſtles, who were infallibly to Record his Law and Promiſes, ſealed their Word with the like wonderful works that Chriſt had done. But the Law and Promiſe being thus Sealed and Delivered, the Biſhops, or Miniſters, who are but to keep and teach it, need not new Miracles for their Work. If as ſome Uſurpers pretend, Chriſt had made Biſhops in Councils Univerſal Legiſlators to make new parts of Divine Religion for the World, God would have given them alſo the ſeal of ſuch undoubted Miracles.

[Page] Concluſ. XIV. I have oft ſaid four evidences concur infallibly to prove the Goſpel true: And all are called, The Witneſs of the Spirit as one. 1. The Antecedent Propheſies. 2. The Miracles, and Reſurrection, and Aſcenſion of Chriſt, and the numerous Miracles of the Apoſtles and firſt Churches. 3. The propria Lux, or inherent impreſſions of God on the Goſpel and all the Scriptures, which greatly differenceth it from all other Books and Doctrines. 4. The ſanctifying efficacy of the Goſpel on all true Believers in all Nations and Ages of the Earth; which maketh them a holy, peculiar, heavenly, juſt and ſober ſort of Perſons, quite differing from all other men, which is certainly the work of God by the Goſpel, and by this his Spirit is a continuing Witneſs that God doth own it.

Concluſ. XV. The Order of Believing as to the Matter, is to believe the firſt ſealed Goſpel. Firſt, even the Eſſence of Chriſtianity as paſt doubt. And if there be a doubt whether the Spirit and Miracles ſealed every by-word, ſtyle or order, that muſt not make us doubt of the Goſpel which is ſurely ſealed.

Concluſ. XVI. It is undeniable that there [Page] are multitudes of different Readings in the Old Teſtament and the New, in the Copies in the Original Tongues: It is uncertain to us, of many, which of them is the right: It is certain that when there was no Printing, but it was the Scriveners Trade to write out Books, many ſlips and differences would be among them. How far imperfection of memory or ſtyle might ſhew it ſelf in the firſt writers in any bywords, may be doubted without doubting of the Goſpel or Word of God: It is treachery to tell men that they can be no ſurer of the Goſpel, than of the various Readings or Skill of the Writers, Printers or Tranſlators. But it is certain that no corruption hath altered any neceſſary point.

Concluſ. XVII. The Order of believing as to the Evidence, is firſt to ſee the proof of the Matters of Fact by Hiſtorical Evidence: and in that to ſee the certainty of the Doctrine, which alſo ſheweth its own credibility: And this is a ſhort and ſure proof of our Religion: 1. We may be as ſure that the main Hiſtory is true, as that any Hiſtory in the World is true, 2. And if the Hiſtory be true, the Doctrine muſt needs be true.

Concluſ. XVIII. And this Hiſtory hath [Page] more than a moral uncertain Evidence: For the underſtanding of which it muſt be noted, that mans Soul hath two ſort of Acts;, ſome free and mutable, and ſome neceſſary by nature and immutable. All moral acts are free, and changeable: the Belief that is grounded on them hath but a moral certainty, which is ſtrictly no proper certainty: All men are lyars: All belief grounded on mans mere honeſty, (though it were a general Council that pretends a judging Authority) is uncertain. Though ſome good mens words give us ſo great a probability, as that one may venture his life on it. But the Love of a mans ſelf, and of felicity, and an unwillingneſs to be miſerable, &c. are acts Naturally neceſſary. Therefore the beleif which is well founded on theſe, hath a Phyſical Infallible certainty. Of this ſort is our beleif that there is ſuch a City as Rome, Venice, Paris, that there were ſuch men as K. H. 7. 8. K. James, &c. that the Statutes of the Land are not Counterfeits; For 1. Men that love themſelves, of croſs intereſts, capable of knowing, have all agreed of the Truth of theſe, and ſo do to this day. Argu. 1. Where the Cauſe is ofnatural neceſſity, the Effect is of natural [Page] certainty: But the cauſe that the willing and unwilling of contrary Intereſts, have all knowingly agreed to the things forenamed, muſt needs be of natural neceſſity: Ergo, the ſaid Agreement is of natural certainty. Argu. 2. There can be no effect without an adequat Cauſe. But for all knowing Men of contrary Intereſts and Wills to agree that there is ſuch a place as Rome, &c. that there was ſuch a man as King James, that the Statutes are not counterfeit, &c. if theſe were falſe, is an effect that hath no Cauſe in Nature: Ergo, it is naturally impoſſible. E. G. For our Statutes; It was eaſily knowable in the Age that they were made in, whether they were counterfeit: For men hold their Lands and Lives by them, and plead them daily at the Tribunals for croſs Intereſts againſt each other: Therefore natural neceſſary Cauſes would make ſome diſcover it, were they falſe. And if any had then diſcovered it, the ſame Cauſes would propagate the Diſcovery. That this is the Caſe about the Hiſtory of the Scripture, and that Jeſus Chriſt Lived, Taught, wrought Miracles, Dyed, Roſe, Aſcended, ſent down the Holy Spirit, that the Apoſtles by untaught Languagues and Miracles planted the Goſpel, and Chriſt gave the ſame Spirit by the impoſition of their hands on their ordinary hearers that believed, that they appealed to their own working Miracles and their Childrens, to their accuſers, Gal. 3. 1. 3. 5. Mat. 12, &c. this I have largely proved elſewhere. In all this you may ſee that to lay the Faith of Chriſtians on a pretended judging Power of [Page] the Church, Pope, or Councils, and then firſt to enquire which is the Church that hath this Power, is a cheat of ambitious men to catch the Ignorant. The moſt univerſal agrement including Hereticks, and Enemies, and men of contrary Wills and Intereſts is the beſt Hiſtorical Evidence of Fact: And the certainty of the Hiſtory with the quality of the Doctrine it ſelf, and its effects, is a certain proof that the Doctrine is of God. And the particular Books aud Words muſt have their own Hiſtorical proof, where there is ſome difference.

Concluſ. XIX. Objective certainty, muſt ſtill be diſtinguiſhed from Mental, Active, Subjective certainty. 1. Every thing true is infallibly true, ſo far as whoever believeth it to be true is not deceived. 2. Every thing true hath not aſcertaining evidence, but ſome things have. 3. Every thing that hath aſcertaining evidence is not certainly known or believed by millions: A multitude of inward and outward hinderances keep men from diſcerning ſuch evidence as aſcertaineth others, and might aſcertain them. Prepared Souls have great advantage, by capacity, willingneſs, diligence, &c. ‘And experienced Chriſtians on whom the Goſpel hath made a ſanctifying change, have the witneſs in themſelves, which proveth it to be of God. And this witneſs of the Spirit is a great and conſtant Seal on all that are ſound believers: but in a different degree.’ Yet the unſanctified and unbelievers that are not negligently or maliciouſly blind, may much diſcern the excellent effects of the Goſpel on others though they feel it not in themſelves.

[Page] Concluſ. XX. The Order of Believing as to the Acts, is uſually this. Men uſually (though not always) begin with a Belief of men, and perhaps fallible men, which giveth them but a probability that the Goſpel is Gods word; And from thence they paſs to a Belief of it as Gods word, which is partly Divine (that is, for Gods Veracity and Authority) but not effectuall, but is only the work of a common Grace, not ſanctifying and ſaving. And thence they come to a ſaving Divine Faith, but in a weak degree, which is to grow ſtronger till it come to full aſſurance.

Concluſ. XXI. For the underſtanding of all this, it is very needful that the true nature and formal cauſe of Divine Faith, be better and more diſtinctly opened than uſually it is Faith, in its ratio formalis muſt not be confounded with neceſſary previous Knowledge. All this Syllogiſm goeth before it. (Whatſoever God ſaith is true: This God ſaith, Ergo, this is true,) Or (All the word of God is trne. The Goſpel or ſacred Scripture is the word of God: Ergo, it is true) Major, Minor, and concluſion are all but a Knowledge antecedent to Faith in its formal Act, (though I and others formerly have called the concluſion, Faith,) Yea further, (whatever is evident truth, is to be believed and truſted: The Goſpel is evident truth, therefore it is to be believed or truſted) This is yet but Faith's antecedent: piſteuo, credo fido, all ſignifie to truſt: And truſt is the formal Act of Faith: But this truſt is in all the three faculties of the Soul. 1. The underſtanding having firſt diſcerned the credibility, giveth over doubting [Page] (in that degree) and reſteth in or truſteth the diſcerned truth. 2. The Will doth with complacency truſt to and reſt in the ſaid truth diſcerned, (with the goodneſs alſo diſcerned as ſure and true.) 3. The e [...]ecutive imperate Power doth practically truſt, perform, and venture, commanded by the Will. So that truly, Divine Faith is an intellectual, willing, executive, or practical truſt. I have oft explained it by ſuch ſimilitudes as theſe There is but one Phyſitian that can heal a ſick man: His Enemies defame him as a deceiver. He ſaith believe or truſt me and I will freely cure thee: He that truly truſteth him now, doth it Intellectually, Conſentingly, and Practically, and takes his Medicines; A Forreign Prince tells a poor man or a Priſoner, I will give thee a Lordſhip in the Eaſt-Indies if thou wilt truſt me; ſome ſay he is a deceiver: Others ſay, the Ship, or Pilot, or Seas are dangerous: He that ſo far truſteth him now, as to forſake his poor Country, and goe to Sea, and venture his all upon the truſt, ſhall have what is promiſed.

Concluſ. XXII. Here therefore to confute the Errours of a multitude of Doctors, and to quiet moſt Souls not otherwiſe to be juſtly quieted, it is neceſſary to know theſe things. 1. That the formal Act of Faith may be Divine and Saving, when the foreſaid antecedent knowledge or aſſent, may have ſome miſtakes and inſufficient media. 2. That Faith may be ſaving, which reacheth not to a ſtrong ſubjective certainty, nor excludeth always all doubting, even of the truth of the Goſpel and the Life to come. 3. Yea, [Page] that no ones Faith is abſolutely perfect. 1. Moſt Perſons begin with a humane belief of their Parents, and the common eſtimation of the Country; that Chriſt is the true Meſſiah, and the Scripture is Gods certain word: This is not a certain Proof: But if Children or unlearned Perſons do by ſuch uncertain Arguments believe the Scripture to be Gods word, and then taſt a Divine goodneſs in the matter, which maketh them moſt willingly believe it; Theſe Perſons may by ſo weak a preparation, Practically truſt God, and the Goſpel, as ſo far perceived to be his word, even with a ſaving Faith.

An Armenian Greek, Abaſſine, &c. believeth fide humana the Goſpel to be true, becauſe their ſeveral Teachers tell them ſo: And they perceive a goodneſs in it: Theſe on this fallible ground firſt taking it for the word of God, knowing that God is true, may yet ſavingly truſt it as the word of God, and that truſt is a Divine Faith, though the antecedent means was humane; (beſides the ſavour of Truth and goodneſs in the Word it ſelf.) 2. How few in the world have true Faith, if none be true that reacheth not to full undoubting ſubjective certainty. Certainty may be had: Aſcertaining truth and Evidence there is: But it is not every unlearned perſon that diſcerneth it A man may truſt his life in the hand of a Phyſitian, though he be not undoubtingly certain he can cure him: He may truſt Life and Eſtate in a Veſſel which he is not undoubtingly certain will bring him ſafe to Land. Though an unlearned man is not ſo well acquainted with Hiſtory as to know with [Page] what Evidence the Goſpel hath been brought down to our Age, nor ſo good a Logician as to bring an Argument for Chriſtianity and the Scriptur, which is not faulty; Yet, if he take it to be the word of God, and though he cannot ſay [I am undoubtingly certain of it] yet can ſay [I am undoubtingly certain there is nothing which is to be truſted in equality with it: This or nothing muſt be my hope: therefore, on this I will venture or lay my life and ſoul and all my hope, and will obey Chriſt, and forſake all that ſtands againſt him; For this hope I will live, and in this hope I will die.] This will prove a ſaving Faith. 3. Yea, it is certain that there is nothing abſolutely perfect in this World: And therefore no ones faith or certainty is perfect: even they that feel no actual doubting, have yet but an Imperfect Faith; elſe they would have more perfect obedience, patience and joy; The beſt have need to pray, Lord increaſe our faith; and Lord I believe, help thou my unbeleif. The weakneſs of all our graces and duty comes from the weakneſs of our faith. And it is not the beſt Logick which is ever accompanied with the ſtrongeſt Truſt; Though Reaſon be an excellent and neceſſary ingredient, ſome truſt in Chriſt with victorious confidence, who cannot diſpute beſt for their Faith.

Concluſ. XXIII. Though Peace and holy Joy be a moſt deſirable effect of Faith, and by which the ſtrength of it may be much tryed, yet it is not this, but Practical conſent to the Covenant of Grace, or Chriſts terms of Salvation, in which its ſaving ſincerity conſiſteth.

[Page] Concluſ. XXIV. By all this it appeareth how ambiguouſly the Queſtion de Reſolutione fidei is too oft diſputed: And how fallaciouſly a mans faith is ſaid to be unſound, if his reaſons be ſome unſound, and none cogent to prove an undoubted abſolute certainty that the Scripture is Gods word; and that Faith is not ſo reſolved into the antecedent reaſonings as neceſſarily to be unſound if ſome of them are ſo. That God cannot lie is known by Nature. That the Goſpel is his word, is known by its proper notifying evidence (forenamed), where many things concur. That therefore the Goſpel is true, is known as a rational Concluſion. But theſe are by believers apprehanded oft with imperfection, faultyneſs and diſorder. But Practical Truſt in God, in Chriſt, in the Goſpel Promiſe, is Conſtituted by its formal object which is Gods Fidelity or Veracity, grounded in his Perfection, and in the apprehended Truth of his promiſes. And this effectual faith is ſaving. I have Prefaced this much that the Reader may the eaſilyer underſtand and profit by the two following Treatiſes, one written and the other tranſlated by Mr. William Lorimer, my greatly valued Friend, well known by me to be a man of Learning and Judgment and exemplary faithfulneſs to God and Conſcience, and of a prudent and peaceable Converſation with men: If the Reader bring not a diſpoſition of enmity againſt the Truth. or groſs neglect of it, but a mind that hath neceſſary manly preparation, and a receptive willingneſs and reſolution for an impartial diligent ſearch, I doubt not but in theſe two Diſcourſes he will find enough, though not to [Page] remove every difficulty in the Bible, yet to ſave his Faith from all ſuch aſſaults, as would overthrow it, and make it uneffectual to his Salvation. And verily a man that hath well digeſted the matter of ſuch Controverſies, will find that Pomponatius, Vaninus, Hobbes, Spinoſa, &c: were Ignorant men, that knew not their own Ignorance, nor what they wrote againſt, and that Simon ſaith little but what Commentators have often Anſwered; and though he and others truly prove the doubtfulneſs of ſome Readings, and ſom [...] Tranſlations, which may be of man, he ſaith nothing to ſhake a well-grounded belief of Moſes Law, the Goſpel of Chriſt, and any thing neceſſary to Holineſs or Salvation.

Richard Baxter.

April 7. 1682.

ERRATA.

Preface, pag. 6. lin. 2. read (have) In the Epiſtle to the Reader, page 4. lin. 11. read (will) page 7. lin. 11. read (adiaphorous) page 16. lin. 7. read (where) l. 18. r. (be) l. 20. r. (ſervant) l. 22. r. (and) Firſt part p. 17. l. 1. 1. (uncertain, in ſo much) ibid. l. 16. r. (parity) p. 28. l. 8. r. (ſuppoſitions) p. 35. l. 7. r. (retro-active) p. 43. l. 7. r. (command) ibid. l. 13. r. (puniſhment) p. 47. l. 2. for (Table) r. (Fable) p. 56. l. 14. r. (proofs of Religion) Second part, p. 67. l. 5, 6. r. (Authoribus) p. 80. l. 13. r. (preſerved) p. 84. l. 24. r. (floating) p. 87. l. 7. r. (afford) p. 91. l. 7. r. (ſixth) p. 96. l. 23. r. (your) p. 97. l. 10. r. (named) p. 104. l. 19. r. (for) p. 109. l. 16. r. (unto) p. 110. l. 4. r. (may) p. 132. l. 16. r. (hundred) p. 135. l. 8. r. (ſenſe) p. 144. l. 7. & 19. r. (Be eber haijarden) p. 150. l. 2. r. (land) p. 151. l. 15. r. (mount) p. 164. l. 7. r. (ſay)

The Epiſtle to the READER.

[Page]

Chriſtian Reader,

IF thou weigheſt things in the Ballance of right Reaſon, thou can'ſt not but ſee, That Moſes being the firſt Man by whoſe Miniſtry Almighty God thought fit to give a Body of Laws unto a whole Nation, and to as many of the World beſides, as ſhould join in communion with that Nation; it was neceſſary God ſhould enable him to make it evidently appear unto all rational Men, that he was ſent and authorized by God to give Laws unto that Nation: and if thou read'ſt the Books of Moſes, and what thou wilt find in the following Diſcourſe concerning him and them, thou can'ſt not but likewiſe ſee, that the infinitely Wiſe and Powerful God did in effect enable him evidently and certainly to prove his Miſſion and Commiſſion to be from Heaven. For through God's extraordinary aſſiſtance he gave the higheſt demonſtrations of his being Authorized from above, that can in reaſon be deſired of any that ſpeaks or writes unto Men in the name of God; his works and writings hear the manifeſt ſignatures of God's Wiſdom, Power and Goodneſs; his works were ſuch as could never have been done without the aſſiſtance [Page] of an inviſible Power, far above any thing that falls under the perceptions of Senſe; and it is moſt evident to Reaſon, That that inviſible Power could be no other, than the infinitely powerful, wiſe and good God, who made, preſerves and governs the World, and all things therein. For it could not poſſibly be any Evil Spirit.

Firſt, Becauſe Moſes in his conteſt with the Magicians of Aegypt, did at the very firſt Encounter, far out-do them, and the Evil Spirit by whoſe aſſiſtance they wrought their wonders, as evidently appears by Aaron's Rods ſwallowing up their Rods, (Exod. 7. 12.) and by their not being able to remove the Frogs again from off the Land of Aegypt: and therefore Pharaoh was forced to call for Moſes and Aaron, and deſire them to intreat the Lord to take away the Frogs from him and his people (Exod. 8. [...]8.) and at laſt he forced them to confeſs [...]t they were overcome; for when they [...]ld not turn the Duſt of Aegypt into Lice, [...] Moſes and Aaron had done, they then [...]ved out, and ſaid unto Pharaoh, [This is the finger of God, Exod. 8. 18, 19.] they [...]onfeſſed that it was the power of God which [...]nabled Moſes and Aaron to turn the Duſt into Lice, and which hindered them from doing the like.

[Page] Secondly, It could not poſſibly be any Evil Spirit, becauſe Moſes's Miracles were wrought for the higheſt, beſt and excellenteſt ends, to wit, for the glory of God, and for the good of his People; they were wrought to convince both Pharaoh and Iſrael, That the Lord God of Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob, who made, and governs the World, is the only true God, who is above all to be Feared and Reverenced, Adored and Worſhipped, Loved and Obeyed, Pleaſed and Glorified; and that Moſes was his Authorized Meſſenger to be believed and obeyed for his ſake, in all that he ſaid, and commanded in his name: They were wrought alſo, both to cauſe Pharaoh to let go the Iſraelites, and likewiſe to make the Iſraelites willing to leave Aegypt, and to go with Moſes, and take poſſeſſion of the Land of Canaan, which the Lord God had long before promiſed unto their Fathers, Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob. a

Thirdly, It could not poſſibly be any Evil Spirit, becauſe Moſes's Miracles were wrought to the prejudice of the Devil's intereſt in the World, and for the deſtroying of the Devil's Kingdom, by rooting out Idolatry from among God's People, and driving Idolaters [Page] out of Canaan; and for the ſetting up of the Kingdom of God viſibly upon Earth.b

Fourthly, It could not poſſibly be any Evil Spirit, becauſe the Evil Spirit is the great Enemy of Mankind, and of all humane Society rightly conſtituted; whereas Moſes's Miracles were wrought for the confirmation of a Doctrine, which is manifeſtly for the good of Mankind, of individual Men, and of all Societies of Men, Deut. 4. 6, 8.

This wile clearly appear unto any rational Man that ſhall duly conſider theſe following Laws of Moſes, Concerning Mens Loving their Neighbours as themſelves, and not Coveting any thing belonging to them.c

Concerning the City's of Refuge appointed for ſuch Perſons, as ſhould happen to kill a Man unwittingly.d

Concerning the Redemption of Lands.e

Concerning Goodneſs, Lenity and Equity to Servants.f

Mercifulneſs to the Poor.g

[Page] Kindneſs to Straugers.h

Juſtice and Equity to the Widows and Fatherleſs.i

Reverence and Obedience to Superiors.k

And concerning the Duties of Superiors towards their Inferiors and Subjects.l

But not to inſiſt upon theſe and many other excellent Laws of Moſes, which are manifeſtly for the good of Mankind, and both evidence themſelves to have been given unto Moſes and Iſrael by an infinitely good God; and alſo Moſes's Miracles wrought in confirmation of them, to have been from the ſame cauſe; there is one thing which I cannot but touch upon, to wit, That whereas other Lawgivers have ſet up, ſome a Monarchy, ſome an Ariſtocracy, and others a Democracy, Moſes was the firſt that Eſtabliſhed a viſible Theocracy over the Iſraelites, under which form of Government, all things were to be managed by the counſel and direction of the infinitely wiſe God; the People of Iſrael, as a Kindom of Prieſts, and a Holy Nation, were to refer all their matters unto God, and to ask advice and direction of him by ƲRIM and THƲMMIM, in reference to Peace and [Page] War, and all things of any conſiderable importance, or difficulty, (Exod. 19. 5, 6. & 20. 24, the latter part, Exod. 28. 30. Deut. 10. 14, 15, 16, 17. & 12. 11, 12, Levit. 26. 11, 12. &c.)

Theſe things put together (if no more could be ſaid) ſeem abundantly ſufficient to prove that Moſes was Authorized by God to give Laws unto the Iſraelites; for no Man could have wrought ſuch Miracles ſo circumſtantiated, except God had been with him: and ſuch is the weakneſs of Man's Ʋnderſtanding, that he could never of his own head have invented ſuch a Law, and ſuch a way of Government. And if Moſes's Miracles and Law could not poſſibly be of any Evil Spirit, nor of Man, they muſt needs have been of a Good Spirit, and that Good Spirit could be no other but God: for though God uſed the Miniſtry of Good and Holy Angels in giving forth the Law, yet they could not poſſibly be the Authors of it; and if any of them had ever pretended unto that Honour, he would by ſo doing have degenerated into a proud, arrogant and lying Devil.

God himſelf then was the alone Author of Moſes his Law, and the Holy Angels with Moſes, were but Inſtruments and Miniſters, by whom God gave it unto Iſrael; and indeed [Page] there is nothing in it, but what well becomes God to be the Author of; there is nothing in it that doth any way contradict the perfections of his Nature, or deſtroy the natural notions of Truth and Falſhood, Good and Evil which he hath implanted in the mind of Man: nay many of Moſes's Laws are evidently agreeable unto, and Repreſentative of the tranſcendent excellencies of the Divine, and perfective of the humane Nature: and even thoſe of them which are of a moſt adiapheros indifferent nature in themſelves, and derive all their morality from the will and pleaſure of God, did certainly by Gods appointment and bleſſing very much promote the happineſs of his People, (Deut. 10. 12, 13. & 11. 12, to 16. Levit. 26. 3, to 13. Deut. 32. 16, 17.)

As to what ſome Atheiſts Object from Exod. 12. 35, 36. That Moſes taught the Iſraelites to cheat the Aegyptians of their Jewels, under pretence of borrowing them, and that God himſelf is brought in as countenancing the Cheat; which ſeems to be plainly contrary, both to the perfections of God, and right Reaſon of Man.

I Anſwer, It is falſe that is Objected, for there was really no borrowing and lending in the caſe, but asking and receiving, and carrying away what God had inclined the hearts [Page] of the Aegyptians freely to give: and ſo there could be no cheat under pretence of borrowing. This Anſwer is grounded upon the true import of the Hebrew Word (Shaal) which ſignifies (to ask,) and accordingly the place Objected is rendred by Munſter, and the Tigurin; in Engliſh thus, [The Children of Iſrael asked of the Aegyptians, Jewels,—and the Lord gave the People favor in the ſight of the Aegyptians, ſo that they gave them ſuch thiugs as they asked, and they carryed them away from the Aegyptians;] the Aegyptians apprehended themſelves to be all dead Men, if the Iſraelites ſtayed in Aegypt any longer, and therefore were willing to give them any thing they bad, on condition that they would be preſently gone, Verſ. 33.

And thus things were ordered by the wiſe Providence of God, that the Children of Iſrael might be rewarded for the great Service they had done unto the Aegyptians.

Moreover, It is very obſervable that ſome of Moſes's Laws were ſuch, that it is impoſſible to conceive that any Men in their Wits, would either have given ſuch Laws unto others, or have themſelves received and ſubmitted to them; unleſs they had been ſure that God was the Author of them, and that [Page] he would take care to prevent the great inconveniences that might ariſe from the obſervance of them. I Inſtance in Two,

Firſt, The Law for the Seventh Year Sabbath, (Exod. 23. 10, 11, & Levit. 25. 4, 5.) The Command not to Plow nor Sow every Seventh Year, was of ſuch conſequence, and might have produced ſo ill effects, that Moſes would never have attempted to bring the Iſraelites under ſuch a Law, nor would they have been ſuch fools as to have received it, and ſubmitted to it, unleſs he and they had been both ſure, that God had Authorized him to give them that Law, and that God had undertaken to ſecure them from the great inconvenience that might ariſe from their Obſervance of it; for if they had not been ſure that God had by promiſe engaged his Providence to Bleſs them with extraordinary great abundance of Cornes on the Sixth Year, they could not but foreſee that there would have been a Scarcity and Famine on the Seventh Year, eſpecially when the Year of Jubile, which was every Fiftieth Year, ſucceeded the Seventh Year Sabbath; for in that caſe the Law forbade them either to Plow or Sow for Two whole Years together, (Levit. 25. 8, to 12.) upon which they could not but foreſee that a Famine would certainly [Page] follow, unleſs God had undertaken by an extraordinary Providence to prevent it. Therefore Moſes muſt have been ſure of this, otherwiſe he would never have attempted the giving them ſuch a Law; and he muſt have made the People ſure of it alſo, otherwiſe he could not but foreſee that they would never have been ſo ſimple as to receive and ſubmit unto ſuch a Law, as would expoſe them to the danger of a Famine every Seventh Year, and in the revolution of Fifty Years, would unavoidably bring a Famine upon them. We read in the 25th of Leviticus where this Law is Recorded, That God foreſeeing the People would certainly move this Objection againſt it, he prevented them, and both moved and anſwered the Objection himſelf, Verſ. 20, 21. [If ye ſhall ſay, What ſhall we eat the Seventh Year? behold, we ſhall not Sow, nor gather in our Increaſe. Then I will command my Bleſſing upon you in the Sixth Year, and it ſhall bring forth Fruit for Three Years, &c.] Here they had God's word of Promiſe, Sealed with the Broad-Seal of Heaven, Moſes's Miracnlous Works for the ground of their aſſurance, that God's extraordinary Providence would ſecure them from Famine.

