for many This is my Body which is given or broken for you because his Blood was not shed nor his Body broken till the Day after and yet it is most certain that he did speak those words when he instituted the Holy Sacrament the Night before his Death But then you will ask why did our Lord speak so why did he say This is my Blood which is shed this is my Body which is broken when neither was the one shed nor the other broken I Answer He did so because it was an ordinary way of speaking amongst the Jews to express themselves in the Preterit or Present Tense when they were talking or writing of a thing that was shortly and certainly to come to pass and therefore the Vulgar Interpeter attending more to the sense than to the bare words of our Lord renders them Hic est sanguis meus qui pro multis effundetur hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur this is my Blood which shall be shed and my Body which shall be given after the same manner may we understand the words of Moses as Israel did i. e. as Israel shall shortly and certainly do to the Land of his Possession besides there was this good reason why Moses should use the Preterit Tense because the thing he was writing of was partly past already Israel had already destroyed the Inhabitants of Two Kingdoms and taken actual possession of the Land and it was partly to be within a short time Israel was shortly to do so by all the other Inhabitants of the Land of his possession which God had given him Moses then having reason to write as he did Spinosa had no reason to cavil at the manner of his expression Fifteenthly He Objects Deut. 3. 14. and from these words Jair called them after his own name Bashan-havoth-jair unto this Day infers that this must have been written long after Moses Answer Some think that these words VNTO THIS DAY have been after Moses put in the Margin and in process of time have crept into the Text or else that Ezdras hath inserted them into the Text. But there is no necessity of Answering thus for First Moses wrote the Book of Deuteronomy some Months after Jair had taken the Countrey of Argob and called it after his own name Bashan-havoth-jair therefore Moses himself might very well say that the Countrey of Argob was called after the name of Jair unto this Day that is from the time of Jair his taking of it and calling it Bashan-havoth-jair unto the Day of Moses writing that part of the Book of Deuteronomy for there was nothing but truth in his so saying Secondly Moses wrote the Book of Deuteronomy not only for the present Generation but also for the Generations to come according to that of the Psalmist Psal 102. 18. This shall be written for the Generations to come and consequently knew that these words unto this Day would be further verified in after Ages Therefore he might purposely use these words unto this Day as intending thereby to signifie unto the Israelites in their several Generations that the Countrey of Argob was called after the name of Jair Bashan-havoth-jair from Jairs first taking of it unto their time there being then no falsity nor absurdity in the words unto this Day as here used Moses himself might very well be the Author of them nay they are so significant with respect to future Generations as I have shewed that Moses his Wisdom appears in choosing to express himself in such words as were actually true when he first spoke and wrote them and yet were to be further verified in all succeeding Generations so long as the Hebrew-Commonwealth stood so much for Answer unto Spinosa his Two Objections I have now gone through all that P. Simon hath written to prove that Moses could not be the Author of the Pentateuch I have examined all his Arguments and Answered every one of them there is not one good Argument amongst them all not one that can prove his position That Moses cannot be the Author of the Books attributed to him and verily many of them are I think such pitiful trifling things that a reasonable Man and Christian should be ashamed of them The reason why I meddle with no more of his Critical History than what concerns the Pentateuch is First Because this was defigned to accompany the precedent Discourse concerning the proofs of the Books of Moses and therefore I thought fit to deal with P. Simon only upon that point wherein he seemed to contradict what the Author of the excellent Discourse affirms and proves that so his Objections being all Answered that Discourse may remain firm and unshaken and in its full strength and that Infidels may not pretend that P. Simon has confuted it which is so far from being true that the vain succesless attempt of so great a Man as P. Simon is accounted to prove that Moses could not be the Author of the Pentateuch is an Argument that the thing is not practicable it cannot be done for if it could P. Simon is counted as able and to me seems to have been as willing to have done it as any other Man Secondly Because if the Divine