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
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
Author and an Universal Historical Tradition assures us that such a Man was indeed the Author of it we are bound to believe it and cannot rationally disbelieve it without a demonstration to the contrary Thus we know the Books of Plato Aristotle and Cicero to have been written by those Authors and this is so clear and certain a truth Vt de istorum librorum Authoritatibus dubitare dementis sit utque ridendus sit non refellendus qui de iis questionem movet That none but a Madman will doubt of the Authors of those Books and he is to be laughed at and not confuted who moves a Question concerning them as holy August writes contra Fanstum Manich. lib. 32. cap. 21. And as he says That he knew the writeings of the New Testament to be the writings of the Apostles by the same means that the Manichees knew the writeings of Manes to be the writings of Manes so I say That by what means we here in England know the late Critical History of the Old Testament to be the writing of Pere Simon a Priest of the Oratory by the like means we know the Pentateuch to be the writing of Moses and we ought not to disbelieve it having the Universal Testimony of Jews Christians Mahumetans and many Heathens to ground our Faith upon unless it be first clearly demonstrated to us that it implies a contradiction that Moses should have written it which I know that neither Pere Simon nor any Man else can do And the reasonableness of what I have now said will yet further appear if it be considered that our Lord Christ himself gives Testimony unto the writings of Moses in general John 5. 46 47. Moses wrote of me But if ye beleive not his writeings how shall ye beleive my words and both he and his Apostles frequently appeal unto them and quote passages out of them This is the truth to be believed and this is actually believed by the Christian Church Yet it is no matter of Faith that there are no various Lections in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament nay it is a matter evident to Sense that there are various Lections it is no matter of Faith that through the length and injury of time and Negligence of Transcribers and Printers there are no mistakes at all in the Originals of Holy Scripture on the contrary we acknowledg that there may possibly be some mistakes even in the Pentateuch through the length and injury of time and the negligence of Transcribers and Printers but those mistakes we believe do not at all hinder the Holy Scriptures from being a perfect Rule of Faith and Life in all things necessary to the Glorifying of God and Saving of our Souls Nor lastly is it matter of Faith That Moses wrote every Word and Sentence Chapter and Verse of the Pentateuch with his own hand It is sufficient that we believe he wrote it himself or by other persons whose help he used in the writing of it and when it was written he revised it and approved it and in this he was assisted by the Holy Spirit inspiring guiding and directing him And if there be any thing in the Pentateuch besides the mistakes of Transcribers and Printers that was written after Moses's time it was added upon good Reasons by Joshua or Ezra and the great Assembly who were Men of a Prophetical Spirit and inspired by God in what they did of that nature Now in the Second place let us see what is the opinion of Pere Simon and wherein he agrees with or differs from the common Faith of the Church in this matter And First He agrees with us in these following particulars 1. That the whole Scripture of the Old Testament and consequently the Pentateuch was of Divine Inspiration and that God was the primary Author thereof this is demonstratively proved from his own express words in his Preface pag. 4. But besides that this Principle of a Divine of Paris That the whole Scripture is not equally Divine and Canonical is dangerous it is directly opposite to the Doctrine of the New Testament which acknowledges every thing throughout the whole Scripture for Prophetical and to have been inspired wherefore I thought I ought to lay down some Principles whereby we might ascribe every thing in the whole Scriptures to Prophets or Persons inspired by God even to the alterations themselves those only excepted which had happened through length of time or negligence of Transcribers And Book 1. Chap. 1. Pag. 3. I have divided this work into Three Books the First of which Treats at large of the Authors of the Bible which I have called Prophets with Josephus contra App. and most of the Fathers because they were in effect directed by the Spirit of God and that St. Peter calls the whole Scripture Prophecies During the Hebrew Common-wealth there were from time to time among them these sorts of Persons inspired by God were it to write Divine and Prophetick Books as the same Josephus has remarked or as Eusebius says to distinguish betwixt those that were truly Prophetick and others that were not And Pag. 4. They the publick Writers had the liberty in collecting the Acts which were in their Registeries to add diminish and change according as they thought fit and the Books as Eusebius says which were declared Sacred were reviewed by Persons inspired by God who Judged whether they were truly Prophetick or Divine And Pag. 21. I know it is expresly forbidden in Deuteronomy either to add or diminish any thing from the Word of God But we may Answer with the Author of the Book Intituled Cozri that this prohibition relates only to private Persons and not to those whom God had expresly commanded to interpret his Will God promised to the Prophets and to the Judges of the Sanhedrim who succeeded Moses the same Grace and the same Spirit of Prophecy as those had who lived in his time and therefore they have held the same Power not only of Interpreting the Law but also of making new Ordinances which were afterwards writ and placed in the Registeries of the Republick And Pag. 22. The Church has not the Right of making Books Canonical and Divine as the Prophets had in the Old Testament but only to declare them Canonical In fine Book 1. Chap. 1. Pag. 1. None can doubt but that the truths contained in the Holy Scripture are infallible and of Divine Authority since they proceed immediately from God who in this has only made use of the Ministery of Men to be his Interpreters So there is no Person either Jew or Christian who does not acknowledg that the Scripture being the pure Word of God is at the same time the first principle and foundation of Religion Here is clear and full proof from his own express words of his agreement with us in the first particular before mentioned Secondly He agrees with us in this That though Men having been the Depositories of these Sacred
Books as well as of all others and in their first Originals having been lost it was in some sort impossible but that there must needs happen some changes as well by reason of the length of time as the carelesness of Transcribers as it is impossible it may be to find one English Bible in all England without some Letter Sillable or Word Misprinted yet God by his special Providence hath taken such care of the Sacred Scripture as that it is preserved to this Day perfect intire and uncorrupt in all things relating to Faith and Manners and necessary to be believed or practised in order to Salvation This is proved also from his own words pag. 7. The Fathers were perswaded that these Errors that were crept into the Bible by the means of these Transcribers had no relation to Faith or good Manners or carried any weight to the framing of the Judgment which we ought to make of the Scriptures in general This does not hinder us but that we should acknowledg the Divine Providence in the preservation of this Book which has past through so many hands and so many Ages a great many of these Errors of Transcribers relate to the Chronology and Genealogies in the Books of the Old Testament but we may say with S. Augustin that these difficulties are in the number of those of which we may speak freely and we may be ignorant of Salva fide qua Christiani sumus This