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.

(g) If what they alledged were true, yet they could only prove.] Here are the Objections which Rabbi Aben-Ezra, Spinosa, the Author of the Book of the Praeadomites, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Simon, and some o∣thers, propose against the Antiquity of the Books of Moses, and the Answers to them, from which we shall better discern their Weakness.

The first Objection is drawn from these words of Deuteronomy; Behold the Words which Moses spoke before all the Congregation of Israel beyond Jordan. This could not be written, say they, by Moses, who never passed the Jordan, no more than the Children of Israel did, while he was alive. An∣swer. The Hebrew word, as Vatablus observes, may 〈◊〉〈◊〉 on this side as well as on the other side. Pigninus, Buxtorf, and all Persons that are conversant in Hebrew are of the ••ame opinion. It literally signifies, In 〈◊〉〈◊〉, in transeundo; In their passage, being ready to pafs. Thus this Ob∣jection that appeared so terrible at first sight, car∣ries indeed no difficulty with it.

Second Objection. In the Pentateuch, Moses is always spoken of in the third Person. He is com∣mended there in several places, as in Numbers, ch. 12. where he is called, The meekest man upon earth; as also in Deuteronomy, ch. 34. And there arose not a Prophet since in Israel like unto Moses. And is it credible that Moses would have thus com∣mended himself? Answer. 'Tis ordinary for those who compose a History, where themselves are con∣cerned, to speak of themselves in the third Per∣son. Caesar in his Commentaries always speaks of his own Actions in the third Person. Josephus does the same thing in his History of the Wars of the Jews. St. John in his Gospel speaks like∣wise of himself in the third Person; The Disciple, says he, whom Jesus loved. And in another place, If I will that he tarry, what is that to you? St. Matthew relating his own Conversion, speaks of himself in the third Person, and some fay, that St. Luke was one of the two Disciples, whom our Saviour met going towards Emmaus. The Praises which Moses gives himself are not excessive. It was necessary that in his own Books he should take notice of the signal Favours which God had con••e••••ed upon him, as well as conceal none of his own Miscarriages. Josephus and Caesar often commend themselves after the same manner.

Third Objection. In the 12th Chapter of Gene∣sis the Author has this remarkable Parenthesis, And the Canaanite was then in the Land. Which makes it evident, say they, that this was written when the Canaanites were no longer in Palaestine, otherwise this Advertisement had been imperti∣nent. Now 'tis plain, they were not chased out of that Land till a long time after Moses's death, and consequently he is not the Author of this Book. Answer. Since these words, Cananaeus erat in terr•• ill••, bear this sense, it may be reasonably supposed, that this Parenthesis was inserted after Moses's time. This is an usual thing, and it often happens that these sorts of Explications, which at first were written in the Margin, to illustrate the Text, afterwards were inserted into the Text by way of Parenthesis. But one may likewise say, that these words Cananaeus aute•• erat in terr••, don't signifie Olim erat in terrâ, but Jam tum erat in terrâ, i. e. That Moses speaking of the passage of Abraham through the Land of Sichem, ob∣serves, that the Canaanites were then in the Land. Thus the sense is natural, and no ways forced.

Fourth Objection. In Genesis, ch. 22. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 14. the Mountain Moria is called The Mountain of the Lord, who will provide; App••llavitque Abraham nomen loci illius, Dominus videt. Now, say they, it had not this Name, till after it was set apart to make a Temple there. Answer. But how do they know this? For is not the contrary expresly attested in that place of Genesis? And does it not appear, that this Mountain received the name of The Lord will provide, because of Abraham's An∣swer to his Son, My Son, God will provide?