Truth and Authority of Moses and his Law and of Christ and his Gospel be well secured our Christian Religion is secured in its main strength and fundamental grounds against Atheists and Infidels As for the rest of P. Simon 's Book I doubt not but some Men of greater Abilities for such a work than I will in due time thoroughly examine it and separate the Chaff from the Wheat allowing him his due praise where he hath done well and chastising him where he hath done evil you may guess by this that it will not be so difficult to do it as some may apprehend In the mean time if his vain Cavils at several expressions here and there in the Holy Scriptures should be a tentation unto any to think meanly of the Scriptures themselves I desire such if they can to read some part of Origens Philocalia Chap. 1. Pag. 4 5. in Spencers Edition at Cambridge 1658. and to consider that as Origen says Every one of the Works of God do not equally but some more and some less declare and shew forth the Glory of God in his Beeing and Providence after the same manner all the parts of God's written Word do not equally but some more clearly and some more obscurely evidence themselves to be of God And as there are some dark occurrences in Providence that tempt weak and sinful Men to doubt of God's Beeing and Providence just so there are some dark and difficult passages in Holy Scripture that tempt Men to doubt of the Divine Verity and Authority of of the Scriptures and yet as none but Fools Psal 14. 1. will disbelieve the Beeing and Providence of God because there are some things in his Nature and Providence which they cannot comprehend so no Wise Man will disbelieve the Holy Scriptures because there are here and there some passages in them which he cannot understand Lo they have rejected the word of the Lord and what Wisdom is in them says the Prophet Jeremiah Jer. 8. 9. Indeed there can be no true Wisdom in them who reject the Word of the Lord for his Word believed and practised is our Wisdom and our Understanding and makes us a wise and understanding People Deut. 4. 5 6 The Testimony of the Lord is sure making Wise the Simple Psal 19. 7. If ever then we would be truly Wise let us against all Tentations to the contrary esteem highly of and adhere stedfastly unto the Holy Scriptures of Truth for it is they that are able to make us wise unto Salvation through Faith which is in Christ Jesus 2 Tim. 3. 15. If what I have here written do contribute any thing towards the helping of Christian Readers to keep up in their Souls a due esteem of and reverend regard unto the Holy Scriptures and towards the strengthning of them against Tentations to unbelief I have obtained my end and desire them to let me have the help and benefit of their Prayers but let him have all the Praise who is the Father of Lights and the God of all Grace unto whom be Glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all Ages World without End Amen FINIS a Exod. 5. 1 2 3. 7. 1 2 3 4 5. 3. 14 15 16 17 18. 4. from 1 to 9. 6. from 1 to 8. Deut. 4. 9 to 24. b Exod. 20. 3 4 5 6 7 c. ibid. v. 20 22 23. 23. 13. Deut. 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10. 7. 1 2 3 4 5 6. 12. 29 30 31 32. 18. 9 10 11 12 13 14. Deut. 4. 32 to 41. Exod. 20. 24 latter part of the Verse Deut. 4. 7. c Exod. 20. 17. Lev. 19. 17 18. d Exod. 21. 13. Deut. 19. e Levit. 25. 23 c. f Exod. 21. 1 2 c. Deut. 15. 12 to 19. 24. 14 15. g Deut. 15. 6 to 12. Exod. 22 25 26 27. h Exod. 22. 21. Levit. 19. 33. 34. i Exod. 22. 22 23 24. k Exod. 20. 12. 22. 28. Deut. 17. 11. l Deut. 1. 16 17. 17. 16 17 18 19 20. 25. 1.
the rest Seventhly And these by overdoing would perswade us that every word in the Bible is as much Divine as the Decalogue or Lords Prayer and hath nothing in it of humane imperfection in stile or order but is all such as God himself would have written if he had made no use of Man Eighthly And some are so afraid of Popery and the name of Tradition and the Testimony of the Church that they disable their own Faith by rejecting the necessary use of Tradition and the Churches Testimony not being able justly to distinguish Ninthly And too many distinguish not Historical Evidence from the Churches pretended Authoritative determination Tenthly And some cannot tell what Historical Evidence is also Physical and what maketh it so as differing from Moral uncertain Testimony And if Teachers of the Foundation have all these gross defects and more is it any wonder if unstudied Lay-men are here puzled in the dark § 7. I am not now to write a Treatise to tell Men the true method of Preaching Faith I have done that elsewhere especially in The Reasons of Christian Religion The unreasonableness of Infidelity The Life of Faith and a small Book called The certainty of Christianity without Popery But I shall here give the unfurnished Reader a few necessary Distinctions and Conclusions § 8. Conclusion I. Divine Faith is a sort of knowledg with Trust