And it was upon this ſo well grounded aſſurance, [Page] that they received and ſubmitted to that Law. And God never failed them in this, but always fnlfilled with his hand what he had ſpoken with his mouth; ſo that they were never forced to travel into other Countries to buy Corn for the ſupply of their neceſſities, in thoſe Sabbatical Years.

The other Law I inſtance in, is, that which obliged all the Males of Iſrael Thrice a Year to appear before the Lord, at the place where the Ark of God ſhould be, (Exod. 23. 17. & 34. 23. Deut. 16. 16.) this Law was given and written by Moſes for the Generations to come, and he could not but foreſee that the People would be ready to Object againſt it, That if after they were poſſeſſed of the Land of Canaan, all their Males ſhould Thrice every Year leave their ſeveral Houſes and Countries, and meet at one place, as at Jeruſalem, or at any other place where the Ark of God ſhould happen to be; their Land would be in danger of being frequently invaded, ſpoiled and waſted by the malitious and covetous Heathens that lived round about them, and that therefore it was moſt unreaſonable to deſire them to be Governed by ſuch a Law: This Objection, I ſay, Moſes could not but foreſee, and therefore if he had not been certain [Page] that it was God's will and pleaſure that he ſhould give them ſuch a Law, he would never have done it of his own head; and likewiſe if they had not been certain that Moſes was really Authorized and Commiſſioned by God to give them ſuch a Law, they would never have received it, and ſubmitted unto the obſervance of it, to the viſible hazarding the loſs of all that they had in the World. This God conſidered to be rational, and therefore for their ſecurity he gave them his promiſe by Moſes, and by Moſes's Miracles confirmed his Promiſe, That no Man ſhould DESIRE their Land, when they went up to appear before the Lord their God, Thrice in the Year, (Exod. 34. 24,) as if God had ſaid, Be not afraid leaſt the Heathen break in upon you, and Burn your Cities, and lay waſte your Countrie, whilſt all your Males are from home, attending npon me at the place of my Publick Worſhip, for when you are about my Work, I will not only be with you abroad, but with your Wives and Children likewiſe at home; and I will take ſuch care of you and yours, and ſo ſecure all your Concerns, that your envious and Covetous Neighbours and Enemies ſhall not ſo much as deſire your Land, much leſs ſhall they be able to lay it waſte and deſolate [Page] with Fire and Sword, as you may be apt to fear. It was by this promiſe, and the Miracles wrought by Moſes, that both Moſes and the People were aſſured that this Law was of God, and that God's ſpecial Providence would protect his People, and ſecure all their concerns, when they were doing the will of God according to this Law; and without this aſſurance if Moſes had gone about to impoſe upon them in a matter of ſuch dangerous conſequence, they would certainly have refuſed to obey him.

By theſe Two Inſtances it manifeſtly appears, that Moſes both knew in himſelf, and evidently proved unto Iſrael, that he was Commiſſioned by God to give Laws unto them: for if it had been otherwiſe, he would neither have attempted to give them ſuch Laws, nor would they have ever received them and ſubmitted to them. To draw to an end; Let it be conſidered that Moſes Miracles tended all to the Glory of God the Author of Nature, and to the advanccment of his Kingdom in the World, as he is the Author of Grace; and his Writings give us moſt high, glorious and excellent, and alſo moſt lovely and deſirable Idea's and Notions of God and his Perfections. Witneſs God's name, [I AM THAT I AM, and I AM, Exod. 3. 14.] which ſignifies that he is the firſt and moſt perfect Beeing, that gives Beeing to all other things, and conſequently implies his eternal and neceſſary Exiſtence from everlaſting and to everlaſting.

And his name, [THE LORD, THE LORD GOD MERCIFUL and GRACIOUS, &c. Exod. 34. 6, 7.] witneſs alſo that deſcription of him, Exod. 15. 11. [WHO is like unto thee, O [Page]LORD,—GLORIOUS IN HOLINESS FEARFUL IN PRAISES, DOING WONDERS,] and that other deſcription of him, (Deut. 32. 3, 4. I will publiſh the name of the Lord: aſcribe ye greatneſs unto our God, &c.) And what is written of him in Deut. 4. 35, to 40. & 10. 14, to 19.

Theſe moſt ſublime and excellent Notions of God and his Perfections, with which Moſes's Writings do furniſh us, are proper and fit to raiſe in us a moſt high eſteem and reverence of God, to make us admire and adore him, to take us off from the inordinate love of our ſelves, and of all other Creatures, as mean and vile, as ſhadows and nothing; and to draw out our hearts and affections wholly unto him, to make us love him, and from a principle of Love, careful to pleaſe him, and fearful to offend him, (Deut. 6. 4, 5, 13, 14, 15. & 10. 12, to 21.) in fine, to make us hope in him, expect all needful good things from him, and above all things deſire to be united unto him, as the moſt glorious, excellent and bleſſed Beeing, (which was, and is, and is to come, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things,) that we may be moſt happy in union with him, and in the enjoyment of his Love and Favor for evermore. I might here ſpeak of that account which Moſes gives of the Creation of the World, and eſpecially of Mankind; of the Diſobedience and Apoſtacy of Mankind, and of the Miſeries that came upon the World by reaſon thereof: And of the reſtoring of Man to the favor of God again by the Mediation of the Meſſias, who was promiſed and Propheſied of, firſt under the name and notion of the Seed of the Woman, that was to [Page] bruiſe the Serpents Head, (Gen. 3. 15.) then of the Seed of Abraham by Iſaac, in which Seed all the Nations of the Earth were to be Bleſied, (Gen. 22. 18. & 26. 4.) and afterwards, of the Seed of Jacob by Judah, and ſtiled SHILOH, unto whom the gathering of the People was to be, (Gen. 28. 14. compared with Gen. 49. 10. & Numb. 24. 16, 17, 19.) and laſtly, under the name and notion of a Prophet like nnto Moſes, and who by conſequence was to be a Lawgiver and Mediator, (Deut. 18. 18, 19.)

I might ſhew the Reader that Moſes's Writings ſet forth God as placable and reconcileahle, (Gen. 3. 15. & 4. 7.) as pleaſed and reconciled (Gen. 4. 4. & 8. 20, 21.) and as pleaſed and reconciled by Faith, (Gen. 15. 6.)

I might demonſtrate, that the account which Moſes gives of theſe things, is highly agreeable to right reaſon and experience, and that it is moſt comfortable and ſatisfactory to the mind of Man: But all this cannot he done in the compaſs of a ſhort Epiſtle.

The Reader may expect that I ſhould at leaſt ſay ſomething in behalf of the Two following Diſcourſes; but if he do, he will be diſappointed: for having ſaid enough in commendation of the Firſt Diſconrſe in the beginning of the Second, I will ſay no more of either, but leave both to ſpeak for themſelves. Only I muſt advertiſe the Reader, That the Tranſlation varies from the Original in ſome Two or Three things, and this is the reaſon of the variation; I found that there were ſeveral palpable miſtakes in the French Diſcourſe, and I am reſolved through [Page] God's Grace to follow no Man in known miſtakes: therefore I mended them. As where the Author ſays, That the broad Plates for covering the Altar, made of the Cenſers of Corah and his Company, were Plates of Gold; I ſay, as the truth is, that they were Plates of Braſs, (Numb. 16. 39.)

And again, where the Author ſays, That Moſes Condemned Thirty or Forty Thouſand Men, and commanded them all to be preſently Executed: I ſay, that he did ſo by ſeveral Thouſands, which is true, for the number of the Slain was about Three Thouſand, (Exod. 32. 28.) but our Learned Author was certainly miſtaken, for his reckoning neither agrees exactly with the Vulgar Tranſlation, nor yet with the Hebrew Verity. Chriſtian Reader, I will detain thee no longer from the peruſal of the Diſcourſes themſelves, and that the uſe of them may he bleſſed to thee for thy Souls good, is and ſhall be the earneſt deſire of

Thy Seavant in all things, wherein he may Serve our Lord Chriſt, and his Church, W. L.

A DISCOURSE On the Proofs of the BOOKS of MOSES.

[Page]

1. THE Chriſtian Religion doth freely acknowledge that the wit of Man cannot reach the the height of the Myſteries which it teacheth, and that the humane underſtanding is too narrow and limited to diſcover the grounds of them in the Eternal ſprings of Truth, where they would appear to us as clear, as firſt and ſelf evident Principles, if our ſight could reach ſo far. Nevertheleſs, it pretends not that we ſhould believe them abſolutely without proof, and by a blind Inſtinct: and God hath not given Man Reaſon and Underſtanding, to render ſo great a preſent, not onely uſeleſs, but alſo hurtful to him, by propounding unto him ſuch objects of Faith only, againſt which his Reaſoning faculty ſhould be in a continual mutiny and contradictory oppoſition. That [Page] is the caſe of thoſe Sects which are founded only upon Wild Fancies, Groundleſs Conceits and Phanatical Viſions; and which are Eſtabliſhed upon, and Upheld by, no other Principle than ſuch an extravagant abuſe of Reaſon, as that was by which they were firſt hatcht: Whereas the Chriſtian Religion is ſuch, that how impenetrable ſoever be the depth of its myſteries, yet none can doubt of their truth, but by ſuch another kind of extravagancy.

2. For the buſineſs is not to examine the poſſibility of thoſe myſteries, nor to cure the wit of Man, as touching all the difficulties which it finds to ſubmit unto them, men would be unreaſonable to deſire to comprehend them, ſince they cannot comprehend themſelves, and yet doubt not of their own Exiſtence. It is ſufficient that it may be demonſtrated to them that all thoſe ſo unconceivable Truths are linked, not only with other Truths which they know, but alſo with ſuch Truths as of all others are moſt proportionat to their underſtanding, and whereof they may be aſſured by the moſt evident and certain means.

[Page] 3. If men have a certain knowledg of any thing, it is of matters of Fact; of all things which they know, there is not any, wherein it is more difficult to impoſe upon them, and concerning which there is leſs occaſion of diſpute; and ſo when it ſhall be clearly ſhewed them that the Chriſtian Religion is inſeperably linked with matters of Fact, whereof the Truth cannot be queſtioned by men of common honeſty and integrity, they muſt either ſubmit unto the belief of all its Doctrines, or elſe they muſt renounce ſincerity and reaſon.

4. For inſtance, if there was ſuch a Man as Moſes, and if he was the Author of the Books commonly attributed unto him, then the Jewiſh Religion is true: if the Jewiſh Religion be true, then Jeſus Chriſt is the Meſſias; and if Jeſus Chriſt be the Meſſias, then all that he ſaid and taught is to be believed, and conſequently the Trinity, the Incarnation, and all the other myſterious Doctrines of the Chriſtian Religion are to be believed.

5. It is by this Divine concatenation of Truths, that God leads Men unto the true Faith, and that they are enabled to ſhow that there is nothing more rational, [Page] than their ſubmiſſion unto the moſt incomprehenſible myſteries; ſo far are they from deſerving to be charged with weakneſs and imprudence on that account; and ſince the great Body of Chriſtian Religion is compoſed of a very great number of different Parts which all tend to the ſame end, and hath had a Being about ſix thouſand years; it cannot be but that it muſt conſiſt of very many particular Truths all linked together as in one chain, and that every Age muſt have given new proofs thereof: and conſequently that whereſoever a Man begins, to what point ſoever he applies himſelf, he will always meet with ſuch an abundance of light, that it will be impoſſible for him to reſiſt and ſtand out againſt it.

6. But we are ſo much the more obliged diligently to apply our ſelves unto an accurat ſearch for finding out of theſe Proofs, by how much it hath not pleaſed God that they ſhould conſiſt in ſuch groſs and palpable Principles, as might be diſcovered at firſt glance, and might be ſeen equally by all men; they are rather an heap of circumſtances, which all men do not put together, or do not look upon them the ſame way; but which are [Page] nevertheleſs ſenſibly evident unto the meaneſt capacities, when their eyes are once opened; and do produce (when they are gathered up and put together) a certainty if not more full, at leaſt more intimate and more natural, than that which we have of ſpeculative and abſtractive demonſtrations, becauſe the ways and means of attaining unto the aſſurance of thoſe matters of Fact are more proportionable and ſutable unto the humane underſtanding, and there is no man but will find the Principles of them in himſelf.

7. It is for this end, to give a Specimen how thoſe matters of Fact are to be conſidered, whoſe certainty neceſſarily inferreth the certainty of our Religion, that we ſhall chooſe to diſcourſe of the particular matters of Fact in Moſes his Hiſtory, and of the Truth of his Books, which are the Foundation of the Jewiſh Religion, as the Jewiſh is the Foundation of the Chriſtian Religion according to Saint Paul.

8. I think there is no need that I ſhould firſt prove, before I proceed any further, That if really there hath been a Man affirming that he was ſent from God, and who (not deſiring to be believed upon his bare word, or for ſome Actions not much above [Page] thoſe which we know to be within the compaſs of humane power) hath for proof of his miſſion, wrought that aſtoniſhing multitude of Miracles which we find Recorded in the Pentateuch, hath evidently ſhewed that he had power of life and death, hath commanded the Elements, and made the whole frame of Nature to bow at his word and obey his orders, I ſay, there is no need that I ſhould prove he ought to be believed, for I doubt not but that upon ſuppoſition that there hath been ſuch a Man who hath really done ſuch things to prove his miſſion from God, all Men in the World will grant that this perſon deſerves to be believed in all that he hath written of that God, in whoſe name he hath wrought all thoſe Miracles, and that the Religion which he hath inſtituted ought to be received as true and Divine.

9. The moſt obſtinate Spirits of Men are as it were overwhelmed with the weight of thoſe Miracles, and find no other means to ſatisfie their byaſs to unbelief, than to ſeek to find out ſome frivolous reaſons on which to ground their doubts of the truth of thoſe Miracles, and of the Book that contains them.

[Page] 10. But if they have any remainder of honeſty & ſincerity, I defie them to go far, or continue long in thoſe doubts; for they will find their doubts ſo born down and vanquiſhed by the abundance of proofs which accompany this Hiſtory, that they will be forced either to acknowledg it to be true, or elſe to fall in with the ſenſeleſs ſtupidity of thoſe perſons who for fear of being powerfully perſwaded to believe the things which Religion teacheth them, reſolvedly chooſe never to think on them at all.

11. For by what ſuppoſitions will they pretend to ſhake the certainty of what is written in thoſe Books, and diſpoſe their minde to believe that there was never any ſuch thing? Let them give as much liberty as they will unto their Fancy, and let it furniſh them with all the Chymerical ſuppoſitions that poſſibly it can, yet they ſhall never be able to conclude any thing from thence, which hath the leaſt ſhadow of probability, and which a Man of the leaſt ſolid Judgment would not be aſhamed to propound.

12. Will they ſay, there was never ſuch a Man as Moſes, and that whatever hath been ſaid of him, are fables invented for [Page]delight? But let them conſider that the Jews and Chriſtians are not the onely perſons who have been known to ſpeak and write of this Moſes, ſince we find there are even prophane Hiſtorians who make mention of him, yet if they deny what is written of him in the Penteatuch, and affirm all thoſe things to be Fables, then let them alſo deny all the Hiſtories in the World, and affirm them all to be fables; ſince there is none of them of whoſe Truth we could be ſure, if it were allowed (as any way rational) to doubt whether there was ever a Man called Moſes, who brought the Jews out of Aegypt after a long captivity; for all the Reaſons by which Men judge of the Truth of other Hiſtories, are equally to be found in that of Moſes. For example, no Man doubts but that Alexander and Cyrus have been, becauſe many Authors have written of them, and it never came into any Mans mind deliberatly to doubt thereof: and it is evident that neither hath any Man upon ſerious thoughts ever doubted whether Moſes hath been; this hath been conſtantly believed by a very numerous people, and by all who have known, and have converſed both with him and them; and was never contradicted [Page] by any Body whoſoever. But moreover there is this difference, that the Books of Moſes have ſingular and peculiar proofs of their certain truth, which are not to be met with in any other; for there was never any Book preſerved with ſo much care and affection, as that Book which containeth his Hiſtory, and yet never had any men more ſenſible and ſtrong Reaſons, taken from their own Intereſt, to diſprove the truth of a Book, if they could have done it with any colour of probability, than the Jews have had to diſprove the truth of the Books of Moſes; ſince by ſo doing, they ſhould have at once freed themſelves from the moſt uneaſie Law that ever was, from a Law (I ſay) that was moſt rigorous and grievous, moſt dreadful and burdenſome to the obſervers of it: in ſo much that there appeareth no motive, that could perſwade them to ſubmit unto, and endure the whole burden of it, but a firm perſwaſion of its infallible Truth and divine Authority.

13. Unbelief then not being able to keep its ground upon this firſt Chymerical ſuppoſition, it muſt paſs unto, and fix upon ſome other; and the Infidel muſt ſay, for example, that it is true, there[Page]was a man called Moſes, and this man was the head of a great Nation, which he brought out of Aegypt, but withall, that he was a great Impoſtor, who deceived that people by falſe Miracles, and forged all the prodigious things which he mentions in his Books, to the end he might the better bring them under Subjection to the Law he had deviſed, and by that Law to himſelf, in making them to eſteem it as come from Heaven, and to conſider himſelf as the Interpreter of God's Will, in whoſe name he ſpake, and as having God's Power in his own hands, to puniſh thoſe that ſhould reſiſt him.

14. The greateſt efforts and endeavors of humane Wit to diſprove the truth of Moſes his Books, may be reduced to ſuch imaginations as theſe, and yet nothing leſs rational could be invented; for if men would in this matter make uſe but of proofs taken from meer ſenſe, how difficult is it to reconcile the Wiſdom and Vertue which clearly appear in this Moſes, with ſo black an Imposture! how difficult is it to comprehend, that this man in an Age ſo remote, ſo dark and ſo rude, and without any help from the Inventions of thoſe that had gone before, could have been able [Page] to contrive of his own head, not only a Law, from which all other Laws have been obliged to borrow ſomething or other, but moreover, that he could have been able to have framed the Idea or Notion of a God, and that an Idea ſo great and ſo worthy, that excepting thoſe who have trodden in his ſteps, there were never any who have had an Idea of God, but what was infinitely below it, whereas all other humane Inventions grow up to perfection ſucceſſively, and by degrees! in fine, how ſtrange a thing would it be, that this firſt born of all Impoſtors ſhould have hit ſo right in a matter ſo far elevated above the thoughts of men, and ſhould have known ſo well what ſhould be due to a God, and what a God ſhould be; that really Men are ſenſibly convinced that he muſt be ſuch a God, if he be at all, and that honeſt hearts ſhould be grievouſly troubled at it, if ſuch a God were not.

15. But to paſs from this, unto ſuch things as bear a greater proportion unto all ſorts of Capacities; let us ſee whether it be poſſible, that all the Miracles mentioned in thoſe Books, ſhould be but ſo many Fables invented by Moſes; if this [Page] be poſſible, then either he muſt have hoped to make the Jews believe him, or at leaſt, he muſt have hoped to perſwade them to Authorize them by their conſent, without believing them, and to conſpire with him to conceal the knowledg of this Cheat from poſterity, for undoubtedly, none will ſay that he invented them upon deſign to paſs for an Impoſtor, without expecting any advantage thereby; and withal it muſt be ſuppoſed, either that the Jews believed them to be true, though they were falſe; or that allowing them to be falſe, they all with one conſent agreed in a deſign, to make them paſs for true, to their Poſterity.

16. But what can be imagined more groundleſs and undefenſible than all this? could Moſes promiſe himſelf, that he ſhould be able to perſwade the Jews to believe the turning of Rivers into Blood, the thick palpable Darkneſs which covered all Aegypt, for the ſpace of Three Days, the Iſraelites only being free from it; the Death of all the firſt Born of the Aegyptians in one Night, whileſt the Jews in the mean time felt not the leaſt hurt; the diviſion of the Red-Sea, which opened, and on each ſide ſtood up in an heap, [Page] like two Walls, to make way for the paſſage of the Iſraelites, and then fell down again, and returned to its ordinary courſe, to ſwallow up, and Drown the Army of the Aegyptians; with all the reſt of thoſe Miracles which viſibly ſucceeded one another, before that people went out of the Land of Aegypt? could he hope that none of the Jews would doubt of the truth of all theſe things (if they were falſe) nor have at leaſt the curioſity to enquire concerning them, of the Aegyptians, who in all probability were not combined in the Plot with him?

17. Moreover, could he believe that he ſhould be able eaſily to perſwade them, to give credit unto what he writes, of the Forty Years which they ſpent in the Wilderneſs, which is no leſs than another Series of Miracles? that he ſhould be able to make them believe (though there was no ſuch thing) that he had drawn out of a Rock, Water enough to quench the Thirſt of Five or Six Hundred Thouſand Men: that before their eyes the Earth had ſwallowed up quick, Corah, Dathan and Abiram, after he had advertiſed the people, that they ſhould die of a ſtrange and extraordinary kind of Death; that [Page] they themſelves had lived for the ſpace of Forty Years, only upon Food ſent down from Heaven; and laſt of all, that he ſhould be able to make them believe that great and dreadful ſight of Mount Sinai, while it appeared all in a Flame, with ſuch a noiſe of Lightning and Thunder, that the people who ſtood by, and heard and ſaw all that paſſed, deſired to treat and converſe no more, but by Ambaſſadors with that God, whoſe glorious preſence they thought they could not bear and live?

18. If Moſes had been ſo ſenſeleſs and mad, as to flatter himſelf with this hope, how unable would he have been even for that very reaſon alone, to ſucceed, and bring to paſs any great deſign! and inſtead of carrying matters ſo far, and bringing them to that Iſſue as he did, ſuch a mad head would not have failed to imbroil and confound all its own projects; where is there an example in all Hiſtories, of any cheat of this nature? theſe are not the ways and methods which Deceivers take; they do not lay open their Lies to ſo great a light, and they are too wary to chuſe Judges ſo hard to be deceived, as the Eyes and Ears of Six Hundred [Page] Thouſand Men, and a whole Nation of Enemies; they feign ſome obſcure blind Mitacle, whereof there have been but few Witneſſes, and cauſe the Fame of it to be ſpread abroad by their Partiſans; above all they avoid with great care, the provoking of humane Nature to riſe up in contradictory oppoſition to them, which they would ſurely do, if they ſhould boldly take folks to witneſs of ſuch things, as wherein they ſhould have ſo great cauſe to fear to be belied: and there is nothing which they ſhun ſo much, as the giving occaſion unto Mens minds, to think often upon their Falſhoods, and the inducing them to make frequent reflections upon their Lies; they account themſelves happy, that they were once ſuffered to ſcape without being puniſhed for their cheating Tricks; and they cannot poſſibly ſo far root out of their natures all ſenſe of Fear and Shame, as to dare ſet groſs Impoſtures continually before the eyes of a whole Nation, taking them to witneſs, and exciting them by ſuch an unſufferable boldneſs to enquire into, and conſider of them, with the greater care and warineſs.

[Page] 19. Let Moſes be tryed by theſe Rules, to ſee whether he obſerves any of theſe precautions, and takes any of theſe meaſures, which Nature and Intereſt would teach the moſt deſperate, yea, and even the moſt Fooliſh inconſiderate Impoſtors. He ſpeaks upon every occaſion, both of the Plagues of Aegypt, and of the Miracles in the Wilderneſs, and that with a confidence ſufficient to provoke the moſt unſenſible, if their Reaſon could have ſuggeſted to them any colourable pretence for the contradicting of him; he reports to them things groſs and palpable, which could not be unknown to them. God hath given you (ſaith he) Manna, which was meat unknown to your Fathers; your Cloaths were not worn out, no nor your Shoes, for the ſpace of Forty Years: which of all the Iſraelites could be ignorant of the Truth of this matter of fact? he joins to all this, ſharp reproofs, Imprecations againſt their paſt unbeleif, and diſpleaſing Predictions of their diſorderly Behaviour for the future: in fine, he omits nothing that might have exaſperated their Spirits and moved them to give him the lye, if the things which he aſcribed to himſelf, had been falſe or uncertain [Page] In ſo much, that though they be never ſo true, yet it is a kind of Miracle, that in all the Rebellions and Murmurings they were guilty of, there was not found ſo much as one of them that ever accuſed him of Impoſture.

20. It is certain then, that Moſes could not have a deſign to deceive the Jews, and it is as certain, that it was impoſſible for him to have really deceived them, and let not men pretend to make theſe proofs paſs for probable conjectures, and meer likelihoods only; for they are demonſtrations in matters of Fact, ſince they cannot be rejected by any man, without his being obliged by purity of Reaſon, to hold that all matters of Fact, mentioned in any Hiſtory whatſoever, are doubtful and uncertain.

21. For the ground of all humane certainty, is this, that Men are not fools, and that there are certain Rules in Nature, which they always follow in their Actings, unleſs they be mad, the contrary could no ſooner be ſuppoſed, but it would immediately follow, that there can be nothing firm and certain. Let it be once granted, that men may feign for ſport, or arguments ſake, That in the time of Caeſar [Page] and Pompey, all Men were ſtruck with a Diſeaſe, which cauſed them to take the illuſions of their Fancy, for real Truths; upon this ſuppoſition, there will remain nothing certain in all the Revolutions, reported to have fallen out in thoſe times; and the Battels of Pharſalia and Actium may be reckoned amongſt the imaginations of Phanaticks. Thus when matters are brought to this paſs, That for to believe that ſuch a thing is not, it muſt be ſuppoſed (I do not ſay that a whole Nation, but) that a very great number of Men are all really Mad, there is an end of humane certainty, in matters of Fact, there is no more place for it, no not with reſpect to things preſent: Since it is no leſs ſuppoſable, that the Men of this Age, yea, and that we our ſelves are Mad, than that Men of former Ages were all Mad, and ſo not only all things paſt, ſhall be to us as if they had never been, but alſo we ſhall not know what to believe, even in thoſe things which daily fall under our Senſes, and we ſhall be no leſs in the dark, as touching things paſt and preſent, than we are as touching things to come.

