our graces and duty comes from the weakness of our faith And it is not the best Logick which is ever accompanied with the strongest Trust Though Reason be an excellent and necessary ingredient some trust in Christ with victorious confidence who cannot dispute best for their Faith Conclus XXIII Though Peace and holy Joy be a most desirable effect of Faith and by which the strength of it may be much tryed yet it is not this but Practical consent to the Covenant of Grace or Christs terms of Salvation in which its saving sincerity consisteth Conclus XXIV By all this it appeareth how ambiguously the Question de Resolutione fidei is too oft disputed And how fallaciously a mans faith is said to be unsound if his reasons be some unsound and none cogent to prove an undoubted absolute certainty that the Scripture is Gods word and that Faith is not so resolved into the antecedent reasonings as necessarily to be unsound if some of them are so That God cannot lie is known by Nature That the Gospel is his word is known by its proper notifying evidence forenamed where many things concur That therefore the Gospel is true is known as a rational Conclusion But these are by believers apprehanded oft with imperfection faultyness and disorder But Practical Trust in God in Christ in the Gospel Promise is Constituted by its formal object which is Gods Fidelity or Veracity grounded in his Perfection and in the apprehended Truth of his promises And this effectual faith is saving I have Prefaced this much that the Reader may the easilyer understand and profit by the two following Treatises one written and the other translated by Mr. William Lorimer my greatly valued Friend well known by me to be a man of Learning and Judgment and exemplary faithfulness to God and Conscience and of a prudent and peaceable Conversation with men If the Reader bring not a disposition of enmity against the Truth or gross neglect of it but a mind that hath necessary manly preparation and a receptive willingness and resolution for an impartial diligent search I doubt not but in these two Discourses he will find enough though not to remove every difficulty in the Bible yet to save his Faith from all such assaults as would overthrow it and make it uneffectual to his Salvation And verily a man that hath well digested the matter of such Controversies will find that Pomponatius Vaninus Hobbes Spinosa c were Ignorant men that knew not their own Ignorance nor what they wrote against and that Simon saith little but what Commentators have often Answered and though he and others truly prove the doubtfulness of some Readings and somâ— Translations which may be of man he saith nothing to shake a well-grounded belief of Moses Law the Gospel of Christ and any thing necessary to Holiness or Salvation Richard Baxter April 7. 1682. ERRATA Preface pag. 6. lin 2. read have In the Epistle to the Reader page 4. lin 11. read will page 7. lin 11. read adiaphorous page 16. lin 7. read where l. 18. r. be l. 20. r. servant l. 22. r. and First part p. 17. l. 1. 1. uncertain in so much ibid. l. 16. r. parity p. 28. l. 8. r. suppositions p. 35. l. 7. r. retro-active p. 43. l. 7. r. command ibid. l. 13. r. punishment p. 47. l. 2. for Table r. Fable p. 56. l. 14. r. proofs of Religion Second part p. 67. l. 5 6. r. Authoribus p. 80. l. 13. r. preserved p. 84. l. 24. r. floating p. 87. l. 7. r. afford p. 91. l. 7. r. sixth p. 96. l. 23. r. your p. 97. l. 10. r. named p. 104. l. 19. r. for p. 109. l. 16. r. unto p. 110. l. 4. r. may p. 132. l. 16. r. hundred p. 135. l. 8. r. sense p. 144. l. 7. 19. r. Be eber haijarden p. 150. l. 2. r. land p. 151. l. 15. r. mount p. 164. l. 7. r. say The Epistle to the READER Christian Reader IF thou weighest things in the Ballance of right Reason thou can'st not but see That Moses being the first Man by whose Ministry Almighty God thought fit to give a Body of Laws unto a whole Nation and to as many of the World besides as should join in communion with that Nation it was necessary God should enable him to make it evidently appear unto all rational Men that he was sent and authorized by God to give Laws unto that Nation and if thou read'st the Books of Moses and what thou wilt find in the following Discourse concerning him and them thou can'st not but likewise see that the infinitely Wise and Powerful God did in effect enable him evidently and certainly to prove his Mission and Commission to be from Heaven For through God's extraordinary assistance he gave the highest demonstrations of his being Authorized from above that can in reason be desired of any that speaks or writes unto Men in the name of God his works and writings hear the manifest signatures of God's Wisdom Power and Goodness his works were such as could never have been done without the assistance of an invisible Power far above any thing that falls under the perceptions of Sense and it is most evident to Reason That that invisible Power could be no other than the infinitely powerful wise and good God who made preserves and governs the World and all things therein For it could not possibly be any Evil Spirit First Because Moses in his contest with the Magicians of Aegypt did at the very first Encounter far out-do them and the Evil Spirit by whose assistance they wrought their wonders as evidently appears by Aaron's Rods swallowing up their Rods Exod. 7. 