to the credit of God revealing and therefore must have evidence 1. That it is the word of God that is proposed 2. And that God doth not lie or deceive us Conclus II. It is the matter signified which is the prime necessary object of our Faith and the words only as the vehicle or signs of the matter Conclus III. No one particular word in the Bible or the World is of absolute necessity to be known but another may serve that hath the same signification If any word were absolutely necessary to be known if it be English none could be saved but English-men if Greek or Hebrew none could be saved but Grecians or Hebricians c. Conclus IV. The Gospel is not those same words that Christ spake but a Translation of them It s supposed that he spake in the Language then used by the Jews which was a mixture of Chaldee and Syriack but the Gospel is written in Greek so that our Original thereof is but a Divine Translation of Christs words Conclus V. Christ promised and gave his Spirit to his Apostles and Evangelists to bring all things that he had taught them to their remembrance and to lead them into all truth and teach them what to say so far as to perform their Commission To Disciple the Nations Baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things that he had Commanded them And thus far they were infallible Conclus VI. The words therefore of the several writers are so far Divine as to be the true and certain signifiers or expressions of so much of Christs Life and Doctrine as he saw needful for the use of Man to the end of the World to be made known Conclus VII But all the Gospel writers recite not the same matter just in the same words nor in the same Order nor in the same Stile And as all humane Language savoureth of humane imperfection and the faculties of Men are not all of one degree of strength and custome varyeth wise Mens Stile so the Apostles were but Men and the very Words Stile and Order of their writing had the effects of sinless humane imperfection and were not such as that God himself could not have done it better But it s all of God as suited to its proper use Conclus VIII The Gospel was God's word Preached by them before they wrote it Eight Years before St. Matthew wrote and about Sixty Seven or Sixty Eight Years before St. John wrote the Gospel And it is not to be imagined that in their Preaching they spake just all the same words which they wrote and no more Conclus IX All the Miracles that were then wrought were first to confirm the Gospel as Preached before the Books were written Conclus X. But God knowing that the Apostles must die and the Gospel must be infallibly delivered to the end of the World inspired them to write not only the Essentials but all that was necessary for the World to know in all Generations and leave it as the Sacred Record of his redeeming Work his Doctrine and his universal Law written infallibly by the Spirit of Jesus which he sent as his Agent for that work so that the same Miracles which confirmed their words are now equally a Seal of the Divine Authority of their writings Conclus XI All the words in the Gospel are not Essential to Christianity nor of equal necessity to be explicitely known the Doctrine of Baptism and the Lords Supper with the Decalogue and Lords Prayer contain all the Essentials of Christianity truly understood which Doctrine of Baptism the Church ever expounded in a few plain Articles called the Creed And they always took those Sacraments and that Creed with the Lords Prayer and the Decalogue expounded by Christ as the summaries of our Belief Desires and Practice to be the Gospel and Christian Religion The Ministry and Church Order instituted by the Spirit of Christ being an Integral part and these they diferenced from the Subsidiary and Ornamental parts of Scripture in point of Necessity and Evidence And they that believed these were saved whether it was before the rest was written or if they never heard or understood the rest Conclus XII And before Christ the Law of Moses must be greatly distinguished from the other Historical Books and Prophesies As the Law of this Land by which all men hold their Lands and Lives and must be governed greatly differ from daily verbal Mandates or written Commissions which the King may give to particular Persons so the Covenant of Grace and the Law of Moses much differ from the particular Messages of Prophets and the words of Priests about that Law or the deeds of men Universal and Common Laws are of Universal and Common Obligation and therefore all must be certain of their Authority But the Obedience and Salvation of the Land or World was not laid on e. g. the Prophets Message to Saul to Jeroboam to Hezekiah c. Therefore in these Cases the People are left sometimes to see whether Predictions come to pass and its harder for them to know who is a true Prophet the necessity being lesser Conclus XIII It is therefore greatly to be noted that 1. The Law of Nature needed no Miracles to Confirm it being legible in the Nature of Man and of all about him 2. The Law of Moses which that Nation was to be ruled by had so full evidence of Divine Authority that it was scarce possible for the Jews of that Age to doubt of it The ten Plagues of Egypt the opening of the