22. But now it is paſt all doubt that the ſuppoſition that Moſes deceived the [Page] Jews, is properly of this kind; for not to ſpeak of the folly he muſt have been guilty of, if he had taken ſuch a way for attaining unto that end; it is clear that it is to make all this people paſs for ſo many Frantick Fools, to ſay, They really believed that themſelves paſſed through the Sea on dry ground, although it was not true; that they ſaw a Mountain all in fire, although they did not ſee it; that they lived upon Manna, whilſt they fed only upon ordinary Food; that their Cloaths did not wear out, although they were often forced to change them; that they ſaw Moſes with a ſtroke of his Rod, fetch out of a Rock, a Spring of Water, ſufficient to quench the Thirſt of Six Hundred Thouſand Men, although they ſaw no ſuch thing; to ſay that they believed all this, though it were all falſe, is to ſay that they were all Mad.

23. Doubtleſs it would be very difficult to invent either ſecret ways or Engines, whereby ſuch effects as theſe could be produced or imitated; and if there were any man that could do ſo, he would be ſure to have followers enough, as well as Moſes, and he might make Men believe, almoſt any thing he pleaſed. And yet it [Page] muſt be granted, that the Jews really believed that they ſaw all thoſe great wonders, and that they believed thus, even without the leaſt ſcruple or doubt remaining in their minds; elſe they would not have ſubmitted ſo blindly to this Man's Law, nor ſuffered him to domineer over them with ſo much Authority, as that he alone ſhould be able, without Guards and Arms, to condemn ſeveral Thouſands of Men to Death, and to cauſe them all to be preſently Executed, Exod. 32. 26, 27, 28.

24. Some perſons have endeavored (not indeed to do the like, for no man was ever ſo Mad as to attempt it, but) to imagine ſeveral ways how Moſes might have deluded the Jews, and yet they have not done any thing to purpoſe. They pretend, for example, That to make them paſs through the Red-Sea, he took his opportunity of the Ebbing of the Sea, and made them believe it had divided on purpoſe; and that when it Flowed again, he perſwaded them, it had cloſed again, and returned to its ordinary courſe, that it might ſwallow up the Aegyptians. They pretend alſo that the Water he fetched out of the Rock, was nothing elſe but an hidden Spring [Page]which he found out by means of a Wild Aſs, which ſome Body followed by his order, as it went thither to drink. This is ſo pitiful, that it deſerves no Anſwer, only let it be conſidered, how a thing ſo common as the Ebbing and Flowing of the Sea could have been unknown, not only to the Iſraelites, who had lived above Two Hundred Years in Aegypt, but likewiſe to the Natives of that Countrey, who ruſhed into it ſo inconſiderately; and how could that Spring have been ſo little, as to lie hid from ſo many people, that were like to die for Thirſt, and yet be at the ſame time abundantly ſufficient to quench their Thirſt, and the Thirſt of all their Camels and other Beaſts; and finally, by what Inchantment could Moſes ſo dexterouſly blind the Eyes of all this people, as to make them believe, that all of a ſudden, a ſtroke of his Rod had produced that Spring, which cannot be conceived to have been leſs than a prodigious Torrent.

25. But it is to little purpoſe, for any Man to endeavor to give the World an account how ſome of thoſe Miracles might have been wrought, without the immediate power of God, ſo long as it muſt be [Page] confeſſed, that no ſuch account can be given of them all. Men muſt either yield the cauſe, or elſe make the Syſtem entire, and ſolve all the Phaenomena: for if there remain never ſo few, in which the Iſraelites could not be deceived, that is ſufficient to convince us, and oblige us to believe all the reſt; and to look upon Moſes as the Miniſter of God, who would reveal himſelf to Men: ſince the Laws of Nature once Violated, ſuffice to teach us, and make us ſee, that there is ſomething above Nature; and never Man before Jeſus Chriſt, appeared ſo viſibly to have been entruſted with the power of that Lord of Nature, as this Man that we ſpeak of.

26. It may be ſome will rather chuſe to ſay, That in truth it is impoſſible, that Moſes ſhould have deceived the Jews, but, That it may very well be, that they themſelves have helped on the Cheat, and that they may have looked upon that heap of Miracles (as fabulous as they were) as a thing that might make them to be admired by other Nations. But in truth there is nothing but the deſire of deviſing to ones felf ſome ground of doubting, what ever it be, that could produce ſuch a Phantaſtical [Page] ſuppoſition; for of all the ſuppoſitions that Infidelity could ſuggeſt, this certainly is the moſt undefenſible. We ſhall ſhow by and by, that this people could not have contributed their help to this Impoſture, by ſuppoſing, that preſently, or ſome time after Moſes his Death, and the Law being already eſtabliſhed amongſt them, ſome new Upſtart deviſed ſuch a ſtrange way to make them conſiderable and famous in the World: and by proving, that their Love to their Nation would have been ſo far from inducing them to conſent to it, as that it will appear that that alone would have been an invincible obſtacle thereunto; which is no leſs true, with reſpect to Moſes, than it is with reſpect to any other. But there is yet infinitely leſs probability, that the firſt Jews would conſent to any ſuch thing; for who could imagine that they would have plotted with Moſes to bring themſelves in Subjection to a Law, which they believed to be the meer product of his invention, and that for the ſame Law (of which they had ſuch an opinion) they would have ſuffered themſelves to be uſed ſo rigorouſly, as that a meer omiſſion in Ceremonies ſhould be [Page] puniſhed with Death, and that without murmuring or repining at it? what more can be done or ſuffered, on the account of things that are moſt ſeriouſly managed and believed, and that are found to be eſtabliſhed time out of mind? beſides, that it would be a rare ſight indeed, to ſee Five or Six Hundred Thouſand Men all agreed, to report a known Falſhood, and that none of them all, nor of their Poſterity, ſhould ever contradict it, and give the reſt the Lie.

27. For there was not one of thoſe Miracles, whereof every particular perſon of that numerous people, all encamped together, could not but have known the Falſity (if they had been falſe:) and, which yet he was to Authorize, as having ſeen it with his own Eyes, or as having been done in his own, or his Fathers time; what a work then had this been for Moſes, to make ſure of ſo many perſons, and eſpecially amongſt a people ſo difficult to be Governed? and how comes it to paſs, that among ſo many, there ſhould not be either ſome conceited Fellow, or ſome ſober underſtanding man, that ſet himſelf to oppoſe ſuch a deſign? whoſoever ſhould have undertaken to do [Page] ſo, he muſt be very ignorant of the Nature of Man, who cannot ſee that ſuch an one would quickly have had as many followers as Moſes; or at leaſt, that he would have been deſirous to acquaint Poſterity with this Impoſture, and that he would have eaſily accompliſhed his deſire or purpoſe to do ſo.

28. Beſides, what could be a more proper and likely means to render the Jews ridiculous among all Nations; ſo far was it from being a fit means to make them be admired, and how blind muſt they have been, not to have ſeen this? for inſtance, what would the Aegyptians have ſaid concerning all thoſe Plagues, which Moſes ſays he brought upon them, concerning that Death of all their Firſt-born, and that Drowning of Pharaohs Army in the Sea? and how came all thoſe other Nations (whom they braged to have conquered in ſo extraordinary a manner) to be ſo enchanted, as to let ſo many fabulous Stories paſs in the World without contradiction, unleſs they were alſo in the Plot againſt themſelves, and were as real Enemies to, and haters of, their own Fame and Glory in the World, as it is imagined and ſuppoſed, that the Iſraelites [Page] were ridiculouſly in Love with theirs.

29. Men may invent Fables, I confeſs, yet they do not carry them to that exceſs when they would have them to be believed, and above all, they are very careful to place the firſt riſe of them in far diſtant times, and to vail them with the obſcurity and darkneſs of many remote Ages. But as men never deſign to Paſs for knaves or fools, ſo they never invent ſuch fabulous ſtories as may be gainſaid and proved falſe by living Witneſſes, yea by whole and much concerned Nations; as for inſtance, it had been a pretty project in the Moors, when they were returned into Africa, after they had been driven out of Spain, if they had undertaken to make the World believe, that they came out of it voluntarily by Miracles like to Moſes his Miracles, and that after the Mediterranian Sea had opened it ſelf to make way for their paſſage, they ſaw it cloſe again to drown an Army of (I know not how) many Thouſands of Men that purſued them, and yet the deſign, we ſpeak of, had been no leſs extravagant in the Jews: for we muſt not repreſent unto our ſelves thoſe ſo remote times, although groſs or rude, as ſo dark as they may ſeem [Page] to be, in thoſe times Men heard from one another; they had the ſame Intereſts, and the ſame Paſſions that we have: they ſaw what they ſaw, and felt what was to be felt as well as we do.

30. Theſe two hypotheſes then muſt be abſolutely abandoned, neither was Moſes an Impoſtor that deceived the Jews; neither were the Jews in confederacy with him to carry on the Plot. There remains nothing to be objected, but that Moſes was not the Author of the Book that bears his Name, or at leaſt, that it is but ſince his death, that all thoſe Miracles which it contains, have been added to it. This is unbeliefs laſt Refuge; but Reaſon will not ſuffer a Man that hath the leaſt meaſure of common ſenſe to take up with it.

31. Although we had nothing elſe to certifie us that theſe are really the Books of Moſes, and that we have them ſuch as they were penned by him, but this that they bear his Name, as they themſelves witneſs, that they have been always attributed unto him, and that it came into no mans mind until now, to affirm the contrary; this ſhould be enough, and becauſe of this, we could not reaſonably doubt of their being his, ſince we have [Page] no other aſſurance that any Books written in former Ages at any conſiderable diſtance, are the Books of thoſe Authors whoſe they are ſaid to be.

32. And let none ſay that there are Books which, after they had paſſed for a time under the Name of certain Authors, have at laſt been found to be ſuppoſi [...]icious; for without entring upon the Examination of that matter, I ſay that it is abſolutely Impoſſible that this could happen to a Book of the greateſt importance, to which the certainty of the Authors Name is Eſſential, and whereof in all Ages, Men have had ſo much cauſe, and ſo great an Intereſt to examine the Origination and Truth, for as Truth is of ſuch a Nature, that all things (except falſhood) agree with it, all things concur to Eſtabliſh it, and there is neither care nor labour, that can find out any thing which is able to overthrow it; ſo on the contrary, it is impoſſible, but falſhood will at laſt be found out, if we endeavour it: becauſe it cannot be, but there will be an infinite number of things that are contrary unto it; and how great ſoever be the foreſight and cunning of Impoſtors, it is not poſſible, though the humane underſtanding were not ſo [Page] limited as it is, to foreſee all inconveniencies, or to ſuit and accommodate every thing to the preventing of them, when they are foreſeen; for in fine, though there were for that purpoſe certain effects, whereof men were Maſters, and had the diſpoſal, It is cettain that there is alſo an infinite number of things, which they have no power at all to diſpoſe of; to be able to prevent all things that might diſcover their forgery, they muſt be in a condition to diſpoſe of things preſent and to come, to change the order of all things, and in a word to command the Nature, the wits and wills of men at their pleaſure.

33. But beſides this, we have yet incomparably more and ſtronger proofs of the Books of Moſes, than there are of any other Books. Other Books are in few peoples hands, and there are not many who think themſelves concerned in them; thoſe that are concerned in them, do but ſeldom mind them, or their Intereſt in them, and even that Intereſt can be but comparatively of ſmall importance. But the Books we ſpeak of, are of a much different nature; they have always been in the hands of a whole great Nation; they have been the object of their continual [Page] meditation: and ſince they were the foundation of their Religion, and that a Religion which abhors lying and deceiving, how could they have ſuffered themſelves to be impoſed upon in the matter of the Authors name, and the Book it ſelf to be corrupted by the addition of ſo many Fables? or could it be done without their knowledg; yea, and who durſt be ſo bold as ever to attempt it?

34. Let men take a full view of that prodigious Series of Miracles wrought in Aegypt, and in the Wilderneſs, and then judge impartially, whether theſe are things that could be inſerted into a Book, and yet that Book be made to paſs for the Original. This is the moſt that could be done to ſome inconſiderable Book which ſhould fall into the hands but of a few perſons, and with ſome particular Miracle pretended to have been wrought before a few witneſſes; and moreover, we ſee that ſuch things do not ſpread far, nor laſt long; they are ſcarcely ſooner forged, but they begin to be queſtioned, in ſo much that in time they come to be regarded by none, but the ſimple people, who believe by the Faith of the next intruder, and do not ſo much as think of getting clear and certain [Page] notions of the leaſt thing in the World. But there is nothing upon Earth clear, if this be not, that ſuch things could not happen to ſuch a Book, as we have deſcribed this to be. I might as well ſay that it would be no hard matter to inſert now into the New Teſtament an Hiſtory as long, and as conſiderable, as that of Moſes his Miracles in Aegypt and the Wilderneſs: and how ridiculous ſoever this ſuppoſition appeareth to be, I know not whither it was not yet more difficult to inſert ſuch fabulous ſtories into the Books of Moſes; ſince the Jews had at leaſt as high an eſteem for their Sacred Books of the Law, as we have for ours of the Goſpel, and there were none among them whoſe moſt near and natural Intereſt it was not to know what they contained, had it been only that they might learn how to ſave themſelves from that death which they were to ſuffer without reprieve, upon failure of the performance of ſome duties preſcribed by their Law.

35. But that which invincibly proves the falſhood of this ſuppoſition, is this, That there are in a manner two Hiſtories of Moſes: the one written in the Book that bears his name, the other as it were [Page] Engraven on the Ceremonies and Laws obſerved by the Jews, the practice whereof is a living Witneſs in behalf of the Book which Inſtituted them, and even in behalf of the moſt wonderful things which it contains; for the greateſt part of thoſe moſt aſtoniſhing Miracles were repreſented by the Ceremonies, and by the other things which belonged to the Worſhip of the Jewiſh Religion; the Pot of Manna kept in the Ark, was a ſtanding Monument of the Miraculous Food, wherewith God fed that People in the Wilderneſs; Aarons Rod that Budded, was a Monument of the way, how God confirmed unto him the Office of High-Prieſthood; and the Tables of the Covenant, were a Memorial of that which is Recorded in Exodus, concerning the eſtabliſhment of the Law; the Sacrifice of the Paſchal Lamb, the Ceremony of Unleavened-Bread, the aſſigning of the Tribe of Levy unto the Miniſtry of the Temple, did repreſent the deſtroying Angels paſſing over the Houſes of the Iſraelites, the Death of the Firſt-born of the Aegyptians, and the deliverance of thoſe of the Iſraeletes. The brazen Plates which were faſtned to, and [Page] covered the Altar, were a memorial of the Death of thoſe audacious Levites, who willfully contended with Aarons Race for the Prieſthood; in fine, the Ark, the Tabernacle, all the different Miniſtries of the Prieſts and Levites, all the Ceremonies of the Sacrifices and Purifications, all the Laws, the Aſſignation of the Country beyond Jordan to the two Tribes of Reuben and Gad, and to the half Tribe of Manaſſe; the Cities of Refuge for ſuch as ſhould happen to ſlay a Man unwittingly, all theſe things, I ſay, which it would be as Ridiculous to deny, as to pretend that there never was any Jew in the World, have a neceſſary reſpect unto, and connexion with the Books of Moſes, and Invincibly prove that they could not have been written ſince his time.

36. For otherwiſe, either all that we have been now diſcourſing of, muſt alſo have been Eſtabliſhed ſince Moſes, and after the Publiſhing of the Books aſcribed unto him; or elſe having been Eſtabliſhed by Moſes by word of Mouth, and without any Book, ſome other body muſt have written thoſe Books, and accommodated them to the Ceremonies and Laws which were already in uſe, adding thereunto thoſe [Page] Miracles, the more to engage the People unto the obſervance of that Law. But all this is ſo far void of all probability, that there was never any till now, that durſt in earneſt aſſert it.

37. How could it be ſaid, for example, that the Pentateuch was written and publiſhed long after the Death of Moſes, and that it cauſed the Eſtabliſhment of the Law and Worſhip of the Jewiſh Religion which it contains? Then it muſt be ſaid alſo, that the Ark and Tabernacle, which are the Foundations of that Religion, were not made till long after Moſes, and till that Book had been publiſhed; but this is a thing abſolutely impoſſible; for all the Jews firmly believed that their Ark and Tabernacle were made by Moſes, as that Book relates, and it is not conceivable why or on what account they could have taken up ſuch an opinion, if they had made them both themſelves, after they had ſeen and recived that Book, which is now ſuppoſed not to have appeared in the World, till a long time after Moſes; it would be doubtleſs one of the prettieſt things in the World, and the moſt unparallel'd, either that this Book having been compiled all at once, and beforehand with that prodigious [Page] number of Ceremonies and Laws, as already in uſe, they ſhould afterwards have been Inſtituted and ſetled; or that being compiled by degrees, and according as all thoſe things were Inſtituted and Eſtabliſhed, it ſhould always have had (as they ſay) a retractive effect or influence, and have wrought backwards, ſo as to cauſe each of thoſe Inſtitutions to be Aſcribed unto Moſes.

38. Likewiſe, how could this People, who at their firſt Imbracing of this Law, muſt at leaſt have known that it was not true that it had been in uſe amongſt them ever ſince Moſes his time, and that there had been a continued Succeſſion of Prieſts ever ſince Aaron; how, I ſay, could this People have been able to perſwade themſelves Univerſally to believe, that what was preſcribed by that Book had always been practiſed amongſt them; and that the Prieſts whom it Ordained had received their Miniſtry from Aaron by an uninterrupted Succeſſion. And finally, how upon the ſame principle could all the other Tribes and Families have ſuffered the Tribe of Levy, and Race of Aaron to appropriate unto themſelves all the priviledges belonging to the Prieſthood, [Page] and to the Office of the High Prieſt?

39. There is no leſs abſurdity in the other Suppoſition, to wit, that the Law having been given by Moſes by word of Mouth, was preſerved for a time among the Jews by means of Tradition only, and that afterwards thoſe who committed it to writing added thereunto all thoſe Miracles. For beſides that, even this would be a kind of Miracle, and a thing very hard to conceive, that that People ſhould have received a Law ſo ſtrict and ſevere as that was, from a Man who had done nothing extraordinary, for proving that he had it from God; how could it be, that Moſes, who doubtleſs had the uſe of writing, ſhould have omitted a thing ſo neceſſary, and not have committed to writing a Law that contained ſo many Obſervations, ſo many Ceremonies, and ſo many Rules, that it was neceſſary to have it always before ones Eyes, for fear of failing in ſome or other point of duty preſcribed by it.

40. And indeed we learn alſo from the Book it ſelf, that Moſes did not ſail to commit it to writing. Moſes (as it is ſaid, Deut. 31. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.) wrote this Law, and delivered it unto the Prieſts [Page]the Sons of Levy,—and unto all the Elders of Iſrael, and commanded that it ſhould be read before all Iſrael, in their hearing, at the end of every Seventh Year, in the Feaſt of Tabernacles. And it is alſo ſaid in (I do not know how) many places of that Book, That God commanded Moſes to write that which he revealed to him upon the Mount; if the Jews then had received that Law from him only by word of Mouth, how could they have ever received a Book which ſhould have contained a Lie ſo groſs & evident? and which ſhould have carried in it an expreſs order from God, which their Law-giver had not obeyed.

41. That very Order, to read the Law every Seventh Year, at the Feaſt of Tabernacles, as having been given by Moſes, doth further clearly ſhow, that it could not have been changed nor corrupted: for it would have been impoſſible for ſuch corruptions not to have been diſcovered, or that being diſcovered, they ſhould have been ſuffered by a People devoted to that Law, and whoſe devout Subjection to it was grounded upon their believing it to be of God, and written by Moſes; beſides, that thoſe Miracles being moſt viſible to the Eye, ſcattered throughout the [Page] Books, repeated in divers places of them, and linked with the principal tranſactions therein Recorded, there had been a neceſſity of making a new Book to take them in, and not meerly to alter, for that purpoſe, an old Book which had been already received.

42. ‘The Infidel then muſt yet once more return to that pretended vain-glorious humor of the Jewiſh Nation, and maintain, that the Jews could eaſily ſuffer this falſification: and that they were even glad that all thoſe Miracles were added to their Law, and that their Chronicles, were filled with them.’

43. This might have ſome probability, if the Queſtion were only about a matter of Civil or Political concernment; as for example, The Romans could have been content, that one ſhould have told them, that they were the Off-ſpring of Aeneas, and it may be the French would be well enough pleaſed, that one ſhould derive their Original from the Trojans; theſe are things which pleaſe ſome Mens Fancies, and may paſs without contradiction, it being no Bodies intereſt to oppoſe them: and they do not interfer with other things that have been eſtabliſhed, and ſtedfaſtly [Page] believed, time out of mind, and that are looked upon as the only conſiderable. But as touching the Jews, a People ſo devoted to their Religion, ſo faithful Obſervers of the leaſt Traditions, and to whom lying was ſo ſeverely forbidden, this ſuppoſition is altogether without any appearance of truth.

44. For I cannot believe, that the Infidels boldneſs to deny any thing that makes againſt them, dare adventure ſo far, as to diſpute all the Evidence we have of the Jews Zeal for their Religion; ſince even yet to this day, they have ſo great a veneration for that Law, that though they have been diſperſed above theſe Sixteen Hundred Years, and ſee no accompliſhment of what was promiſed to them, notwithſtanding they obſerve it ſtill as far as they can, with the ſame ſtrictneſs, as they did at firſt, and wait continually for the fulfilling of thoſe promiſes; how improbable is it then, that they ſhould have ſuffered that which they looked upon as God's own word, to be mixed and blended with ſuch a fearful multitude of Lies, rendering themſelves thereby unworthy of Divine Protection, and liable to be convicted of Impoſture by the [Page] Neighbouring Nations? would not this have been a venturing to loſe all, for to gain nothing?

45. This might ſuffice to convince all underſtanding and ſober Men; ‘but if ſome would yet inſiſt upon the Jews love for their Nation, and pretend that the deſire of being admired, might have induced them to permit and promote this Impoſture;’ let us ſee whether it be not quite contrary, and whether there be the leaſt probability, that they believed they could advance their own Reputation by the things contained in that Book, which ſeem ſo ſhameful to the Nation in general; and though all had been for the publick good, let us ſee whether it be credible, that particular Perſons, and whole Families, would have willingly Sacrificed themſelves, and their Intereſts unto it: eſpecially conſidering, that nothing did conſtrain them; and that having nothing to do but to invent, it was in their choice to take what way they pleaſed, and to ſecure the Intereſts of all, without provoking ſo many people to diſcover their Frauds.

46. Had they only mentioned ſuch things as might have contributed to their [Page] Honour, as thoſe great Miracles, which are an Evidence of Gods moſt ſpecial Protection, it had been abundantly ſufficient for their deſign, without inventing ſome things, which it was ſo many Peoples Intereſt to oppoſe, and other things which do expoſe that Nation to ſo great contempt.

47. For inſtance, what is there more miſerably baſe, than the Fears and Murmurings of this People, occaſioned by the bitter Waters of Marah, by the want of Food, and by the Thirſt they ſuffered in Rephidim? they are hardly ſooner come out of Aegypt, but they forget all thoſe great things, which they would make the World believe, that their God had there done for them? they think they are forſaken and betrayed; and complain, that they are treacherouſly brought out of a Countrey, where they lived at eaſe, (though they were Captives and Slaves in it) to deſtroy them in the Wilderneſs: they Queſtion the Power and Protection of that God, who had ſo eminently appeared for them; and are ready to Rebel againſt that very Man, who they believed, was choſen by God to deliver them; now is not this the ſhamefulleſt and greateſt weakneſs imaginable? is not this the [Page] higheſt Ingratitude, both to their God, and to Moſes their Guide and Captain? what could their cruelleſt Enemies have invented more diſhonourable to them? and who could imagine, that to make themſelves renowned all the World over, and to cauſe Men to believe, they were the beloved People of God, it ſhould ever have entered into their thoughts, to paint out and repreſent themſelves ſo light and unconſtant, ſo unfaithful and ſo abſured, that during the ſpace of Forty Years, wherein they Fed (as themſelves ſay) upon meat ſent down from Heaven, there paſſed hardly a Day on which they were not heard to cry like little Children, and to wiſh with Tears, they were yet Slaves in Aegypt, that they might fill their Bellies with Onions and Leeks.

48. The whole Five Books of Moſes muſt be almoſt copied out, to recount all the Unfaithfulneſſes, and all the Faults of this People, for therein is hardly any other thing to be ſeen; one would think they had been reſolved to make their Wickedneſs keep even pace, with the Grace and Favors of their God; almoſt upon all occaſions they Rebelled againſt their Leader; and were ſcarce delivered from one [Page] Judgment, when they brought upon themſelves another: nothing could hinder this ungovernable People from falling continually into the ſame Crimes; not the example of the Three Thouſand Men, whom the Sons of Levy ſlew by the commond of Moſes, to puniſh them for their Idolatry; nor the Fire and Plague from the Lord, which in Two Days time deſtroyed near Fifteen Thouſand Men for their Sedition; nor the dreadful Judgment of the Fiery-Serpents; nor the Tremendous Puniſhment inflicted upon them for their mixing with the Daughters of the Midianites, on which account Moſes cauſed to hang up all the Heads of them againſt the Sun, and Twenty Four Thouſand of the People died by the Plague?

49. But to ſay all in one word, what can be imagined more ſtrange, and more diſgraceful, to their Memory, than that general Apoſtacy which happened, when Moſes was upon Mount Sinai, and when thoſe Mad People forced Aaron to make them a Golden-Calf, and to offer Sacrifice unto it, as if it had been unto their God? Let all the circumſtances of this Action be well weighed, and it will undoubtedly appear; that a People which [Page] have declared themſelves capable of falling into ſuch a Crime, have by ſo doing, Convicted themſelves of all Vices at once, and chiefly of Sottiſhneſs and Extravagancy. They tell us that they were brought out of an Enemies Countrey, by the greateſt and moſt unconceivable wonders that can be imagined; inſomuch, that there is hardly a moment of time mentioned in all their Hiſtory, in which the Almighty Arm of their God doth not viſibly appear; this their God Pardons them all their Murmurings, and all their Unfaithfulneſſes, and inſtead of Puniſhing their Diſtruſt, he Provides for them Meat and Drink, in places where there had never been any before, and ſatisfies even the loweſt and groſſeſt of their deſires.