same Providence has likewise not permitted the Jews malitiously to corrupt the Holy Scriptures as many Fathers seem to reproach them Origen S. Jerome and S. Augustin have done them more Justice and those who at this day reproach the Jews with the same thing have not throughly examined the matter And pag. 9. This Author Mariana shews very plainly that the intention of the Council of Trent in declaring the Vulgar Translation Authentick was not to exempt it from all sorts of Faults but only from Errors which might introduce a change either in Faith or Manners which he confirms by several Authorities and principally by the Testimonies of Andrew de Vega and Jacob Lanis at that time superior of the Order of Jesuits who assisted at that Council Thirdly He agrees with us in this That being sure that God is the primary Author of the several Books of Scripture it is no great matter whether we certainly know or not the names of the Men by whom God was pleased to commit them to writing this is proved from his own words in his Preface pag. 2. Having Established in the Hebrew Common-wealth the Prophets or Publick Writers who took care of collecting faithfully the Acts of what past of most importance in the State we need not too curiously inquire as usually Men do who were the Authors of each particular Book of the Bible because it is certain that they were all writ by Prophets c. And in Book 1. Chap. 1. Pag. 3. We ought not to search with too much curiosity who have been the particular Authors of every Book of the Bible it sufficeth according to the Maxime of Gregory the Great praefat in lib. Job that these Books were written by Prophets Quis haec scripserit valde supervacue quaeritur cum tamen Author libri Spiritus Sanctus fideliter credatur Fourthly yet farther He agrees with us so far as to hold That in a true and good sense Moses may be the Author of the whole Peutateuch This is clearly proved from his own express words in Book 1. Chap. 1. Pag. 3. If these Publick Writers were in the Hebrew Common-wealth from the time of Moses as is extreamly probable it will be very easie to satisfie all difficulties that may be brought to shew that the Pentateuch was not wholy written by Moses which is ordinarily proved by the manner of its writing which seems to insinuate that some other than Moses collected the Acts and put them down in writing supposing these Publick Writers to them we may attribute what relates to the Historical part of these Books and to Moses all that which belongs to the Laws and Ordinances and it is this which the Scripture calls the Law of Moses thus one may say in this sense that the whole Pentateuch is truly Moses's because those who made the collection lived in his time and did not do it but by his Order And Pag. 20. According to this principle we ought to expound that passage where it is said that Moses wrote what God commanded him for there is nothing more ordinary in the Scripture than to ascribe unto one person what he Orders another to do chiefly when the thing is done in his name Thus we see wherein Pere Simon agrees with us in the common belief of all Christians He agrees with us so far as to acknowledg not only that the whole Scripture of the Old Testament is of Divine Inspiration and that it is uncorrupt in all things that relate to Faith and Life and are necessary to be believed or done in order to Salvation but also that the whole Pentateuch is truly Moses's because if it was not all written by himself immediately yet it was written by others in his time and in his name and by his order and then sure what was so written was reviewed and approved by himself If P. Simon were sincere in all this and did not deny it again by his self-contradiction we needed not much to oppose him in this matter for we are under no necessary obligation to believe that Moses wrote down with his own hand all the occurrences of every Day during the whole space of the Churches being in the Wilderness he might possibly appoint some other person or persons of known Integrity to do that for him and in his name and being so done and then reviewed and approved by himself it was all one as if he had done it with his own hand But notwithstanding this agreement we shall find that there remains yet a difference between P. Simon and other Christians as to this matter and that is it we are next to take into consideration And First He differs from the whole Church of God and from himself too by self-contradiction in this That he thinks Moses may have written the Pentateuch by an humane and fallible Spirit I prove this by consequence from his own words Pag. 40. It is true says he that the best Authors sometimes fall into little mistakes so likewise do we not pretend to draw from thence an infallible consequence to prove that Moses could not be the Author of the Pentateuch in the Order that it is Here he manifestly supposes that Moses in writing the Pentateuch might fall into little mistakes and so he might be the Author of it notwithstanding the disorder that is in it and is not this to suppose that Moses might write it by an humane and fallible Spirit for none I think will say that a Man writing by Divine Inspiration can fall into any mistakes little
or great I am sure not into such disorderly mistakes as he pretends to find in the History of the Creation of Man Secondly He differs from the whole Christian Church in affirming that for so much of the Historical part of the Pentateuch as Moses wrote or might write he copied it out of other ancient Books or else committed to writing what he had learned from Oral Tradition This difference is the same upon the matter with the former and I prove it also from his own express words Book 1. Chap. 3. Pag. 27. A Book of the Wars of the Lord of which mention is made in the Numbers Numb 21. 14. is an evident proof that the Stories which are related in the Five Books of Moses have likewise been taken out of several collections which have been lost And Pag. 54. most clearly We may likewise apply says he to the Book of Genesis what we have already said touching the manner of the inregistering the publick Acts in the time of Moses this Book contains the Creation of the World and many things which happened many Ages before him and in all Genesis there is no observation of Gods dictating to Moses what is there related it is not likewise said that he writ it by the Spirit of Prophecy but all these Histories and Genealogies are simply related as if Moses had taken them from some Authentick Books or else had had a constant Tradition And in the same place Moses without doubt has had other Records than the fabulous Books of Adam Seth Sem Abraham c. were they writ or were they preserve viva voce down to him in the Families which God had chosen to be faithful to him in the Worship of true Religion Doth not this look too like unto what I mentioned before that Moses might write the Book of Genesis by an humane fallible Spirit which is contrary unto Gal. 3. 8. 4. 21 22 30. Rom. 4. 17. 23 24. 1 Cor. 15. 45. James 2. 