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
Words must have their own Historical proof where there is some difference Conclus XIX Objective certainty must still be distinguished from Mental Active Subjective certainty 1. Every thing true is infallibly true so far as whoever believeth it to be true is not deceived 2. Every thing true hath not ascertaining evidence but some things have 3. Every thing that hath ascertaining evidence is not certainly known or believed by millions A multitude of inward and outward hinderances keep men from discerning such evidence as ascertaineth others and might ascertain them Prepared Souls have great advantage by capacity willingness diligence c. And experienced Christians on whom the Gospel hath made a sanctifying change have the witness in themselves which proveth it to be of God And this witness of the Spirit is a great and constant Seal on all that are sound believers but in a different degree Yet the unsanctified and unbelievers that are not negligently or maliciously blind may much discern the excellent effects of the Gospel on others though they feel it not in themselves Conclus XX. The Order of Believing as to the Acts is usually this Men usually though not always begin with a Belief of men and perhaps fallible men which giveth them but a probability that the Gospel is Gods word And from thence they pass to a Belief of it as Gods word which is partly Divine that is for Gods Veracity and Authority but not effectuall but is only the work of a common Grace not sanctifying and saving And thence they come to a saving Divine Faith but in a weak degree which is to grow stronger till it come to full assurance Conclus XXI For the understanding of all this it is very needful that the true nature and formal cause of Divine Faith be better and more distinctly opened than usually it is Faith in its ratio formalis must not be confounded with necessary previous Knowledge All this Syllogism goeth before it Whatsoever God saith is true This God saith Ergo this is true Or All the word of God is trne The Gospel or sacred Scripture is the word of God Ergo it is true Major Minor and conclusion are all but a Knowledge antecedent to Faith in its formal Act though I and others formerly have called the conclusion Faith Yea further whatever is evident truth is to be believed and trusted The Gospel is evident truth therefore it is to be believed or trusted This is yet but Faith's antecedent pisteuo credo fido all signifie to trust And trust is the formal Act of Faith But this trust is in all the three faculties of the Soul 1. The understanding having first discerned the credibility giveth over doubting in that degree and resteth in or trusteth the discerned truth 2. The Will doth with complacency trust to and rest in the said truth discerned with the goodness also discerned as sure and true 3. The eâ—ecutive imperate Power doth practically trust perform and venture commanded by the Will So that truly Divine Faith is an intellectual willing executive or practical trust I have oft explained it by such similitudes as these There is but one Physitian that can heal a sick man His Enemies defame him as a deceiver He saith believe or trust me and I will freely cure thee He that truly trusteth him now doth it Intellectually Consentingly and Practically and takes his Medicines A Forreign Prince tells a poor man or a Prisoner I will give thee a Lordship in the East-Indies if thou wilt trust me some say he is a deceiver Others say the Ship or Pilot or Seas are dangerous He that so far trusteth him now as to forsake his poor Country and goe to Sea and venture his all upon the trust shall have what is promised Conclus XXII Here therefore to confute the Errours of a multitude of Doctors and to quiet most Souls not otherwise to be justly quieted it is necessary to know these things 1. That the formal Act of Faith may be Divine and Saving when the foresaid antecedent knowledge or assent may have some mistakes and insufficient media 2. That Faith may be saving which reacheth not to a strong subjective certainty nor excludeth always all doubting even of the truth of the Gospel and the Life to come 3. Yea that no ones Faith is absolutely perfect 1. Most Persons begin with a humane belief of their Parents and the common estimation of the Country that Christ is the true Messiah and the Scripture is Gods certain word This is not a certain Proof But if Children or unlearned Persons do by such uncertain Arguments believe the Scripture to be Gods word and then tast a Divine goodness in the matter which maketh them most willingly believe it These Persons may by so weak a preparation Practically trust God and the Gospel as so far perceived to be his word even with a saving Faith An Armenian Greek Abassine c. believeth fide humana the Gospel to be true because their several Teachers tell them so And they perceive a goodness in it These on this fallible ground first taking it for the word of God knowing that God is true may yet savingly trust it as the word of God and that trust is a Divine Faith though the antecedent means was humane besides the savour of Truth and goodness in the Word it self 2. How few in the world have true Faith if none be true that reacheth not to full undoubting subjective certainty Certainty may be had Ascertaining truth and Evidence there is But it is not every unlearned person that discerneth it A man may trust his life in the hand of a Physitian though he be not undoubtingly certain he can cure him He may trust Life and Estate in a Vessel which he is not undoubtingly certain will bring him safe to Land Though an unlearned man is not so well acquainted with History as to know with what Evidence the Gospel hath been brought down to our Age nor so good a Logician as to bring an Argument for Christianity and the Scriptur which is not faulty Yet if he take it to be the word of God and though he cannot say I am undoubtingly certain of it yet can say I am undoubtingly certain there is nothing which is to be trusted in equality with it This or nothing must be my hope therefore on this I will venture or lay my life and soul and all my hope and will obey Christ and forsake all that stands against him For this hope I will live and in this hope I will die This will prove a saving Faith 3. Yea it is certain that there is nothing absolutely perfect in this World And therefore no ones faith or certainty is perfect even they that feel no actual doubting have yet but an Imperfect Faith else they would have more perfect obedience patience and joy The best have need to pray Lord increase our faith and Lord I believe help thou my unbeleif The weakness of all