12. and by their not being able to remove the Frogs again from off the Land of Aegypt and therefore Pharaoh was forced to call for Moses and Aaron and desire them to intreat the Lord to take away the Frogs from him and his people Exod. 8. â—â—8 and at last he forced them to confess â—â—â—t they were overcome for when they â—â—â—ld not turn the Dust of Aegypt into Lice 〈◊〉 Moses and Aaron had done they then â—â—â—ved out and said unto Pharaoh This is the finger of God Exod. 8. 18 19. they â—onfessed that it was the power of God which â—nabled Moses and Aaron to turn the Dust into Lice and which hindered them from doing the like Secondly It could not possibly be any Evil Spirit because Moses's Miracles were wrought for the highest best and excellentest ends to wit for the glory of God and for the good of his People they were wrought to convince both Pharaoh and Israel That the Lord God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who made and governs the World is the only true God who is above all to be Feared and Reverenced Adored and Worshipped Loved and Obeyed Pleased and Glorified and that Moses was his Authorized Messenger to be believed and obeyed for his sake in all that he said and commanded in his
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
name They were wrought also both to cause Pharaoh to let go the Israelites and likewise to make the Israelites willing to leave Aegypt and to go with Moses and take possession of the Land of Canaan which the Lord God had long before promised unto their Fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Thirdly It could not possibly be any Evil Spirit because Moses's Miracles were wrought to the prejudice of the Devil's interest in the World and for the destroying of the Devil's Kingdom by rooting out Idolatry from among God's People and driving Idolaters out of Canaan and for the setting up of the Kingdom of God visibly upon Earth Fourthly It could not possibly be any Evil Spirit because the Evil Spirit is the great Enemy of Mankind and of all humane Society rightly constituted whereas Moses's Miracles were wrought for the confirmation of a Doctrine which is manifestly for the good of Mankind of individual Men and of all Societies of Men Deut. 4. 6 8. This wile clearly appear unto any rational Man that shall duly consider these following Laws of Moses Concerning Mens Loving their Neighbours as themselves and not Coveting any thing belonging to them Concerning the City's of Refuge appointed for such Persons as should happen to kill a Man unwittingly Concerning the Redemption of Lands Concerning Goodness Lenity and Equity to Servants Mercifulness to the Poor Kindness to Straugers Justice and Equity to the Widows and Fatherless Reverence and Obedience to Superiors And concerning the Duties of Superiors towards their Inferiors and Subjects But not to insist upon these and many other excellent Laws of Moses which are manifestly for the good of Mankind and both evidence themselves to have been given unto Moses and Israel by an infinitely good God and also Moses's Miracles wrought in confirmation of them to have been from the same cause there is one thing which I cannot but touch upon to wit That whereas other Law-givers have set up some a Monarchy some an Aristocracy and others a Democracy Moses was the first that Established a visible Theocracy over the Israelites under which form of Government all things were to be managed by the counsel and direction of the infinitely wise God the People of Israel as a Kindom of Priests and a Holy Nation were to refer all their matters unto God and to ask advice and direction of him by VRIM and THVMMIM in reference to Peace and War and all things of any considerable importance or difficulty Exod. 19. 5 6. 20. 24 the latter part Exod. 28. 30. Deut. 10. 14 15 16 17. 12. 11 12 Levit. 26. 