Ifraelites. This is the Notion of our doughty Adverfaries.

Mofes who wrote in a time wherein 'twas neceffary to inform the Ifraelites, that their Fathers had converfed with the Canaanites, fays, that when Abraham came into that Land, he found it already inhabited by the Canaanites; that the Canaanites were there in that early time, or that the Canaanites dwelt then in the Land: This is our Expofition. Now the Reader need but to compare thefe Two Opinions together; for to his Integrity we leave it to chufe which of the Two he thinks the most reasonable.

Gen. 22. 7. 8.

IV. He pretends that Mount Moriah bears that Name, and is called in Genefis, in the Mount of the Lord it fhall be feen, (or it shall be provided,) by anticipation; it being fo called, only because the Temple was built in it long after. But there's no truth in all this; for this is the true Story of it; as Abraham was going to the Mountain which God had fhewed him, he answered thus to his Son Ifaac, who asked him, My Father, where is the Lamb for a Burnt Offering? provide himself with a Lamb for God indeed provided himself with a Ram, whom Abraham offered to him in the stead of his Son. Wherefore he called that Mountain Moriah, which fignifies, God will provide one; which Word be-. came afterwards a Proverb among the Ifraelites, who were wont to fay, in the Mount of the Lord it fhall be feen, (or provided.) This is what is diftinctly to be found in Genefis. As for the reft, 'tis altogether Chimerical and Fi¿titious.

My Son, God will the Burnt Offering.

* Our Translation reads it, Jehovah Ji.

reth.

V. He

Deut. 3.11.

V. He pretends that Mofes is not the Author of the following Words. For only Og King of Bathan remained of the Remnant of Giants; behold his Bedstead was a Bedstead of Iron; is it not in Rabbath of the Children of Ammon? Nine Cubits was the length thereof. But that it is the Parenthefis of a Man who quoted things of a very old date. But upon what grounds can he pretend fuch things? Is it improbable but that they might have kept Og's Bedstead in the time of Mofes? Or could not Mofes probably have put the Ifraelites in mind of the defeat of that King, by telling them that his Bedstead was at Rabbath? Or lastly, might it not have been carried thither? In truth, I cannot find where lies the difficulty in all this.

Deut.3.14.

Neither do I conceive there is any in the following Words. And Jair the Son of Manaffeh, took all the Country of Argob, unto the Coafts of Gefhuri and Maachathi, and called them after his own Name, Bashan-havoth-jair unto this Day. They pretend that Mofes could not properly have expreffed himself after this manner, and that this fashion of fpeaking (unto this day) is not suitable to an Hiftorian, who was an Eye-Witness to the event of the things he speaks of. But they are grofsly mistaken, if they imagine that this fashion of fpeaking, denotes in the Scripture any great diftance of time. St. Matthew not only uses it to denote fuch things as happened in his time, but even fince he was himself an A

postle, That Field, fays he, was cal- Mat. 27.8. led the Field of Blood unto this day:

And this faying, fays he in an other Place, went

abroad

donad among the Jews unto this day. Is not Mofes himself reprefented to us in the Book of Deuteronomy, faying to the Children of Ifrael, Dent II. He made the Waters of the Red-Sea to averthrow them, as they pursued after you, and the Lord has deftroyed them unto this Day? But this laft Objection following, is one of those which this Author frames of his own Invention against us, which 'twill not be amifs to answer more at large in the following Chapters,

CHAP. VIII.

Wherein we further anfwer Spinofa's Objections against the Books of Moles.

WHAT our Adversary here objects, vlz.

That the Compiler of the Pentateuck not only fpeaks of Mofes in the Third Perfon, but gives him alfo a very great Character is feveral Places; as for inftance, That God spoke to Mofes Face to Face; that Mofes was the Meekeft of Men; that Mofes was fore difpleafed at the Captains of the

at Mofes was the Man of God; that Mo

art of the Lord died; that there arose et fince in Ifrael like unto Mofes : I fay jects here, is worthy our confideration. may very well judge of the other Obof this Author, by this here, which though ifeft of them all, is however but a comGingenuity, Ignorance, Inconfiderant of Judgment; and however we o rail at him, but only to call every

thing by its proper Name; and had we any Words more proper than these to express our felves by, we would certainly ufe them.

His difingenuity appears, in that he joyns the recital of the Death of Mofes, and the Elogy it is attended with, to the other Testimonies which fome might pretend, that Mofes had given of himself. To what purpofe is it then to dissemble a thing that has fo often been anfwered? Who denies but that Fofhua when he added by order from God his own Book to the Books of Mofes, might have inserted at the latter end of the Pentateuck, the Death of that great Lawgiver? Indeed the Author whom we refute, fhould have been fo far from attempting to make Two proofs of this one Testimony, by repeating it, that he ought for fhame either to have quite omitted it, or to have confuted the common Anfwer ufually given to this difficulty.

He fhews his Ignorance, in that he imagines these Scriptural Phrafes, Mofes the Man of God, and Mofes a Divine, Excellent and Admirable Man, are equivalent Expreflions. And yet this Term Man of God, fignifies a Prophet in the Hebrew Tongue; witnefs the Question and the Answer to it, which are laid down in the Thirteenth Chapter of the first Book of Kings, Art thou the Man of God that cameft from Judah? And he said I am. So that Mofes the Man of God, and Mofes the Prophet, are Two feveral Expreffions which reprefent but one and the fame thing.

He wants Judgment in his Choice of thofe Teftimonies which he pretends that Mofes gave of himself; for among the reit, he ranks this, that God fpoke unto Mofes Face to Face. Is it not a very reasonable thing indeed, for those People

who

len believe

い

Amores Eco Mujes

Suid at CICCeir are of malf, that he Take to Faces Face? And

What can ve cox is other, macies Tas aran against the

Le forme Carans over Thou

mas. Sccccess the gerai Mes against the LactaiNS CI rall s very reachably inferted among one great monies, waica fome pretend that Mures comd not cave given of himfeld without spending the Rues of Modefty. Lailly, e canty covers is confidera

200 for as te weil confidered 1 Extras 3. j. the Vores vnica Eras fpeaks of timelf a the Thire Perion, and what in advantagious Trimony he gives of bimfelf in thete Vorts. Eliras vent up from Bavion #Scribe, being very ear a ne Law of Moles; me low vet from that, it could not reaonably be, or was ever concluded, that he was aor the Author of that 3ook?

Had our Advertary been willing to act according to the Rules of Right Reaton, he ought to` have confidered

J. That Moles peaks the Truth in the Record which he bears of his Humility and Meekneis. II. That whofoever is not puffed up with Pride, needs not that Mcdeity which makes us fo

ry cautions of not fpeaking too well of our ; that 'cis nothing but Mens consciousness eir own vanity and weakaefs, that obliges Ito nfe all thefe nice Precautions; and that are I wo forts of People that fpeak of the goodness