50. Nevertheleſs, in the time when they knew that their Deliverer and Guide is on the Mount with that ſame God, to receive his Orders about the Government of them, a panick and a ridiculous Fear ſeaſes upon them: they cannot patiently bear Moſes his ſo long abſence, and without knowing well wherefore, they demand of Aaron, a viſible God to go before them: they force him to make a Golden-Calf, which they ſet up upon an [Page] Altar; they call it the God which brought them out of Aegypt, and give to this pretty Deity, made of Ear-rings, the ſame Honors, and the ſame Thankſgivings, which they owed, and had before ſo often given unto the true God, Creator of Heaven and Earth, who had choſen them out of all Mankind for his ſpecial Favorites.

51. Truly, they muſt have loſt the uſe of their Reaſon, who can think that this People have ſuffered this Narrative of the Golden-Calf to be added to their Hiſtory, and that they have done it to make themſelves to be admired and eſteemed by other Nations; could they imagine that their Glory and Renown was imperfect without this, to make up the defects of it; and is it not on the contrary a diſgrace, which can never be rubbed off, and for which, their Poſterity will blame them for ever? And is it not rather, one of the greateſt Miracles in the World, that this Action of theirs could ever come to our knowledg, and that the whole Jewiſh Nation have not done their utmoſt, utterly to aboliſh the Memory of it? ſo far muſt we ſuppoſe the Jews to have been from inventing it againſt themſelves, or [Page] from ſuffering to be added unto ſo many things, which would have made them deſervedly enough to be admired and eſteemed, an Hiſtorical Narrative, which covers them with perpetual Ignominy.

52. So we ſee, that Joſephus, who was far more tender of the intereſs of his Nation, hath choſen rather to expoſe himſelf unto the reproach of having violated the Laws of Hiſtory, by ſuppreſſing this publick Crime committed by the Jews in the Wilderneſs, than to expoſe them to the contempt and ſcorn of the World, by reciting it.

53. Moreover, how could be added to this Hiſtory, the Rebellion of Corah, which is a thing ſo injurious to all his Poſterity? was their not cauſe to fear, leaſt ſome one or other of his Family ſhould have diſcovered the Falſhood of it, to waſh off the ſtain of it from themſelves? why muſt Corahs Family bear that Mark of Infamy, rather than any other? did they caſt Lots for it? was it a thing ſo neceſſary, that they could not diſpenſe with it? and is it not manifeſt, that if it had been a Fiction, the whole Race in one Body, and with one conſent, [Page] would have oppoſed it, and deſired the Authors of that Table, to look out for ſome other Embelliſhment to their Hiſtory.

54. But if the laſt words of Moſes be conſidered, where he Denounces againſt them ſo many Curſes, Threatens them with ſo many Calamities, and after he had upbraided them with all their Unfaithfulneſs, further Declares, That they would do the ſame things anew, and for the Puniſhment thereof, ſhould fall into remedileſs Miſery and Diſtreſs; that they ſhould be run down by their Enemies, and reduced to the utmoſt Extremity, even to the eating of their own Children; that their Cities ſhould be deſtroyed, their Wives and Daughters ſhould be Raviſhed, their Sacrifices ſhould be Aboliſhed, and finally, that they ſhould be led Captives, and diſperſed through all the Earth, to be deſpiſed and abhorred by other Nations: if all this, I ſay, be conſidered, I know not what a Man he muſt be, who imagins that this People could have Conſpired with any Man, be who he will, that ſhould have ſo grievouſly diſpleaſed them.

55. But it is above all to be obſerved, [Page] that theſe are not the Diſcourſes only of a Man, that would frighten his followers, and bare Threatnings of Miſeries which were to befall the Jews, only in caſe they ſhould groſly tranſgreſs their Law; for if they ſeem conditional in ſome places, they are in others, poſitive and abſolute Propheſies, foretelling that they ſhould really tranſgreſs their Law, as they have groſly done, and that all thoſe Miſeries ſhould light upon them, as in effect it is come to paſs; how improbable then is it, that the Jews ſhould have been ſo ſimple, or rather ſo ſenſeleſs, as to ſuffer Propheſies of that Nature, to be added to their Hiſtory; and that for the advancement of the Glory of their Nation, they ſhould have conſented to a thing which could never but turn to their ſhame and diſgrace? for could not they clearly ſee, that if thoſe Propheſies were found to be falſe, their Religion would be accounted an Impoſture, and they would inevitably loſe the Reputation, which they might otherwiſe have acquired, by all the reſt of the wonderful Events mentioned in their Hiſtory? or that if they chanced to fall really into thoſe Miſeries foretold, they would be accounted the [Page] worſt of Men: and inſtead of comfort, could expect nothing but blame, from all the World, for having fallen into thoſe Calamities which they were warned of, and for having fallen into them for no other cauſe, but for breaking the Law and Covenant of their God, whereby they drew down his Wrath and Indignation upon themſelves, and their Poſterity.

56. Thus then it appears, that when Men have given the greateſt liberty to their Fancy, it can produce nothing but Chymerical and groundleſs Suppoſitions. Moſes did not deceive the Jews, he could have no ſuch deſign, and though he had had ſuch a deſign, yet it was impoſſible for him to have compaſſed it by the ways and meaſures he took: neither did the Jews combine with him to deceive their Poſterity, and all the other Nations of the World: nor was it any new Upſtart, who to make them believe what he pleaſed, made uſe of ſuch things as he found eſtabliſhed and practiſed amongſt them, either by Tradition, or by Writing: and it was as impoſſible, that the Jews ſhould have Conſpired in this Impoſture with any other, as it was, that they ſhould have done it with Moſes.

[Page] 57. Here you have ſome ſmall part of what may be ſaid on this great Subject; for it is not to be thought, that the proofs which the Pentateuch affords of its truth, can be fully drawn forth: the more we meditate on it, the more Evidence we ſtill find of its Divine Original, for it is an inexhauſtible Spring of Light; and without being at the pains to unfold and ſet them forth, if we read the Book it ſelf, we cannot but feel, or ſenſibly perceive, that the Language it ſpeaketh, is not the Language of Men, nor the product of their Wit: That nothing is further removed from the Methods, not only of Impoſtors and Deceivers, but alſo of the Prudent and Wiſe Men of the World; That it is of a moſt peculiar character, and altogether different from that of Men acting by their own Spirit: and that therein are not to be ſeen, either the common paſſions, or the ordinary intereſts of Men, or the drifts of prudence and forecaſt, which may eaſily be ſeen in other Books that are of humane compoſure: and in fine, it may be ſenſibly perceived that it is impoſſible for any to put off the Man ſo far, as were neceſſary for the production of ſuch a work, wherein ſo little of Man appears.

[Page] 58. Nevertheleſs this Book is in being, we have it in our hands, and it was not made by chance: It hath been, and yet is the greateſt and moſt conſiderable object that ever was in the World, during the ſpace of above Two Thouſand Years, the moſt ſingular and famous People in the World, have been ſo devoted to it, and enamoured of it, that they have never ſuffered it to be out of their ſight: from this People it is come into the hands of Chriſtians, that is to ſay, it is ſpread abroad through the whole Univerſe; and after Sixteen Hundred Years, theſe Two ſort of People, irreconcileable Enemies to one another, do yet look upon it with the ſame Veneration, diſpute the one againſt the other for the true meaning of it, and both of them find in it, the original Title of that Right which they pretend to have unto the Heavenly Inheritance, in which both of them believe, that the reſt of Mankind have no part or portion.

59. Who then dare be bold to ſay, that it is free for him to ſtand Neuter, and not to concern himſelf in a matter of this Importance, nay, who that rightly conſiders it, can hinder himſelf from being concerned? who is there that can let this [Page] Book paſs as it is, not caring to know whether it be true or falſe, as if it were a thing, whereof the truth were unſearchable and indifferent? or who ſhall dare deſperately to run-counter unto ſuch abundance of truth and light, as that Sacred Book holds forth, and without other help, than that of his own Fancy, and wretched Reaſon, to Determine, from the bottom of that dark Dungeon, where Nature hath confined him, that there is no Being in the whole Univerſe, able to work ſo many Miracles, and that they are but ſo many Fable and Viſions?

60. But the reaſon why ſome perſons are not moved and affected with theſe proofs, which are ſo ſenſible unto others, is becauſe their Intereſt and their Paſſions have ſo much command of them, that they ſee other things but by halves. This is the true Spring of all the Doubts that are moved againſt Religion, becauſe there is really nothing ſo contrary to their luſts, as the manner of Life which it preſcribes; and ſo it is no ways difficult, to conceive that Mens Luſts ſhould oppoſe a thing which doth directly fight againſt them, and can never be eſtabliſhed but by their Extirpation and Ruine.

[Page] 61. And indeed this may well be ſo, on the account of the contrariety that is between Religion, and Mens Luſts, ſince we ſee the like even in natural things; and if ſometimes the meer imagination of a thing, which Men do not at all like, (though it be impoſſible the thing ſhould ever come to paſs) makes them Act, as if they really doubted it would come to paſs, even when they cannot really doubt; how much more may the neceſſary forſaking of all that is dear and near to Men in the World, be apt to blind them, and to make them doubt of Religion, unto the belief of which, the Heart and Will muſt contribute no leſs than the Reaſon and Underſtanding.

62. To give an inſtance, there is a well known Perſon of great Wit, and of great Judgment, but ſo much afraid of Death, that being one Day asked, if he would not lay his Life, that there is ſuch a City as Rome? thought the gain were ſmall to be got by the wager, he freely anſwered, That he would not; now certainly ſuch a doubt as that there may not be ſuch a City as Rome, never came into his thoughts before, and if the propoſal had been made to him upon any other terms, [Page] than the laying down of this Life, it had not been poſſible for him to have made the leaſt heſitation at the matter: but as ſoon as the Idea of Death preſented it ſelf to his mind, it wholy took up his thoughts; all the Evidences he had to prove it impoſſible, for Rome not to be, vaniſhed and came to nothing: and if there did not ariſe in his mind a formal doubt, that all which hath been ſaid for the exiſtence of Rome may be falſe, at leaſt there came ſomething into his head, or rather into his heart, which made him Act, as if he had indeed doubted of Romes exiſtence.

63. I know very well, no Man will confeſs, that addictedneſs to Pleaſures, or love of Life, can thus far blind him; and that every one pretends his doubts, are very ſincere, and that the averſion he hath from believing the things of Religion, proceeds only from his Reaſon and Underſtanding; neither is it good to preſs Men upon this point, ſince we cannot make them to ſee that in their our own hearts, which they ſee not there of themſelves: for the motions of the Heart or Will, are not like the motions of the Head or Undeſtanding. Theſe of the [Page] Head ariſe, either by degrees, and a Series of ratiocinations, or elſe by a certain quick and clear light, which makes us take up our Reſolutions, and fall to Action; and it is not poſſible that this ſhould be unknown to us, and that we ſhould not feel it. But now as for that which we do by the Byaſs of the Heart, it is far otherwiſe; for there it is certain Springs hidden in us, and Born with us, which prompt us to this or that, without proceeding in a diſcurſive way of Reaſoning, and almoſt without our knowledg; and hence it comes to paſs, that except we reflect frequently and attentively upon the motions of the Heart, and timely accuſtom our ſelves ſo to do, it is almoſt impoſſible not to be deceived in Judging of them; for the Heart (if one may ſo ſay) doth ſo mix it ſelf with the Reaſon, or rather doth ſo much maſter it, that it becomes the principle of all the Actions, yet ſo as it is ſcarcely perceived to have any influence upon them.

64. But let ſuch doubting Perſons, at leaſt acknowledg, that they do not do all that is in their power to get a clear Reſolution of their Doubts: which muſt needs be from ſome defect in the Will; they [Page] will eaſily grant this, if they have the leaſt meaſure of ſincerity, ſince they cannot deny, but that the whole Life-time of Man ſhould be employed in the ſearch of ſo important a truth, as that of Religion is, whereas they have ſcarcely thought upon it a few Minutes, and of all things in the World, it may be, the truth of Religion is that, on which they have made leaſt reflection.

65. When Men are brought unto [...] ſincere willingneſs, to apply themſelves unto the ſerious conſideration of the proofs Religion, it will not be difficult, yet further to ſet forth unto them, the Evidences of it, taking the way which we have here chalked out; for beſides the proofs taken from matters of Fact, whereof we have given an Eſſay or Specimen, in this Diſcourſe, there is yet a very great number of proofs that depend upon ſenſible perception, and which appear to us in great abundance when we read the Scriptures with attention; and it is even theſe laſt ſort that deſerve chiefly to be minded, becauſe they have this advantage, that in perſwading us to believe the truth, they move us alſo to love it, without which all is unprofitable. It [Page] is true, there are but few Perſons duely qualified with the diſpoſitions neceſſary to their being feelingly moved and affected by them, that is to ſay, with a certain Spiritual Guſt of Truth, and an uprightneſs of Heart, which are rarely to be met with; But we muſt at leaſt endeavor to help others unto theſe diſpoſitions, and to awaken and ſtir up in them that Spiritual ſenſe, which ſhall be revived in them ſooner or latter, if ever they believe in a ſaving manner.

The End of the Firſt Part.

Notes

a

Exod. 5. 1, 2, 3. & 7. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. & 3. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. & 4. from 1, to 9. & 6. from 1, to 8. Deut. 4. 9, to 24.

↵

b

Exod. 20. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, &c. ibid. v. 20, 22, 23. & 23. 13. Deut. 4. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. & 7. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. & 12. 29, 30, 31, 32. & 18. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Deut. 4. 32, to 41. Exod. 20. 24, latter part of the Verſe. Deut. 4. 7.

↵

c

Exod. 20. 17. Lev. 19. 17, 18.

↵

d

Exod. 21. 13. Deut. 19.

↵

e

Levit. 25. 23, &c.

↵

f

Exod. 21. 1, 2, &c. Deut. 15. 12, to 19. & 24. 14, 15.

↵

g

Deut. 15. 6, to 12. Exod. 22, 25, 26, 27.

↵

h

Exod. 22. 21. Levit. 19. 33. 34.

↵

i

Exod. 22. 22, 23, 24.

↵

k

Exod. 20. 12. & 22. 28. Deut. 17. 11.

↵

l

Deut. 1. 16, 17. & 17. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. & 25. 1.

↵

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

THE SECOND PART; Containing An EXAMINATION Of a conſiderable part of Pere Simon's Critical Hiſtory of the OLD TESTAMENT. WHEREIN All his Arguments, with the weightieſt of Spinoſa's againſt Moſes's being the Author of the firſt Five Books of the Bible, are fully and clearly anſwered, and ſeveral difficult places of Holy Scripture are explained,

By W. L.

‘Sed quemadmodum apud eos, qui ſemel providentiam probè receperunt, non minuitur aut perit fides providentiae ob ea quae non comprehenduntur; ita neque ſcripturae divinitati per eam totam diffuſae quidquam detrahitur ex eo, quòd ad ſingulas dictiones imbecillitas noſtra non poſſit adeſſe arcano ſplendori doctrinae qui in tenui & contemptâ locutione deliteſcit.’ Orig. Philoc. cap. 1. pag. 5. Edit. Cantabrig. 1658.

London, Printed for Tho. Parkhurſt, 1682.

The Second Part.

[Page]

[Page]

WHat is contained in theſe following Sheets, was firſt intended for a Preface unto the foregoing Diſcourſe, Tranſlated out of French into Engliſh, but when I had finiſhed it, I found it would be too long a Preface unto ſuch a ſhort Diſcourſe; and therefore upon Second thoughts, I concluded it would be better to ſubjoin [...] it thereunto by way of Appendix, or Second Part. Who was the Author of the Diſcourſe, I do not certainly know; but it is probable, that Monſieur du Bois de la Cour, who wrote the Diſcourſe on Paſchal his Thoughts, or Meditations on Religion, &c. was likewiſe the Author of this Diſcourſe; for they are frequently bound together, and were both Publiſhed, the one in 1671, and the other in 1672, with the approbation of the ſame Doctors of the Sorbon, excepting one whoſe name is not ſubſcribed with the other Six, unto the approbation of this Diſcourſe. But [Page] who ever be the Author, he is a Man of Parts, and has done worthily in this Diſcourſe, in which he hath ſhewed his high Veneration of the Holy Scriptures, and hath irrefragably proved the truth of the moſt Signal and Miraculous matters of Fact, contained in the Books of Moſes, and by that means he hath proved the Divine Original and Authority of all the Laws and Ordinances given by Moſes unto the Iſraelites, and Recorded in his Books: So that the Tranſlation of it cannot but be of good uſe unto Engliſh Readers, for confirming them in the Faith, and ſtrengthening them againſt Tentations, unto Infidelity in theſe Backſliding Times. The Diſcourſe is ſo well Penned by the Author, that it needs no Recommendation from any; its own great Excellency and Uſefulneſs will abundantly ſuffice to commend it unto any ingenious Man, that ſhall be at the pains of ſpending half an Hour in Reading of it. It would therefore have been altogether needleſs for me to have added unto it what follows here in this Second Part, if there had not been lately Publiſhed in Engliſh, a Book of P. Simon's, Intituled, A Critical Hiſtory of the Old Teſtament; where, [Page] Book 1. Chap. 5. Pag. 36. in the Contents of that Chapter he hath theſe very Words, Moſes cannot be the Author of the Books which are attributed to him. I had no ſooner Read this in the contents of the Chapter, but I was deſirous to know what Arguments he uſed to prove ſuch an uncouth Aſſertion, as had ſeldom been heard of from any before, but ſuch as Hobs in his Leviathan, Pereyre in his Syſtema Praeadamiticum, and Spinoſa in his Tractatus Theologico-politicus, all Atheiſts or Infidels. And thereupon having Read and Examined all he ſays to prove his Aſſertion, I thought it would be neceſſary, together with the Precedent Diſcourſe, to Publiſh a few ſhort Animadverſions on what he has written in his Critical Hiſtory, againſt the Pentateuchs being written by Moſes. And that what I have to ſay, may be the better underſtood, and the more convincing and ſatisfactory unto the Reader, I ſhall proceed in this Method,

Firſt, I ſhall ſhew what is the Truth to be believed, and what is the Belief of the Chriſtian Church.

Secondly, What is the opinion of P. Simon, and wherein he agrees with, or differs [Page] from the common Faith of the Church in this matter.

Thirdly, Anſwer his Arguments, whereby he endeavors to prove his Opinion, That Moſes could not be the Author of the Books which are attributed to him.

Now for the Firſt, The Truth to be believed, is (1.) That the whole Scripture of the Old Teſtament, and conſequently the Pentateuch, or firſt Five Books of the Bible, were written by Divine Inſpiration, and that God is the primary Author thereof; this is proved from Luke 16. 29, 31. They have Moſes and the Prophets, let them hear them, &c. And Luke 24. 25, 27, 44, 45, 46. And from 2 Tim. 3. 16. where it is expreſly ſaid, That all Scripture, or the whole Scripture, is given by Inſpiration of God. And 2 Pet. 1. 20, 21. where it is expreſly affirmed, that the firſt thing to be known concerning the Scriptures, is this, That no Prophecy of the Scripture, is of any private Interpretation (that is, of any Mans own Inventing:) for the Prophecy came not in old time by the will of Man: but Holy Men of God ſpake as they were moved by the Holy Ghoſt. The ſame Truth is clearly proved, from Pſalm. 147. 19. compared with Rom. 3. 2. & 9. 4.

[Page] (2.) That this being firſt known and believed, and ſo the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures ſecured, it matters not very much, whether we ever certainly know the names of all the Holy Men whom God uſed as his Inſtruments, in writing the ſeveral Books of Sacred Scripture; for there are ſome Books of Scripture that bear the names of no Man, as Author of them under God, and yet they are as much of Divine Authority, as thoſe Books that have the name of ſome Prophet, or Apoſtle, expreſſed in their Title; and the names which Books of Scripture bear, do not always import, that the Man whoſe name the Book bears, was the Writer of the Book, but that the Book was written of, and concerning him, and his Acts. Thus the Book of Joſhua is ſo called, becauſe it was written of, and concerning Joſhua; though it is probable, it was not written by him, but by ſome other Holy Man of God after his Death; ſee for this Biſhop Richardſons Obſervations on the Old Teſtament, pag. 45. the like may be ſaid of ſome other Books of Holy Scripture. That then which concerns us moſt, is to know, whether God be the Author of the ſeveral [Page] Books in the Canon of Scripture; and if we be once ſure of this, we need not trouble our ſelves much about the knowing of the names of the ſeveral Men by whom it pleaſed the Lord God to conſign them to Writing. Gregory the Great, in his Preface to his Expoſition on Job, has this Remarkable ſaying, ‘[Si Magni cujuſdam viri ſuſceptis Epiſtolis, &c. If having received the Letters of ſome great Man, we ſhould read the Words, and enquire by what Pen they had been written, truly it would be ridiculous if we ſhould endeavor not to know the Author of the Letters, nor to underſtand the ſenſe, but to find out by what Pen the ſeveral words of them had been written: ſince then we know the thing, and that the Holy Spirit is the Author of it, what elſe do we in enquiring after the Writer, but in reading the Letters, ſtand asking by what Pen they were written.]’

Yet (3.) when a Book of Holy Scripture bears the name of its Author, and an Univerſal Hiſtorical Tradition aſſures us that ſuch a Man was indeed the Author of it, we are bound to believe it, and cannot rationally disbelieve it, without a [Page] demonſtration to the contrary. Thus we know the Books of Plato, Ariſtotle, and Cicero, to have been written by thoſe Authors; and this is ſo clear and certain a truth, (‘Ʋt de iſtorum librorum Authoritatibus dubitare dementis ſit, utque ridendus ſit non refellendus qui de iis queſtionem movet,’) ‘That none but a Madman will doubt of the Authors of thoſe Books, and he is to be laughed at, and not confuted, who moves a Queſtion concerning them;’ as holy Auguſt. writes, contra Fanſtum Manich. lib. 32. cap. 21. And as he ſays, That he knew the writeings of the New Teſtament to be the writings of the Apoſtles, by the ſame means that the Manichees knew the writeings of Manes, to be the writings of Manes; ſo I ſay, That by what means we here in England know the late Critical Hiſtory of the Old Teſtament, to be the writing of Pere Simon a Prieſt of the Oratory; by the like means we know the Pentateuch to be the writing of Moſes; and we ought not to disbelieve it, having the Univerſal Teſtimony of Jews, Chriſtians, Mahumetans, and many Heathens, to ground our Faith upon; unleſs it be firſt clearly demonſtrated to us, that it [Page] implies a contradiction, that Moſes ſhould have written it; which I know, that neither Pere Simon, nor any Man elſe can do. And the reaſonableneſs of what I have now ſaid will yet further appear, if it be conſidered that our Lord Chriſt himſelf gives Teſtimony unto the writings of Moſes in general, (John 5. 46, 47. Moſes wrote of me, But if ye beleive not his writeings, how ſhall ye beleive my words?) and both he and his Apoſtles frequently appeal unto them, and quote paſſages out of them. This is the truth to be believed, and this is actually believed by the Chriſtian Church. Yet it is no matter of Faith, that there are no various Lections in the Scriptures of the Old and New Teſtament, nay it is a matter evident to Senſe, that there are various Lections; it is no matter of Faith, that through the length and injury of time, and Negligence of Tranſcribers and Printers, there are no miſtakes at all in the Originals of Holy Scripture; on the contrary, we acknowledg that there may poſſibly be ſome miſtakes, even in the Pentateuch, through the length and injury of time, and the negligence of Tranſcribers and Printers, but thoſe miſtakes we believe, do not at [Page] all hinder the Holy Scriptures from being a perfect Rule of Faith and Life, in all things neceſſary, to the Glorifying of God, and Saving of our Souls. Nor laſtly, is it matter of Faith, That Moſes wrote every Word and Sentence, Chapter and Verſe, of the Pentateuch, with his own hand. It is ſufficient that we believe he wrote it himſelf, or by other perſons, whoſe help he uſed in the writing of it; and when it was written, he reviſed it and approved it, and in this he was aſſiſted by the Holy Spirit, inſpiring, guiding and directing him. And if there be any thing in the Pentateuch, beſides the miſtakes of Tranſcribers and Printers, that was written after Moſes's time, it was added upon good Reaſons by Joſhua or Ezra, and the great Aſſembly, who were Men of a Prophetical Spirit, and inſpired by God, in what they did of that nature.

Now in the Second place let us ſee, what is the opinion of Pere Simon, and wherein he agrees with, or differs from the common Faith of the Church, in this matter.

And Firſt, He agrees with us in theſe following particulars, (1.) That the whole Scripture of the Old Teſtament, [Page] and conſequently the Pentateuch, was of Divine Inſpiration, and that God was the primary Author thereof; this is demonſtratively proved from his own expreſs words; in his Preface, pag. 4. ‘[But beſides, that this Principle (of a Divine of Paris, That the whole Scripture is not equally Divine and Canonical) is dangerous, it is directly oppoſite to the Doctrine of the New Teſtament, which acknowledges every thing throughout the whole Scripture for Prophetical, and to have been inſpired; wherefore I thought I ought to lay down ſome Principles, whereby we might aſcribe every thing in the whole Scriptures to Prophets or Perſons inſpired by God, even to the alterations themſelves, thoſe only excepted, which had happened through length of time, or negligence of Tranſcribers.]’ And Book 1. Chap. 1. Pag. 3. ‘[I have divided this work into Three Books, the Firſt of which, Treats at large of the Authors of the Bible, which I have called Prophets, with Joſephus (contra App.) and moſt of the Fathers, becauſe they were in effect directed by the Spirit of God, and that St. Peter calls the whole [Page] Scripture Prophecies. During the Hebrew Common-wealth, there were from time to time among them, theſe ſorts of Perſons inſpired by God, were it to write Divine and Prophetick Books, as the ſame Joſephus has remarked, or as Euſebius ſays, to diſtinguiſh betwixt thoſe that were truly Prophetick, and others that were not.]’ And Pag. 4. ‘[They (the publick Writers) had the liberty in collecting the Acts which were in their Regiſteries, to add, diminiſh and change, according as they thought fit, and the Books (as Euſebius ſays) which were declared Sacred, were reviewed by Perſons inſpired by God, who Judged whether they were truly Prophetick or Divine.]’ And Pag. 21. ‘[I know it is expreſly forbidden in Deuteronomy, either to add or diminiſh any thing from the Word of God. But we may Anſwer with the Author of the Book, Intituled, Cozri, that this prohibition relates only to private Perſons, and not to thoſe whom God had expreſly commanded to interpret his Will; God promiſed to the Prophets, and to the Judges of the Sanhedrim, who ſucceeded Moſes, the ſame [Page] Grace, and the ſame Spirit of Prophecy, as thoſe had who lived in his time, and therefore they have held the ſame Power, not only of Interpreting the Law, but alſo of making new Ordinances, which were afterwards writ and placed in the Regiſteries of the Republick.]’ And Pag. 22. ‘[The Church has not the Right of making Books Canonical and Divine, as the Prophets had in the Old Teſtament, but only to declare them Canonical.]’ In fine, Book 1. Chap. 1. Pag. 1. ‘[None can doubt, but that the truths contained in the Holy Scripture are infallible, and of Divine Authority; ſince they proceed immediately from God, who in this has only made uſe of the Miniſtery of Men to be his Interpreters. So there is no Perſon, either Jew or Chriſtian, who does not acknowledg that the Scripture being the pure Word of God, is at the ſame time, the firſt principle and foundation of Religion.]’ Here is clear and full proof from his own expreſs words, of his agreement with us in the firſt particular before mentioned.

