ea quae non comprehenduntur ita neque scripturae divinitati per eam totam diffusae quidquam detrahitur ex eo quòd ad singulas dictiones imbecillitas nostra non possit adesse arcano splendori doctrinae qui in tenui contemptâ locutione delitescit Orig. Philoc. cap. 1. pag. 5. Edit Cantabrig 1658. London Printed for Tho. Parkhurst 1682. The Second Part. 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 it s 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 Man 's 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
Books written in former Ages at any considerable distance are the Books of those Authors whose they are said to be 32. And let none say that there are Books which after they had passed for a time under the Name of certain Authors have at last been found to be supposiâ—icious for without entring upon the Examination of that matter I say that it is absolutely Impossible that this could happen to a Book of the greatest importance to which the certainty of the Authors Name is Essential and whereof in all Ages Men have had so much cause and so great an Interest to examine the Origination and Truth for as Truth is of such a Nature that all things except falshood agree with it all things concur to Establish it and there is neither care nor labour that can find out any thing which is able to overthrow it so on the contrary it is impossible but falshood will at last be found out if we endeavour it because it cannot be but there will be an infinite number of things that are contrary unto it and how great soever be the foresight and cunning of Impostors it is not possible though the humane understanding were not so limited as it is to foresee all inconveniencies or to suit and accommodate every thing to the preventing of them when they are foreseen for in fine though there were for that purpose certain effects whereof men were Masters and had the disposal It is cettain that there is also an infinite number of things which they have no power at all to dispose of to be able to prevent all things that might discover their forgery they must be in a condition to dispose of things present and to come to change the order of all things and in a word to command the Nature the wits and wills of men at their pleasure 33. But besides this we have yet incomparably more and stronger proofs of the Books of Moses than there are of any other Books Other Books are in few peoples hands and there are not many who think themselves concerned in them those that are concerned in them do but seldom mind them or their Interest in them and even that Interest can be but comparatively of small importance But the Books we speak of are of a much different nature they have always been in the hands of a whole great Nation they have been the object of their continual meditation and since they were the foundation of their Religion and that a Religion which abhors lying and deceiving how could they have suffered themselves to be imposed upon in the matter of the Authors name and the Book it self to be corrupted by the addition of so many Fables or could it be done without their knowledg yea and who durst be so bold as ever to attempt it 34. Let men take a full view of that prodigious Series of Miracles wrought in Aegypt and in the Wilderness and then judge impartially whether these are things that could be inserted into a Book and yet that Book be made to pass for the Original This is the most that could be done to some inconsiderable Book which should fall into the hands but of a few persons and with some particular Miracle pretended to have been wrought before a few witnesses and moreover we see that such things do not spread far nor last long they are scarcely sooner forged but they begin to be questioned in so much that in time they come to be regarded by none but the simple people who believe by the Faith of the next intruder and do not so much as think of getting clear and certain notions of the least thing in the World But there is nothing upon Earth clear if this be not that such things could not happen to such a Book as we have described this to be I might as well say that it would be no hard matter to insert now into the New Testament an History as long and as considerable as that of Moses his Miracles in Aegypt and the Wilderness and how ridiculous soever this supposition appeareth to be I know not whither it was not yet more difficult to insert such fabulous stories into the Books of Moses since the Jews had at least as high an esteem for their Sacred Books of the Law as we have for ours of the Gospel and there were none among them whose most near and natural Interest it was not to know what they contained had it been only that they might learn how to save themselves from that death which they were to suffer without reprieve upon failure of the performance of some duties prescribed by their Law 35. But that which invincibly proves the falshood of this supposition is this That there are in a manner two Histories of Moses the one written in the Book that bears his name the other as it were Engraven on the Ceremonies and Laws observed by the Jews the practice whereof is a living Witness in behalf of the Book which Instituted them and even in behalf of the most wonderful things which it contains for the greatest part of those most astonishing Miracles were represented by the Ceremonies and by the other things which belonged to the Worship of the Jewish Religion the Pot of Manna kept in the Ark was a standing Monument of the Miraculous Food wherewith God fed that People in the Wilderness Aarons Rod that Budded was a Monument of the way how God confirmed unto him the Office of High-Priesthood and the Tables of the Covenant were a Memorial of that which is Recorded in Exodus concerning the establishment of the Law the Sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb the Ceremony of Unleavened-Bread the assigning of the Tribe of Levy unto the Ministry of the Temple did represent the destroying Angels passing