23. for these Scriptures do plainly assert the Divine Original and Authority of the Book of Genesis Thirdly He differs from the generality of Jews and Christians in that he not only says there may be some few things in the Books of Moses as we now have them which were not written by Moses but he positively and peremptorily affirms that there are de facto a great many things now in the Books of Moses which could not be written by Moses This is proved from his own words Pag. 4 5. The publick Writers which were in his time and writ out the ancient Acts have spoke of Moses in the Third Person and have used several other such like expressions which could not be Moses's but they for all that have never the less Authority because they can be ascribed only to persons which Moses had commanded to put into writing the most important Actions of his time And Chap. 2. Pag. 19. We shall distinguish in the Five Books of the Law what has been writ by Moses from what has been writ by these Prophets or publick Writers We may attribute to Moses the Commandments and Ordinances which he gave to the People and allow these same publick Writers to be the Authors of the greatest part of the History Moses in quality of Legislator writ all which relates to the Statutes and left to the Scribes or Prophets the care of collecting the Acts of the most material Transactions which past that they might be preserved to Posterity And Pag. 20. But if we consider with never so little attention the whole Body of the Pentateuch we may observe this diversity of Writers which I speak of which will more appear in the sequel of this Discourse where I evidently make the falsity of the reasons appear which the Jews use to prove that Moses is the Author of the whole Law And as was observed in the beginning in Pag. 36. Contents of Chap. 5. Moses cannot be the Author of the Books which are attributed to him Thus I have given a faithful account of the Judgment of P. Simon and shewed wherein he both agrees with and differs from the common Faith of Gods Church And since he hath the generality of Jews and Christians yea Christ himself and his Apostles against him he had need of very clear and strong irrefragable Arguments to support his singular opinion to wit that in his sense Moses could not be the Author of the Books which are attributed to him And now we come in the Third place to consider the grounds of his Opinion and to answer the Arguments by which he endeavors to prove it His Arguments may be reduced to Three Heads First He argues from the Repetitions that are in the Pentateuch Secondly From the Transpositions that are in it Thirdly From several passages in it where there are such expressions as seem to intimate that Moses could not be the Author of them I begin with the First His Argument from Repetitions There are says he Pag. 37. many Repetitions of the same thing in the Pentateuch which are apparently not Moses's but rather theirs who have made a collection of the Holy Scriptures and have joined together several Readings or Explanations of the same words not thinking it convenient to leave out of their Copies what might illustrate the Text. And then he gives Instances of these Repetitions But before I come to examine his Instances in particular I answer to all in general Since P. Simon acknowledges that those who made the collection of the Holy Scriptures were Men of a Prophetical Spirit and Divinely Inspired as Moses was what greater absurdity is there in Moses his being the Author of these Repetitions than in any other Prophets their being the Authors of them Was not God as free to repeat the same thing over and over again for illustrating the Text by the Ministry of one Prophet as by the Ministry of another P. Simon seems to be better acquainted with the Rules of Grammar than with the Rules of Reasoning now I come to his particular Instances First He begins with Gen. 7. v. 17 18 19 20 24. v. 21 22 23. and first finds fault with its being said Five times over in Five Verses That the Waters prevailed But I Answer If his Self-conceit had not blinded him he might have seen that there was good reason for and great Grace in this Repetition for as the Waters of the Flood prevailed gradually and still rose higher and higher so it was fit that the words should be adapted to the thing First The Waters increased so far on the Earth that they bore up the Ark and set it a floating and this is expressed as we have it in Verse 17. Secondly The Waters increased to that degree that they set the Ark a going or moving progressively from one place to another and this is expressed as in Verse 18. Thirdly The Waters increased so exceedingly that the highest Mountains in the World were covered with them and this
is sutably expressed Verse 19. Fourthly The Waters increased yet so wonderfully upwards above the highest Mountains that they were Fifteen Cubits under Water and this is expressed as in Verse 20. And then Fifthly and Lastly Since the space of time in which the Waters prevailed upon the Earth was One Hundred and Fifty Days this is appositly expressed as in Verse 24 and last of the Chapter What now doth this Man deserve who quarrels with the Spirit of God for these repeated expressions which carry such a Grace in them being so well fitted to the nature of the thing spoken of Next he finds fault with the Repetitions in Vers 21 22 23. I Answer Here indeed is a Repetition of the same thing but it is in somewhat different words and who knows but it might be to assure us of the Truth of the thing which God foresaw some Men would not believe to wit That the Flood was so Universal as to destroy utterly every Living thing from off the Face of the whole Earth except Noah and them that were with him in the Ark and whatever be said of that yet it cannot be denyed but it is free for God to express his mind as he pleases if there be nothing in the expressions but what is true as certainly there is not in this place And it may be that in expressing himself thus he condescended to accomodate himself to the genius of the Hebrew Tongue and to speak with his People in their own way of speaking P. Simon himself confesses that there are some Repetitions which have their Grace in the Books of Moses as well as in the Poems of Homer And says he Pag. 40. it may be that good part of these Repetitions belong to the genius of the Hebrew Tongue which is a very plain Language and repeats often the same thing by different terms which appears in almost all the Books of Scripture and which we find even in the Ordinances of our Kings and in the Stile of the Chancery of Rome as well as in the Stile of our Courts for Civil Affairs where several words are placed after one another which signifie but the same thing Thus he And this Answer may serve to his other Instances from Exod. 31. 14 15 16. and Exod. 32. 15. But why Exod. 16. 33. compared with Verse 36. Levit. 6. 9. should be objected I can see no colour of reason Is it possible that ever a reasonable Man should think that these passages can afford so much as a probable Argument that Moses cannot be the Author of the Books attributed to him And if Pere Simon did not think that they could do him any Service in this matter why did he alledg them And moreover why any Man should find fault with the expressions there used I do not understand unless it be a fault for Almighty God so clearly and fully to express his mind as that his People cannot but understand his meaning might not P. Simon have been affraid least God should say to him as it is written Matth. 20. 15. Is thine Eye Evil because I am Good Lastly Under this head of Repetitions is alledged Levit. 3. 3. and here he finds fault with these expressions The Fat that covereth the Inwards and all the Fat that is upon the Inwards pretending that there is no difference between these two the Fat that covereth the Inwards and all the Fat that is upon the Inwards but this critical Objection ariseth from his own inadvertency for if he had weighed and considered the words he would have seen a manifest difference between these two the Fat that covereth the Inwards and all the Fat that is upon the Inwards and would have perceived that the words are very significant and give us plainly to understand that not only some of the Fat but all the Fat on the Inwards of the Sacrifice must be taken away not only the outward covering of Fat that is upon the Inwards but every bit and crum of Fat that adheres most closely to the Inwards here is an inadequat distinction between these two the Fat c. and all the Fat c. as there is an inadequat distinction between the part and the whole the thing included and the thing including I proceed to his Second Head of Arguments Secondly He Argues from the Disorder and Transpositions that are in the Pentateuch To which I Answer in general That no solid Argument can be drawn from this pretended Disorder to prove that Moses could not be the Author of the Pentateuch for if any other Man writeing by Divine Inspiration might be the Author of such passages as are pretended to be out of their proper places there can no reason be given why Moses might not as well be the Author of them surely it was as free for the Spirit of God to transpose