Secondly, He agrees with us in this, That though Men having been the Depoſitories [Page] of theſe Sacred Books, as well as of all others, and in their firſt Originals having been loſt, it was in ſome ſort impoſſible, but that there muſt needs happen ſome changes, as well by reaſon of the length of time, as the careleſneſs of Tranſcribers; as it is impoſſible, it may be, to find one Engliſh Bible in all England, without ſome Letter, Sillable, or Word Miſprinted, yet God by his ſpecial Providence hath taken ſuch care of the Sacred Scripture, as that it is preſerved to this Day, perfect, intire and uncorrupt, in all things relating to Faith and Manners, and neceſſary to be believed or practiſed, in order to Salvation. This is proved alſo from his own words, pag. 7. ‘[The Fathers were perſwaded, that theſe Errors that were crept into the Bible by the means of theſe Tranſcribers, had no relation to Faith or good Manners, or carried any weight to the framing of the Judgment which we ought to make of the Scriptures in general. This does not hinder us, but that we ſhould acknowledg the Divine Providence, in the preſervation of this Book, which has paſt through ſo many hands, and ſo many Ages; a great many [Page] of theſe Errors of Tranſcribers, relate to the Chronology and Genealogies in the Books of the Old Teſtament: but we may ſay with S. Auguſtin, that theſe difficulties are in the number of thoſe of which we may ſpeak freely, and we may be ignorant of, Salva fide qua Chriſtiani ſumus. This ſame Providence has likewiſe not permitted the Jews malitiouſly to corrupt the Holy Scriptures, as many Fathers ſeem to reproach them. Origen, S. Jerome, and S. Auguſtin, have done them more Juſtice; and thoſe who at this day reproach the Jews with the ſame thing, have not throughly examined the matter.] And pag. 9. [This Author (Mariana) ſhews very plainly, that the intention of the Council of Trent in declaring the Vulgar Tranſlation Authentick, was not to exempt it from all ſorts of Faults, but only from Errors which might introduce a change, either in Faith or Manners; which he confirms by ſeveral Authorities, and principally by the Teſtimonies of Andrew de Vega, and Jacob Lanis, at that time ſuperior of the Order of Jeſuits, who aſſiſted at that Council.]’

[Page] Thirdly, He agrees with us in this, That being ſure that God is the primary Author of the ſeveral Books of Scripture, it is no great matter whether we certainly know or not, the names of the Men by whom God was pleaſed to commit them to writing; this is proved from his own words; in his Preface, pag. 2. ‘[Having Eſtabliſhed in the Hebrew Commonwealth the Prophets or Publick Writers, who took care of collecting faithfully the Acts of what paſt of moſt importance in the State, we need not too curiouſly inquire, as uſually Men do, who were the Authors of each particular Book of the Bible, becauſe it is certain that they were all writ by Prophets, &c.]’ And in Book 1. Chap. 1. Pag. 3. ‘[We ought not to ſearch with too much curioſity, who have been the particular Authors of every Book of the Bible; it ſufficeth, according to the Maxime of Gregory the Great (praefat in lib. Job) that theſe Books were written by Prophets. Quis haec ſcripſerit, valde ſupervacue quaeritur, cum tamen Author libri, Spiritus Sanctus fideliter credatur.]’

Fourthly, yet farther, He agrees with us ſo far as to hold, That in a true and [Page] good ſenſe Moſes may be the Author of the whole Peutateuch. This is clearly proved from his own expreſs words; in Book 1. Chap. 1. Pag. 3. ‘[If theſe Publick Writers were in the Hebrew Common-wealth from the time of Moſes, as is extreamly probable, it will be very eaſie to ſatisfie all difficulties that may be brought to ſhew, that the Pentateuch was not wholy written by Moſes, which is ordinarily proved by the manner of its writing, which ſeems to inſinuate, that ſome other than Moſes collected the Acts, and put them down in writing: ſuppoſing theſe Publick Writers, to them we may attribute what relates to the Hiſtorical part of theſe Books, and to Moſes all that which belongs to the Laws and Ordinances, and it is this which the Scripture calls the Law of Moſes: thus one may ſay in this ſenſe, that the whole Pentateuch is truly Moſes's, becauſe thoſe who made the collection, lived in his time, and did not do it but by his Order.]’ And Pag. 20. ‘[According to this principle, we ought to expound that paſſage, where it is ſaid (that Moſes wrote what God commanded him;) for there is nothing more [Page] ordinary in the Scripture, than to aſcribe unto one perſon what he Orders another to do, chiefly when the thing is done in his name.]’ Thus we ſee wherein Pere Simon agrees with us in the common belief of all Chriſtians. He agrees with us ſo far, as to acknowledg not only that the whole Scripture of the Old Teſtament is of Divine Inſpiration, and that it is uncorrupt in all things that relate to Faith and Life, and are neceſſary to be believed or done, in order to Salvation: but alſo, that the whole Pentateuch is truly Moſes's, becauſe if it was not all written by himſelf immediately, yet it was written by others in his time, and in his name, and by his order; and then ſure what was ſo written, was reviewed and approved by himſelf. If P. Simon were ſincere in all this, and did not deny it again by his ſelf-contradiction, we needed not much to oppoſe him in this matter; for we are under no neceſſary obligation to believe, that Moſes wrote down with his own hand all the occurrences of every Day, during the whole ſpace of the Churches being in the Wilderneſs; he might poſſibly appoint ſome other perſon or perſons of known Integrity, to do that for [Page] him, and in his name: and being ſo done, and then reviewed and approved by himſelf, it was all one, as if he had done it with his own hand. But notwithſtanding this agreement, we ſhall find that there remains yet a difference between P. Simon, and other Chriſtians, as to this matter; and that is it we are next to take into conſideration. And

Firſt, He differs from the whole Church of God, and from himſelf too, by ſelf-contradiction, in this, That he thinks Moſes may have written the Pentateuch by an humane and fallible Spirit. I prove this by conſequence, from his own words, Pag. 40. ‘[It is true (ſays he) that the beſt Authors ſometimes fall into little miſtakes, ſo likewiſe do we not pretend to draw from thence an infallible conſequence to prove that Moſes could not be the Author of the Pentateuch, in the Order that it is.]’ Here he manifeſtly ſuppoſes, that Moſes in writing the Pentateuch might fall into little miſtakes, and ſo he might be the Author of it, notwithſtanding the diſorder that is in it; and is not this to ſuppoſe, that Moſes might write it by an humane and fallible Spirit? for none I think will ſay, that a [Page] Man writing by Divine Inſpiration, can fall into any miſtakes, little or great; I am ſure not into ſuch diſorderly miſtakes, as he pretends to find in the Hiſtory of the Creation of Man.

Secondly, He differs from the whole Chriſtian Church, in affirming, that for ſo much of the Hiſtorical part of the Pentateuch as Moſes wrote, or might write, he copied it out of other ancient Books, or elſe committed to writing what he had learned from, Oral Tradition. This difference is the ſame upon the matter with the former, and I prove it alſo from his own expreſs words, Book 1. Chap. 3. Pag. 27. ‘[A Book of the Wars of the Lord, of which mention is made in the Numbers (Numb. 21. 14.) is an evident proof, that the Stories which are related in the Five Books of Moſes, have likewiſe been taken out of ſeveral collections which have been loſt.]’ And Pag. 54. moſt clearly, ‘[We may likewiſe apply (ſays he) to the Book of Geneſis, what we have already ſaid touching the manner of the inregiſtering the publick Acts in the time of Moſes; this Book contains the Creation of the World, and many things which happened many [Page] Ages before him: and in all Geneſis there is no obſervation of Gods dictating to Moſes what is there related, it is not likewiſe ſaid, that he writ it by the Spirit of Prophecy: but all theſe Hiſtories and Genealogies are ſimply related, as if Moſes had taken them from ſome Authentick Books, or elſe had had a conſtant Tradition.]’ And in the ſame place, ‘[Moſes without doubt has had other Records (than the fabulous Books of Adam, Seth, Sem, Abraham, &c.) were they writ, or were they preſerve viva voce down to him, in the Families which God had choſen to be faithful to him in the Worſhip of true Religion.]’ Doth not this look too like unto what I mentioned before, that Moſes might write the Book of Geneſis by an humane fallible Spirit? which is contrary unto Gal. 3. 8. & 4. 21, 22, 30. Rom. 4. 17. 23, 24. 1 Cor. 15. 45. James 2. 23. for theſe Scriptures do plainly aſſert the Divine Original and Authority of the Book of Geneſis.

Thirdly, He differs from the generality of Jews and Chriſtians, in that he not only ſays, there may be ſome few things in the Books of Moſes, as we now have [Page] them, which were not written by Moſes; but he poſitively and peremptorily affirms, that there are de facto, a great many things now in the Books of Moſes, which could not be written by Moſes. This is proved from his own words, Pag. 4, 5. ‘[The publick Writers which were in his time, and writ out the ancient Acts, have ſpoke of Moſes in the Third Perſon, and have uſed ſeveral other ſuch like expreſſions, which could not be Moſes's: but they for all that have never the leſs Authority; becauſe they can be aſcribed only to perſons, which Moſes had commanded to put into writing the moſt important Actions of his time.]’ And Chap. 2. Pag. 19. ‘[We ſhall diſtinguiſh in the Five Books of the Law, what has been writ by Moſes, from what has been writ by theſe Prophets or publick Writers. We may attribute to Moſes the Commandments and Ordinances which he gave to the People, and allow theſe ſame publick Writers to be the Authors of the greateſt part of the Hiſtory. Moſes in quality of Legiſlator, writ all which relates to the Statutes, and left to the Scribes or Prophets the care of collecting the Acts of the [Page] moſt material Tranſactions which paſt, that they might be preſerved to Poſterity.]’ And Pag. 20. ‘[But if we conſider with never ſo little attention, the whole Body of the Pentateuch, we may obſerve this diverſity of Writers which I ſpeak of, which will more appear in the ſequel of this Diſcourſe, where I evidently make the falſity of the reaſons appear, which the Jews uſe to prove, that Moſes is the Author of the whole Law.]’ And as was obſerved in the beginning, in Pag. 36. Contents of Chap. 5. ‘[Moſes cannot be the Author of the Books which are attributed to him.]’

Thus I have given a faithful account of the Judgment of P. Simon, and ſhewed wherein he both agrees with, and differs from the common Faith of Gods Church. And ſince he hath the generality of Jews and Chriſtians, yea Chriſt himſelf and his Apoſtles againſt him, he had need of very clear and ſtrong irrefragable Arguments to ſupport his ſingular opinion, to wit, that (in his ſenſe) Moſes could not be the Author of the Books which are attributed to him.

And now we come in the Third place to conſider the grounds of his Opinion, [Page] and to anſwer the Arguments by which he endeavors to prove it.

His Arguments may be reduced to Three Heads; Firſt, He argues from the Repetitions that are in the Pentateuch. Secondly, From the Tranſpoſitions that are in it. Thirdly, From ſeveral paſſages in it, where there are ſuch expreſſions, as ſeem to intimate, that Moſes could not be the Author of them.

I begin with the Firſt, His Argument from Repetitions, ‘[There are (ſays he, Pag. 37.) many Repetitions of the ſame thing in the Pentateuch, which are apparently not Moſes's, but rather theirs who have made a collection of the Holy Scriptures, and have joined together ſeveral Readings or Explanations of the ſame words, not thinking it convenient to leave out of their Copies what might illuſtrate the Text.]’ And then he gives Inſtances of theſe Repetitions. But before I come to examine his Inſtances in particular, I anſwer to all in general. Since P. Simon acknowledges that thoſe who made the collection of the Holy Scriptures were Men of a Prophetical Spirit, and Divinely Inſpired, as Moſes was, what greater abſurdity is there in Moſes his being [Page] the Author of theſe Repetitions, than in any other Prophets their being the Authors of them? Was not God as free to repeat the ſame thing over and over again for illuſtrating the Text, by the Miniſtry of one Prophet, as by the Miniſtry of another? P. Simon ſeems to be better acquainted with the Rules of Grammar, than with the Rules of Reaſoning; now I come to his particular Inſtances.

Firſt, He begins with Gen. 7. v. 17, 18, 19, 20, 24. & v. 21, 22, 23. and firſt finds fault with its being ſaid Five times over in Five Verſes, That the Waters prevailed.

But I Anſwer, If his Self-conceit had not blinded him, he might have ſeen that there was good reaſon for, and great Grace in this Repetition; for as the Waters of the Flood prevailed gradually, and ſtill roſe higher and higher, ſo it was fit that the words ſhould be adapted to the thing.

Firſt, The Waters increaſed ſo far on the Earth, that they bore up the Ark, and ſet it a floating: and this is expreſſed as we have it in Verſe 17.

Secondly, The Waters increaſed to that degree, that they ſet the Ark a going or moving progreſſively from one place to another, and this is expreſſed, as in Verſe 18.

[Page] Thirdly, The Waters increaſed ſo exceedingly, that the higheſt Mountains in the World were covered with them, and this is ſutably expreſſed, Verſe 19.

Fourthly, The Waters increaſed yet ſo wonderfully upwards, above the higheſt Mountains, that they were Fifteen Cubits under Water, and this is expreſſed, as in Verſe 20.

And then Fifthly, and Laſtly, Since the ſpace of time, in which the Waters prevailed upon the Earth, was One Hundred and Fifty Days, this is appoſitly expreſſed, as in Verſe 24, and laſt of the Chapter.

What now doth this Man deſerve, who quarrels with the Spirit of God for theſe repeated expreſſions which carry ſuch a Grace in them, being ſo well fitted to the nature of the thing ſpoken of?

Next, he finds fault with the Repetitions in Verſ. 21, 22, 23.

I Anſwer, Here indeed is a Repetition of the ſame thing, but it is in ſomewhat different words, and who knows but it might be to aſſure us of the Truth of the thing, which God foreſaw ſome Men would not believe, to wit, That the Flood was ſo Univerſal, as to deſtroy utterly every Living thing from off the [Page] Face of the whole Earth, except Noah and them that were with him in the Ark; and whatever be ſaid of that, yet it cannot be denyed, but it is free for God to expreſs his mind as he pleaſes, if there be nothing in the expreſſions but what is true, as certainly there is not in this place. And it may be, that in expreſſing himſelf thus, he condeſcended to accomodate himſelf to the genius of the Hebrew Tongue, and to ſpeak with his People in their own way of ſpeaking. P. Simon himſelf, confeſſes that there are ſome Repetitions which have their Grace in the Books of Moſes, as well as in the Poems of Homer. ‘[And (ſays he, Pag. 40.) it may be, that good part of theſe Repetitions belong to the genius of the Hebrew Tongue, which is a very plain Language, and repeats often the ſame thing by different terms, which appears in almoſt all the Books of Scripture, and which we find even in the Ordinances of our Kings, and in the Stile of the Chancery of Rome, as well as in the Stile of our Courts for Civil Affairs, where ſeveral words are placed after one another, which ſignifie but the ſame thing.]’ Thus he. And this [Page] Anſwer may ſerve to his other Inſtances, from Exod. 31. 14, 15, 16. and Exod. 32. 15. But why Exod. 16. 33. compared with Verſe 36. & Levit. 6. 9. ſhould be objected, I can ſee no colour of reaſon. Is it poſſible, that ever a reaſonable Man ſhould think that theſe paſſages can afford ſo much as a probable Argument, that Moſes cannot be the Author of the Books attributed to him! And if Pere Simon did not think that they could do him any Service in this matter, why did he alledg them? And moreover, why any Man ſhould find fault with the expreſſions there uſed, I do not underſtand, unleſs it be a fault for Almighty God ſo clearly and fully to expreſs his mind, as that his People cannot but underſtand his meaning; might not P. Simon have been affraid, leaſt God ſhould ſay to him as it is written, Matth. 20. 15. Is thine Eye Evil, becauſe I am Good?

Laſtly, Under this head of Repetitions is alledged, Levit. 3. 3. and here he finds fault with theſe expreſſions, (The Fat that covereth the Inwards, and all the Fat that is upon the Inwards,) pretending that there is no difference between theſe two, (the Fat that covereth the Inwards) and [Page] (all the Fat that is upon the Inwards) but this critical Objection ariſeth from his own inadvertency, for if he had weighed and conſidered the words, he would have ſeen a manifeſt difference between theſe two, (the Fat that covereth the Inwards) and (all the Fat that is upon the Inwards) and would have perceived that the words are very ſignificant; and give us plainly to underſtand, that not only ſome of the Fat, but all the Fat on the Inwards of the Sacrifice muſt be taken away, not only the outward covering of Fat that is upon the Inwards, but every bit and crum of Fat that adheres moſt cloſely to the Inwards: here is an inadequat diſtinction between theſe two, (the Fat, &c.) and (all the Fat, &c.) as there is an inadequat diſtinction between the part and the whole, the thing included, and the thing including.

I proceed to his Second Head of Arguments.

Secondly, He Argues from the Diſorder and Tranſpoſitions that are in the Pentateuch. To which I Anſwer in general, That no ſolid Argument can be drawn from this pretended Diſorder, to prove that Moſes could not be the Author of the [Page] Pentateuch; for if any other Man, writeing by Divine Inſpiration might be the Author of ſuch paſſages as are pretended to be out of their proper places, there can no reaſon be given why Moſes might not as well be the Author of them; ſurely it was as free for the Spirit of God to tranſpoſe things by the Pen of Moſes, as by the Pen of any other Man. But as we have ſhewed, P. Simon confeſſes that the whole Pentateuch, (except any little miſtakes of Tranſcribers that may be in it) was written by Men Divinely Inſpired.

Secondly, I Anſwer, That in all ſuch paſſages God may be ſuppoſed to have accommodated himſelf to the genius of the Hebrew Tongue, and to have condeſcended to write unto his People in their own uſual way of writing; if it be true that P. Simon ſays, Pag. 40, 41. in theſe words following, ‘[It ſeems to me that the Jews themſelves did not much regard writing in Method, as it would be eaſie to prove by the Stile of the Epiſtles of Paul: and Haron a Caraite Jew, who has made literal Commentaries on the whole Pentateuch, obſerves often this confuſion of Order, which he calls [Page] Haphuck, and ſays, That it is uſual enough in Scripture to begin with one thing, then to paſs unto another, and afterwards to reſume again the firſt.]’ If this be true, no reaſon can be given, why God might not make choice of writeing to them by the Pen of Moſes in this very way and method, which was uſual amongſt them, there being nothing of Falſhood in it. So much in general.

Now let us come to a particular Examination of the ſeveral Inſtances he gives of this pretended diſorder; and Firſt, He begins with the Hiſtory of the Creation, and finds fault with its Order, ‘[As that after the Man and Woman were Created, Gen. 1. 27. The Woman is ſuppoſed not to be made, and in the following Chapter, the manner how ſhe was taken from Adams ſide is deſcribed; nevertheleſs in the ſame Chapter it was before forbidden him, as he was her Husband, whom ſhe accompanied in the Garden, to eat the Fruit of a certain Tree.]’ This is his firſt Argument, in which there are ſeveral Falſhoods ſhuffled in, as if it were to make the Hiſtory of the Creation ſeem ridiculous. But if any Man will impartially, and in the fear of God, conſider [Page] the words of Moſes in the Two firſt Chapters of Geneſis, he will find no ſuch diſorder or falſhood in them at all. For in the Firſt Chapter, Man is generally conſidered according to the common nature of both Sexes, and there it is affirmed, That on the firſt Day after the other works of God were finiſhed, God Created Man, Male and Female, in his own Image. This is common to Adam and Eve, the Male and the Female, that they were both Man, of the ſame ſpecifical humane Nature, and that they were both Created by God in his own Image, on the Sixth Day after the other Works of God were finiſhed. But in the Second Chapter, Man is conſidered more particularly and diſtinctly, according to the proper differences of Sex; and the way is deſcribed, how the Individuals of humane Nature were Created, each in their own Sex; and (1.) The Spirit of God by Moſes declares how Man was Created in the Male-Sex, and that he was put into the Garden before Planted, and that he was appointed to dreſs and keep it, and allowed to eat of the Fruit of it, excepting the Fruit of one Tree only, which God forbad him to eat of, under pain of Death. (2.) The Spirit of [Page] God by Moſes relates how Man was Created in the Female-Sex, out of a Rib of a Male-Sex, and then that the Female being thus of the Male, was Married unto him, and made one Fleſh with him for his help and comfort. In all this appears no Diſorder nor Tranſpoſition, nor is there the leaſt ſhadow of Falſhood or Contradiction.

But P. Simon Objects, Firſt, ‘That after Man and Woman were Created, as it is written, Chap. 1. 27. the Woman is ſuppoſed not to be made, Chap. 2.’

I Anſwer, He might have ſaid as well that the Man is ſuppoſed not to be made in Chap. 2. But the truth is, neither the Woman nor the Man are ſuppoſed to be yet unmade, after they were really made; nor doth the Second Chapter at all contradict the Firſt: for what the Firſt and Second Chapters ſay of the Creation of Mankind, relate to the ſame thing, and to the ſame time; with this difference, that what the Firſt Chapter relates of Man's Creation, is expreſſed in a few general Words, which equally concern both Sexes: Whereas the Second Chapter gives a full and particular account of the manner how, [Page] and of the order of time in which each Sex were Created.

But he Objects farther, ‘That before the Woman was made, it vvas forbidden the Man as he vvas her Husband, vvhom ſhe accompanied in the Garden to eat the Fruit of a certain Tree.’

I Anſvver, This is notoriouſly Falſe, I appeal to common Senſe, vvhether there be any ſuch thing in the Text of Moſes, as that Adam vvas the Husband of Eve, and that ſhe accompanied him in the Garden before ſhe vvas made of his Rib. Adam indeed vvas forbidden to eat the Fruit of a certain Tree, before Eve vvas Created; this is plain in the Text of Moſes: but that he vvas then the Husband of Eve, or conſidered as her Husband before ſhe had a Being, there is not one Syllable of this in the Text, nor any thing from vvhence it can ever be proved. When Adam received that poſitive Command, he neither vvas her Husband, nor conſidered as ſuch, nor did ſhe then accompany him in the Garden; but he rally vvas the common Root of all Mankind, of vvhom the ſeveral individuals vvere to ſpring; he vvas moreover (I believe) the federal principal and head of all his [Page] Poſterity, (excepting the Meſſias) and as ſuch he was conſidered in receiving that Law, which the Lord God revealed unto Eve alſo after ſhe was Created, though it be not expreſſed in the Text: for ſhe had it revealed unto her one way or other, otherwiſe ſhe had not actually ſinned in tranſgreſſing it, and we have her own confeſſion related by the Sacred Hiſtorian, that God had revealed it unto her, Chap. 3. 3. But whether God revealed it unto her immediately, or by the mediation of her Husband, we find not in the Text, and therefore we cannot certainly ſay, whether of the Two ways it was revealed unto her: but we are ſure that one of them it was, and that is enough.

Here P. Simon has diſcovered himſelf, and by this inſtance we may Judge what Spirit he is of; an honeſt Heathen would have abhorred to have been guilty of ſuch a groſs Falſification, that he might the better expoſe the Author of the Hiſtory of the Creation, whoever he was. Sure I am, that Longinus did not take the Author of that Hiſtory to have been a Fool, when having occaſion to mention the Hiſtory of the Creation, he wrote thus of Moſes whom he believed to be the Author [Page] of it, ‘[He that gave Laws unto the Jews, was a Man of no ordinary parts, for he hath both conceived and ſpoken worthily and becomingly of the power of God. In the very beginning of his Laws, writing thus, (God ſaid, but what?) Let there be Light, and it was. Let the Earth be, and it was.]’ Such an high opinion of the Sacred Hiſtorian had Longinus, as is to be ſeen in his Book De Sublimi dicendi genere, extant in ſeveral Languages unto this Day.

Secondly, P. Simon Inſtances in Gen. 21. 3, 4, 5. and ſays, ‘[That to underſtand the Books of Moſes, one muſt often join many Verſes together, by beginning with the laſt and coming up to the firſt.]’ That is in plain Engliſh, we muſt read them backwards, or we cannot underſtand them. Thus, Verſ. 5. And Abraham was One Hundred Years old when his Son Iſaac was born unto him. Verſ. 4. And Abraham Circumciſed his Son Iſaac, being Eight Days old, as God had commanded him. Verſ. 3. And Abraham called the name of his Son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Iſaac.

And then he gives his Reaſon, why theſe Three Verſes ſhould be read backwards, [Page] in theſe numerical words, ‘[This Order, methinks, the Hiſtorian ought to have kept; for the Jews do not name their Children, till after their Circumciſion.]’

This is his Second Argument, under the head of Tranſpoſitions, to prove that Moſes could not be the Author of the Pentateuch. And is it not a goodly one? Sure P. Simon muſt have very mean thoughts of the Learned Men of this Age, to believe that he can perſwade them by ſuch ridiculous Reaſoning as this, to be of his opinion, that Moſes could not be the Author of the Pentateuch. But it is no wonder that he have mean thoughts of the Men of this Age, when he takes upon him to teach the Sacred Hiſtorian, (whom himſelf acknowledges to have been a Prophet) how he ought to have written. ‘[This Order, methinks, the Hiſtorian ought to have kept,]’ ſays P. Simon. And your reaſon, good Father, why the Hiſtorian ought to have kept the Order that you fancy to be beſt. Why that we have in the very next words, ‘[For the Jews do not name their Children till after their Circumciſion.]’ Now Reader, I pray thee conſider what a ſenſeleſs Reaſon [Page] this is. The Author of the Book of Geneſis ought to have written in that Order, as P. Simon would have it, and we ought to read the Three Verſes aforeſaid, backwards, becauſe the Jews in this Age do not name their Children till after their Circumciſion. But can P. Simon prove, that in Abrahams time, Children were not named till after their Circumciſion? might they not be numbred at their Circumciſion, yea, or before their Circumciſion, in Abrahams time? God left it free unto Abraham and his Poſterity, to name their Children at vvhat time they pleaſed, before, at, or after their Circumciſion; and no Man living can prove, that in Abrahams time, People vvere bound to name their Children after their Circumciſion, or that they generally uſed ſo to do; ſuch Arguments as this of P. Simons deſerves no Anſvver, but to be hiſſed at; and his Immodeſty, in ſaying, That the Sacred Hiſtorian ought to have kept the Order he ſpeaks of, is to be lamented by all that deſire to fear God.

