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 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, 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 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.

(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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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.]

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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.

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 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 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 (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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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 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 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. 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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, 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 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 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, 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.

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.

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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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.

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 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. 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.]

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 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; 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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, 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 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 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. 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, (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 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 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.)

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.