over the Houses of the Israelites the Death of the First-born of the Aegyptians and the deliverance of those of the Israeletes The brazen Plates which were fastned to and covered the Altar were a memorial of the Death of those audacious Levites who willfully contended with Aarons Race for the Priesthood in fine the Ark the Tabernacle all the different Ministries of the Priests and Levites all the Ceremonies of the Sacrifices and Purifications all the Laws the Assignation of the Country beyond Jordan to the two Tribes of Reuben and Gad and to the half Tribe of Manasse the Cities of Refuge for such as should happen to slay a Man unwittingly all these things I say which it would be as Ridiculous to deny as to pretend that there never was any Jew in the World have a necessary respect unto and connexion with the Books of Moses and Invincibly prove that they could not have been written since his time 36. For otherwise either all that we have been now discoursing of must also have been Established since Moses and after the Publishing of the Books ascribed unto him or else having been Established by Moses by word of Mouth and without any Book some other
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 Vt 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 Common-wealth 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
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
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
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
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
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 VNTO 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 FINIS a Exod. 5. 1 2 3. 7. 1 2 3 4 5. 3. 14 15 16 17 18. 4. from 1 to 9. 6. from 1 to 8. Deut. 4. 9 to 24. b Exod. 20. 3 4 5 6 7 c. ibid. v. 20 22 23. 23. 13. Deut. 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10. 7. 1 2 3 4 5 6. 12. 29 30 31 32. 18. 9 10 11 12 13 14. Deut. 4. 32 to 41. Exod. 20. 24 latter part of the Verse Deut. 4. 7. c Exod. 20. 17. Lev. 19. 17 18. d Exod. 21. 13. Deut. 19. e Levit. 25. 23 c. f Exod. 21. 1 2 c. Deut. 15. 12 to 19. 24. 14 15. g Deut. 15. 6 to 12. Exod. 22 25 26 27. h Exod. 22. 21. Levit. 19. 33. 34. i Exod. 22. 22 23 24. k Exod. 20. 12. 22. 28. Deut. 17. 11. l Deut. 1. 16 17. 17. 16 17 18 19 20. 25. 1.
An Excellent DISCOURSE Proving the Divine Original and Authority OF The Five BOOKS OF MOSES Written Originally in French by Monsieur Du Bois de la Cour and Approved by six Doctors of the Sorbon To Which is added a SECOND PART OR AN EXAMINATION Of a considerable part of PERE SIMON 's Critical History of the Old Testament wherein all his Objections With the Weightiest of Spinosa's against Moses's being the Author of the first Five Books of the Bible are Answered and some difficult places of Holy Scripture are Explained By W. L. London Printed for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside near Mercers Chappel 1682. A PREFACE Opening the true Nature and Reasons of a Saving-Faith § 1. THere is no Man that ever heard the Gospel and hath such a care of his everlasting State as beseemeth a reasonable Creature but must needs perceive of how great weight it is to be well assured of the truth of those supernatural Revelations delivered to us in the Sacred Scriptures Much may be known by the well studied Book of Nature But not enough to quiet the mind of Man by assured hopes of future Happiness and the way thereto And therefore almost all the Heathen and Infidel World have their Augures or Prophets on whom they depend as Conscious of the necessity of more than common natural Light Besides that it requireth greater helps and longer studies to understand the Book of Nature than the generallity of Mankind can use whereas God by his word hath made all necessary truth so plain that Children in a short time may grow wiser than the Philosophers § 2. No wonder then if it be the great work of the Prince of Darkness the Enemy of God and Man to deprive the World of the benefit of the Sacred Sacriptures which he doth First By keeping most of the Earth from knowing it for want of Teachers mostly kept out by the Persecution of Tyrants and Idolatrous Priests Secondly By keeping those that hear it from believing it Thirdly By keeping those that believe it from the right understanding of it Fourthly By keeping those that partly understand it from a serious considering what they understand Fifthly By keeping Men from a willing obedience to what they know and think of § 3. Among professed Christians it is the want of a sound Belief which is the great cause of all Ungodliness and Misery And no wonder For it is an high and excellent work to live on the joyful belief and hope of an unseen everlasting Life And in this dark State believing must conquer many difficulties which slothful Men will rather yield to than duely strive to overcome § 4. First We have contracted so inordinate a Love to this kind of life in Flesh that corrupt Nature is loth to think of any other because it would not part with this And when Men are convinced only of a necessity of looking forward beyond the Grave this changeth not their love but still an unwilling backward heart receiveth the notices of the Life to come but as unpleasant Physick which nothing but meer necessity will get down And how ill a Receiver an unwilling mind is experience telleth all the World Yea so backward and senseless is depraved Nature that even this necessity is seldom seriously considered till the Sentence of Death awaken the Soul and are Men then fit to begin so hard a study as must shew them the certainty of the Gospel and the Life to come and to get Faith when they must use it § 5. Secondly And I write it as necessitated and with Lamentation it is not all Mens Lot to have Teachers that shew them the right way even of founding their Belief and discerning the certainty of the Gospel and the Immortality of Souls If I should tell you how many Parishes that have Weekly Sermons in