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
time we will speak of each of them by it self and First For Hebron We find it frequently in the Pentateuch as in Gen. 13. 18. 23. 2 19. 35. 27. 37. 14. Num. 13. 22. It was a City in the Land of Canaan it is probable it might be first called Mamre Gen. 13. 18. and afterwards Arba or Kirjatharba and Hebron When this City began first to be called Hebron is uncertain but it seems to have been called by that name long before Moses for it is said Gen. 37. 14. that Jacob sent his Son Joseph out of the Vale of Hebron and Numb 13. 22. we read that the Spies which Moses sent to search out the Land of Canaan ascended by the South and came unto Hebron where the Children of Anak dwelt and that Hebron was built Seven Years before Zoan in Aegypt Here Hebron is spoken of as a City very ancient and that was ordinarily called by that name Afterwards Joshua gave it unto Caleb the Son of Jephunneh for an Inheritance and he drove the Anakims out of it and took possession of it as we read in Josh 14. 13 14. 15. 13 14. But it is no where said that Caleb changed the name of it and first called it Hebron I confess it is written that the name of Hebron before was Kirjatharba Josh 14. 15. Jud. 1. 10. but the meaning of those words is that it was called Kirjath-arba before Caleb drove out the Anakims and took possession of it but this doth not prove that it was not also called Hebron before and in the time of Moses It is was certainly called Kirjath-arba by the Canaanites before Caleb took it from them but at the same time it might be called Hebron by the Israelites I thus clearly show that it might be so it was a City scituate on the side of a Hill as appears from Josh 14. 12 13 14. Caleb said unto Joshua give me this Mountain Joshua granted him his Request and gave him Hebron To me it seems probable that the Hill was first called Hebron and so it was Kirjatharba upon Hebron for certain the Countrey under the Hill was called the Valley of Hebron and as is already observed it was so called in Jacob's time Gen. 37. 14. It may be the Hill was first called Hebron from Ephron the Hittite of whom Abraham bought the Cave of Machphelah for a Burying-place Gen. 23. 16 17 18 19. this Cave seems to have been in the Hill and the Field to have been at the foot of the Hill before the Mouth of the Cave now by an easie change of letters of a like sound it is come to be called Hebron by the Posterity of Abraham because their Father Abraham bought it of Ephron or which comes to the same thing Abraham's Posterity called it Hebron from Habar because Abraham and his Posterity did as it were enter into civil Society with the Hittites when he bought of Ephron that part of the Hill with the Field and Trees at the Foot of it for himself and his Posterity It was almost natural for Abraham's Posterity to call it Hebron on these accounts that so the very name of it might be a lasting memorial of their right to it but the Anakims who afterwards took possession of it without right when the Israelites were in Aegypt did not like that it should be called at all by that name of Hebron and therefore called it Kirjath-arba only from Arba the Father of Anak Josh 15. 13. If any should now say that this only shews how the Hill with the Cave and Field which Abraham bought for a Burying-place came to be called Hebron but this is nothing to the City which was distinct from the Hill Cave and Field I Answer First The City it self was Built on the side of the Hill Secondly It is probable that in process of time the City was so far enlarged as to take in Abraham's Field with the Cave and that part of the Hill in which the Cave was and this might give occasion unto the Israelites to call the City it self by the name of Hebron From all which it appears probable that it was called Hebron by the Israelites at the same time that it was called Kirjath-arba by the Canaanites and that it was called by that name among the People of God in the time of Moses but after the Canaanites were driven out and Caleb was possessed of it it lost the name Kirjath-arba and retained only the name Hebron But against this it is Objected out of Jerome that this City had its name from Hebron the Son of Caleb of whom we read in 1 Chron. 2. 42. 43. I Answer First Masius in his Commentary on Joshua Pag. 247. on the 15th Verse of the 14th Chapter declares that he did not see any strength in this Argument to prove that Kirjath-arba was not called Hebron in the time of Moses or that it was first so called from Hebron the Son of Caleb but the truth is Masius himself seems to have been very much mistaken in Judging of the sense of these words the Father of Hebron in 1 Chron. 