11 12. c. These things put together if no more could be said seem abundantly sufficient to prove that Moses was Authorized by God to give Laws unto the Israelites for no Man could have wrought such Miracles so circumstantiated except God had been with him and such is the weakness of Man's Vnderstanding that he could never of his own head have invented such a Law and such a way of Government And if Moses's Miracles and Law could not possibly be of any Evil Spirit nor of Man they must needs have been of a Good Spirit and that Good Spirit could be no other but God for though God used the Ministry of Good and Holy Angels in giving forth the Law yet they could not possibly be the Authors of it and if any of them had ever pretended unto that Honour he would by so doing have degenerated into a proud arrogant and lying Devil God himself then was the alone Author of Moses his Law and the Holy Angels with Moses were but Instruments and Ministers by whom God gave it unto Israel and indeed there is nothing in it but what well becomes God to be the Author of there is nothing in it that doth any way contradict the perfections of his Nature or destroy the natural notions of Truth and Falshood Good and Evil which he hath implanted in the mind of Man nay many of Moses's Laws are evidently agreeable unto and Representative of the transcendent excellencies of the Divine and perfective of the humane Nature and even those of them which are of a most adiapheros indifferent nature in themselves and derive all their morality from the will and pleasure of God did certainly by Gods appointment and blessing very much promote the happiness of his People Deut. 10. 12 13. 11. 12 to 16. Levit. 26. 3 to 13. Deut. 32. 16 17. As to what some Atheists Object from Exod. 12. 35 36. That Moses taught the Israelites to cheat the Aegyptians of their Jewels under pretence of borrowing them and that God himself is brought in as countenancing the Cheat which seems to be plainly contrary both to the perfections of God and right Reason of Man I Answer It is false that is Objected for there was really no borrowing and lending in the case but asking and receiving and carrying away what God had inclined the hearts of the Aegyptians freely to give and so there could be no cheat under pretence of borrowing This Answer is grounded upon the true import of the Hebrew Word Shaal which signifies to ask and accordingly the place Objected is rendred by Munster and the Tigurin in English thus The Children of Israel asked of the Aegyptians Jewels and the Lord gave the People favor in the sight of the Aegyptians so that they gave them such thiugs as they asked and they carryed them away from the Aegyptians the Aegyptians apprehended themselves to be all dead Men if the Israelites stayed in Aegypt any longer and therefore were willing to give them any thing they bad on condition that they would be presently gone Vers 33. And thus things were ordered by the wise Providence of God that the Children of Israel might be rewarded for the great Service they had done unto the Aegyptians Moreover It is very observable that some of Moses's Laws were such that it is impossible to conceive that any Men in their Wits would either have given such Laws unto others or have themselves received and submitted to them unless they had been sure that God was the Author of them and that he would take care to prevent the great inconveniences that might arise from the observance of them I Instance in Two First The Law for the Seventh Year Sabbath Exod. 23. 10 11 Levit. 25. 4 5. The Command not to Plow nor Sow every Seventh Year was of such consequence and might have produced so ill effects that Moses would never have attempted to bring the Israelites under such a Law nor would they have been such fools as to have received it and submitted to it unless he and they had been both sure that God had Authorized him to give them that Law and that God had undertaken to secure them from the great inconvenience that might arise from their Observance of it for if they had not been sure that God had by promise engaged
Heb. 7. 9. Thus all the 70 Souls came into Aegypt but the Text of Moses doth not at all say that all the 70 came into Aegypt at the same time and in the same way and manner Eighthly He Objects Gen. 35. 26. where Benjamin is counted amongst the Children that Jacob had in Mesopotamia and nevertheless Benjamin was not Born there but in the Land of Canaan I Answer I do not understand by what Rules of Reasoning P. Simon puts this passage amongst the disorderly Transpositions which he pretends to be in the Pentateuch for surely this seems rather to be a contradiction it being said in the same Chapter Vers 16 17 18. that Benjamin was Born at Ephrath And yet here is no real but only a seeming contradiction for to make a real contradiction it must have been said Benjamin was Born at Ephrath All these are the Sons of Jacob which were Born to him in Padan-Aram but now it is not said all these are the Sons of Jacob which were Born to him in Padam-aram but only These are the Sons of Jacob which were Born to him in Padan-Aram and this is most true without including Benjamin in the number of Jacob's Sons Born to him in Padan-Aram for the other Eleven were Born in Padan-Aram and there was no need here to except Benjamin by name because it was so clearly said but a little before in the same Chapter That Benjamin was Born at Ephrath in the Land of Canaan that no Reader could mistake so grosly as to think he was Born with the rest of Jacob's Children in Padan-Aram or Mesopotamia I pray mark the expression it is not said in v. 26. All these are c. but These are c. P. Simon pretends that there are Transpositions not only in the History but likewise in the Laws of Moses and therefore Ninthly and Lastly He Objects Exod. 22. 