But says P. Simon The History of the Selling of Joseph begins but at the 37th Chapter of Genesis and yet Joseph was Sold Twelve Years before the Death of Isaac ergo the Death of Isaac should be related after the Selling of Joseph but it is related before and so is out of its place I Answer By denying the consequence it follows indeed that therefore the Death of Isaac was really after the Selling of Joseph and there is nothing contrary to this in Gen. 35. 28 29. but it doth not at all follow that the relation of the Death of Isaac must be placed in the History after the relation of the Selling of Joseph for God was free to place it where he pleased and he thought fit to place it before the relation of the Selling of Joseph in the end of the 35th Chapter And there was this good reason for it because the Sacred Historian was there to finish the History of the Life of Isaac and to speak no more of it afterwards And having no more to say of him but that Isaac being One Hundred and Eighty Years Old Died and was Buried by his Sons Esau and Jacob the Sacred Historian wisely Judged it better to place it where it is than in the middle of the History of Joseph Fifthly He Objects Gen. 38. 1. And it came to pass at that time that Judah went down from his Brethren c. There is no Body says P. Simon in reading these words but would at first believe that they were joined with those that go before them and that the time is related in which this Action passed Nevertheless it is not so and the most Learned Interpreters of the Scripture agree that it happened at another time I Answer Here is indeed something that looks like an Argument and at first sight there seems to be a great difficulty in it not so much because it seems to be out of its proper place for that is easily Answered as before that whatsoever is in the place assigned unto it by the Wisdome of God is in its own place but because the thing here related is said to have come to pass at that time which at first sight seems plainly to refer unto the Selling of Joseph but it is not true that Judah was but newly Married to the Daughter of Shuah when Joseph was Sold into Aegypt for between the time of the Sale of Joseph and the time of Judahs going into Aegypt with his Father Jacob were but Twenty Two or Twenty Three Years as evidently appears from hence that Joseph was Sold at the Age of Seventeen Years and all his Fathers House went down to him into Aegypt when he was Forty or Thirty Nine Years Old But it is not possible that within the compass of Twenty Two or Twenty Three Years Judah should be Married unto the Daughter of Shuah and beget on her Three Sons Er Onan and Shelah and that after the Death of Er and Onan and after the youngest of them Shelah was Marriagable Judah should commit Incest with his Daughter in Law Tamar the Widow of Er and on her beget Pharez and Zerah and then Pharez should be Married and beget Two Sons Hezron and Hamul Gen. 38. throughout and Gen. 46. 12. I say it is not possible in the ordinary course of Nature that all this could be done within the space of Twenty Three Years Therefore I conclude that the words at that time in Vers 1 of Chap. 38 of Genesis cannot refer unto what goes immediately before to wit the Sale of Joseph into Aegypt Some Answer First That the words It came to pass at that time do not refer unto what goes immediately before them but that they mediately refer unto the time when Jacob came first into Canaan after he had left Laban his Father in Law in Mesopotamia they do not know certainly where to fix the time referred unto but suppose it to have been about the time of Jacob's dwelling at Succoth or at Shalem Gen. 33. 17 18. Secondly Others Answer That the words at that time or according to the Hebrew Baeth Hahi in that time do not at all refer unto any thing that went before either mediately or immediately but that they are a manner of Speech common to Jewish and other Writers such as diebus illis which signifies a large compass of time within which a thing came to pass without determining the Year as if the meaning were no more but that in such an Age such a thing came to pass But Thirdly That which satisfies me most and in which I acquiesce is this That this difficulty is only in Translations but not at all in the Original and therefore I humbly offer it unto the consideration of the Godly and Learned whether it be not expedient in this place to take some of the other significations of the Hebrew Particle Vau according to the prudent Advice of that excellent Person the Honourable Mr. Boyle in his Considerations touching the stile of the Scriptures Pag. 64 65. and thus to translate the passage under consideration Vaihi Baeth Hahi Vaijered Jehudah c. Vaijar Sham c. that is And it came to pass at that time When Judah went down from his Brethren and turned in c. that Judah saw there a Daughter c. here I render the Vau in Vaijerd When and I do it First Because the Particle Vau admits of this signification and accordingly is sometimes rendered in our own Translation as for instance Exod. 18. 1. Vaijishma Jithro c. when Jethro heard c. Secondly Because the subject matter doth require this signification of Vau in Vaijered for the better clearing up of the sense Thirdly Because our own Translatours recede from the primary signification of Vau in Vaijered and render it that why then may not we recede from the primary signification which is And and render it When since it is most evident that to render it When will sute better with the subject matter or thing spoken of then to render it That For if we render the Vau in Vajered When and the Vau in Vajar Vers 2. That with this little variation of the sense of one Hebrew Syllable the insuperable difficulty that seemed to be in this place of Scripture is evanished and come to nothing for the words at that time clearly refer unto Judah his going down from his Brethren and turning in to the Adullamite Hira then and at that time it was that he saw the Daughter of Shuah and took her to Wife but in what Year this came to pass is not revealed and therefore we are not concerned to know it P. Simon might have made a better use of his Critical Faculty in thus clearing up the difficulty which seemed to be in this place of Scripture than in cavilling at and finding fault with the Holy Scripture it self as he frequently doth but that seems to have been none of his design but rather to lessen the