Fifth Objection. In Deuteronomy, ch. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 10, and 11. where mention is made of Og•• King of Basan, 'tis said, That he alone was remaining of the Race of the Giants. Behold his Bedstead was a Bedstead of Iron, is it not in Rabbath of the Chil∣dren of Ammon? Nine C••bits was the length there∣of, and four C••bits the breadth of it. They say, these words make it evident, that the Author of Deuteronomy was of a later standing than Moses. For in the first place, why should Moses speak of this Bed, to prove the Greatness of this Giant, since all the Israelites might have beheld it them∣selves? 'Tis more probable to say, That this was written by an Author, who lived in a time▪ when they had no knowledge of this King. Secondly, Why was not this Bed any longer in the Land of Basan, but in Rab••ath of the Children of Ammon? In short, say they, this Bed was not discovered till the time of David, who subdued the Ammo∣nites, and took R••bbath, as we find it related in the second Book of Samuel, ch. 12. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 30. An∣swer. Supposing all this to be true, 'tis easily an∣swered, by saying that, as for what has a relati∣on to Og's Bed, it was added in a Parenthesis. But why might not Moses give an account of that Bed, to prove the Greatness of that Giant, even when he addressed himself to the Israelites, since perhaps he was▪ writing this Relation some considerable time after the King was ••••ain, and 'tis not to be imagined that all the Israelites had seen the Bed? But admit the Matter was not so, yet Moses might very well make use of this Proof to make the Matter of Fact credible to Posterity. Thus the Historians of our Time, when they oc∣casionally discourse of any extraordinary Thing, although it is never so well known to the World, yet they frequently say, We have such and such Proofs of it, the Monster is still kept in such a

place, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 As for what follows, that this Iron 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Land of Basan, and not in Rabbath this is all taken upon supposition, for whymight not the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 possess it in the time of Moses?

Sixth Objection. The Author of the Pentateuch, say they, give such Names to several Cities and Countries as they had not, till a long time after the Death of Moses. In Genesis, ch. 14. 'tis said, That Abraham pursued the Kings, who had carried way his Nephew Lot, as far as Dan. Now the Name of Dan was not given to this Country till a long time after, when six hundred Men of the Tribe of Dan took the City of Laish, and, after they had taken it, gave it the Name of their Tribe, as we read in the Book of Judges, ch. 18. The same Author likewise speaks often of the Ci∣ty of Hebron, which was not so called, till after the Death of Moses, from Hebron the Son of Ca∣l••••, to whom Joshuah gave it; formerly it was cal∣led Kirjah-Arba, as we are particularly informed in Joshuah, ch. 14. v. 15. In Deuteronomy, ch. 3. v. 14. it is said, That Jair the Son of Manasseh took all the Country of Argob unto the Coasts of Ge∣shuri, and Maachathi, and called them after his own name Bushan-Havoth-Jair unto this day. An∣swer. We may generally answer these Objecti∣ons thus, by saying, That these Names were changed after Moses's time, to render the History more intelligible to those, to whom the ancient Names of those Cities and Countries that Moses used, would be altogether unknown. But the first Difficulty may be cleared otherwise, by say∣ing, That the Name of Dan is more ancient than they pretend: That the River Jordan was so cal∣led, because it has its Original from two Springs Jor and Dan. So we may say there was another City of that Name called Dan or Danna, whereof mention is made in the 15th Chapter of Joshuah, Verse the 49th, which was in the Tribe of Judah, in the Country of Sodom. To the second In∣stance we may return this answer, That it is not clearly said in the Book of Joshuah, that Hebron gave his Name to the City of Kirjath-Arba, but only that the City of Hebron was formerly called by that Name. Which may be well enough un∣derstood of an ancient Name, which it had here∣••ofore. The last Difficulty is not considerable, 'tis only in these Words, Usque in praesentem diem. Now Moses might use this Expression to demon∣strate that Country more clearly, or perhaps it might be added after him.