which Faith and Christianity and Heaven are mentioned have Teachers that cannot confute an Infidel or Sadducee or teach Men clearly how to be sure that their Faith and Hope are not meer Errour and that cannot tell which way well to prove the truth of their profest Religion some would be offended at it that are not offended at their own sad defect who are ignorant of so needful a part of the Catechisme which every Christian should be taught § 6. Sad numerous instances are too clear a clear a proof First It is become so great a controversie whether Faith have any Evidence or not and whether we can certainly prove the Gospel to be true or rather must merit the more by believing it without proof that the Papists are together by the Ears about it and those Protestants that handle it differ among themselves But the most keep their peace by not daring to decide it And how can those Teachers shew the people the ascertaining Evidence and Proof who hold that there is none to be shewn The objects of Faith are not evident to Sense not seen not tasted c. but the truth of the Revelation hath ascertaining proof And nothing is provable but by intelligible Evidence Secondly The whole Papal Church almost holds That the method of believing the Gospel is to believe it on the Authority of the Church's proposal or affirmation As if Men must believe that Christ hath a Church and that it is thus Authorized before they believe that he is the Christ and hath Authority himself or any Law that gives Authority A multitude of impossibles are here supposed before Man can be a true believer which I have fully manifested elsewhere Thirdly Some that see how unable the vulgar and unlearned are to manage a matter of such weight and difficulty and fearing least a tryal of their Faith against hard objections should but overturn it perswade the weak only to believe and not to doubt but not to ask why nor to search for Reasons for their Faith least disputing the case and hearing objections which they cannot answer should make them Infidels or crack their Brains Fourthly Some tell them that it is only the inward witness of the Spirit in themselves that can assure them that the Scriptures are the word of God Not telling them well what that Testimony is nor how those that yet hear it not shall be convinced of unbelief Fifthly Some by overdoing tell us that the Scripture so shineth propria luce and conteineth its own evidence of Divinity so clearly that a Man that doth but read it though he found it by the high-way and never before heard of it may there see sufficient evidence that it is all of God Sixthly Some by greater overdoing distinguish not the Essentials of Religion from the Integrals or Accidents nor the words from the matter nor the Law and Gospel from the subordinate parts of the Bible in point of evidence and necessity and so would tempt Men to think that if any sentence in our Bibles translation or original be mistaken we can have no certainty of the truth of any of
the rest Seventhly And these by overdoing would perswade us that every word in the Bible is as much Divine as the Decalogue or Lords Prayer and hath nothing in it of humane imperfection in stile or order but is all such as God himself would have written if he had made no use of Man Eighthly And some are so afraid of Popery and the name of Tradition and the Testimony of the Church that they disable their own Faith by rejecting the necessary use of Tradition and the Churches Testimony not being able justly to distinguish Ninthly And too many distinguish not Historical Evidence from the Churches pretended Authoritative determination Tenthly And some cannot tell what Historical Evidence is also Physical and what maketh it so as differing from Moral uncertain Testimony And if Teachers of the Foundation have all these gross defects and more is it any wonder if unstudied Lay-men are here puzled in the dark § 7. I am not now to write a Treatise to tell Men the true method of Preaching Faith I have done that elsewhere especially in The Reasons of Christian Religion The unreasonableness of Infidelity The Life of Faith and a small Book called The certainty of Christianity without Popery But I shall here give the unfurnished Reader a few necessary Distinctions and Conclusions § 8. Conclusion I. Divine Faith is a sort of knowledg with Trust to the credit of God revealing and therefore must have evidence 1. That it is the word of God that is proposed 2. And that God doth not lie or deceive us Conclus II. It is the matter signified which is the prime necessary object of our Faith and the words only as the vehicle or signs of the matter Conclus III. No one particular word in the Bible or the World is of absolute necessity to be known but another may serve that hath the same signification If any word were absolutely necessary to be known if it be English none could be saved but English-men if Greek or Hebrew none could be saved but Grecians or Hebricians c. Conclus IV. The Gospel is not those same words that Christ spake but a Translation of them It s supposed that he spake in the Language then used by the Jews which was a mixture of Chaldee and Syriack but the Gospel is written in Greek so that our Original thereof is but a Divine Translation of Christs words Conclus V. Christ promised and gave his Spirit to his Apostles and Evangelists to bring all things that he had taught them to their remembrance and to lead them into all truth and teach them what to say so far as to perform their Commission To Disciple the Nations Baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things that he had Commanded them And thus far they were infallible Conclus VI. The words therefore of the several writers are so far Divine as to be the true and certain signifiers or expressions of so much of Christs Life and Doctrine as he saw needful for the use of Man to the end of the World to be made known Conclus VII But all the Gospel writers recite not the same matter just in the same words nor