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
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
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
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
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
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