things by the Pen of Moses as by the Pen of any other Man But as we have shewed P. Simon confesses that the whole Pentateuch except any little mistakes of Transcribers that may be in it was written by Men Divinely Inspired Secondly I Answer That in all such passages God may be supposed to have accommodated himself to the genius of the Hebrew Tongue and to have condescended to write unto his People in their own usual way of writing if it be true that P. Simon says Pag. 40 41. in these words following It seems to me that the Jews themselves did not much regard writing in Method as it would be easie to prove by the Stile of the Epistles of Paul and Haron a Caraite Jew who has made literal Commentaries on the whole Pentateuch observes often this confusion of Order which he calls Haphuck and says That it is usual enough in Scripture to begin with one thing then to pass unto another and afterwards to resume again the first If this be true no reason can be given why God might not make choice of writeing to them by the Pen of Moses in this very way and method which was usual amongst them there being nothing of Falshood in it So much in general Now let us come to a particular Examination of the several Instances he gives of this pretended disorder and First He begins with the History of the Creation and finds fault with its Order As that after the Man and Woman were Created Gen. 1. 27. The Woman is supposed not to be made and in the following Chapter the manner how she was taken from Adams side is described nevertheless in the same Chapter it was before forbidden him as he was her Husband whom she accompanied in the Garden to eat the Fruit of a certain Tree This is his first Argument in which there are several Falshoods shuffled in as if it were to make the History of the Creation seem ridiculous But if any Man will impartially and in the fear of God consider the words of Moses in the Two first Chapters of Genesis he will find no such disorder or falshood in
them at all For in the First Chapter Man is generally considered according to the common nature of both Sexes and there it is affirmed That on the first Day after the other works of God were finished God Created Man Male and Female in his own Image This is common to Adam and Eve the Male and the Female that they were both Man of the same specifical humane Nature and that they were both Created by God in his own Image on the Sixth Day after the other Works of God were finished But in the Second Chapter Man is considered more particularly and distinctly according to the proper differences of Sex and the way is described how the Individuals of humane Nature were Created each in their own Sex and 1. The Spirit of God by Moses declares how Man was Created in the Male-Sex and that he was put into the Garden before Planted and that he was appointed to dress and keep it and allowed to eat of the Fruit of it excepting the Fruit of one Tree only which God forbad him to eat of under pain of Death 2. The Spirit of God by Moses relates how Man was Created in the Female-Sex out of a Rib of a Male-Sex and then that the Female being thus of the Male was Married unto him and made one Flesh with him for his help and comfort In all this appears no Disorder nor Transposition nor is there the least shadow of Falshood or Contradiction But P. Simon Objects First That after Man and Woman were Created as it is written Chap. 1. 27. the Woman is supposed not to be made Chap. 2. I Answer He might have said as well that the Man is supposed not to be made in Chap. 2. But the truth is neither the Woman nor the Man are supposed to be yet unmade after they were really made nor doth the Second Chapter at all contradict the First for what the First and Second Chapters say of the Creation of Mankind relate to the same thing and to the same time with this difference that what the First Chapter relates of Man's Creation is expressed in a few general Words which equally concern both Sexes Whereas the Second Chapter gives a full and particular account of the manner how and of the order of time in which each Sex were Created But he Objects farther That before the Woman was made it vvas forbidden the Man as he vvas her Husband vvhom she accompanied in the Garden to eat the Fruit of a certain Tree I Ansvver This is notoriously False I appeal to common Sense vvhether there be any such thing in the Text of Moses as that Adam vvas the Husband of Eve and that she accompanied him in the Garden before she vvas made of his Rib. Adam indeed vvas forbidden to eat the Fruit of a certain Tree before Eve vvas Created this is plain in the Text of Moses but that he vvas then the Husband of Eve or considered as her Husband before she had a Being there is not one Syllable of this in the Text nor any thing from vvhence it can ever be proved When Adam received that positive Command he neither vvas her Husband nor considered as such nor did she then accompany him in the Garden but he rally vvas the common Root of all Mankind of vvhom the several individuals vvere to spring he vvas moreover I believe the federal principal and head of all his Posterity excepting the Messias and as such he was considered in receiving that Law which the Lord God revealed unto Eve also after she was Created though it be not expressed in the Text for she had it revealed unto her one way or other otherwise she had not actually sinned in transgressing it and we have her own confession related by the Sacred Historian that God had revealed it unto her Chap. 3. 3. But whether God revealed it unto her immediately or by the mediation of her Husband we find not in the Text and therefore we cannot certainly say whether of the Two ways it was revealed unto her but we are sure that one of them it was and that is enough Here P. Simon has discovered himself and by this instance we may Judge what Spirit he is of an honest Heathen would have abhorred to have been guilty of such a gross Falsification that he might the better expose the Author of the History of the Creation whoever he was Sure I am that Longinus did not take the Author of that History to have been a Fool when having occasion to mention the History of the Creation he wrote thus of Moses whom he believed to be the Author of it He that gave Laws unto the Jews was a Man of no ordinary parts for he hath both conceived and spoken worthily and becomingly of the power of God In the very beginning of his Laws writing thus God said but what Let there be Light and it was Let the Earth be and it was Such an high opinion of the Sacred Historian had Longinus as is to be seen in his Book De Sublimi dicendi genere extant in several Languages unto this Day Secondly P. Simon Instances in Gen. 21. 3 4 5. and says That to understand the Books of Moses one must often join many Verses together by beginning with the last and coming up to the first That is in plain English we must read them backwards or we cannot understand them Thus Vers 5. And Abraham was One Hundred Years old when his Son Isaac was born unto him Vers 4. And Abraham Circumcised his Son Isaac being Eight Days old as God had commanded him Vers 3. And Abraham called the name of his Son that was born unto him whom Sarah bare to him Isaac And then he gives his Reason why these Three Verses should be read backwards in these numerical words This Order methinks the Historian ought to have kept for the Jews do not name their Children till after their Circumcision This is his Second Argument under the head of Transpositions to prove that Moses could not be the Author of the Pentateuch And is it not a goodly one Sure P. Simon must have very mean thoughts of the Learned Men of this Age to believe that he can perswade them by such ridiculous Reasoning as this to be of his opinion that Moses could not be the Author of the Pentateuch But it is no wonder that he have mean thoughts of the Men of this Age when he takes upon him to teach the Sacred Historian whom himself acknowledges to have been a Prophet how he ought to have written This Order methinks the Historian ought to have kept says P. Simon And your reason good Father why the Historian ought to have kept the Order that you fancy to be best Why that we have in the very next words For the Jews do not name their Children till after their Circumcision Now Reader I pray thee consider what a senseless Reason this is The Author of the Book of Genesis ought to have written in