in the same Order nor in the same Stile And as all humane Language savoureth of humane imperfection and the faculties of Men are not all of one degree of strength and custome varyeth wise Mens Stile so the Apostles were but Men and the very Words Stile and Order of their writing had the effects of sinless humane imperfection and were not such as that God himself could not have done it better But it s all of God as suited to its proper use Conclus VIII The Gospel was God's word Preached by them before they wrote it Eight Years before St. Matthew wrote and about Sixty Seven or Sixty Eight Years before St. John wrote the Gospel And it is not to be imagined that in their Preaching they spake just all the same words which they wrote and no more Conclus IX All the Miracles that were then wrought were first to confirm the Gospel as Preached before the Books were written Conclus X. But God knowing that the Apostles must die and the Gospel must be infallibly delivered to the end of the World inspired them to write not only the Essentials but all that was necessary for the World to know in all Generations and leave it as the Sacred Record of his redeeming Work his Doctrine and his universal Law written infallibly by the Spirit of Jesus which he sent as his Agent for that work so that the same Miracles which confirmed their words are now equally a Seal of the Divine Authority of their writings Conclus XI All the words in the Gospel are not Essential to Christianity nor of equal necessity to be explicitely known the Doctrine of Baptism and the Lords Supper with the Decalogue and Lords Prayer contain all the Essentials of Christianity truly understood which Doctrine of Baptism the Church ever expounded in a few plain Articles called the Creed And they always took those Sacraments and that Creed with the Lords Prayer and the Decalogue expounded by Christ as the summaries of our Belief Desires and Practice to be the Gospel and Christian Religion The Ministry and Church Order instituted by the Spirit of Christ being an Integral part and these they diferenced from the Subsidiary and Ornamental parts of Scripture in point of Necessity and Evidence And they that believed these were saved whether it was before the rest was written or if they never heard or understood the rest Conclus XII And before Christ the Law of Moses must be greatly distinguished from the other Historical Books and Prophesies As the Law of this Land by which all men hold their Lands and Lives and must be governed greatly differ from daily verbal Mandates or written Commissions which the King may give to particular Persons so the Covenant of Grace and the Law of Moses much differ from the particular Messages of Prophets and the words of Priests about that Law or the deeds of men Universal and Common Laws are of Universal and Common Obligation and therefore all must be certain of their Authority But the Obedience and Salvation of the Land or World was not laid on e. g. the Prophets Message to Saul to Jeroboam to Hezekiah c. Therefore in these Cases the People are left sometimes to see whether Predictions come to pass and its harder for them to know who is a true Prophet the necessity being lesser Conclus XIII It is therefore greatly to be noted that 1. The Law of Nature needed no Miracles to Confirm it being legible in the Nature of Man and of all about him 2. The Law of Moses which that Nation was to be ruled by had so full evidence of Divine Authority that it was scarce possible for the Jews of that Age to doubt of it The ten Plagues of Egypt the opening of the
and is and is to come of whom through whom and to whom are all things that we may be most happy in union with him and in the enjoyment of his Love and Favor for evermore I might here speak of that account which Moses gives of the Creation of the World and especially of Mankind of the Disobedience and Apostacy of Mankind and of the Miseries that came upon the World by reason thereof And of the restoring of Man to the favor of God again by the Mediation of the Messias who was promised and Prophesied of first under the name and notion of the Seed of the Woman that was to bruise the Serpents Head Gen. 3. 15. then of the Seed of Abraham by Isaac in which Seed all the Nations of the Earth were to be Blesied Gen. 22. 18. 26. 4. and afterwards of the Seed of Jacob by Judah and stiled SHILOH unto whom the gathering of the People was to be Gen. 28. 14. compared with Gen. 49. 10. Numb 24. 16 17 19. and lastly under the name and notion of a Prophet like nnto Moses and who by consequence was to be a Lawgiver and Mediator Deut. 18. 18 19. I might shew the Reader that Moses's Writings set forth God as placable and reconcileahle Gen. 3. 15. 4. 7. as pleased and reconciled Gen. 4. 4. 8. 20 21. and as pleased and reconciled by Faith Gen. 15. 6. I might demonstrate that the account which Moses gives of these things is highly agreeable to right reason and experience and that it is most comfortable and satisfactory to the mind of Man But all this cannot he done in the compass of a short Epistle The Reader may expect that I should at least say something in behalf of the Two following Discourses but if he do he will be disappointed for having said enough in commendation of the First Disconrse in the beginning of the Second I will say no more of either but leave both to speak for themselves Only I must advertise the Reader That the Translation varies from the Original in some Two or Three things and this is the reason of the variation I found that there were several palpable mistakes in the French Discourse and I am resolved through God's Grace to follow no Man in known mistakes therefore I mended them As where the Author says That the broad Plates for covering the Altar made of the Censers of Corah and his Company were Plates of Gold I say as the truth is that they were Plates of Brass Numb 16. 