Thirdly, He Objects, Gen. 31. 46. ‘[This Verſe (ſays he) is methinks likewiſe out of its Order, as well as all the Diſcourſe which treats of the Covenant [Page] between Jacob and Laban, becauſe they did not eat till the Alliance was made.’

Anſwer, Here is an Argument little better than the former, only it is more modeſtly propoſed. They did not eat till the Alliance was made; ergo all the Diſcourſe which treats of the Covenant between Jacob and Laban, is out of its order. Any Man that attentively reads the Text of Moſes, would conclude the quite contrary, that ſeeing they did not eat till the Alliance was made, therefore all the Diſcouſe that treats of the Covenant, &c. is in its Order, becauſe it is all ſet down before the offering of Sacrifice or killing of Beaſts, and eating of Bread, mentioned, Verſ. 54.

As for Verſ. 46. there is nothing affirmed in it, but what is moſt true. It is moſt true, that Jacob's Brethren gathered Stones, it is moſt true, that they made an heap, and it is as true, that they did eat there upon the heap. But ſays P. Simon, They did not eat till the Alliance was made. I Anſwer, Nor does the Hiſtorian ſay in Verſ. 46. that they did eat before the Covenant was made; there he only ſays, That they did eat upon the heap, but does not ſay when; and a little [Page] after, in Verſ. 54. he tells us when it was they eat upon the heap, to wit, after the Covenant was made. So that here is nothing to cavil at, and find fault with, only the ſame thing is twice expreſſed in ſomewhat different words.

Firſt, The matter of Fact is related in general, without telling what was meant by it, (Verſ. 46. They took ſtones and made an heap: and they did eat there upon the heap.)

Secondly, The meaning of the heap of ſtones, and of their eating upon the heap, is cleared up, and the time mentioned when they eat upon the heap; there it is ſhewed, that the heap of ſtones was by agreement between Jacob and Laban, ordained to be a Witneſs or Token of the Covenant between them Two, and their eating upon the heap is clearly implyed, to have been a federal Feaſt, ſignifying and ſealing up a laſting Friendſhip between the Parties Covenanted; and laſt of all, it is expreſly declared when this Feaſt upon the heap of ſtones, was, to wit, after the Covenant between Jacob and Laban was made and confirmed by the Oaths of both Parties, Verſ. 53, 54.

[Page] To conclude this Anſwer, Let it be conſidered, that Verſ. 46, ſpeaks only of the place where they eat, without mentioning the time when. But Verſ. 54, ſpeaks only of the time when they eat, without mentioning the place where, that is, without mentioning that it was upon the heap of ſtones; and now why Moſes, yea, why Gods Holy Spirit might not be the Author of both theſe 46 and 54 Verſes, and of all that comes between them, it is above my capacity to underſtand. I dare challenge any Man to bring an Argument from this place to prove that Moſes could not be the Author of the Pentateuch, an Argument I ſay, that any Man of Judgment would not be aſhamed. of.

Fourthly, He Objects, Gen. 35. 28, 29. ‘The Death of Iſaac there related, ſeems to be out of its place, (ſays P. Simon) becauſe Iſaac died not at that time, and that Joſeph was ſold Twelve Years before the Death of Iſaac: yet nevertheleſs the Hiſtory of Joſeph begins but at the 37th. Chapter of the ſame Book.’

I Anſwer, The Death of Iſaac hath that place in the Hiſtory which the wiſdome of God thought fit to aſſign unto it, and [Page] that we ſhould account to be its place, which Gods Wiſdome by his Prophet hath put it in. But ſays P. Simon, Iſaac died not at that time. I Anſwer, There is no other time of his Death mentioned there, but that after he was One Hundred and Eighty Years Old, he Died and was Buried: which is moſt true; but it is not at all ſaid by the Sacred Hiſtorian, that Iſaac Died at that time, when his Son Jacob came unto him, unto Mamre: for that had been falſe; and I deſire this may be taken notice of. But ſays P. Simon, Joſeph was Sold Twelve Years before the Death of Iſaac, and yet the Hiſtory of Joſeph begins but at the 37th. Chapter of the ſame Book. I Anſwer, This is indeed true, for Iſaac was Sixty Years Old when Jacob was Born, Gen. 25. 26. And Jacob was One Hundred and Thirty Years Old when he ſtood before Pharaoh, Gen. 47. 9. Now 60 and 130. make One Hundred and Ninety, which is but Ten Years more than the Years of the Age of Iſaac, who Died when he was One Hundred and Eighty Years Old, that is Ten Years before Jacob ſtood before Pharaoh; ſo that Iſaac muſt have Died about the time of Joſeph's advancement in Aegypt., as appears [Page] from Gen. 41. 53, 54. compared with Gen. 45. 6. where we ſee that Seven Years of Plenty, and Two Years of Famine, had paſſed from the time of Joſeph's advancement, until the time of Jacob's coming into Aegypt. Iſaac then Living One Hundred and Eighty Years, could not Die till about the time of Joſeph's advancement, either the Year of his advancement, or the Year before his advancement; and if it was the Year before his Advancement, that Iſaac Died, then it was about Twelve Years after Joſeph was Sold, that Iſaac Died: for Joſeph was Seventeen Years Old when he was Sold, Gen. 37. 2. and Thirty Years Old when he was advanced in Aegypt, Gen. 41. 46. and conſequently he was not advanced till the Thirteenth Year after he had been Sold; ſo that Iſaac Dying the Year before his advancement, he muſt have Died Twelve Years after he was Sold. But what is all this to the purpoſe? this doth not prove, that the Relation of the Death of Iſaac is out of its place: for as I have ſaid, that is its place which the Wiſdome of God thought fit to aſſign unto it, and there we find it in the end of the 35th. Chapter.

[Page] But ſays P. Simon, ‘The Hiſtory of the Selling of Joſeph begins but at the 37th. Chapter of Geneſis, and yet Joſeph was Sold Twelve Years before the Death of Iſaac; ergo the Death of Iſaac ſhould be related after the Selling of Joſeph, but it is related before, and ſo is out of its place.’

I Anſwer, By denying the conſequence; it follows indeed, that therefore the Death of Iſaac was really after the Selling of Joſeph; and there is nothing contrary to this in Gen. 35. 28, 29. but it doth not at all follow, that the relation of the Death of Iſaac muſt be placed in the Hiſtory, after the relation of the Selling of Joſeph; for God was free to place it where he pleaſed, and he thought fit to place it before the relation of the Selling of Joſeph in the end of the 35th. Chapter; And there was this good reaſon for it, becauſe the Sacred Hiſtorian was there to finiſh the Hiſtory of the Life of Iſaac, and to ſpeak no more of it afterwards.

And having no more to ſay of him, but that (Iſaac being One Hundred and Eighty Years Old, Died and was Buried by his Sons Eſau and Jacob,) the Sacred Hiſtorian wiſely Judged it better to place [Page] it where it is, than in the middle of the Hiſtory of Joſeph.

Fifthly, He Objects, Gen. 38. 1. And it came to paſs at that time, that Judah went down from his Brethren, &c. ‘[There is no Body (ſays P. Simon,) in reading theſe words, but would at firſt believe that they were joined with thoſe that go before them, and that the time is related in which this Action paſſed. Nevertheleſs, it is not ſo, and the moſt Learned Interpreters of the Scripture agree, that it happened at another time.]’

I Anſwer, Here is indeed ſomething that looks like an Argument, and at firſt ſight there ſeems to be a great difficulty in it, not ſo much becauſe it ſeems to be out of its proper place, for that is eaſily Anſwered, as before, that whatſoever is in the place aſſigned unto it by the Wiſdome of God, is in its own place; but becauſe the thing here related is ſaid to have come to paſs (at that time,) which at firſt ſight ſeems plainly to refer unto the Selling of Joſeph: but it is not true that Judah was but newly Married to the Daughter of Shuah, when Joſeph was Sold into Aegypt; for between the time of the Sale [Page] of Joſeph, and the time of Judahs going into Aegypt with his Father Jacob, were but Twenty Two, or Twenty Three Years, as evidently appears from hence, that Joſeph was Sold at the Age of Seventeen Years, and all his Fathers Houſe went down to him into Aegypt, when he was Forty, or Thirty Nine Years Old. But it is not poſſible, that within the compaſs of Twenty Two, or Twenty Three Years, Judah ſhould be Married unto the Daughter of Shuah, and beget on her Three Sons, Er, Onan and Shelah; and that after the Death of Er and Onan, and after the youngeſt of them Shelah, was Marriagable, Judah ſhould commit Inceſt with his Daughter in Law Tamar, the Widow of Er, and on her beget Pharez and Zerah; and then Pharez ſhould be Married and beget Two Sons, Hezron and Hamul, (Gen. 38. throughout, and Gen. 46. 12.) I ſay it is not poſſible in the ordinary courſe of Nature, that all this could be done within the ſpace of Twenty Three Years. Therefore I conclude that the words [at that time] in Verſ. 1 of Chap. 38 of Geneſis, cannot refer unto what goes immediately before, to wit, the Sale of Joſeph into Aegypt.

[Page] Some Anſwer, Firſt, That the words [It came to paſs at that time] do not refer unto what goes immediately before them, but that they mediately refer unto the time when Jacob came firſt into Canaan, after he had left Laban his Father in Law in Meſopotamia; they do not know certainly where to fix the time referred unto, but ſuppoſe it to have been about the time of Jacob's dwelling at Succoth, or at Shalem, (Gen. 33. 17, 18.)

Secondly, Others Anſwer, That the words [at that time,] or according to the Hebrew, Baeth Hahi, [in that time] do not at all refer unto any thing that went before, either mediately or immediately, but that they are a manner of Speech common to Jewiſh and other Writers, ſuch as (diebus illis,) which ſignifies a large compaſs of time, within which a thing came to paſs, without determining the Year: as if the meaning were no more, but that in ſuch an Age, ſuch a thing came to paſs.

But Thirdly, That which ſatisfies me moſt, and in which I acquieſce, is this, That this difficulty is only in Tranſlations, but not at all in the Original; and therefore I humbly offer it unto the conſideration [Page] of the Godly and Learned, whether it be not expedient in this place to take ſome of the other ſignifications of the Hebrew Particle (Vau) (according to the prudent Advice of that excellent Perſon, the Honourable Mr. Boyle, in his Conſiderations touching the ſtile of the Scriptures, Pag. 64, 65.) and thus to tranſlate the paſſage under conſideration, [Vaihi Baeth Hahi, Vaijered Jehudah, &c.—Vaijar Sham, &c. that is, And it came to paſs at that time, When Judah went down from his Brethren, and turned in, &c. that Judah ſaw there a Daughter, &c.] here I render the (Vau) in Vaijerd, (When,) and I do it, Firſt, Becauſe the Particle (Vau) admits of this ſignification, and accordingly is ſometimes rendered in our own Tranſlation; as for inſtance, Exod. 18. 1. Vaijiſhma Jithro, &c. when Jethro heard, &c. Secondly, Becauſe the ſubject matter doth require this ſignification of (Vau) in Vaijered, for the better clearing up of the ſenſe. Thirdly, Becauſe our own Tranſlatours recede from the primary ſignification of (Vau) in Vaijered, and render it (that,) why then may not we recede from the primary ſignification, which is (And,) and [Page] render it (When,) ſince it is moſt evident, that to render it (When) will ſute better with the ſubject matter, or thing ſpoken of, then to render it (That.) For if we render the (Vau) in Vajered, (When,) and the (Vau) in Vajar, Verſ. 2. (That,) with this little variation of the ſenſe of one Hebrew Syllable, the inſuperable difficulty that ſeemed to be in this place of Scripture, is evaniſhed and come to nothing: for the words [at that time] clearly refer unto Judah his going down from his Brethren, and turning in to the Adullamite Hira; then and at that time it was, that he ſaw the Daughter of Shuah, and took her to Wife: but in what Year this came to paſs is not revealed, and therefore we are not concerned to know it.

P. Simon might have made a better uſe of his Critical Faculty, in thus clearing up the difficulty which ſeemed to be in this place of Scripture, than in cavilling at and finding fault with the Holy Scripture it ſelf, as he frequently doth: but that ſeems to have been none of his deſign, but rather to leſſen the eſteem of the Sacred Writings in the minds of Chriſtians.

[Page] Sixthly, He Objects, Exod. 18. and ſays, ‘The Hiſtory of Jethro related in the beginning of that Chapter, ſeems not to be placed in the time wherein it was, foraſmuch as Jethro ſeems not to have come till the Second Year after the finiſhing of the Tabernacle, as may be proved out of Duteronomy.’

I Anſwer, Firſt, That in ſtead of ſolid Reaſoning, (which a thing of this nature requires,) here is nothing but gueſſing and conjecturing, and one conjecture may be very well Anſwered with another oppoſite conjecture; he ſays it may be proved out of Deuteronomy, that Jethro came not nnto Moſes till the Second Year after the finiſhing of the Tabernacle; and I ſay again, that his poſſible proof, may poſſibly be Anſwered; and when he has actually proved it, which he hath not yet attempted to do, he ſhall be actually Anſwered; that is, his proof of it, ſhall be refuted, if it be falſe, or yielded unto and acknowledged, if it appear to be true; and I am ſure this is very fair, and in reaſon no more can be required. I confeſs it is written, Numb. 11. 16, 17. that the Lord ſaid unto Moſes, Gather unto me Seventy men of the Elders of Iſrael, whom [Page]thou knoweſt to be the Elders of the People, and Officers over them; and bring them unto the Tabernacle of the Congregation, that they moy ſtand there with thee. And I will come down, &c. Now this muſt have been after the Building of the Tabernacle. But it is not yet proved, that God gave this Commandment unto Moſes at the ſame time that Jethro his Father in Law gave him the Councel, Recorded in Exod. 18. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. Nay the Judges that Moſes appointed over Iſrael, according to the advice of Jethro, Exod. 18. 24, 25, 26. ſeem to have been many more than Seventy; and it is not improbable, that the Seventy Elders and Officers, mentioned Numb. 11. 16. were afterwards choſen out of thoſe many Judges formerly by Jethro's advice ſet over Iſrael, and preſented unto the Lord at the Tabernacle of the Congregation, there to receive from the Lord the Spirit of Government, to fit them for the due Execution of the Office they were called unto.

But foreſeeing what may be ſaid for a tranſpoſition here, I Anſwer, Secondly, That ſuppoſe it were granted unto P. Simon, That Jethro did not come unto Moes, till the Second, Year after the finiſhing [Page] of the Tabernacle; what then? will it follow that therefore Moſes could not be the Author of the Pentateuch? I deny that conſequence; take that relation of Jethro's coming unto Moſes, which way you will, and ſuppoſe it to be before the giving of the Law, or after the making of the Tabernacle, as you pleaſe; yet it is ſtill true, there is not the leaſt ſhadow of falſhood in it: for Moſes neither ſays that it was before, nor that it was after the Building of the Tabernacle; all that he writes of the time wherein it was, is, that when Jethro heard of all that God had done for Moſes and for Iſrael, &c. then he came unto Moſes, &c. Exod. 18. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

But as for the Year in which Jethro heard of all that God had done for his People: Moſes is ſilent, and makes no mention of it. That whole narration then being true, without any mixture of falſhood, why might not Moſes be the Author of it, where it is, as well as any other Prophet could be? But is it not in that place of the Book of Exodus, where P. Simon would have had it to have been? I Anſwer, Moſes might have good reaſon not to place it there, but juſt where it is. [Page] He had other things to write of in the following Chapters of Exodus; all which things were to be linked together, and not to be ſeparated by the interpoſition of the narrative of that viſit which his Father in Law gave him in the Wilderneſs. As Scaliger ſays, and P. Simon himſelf out of him, Quo ordine quid referatur, modo conſtet veritas, aut nihili aut parum intereſt, it ſignifies nothing, or very little, in what Order things be related, provided that we find them to be truly related.

Seventhly, He Objects, Gen. 46. and ſays he, ‘[Where the Children of Iſrael are numbered, who went into Aegypt with him, theſe are counted among them, Joſeph, Manaſſeh, and Ephraim, who could not go with him into Aegypt, becauſe they were there before him; and as that place mentions the Children of Iſrael, and his Childrens Children, who came with him into Aegypt, it is probable, for brevity's ſake, theſe Two things have been joined together, as if they had all been Jacob's Children.]’

I Anſwer, This Objection comes from P. Simons heedleſneſs and inadvertency in [Page] reading the Holy Scripture, but hath no ground in the Text of Moſes. For as Joſeph, Manaſſeh and Ephraim, could not go with Jacob into Aegypt, becauſe they were there before him: ſo for certain they are not there ſaid to have gone with him into Aegypt; on the contrary it is clearly enough ſaid, that they did not go with him into Aegypt; for

Firſt, It is ſaid, Verſ. 20. And unto Joſeph in the Land of Aegypt were Born Manaſſeh and Ephraim. And again, Verſ. 27. And the Sons of Joſeph which were Born him in Aegypt, [were] Two Souls. where it is manifeſtly implyed, that Joſeph and his Two Sons were not then to go into Aegypt, but that they were there already.

Secondly, To make the thing yet clearer, it is expreſly ſaid, Verſ. 26. That all the Souls that came with Jacob into Aegypt, which came out of his Loins, were Threeſcore and Six; here Jacob himſelf is not reckoned as one of thoſe Sixty Six, becauſe he could not go with himſelf into Aegypt, nor could he come out of his own Loins: Joſeph alſo and his Two Sons are not reckoned as any of the Sixty Six, becauſe though they came out of Jacob's Loins, yet they could not go with him into [Page] Aegypt, ſince they were already in Aegypt before him. But it may be Objected, That Verſ. 27. it is expreſly ſaid, All the Souls of the Houſe of Jacob, which came into Aegypt, were Threeſcore and Ten. In which number, Joſeph and his Two Sons muſt be included.

I Anſwer, True, they are included in the number Seventy, though they were not included in the Number Sixty Six; yea, and Jacob himſelf is included in the number Seventy, and theſe Four, Jacob, Joſeph, Manaſſeh, Ephraim, being added to Sixty Six, make up the number of Seventy Souls, all which came into Aegypt; the 66 came into Aegypt with Jacob, and Jacob came with them, for if all the Souls of the Houſe of Jacob came, then Jacob himſelf came, being head of his own Houſe; Joſeph alſo he came into Aegypt before, when he was ſold to the Iſhmaelites; and his Two Sons they came into Aegypt in the Loins of their Father Joſeph, even as Levi paid Tithes unto Melchizedeck in the Loins of his Father Abraham, (Heb. 7. 9.) Thus all the 70 Souls came into Aegypt; but the Text of Moſes doth not at all ſay, that all the 70 came into Aegypt at the ſame time and in the ſame way and manner.

[Page] Eighthly, He Objects, Gen. 35. 26. ‘where Benjamin is counted amongſt the Children that Jacob had in Meſopotamia, and nevertheleſs Benjamin was not Born there, but in the Land of Canaan.’

I Anſwer, I do not underſtand by what Rules of Reaſoning, P. Simon puts this paſſage amongſt the diſorderly Tranſpoſitions which he pretends to be in the Pentateuch; for ſurely, this ſeems rather to be a contradiction, it being ſaid in the ſame Chapter, Verſ. 16, 17, 18. that Benjamin was Born at Ephrath. And yet here is no real, but only a ſeeming contradiction; for to make a real contradiction, it muſt have been ſaid, [Benjamin was Born at Ephrath,) All theſe are the Sons of Jacob, which were Born to him in Padan-Aram, but now it is not ſaid, (all theſe are the Sons of Jacob which were Born to him in Padam-aram,) but only, (Theſe are the Sons of Jacob, which were Born to him in Padan-Aram) and this is moſt true, without including Benjamin in the number of Jacob's Sons Born to him in Padan-Aram; for the other Eleven were Born in Padan-Aram: and there was no need here to except Benjamin by name, becauſe it was ſo clearly ſaid, but a little before in the [Page] ſame Chapter, That Benjamin was Born at Ephrath in the Land of Canaan, that no Reader could miſtake ſo groſly, as to think he was Born with the reſt of Jacob's Children in Padan-Aram, or Meſopotamia; I pray mark the expreſſion, it is not ſaid, in v. 26. All theſe are, &c. but, Theſe are, &c.

P. Simon pretends that there are Tranſpoſitions, not only in the Hiſtory, but likewiſe in the Laws of Moſes, and therefore, Ninthly, and Laſtly, He Objects, Exod. 22. 1, 3, 4. ‘where (ſays he) to make a reaſonable conſtruction, what is ſaid of the Thief in the Third Verſe, muſt be joined with the Firſt, becauſe there is a Tranſpoſition; and then one ought to join the Fourth Verſe with the Firſt: and moreover the words of the Fourth Verſe, [if the Theft be certainly found in his hand alive,] ought only to relate to the Ox and Sheep, which this Verſe makes mention of, and not to the Aſs, although that is ſpoke of in the ſame place with the Two other Animals.’

I Anſwer, All this is gratis dictum, without one word of proof. The words of the Law may be reaſonably enough conſtrued, and well enough underſtood, without the help of Pere Simons imaginary [Page] Tranſpoſition. In the Firſt Verſe, the Lord God determins in what proportion a Thief ſhould make reſtitution for an Ox or a Sheep, in caſe he have killed or ſold them. In Verſ. 2. The Lord God declares, that if the Thief be found in the Act of breaking up, and be killed; the killing of him ſhall not be accounted Murther, nor ſhall the killers Blood be ſhed for him, provided it were in the Night, and before Sun-Riſing.

But in the Third Verſe, the Lord declares, That the killing of a Thief in the Day time after Sun-Riſing, ſhould be accounted Murther, and that the Blood of the ſlayer ſhould be ſhed for the Blood of the ſlain Thief: and that for this reaſon given in the ſame Third Verſe, becauſe he ſhould not have been killed for the Theft, but compelled to make full Reſtitution, if he was able, but if he was not able, he ſhould be ſold for his Theft. And in Verſ. 4. the Lord ſhews in what proportion he ſhould be obliged to make Reſtitution, in caſe the Theft were found alive in his hand; not in a Five-fold, nor Four-fold, but in a double proportion, for Ox, or Aſs, or Sheep; and thus all is clear enough in the Order wherein the [Page] Wiſdom of God has placed things, and there is no need to have recourſe unto a Tranſpoſition; as to what he Objects, concerning the Aſs in the Fourth Verſe, that though it be joined with the Ox and Sheep, yet what is ſaid of the Theft, its being found alive in the hand of the Thief, and of his making double Reſtitution in that Caſe, ought not to relate unto the Aſs, but only to the Ox and Sheep.

I Anſwer, This is a bold Aſſertion, without any proof at all; and there is reaſon to conclude the contrary, that becauſe the Aſs is joined with the Ox and Sheep, therefore what here relates to the Ox and Sheep, ought alſo to be referred unto the Aſs; the Aſs was a very uſeful Creature in thoſe Eaſtern Countries, and that may be the reaſon why it is joined with the Ox, both here, and elſewhere, as in the Tenth Commandment. I know not what uſe P. Simon may have for this Aſs, but it ſeems by what he writes, that he would play the Thief, and ſteal it out of this Fourth Verſe of Exod. 22. which if he ſhould do, he would be guilty, not only of Theft, but of Sacrilege, for this Aſs ſtands upon Holy Ground. Thus I have Anſwered all his Arguments that fall under [Page] the Second Head of Diſorderly Tranſpoſitions. I paſs to the Third and laſt head of Arguments, taken from ſeveral paſſages of the Pentateuch, where he pretends there are ſuch expreſſions as ſeem to intimate, that Moſes could not be the Author of them.

Firſt, He Objects, Numb. 21. 14. ‘A Book (ſays he) of the Wars of the Lord, of which mention is made, Numb. 21. 14. is an evident proof, that the Hiſtories which are related in the Five Books of Moſes, have been taken out of ſeveral Collections which have been loſt.’

I Anſwer, It is denyed, that the citing of the Book of the Wars of the Lord, in Numb. 21. 14. is an evident proof, or indeed any proof at all of any ſuch thing. For Firſt, It is not ſo evident that it was a Book at all, ſome think it was but a Song; the Hebrew word (Sepher) does not always ſignifie a Book; but Secondly, Granting that it was a Book, and not meerly a Triumphal Song, it is not evident that it was a Book then already written, it might be a Book to be afterwards written, which Moſes foreſeeing by the Spirit of Prophecy, refers unto; this agrees [Page] with the Original words in the Text, which are [Al-ken Jeamar,] wherefore it ſhall be ſaid in the Book of the Wars of the Lord, &c. yet Thirdly, Granting it to have been a Book already written, Moſes his once citing a Teſtimony out of it, doth no more prove that he collected his Hiſtory out of ſuch Books, then Paul's citing a Teſtimony out of Heathen Poets, (Acts 17. 28. & Tit. 1. 12.) doth prove that he Tranſcribed his Sermons and Epiſtles out of the writings of Heathen Poets.

Secondly, He Objects, ‘That the names of Hebron and Dan, which are in the Pentateuch, were not in beeing in the time of Moſes.’