1 3 4. where says he to make a reasonable construction what is said of the Thief in the Third Verse must be joined with the First because there is a Transposition and then one ought to join the Fourth Verse with the First and moreover the words of the Fourth Verse if the Theft be certainly found in his hand alive ought only to relate to the Ox and Sheep which this Verse makes mention of and not to the Ass although that is spoke of in the same place with the Two other Animals I Answer All this is gratis dictum without one word of proof The words of the Law may be reasonably enough construed and well enough understood without the help of Pere Simons imaginary Transposition In the First Verse the Lord God determins in what proportion a Thief should make restitution for an Ox or a Sheep in case he have killed or sold them In Vers 2. The Lord God declares that if the Thief be found in the Act of breaking up and be killed the killing of him shall not be accounted Murther nor shall the killers Blood be shed for him provided it were in the Night and before Sun-Rising But in the Third Verse the Lord declares That the killing of a Thief in the Day time after Sun-Rising should be accounted Murther and that the Blood of the slayer should be shed for the Blood of the slain Thief and that for this reason given in the same Third Verse because he should not have been killed for the Theft but compelled to make full Restitution if he was able but if he was not able he should be sold for his Theft And in Vers 4. the Lord shews in what proportion he should be obliged to make Restitution in case the Theft were found alive in his hand not in a Five-fold nor Four-fold but in a double proportion for Ox or Ass or Sheep and thus all is clear enough in the Order wherein the Wisdom of God has placed things and there is no need to have recourse unto a Transposition as to what he Objects concerning the Ass in the Fourth Verse that though it be joined with the Ox and Sheep yet what is said of the Theft its being found alive in the hand of the Thief and of his making double Restitution in that Case ought not to relate unto the Ass but only to the Ox and Sheep I Answer This is a bold Assertion without any proof at all and there is reason to conclude the contrary that because the Ass is joined with the Ox and Sheep therefore what here relates to the Ox and Sheep ought also to be referred unto the Ass the Ass was a very useful Creature in those Eastern Countries and that may be the reason why it is joined with the Ox both here and elsewhere as in the Tenth Commandment I know not what use P. Simon may have for this Ass but it seems by what he writes that he would play the Thief and steal it out of this Fourth Verse of Exod. 22. which if he should do he would be guilty not only of Theft but of Sacrilege for this Ass stands upon Holy Ground Thus I have Answered all his Arguments that fall under the Second Head of Disorderly Transpositions I pass to the Third and last head of Arguments taken from several passages of the Pentateuch where he pretends there are such expressions as seem to intimate that Moses could not be the Author of them First He Objects Numb 21. 14. A Book says he of the Wars of the Lord of which mention is made Numb 21. 14. is an evident proof that the Histories which are related in the Five Books of Moses have been taken out of several Collections which have been lost I Answer It is denyed that the citing of the Book of the Wars of the Lord in Numb 21. 14. is an evident proof or indeed any proof at all of any such thing For First It is not so evident that it was a Book at all some think it was but a Song the Hebrew word Sepher does not always signifie a Book but Secondly Granting that it was a Book and not meerly a Triumphal Song it is not evident that it was a Book then already written it might be a Book to be afterwards written which Moses foreseeing by the Spirit of Prophecy refers unto this agrees with the Original words in the Text which are Al-ken Jeamar wherefore it shall be said in the Book of the Wars of the Lord c. yet Thirdly Granting it to have been a Book already written Moses his once citing a Testimony out of it doth no more prove that he collected his History out of such Books then Paul's citing a Testimony out of Heathen Poets Acts 17. 28. Tit. 1. 12. doth prove that he Transcribed his Sermons and Epistles out of the writings of Heathen Poets Secondly He Objects That the names of Hebron and Dan which are in the Pentateuch were not in beeing in the time of Moses Answer It is said but not proved that the names of Hebron and Dan were not in beeing in Moses his