39. And again where the Author says That Moses Condemned Thirty or Forty Thousand Men and commanded them all to be presently Executed I say that he did so by several Thousands which is true for the number of the Slain was about Three Thousand Exod. 32. 28. but our Learned Author was certainly mistaken for his reckoning neither agrees exactly with the Vulgar Translation nor yet with the Hebrew Verity Christian Reader I will detain thee no longer from the perusal of the Discourses themselves and that the use of them may he blessed to thee for thy Souls good is and shall be the earnest desire of Thy Seavant in all things wherein he may Serve our Lord Christ and his Church W. L. A DISCOURSE On the Proofs of the BOOKS of MOSES 1. THE Christian Religion doth freely acknowledge that the wit of Man cannot reach the the height of the Mysteries which it teacheth and that the humane understanding is too narrow and limited to discover the grounds of them in the Eternal springs of Truth where they would appear to us as clear as first and self evident Principles if our sight could reach so far Nevertheless it pretends not that we should believe them absolutely without proof and by a blind Instinct and God hath not given Man Reason and Understanding to render so great a present not onely useless but also hurtful to him by propounding unto him such objects of Faith only against which his Reasoning faculty should be in a continual mutiny and contradictory opposition That is the case of those Sects which are founded only upon Wild Fancies Groundless Conceits and Phanatical Visions and which are Established upon and Upheld by no other Principle than such an extravagant abuse of Reason as that was by which they were first hatcht Whereas the Christian Religion is such that how impenetrable soever be the depth of its mysteries yet none can doubt of their truth but by such another kind of extravagancy 2. For the business is not to examine the possibility of those mysteries nor to cure the wit of Man as touching all the difficulties which it finds to submit unto them men would be unreasonable to desire to comprehend them since they cannot comprehend themselves and yet doubt not of their own Existence It is sufficient that it may be demonstrated to them that all those so unconceivable Truths are linked not only with other Truths which they know but also with such Truths as of all others are most proportionat to their understanding and whereof they may be assured by the most evident and certain means 3. If men have a certain knowledg of any thing it is of matters of Fact of all things which they know there is not any wherein it is more difficult to impose upon them and concerning which there is less occasion of dispute and so when it shall be clearly shewed them that the Christian Religion is inseperably linked with matters of Fact whereof the Truth cannot be questioned by men of common honesty and integrity they must either submit unto the belief of all its Doctrines or else they must renounce sincerity and reason 4. For instance if there was such a Man as Moses and if he was the Author of the Books commonly attributed unto him then the Jewish Religion is true if the Jewish Religion be true then Jesus Christ is the Messias and if Jesus Christ be the Messias then all that he said and taught is to be believed and consequently the Trinity the Incarnation and all the other mysterious Doctrines of the Christian Religion are to be believed 5. It is by this Divine concatenation of Truths that God leads Men unto the true Faith and that they are enabled to show that there is nothing more rational than their submission unto the most incomprehensible mysteries so far are they from deserving to be charged with weakness and imprudence on that account and since the great Body of Christian Religion is composed of a very great number of different Parts which all tend to the same end and hath had a Being about six thousand years it cannot be but that it must consist of very many particular Truths all linked together as in one chain and that every Age must have given new proofs thereof and consequently that wheresoever a Man begins to what point soever he applies himself he will always meet with such an abundance of light that it will be impossible for
few in which the Israelites could not be deceived that is sufficient to convince us and oblige us to believe all the rest and to look upon Moses as the Minister of God who would reveal himself to Men since the Laws of Nature once Violated suffice to teach us and make us see that there is something above Nature and never Man before Jesus Christ appeared so visibly to have been entrusted with the power of that Lord of Nature as this Man that we speak of 26. It may be some will rather chuse to say That in truth it is impossible that Moses should have deceived the Jews but That it may very well be that they themselves have helped on the Cheat and that they may have looked upon that heap of Miracles as fabulous as they were as a thing that might make them to be admired by other Nations But in truth there is nothing but the desire of devising to ones felf some ground of doubting what ever it be that could produce such a Phantastical supposition for of all the suppositions that Infidelity could suggest this certainly is the most undefensible We shall show by and by that this people could not have contributed their help to this Imposture by supposing that presently or some time after Moses his Death and the Law being already established amongst them some new Upstart devised such a strange way to make them considerable and famous in the World and by proving that their Love to their Nation would have been so far from inducing them to consent to it as that it will appear that that alone would have been an invincible obstacle thereunto which is no less true with respect to Moses than it is with respect to any other But there is yet infinitely less probability that the first Jews would consent to any such thing for who could imagine that they would have plotted with Moses to bring themselves in Subjection