that Order as P. Simon would have it and we ought to read the Three Verses aforesaid backwards because the Jews in this Age do not name their Children till after their Circumcision But can P. Simon prove that in Abrahams time Children were not named till after their Circumcision might they not be numbred at their Circumcision yea or before their Circumcision in Abrahams time God left it free unto Abraham and his Posterity to name their Children at vvhat time they pleased before at or after their Circumcision and no Man living can prove that in Abrahams time People vvere bound to name their Children after their Circumcision or that they generally used so to do such Arguments as this of P. Simons deserves no Ansvver but to be hissed at and his Immodesty in saying That the Sacred Historian ought to have kept the Order he speaks of is to be lamented by all that desire to fear God Thirdly He Objects Gen. 31. 46. This Verse says he is methinks likewise out of its Order as well as all the Discourse which treats of the Covenant between Jacob and Laban because they did not eat till the Alliance was made Answer Here is an Argument little better than the former only it is more modestly proposed They did not eat till the Alliance was made ergo all the Discourse which treats of the Covenant between Jacob and Laban is out of its order Any Man that attentively reads the Text of Moses would conclude the quite contrary that seeing they did not eat till the Alliance was made therefore all the Discouse that treats of the Covenant c. is in its Order because it is all set down before the offering of Sacrifice or killing of Beasts and eating of Bread mentioned Vers 54. As for Vers 46. there is nothing affirmed in it but what is most true It is most true that Jacob's Brethren gathered Stones it is most true that they made an heap and it is as true that they did eat there upon the heap But says P. Simon They did not eat till the Alliance was made I Answer Nor does the Historian say in Vers 46. that they did eat before the Covenant was made there he only says That they did eat upon the heap but does not say when and a little after in Vers 54. he tells us when it was they eat upon the heap to wit after the Covenant was made So that here is nothing to cavil at and find fault with only the same thing is twice expressed in somewhat different words First The matter of Fact is related in general without telling what was meant by it Vers 46. They took stones and made an heap and they did eat there upon the heap Secondly The meaning of the heap of stones and of their eating upon the heap is cleared up and the time mentioned when they eat upon the heap there it is shewed that the heap of stones was by agreement between Jacob and Laban ordained to be a Witness or Token of the Covenant between them Two and their eating upon the heap is clearly implyed to have been a federal Feast signifying and sealing up a lasting Friendship between the Parties Covenanted and last of all it is expresly declared when this Feast upon the heap of stones was to wit after the Covenant between Jacob and Laban was made and confirmed by the Oaths of both Parties Vers 53 54. To conclude this Answer Let it be considered that Vers 46 speaks only of the place where they eat without mentioning the time when But Vers 54 speaks only of the time when they eat without mentioning the place where that is without mentioning that it was upon the heap of stones and now why Moses yea why Gods Holy Spirit might not be the Author of both these 46 and 54 Verses and of all that comes between them it is above my capacity to understand I dare challenge any Man to bring an Argument from this place to prove that Moses could not be the Author of the Pentateuch an Argument I say that any Man of Judgment would not be ashamed of Fourthly He Objects Gen. 35. 28 29. The Death of Isaac there related seems to be out of its place says P. Simon because Isaac died not at that time and that Joseph was sold Twelve Years before the Death of Isaac yet nevertheless the History of Joseph begins but at the 37th Chapter of the same Book I Answer The Death of Isaac hath that place in the History which the wisdome of God thought fit to assign unto it and that we should account to be its place which Gods Wisdome by his Prophet hath put it in But says P. Simon Isaac died not at that time I Answer There is no other time of his Death mentioned there but that after he was One Hundred and Eighty Years Old he Died and was Buried which is most true but it is not at all said by the Sacred Historian that Isaac Died at that time when his Son Jacob came unto him unto Mamre for that had been false and I desire this may be taken notice of But says P. Simon Joseph was Sold Twelve Years before the Death of Isaac and yet the History of Joseph begins but at the 37th Chapter of the same Book I Answer This is indeed true for Isaac was Sixty Years Old when Jacob was Born Gen. 25. 26. And Jacob was One Hundred and Thirty Years Old when he stood before Pharaoh Gen. 47. 9. Now 60 and 130. make One Hundred and Ninety which is but Ten Years more than the Years of the Age of Isaac who Died when he was One Hundred and Eighty Years Old that is Ten Years before Jacob stood before Pharaoh so that Isaac must have Died about the time of Joseph's advancement in Aegypt as appears from Gen. 41. 53 54. compared with Gen. 45. 6. where we see that Seven Years of Plenty and Two Years of Famine had passed from the time of Joseph's advancement until the time of Jacob's coming into Aegypt Isaac then Living One Hundred and Eighty Years could not Die till about the time of Joseph's advancement either the Year of his advancement or the Year before his advancement and if it was the Year before his Advancement that Isaac Died then it was about Twelve Years after Joseph was Sold that Isaac Died for Joseph was Seventeen Years Old when he was Sold Gen. 37. 2. and Thirty Years Old when he was advanced in Aegypt Gen. 41. 46. and consequently he was not advanced till the Thirteenth Year after he had been Sold so that Isaac Dying the Year before his advancement he must have Died Twelve Years after he was Sold. But what is all this to the purpose this doth not prove that the Relation of the Death of Isaac is out of its place for as I have said that is its place which the Wisdome of God thought fit to assign unto it and there we find it in the end of the 35th Chapter
Heb. 7. 9. Thus all the 70 Souls came into Aegypt but the Text of Moses doth not at all say that all the 70 came into Aegypt at the same time and in the same way and manner Eighthly He Objects Gen. 35. 26. where Benjamin is counted amongst the Children that Jacob had in Mesopotamia and nevertheless Benjamin was not Born there but in the Land of Canaan I Answer I do not understand by what Rules of Reasoning P. Simon puts this passage amongst the disorderly Transpositions which he pretends to be in the Pentateuch for surely this seems rather to be a contradiction it being said in the same Chapter Vers 16 17 18. that Benjamin was Born at Ephrath And yet here is no real but only a seeming contradiction for to make a real contradiction it must have been said Benjamin was Born at Ephrath All these are the Sons of Jacob which were Born to him in Padan-Aram but now it is not said all these are the Sons of Jacob which were Born to him in Padam-aram but only These are the Sons of Jacob which were Born to him in Padan-Aram and this is most true without including Benjamin in the number of Jacob's Sons Born to him in Padan-Aram for the other Eleven were Born in Padan-Aram and there was no need here to except Benjamin by name because it was so clearly said but a little before in the same Chapter That Benjamin was Born at Ephrath in the Land of Canaan that no Reader could mistake so grosly as to think he was Born with the rest of Jacob's Children in Padan-Aram or Mesopotamia I pray mark the expression it is not said in v. 26. All these are c. but These are c. P. Simon pretends that there are Transpositions not only in the History but likewise in the Laws of Moses and therefore Ninthly and Lastly He Objects Exod. 22. 