2. 42. for he seems plainly to take Hebron there for the City and that Father of Hebron signifies Governor or Lord of Hebron whereas it is evident that Hebron there is a Man's name for in the next Verse this Hebron is said to have had Four Sons we must acknowledg then that one of the Posterity of Caleb was called Hebron But then Secondly I Answer that it is not clear that this Caleb the Father of Hebron was the same Man with the Caleb that first took Kirjath-arba from the Anakims for Caleb that first took Kirjath-arba from the Anakims was the Son of Jephunneh Josh 14. 6. 1 Chron. 4. 15. But it is expresly written of Caleb said to be the Father of Hebron that he was the Son of Hezron 1 Chron. 2. 9 18 19 42. but Hezron went into Aegypt with Jacob Gen. 46. 12. therefore his Son Caleb must have lived long before Moses and could not be the same with Caleb the Son of Jephunneh who was but Forty Years Old when Moses sent him to espy out the Land of Canaan Josh 14. 7. Yet Thirdly Granting that Caleb the Son of Jephunneh and Caleb the Son of Hezron were one and the same Man and that he is called the Son of Hezron only in a large sense because he was of the Posterity of Hezron as Masius Pag. 243. thinks that Hezron was but his Grandfather or Great Grandfather c. I say this being granted it will not follow that Kirjath-arba was first called Hebron from Hebron the Son of Caleb on the contrary Hebron the Son of Caleb might take his name from the City Hebron the Inheritance of his Father the like seems to have happened unto Gilead the Son of Machir 1 Chron. 2. 21. he seems to have received his name from Mount Gilead the place of his Fathers Inheritance Deut. 3. 15. for
certain it is that he did not first give it its name because Jacob had done that long before as appears from Gen. 31. 47 48 54. Masius has one Objection which I must Answer Kirjath-arba says he is an old name of that City therefore Hebron is a new name I Answer This is but a weak conjecture for it might have two old names one amongst the Canaanites and the other amongst the Israelites as it seems Bethel had of which Bethel it is said Judg. 1. 23. the name of it before was Luz and yet it is probable that the Israelites called that City by the name of Bethel long before the House of Joseph took it from the Canaanites Some part of the Countrey very near it was most certainly called Bethel from Jacob's time and it is not unlikely that the City it self from that time forwards began to be called sometimes Bethel by Jacob's Posterity even Jacob himself seems to make Luz to be all one with Bethel because Bethel strictly so called was near Luz Gen. 48. 3. says Jacob God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the Land of Canaan and Blessed me but in Chap. 35. Vers 1 3. the same City is called Bethel and was so called at that time both by God speaking unto Jacob and by Jacob speaking unto his Family says God unto him arise go up to Bethel and dwell there and says he to his Family let us arise and go up to Bethel which they did and so came to Luz that is Bethel Vers 6. And Jacob there in Luz Built an Altar and called the place of the Altar El-Bethel Vers 7. From all which it seems very evident that the same City was in Jacob's time called by two names Bethel and Luz its publick name by which the Canaanites called it and by which it was generally known to the World was Luz but its private name by which God and his People called it was Bethel the like may be said without any absurdity at all of Kirjath-arba and Hebron Secondly For the name Dan as to what he Objects that it was not in Beeing in the time of Moses and yet it is found in the Pentateuch Gen. 14. 14. Deut. 34. 1. I Answer First It is freely confessed that the City Leshem or Laish was not called by the name of Dan in the time of Moses It was a long time after Moses before the Danites took Laish and changed its name from Laish to Dan after the name of Dan their Father as appears from Josh 19. 47. Jud. 18. 29. But that therefore there was no other place called by the name of Dan in the time of Moses I deny the consequence the Brook or Valley of Eshcol was first called Eshcol in the time of Moses because of the Cluster of Grapes which the Children of Israel cut down from thence when the Spies searched out the Land Numb 13. 24. And yet in Abraham's time Mamre the Amorite had a Brother whose name was Eshcol Gen. 14. 