to a Law which they believed to be the meer product of his invention and that for the same Law of which they had such an opinion they would have suffered themselves to be used so rigorously as that a meer omission in Ceremonies should be punished with Death and that without murmuring or repining at it what more can be done or suffered on the account of things that are most seriously managed and believed and that are found to be established time out of mind besides that it would be a rare sight indeed to see Five or Six Hundred Thousand Men all agreed to report a known Falshood and that none of them all nor of their Posterity should ever contradict it and give the rest the Lie 27. For there was not one of those Miracles whereof every particular person of that numerous people all encamped together could not but have known the Falsity if they had been false and which yet he was to Authorize as having seen it with his own Eyes or as having been done in his own or his Fathers time what a work then had this been for Moses to make sure of so many persons and especially amongst a people so difficult to be Governed and how comes it to pass that among so many there should not be either some conceited Fellow or some sober understanding man that set himself to oppose such a design whosoever should have undertaken to do so he must be very ignorant of the Nature of Man who cannot see that such an one would quickly have had as many followers as Moses or at least that he would have been desirous to acquaint Posterity with this Imposture and that he would have easily accomplished his desire or purpose to do so 28. Besides what could be a more proper and likely means to render the Jews ridiculous among all Nations so far was it from being a fit means to make them be admired and how blind must they have been not to have seen this for instance what would the Aegyptians have said concerning all those Plagues which Moses says he brought upon them concerning that Death of all their First-born and that Drowning of Pharaohs Army in the Sea and how came all those other Nations whom they braged to have conquered in so extraordinary a manner to be so enchanted as to let so many fabulous Stories pass in the World without contradiction unless they were also in the Plot against themselves and were as real Enemies to and haters of their own Fame and Glory in the World as it is imagined and supposed that the Israelites were ridiculously in Love with theirs 29. Men may invent Fables I confess yet they do not carry them to that excess when they would have them to be believed and above all they are very careful to place the first rise of them in far distant times and to vail them with the obscurity and darkness of many remote Ages But as men never design to Pass for knaves or fools so they never invent such fabulous stories as may be gainsaid and proved false by living Witnesses yea by whole and much concerned Nations as for instance it had been a pretty project in the Moors when they were returned into Africa after they had been driven out of Spain if they had undertaken to make the World believe that they came out of it voluntarily by Miracles like to Moses his Miracles and that after the Mediterranian Sea had opened it self to make way for their passage they saw it close again to drown an Army of I know not how many Thousands of Men that pursued them and yet the design we speak of had been no less extravagant in the Jews for we must not represent unto our selves those so remote times although gross or rude as so dark as they may seem to be in those times Men heard from one another they had the same Interests and the same Passions that we have they saw what they saw and felt what was to be felt as well as we do 30. These two hypotheses then must be absolutely abandoned neither was Moses an Impostor that deceived the Jews neither were the Jews in confederacy with him to carry on the Plot. There remains nothing to be objected but that Moses was not the Author of the Book that bears his Name or at least that it is but since his death that all those Miracles which it contains have been added to it This is unbeliefs last Refuge but Reason will not suffer a Man that hath the least measure of common sense to take up with it 31. Although we had nothing else to certifie us that these are really the Books of Moses and that we have them such as they were penned by him but this that they bear his Name as they themselves witness that they have been always attributed unto him and that it came into no mans mind until now to affirm the contrary this should be enough and because of this we could not reasonably doubt of their being his since we have no other assurance that any
body must have written those Books and accommodated them to the Ceremonies and Laws which were already in use adding thereunto those Miracles the more to engage the People unto the observance of that Law But all this is so far void of all probability that there was never any till now that durst in earnest assert it 37. How could it be said for example that the Pentateuch was written and published long after the Death of Moses and that it caused the Establishment of the Law and Worship of the Jewish Religion which it contains Then it must be said also that the Ark and Tabernacle which are the Foundations of that Religion were not made till long after Moses and till that Book had been published but this is a thing absolutely impossible for all the Jews firmly believed that their Ark and Tabernacle were made by Moses as that Book relates and it is not conceivable why or on what account they could have taken up such an opinion if they had made them both themselves after they had seen and recived that Book which is now supposed not to have appeared in the World till a long time after Moses it would be doubtless one of the prettiest things in the World and the most unparallel'd either that this Book having been compiled all at once and beforehand with that prodigious number