1 3 4. where says he to make a reasonable construction what is said of the Thief in the Third Verse must be joined with the First because there is a Transposition and then one ought to join the Fourth Verse with the First and moreover the words of the Fourth Verse if the Theft be certainly found in his hand alive ought only to relate to the Ox and Sheep which this Verse makes mention of and not to the Ass although that is spoke of in the same place with the Two other Animals I Answer All this is gratis dictum without one word of proof The words of the Law may be reasonably enough construed and well enough understood without the help of Pere Simons imaginary Transposition In the First Verse the Lord God determins in what proportion a Thief should make restitution for an Ox or a Sheep in case he have killed or sold them In Vers 2. The Lord God declares that if the Thief be found in the Act of breaking up and be killed the killing of him shall not be accounted Murther nor shall the killers Blood be shed for him provided it were in the Night and before Sun-Rising But in the Third Verse the Lord declares That the killing of a Thief in the Day time after Sun-Rising should be accounted Murther and that the Blood of the slayer should be shed for the Blood of the slain Thief and that for this reason given in the same Third Verse because he should not have been killed for the Theft but compelled to make full Restitution if he was able but if he was not able he should be sold for his Theft And in Vers 4. the Lord shews in what proportion he should be obliged to make Restitution in case the Theft were found alive in his hand not in a Five-fold nor Four-fold but in a double proportion for Ox or Ass or Sheep and thus all is clear enough in the Order wherein the Wisdom of God has placed things and there is no need to have recourse unto a Transposition as to what he Objects concerning the Ass in the Fourth Verse that though it be joined with the Ox and Sheep yet what is said of the Theft its being found alive in the hand of the Thief and of his making double Restitution in that Case ought not to relate unto the Ass but only to the Ox and Sheep I Answer This is a bold Assertion without any proof at all and there is reason to conclude the contrary that because the Ass is joined with the Ox and Sheep therefore what here relates to the Ox and Sheep ought also to be referred unto the Ass the Ass was a very useful Creature in those Eastern Countries and that may be the reason why it is joined with the Ox both here and elsewhere as in the Tenth Commandment I know not what use P. Simon may have for this Ass but it seems by what he writes that he would play the Thief and steal it out of this Fourth Verse of Exod. 22. which if he should do he would be guilty not only of Theft but of Sacrilege for this Ass stands upon Holy Ground Thus I have Answered all his Arguments that fall under the Second Head of Disorderly Transpositions I pass to the Third and last head of Arguments taken from several passages of the Pentateuch where he pretends there are such expressions as seem to intimate that Moses could not be the Author of them First He Objects Numb 21. 14. A Book says he of the Wars of the Lord of which mention is made Numb 21. 14. is an evident proof that the Histories which are related in the Five Books of Moses have been taken out of several Collections which have been lost I Answer It is denyed that the citing of the Book of the Wars of the Lord in Numb 21. 14. is an evident proof or indeed any proof at all of any such thing For First It is not so evident that it was a Book at all some think it was but a Song the Hebrew word Sepher does not always signifie a Book but Secondly Granting that it was a Book and not meerly a Triumphal Song it is not evident that it was a Book then already written it might be a Book to be afterwards written which Moses foreseeing by the Spirit of Prophecy refers unto this agrees with the Original words in the Text which are Al-ken Jeamar wherefore it shall be said in the Book of the Wars of the Lord c. yet Thirdly Granting it to have been a Book already written Moses his once citing a Testimony out of it doth no more prove that he collected his History out of such Books then Paul's citing a Testimony out of Heathen Poets Acts 17. 28. Tit. 1. 12. doth prove that he Transcribed his Sermons and Epistles out of the writings of Heathen Poets Secondly He Objects That the names of Hebron and Dan which are in the Pentateuch were not in beeing in the time of Moses Answer It is said but not proved that the names of Hebron and Dan were not in beeing in Moses his
certain it is that he did not first give it its name because Jacob had done that long before as appears from Gen. 31. 47 48 54. Masius has one Objection which I must Answer Kirjath-arba says he is an old name of that City therefore Hebron is a new name I Answer This is but a weak conjecture for it might have two old names one amongst the Canaanites and the other amongst the Israelites as it seems Bethel had of which Bethel it is said Judg. 1. 23. the name of it before was Luz and yet it is probable that the Israelites called that City by the name of Bethel long before the House of Joseph took it from the Canaanites Some part of the Countrey very near it was most certainly called Bethel from Jacob's time and it is not unlikely that the City it self from that time forwards began to be called sometimes Bethel by Jacob's Posterity even Jacob himself seems to make Luz to be all one with Bethel because Bethel strictly so called was near Luz Gen. 48. 3. says Jacob God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the Land of Canaan and Blessed me but in Chap. 35. Vers 1 3. the same City is called Bethel and was so called at that time both by God speaking unto Jacob and by Jacob speaking unto his Family says God unto him arise go up to Bethel and dwell there and says he to his Family let us arise and go up to Bethel which they did and so came to Luz that is Bethel Vers 6. And Jacob there in Luz Built an Altar and called the place of the Altar El-Bethel Vers 7. From all which it seems very evident that the same City was in Jacob's time called by two names Bethel and Luz its publick name by which the Canaanites called it and by which it was generally known to the World was Luz but its private name by which God and his People called it was Bethel the like may be said without any absurdity at all of Kirjath-arba and Hebron Secondly For the name Dan as to what he Objects that it was not in Beeing in the time of Moses and yet it is found in the Pentateuch Gen. 14. 14. Deut. 34. 1. I Answer First It is freely confessed that the City Leshem or Laish was not called by the name of Dan in the time of Moses It was a long time after Moses before the Danites took Laish and changed its name from Laish to Dan after the name of Dan their Father as appears from Josh 19. 47. Jud. 18. 29. But that therefore there was no other place called by the name of Dan in the time of Moses I deny the consequence the Brook or Valley of Eshcol was first called Eshcol in the time of Moses because of the Cluster of Grapes which the Children of Israel cut down from thence when the Spies searched out the Land Numb 13. 24. And yet in Abraham's time Mamre the Amorite had a Brother whose name was Eshcol Gen. 14. 