time we will speak of each of them by it self and First For Hebron We find it frequently in the Pentateuch as in Gen. 13. 18. 23. 2 19. 35. 27. 37. 14. Num. 13. 22. It was a City in the Land of Canaan it is probable it might be first called Mamre Gen. 13. 18. and afterwards Arba or Kirjatharba and Hebron When this City began first to be called Hebron is uncertain but it seems to have been called by that name long before Moses for it is said Gen. 37. 14. that Jacob sent his Son Joseph out of the Vale of Hebron and Numb 13. 22. we read that the Spies which Moses sent to search out the Land of Canaan ascended by the South and came unto Hebron where the Children of Anak dwelt and that Hebron was built Seven Years before Zoan in Aegypt Here Hebron is spoken of as a City very ancient and that was ordinarily called by that name Afterwards Joshua gave it unto Caleb the Son of Jephunneh for an Inheritance and he drove the Anakims out of it and took possession of it as we read in Josh 14. 13 14. 15. 13 14. But it is no where said that Caleb changed the name of it and first called it Hebron I confess it is written that the name of Hebron before was Kirjatharba Josh 14. 15. Jud. 1. 10. but the meaning of those words is that it was called Kirjath-arba before Caleb drove out the Anakims and took possession of it but this doth not prove that it was not also called Hebron before and in the time of Moses It is was certainly called Kirjath-arba by the Canaanites before Caleb took it from them but at the same time it might be called Hebron by the Israelites I thus clearly show that it might be so it was a City scituate on the side of a Hill as appears from Josh 14. 12 13 14. Caleb said unto Joshua give me this Mountain Joshua granted him his Request and gave him Hebron To me it seems probable that the Hill was first called Hebron and so it was Kirjatharba upon Hebron for certain the Countrey under the Hill was called the Valley of Hebron and as is already observed it was so called in Jacob's time Gen. 37. 14. It may be the Hill was first called Hebron from Ephron the Hittite of whom Abraham bought the Cave of Machphelah for a Burying-place Gen. 23. 16 17 18 19. this Cave seems to have been in the Hill and the Field to have been at the foot of the Hill before the Mouth of the Cave now by an easie change of letters of a like sound it is come to be called Hebron by the Posterity of Abraham because their Father Abraham bought it of Ephron or which comes to the same thing Abraham's Posterity called it Hebron from Habar because Abraham and his Posterity did as it were enter into civil Society with the Hittites when he bought of Ephron that part of the Hill with the Field and Trees at the Foot of it for himself and his Posterity It was almost natural for Abraham's Posterity to call it Hebron on these accounts that so the very name of it might be a lasting memorial of their right to it but the Anakims who afterwards took possession of it without right when the Israelites were in Aegypt did not like that it should be called at all by that name of Hebron and therefore called it Kirjath-arba only from Arba the Father of Anak Josh 15. 13. If any should now say that this only shews how the Hill with the Cave and Field which Abraham bought for a Burying-place came to be called Hebron but this is nothing to the City which was distinct from the Hill Cave and Field I Answer First The City it self was Built on the side of the Hill Secondly It is probable that in process of time the City was so far enlarged as to take in Abraham's Field with the Cave and that part of the Hill in which the Cave was and this might give occasion unto the Israelites to call the City it self by the name of Hebron From all which it appears probable that it was called Hebron by the Israelites at the same time that it was called Kirjath-arba by the Canaanites and that it was called by that name among the People of God in the time of Moses but after the Canaanites were driven out and Caleb was possessed of it it lost the name Kirjath-arba and retained only the name Hebron But against this it is Objected out of Jerome that this City had its name from Hebron the Son of Caleb of whom we read in 1 Chron. 2. 42. 43. I Answer First Masius in his Commentary on Joshua Pag. 247. on the 15th Verse of the 14th Chapter declares that he did not see any strength in this Argument to prove that Kirjath-arba was not called Hebron in the time of Moses or that it was first so called from Hebron the Son of Caleb but the truth is Masius himself seems to have been very much mistaken in Judging of the sense of these words the Father of Hebron in 1 Chron. 2. 