13. just so though Laish was not called Dan till after Moses yet some other place might be called Dan in the time both of Abraham and Moses Jerome Swidas and Philostorgius were of opinion that a Spring-head of Jordan was called Dan and the Hebrew Doctors think that the River Jordan was so called because it springs out of Dan and if we may believe the Learned Hofman in his Lexicon universale Pag. 526. there was another Dan yet distinct from Laish-Dan and it was an Hill in the Tribe of Ephraim on the Rode from Samaria to Sichem if there were then several Dans it may probably be supposed that even in Abraham's time there might be some place called by the name of Dan if not the Hill Dan on the Rode from Samaria to Sichem at least the Fountain Dan springing out of Mount Libanus I Answer Secondly Moses in the Spirit of Prophecy might call Laish Dan by an Historical Prolepsis as foreseeing that it would lose the name of Laish and be called and known only by the name of Dan in after Ages He might be moved to do this that his writings might then be the better understood by the People when the name of Laish should be forgotten by the Vulgar and that City should only be known by the name of Dan. I Answer Thirdly Suppose we should grant with the Learned Masius that some Prophet after Moses did substitute the word Dan in the place of Laish and the same may be said of Hebron for to help the People the better to understand and remember those passages of Holy Scripture where it occurs it will not follow from hence that Moses cannot be the Author of the Pentateuch as we say one Swallow doth not make the Spring so one or two little alterations of a word and that by the same Holy Spirit of Truth by which Moses wrote doth not hinder Moses from being justly accounted the Author of the Pentateuch the changing of a word or two by God's Spirit for the benefit of God's People in after Ages is no sufficient reason to change the name of the Book and to denominate it anew from the person by whom it pleased God to make such a change But though I write thus yet I shall not easily grant that de facto there has been such an alteration made in the names before mentioned until it be first clearly and certainly proved which no Man that I know hath yet done I am sure P. Simon hath not done it Thirdly He Objects Gen. 36. 31. It is probable says P. Simon that Moses could not have writ these words And these are the Kings that Reigned in the Land of Edom before there Reigned any King over the Children of Israel this manner of speaking supposes the Establishment of Kings amongst the Hebrews Answer 1. This manner of speaking only supposes that Kingly Government was to be Established amongst the Children of Israel according to the express promise of God unto Jacob at Bethel Gen. 35. 11 12. and this Moses knew very well by the Spirit of Prophecy as appears from Deut. 17. 14 15 18 19 20. and therefore he might well suppose it as a thing that should certainly come to pass but it not being yet come to pass Moses here declares that Esau was before hand with Jacob as to this matter for whilst Jacob's Posterity was in Servitude under a Rod of Iron in Aegypt Esau his Posterity flourished under a Kingly Government in the Land of Edom. Answer 2. This may signifie no more but that the Persons there mentioned did Reign Kings in the Land of Edom before the time of Moses that the Children of Israel were first formed into an Holy Kingdom and Common-wealth according to Exod. 19. 5 6. and Moses was set over them as their Head and King under God according to Deut. 33. 5. where it is said that Moses was King in Jeshurun Thus it is evident that there is no weight at all in this Objection Fourthly
An Excellent DISCOURSE Proving the Divine Original and Authority OF The Five BOOKS OF MOSES Written Originally in French by Monsieur Du Bois de la Cour and Approved by six Doctors of the Sorbon To Which is added a SECOND PART OR AN EXAMINATION Of a considerable part of PERE SIMON 's Critical History of the Old Testament wherein all his Objections With the Weightiest of Spinosa's against Moses's being the Author of the first Five Books of the Bible are Answered and some difficult places of Holy Scripture are Explained By W. L. London Printed for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside near Mercers Chappel 1682. A PREFACE Opening the true Nature and Reasons of a Saving-Faith § 1. THere is no Man that ever heard the Gospel and hath such a care of his everlasting State as beseemeth a reasonable Creature but must needs perceive of how great weight it is to be well assured of the truth of those supernatural Revelations delivered to us in the Sacred Scriptures Much may be known by the well studied Book of Nature But not enough to quiet the mind of Man by assured hopes of future Happiness and the way thereto And therefore almost all the Heathen and Infidel World have their Augures or Prophets on whom they depend as Conscious of the necessity of more than common natural Light Besides that it requireth greater helps and longer studies to understand the Book of Nature than the generallity of Mankind can use whereas God by his word hath made all necessary truth so plain that Children in a short time may grow wiser than the Philosophers § 2. No wonder then if it be the great work of the Prince of Darkness the Enemy of God and Man to deprive the World of the benefit of the Sacred Sacriptures