of Ceremonies and Laws as already in use they should afterwards have been Instituted and setled or that being compiled by degrees and according as all those things were Instituted and Established it should always have had as they say a retractive effect or influence and have wrought backwards so as to cause each of those Institutions to be Ascribed unto Moses 38. Likewise how could this People who at their first Imbracing of this Law must at least have known that it was not true that it had been in use amongst them ever since Moses his time and that there had been a continued Succession of Priests ever since Aaron how I say could this People have been able to perswade themselves Universally to believe that what was prescribed by that Book had always been practised amongst them and that the Priests whom it Ordained had received their Ministry from Aaron by an uninterrupted Succession And finally how upon the same principle could all the other Tribes and Families have suffered the Tribe of Levy and Race of Aaron to appropriate unto themselves all the priviledges belonging to the Priesthood and to the Office of the High Priest 39. There is no less absurdity in the other Supposition to wit that the Law having been given by Moses by word of Mouth was preserved for a time among the Jews by means of Tradition only and that afterwards those who committed it to writing added thereunto all those Miracles For besides that even this would be a kind of Miracle and a thing very hard to conceive that that People should have received a Law so strict and severe as that was from a Man who had done nothing extraordinary for proving that he had it from God how could it be that Moses who doubtless had the use of writing should have omitted a thing so necessary and not have committed to writing a Law that contained so many Observations so many Ceremonies and so many Rules that it was necessary to have it always before ones Eyes for fear of failing in some or other point of duty prescribed by it 40. And indeed we learn also from the Book it self that Moses did not sail to commit it to writing Moses as it is said Deut. 31. 9 10 11 12 13. wrote this Law and delivered it unto the Priests the Sons of Levy and unto all the Elders of Israel and commanded that it should be read before all Israel in their hearing at the end of every Seventh Year in the Feast of Tabernacles And it is also said in I do not know how many places of that Book That God commanded Moses to write that which he revealed to him upon the Mount if the Jews then had received that Law from him only by word of Mouth how could they have ever received a Book which should have contained a Lie so gross evident and which should have carried in it an express order from God which their Law-giver had not obeyed 41. That very Order to read the Law every Seventh Year at the Feast of Tabernacles as having been given by Moses doth further clearly show that it could not have been changed nor corrupted for it would have been impossible for such corruptions not to have been discovered or that being discovered they should have been suffered by a People devoted to that Law and whose devout Subjection to it was grounded upon their believing it to be of God and written by Moses besides that those Miracles being most visible to the Eye scattered throughout the Books repeated in divers places of them and linked with the principal transactions therein Recorded there had been a necessity of making a new Book to take them in and not meerly to alter for that purpose an old Book which had been already received 42. The Infidel then must yet once more return to that pretended vain-glorious humor of the Jewish Nation and maintain that the Jews could easily suffer this falsification and that they were even glad that all those Miracles were added to their Law and that their Chronicles were filled with them 43. This might have some probability if the Question were only about a matter of Civil or Political concernment as for example The Romans could have been content that one should have told them that they were the Off-spring of Aeneas and it may be the French would be well enough pleased that one should derive their Original from the Trojans these are things which please some Mens Fancies and may pass without contradiction it being no Bodies interest to oppose them and they do not interfer with other things that have been established and stedfastly believed time out of mind and that are looked upon as the only considerable But as touching the Jews a People so devoted to their Religion so faithful Observers of the least Traditions and to whom lying was so severely forbidden this supposition is altogether without any appearance of truth 44. For I cannot believe that the Infidels boldness to deny any thing that makes against them dare adventure so far as to dispute all the Evidence we have of the Jews Zeal for their Religion since even yet to this day they have so great a veneration for that Law that though they have been dispersed above these Sixteen Hundred Years and see no accomplishment of what was promised to them notwithstanding they observe it still as far as they can with the same strictness as they did at first and wait continually for the fulfilling of those promises how improbable is it then that they should have suffered that which they looked upon as God's own word to be mixed and blended with