42. for he seems plainly to take Hebron there for the City and that Father of Hebron signifies Governor or Lord of Hebron whereas it is evident that Hebron there is a Man's name for in the next Verse this Hebron is said to have had Four Sons we must acknowledg then that one of the Posterity of Caleb was called Hebron But then Secondly I Answer that it is not clear that this Caleb the Father of Hebron was the same Man with the Caleb that first took Kirjath-arba from the Anakims for Caleb that first took Kirjath-arba from the Anakims was the Son of Jephunneh Josh 14. 6. 1 Chron. 4. 15. But it is expresly written of Caleb said to be the Father of Hebron that he was the Son of Hezron 1 Chron. 2. 9 18 19 42. but Hezron went into Aegypt with Jacob Gen. 46. 12. therefore his Son Caleb must have lived long before Moses and could not be the same with Caleb the Son of Jephunneh who was but Forty Years Old when Moses sent him to espy out the Land of Canaan Josh 14. 7. Yet Thirdly Granting that Caleb the Son of Jephunneh and Caleb the Son of Hezron were one and the same Man and that he is called the Son of Hezron only in a large sense because he was of the Posterity of Hezron as Masius Pag. 243. thinks that Hezron was but his Grandfather or Great Grandfather c. I say this being granted it will not follow that Kirjath-arba was first called Hebron from Hebron the Son of Caleb on the contrary Hebron the Son of Caleb might take his name from the City Hebron the Inheritance of his Father the like seems to have happened unto Gilead the Son of Machir 1 Chron. 2. 21. he seems to have received his name from Mount Gilead the place of his Fathers Inheritance Deut. 3. 15. for
certain it is that he did not first give it its name because Jacob had done that long before as appears from Gen. 31. 47 48 54. Masius has one Objection which I must Answer Kirjath-arba says he is an old name of that City therefore Hebron is a new name I Answer This is but a weak conjecture for it might have two old names one amongst the Canaanites and the other amongst the Israelites as it seems Bethel had of which Bethel it is said Judg. 1. 23. the name of it before was Luz and yet it is probable that the Israelites called that City by the name of Bethel long before the House of Joseph took it from the Canaanites Some part of the Countrey very near it was most certainly called Bethel from Jacob's time and it is not unlikely that the City it self from that time forwards began to be called sometimes Bethel by Jacob's Posterity even Jacob himself seems to make Luz to be all one with Bethel because Bethel strictly so called was near Luz Gen. 48. 3. says Jacob God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the Land of Canaan and Blessed me but in Chap. 35. Vers 1 3. the same City is called Bethel and was so called at that time both by God speaking unto Jacob and by Jacob speaking unto his Family says God unto him arise go up to Bethel and dwell there and says he to his Family let us arise and go up to Bethel which they did and so came to Luz that is Bethel Vers 6. And Jacob there in Luz Built an Altar and called the place of the Altar El-Bethel Vers 7. From all which it seems very evident that the same City was in Jacob's time called by two names Bethel and Luz its publick name by which the Canaanites called it and by which it was generally known to the World was Luz but its private name by which God and his People called it was Bethel the like may be said without any absurdity at all of Kirjath-arba and Hebron Secondly For the name Dan as to what he Objects that it was not in Beeing in the time of Moses and yet it is found in the Pentateuch Gen. 14. 14. Deut. 34. 1. I Answer First It is freely confessed that the City Leshem or Laish was not called by the name of Dan in the time of Moses It was a long time after Moses before the Danites took Laish and changed its name from Laish to Dan after the name of Dan their Father as appears from Josh 19. 47. Jud. 18. 29. But that therefore there was no other place called by the name of Dan in the time of Moses I deny the consequence the Brook or Valley of Eshcol was first called Eshcol in the time of Moses because of the Cluster of Grapes which the Children of Israel cut down from thence when the Spies searched out the Land Numb 13. 24. And yet in Abraham's time Mamre the Amorite had a Brother whose name was Eshcol Gen. 14. 