Anſwer, It is ſaid, but not proved, that the names of Hebron and Dan were not in beeing in Moſes his time; we will ſpeak of each of them by it ſelf, and

Firſt, For Hebron, We find it frequently in the Pentateuch, as in Gen. 13. 18. & 23. 2, 19. & 35. 27. & 37. 14. & Num. 13. 22. It was a City in the Land of Canaan, it is probable it might be firſt called Mamre, (Gen. 13. 18.) and afterwards Arba, or Kirjatharba, and Hebron. When this City began firſt to be called Hebron [Page] is uncertain; but it ſeems to have been called by that name long before Moſes: for it is ſaid, Gen. 37. 14. that Jacob ſent his Son Joſeph out of the Vale of Hebron, and Numb. 13. 22. we read that the Spies which Moſes ſent to ſearch out the Land of Canaan, aſcended by the South, and came unto Hebron, where the Children of Anak dwelt: and that Hebron was built Seven Years before Zoan in Aegypt. Here Hebron is ſpoken of as a City very ancient, and that was ordinarily called by that name. Afterwards Joſhua gave it unto Caleb the Son of Jephunneh for an Inheritance; and he drove the Anakims out of it, and took poſſeſſion of it; as we read in Joſh. 14. 13, 14. & 15. 13, 14. But it is no where ſaid, that Caleb changed the name of it and firſt called it Hebron. I confeſs it is written, that the name of Hebron before, was Kirjatharba, Joſh. 14. 15. & Jud. 1. 10. but the meaning of thoſe words, is, that it was called Kirjath-arba before Caleb drove out the Anakims, and took poſſeſſion of it; but this doth not prove that it was not alſo called Hebron before, and in the time of Moſes. It is was certainly called Kirjath-arba by the Canaanites, before Caleb [Page] took it from them; but at the ſame time it might be called Hebron by the Iſraelites. I thus clearly ſhow that it might be ſo; it was a City ſcituate on the ſide of a Hill, as appears from Joſh. 14. 12, 13, 14. Caleb ſaid unto Joſhua give me this Mountain, Joſhua granted him his Requeſt, and gave him Hebron. To me it ſeems probable, that the Hill was firſt called Hebron, and ſo it was Kirjatharba upon Hebron; for certain, the Countrey under the Hill was called the Valley of Hebron, and as is already obſerved, it was ſo called in Jacob's time, Gen. 37. 14.

It may be the Hill was firſt called Hebron from Ephron the Hittite, of whom Abraham bought the Cave of Machphelah for a Burying-place, (Gen. 23. 16, 17, 18, 19.); this Cave ſeems to have been in the Hill, and the Field to have been at the foot of the Hill, before the Mouth of the Cave; now by an eaſie change of letters of a like ſound, it is come to be called Hebron, by the Poſterity of Abraham, becauſe their Father Abraham bought it of Ephron; or which comes to the ſame thing, Abraham's Poſterity called it Hebron from (Habar,) becauſe Abraham and his Poſterity did as it were enter into civil [Page] Society with the Hittites, when he bought of Ephron that part of the Hill, with the Field and Trees at the Foot of it, for himſelf and his Poſterity. It was almoſt natural for Abraham's Poſterity to call it Hebron on theſe accounts, that ſo the very name of it might be a laſting memorial of their right to it; but the Anakims who afterwards took poſſeſſion of it without right, when the Iſraelites were in Aegypt, did not like that it ſhould be called at all by that name of Hebron, and therefore called it Kirjath-arba only, from Arba the Father of Anak, (Joſh. 15. 13.)

If any ſhould now ſay, that this only ſhews how the Hill with the Cave and Field which Abraham bought for a Burying-place, came to be called Hebron; but this is nothing to the City, which was diſtinct from the Hill, Cave and Field. I Anſwer, Firſt, The City it ſelf was Built on the ſide of the Hill. Secondly, It is probable, that in proceſs of time, the City was ſo far enlarged as to take in Abraham's Field, with the Cave and that part of the Hill in which the Cave was; and this might give occaſion unto the Iſraelites to call the City it ſelf by the name of Hebron. From all which it appears probable, [Page] that it was called Hebron by the Iſraelites, at the ſame time that it was called Kirjath-arba by the Canaanites; and that it was called by that name among the People of God in the time of Moſes: but after the Canaanites were driven out, and Caleb was poſſeſſed of it, it loſt the name Kirjath-arba, and retained only the name Hebron. But againſt this it is Objected out of Jerome, that this City had its name from Hebron the Son of Caleb, of whom we read in 1 Chron. 2. 42. 43.

I Anſwer, Firſt, Maſius in his Commentary on Joſhua, Pag. 247. on the 15th. Verſe of the 14th. Chapter, declares, that he did not ſee any ſtrength in this Argument to prove that Kirjath-arba was not called Hebron in the time of Moſes, or that it was firſt ſo called from Hebron the Son of Caleb; but the truth is, Maſius himſelf ſeems to have been very much miſtaken in Judging of the ſenſe of theſe words [the Father of Hebron,] in 1 Chron. 2. 42. for he ſeems plainly to take Hebron there for the City, and that (Father of Hebron) ſignifies Governor, or Lord of Hebron; whereas it is evident, that Hebron there is a Man's name: for in the next Verſe, this Hebron is ſaid to [Page] have had Four Sons; we muſt acknowledg then, that one of the Poſterity of Caleb was called Hebron.

But then Secondly, I Anſwer, that it is not clear, that this Caleb the Father of Hebron, was the ſame Man with the Caleb that firſt took Kirjath-arba from the Anakims; for Caleb that firſt took Kirjath-arba from the Anakims, was the Son of Jephunneh, Joſh. 14. 6. & 1 Chron. 4. 15.

But it is expreſly written of Caleb, ſaid to be the Father of Hebron, that he was the Son of Hezron, 1 Chron. 2. 9, 18, 19, 42. but Hezron went into Aegypt with Jacob, Gen. 46. 12. therefore his Son Caleb muſt have lived long before Moſes, and could not be the ſame with Caleb the Son of Jephunneh, who was but Forty Years Old when Moſes ſent him to eſpy out the Land of Canaan, Joſh. 14. 7.

Yet Thirdly, Granting that Caleb the Son of Jephunneh, and Caleb the Son of Hezron, were one and the ſame Man, and that he is called the Son of Hezron only in a large ſenſe, becauſe he was of the Poſterity of Hezron; as Maſius, Pag. 243. thinks that Hezron was but his Grandfather, or Great Grandfather, &c. I ſay, [Page] this being granted, it will not follow that Kirjath-arba was firſt called Hebron, from Hebron the Son of Caleb: on the contrary, Hebron the Son of Caleb might take his name from the City Hebron, the Inheritance of his Father; the like ſeems to have happened unto Gilead the Son of Machir, 1 Chron. 2. 21. he ſeems to have received his name from Mount Gilead, the place of his Fathers Inheritance, Deut. 3. 15. for certain it is, that he did not firſt give it its name, becauſe Jacob had done that long before, as appears from Gen. 31. 47, 48, 54.

Maſius has one Objection which I muſt Anſwer, Kirjath-arba (ſays he) is an old name of that City, therefore Hebron is a new name.

I Anſwer, This is but a weak conjecture, for it might have two old names, one amongſt the Canaanites, and the other amongſt the Iſraelites; as it ſeems Bethel had, of which Bethel it is ſaid, Judg. 1. 23. the name of it before was Luz; and yet it is probable, that the Iſraelites called that City by the name of Bethel, long before the Houſe of Joſeph took it from the Canaanites. Some part of the Countrey very near it was moſt certainly called Bethel [Page] from Jacob's time, and it is not unlikely, that the City it ſelf from that time forwards began to be called, ſometimes Bethel by Jacob's Poſterity; even Jacob himſelf ſeems to make Luz to be all one with Bethel, becauſe Bethel ſtrictly ſo called was near Luz: Gen. 48. 3. ſays Jacob, God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the Land of Canaan, and Bleſſed me; but in Chap. 35. Verſ. 1, 3. the ſame City is called Bethel, and was ſo called at that time, both by God ſpeaking unto Jacob and by Jacob ſpeaking unto his Family; ſays God unto him, ariſe, go up to Bethel and dwell there: and ſays he to his Family, let us ariſe and go up to Bethel; which they did, and ſo came to Luz, that is, Bethel, Verſ. 6.

And Jacob there in Luz Built an Altar, and called the place of the Altar [El-Bethel, Verſ. 7.]

From all which it ſeems very evident, that the ſame City was in Jacob's time called by two names, Bethel and Luz; its publick name by which the Canaanites called it, and by which it was generally known to the World, was Luz; but its private name by which God and his People called it, was Bethel; the like may be [Page] ſaid, without any abſurdity at all, of Kirjath-arba, and Hebron.

Secondly, For the name Dan, as to what he Objects, that it was not in Beeing in the time of Moſes, and yet it is found in the Pentateuch, Gen. 14. 14. & Deut. 34. 1.

I Anſwer, Firſt, It is freely confeſſed, that the City Leſhem or Laiſh, was not called by the name of Dan in the time of Moſes. It was a long time after Moſes before the Danites took Laiſh, and changed its name from Laiſh to Dan, after the name of Dan their Father, as appears from Joſh. 19. 47. & Jud. 18. 29. But that therefore there was no other place called by the name of Dan in the time of Moſes, I deny the conſequence; the Brook or Valley of Eſhcol, was firſt called Eſhcol in the time of Moſes, becauſe of the Cluſter of Grapes which the Children of Iſrael cut down from thence, when the Spies ſearched out the Land, Numb. 13. 24.

And yet in Abraham's time, Mamre the Amorite had a Brother whoſe name was Eſhcol, Gen. 14. 13. juſt ſo, though Laiſh was not called Dan till after Moſes, yet ſome other place might be called Dan, [Page] in the time both of Abraham and Moſes. Jerome, Swidas and Philoſtorgius, were of opinion, that a Spring-head of Jordan was called Dan, and the Hebrew Doctors think that the River Jordan was ſo called, becauſe it ſprings out of Dan; and if we may believe the Learned Hofman, in his Lexicon univerſale, Pag. 526. there was another Dan yet diſtinct from Laiſh-Dan; and it was an Hill in the Tribe of Ephraim, on the Rode from Samaria to Sichem; if there were then ſeveral Dans, it may probably be ſuppoſed, that even in Abraham's time, there might be ſome place called by the name of Dan, if not the Hill Dan, on the Rode from Samaria to Sichem, at leaſt the Fountain Dan ſpringing out of Mount Libanus.

I Anſwer, Secondly, Moſes in the Spirit of Prophecy might call Laiſh Dan by an Hiſtorical Prolepſis, as foreſeeing that it would loſe the name of Laiſh, and be called and known only by the name of Dan, in after Ages. He might be moved to do this, that his writings might then be the better underſtood by the People, when the name of Laiſh ſhould be forgotten by the Vulgar, and that City ſhould only be known by the name of Dan.

[Page] I Anſwer, Thirdly, Suppoſe we ſhould grant with the Learned Maſius, that ſome Prophet after Moſes did ſubſtitute the word Dan in the place of Laiſh, (and the ſame may be ſaid of Hebron) for to help the People the better to underſtand and remember thoſe paſſages of Holy Scripture where it occurs, it will not follow from hence, that Moſes cannot be the Author of the Pentateuch; as we ſay one Swallow doth not make the Spring, ſo one or two little alterations of a word, and that by the ſame Holy Spirit of Truth by which Moſes wrote; doth not hinder Moſes from being juſtly accounted the Author of the Pentateuch; the changing of a word or two by God's Spirit for the benefit of God's People in after Ages, is no ſufficient reaſon to change the name of the Book, and to denominate it anew from the perſon by whom it pleaſed God to make ſuch a change. But though I write thus, yet I ſhall not eaſily grant that de facto, there has been ſuch an alteration made in the names before mentioned until it be firſt clearly and certainly proved, which no Man that I know hath yet done: I am ſure P. Simon hath not done it.

[Page] Thirdly, He Objects, Gen. 36. 31. It is probable, (ſays P. Simon,) that Moſes could not have writ theſe words; ‘[And theſe are the Kings that Reigned in the Land of Edom, before there Reigned any King over the Children of Iſrael,]’ this manner of ſpeaking ſuppoſes the Eſtabliſhment of Kings amongſt the Hebrews.

Anſwer, (1.) This manner of ſpeaking only ſuppoſes that Kingly Government was to be Eſtabliſhed amongſt the Children of Iſrael; according to the expreſs promiſe of God unto Jacob at Bethel, Gen. 35. 11, 12. and this Moſes knew very well by the Spirit of Prophecy, as appears from Deut. 17. 14, 15, 18, 19, 20.) and therefore he might well ſuppoſe it as a thing that ſhould certainly come to paſs: but it not being yet come to paſs, Moſes here declares that Eſau was before hand with Jacob as to this matter, for whilſt Jacob's Poſterity was in Servitude, under a Rod of Iron in Aegypt, Eſau his Poſterity flouriſhed under a Kingly Government in the Land of Edom.

Anſwer, (2.) This may ſignifie no more, but that the Perſons there mentioned, did Reign Kings in the Land of Edom, before the time of Moſes, that the [Page] Children of Iſrael were firſt formed into an Holy Kingdom and Common-wealth, according to Exod. 19. 5, 6.) and Moſes was ſet over them as their Head and King under God; according to Deut. 33. 5. where it is ſaid, that Moſes was King in Jeſhurun. Thus it is evident, that there is no weight at all in this Objection.

Fourthly, He Objects out of R. Moſes Cotſi, Exod. 12. 40. where Moſes ſays, ‘That the Sojourning of the Children of Iſrael in Aegypt was Four Hundred Years, and yet it is certain, that Kohath Son of Levi, who was one of them that went into Aegypt, lived but One Hudred Thirty Three Years, that Amram lived only One Hundred Thirty Seven Years, and that Moſes was but Eighty Years Old when God ſpake to him, which make in all but Three Hundred and Fifty.’

Anſwer, This Objection contains a great Falſhood, in affirming, that Moſes ſays the Sojourning of the Children of Iſrael in Aegypt was Four Hundred Years; there is no ſuch ſaying in the Text of Moſes; the Text ſays not, that the Children of Iſrael Sojourned Four Hundred Years in Aegypt, but that the Children of Iſrael [Page] who Sojourned or dwelt in Aegypt, their Sojourning was Four Hundred and Thirty Years; here it is not ſaid how many of the Four Hundred and Thirty Years were paſt in Aegypt.

Indeed (there being ſome ambiguity in the Hebrew words of the Text,) if it were not well known that they Sojourned in other places, both in their own Perſons, and in their Progenitors, Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob, (as Levi in Abraham paid Tithes to Melchizedec, Heb. 7. 9.) it might be thought perhaps, that they Sojourned the whole Four Hundred and Thirty Years in Aegypt; but it is a thing notorious to all, that they Sojourned in the Land of Canaan, and elſewhere, before they went into Aegypt: and therefore it is very unreaſonable to think, that the whole Four Hundred and Thirty Years Sojourning were paſt in Aegypt; what Pere Simon intended by this Objection, I do not well underſtand; for if this were a good Argument, to prove that Moſes could not be the Author of the Pentateuch, it would equally prove, that no Prophet could be the Author of it, (which yet is contrary to his own Judgment, if he believe what he writes,) for as Moſes [Page] could not, ſo no other Prophet could be the Author of any Falſhood. I ſhall ſay no more to this Objection, becauſe the Reverend and Learned Dean of Pauls, has Anſwered it at large, in his excellent Letter to a Deiſt, unto which I refer the Reader.

Fifthly, He Objects, Gen. 46. 27. where it is ſaid, ‘That all the Souls of the Houſe of Jacob who went into Aegypt, were Seventy, and nevertheleſs in counting the number there related, they are found to be but Sixty Nine.’

Anſwer, This difficulty (if it deſerve that name) has been cleared already, where it was ſhewed, that Jacob himſelf did make the Seventieth.

Let any Man count them, and ſetting aſide Jacobs Sons Wives, and Er and Onan who died in the Land of Canaan, he will find that the Sum Total, taking in Jacob as head of his own Houſe, is juſt Seventy.

Sixthly, He Objects, Numb. 3. 39. ‘Where are reckoned Twenty Two Thouſand, but if we join all the numbers together, there remain Three Hundred above the account.’

[Page] I Anſwer, By diſtinguiſhing upon the words of the 39th. Verſe, thus, All the Males of the Levites that were numbered, and were to be Devoted unto the Lord, in exchange for the Firſt-born of the other Tribes, were Twenty Two Thouſand, and no more, I grant it, as being the genuine ſenſe of the words of Moſes. All the Males of the Levites that were numbered, and were partly already Holy and Devoted, and partly to be Devoted unto the Lord, were Twenty Two Thouſand, and no more, I deny it as not being the genuine ſenſe of the words of Moſes. I ground my diſtinction upon this, That all the Males of the Levites, of what ſort ſoever, were numbered from a Month Old and upwards; now amongſt them all, of neceſſity there muſt be a certain number that were Firſt-born Males, and all ſuch Firſt-born Levites as had been Born from the time of Iſraels coming out of Aegypt, unto the time of that reckoning, were already Sanctified unto the Lord in a peculiar manner, and were his own, Devoted unto him: as appears from Exod. 13. 2, 13. and from the 13th Verſe of this ſame Third Chapter of Numbers. Theſe Firſt-born Levites then could not [Page] be ſubſtituted in the ſtead of the Firſt-born of the other Tribes, and ſo become Holy and Devoted unto the Lord in a peculiar manner; for as Firſt-born they were already the Lords, they were Holy and Devoted unto God; they therefore muſt have been excepted and left out of the number of Levites that were to be exchanged for the Firſt-born of the other Tribes, and ſo to be appropriated unto God and his Service in a peculiar manner: But we plainly ſee that Three Hundred Levites are left out, therefore it was on this account that they were the Lords already, as they were Firſt-born. The reſt that were not thus the Lords already, were fit matter to be Sanctified, and Devoted to God and his Service, inſtead of the Firſt-born of the other Tribes, and the number of them all were Twenty Two Thouſand, and no more. There are Two things very obſervable in this Chapter, (1.) That it is expreſsly ſaid of theſe Twenty Two Thouſand Levites, that they ſhall be the Lords inſtead of the Firſt-born amongſt the Children of Iſrael, Verſ. 45. therefore ſurely the Firſt-born of the Levites cannot be included in that number of Twenty Two Thouſand, ſince [Page] they were the Lords already, as well as the Firſt-born of the other Tribes, and ſo could not be given unto the Lord in exchange for them. (2.) It is obſervable, that this number of Twenty Two Thouſand Levites is compared with the number of the Firſt-born of the other Tribes, and the number of the Firſt-born of the other Tribes being found to contain Two Hundred Seventy Three, more than the number of the Levites that were to be exchanged for them, it is expreſsly ordered by God, that this Two Hundred Seventy Three of the Firſt-born of the other Tribes, ſhould be redeemed with Money, at Five Shekles apiece by the Poll, Verſ. 46, 47.

Which is a demonſtration, that the Three Hundred Levites left out of the number of Levites which were to be exchanged for the Firſt-born of the other Tribes, were purpoſely left out in the caſting up of the Sum Total, as not being fit matter to be given unto the Lord in exchange, becauſe they were the Lords already, as they were Firſt-born; if it had not been really thus, they would not have been purpoſely left out, but would have been certainly included in the Sum [Page] Total, as they were in the particular Sums; that ſo there might have been enow (and more than enow) of Levites to be given in exchange for the Firſt-born of the other Tribes, and that there might be no need of giving Five Shekels a piece for the redeeming of any of them.

But now if any ask, why then were theſe Three Hundred Firſt-born Levites numbered at all, why were they put into the particular Sums of the Males of the ſeveral Families, as appears from Verſ. 22, 28, 34. and yet left out of the general Sum of the Males of the whole Tribe, as appears Verſ. 39?

Anſwer, They were numbered, becauſe God would have it a known truth upon Record, that there were at that time ſo many Males of the whole Tribe of Levi, and no more; they were put into the particular Sums, becauſe the particular Sums were to contain all the Males of the ſeveral Families, whether they were Firſt-born or not: but they were left out of the general Sum, becauſe it was to ballance the general Sum of the Firſt-born of the other Tribes, and ſo no Firſt-born Levites were to be taken into it.

[Page] Secondly, I Anſwer, That it becomes not us to call God to an account, and to ask why he doth ſuch a thing, when we know certainly that he hath done it; he giveth not account of any of his matters, Job 33. 13.

Even an Heathen King, when his Underſtanding returned unto him, had ſo much Reaſon and Religion as to confeſs unto God's praiſe, That he doth according to his Will, &c.—and none can ſay unto him, what doeſt thou? Dan. 4. 35.

This is as true of God's way of Writeing his Word, as it is of his way of Governing the World: But notwithſtanding of ſome things that may be ſecret, and to us unaccountable in both, yet we are ſure in general, that God doth all things well and wiſely in the one, and the other.

Seventhly, He Objects, Exod. 16. 35. where it is ſaid, ‘That the Children of Iſrael did eat Manna Forty Years, until they came unto the Borders of the Land of Canaan.’

It is pretended that Moſes could not write this Verſe, becauſe he died before the Children of Iſrael left off eating of Manna, which was not before they came [Page] to Gilgal in the Plains of Jericho beyond Jordan, as appears from Joſh. 5. 10, 11, 12.

Anſwer, I deny the conſequence of this Argument, that becauſe the Children of Iſrael continued to eat Manna after the death of Moſes, therefore Moſes could not write this Verſe; any ſtrength that this Argument may ſeem to have, depends upon a falſe ſuppoſition, that Moſes was no Prophet, and knew no more than other ordinary Men, or that he did not write by the Spirit of Prophecy; for if Moſes was a great Prophet (as certalnly he was, Numb. 12. 6, 7, 8. & Deut. 34. 10.) and if he knew more than other ordinary Men, (as certainly he did, Dent. 31. from Verſ. 1, to 8, and from Verſ. 27, incluſively unto Verſ. 30.) then he might eaſily know by the Spirit of Prophecy, how long the Children of Iſrael ſhould eat Manna, and when and where the Manna ſhould ceaſe; and it is moſt certain, that long before his death the Lord God revealed unto him, That the Children of Iſrael ſhould wander, or feed (as it is rendered on the Margine of our Bible) in the Wilderneſs Forty Years; as is evident from Numb. 14. 26, 33. [Page] 34, 35. and he knew well enough without having it immediately revealed to him, that they had nothing elſe but Manna to live upon in the Wilderneſs; yet God might tell him that they ſhould not be ſtarved, but the Manna ſhould be continued to them and their Children, till their Children were entered within the Borders of the Land of Canaan, and ſufficiently provided for in an ordinary way without Manna. Now Moſes believing this, and knowing infallibly that it would be ſo as the Lord had ſpoken; he might write of it before his death, in the ſame manner as he would have done in caſe he had lived to ſee it all fulfilled; he might write of it in the Preterit Tenſe, becauſe the whole Forty Years were almoſt expired before his death, and they had already eaten Manna for many Years; and as for the ſhort time that remained in which they were to have the Manna continued to them; he was ſo ſure of it, that the Manna ſhould be continued to them, and that they ſhould eat of it till they paſſed over Jordan, and entered into Canaan; that he needed not to alter the Tenſe, but might very well expreſs it altogether in one and the ſame Preterit Tenſe, for the [Page] uſe of that, and ſucceeding Generations, to whom it would certainly be a thing paſt.

After all the vain attempts made hitherto by P. Simon, to prove that Moſes could not be the Author of the Pentateuch, at laſt out come the Arguments that Spinoſa had formerly borrowed (as he ſays) from Aben Ezra, to prove his poſition, that Moſes could not be the Author of the Books attributed to him.

Eighthly, Then P. Simon Objects, Deut. 1. 1. And to put ſome colour upon the buſineſs. and to make the Objection ſeem to have ſome weight in it, he thus renders the Firſt Verſe of Deut.] ‘Theſe be the words which Moſes ſpake unto all Iſrael beyond Jordan in the Wilderneſs,]’ and then he Argues that the Book of Deuteronomy could not be written by Moſes, becauſe he never went over Jordan. but lived and died on this ſide Jordan in the Wilderneſs; he that wrote thus muſt have been in the Land of Canaan, which therefore could not be Moſes but ſome Body after his death, that wrote thus of him, that he ſpoke ſuch words unto all Iſrael beyond Jordan.

[Page] Anſwer, It ſeems ſtrange to me, that P. Simon who is ſuch a Learned Hebrician, was not aſhamed of this Argument, whereof the whole ſtrength lies on the ſignification of the Hebrew word [Beeber;] indeed if Beeber ſignifie only (Trans,) beyond, then the Argument is good, but if (Beebers) ſignifie alſo [(Cis,) on this ſide,] as it is rendered in our Engliſh Bibles, then the Argument is ſtark nought; we muſt therefore for clearing of this matter, inquire what (Beeber) ſignifies;

And Firſt, I grant that (Beeber) doth ſome times ſignifie (trans, beyond,) I grant alſo that the Vulgar Latine, the Seventy, and that Edition of Munſters Tranſlation which I have, render it [beyond;] but that is no proof that (Beeber) ſignifies always (beyond,) and that it ſhould be ſo rendered in this place; for P. Simon himſelf finds fault with all theſe Three Tranſlations, and acknowledges that they may be mended in ſeveral places: why then may not this be one of the places that ought to be mended in theſe Tranſlations?

For Secondly, It is not to be granted, becauſe it is falſe, that (Beeber) always [Page] ſignifies (beyond.) I demonſtrate as clearly as any thing of this nature can be demonſtrated, that (Beeber) ſignifies alſo [Cis,) on this ſide,] and that in ſome places it muſt do ſo, and cannot do otherwiſe; as for inſtance, in Joſh. 1. 14, 15. where the ſame words (Beeber, Haijarden,) are twice repeated, and of neceſſity muſt be Tranſlated (on this ſide Jordan) and cannot be otherwiſe Tranſlated. For whoſoever he was that wrote the Book of Joſhua, and when or whereſoever it was written, yet ſtill this is true, That before any of the Iſraelites had paſſed over Jordan, here Joſhua is brought in, making a Speech to the Reubenites, Gadites, and half Tribe of Manaſſeh, in which Speech he tells them, That Moſes had given them their poſſeſſion (Beeber, Haijarden,) on this ſide Jordan; here (Beeber) muſt of neceſſity be rendered (on this ſide,) and ſo Maſius renders it; for it would have been notoriouſly falſe for Joſhua in that place, and at that time, to have ſaid, that Moſes had given them their Inheritance beyond Jordan; it being evident to common ſenſe that their Inheritance lay on that ſide Jordan, on which Joſhua was then ſpeaking to them.

[Page] And in 1 Sam. 14. 4. (Mehaeber Mizze) i. e. Eber with the ſame prefixes twice repeated in one Verſe, ſignifies both (on the one ſide,) and (on the other ſide.)

In fine, Moſes ſpeaking of himſelf in the firſt Perſon, uſes the ſame expreſſion (Beeber Haijarden,) which muſt be rendered (on this ſide Jordan,) Deut. 3. 8. otherwiſe it will be falſe; for Moſes was in the Wilderneſs when he uttered theſe words, and he ſpoke them of the Kingdoms of Og and Sihon, which in reſpect of Moſes, did then certainly lie on this ſide Jordan, and not beyond Jordan; by all this it appears, that P. Simon's Argument is grounded on a falſe bottom, that (Beeber) always ſignifies (beyond) which is notoriouſly untrue. In our own Engliſh Tranſlation it is here rightly rendered (on this ſide Jordan.)

