A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

(a) THere is no Paradox more dangerous than the Opinion of those who have presumed to deny that the Pentateuch was composed by Moses.] I have already observed in the first Edition, that this Paradox was started by Rabbi Aben Ezra, because he is the first that raised these Objections, which have occasioned some Persons to believe, that Moses was not the Author of the Pentateuch; and though he durst not openly declare his Opini∣on in this Matter, yet he expresses himself after such a Manner, that it will evidently appear that he was not heartily perswaded that the Pentateuch was written by Moses. For in his Explication of these Words in Deuteronomy, Behold what Moses

said to the Israelites that were beyond Jordan, he not only makes use of this passage to shew that this Book was not Moses's, but he musters up the most terrible Objections he could raise for this purpose. You will know the Truth, says he, if you comprehend the Mystery of the Twelve: Moses wrote the Law: The Canaanites were then in the Land: In the Mountain of the Lord it shall be seen: Be∣hold his Iron Bed: Words which allude to some passages in the Pentateuch, and which he uses to prove; that it was not written by Moses. And 'tis principally upon the Authority and Reasons of this Rabbi that Hobbs, Pererius, and Spinosa, established their Doctrine, when they publickly maintain'd that the Pantateuch was not written by Moses. To these Authors we may add Mon∣sieur Simon, who has wrote a Book, called, A Cri∣tical History of the Old Testament. I was not wil∣ling to name him in the first Edition of this Vo∣lume, though I took occasion then to confute his Reasons; but since he has been pleased to declare that he was the Person, whom I meant, in a Let∣ter to Monsieur Labbe a Doctor of the Faculty, he ought not to resent it as an Injury, if I attack him by name, and endeavour to shew, that his Hypothesis about the Books of Moses is a rash and dangerous as Spinosa's.

Monsieur Simon lays down his Opinion in the first Chapter of the first Book of his Critical Hi∣story, p. 3. of Leer's Edition. When we suppose that there have been such publick Scribes, we ascribe to them all the Historical part of the Pentateuch, and to Moses all that belongs to the Laws and Ordinan∣ces; and 'tis this which the Scripture calls the Law of Moses. And so one may say in this sense, that all the Pentateuch is really and truly written by Moses, because those persons that made the Collection lived in his time, and what they did was by his particular Direction. He says the very same thing in his 2d Chap. p. 17. 'Tis therefore not improbable that there were in Moses's time such sort of Prophets, who were necessary to the State, because they preserved the most considerable Actions that passed in their Commonwealth. This being granted we shall distin∣guish in these five Books of the Law that which was written by Moses, from what was written by the Pro∣phets and publick Scribes: We may attribute to Moses the Commandments and Ordinances which he gave the People, in lieu of which we may suppose these same publick Scribes to have been the Authors of the grea∣test part of this History. In the seventh Chapter, p. 50. he adds: As for what concerns the Books of Mo∣ses, such as they now are in the Collection which we have, the Additions that have been made to the ancient Acts hinder us from discerning what is truly his, and what has been added by those who succeeded him, or by the Authors of the last Collection. Besides, this Compilation being now and then Epitomized out of the ancient Memoirs, one cannot be assured, that the Genealogies there are set down in their full length and extent.

From these Principles of Monsieur Simon, it fol∣lows in the first place, that Moses is not the Au∣thor of the greatest part of the Pentateuch, for the Controversie here is not about some few Passages that are of small consequence, but even those that make up the Body and principal Part of the Pen∣tateuch; Moses according to his Notions, being only concerned about the Laws and Ordinances, has no share in any thing besides, and so the Hi∣story of the Creation, and of the Deluge, in a word, all Genesis, and whatever has a relation to the Historical part, is taken away from Moses. It is to no purpose to say, as he has done already, p. 3. That one may say, that all the Pentateuch is Moses's, because they that made the Collection lived in his time, and did nothing but by his order. For would it not be a Jest to ascribe to Moses the Works of the publick Scribes of his time? If this were really true, a Man might ascribe all publick Registers to those Kings and Princes, in whose time, and by whose order, they were compiled: But what is a great deal more surprizing, Monsieur Si∣mon, or at least one of his Zealous Defenders, aban∣dons this Hypothesis as not to be maintained, and acknowledges that there is no convincing proof to make us believe there weresuch publick Scribes di∣vinely inspired in the time of Moses. This is ta∣ken notice of in a Marginal Note of the 17th Page of his Critical History, and the same Edition that we cited before. We find in truth, says the Author of that Remark, this sort of publick Scribes in the time of the Kings amongst the Hebrews.… but we find no Foot-steps of them in the Books of Moses. The Author of the Answer to a Letter which Mon∣sieur Spanheim wrote against F. Simon confesses the same thing. If you now demand of me, what is my Opinion concerning these publick Scribes; I answer, That it would be very hard to reject 'em totally… In the mean time I don't altogether agree with him as to the time, wherein he pretends, that these Pro∣phets were Established in the Jewish Commonwealth for the Reasons he brings, and indeed the greater part of his Authorities clearly suppose, that this happened after Moses. If this Letter was Monsieur Simon's, as the World was inclined to believe, he cannot pos∣sibly excuse himself from having dealt very trea∣cherously in a matter of the highest consequence a∣bout Religion, since he has established the truth of the Pentateuch upon a supposition, which he himself acknowledges to be either false or uncer∣tain. But suppose this Letter was not his, it shows at least, that those persons who are the most favourable to his Hypothesis, freely own 'tis impossible to prove there were any of these pub∣lick Scribes divinely Inspired in Moses's time; and consequently that Monsieur Simon, who has groun∣ded the validity of the Pentateuch upon this Hy∣pothesis, has done it upon a very weak Founda∣tion, even in the judgment of those Criticks who stand up the strongest for him. Thus Monsieur Simon alledges this Conjecture as only a matter of probability. In the second place, Monsieur Simon has of himself ruined whatever he says of the An∣tiquity and Authority of the Pentateuch, by con∣fidently asserting, as he has done in the third pas∣sage we quoted, that the Pentateuch, in the con∣dition we find it in at present, is only an Abridg∣ment of the ancient Acts that were made in the time of Moses, and that 'tis impossible to discern what is ancient, and what is not. Is not this for∣mally to deny that Moses was the Author of the Pentateuch, and that the Books which we now have are not so ancient, as is pretended?

In a word, he establishes the Authority of the Books of Scripture upon the pretended Inspirati∣on

of certain Scribes or Keepers of the publick Re∣gisters, whom he believes to have been from time to time among the Jews. Now nothing is more uncertain than the Existence or Inspiration of these publick Scribes, as we shall shew in the fol∣lowing Pages.