13. just so though Laish was not called Dan till after Moses yet some other place might be called Dan in the time both of Abraham and Moses Jerome Swidas and Philostorgius were of opinion that a Spring-head of Jordan was called Dan and the Hebrew Doctors think that the River Jordan was so called because it springs out of Dan and if we may believe the Learned Hofman in his Lexicon universale Pag. 526. there was another Dan yet distinct from Laish-Dan and it was an Hill in the Tribe of Ephraim on the Rode from Samaria to Sichem if there were then several Dans it may probably be supposed that even in Abraham's time there might be some place called by the name of Dan if not the Hill Dan on the Rode from Samaria to Sichem at least the Fountain Dan springing out of Mount Libanus I Answer Secondly Moses in the Spirit of Prophecy might call Laish Dan by an Historical Prolepsis as foreseeing that it would lose the name of Laish and be called and known only by the name of Dan in after Ages He might be moved to do this that his writings might then be the better understood by the People when the name of Laish should be forgotten by the Vulgar and that City should only be known by the name of Dan. I Answer Thirdly Suppose we should grant with the Learned Masius that some Prophet after Moses did substitute the word Dan in the place of Laish and the same may be said of Hebron for to help the People the better to understand and remember those passages of Holy Scripture where it occurs it will not follow from hence that Moses cannot be the Author of the Pentateuch as we say one Swallow doth not make the Spring so one or two little alterations of a word and that by the same Holy Spirit of Truth by which Moses wrote doth not hinder Moses from being justly accounted the Author of the Pentateuch the changing of a word or two by God's Spirit for the benefit of God's People in after Ages is no sufficient reason to change the name of the Book and to denominate it anew from the person by whom it pleased God to make such a change But though I write thus yet I shall not easily grant that de facto there has been such an alteration made in the names before mentioned until it be first clearly and certainly proved which no Man that I know hath yet done I am sure P. Simon hath not done it Thirdly He Objects Gen. 36. 31. It is probable says P. Simon that Moses could not have writ these words And these are the Kings that Reigned in the Land of Edom before there Reigned any King over the Children of Israel this manner of speaking supposes the Establishment of Kings amongst the Hebrews Answer 1. This manner of speaking only supposes that Kingly Government was to be Established amongst the Children of Israel according to the express promise of God unto Jacob at Bethel Gen. 35. 11 12. and this Moses knew very well by the Spirit of Prophecy as appears from Deut. 17. 14 15 18 19 20. and therefore he might well suppose it as a thing that should certainly come to pass but it not being yet come to pass Moses here declares that Esau was before hand with Jacob as to this matter for whilst Jacob's Posterity was in Servitude under a Rod of Iron in Aegypt Esau his Posterity flourished under a Kingly Government in the Land of Edom. Answer 2. This may signifie no more but that the Persons there mentioned did Reign Kings in the Land of Edom before the time of Moses that the Children of Israel were first formed into an Holy Kingdom and Common-wealth according to Exod. 19. 5 6. and Moses was set over them as their Head and King under God according to Deut. 33. 5. where it is said that Moses was King in Jeshurun Thus it is evident that there is no weight at all in this Objection Fourthly
He Objects out of R. Moses Cotsi Exod. 12. 40. where Moses says That the Sojourning of the Children of Israel in Aegypt was Four Hundred Years and yet it is certain that Kohath Son of Levi who was one of them that went into Aegypt lived but One Hudred Thirty Three Years that Amram lived only One Hundred Thirty Seven Years and that Moses was but Eighty Years Old when God spake to him which make in all but Three Hundred and Fifty Answer This Objection contains a great Falshood in affirming that Moses says the Sojourning of the Children of Israel in Aegypt was Four Hundred Years there is no such saying in the Text of Moses the Text says not that the Children of Israel Sojourned Four Hundred Years in Aegypt but that the Children of Israel who Sojourned or dwelt in Aegypt their Sojourning was Four Hundred and Thirty Years here it is not said how many of the Four Hundred and Thirty Years were past in Aegypt Indeed there being some ambiguity in the Hebrew words of the Text if it were not well known that they Sojourned in other places both in their own Persons and in their Progenitors Abraham Isaac and Jacob as Levi in Abraham paid Tithes to Melchizedec Heb. 7. 9. it might be thought perhaps that they Sojourned the whole Four Hundred and Thirty Years in Aegypt but it is a thing notorious to all that they Sojourned in the Land of Canaan and elsewhere before they went into Aegypt and therefore it is very unreasonable to think that the whole Four Hundred and Thirty Years Sojourning were past in Aegypt what Pere Simon intended by this Objection I do not well understand for if this were a good Argument to prove that Moses could not be the Author of the Pentateuch it would equally prove that no Prophet could be the Author of it which yet is contrary to his own Judgment if he believe what he writes for as Moses could not so no other Prophet could be the Author of any Falshood I shall say no more to this Objection because the Reverend and Learned Dean of Pauls has Answered it at large in his excellent Letter to a Deist unto which I refer the Reader Fifthly He Objects Gen. 46. 