is not caring to know whether it be true or false as if it were a thing whereof the truth were unsearchable and indifferent or who shall dare desperately to run-counter unto such abundance of truth and light as that Sacred Book holds forth and without other help than that of his own Fancy and wretched Reason to Determine from the bottom of that dark Dungeon where Nature hath confined him that there is no Being in the whole Universe able to work so many Miracles and that they are but so many Fable and Visions 60. But the reason why some persons are not moved and affected with these proofs which are so sensible unto others is because their Interest and their Passions have so much command of them that they see other things but by halves This is the true Spring of all the Doubts that are moved against Religion because there is really nothing so contrary to their lusts as the manner of Life which it prescribes and so it is no ways difficult to conceive that Mens Lusts should oppose a thing which doth directly fight against them and can never be established but by their Extirpation and Ruine 61. And indeed this may well be so on the account of the contrariety that is between Religion and Mens Lusts since we see the like even in natural things and if sometimes the meer imagination of a thing which Men do not at all like though it be impossible the thing should ever come to pass makes them Act as if they really doubted it would come to pass even when they cannot really doubt how much more may the necessary forsaking of all that is dear and near to Men in the World be apt to blind them and to make them doubt of Religion unto the belief of which the Heart and Will must contribute no less than the Reason and Understanding 62. To give an instance there is a well known Person of great Wit and of great Judgment but so much afraid of Death that being one Day asked if he would not lay his Life that there is such a City as Rome thought the gain were small to be got by the wager he freely answered That he would not now certainly such a doubt as that there may not be such a City as Rome never came into his thoughts before and if the proposal had been made to him upon any other terms than the laying down of this Life it had not been possible for him to have made the least hesitation at the matter but as soon as the Idea of Death presented it self to his mind it wholy took up his thoughts all the Evidences he had to prove it impossible for Rome not to be vanished and came to nothing and if there did not arise in his mind a formal doubt that all which hath been said for the existence of Rome may be false at least there came something into his head or rather into his heart which made him Act as if he had indeed doubted of Romes existence 63. I know very well no Man will confess that addictedness to Pleasures or love of Life can thus far blind him and that every one pretends his doubts are very sincere and that the aversion he hath from believing the things of Religion proceeds only from his Reason and Understanding neither is it good to press Men upon this point since we cannot make them to see that in their our own hearts which they see not there of themselves for the motions of the Heart or Will are not like the motions of the Head or Undestanding These of the Head arise either by degrees and a Series of ratiocinations or else by a certain quick and clear light which makes us take up our Resolutions and fall to Action and it is not possible that this should be unknown to us and that we should not feel it But now as for that which we do by the Byass of the Heart it is far otherwise for there it is certain Springs hidden in us and Born with us which prompt us to this or that without proceeding in a discursive way of Reasoning and almost without our knowledg and hence it comes to pass that except we reflect frequently and attentively upon the motions of the Heart and timely accustom our selves so to do it is almost impossible not to be deceived in Judging of them for the Heart if one may so say doth so mix it self with the Reason or rather doth so much master it that it becomes the principle of all the Actions yet so as it is scarcely perceived to have any influence upon them 64. But let such doubting Persons at least acknowledg that they do not do all that is in their power to get a clear Resolution of their Doubts which must needs be from some defect in the Will they will easily grant this if they have the least measure of sincerity since they cannot deny but that the whole Life-time of Man should be employed in the search of so important a truth as that of Religion is whereas they have scarcely thought upon it a few Minutes and of all things in the World it may be the truth of Religion is that on which they have made least reflection 65. When Men are brought unto 〈◊〉 sincere willingness to apply themselves unto the serious consideration of the proofs Religion it will not be difficult yet further to set forth unto them the Evidences of it taking the way which we have here chalked out for besides the proofs taken from matters of Fact whereof we have given an Essay or Specimen in this Discourse there is yet a very great number of proofs that depend upon sensible perception and which appear to us in great abundance when we read the Scriptures with attention and it is even these last sort that deserve chiefly to be minded because they have this advantage that in perswading us to believe the truth they move us also to love it without which all is unprofitable It is true there are but few Persons duely qualified with the dispositions necessary to their being feelingly moved and affected by them that is to say with a certain Spiritual Gust of Truth and an uprightness of Heart which are rarely to be met with But we must at least endeavor to help others unto these dispositions and to awaken and stir up in them that Spiritual sense which shall be revived in them sooner or latter if ever they believe in a saving manner The End of the First Part. THE SECOND PART Containing An EXAMINATION Of a considerable part of Pere Simon 's Critical History of the OLD TESTAMENT WHEREIN All his Arguments with the weightiest of Spinosa's against Moses's being the Author of the first Five Books of the Bible are fully and clearly answered and several difficult places of Holy Scripture are explained By W. L. Sed quemadmodum apud eos qui semel providentiam probè receperunt non minuitur aut perit fides providentiae ob
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
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