13. just so though Laish was not called Dan till after Moses yet some other place might be called Dan in the time both of Abraham and Moses Jerome Swidas and Philostorgius were of opinion that a Spring-head of Jordan was called Dan and the Hebrew Doctors think that the River Jordan was so called because it springs out of Dan and if we may believe the Learned Hofman in his Lexicon universale Pag. 526. there was another Dan yet distinct from Laish-Dan and it was an Hill in the Tribe of Ephraim on the Rode from Samaria to Sichem if there were then several Dans it may probably be supposed that even in Abraham's time there might be some place called by the name of Dan if not the Hill Dan on the Rode from Samaria to Sichem at least the Fountain Dan springing out of Mount Libanus I Answer Secondly Moses in the Spirit of Prophecy might call Laish Dan by an Historical Prolepsis as foreseeing that it would lose the name of Laish and be called and known only by the name of Dan in after Ages He might be moved to do this that his writings might then be the better understood by the People when the name of Laish should be forgotten by the Vulgar and that City should only be known by the name of Dan. I Answer Thirdly Suppose we should grant with the Learned Masius that some Prophet after Moses did substitute the word Dan in the place of Laish and the same may be said of Hebron for to help the People the better to understand and remember those passages of Holy Scripture where it occurs it will not follow from hence that Moses cannot be the Author of the Pentateuch as we say one Swallow doth not make the Spring so one or two little alterations of a word and that by the same Holy Spirit of Truth by which Moses wrote doth not hinder Moses from being justly accounted the Author of the Pentateuch the changing of a word or two by God's Spirit for the benefit of God's People in after Ages is no sufficient reason to change the name of the Book and to denominate it anew from the person by whom it pleased God to make such a change But though I write thus yet I shall not easily grant that de facto there has been such an alteration made in the names before mentioned until it be first clearly and certainly proved which no Man that I know hath yet done I am sure P. Simon hath not done it Thirdly He Objects Gen. 36. 31. It is probable says P. Simon that Moses could not have writ these words And these are the Kings that Reigned in the Land of Edom before there Reigned any King over the Children of Israel this manner of speaking supposes the Establishment of Kings amongst the Hebrews Answer 1. This manner of speaking only supposes that Kingly Government was to be Established amongst the Children of Israel according to the express promise of God unto Jacob at Bethel Gen. 35. 11 12. and this Moses knew very well by the Spirit of Prophecy as appears from Deut. 17. 14 15 18 19 20. and therefore he might well suppose it as a thing that should certainly come to pass but it not being yet come to pass Moses here declares that Esau was before hand with Jacob as to this matter for whilst Jacob's Posterity was in Servitude under a Rod of Iron in Aegypt Esau his Posterity flourished under a Kingly Government in the Land of Edom. Answer 2. This may signifie no more but that the Persons there mentioned did Reign Kings in the Land of Edom before the time of Moses that the Children of Israel were first formed into an Holy Kingdom and Common-wealth according to Exod. 19. 5 6. and Moses was set over them as their Head and King under God according to Deut. 33. 5. where it is said that Moses was King in Jeshurun Thus it is evident that there is no weight at all in this Objection Fourthly
general Sum of the Males of the whole Tribe as appears Vers 39 Answer They were numbered because God would have it a known truth upon Record that there were at that time so many Males of the whole Tribe of Levi and no more they were put into the particular Sums because the particular Sums were to contain all the Males of the several Families whether they were First-born or not but they were left out of the general Sum because it was to ballance the general Sum of the First-born of the other Tribes and so no First-born Levites were to be taken into it Secondly I Answer That it becomes not us to call God to an account and to ask why he doth such a thing when we know certainly that he hath done it he giveth not account of any of his matters Job 33. 13. Even an Heathen King when his Understanding returned unto him had so much Reason and Religion as to confess unto God's praise That he doth according to his Will c. and none can say unto him what doest thou Dan. 4. 35. This is as true of God's way of Writeing his Word as it is of his way of Governing the World But notwithstanding of some things that may be secret and to us unaccountable in both yet we are sure in general that God doth all things well and wisely in the one and the other Seventhly He Objects Exod. 16. 35. where it is said That the Children of Israel did eat Manna Forty Years until they came unto the Borders of the Land of Canaan It is pretended that Moses could not write this Verse because he died before the Children of Israel left off eating of Manna which was not before they came to Gilgal in the Plains of Jericho beyond Jordan as appears from Josh 5. 10 11 12. Answer I deny the consequence of this Argument that because the Children of Israel continued to eat Manna after the death of Moses therefore Moses could not write this Verse any strength that this Argument may seem to have depends upon a false supposition that Moses was no Prophet and knew no more than other ordinary Men or that he did not write by the Spirit of Prophecy for if Moses was a great Prophet as certalnly he was Numb 12. 6 7 8. Deut. 34. 10. and if he knew more than other ordinary Men as certainly he did Dent. 31. from Vers 1 to 8 and from Vers 27 inclusively unto Vers 30. then he might easily know by the Spirit of Prophecy how long the Children of Israel should eat Manna and when and where the Manna should cease and it is most certain that long before his death the Lord God revealed unto him That the Children of Israel should wander or feed as it is rendered on the Margine of our Bible in the Wilderness Forty Years as is evident from Numb 14. 26 33. 34 35. and he knew well enough without having it immediately revealed to him that they had nothing else but Manna to live upon in the Wilderness yet God might tell him that they should not be starved but the Manna should be continued to them and their Children till their Children were entered within the Borders of the Land of Canaan and sufficiently provided for in an ordinary way without Manna Now Moses believing this and knowing infallibly that it would be so as the Lord had spoken he might write of it before his death in the same manner as he would have done in case he had lived to see it all fulfilled he might write of it in the Preterit Tense because the whole Forty Years were almost expired before his death and they had already eaten Manna for many Years and as for the short time that remained in which they were to have the Manna continued to them he was so sure of it that the Manna should be continued to them and that they should eat of it till they passed over Jordan and entered into Canaan that he needed not to alter the Tense but might very well express it altogether in one and the same Preterit Tense for the use of that and succeeding Generations to whom it would certainly be a thing past After all the vain attempts made hitherto by P. Simon to prove that Moses could not be the Author of the Pentateuch at last out come the Arguments that Spinosa had formerly borrowed as he says from Aben Ezra to prove his position that Moses could not be the Author of the Books attributed to him Eighthly Then P. Simon Objects Deut. 1. 