27. where it is said That all the Souls of the House of Jacob who went into Aegypt were Seventy and nevertheless in counting the number there related they are found to be but Sixty Nine Answer This difficulty if it deserve that name has been cleared already where it was shewed that Jacob himself did make the Seventieth Let any Man count them and setting aside Jacobs Sons Wives and Er and Onan who died in the Land of Canaan he will find that the Sum Total taking in Jacob as head of his own House is just Seventy Sixthly He Objects Numb 3. 39. Where are reckoned Twenty Two Thousand but if we join all the numbers together there remain Three Hundred above the account I Answer By distinguishing upon the words of the 39th Verse thus All the Males of the Levites that were numbered and were to be Devoted unto the Lord in exchange for the First-born of the other Tribes were Twenty Two Thousand and no more I grant it as being the genuine sense of the words of Moses All the Males of the Levites that were numbered and were partly already Holy and Devoted and partly to be Devoted unto the Lord were Twenty Two Thousand and no more I deny it as not being the genuine sense of the words of Moses I ground my distinction upon this That all the Males of the Levites of what sort soever were numbered from a Month Old and upwards now amongst them all of necessity there must be a certain number that were First-born Males and all such First-born Levites as had been Born from the time of Israels coming out of Aegypt unto the time of that reckoning were already Sanctified unto the Lord in a peculiar manner and were his own Devoted unto him as appears from Exod. 13. 2 13. and from the 13th Verse of this same Third Chapter of Numbers These First-born Levites then could not be substituted in the stead of the First-born of the other Tribes and so become Holy and Devoted unto the Lord in a peculiar manner for as First-born they were already the Lords they were Holy and Devoted unto God they therefore must have been excepted and left out of the number of Levites that were to be exchanged for the First-born of the other Tribes and so to be appropriated unto God and his Service in a peculiar manner But we plainly see that Three Hundred Levites are left out therefore it was on this account that they were the Lords already as they were First-born The rest that were not thus the Lords already were fit matter to be Sanctified and Devoted to God and his Service instead of the First-born of the other Tribes and the number of them all were Twenty Two Thousand and no more There are Two things very observable in this Chapter 1. That it is expressly said of these Twenty Two Thousand Levites that they shall be the Lords instead of the First-born amongst the Children of Israel Vers 45. therefore surely the First-born of the Levites cannot be included in that number of Twenty Two Thousand since they were the Lords already as well as the First-born of the other Tribes and so could not be given unto the Lord in exchange for them 2. It is observable that this number of Twenty Two Thousand Levites is compared with the number of the First-born of the other Tribes and the number of the First-born of the other Tribes being found to contain Two Hundred Seventy Three more than the number of the Levites that were to be exchanged for them it is expressly ordered by God that this Two Hundred Seventy Three of the First-born of the other Tribes should be redeemed with Money at Five Shekles apiece by the Poll Vers 46 47. Which is a demonstration that the Three Hundred Levites left out of the number of Levites which were to be exchanged for the First-born of the other Tribes were purposely left out in the casting up of the Sum Total as not being fit matter to be given unto the Lord in exchange because they were the Lords already as they were First-born if it had not been really thus they would not have been purposely left out but would have been certainly included in the Sum Total as they were in the particular Sums that so there might have been enow and more than enow of Levites to be given in exchange for the First-born of the other Tribes and that there might be no need of giving Five Shekels a piece for the redeeming of any of them But now if any ask why then were these Three Hundred First-born Levites numbered at all why were they put into the particular Sums of the Males of the several Families as appears from Vers 22 28 34. and yet left out of the