ceived nemine contradicente for a Book of Divine Authority.

But if they have recourse to this Objection, that the Scriptures of the Jews were not wholly Supposititious, but were altered only with respect to some important Places, and were essentially corrupted, (for this is the only way the Incredulous can take, ) we shall plainly make it appear to them, that supposing they were all at corrupted as they pretend, they were wholly Supposititious. And in effect, what remains in the Scriptures of the Jews, after you have taken away from them the Prophesies, the miraculous Matters of Fact, and all other things which they relate to them? For those are what we call here the Effentials of those Scriptures, The Law takes the chief motive of the Obedience it requires, from the deliverance of the Children of Ifrael out of Egypt, which was a Series of miraculous Matters of Fact. All the Exhortations it contains, are derived from the great Wonders which God had wrought in behalf of Ifrael his People. Most of the Ceremonies prescribed in the Law, are designed for the Commemoration of some great and extraordinary Matter of Fact. The Books of the Prophets are filled with nothing else but Predictions; what remains therefore, after you have taken away the Prophefies and the miraculous matters of Fact, together with those things which relate to them? nothing in the least. Thus it appears, that to pretend that the Scriptures of the Jews were essentially altered, that is, in all those Places which evi denced the Divinity of them, supposing they were true, is as much as to say, that they were wholly Supposititious.

Now do but joyn all these Circumstances together, the Time, the Place, the Persons, their Interests, the Division of the Tribes, the Competition of Persons, the setled Worship and Customs of the Jews, the Cautions of the Lawgiver, the frequent Repetitions in them, the force of Education, the Commemorations, the Descriptions of Things, the Connexion of Matters of Fact and of Events, you will thereby be highly confirmed, even without the help of this Examination, in the fubmifssion which you owe to Divine Providence.

But let us now hear what Objections the Incredulous raise against our Principles; Spinofa has collected several Difficulties against the Books of Mofes, which we shall now answer, without preaking off the Connexion of our Principles.

CHAP. VII.

Wherein we shall answer those Objections raised by Spinofa against the Books of Mofes.

IN

'N the beginning of his Book, our Adversary brings in some of the Conjectures of AbenEzra, which he the more willingly adopts for his own, because they favour his Impiety. This Rabbi (by what pretence he goes about to palliate his Design, I know not) pretends to shew by Six different Reasons, that Mofes is not the Author of the five Books which go under his Name.

I. He pretends that Mofes did not compose the

Preface of the Book called Deuteronomy, because according to the Translation he used, it begins after this maner, These be the Words which Moses Spake unto all Israel on the other fide Jordan: Because, says he, as he never went over Jordan, so he could not have come to any place where he might speak to them after this manner. But one had need be no very great Critick in the Hebrew Tongue, to know that כעכר the Word which is used in the Original, signifies indifferently on this side, or on the other side, according as it is applied; and since our Interpreter has accordingly translated it, on this fide Jordan, He ought therefore to have proved that our Interpreter was deceived, and not fo confidently to suppose a thing that is still in queftion.

II. He gives us to understand, that the Book of the Law was written in the compass only of one Altar, which according to the Opinion of the Rabbins consisted of but Twelve Stones : Whence it follows, says he, that the Book of Moses was of much less Extent than the Pentateuck. But we may perceive by that his Spite against the truth, since he grounds his Argument upon the ridiculous Fancies of the Rabbins, who will have it, that this Altar did confift but of Twelve Stones only. But do we lie under any Obligation to admit of other Mens Dreams ? However in fine, supposing there were but Twelve Stones, or not Twelve, 'tis certain however this Objection can never answer his Expectation, For if there were but Twelve, how could ever Joshua have written upon them the whole Law of Mofes, which contained the Decalogue,

R 4

logue, together with all the Moral, Judicial and Ceremonial Ordinances which he bequeathed to the Jews? But if there were a greater number of Stones, what could have hinder'd Joshua from ingraving upon them the Book of Deuteronomy, which was more particularly known by the Name of the Law of Mofes, as we shall shew it hereafter ?

III. He quotes some Places out of Genesis, wherein 'tis said, that Abraham went into the Land of Canaan, and that the Canaanite was then in the Land;

Gin. 12. 6.

13.7.

which, says he, the Historian doubtless only faid, because in his time there were no Canaanites left in that Land, and consequently Mofes could never be that Historian.

Aben Ezra who was the Author of this Objection, furnishes us also with an Answer to it. It is likely, says he, that Canaan Father of the Canaanites, feized apon the Land of Canaan, whilst it was subject to another Master: So that according to this Explanation, the Sense of that Place would be to this effect. Now the Canaanite was then in the Land, and had already possession of it, when Abraham came into it. But our Author, whom we confute, would not stand to that Exposition. He prefumes, that before the Children of Canaan took that Land in possession, there were no Inhabitants at all therein; and this he supposes to appear from what is written in Genefis about it, but he does not prove it. But he is certainly mistaken, both in the Principle which he establishes, and in the consequence which he infers from it. For First of all, 'tis faid indeed in Genesis, that Canaan was Father to the Jebufites, the Amorites, &c. That the Families of the Canaanites naanites were afterwards dispersed; that the extent of their Limits was from Guerar unto Gaza; but it says nothing else. Does that therefore hinder, but that some of the Children of Cuz, who were at first very powerful in the Land, and who reigned under Nimrod, Noah's GrandSon, might have been deprived of it by the Children of Canaan some time before Abraham came into that Land? He is further mistaken in the consequence which he infers from it; for whether there dwelt any other Nation in that Land or not, 'tis certain however, that the Children of Canaan had not always lived in it. Noah's Children were by degrees dispersed up and down; their Families were increased, and coming by little and little near unto the Land, the Children of Canaan had already possessed themselves of that Land, a long time (if you will) before Abraham came into it. The Reader who might perhaps have been unacquainted with this Chronology, is informed by Moses, that the Canaanites dwelt in the Land, even in Abraham's time. Where then lies the difficulty in all this? But that it might not be thought we would turn the matter to our own advantage, we will compare these Two Notions together, that so we may be the better assured which of them is the most reafonable.

Esdras who wrote in an Age wherein there was never so much as a Child but knew that the Canaanites were driven out of their Country by the Ifraelites, the Children of Ifrael, the Son of Abraham, thinks it expedient to inform the Reader, that in Abraham's time, the Canaanites dwelt still in the Land; that is, that in Abraham's time, they were not yet driven out of it by the Ifraelites