which he doth First By keeping most of the Earth from knowing it for want of Teachers mostly kept out by the Persecution of Tyrants and Idolatrous Priests Secondly By keeping those that hear it from believing it Thirdly By keeping those that believe it from the right understanding of it Fourthly By keeping those that partly understand it from a serious considering what they understand Fifthly By keeping Men from a willing obedience to what they know and think of § 3. Among professed Christians it is the want of a sound Belief which is the great cause of all Ungodliness and Misery And no wonder For it is an high and excellent work to live on the joyful belief and hope of an unseen everlasting Life And in this dark State believing must conquer many difficulties which slothful Men will rather yield to than duely strive to overcome § 4. First We have contracted so inordinate a Love to this kind of life in Flesh that corrupt Nature is loth to think of any other because it would not part with this And when Men are convinced only of a necessity of looking forward beyond the Grave this changeth not their love but still an unwilling backward heart receiveth the notices of the Life to come but as unpleasant Physick which nothing but meer necessity will get down And how ill a Receiver an unwilling mind is experience telleth all the World Yea so backward and senseless is depraved Nature that even this necessity is seldom seriously considered till the Sentence of Death awaken the Soul and are Men then fit to begin so hard a study as must shew them the certainty of the Gospel and the Life to come and to get Faith when they must use it § 5. Secondly And I write it as necessitated and with Lamentation it is not all Mens Lot to have Teachers that shew them the right way even of founding their Belief and discerning the certainty of the Gospel and the Immortality of Souls If I should tell you how many Parishes that have Weekly Sermons in which Faith and Christianity and Heaven are mentioned have Teachers that cannot confute an Infidel or Sadducee or teach Men clearly how to be sure that their Faith and Hope are not meer Errour and that cannot tell which way well to prove the truth of their profest Religion some would be offended at it that are not offended at their own sad defect who are ignorant of so needful a part of the Catechisme which every Christian should be taught § 6. Sad numerous instances are too clear a clear a proof First It is become so great a controversie whether Faith have any Evidence or not and whether we can certainly prove the Gospel to be true or rather must merit the more by believing it without proof that the Papists are together by the Ears about it and those Protestants that handle it differ among themselves But the most keep their peace by not daring to decide it And how can those Teachers shew the people the ascertaining Evidence and Proof who hold that there is none to be shewn The objects of Faith are not evident to Sense not seen not tasted c. but the truth of the Revelation hath ascertaining proof And nothing is provable but by intelligible Evidence Secondly The whole Papal Church almost holds That the method of believing the Gospel is to believe it on the Authority of the Church's proposal or affirmation As if Men must believe that Christ hath a Church and that it is thus Authorized before they believe that he is the Christ and hath Authority himself or any Law that gives Authority A multitude of impossibles are here supposed before Man can be a true believer which I have fully manifested elsewhere Thirdly Some that see how unable the vulgar and unlearned are to manage a matter of such weight and difficulty and fearing least a tryal of their Faith against hard objections should but overturn it perswade the weak only to believe and not to doubt but not to ask why nor to search for Reasons for their Faith least disputing the case and hearing objections which they cannot answer should make them Infidels or crack their Brains Fourthly Some tell them that it is only the inward witness of the Spirit in themselves that can assure them that the Scriptures are the word of God Not telling them well what that Testimony is nor how those that yet hear it not shall be convinced of unbelief Fifthly Some by overdoing tell us that the Scripture so shineth propria luce and conteineth its own evidence of Divinity so clearly that a Man that doth but read it though he found it by the high-way and never before heard of it may there see sufficient evidence that it is all of God Sixthly Some by greater overdoing distinguish not the Essentials of Religion from the Integrals or Accidents nor the words from the matter nor the Law and Gospel from the subordinate parts of the Bible in point of evidence and necessity and so would tempt Men to think that if any sentence in our Bibles translation or original be mistaken we can have no certainty of the truth of any of