Ninthly, He Objects the laſt Chapter of Deuteronomy, as that which could not be written by Moſes, becauſe it gives an account of his Death and Burial, and of ſome things that were done after his Death; and to thoſe that ſay Moſes wrote that Chapter by the Spirit of Prophecy, P. Simon Anſwers, that we ought not to believe them.

[Page] Anſwer, Firſt, No Man who believes that Moſes was a Prophet, and the greateſt Prophet that was before Chriſt, can disbelieve the poſſibility of Moſes his writing that Chapter; and if it be ſaid that it is not probable he ſhould do it; I Anſwer, Undoubtedly Moſes did as improbable things as that: he foretold things at a greater diſtance of time, than was his own Death and Burial, and the Iſraelites Mourning for him Thirty Days in the Plains of Moah.

But Secondly, I do not affirm that Moſes wrote that Chapter, at leaſt the Eight laſt Verſes of it: but ſuppoſe he did not write it, yet I deny that it follows from thence that he was not the Author of the Pentateuch; for it may very vvell be ſaid that that Chapter is really no part of the Pentateuch, or Five books of Moſes, but an Appendix to it, vvritten by ſome other hand, as by Joſhua, or ſome other Holy Man of God after the Death of Moſes.

Tenthly, He Objects, Deut. 31. 22, 24. as if theſe Verſes, and other parts of Deuteronomy, could not be vvritten by Moſes, becauſe Moſes is there ſpoken of in the Third Perſon.

[Page] Anſvver, What a pitiful Argument is this! is it not uſual even with Prophane Authors to ſpeak of themſelves in the Third Perſon? and doth not P. Simon himſelf acknowledg this in Pag. 20. of his Book, ‘[Caeſar (ſays he) ſpeaks of himſelf in the Third Perſon, in his Commentaries; Joſephus does the ſame thing in his Hiſtory of the Wars of the Jews againſt the Romans: and moreover he writes his own Elogy,]’ with what Conſcience then did P. Simon produce this paſſage, to prove that Moſes could not be the Author of the Pentateuch: ſurely any unprejudiced Man would think that this paſſage might be more pertinently alledged, to prove that Moſes was the Author, at leaſt of the Book of Denteronomy.

Eleventhly, He Objects Gen. 12. 6. upon which he ſays, ‘[If Moſes was the Author of the Pentateuch, after the manner as it is at preſent, would he have uſed this way of ſpeaking, (The Canaanite was then in the Land,) it is known that the Canaanites continued the poſſeſſion of this Countrey here ſpoken of, all the time of Moſes, ſo that this could not be writ, but after they had been driven out.]’

[Page] Anſwer, And why might not Moſes uſe that way of ſpeaking, (the Canaanite was then in the Land,) is there any falſhood in it? is it not a certain truth, That the Canaanites were poſſeſſors of the Land of Canaan, when Abraham came firſt, to Sojourn in it? But ſays P. Simon, It is known that the Canaanites continued the poſſeſſion of that Land, all the time of Moſes. True; it is ſo, underſtanding it of the Land beyond Jordan; but what then? why then ſays P. Simon, This could not be writ but after they had been driven out. I deny that conſequence, for I know that all the Criticks in the World cannot prove it. This paſſage under conſideration might very well be written by Moſes, though it was well known that the Canaanites continued poſſeſſors of the Land of Canaan beyond Jordan, all the time of Moſes. Moſes did not write this paſſage to tell the People that the Canaanites were poſſeſſors of Canaan beyond Jordan, all his time, which none of them could be Ignorant of; but he wrote it to make the common Ignorant People know, that the Canaanites had been poſſeſſors of that Land even in the time of Abraham, and that their Father Abraham was but a [Page] ſtranger in it, and had not at his firſt coming ſo much as a foot of Ground in it that he could call his own, (Acts 7. 5.) and that it was of thoſe Canaanites that he afterwards bought the Burying-place at Hebron, or Kirjatharba. Now this was a truth, though moſt certain, yet not ſo evident, but that many of the common People might poſſibly be Ignorant of it; and therefore Moſes writing this Hiſtory for the benefit of the common People, he might put in this paſſage once and again, that they might take ſpecial notice of it, and thereby know with what People it was that Abraham lived after he had left his own Countrey, and Fathers Houſe, even with the Anceſtors of thoſe Canaanites whom they were now to deſtroy and drive out of that Land; and likewiſe that they might thereby be moved to admire the Faithfulneſs and Goodneſs of God towards them, in that he was then putting them in actual poſſeſſion of that good Land, which though promiſed unto Abraham and his Seed, yet was never before actually poſſeſſed by him or them, but was now to be given them according to promiſe. I find Aben Ezra Anſwering this Objection another way; [Page] he ſays, It may be that the Canaanites took that Laud from ſome other People that were poſſeſſors of it before them. And R. Salomon poſitively affirms, That that Land fell to the ſhare and Portion of Shem, when Noah divided the whole World amongſt his Sons; and he proves it by this, That Melchizedeck (whom the Jews believe to be Shem) was King of Salem; but he thinks that the Canaanites took it violently away from Shem's Poſterity, and therefore God promiſed to Abraham that he would give it to him and his Seed, becauſe they were of the Poſterity of Sem, to whom it did originally belong; if this were true and could be proved, it might be thought that Moſes his words here, had reference unto the Canaanites being then in peaceable poſſeſſion of the Land of Canaan, after they had driven out another People that was there before them. But I leave it to the Jews to Anſwer thus; I adhere to the Anſwer given above; to which I add, that the Canaanites were actually driven out of the Two Kingdoms of Sihon and Og, which lay on the Eaſt-ſide of Jordan, before the death of Moſes; and ſhortly after his death they were to be likewiſe driven out [Page] of thoſe Kingdoms which lay on the Weſt-ſide of Jordan; therefore Moſes might very well ſay, That the Canaanites were then in the Land, as intimating thereby, that now they were partly turned out, and partly as it were, a turning out of the Land, and in a ſhort time it might be truly ſaid of them, The Canaanite is not now in the Land: By all which, it plainly enough appears, that there is no weight in this Objection of P. Simons.

Twelfthly, He Objects Gen. 22. 14. and ſays, ‘[It is not likely that Moſes was the Author of this proverbial way of ſpeaking, (in the Monnt of the Lord it ſhall be ſeen) ſince he who has added this to the Text, tells us that it was an uſual Proverb in his time; beſides that this Mount ſeems to be one of the Mounts of the Countrey of Morea, and the name of Morea was not given it till a long time after.]’

Anſwer, Firſt, What though Moſes was not the Author of this proverbial way of ſpeaking? Abraham or Iſaac might be the firſt Authors of the Proverb, and it might be continued amongſt God's People from Abraham or Iſaac down to Moſes's time; and Moſes writing the Hiſtory of thoſe [Page] times as he was guided by the Spirit of God, amongſt other memorable things, he relates this matter of Fact, that that proverbial ſpeech had been perpetuated in the Church of God, and was uſed by the Godly in his time; ſo that whoever was the firſt Author of the proverbial ſpeech, (In the Mount of the Lord it ſhall be ſeen, or in the Mount the Lord ſhall be ſeen, i. e. in due time and place God will help and provide for his faithful obedient Servants, and they ſhall ſee it: God will ſhew himſelf to be a preſent help unto his People that truſt him, in their greateſt ſtraits and difficulties,) I ſay whoever was the firſt Author of this proverbial Speech, nothing hinders but Moſes might be, and was under God, the Author of the Hiſtorical Relation of it.

Anſwer, Secondly, But how does P. Simon prove that Moſes was not the Author of it? why (ſays P. Simon,) becauſe he vvho has added this to the Text, tells us it vvas an uſual Proverb in his time. Anſvver, A rare vvay of proving that Moſes could not vvrite it, becauſe another has vvritten it ſince Moſes, and added it to his Text. But good Father, this is begging not proving. It is the thing in [Page] queſtion, vvhether another than Moſes vvrote it, and added it to his Text; and hovv novv do you prove that another vvrote it and added it to Moſes's Text? for that is to be proved and not taken for granted. And it vvill not prove it, to ſay that he vvho vvrote it, tells us, that it vvas an uſual Proverb in his time. For ſuppoſe Moſes himſelf had both been the firſt Author of it, and alſo the vvriter of it, in this place of Geneſis, he might tell us that it vvas an uſual Proverb in his time; he might have been the Author of it at the Red-Sea, vvhen he ſaid unto the People, (Exod. 14. 13.) Fear ye not, ſtand ſtill and ſee the Salvation of the Lord, which he will ſhew you to Day; he might then have put the People in mind of vvhat God had done of Old for their Father Abraham vvhen he vvas going to Sacrifice his Son on the Mount, vvhich the Lord had told him of; and from thence he might take occaſion to ſay ‘[In the Mount of the Lord it ſhall be ſeen, or in the Mount the Lord ſhall be ſeen, i. e. your extremity this Day, ſhall be Gods opportunity, to ſhevv himſelf to be your preſent and povverful Helper and Deliverer;]’ from vvhich Day forvvard it might have [Page] been remembered, and ſo have paſſed into a Proverb among the People, and Tvventy or Thirty Years after, Moſes might vvrite it vvith his ovvn hand. What incongruity vvould there be in all this, ſuppoſe it had been thus, That Moſes had been the firſt Author, and likewiſe the Hiſtorical Relator of the ſame proverbial Speech? for my part I can diſcern none at all; but this I have ſaid, only to ſhew P. Simons pitiful lame way of reaſoning; for I adhere to what I have written before, that whoever was the firſt Author of the Proverb, whether it was Abraham or Iſaac, &c. yet Moſes might be, and was the Hiſtorical Relator of it.

But P. Simon Objects further, That this Mount ſeems to be one of the Mounts of the Countrey of Morea, and the name of Morea was not given it till a long time after.

I Anſwer, Granting what P. Simon ſays, That the Mount on which Abraham was to have offered his Son, may ſeem to have been one of the Mounts of the Countrey of Morea, and that the name of Morea was not given it till a long time after; I deny that it can be proved from thence, that Moſes was not the Author of the [Page] Pentateuch, and of this paſſage in it; for the name of Morea might be given unto that Countrey firſt by the All-knowing God, when he commanded Abraham to go into it, and offer his Son upon one of its Mountains, (Gen. 22. 2.) and then a long time after, the Inhabitants of it by common conſent might give it the very ſame name of Morea, and might be moved ſo to do, by hearing and believing a credible report, That God himſelf ſpeaking with Abraham, had a long time before given their Countrey the name of Moriah; after which time it might be commonly known in thoſe parts of the World by the name of Moriah; whereas before it might have been known under that name, only by Abraham, Iſaac, and ſome Devout People of Abraham's Poſterity; by this I only intend to ſhew the inconſequence of P. Simon's Argument; he is ſtill ſo unhappy in his reaſoning, that though the premiſſes be granted him, yet the concluſion will not follow. But now if by theſe words, [the name of Morea was not given it till a long time after,] P. Simon means, That that Countrey was not called Moriah, till a long time after Moſes. I Anſwer, That he but begs the [Page] Queſtion, and what he affirms without Proof, I utterly deny, and give this good Reaſon for my denyal of it; becauſe the Text ſays expreſly, (Gen. 22. 2.) That God commanded Abraham to take his only Son Iſaac, and go into the Land of Moriah, and offer him there for a Burnt-offering, &c. From which words it ſeems very evident, that if that Land was not called by the name of Moriah before, yet then at leaſt it began to be called by that name among the Hebrews; for we ſee that God called it by that name, and the ſignification of the name agreeing ſo admirably well with what followed thereupon; it is not likely that ever it was wholly forgotten amongſt the Poſterity of Abraham. If any ſhould ſay, that it may ſeem the name Moriah was given to that Land rather after, than before, the Lord had manifeſted himſelf to Abraham on the Mount.

I Anſwer, Firſt, That can never be proved; why might not the Lord God give it that name before-hand, which ſhould ſignifie what he was there to do on the behalf of Abraham? The Text ſays, That God bid Abraham get him into the Land of Moriah, and their offer, &c.

[Page] I Anſwer, Secondly, Granting that it was given to that Land after the Lord had manifeſted himſelf to Abraham on the Mount, yet it does not follow that therefore it muſt be after Moſes alſo, and in Solomon's time when the Temple was Built upon Mount Moriah, 2 Chron. 3. 1.

Certainly it might have that name long before Moſes, and yet not have it till after Abraham had done offering the Ram inſtead of his Son; for as Abraham immediately after called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh, the Lord will provide; with reſpect to the Anſwer which he had given his Son, Verſ. 8. My Son, God will provide himſelf a Lamb for a Burnt-Offering: So he might at the ſame time call that part of the Countrey the Land of Moriah, or the Land of Viſion, as the Vulgar Interpreter, and Symmachus render it, becauſe there he had ſeen God in a moſt ſignal manner, there God had given him a ſenſible and moſt convincing demonſtration of his ſpecial Providence, and of his peculiar diſcriminating Grace and Love to him and his Seed.

Thirteenthly, and Laſtly, P. Simon Objects, Deut. 3. 11. and thereupon ſays, ‘[If we diligently read what is writ [Page] concerning the Bed of Og King of Baſhan, we ſhall find that thoſe who have collected theſe Books, have added ſome words, to illuſtrate the words of the Text, by conforming them to the practice and cuſtome of their own times.]’

Anſwer, I have diligently read what is there written concerning the Bed-ſtead of Og King of Baſhan, both in the Original, and in ſeveral Tranſlations, and yet I do not find by what I read there, either that any Body beſides Moſes collected thoſe Books, or that he who collected them, hath added ſome words to illuſtrate the words of the Text, by conforming them to the practice and cuſtome of his own time. I ſuppoſe P. Simon would have us believe, that the laſt words, [Beammath Iſh,] (after the Cubit of a Man) have been added to the Text after the time of Moſes: but he muſt firſt prove that there was no ſuch diſtinction of Cubits known in the World, in the time of Moſes, and ſo that Moſes could not write theſe words, which expreſs one Member of the diſtinction; methinks it is very eaſily conceivable that Moſes himſelf might be moved to add this explication of his own words, if we conſider that there might be diverſe ſorts of [Page] Cubits than in uſe, of which ſome might be longer than others, now if it had been only ſaid, that Nine Cubits was the length, and Four Cubits the breadth of the Giants Bed-ſtead, the Reader would not have known what Cubits he meant, and conſequently would have ſtill remained ignorant of the exact meaſure of the Bed-ſtead, therefore Moſes to take away all ambiguity, adds for explication of his own words, that it was the Cubit of a Man, i. e. the common ordinary Cubit, which was then ſo well known amongſt the Iſraelites that there remained no more ground of doubting of what meaſure the Giants Bed-ſtead was; and if any were ſo incredulous as not to believe Moſes relation of the length and breadth of the Giant Bed-ſtead, they might go themſelves to Rabbath, and there ſee it and meaſure it by the Cubit of a Man. But ſome may ſay, How came King Og's Bed-ſtead to be at that time in Rabbath amongſt the Ammonites? I Anſwer, it might come to be there any of theſe Three ways, (1.) In time of War, the Ammonites might have plundered the Countrey of Og King of Baſhan, and might have carried his Iron Bed-ſtead with other ſpoil into their own Countrey; or (2.) King [Page] Og being to fight with Moſes and the Iſraelites at Edrei, and fearing the event of the Battel, as he had good reaſon, might ſend his own Iron Bead-ſtead with many other neceſſary things to Rabbath to be ſecured for him amongſt the Ammonites, whither he might intend to flee, in caſe he ſhould be vanquiſhed in the Battel at Edrei, and be able to make his eſcape; or (3.) the Iſraelites having Conquered the whole Kingdom of Baſhan, and utterly deſtroyed all the Inhabitants, King Og and all his Subjects, taken all his Cities, to the number of Sixty, and poſſeſſed themſelves of all that belonged to him, or his People; if this Bed-ſtead was in the whole Kingdom at that time, it muſt of neceſſity fall into the hands of the Iſraelites: and Iſrael being at Peace with the Ammonites, they might come and Trade with the Iſraelites, and eſpecially at ſuch a time they might come to buy part of the Spoil, and amongſt other things their curioſity might prompt them to buy the Iron Bed-ſtead of the Giant Og, and to carry it into their own Countrey, which in former times had been a Land of Giants, as appears from Deut. 2. 19, 20, 21. and no doubt they might have ancient Monuments of thoſe Giants, [Page] whom they called Zamzummims, remaining amongſt them, and thoſe that wanted might be deſirous to have by them ſome ſuch Monuments of Giants to ſhow, as well as their Neighbours; and this might be done before Moſes either ſpoke or wrote the words of that Verſe Objected by P. Simon. Thus you ſee that any of theſe Three ways, the Iron Bed-ſtead of Og might come to be in Rabbath of the Children of Ammon, when Moſes wrote the Book of Deuteronomy.

There are yet Two Objections againſt Moſes his being the Author of the Pentateuch, which I remember I have read in Spinoſa, his Tractatus Theologico Politicus, and becauſe I would omit nothing of any Moment, that the Adverſaries have written againſt the Truth which the Church of God believes, and I defend, I ſhall here ſet them down, and Anſwer them, as I have done with P. Simon's.

Fourteenthly, Then, Spinoſa Objects, Deut. 2. 12. where it is ſaid, ‘That the Children of Eſau deſtroyed the Horims, and dwelt in their ſtead, as Iſrael did unto the Land of his Poſſeſſion which the Lord gave unto them; now he pretends that this could not be written by [Page] Moſes, becauſe Iſrael did not deſtroy the Canaanites, and take poſſeſſion of Canaan till after his Death.’

I Anſwer, At this rate of arguing, a Man might prove, that our Lord Chriſt when he inſtituted the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, did not ſpeak theſe words, [This is my Blood which is ſhed for many, —This is my Body which is given, or broken for you,] becauſe his Blood was not ſhed, nor his Body broken, till the Day after; and yet it is moſt certain that he did ſpeak thoſe words when he inſtituted the Holy Sacrament, the Night before his Death. But then you will ask, why did our Lord ſpeak ſo, why did he ſay, This is my Blood which is ſhed, this is my Body which is broken, when neither was the one ſhed, nor the other broken? I Anſwer, He did ſo, becauſe it was an ordinary way of ſpeaking amongſt the Jews, to expreſs themſelves in the Preterit or Preſent Tenſe, when they were talking or writing of a thing that was ſhortly and certainly to come to paſs; and therefore the Vulgar Interpeter attending more to the ſenſe, than to the bare words of our Lord, renders them, Hic eſt ſanguis meus qui pro multis effundetur, hoc eſt corpus meum[Page]quod pro vobis tradetur; this is my Blood which ſhall be ſhed, and my Body which ſhall be given; after the ſame manner may we underſtand the words of Moſes, [as Iſrael did, i. e. as Iſrael ſhall ſhortly and certainly do to the Land of his Poſſeſſion;] beſides there was this good reaſon why Moſes ſhould uſe the Preterit Tenſe, becauſe the thing he was writing of, was partly paſt already, Iſrael had already deſtroyed the Inhabitants of Two Kingdoms, and taken actual poſſeſſion of the Land; and it was partly to be within a ſhort time, Iſrael was ſhortly to do ſo by all the other Inhabitants of the Land of his poſſeſſion, which God had given him; Moſes then having reaſon to write as he did, Spinoſa had no reaſon to cavil at the manner of his expreſſion.

Fifteenthly, He Objects, Deut. 3. 14. and from theſe words, ‘[Jair called them after his own name, Baſhan-havoth-jair, unto this Day,]’ infers that this muſt have been written long after Moſes.

Anſwer, Some think that theſe words, [ƲNTO THIS DAY,] have been after Moſes put in the Margin, and in proceſs of time have crept into the Text, or elſe that Ezdras hath inſerted them into the Text. [Page] But there is no neceſſity of Anſwering thus; for Firſt, Moſes wrote the Book of Deuteronomy ſome Months after Jair had taken the Countrey of Argob, and called it after his own name, (Baſhan-havoth-jair,) therefore Moſes himſelf might very well ſay, that the Countrey of Argob was called after the name of Jair unto this Day, that is from the time of Jair his taking of it, and calling it Baſhan-havoth-jair, unto the Day of Moſes writing that part of the Book of Deuteronomy; for there was nothing but truth in his ſo ſaying. Secondly, Moſes wrote the Book of Deuteronomy not only for the preſent Generation, but alſo for the Generations to come, according to that of the Pſalmiſt, Pſal. 102. 18. This ſhall be written for the Generations to come; and conſequently knew that theſe words, (unto this Day,) would be further verified in after Ages: Therefore he might purpoſely uſe theſe words, (unto this Day,) as intending thereby to ſignifie unto the Iſraelites in their ſeveral Generations, that the Countrey of Argob was called after the name of Jair, (Baſhan-havoth-jair,) from Jairs firſt taking of it, unto their time; there being then no falſity nor abſurdity in the words, [Page] (unto this Day,) as here uſed, Moſes himſelf might very well be the Author of them: nay they are ſo ſignificant with reſpect to future Generations, as I have ſhewed, that Moſes his Wiſdom appears in chooſing to expreſs himſelf in ſuch words as were actually true, when he firſt ſpoke and wrote them, and yet were to be further verified in all ſucceeding Generations, ſo long as the Hebrew-Commonwealth ſtood; ſo much for Anſwer unto Spinoſa his Two Objections.

I have now gone through all that P. Simon hath written to prove that Moſes could not be the Author of the Pentateuch, I have examined all his Arguments, and Anſwered every one of them; there is not one good Argument amongſt them all, not one that can prove his poſition, That Moſes cannot be the Author of the Books attributed to him; and verily many of them are (I think) ſuch pitiful trifling things, that a reaſonable Man and Chriſtian ſhould be aſhamed of them. The reaſon why I meddle with no more of his Critical Hiſtory, than what concerns the Pentateuch, is, Firſt, Becauſe this was defigned to accompany the precedent Diſcourſe, concerning the proofs of the Books [Page] of Moſes; and therefore I thought fit to deal with P. Simon only upon that point, wherein he ſeemed to contradict what the Author of the excellent Diſcourſe affirms and proves: that ſo his Objections being all Anſwered, that Diſcourſe may remain firm and unſhaken, and in its full ſtrength, and that Infidels may not pretend that P. Simon has confuted it; which is ſo far from being true, that the vain ſucceſleſs attempt of ſo great a Man (as P. Simon is accounted,) to prove that Moſes could not be the Author of the Pentateuch; is an Argument that the thing is not practicable, it cannot be done: for if it could, P. Simon is counted as able, and to me ſeems to have been as willing to have done it, as any other Man.

Secondly, Becauſe if the Divine Truth and Authority of Moſes and his Law, and of Chriſt and his Goſpel, be well ſecured, our Chriſtian Religion is ſecured in its main ſtrength and fundamental grounds, againſt Atheiſts and Infidels. As for the reſt of P. Simon's Book, I doubt not but ſome Men of greater Abilities for ſuch a work, than I, will in due time thoroughly examine it, and ſeparate the Chaff from the Wheat, allowing him his due praiſe [Page] where he hath done well; and chaſtiſing him where he hath done evil; you may gueſs by this, that it will not be ſo difficult to do it, as ſome may apprehend. In the mean time, if his vain Cavils at ſeveral expreſſions here and there in the Holy Scriptures, ſhould be a tentation unto any to think meanly of the Scriptures themſelves; I deſire ſuch, if they can, to read ſome part of Origens Philocalia, Chap. 1. Pag. 4, & 5. in Spencers Edition at Cambridge, 1658. and to conſider that, as Origen ſays, Every one of the Works of God, do not equally, but ſome more and ſome leſs, declare and ſhew forth the Glory of God in his Beeing and Providence; after the ſame manner all the parts of God's written Word, do not equally, but ſome more clearly, and ſome more obſcurely, evidence themſelves to be of God. And as there are ſome dark occurrences in Providence that tempt weak and ſinful Men to doubt of God's Beeing and Providence, juſt ſo there are ſome dark and difficult paſſages in Holy Scripture, that tempt Men to doubt of the Divine Verity and Authority of of the Scriptures; and yet as none but Fools, (Pſal. 14. 1.) will disbelieve the Beeing and Providence of God, becauſe there are ſome things in his Nature and Providence which they cannot comprehend; ſo no Wiſe Man will diſbelieve the Holy Scriptures, becauſe there are here and there ſome paſſages in them which he cannot underſtand; Lo they have rejected the word of the Lord, and what Wiſdom is in them? ſays the Prophet Jeremiah, (Jer. 8. 9.)

[Page] Indeed there can be no true Wiſdom in them who reject the Word of the Lord; for his Word believed and practiſed, is our Wiſdom and our Underſtanding, and makes us a wiſe and underſtanding People, (Deut. 4. 5, 6,). The Teſtimony of the Lord is ſure, making Wiſe the Simple, (Pſal. 19. 7.) If ever then we would be truly Wiſe, let us againſt all Tentations to the contrary, eſteem highly of, and adhere ſtedfaſtly unto the Holy Scriptures of Truth; for it is they that are able to make us wiſe unto Salvation, through Faith which is in Chriſt Jeſus, (2 Tim. 3. 15.)

If what I have here written do contribute any thing towards the helping of Chriſtian Readers to keep up in their Souls a due eſteem of, and reverend regard unto the Holy Scriptures, and towards the ſtrengthning of them againſt Tentations to unbelief, I have obtained my end; and deſire them to let me have the help and benefit of their Prayers, but let him have all the Praiſe, who is the Father of Lights, and the God of all Grace, unto whom be Glory in the Church by Chriſt Jeſus, throughout all Ages, World without End, Amen.

FINIS.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

An excellent discourse proving the divine original and authority of the five books of Moses written originally in French by Monsieur Du Bois de la Cour, and approved by six doctors of the Sorbon ; to which is added a second part, or an examination of a considerable part of Pere Simon's critical history of the Old Testament ... by W.L.

Filleau de la Chaise, Jean, 1631-1688.

Edition statement

1682

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2007-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A70111

ID [STC]

Wing F904

ID [STC]

ESTC R28418

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

10590506

ID [OCLC]

ocm 10590506

ID [VID]

45306

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A70111)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 45306)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1383:27 or 1590:30)

Source

— An excellent discourse proving the divine original and authority of the five books of Moses written originally in French by Monsieur Du Bois de la Cour, and approved by six doctors of the Sorbon ; to which is added a second part, or an examination of a considerable part of Pere Simon's critical history of the Old Testament ... by W.L., Filleau de la Chaise, Jean, 1631-1688., Lorimer, William, d. 1721..

Extent

[42], 168 p.

Printed for Tho. Parkhurst,. London :: 1682.. (Second part has special t.p.) (Item at Reel 1590:30 identified as Wing D2407 (number cancelled).) (Reproduction of original in the Edinburgh University Library and the British Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.