1. And to put some colour upon the business and to make the Objection seem to have some weight in it he thus renders the First Verse of Deut. These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel beyond Jordan in the Wilderness and then he Argues that the Book of Deuteronomy could not be written by Moses because he never went over Jordan but lived and died on this side Jordan in the Wilderness he that wrote thus must have been in the Land of Canaan which therefore could not be Moses but some Body after his death that wrote thus of him that he spoke such words unto all Israel beyond Jordan Answer It seems strange to me that P. Simon who is such a Learned Hebrician was not ashamed of this Argument whereof the whole strength lies on the signification of the Hebrew word Beeber indeed if Beeber signifie only Trans beyond then the Argument is good but if Beebers signifie also Cis on this side as it is rendered in our English Bibles then the Argument is stark nought we must therefore for clearing of this matter inquire what Beeber signifies And First I grant that Beeber doth some times signifie trans beyond I grant also that the Vulgar Latine the Seventy and that Edition of Munsters Translation which I have render it beyond but that is no proof that Beeber signifies always beyond and that it should be so rendered in this place for P. Simon himself finds fault with all these Three Translations and acknowledges that they may be mended in several places why then may not this be one of the places that ought to be mended in these Translations For Secondly It is not to be granted because it is false that Beeber always signifies beyond I demonstrate as clearly as any thing of this nature can be demonstrated that Beeber signifies also Cis on this side and that in some places it must do so and cannot do otherwise as for instance in Josh 1. 14 15. where the same words Beeber Haijarden are twice repeated and of necessity must be Translated on this side Jordan and cannot be otherwise Translated For whosoever he was that wrote the Book of Joshua and when or wheresoever it was written yet still this is true That before any of the Israelites had passed over Jordan here Joshua is brought in making a Speech to the Reubenites Gadites and half Tribe of Manasseh in which Speech he tells them That Moses had
given them their possession Beeber Haijarden on this side Jordan here Beeber must of necessity be rendered on this side and so Masius renders it for it would have been notoriously false for Joshua in that place and at that time to have said that Moses had given them their Inheritance beyond Jordan it being evident to common sense that their Inheritance lay on that side Jordan on which Joshua was then speaking to them And in 1 Sam. 14. 4. Mehaeber Mizze i. e. Eber with the same prefixes twice repeated in one Verse signifies both on the one side and on the other side In fine Moses speaking of himself in the first Person uses the same expression Beeber Haijarden which must be rendered on this side Jordan Deut. 3. 8. otherwise it will be false for Moses was in the Wilderness when he uttered these words and he spoke them of the Kingdoms of Og and Sihon which in respect of Moses did then certainly lie on this side Jordan and not beyond Jordan by all this it appears that P. Simon 's Argument is grounded on a false bottom that Beeber always signifies beyond which is notoriously untrue In our own English Translation it is here rightly rendered on this side Jordan Ninthly He Objects the last Chapter of Deuteronomy as that which could not be written by Moses because it gives an account of his Death and Burial and of some things that were done after his Death and to those that say Moses wrote that Chapter by the Spirit of Prophecy P. Simon Answers that we ought not to believe them Answer First No Man who believes that Moses was a Prophet and the greatest Prophet that was before Christ can disbelieve the possibility of Moses his writing that Chapter and if it be said that it is not probable he should do it I Answer Undoubtedly Moses did as improbable things as that he foretold things at a greater distance of time than was his own Death and Burial and the Israelites Mourning for him Thirty Days in the Plains of Moah But Secondly I do not affirm that Moses wrote that Chapter at least the Eight last Verses of it but suppose he did not write it yet I deny that it follows from thence that he was not the Author of the Pentateuch for it may very vvell be said that that Chapter is really no part of the Pentateuch or Five books of Moses but an Appendix to it vvritten by some other hand as by Joshua or some other Holy Man of God after the Death of Moses Tenthly He Objects Deut. 31. 22 24. as if these Verses and other parts of Deuteronomy could not be vvritten by Moses because Moses is there spoken of in the Third Person Ansvver What a pitiful Argument is this is it not usual even with Prophane Authors to speak of themselves in the Third Person and doth not P. Simon himself acknowledg this in Pag. 20. of his Book Caesar says he speaks of himself in the Third Person in his Commentaries Josephus does the same thing in his History of the Wars of the Jews against the Romans and moreover he writes his own Elogy with what Conscience then did P. Simon produce this passage to prove that Moses could not be the Author of the Pentateuch surely any unprejudiced Man would think that this passage might be more pertinently alledged to prove that Moses was the Author at least of the Book of Denteronomy Eleventhly He Objects Gen. 12. 6. upon which he says If Moses was the Author of the Pentateuch after the manner as it is at present would he have used this way of speaking The Canaanite was then in the Land it is known that the Canaanites continued the possession of this Countrey here spoken of all the time of Moses so that this could not be writ but after they had been driven out Answer And why might not Moses use that way of speaking the Canaanite was then in the Land is there any falshood in it is it not a certain truth That the Canaanites were possessors of the Land of Canaan when Abraham came first to Sojourn in it But says P. Simon It is known that the Canaanites continued the possession of that Land all the time of Moses True it is so understanding it of the Land beyond Jordan but what then why then says P. Simon This could not be writ but after they had been driven out I deny that consequence for I know that all the Criticks in the World cannot prove it This passage under consideration might very well be written by Moses though it was well known that the Canaanites continued possessors of the Land of Canaan beyond Jordan all the time of Moses Moses did not write this passage to tell the People that the Canaanites were possessors of Canaan beyond Jordan all his time which none of them could be Ignorant of but he wrote it to make the common Ignorant People know that the Canaanites had been possessors of that Land even in the time of Abraham and that their Father Abraham was but a stranger in it and had not at his first coming so much as a foot of Ground in it that he could call his own Acts 7. 5. and that it was of those Canaanites that he afterwards bought the Burying-place at Hebron or Kirjatharba Now this was a truth though most certain yet not so evident but that many of the common People might possibly be Ignorant of it and therefore Moses writing this History for the benefit of the common People he might put in this passage once and again that they might take special notice of it and thereby know with what People it was that Abraham lived after he had left his own Countrey and Fathers House even with the Ancestors of those Canaanites whom they were now to destroy and drive out of that Land and likewise that they might thereby be moved to admire the Faithfulness and Goodness of God towards them in that he was then putting them in actual possession of that good Land which though promised unto Abraham and his Seed yet was never before actually possessed by him or them but was now to be given them according to promise I find Aben Ezra Answering this Objection another way he says It may be that the Canaanites took that Laud from some other People that were possessors of it before them And R. Salomon positively affirms That that Land fell to the share and Portion of Shem when Noah divided the whole World amongst his Sons and he proves it by this That Melchizedeck whom the Jews believe to be Shem was King of Salem but he thinks that the Canaanites took it violently away from Shem's Posterity and therefore God promised to Abraham that he would give it to him and his Seed because they were of the Posterity of Sem to whom it did originally belong if this were true and could be proved it might be thought that Moses his words here had reference unto the Canaanites being then in