Seventh Objection. The Author of the Penta∣teuch speaketh of things that happen'd after the Death of Moses, in Exodus, Chap. 16. Verse 35. it is said that the Children of Israel did eat Manna, Forty Years, until they came to a Land inhabited; they did eat Manna, until they came to the Borders of the Land of Canaan. Now this could not be writ∣ten by Moses, who died before the Forty Years were accomplished. After the same manner 'tis written in the 36th Chapter of Genesis, Verse 31. And these are the Kings that reigned in the Land of Ed••m, before there reigned any King over the Chil∣dren of Israel. Which words put it beyond con∣troversie, that he who wrote this, was alive after the Israelites had Kings set over them. To this we may add, that after this Author has given us a Catalogue of the eight Kings of the Edomites, he speaks of their Dukes. Now they had not Dukes in the place of their Kings till a long time after, as we may observe in the first Book of the Chronicles, Chap. 1. Verse 5. In short, 'tis said in Deuteronomy, Chap. 2. Verse 12. that the Sons of Esau dwelt in Seir, after they had driven out and destroyed the ancient Inhabitants called Horims▪ as the Children of Israel did unto the Land of their possession. Which passage, say they, seems to intimate, that the Israelites had subdued the Edomites when this was written. Answer. If all these places were to be taken in the sense that is given them, yet we might answer, that some of them have been since added, or that Moses sometimes spoke by a Pro∣phetick Spirit. But we need not run to such So∣lutions. Moses might say, that the Israelites should eat Manna Forty Years, knowing, as he certainly did, that they were to tarry so long in the De∣sert, as it appears in the 14th Chapter of the Book of Numbers. Moreover, God had revealed to Moses, that the Israelites should afterwards have a King, as it is clearly foretold in the 17th Chapter of Deuteronomy, Verse 14. The eight Kings of the Edomites there mentioned, might have reigned from Esau to Moses; and the Dukes, of whom he speaks, did not succeed the Kings, but govern'd at the same time. Lastly, these Words, As the Israelites did to the Land in their possession, don't at all signifie or intimate the Land of the Edomites, but the Land which was promi∣sed to the Israelites. And let not any one say, that the Israelites were not as yet in possession of the Land of Promise in Moses's time, since 'tis cer∣tain that the Tribes of Reuben and Gad, with a great part of that of Manas••e••, had possessed them∣selves of the Country of the Amorites, and of the Men of Basan, after they had put 'em to the Sword.

Eighth Objection. The strongest Argument at first view is the Death and Burial of Moses, which is described at the end of Deuteronomy. To this there are two Answers. The first of those, who say with Philo and Josephus, That Moses wrote it him∣self by a Spirit of Prophecy. The second, which is the more common and solid of the two, That this Account was added either by Joshuah, or by Ezrah; or lastly, by the Synagogue of the Jews, to make the History of the Pentateuch more per∣fect.

Ninth Objection. They say, That Moses is so far from being the Author of the Pentateuch, that the Author there cites Books that were composed by Moses; as The Book of the Covenant, Exod. 24. The Book of the Wars of the Lord, Numb. 21. 14. in which there was likewise written the War a∣gainst Amelek, which is mentioned in Exodus, Chap. 17. Verse 14. The Book of the Law of the Lord in Deuteronomy, Chap. 31. Verse 9. And lastly, a Song, which is referred to, in the two and thirtieth Chapter of Deuteronomy. From whence they conclude, that the Pentateuch was compo∣••ed out of the several Books of Moses. Answer. This Objection carries no force with it; for what should hinder Moses from citing the Books which he had formerly composed? Besides, should we grant that all these passages are to be understood of those Books that were written by Moses, it would not inva•…•… ou•• Opinion. But this

cannot certainly be proved. For in the first place, we don't know, whether there was any such Book or no that was intitul••d, The Battels of the Lord; for the Hebrew Text does not inti∣māte that it was already written, but that it might be. Neither is it evident whether there is any Book mentioned: For the Hebrew Word may signifie any manner of Narrative, and so the Words that are cited may bear this sense, As it will be related when the Israelites describe the Bat∣tels of the Lord. Mr. Simon quarrels with this In∣terpretation, which, I say, these Words will na∣turally bear; but however, he does not demon∣strate that they cannot be thus applied. Others understand this place of a certain Song, which they used to sing in honour of their Victories. It is not said in Exodus, Chap. 17. that the War of Amelek was written in the Book of the Battels of the Lord, but only God commanded Moses to write it, and 'tis that which he did in that place. That passage in Exodus, Chap. 24. does not prove that Moses wrote a Book of the Covenant, but only that being come down from the Mountain, he recited to the People the Laws which God had given him in the Mountain, which are set down in the preceding Chapters. And this it is which is called in that place The Book of the Covenant. The Book of the Law, of which mention is made in Deuteronomy, is not different from Deuteronomy it self. And after all, it is not improbable that Moses referred to a Song, which he himself had composed.

Tenth Objection. There were (says Mr. Simon) amongst the Hebrews, Prophets inspired by God, who had a particular Charge given 'em to pre∣serve in Writing the most important Actions that happened in that Government. 'Tis probable, there were several of these Prophets in the time of Moses, and then we may rationally suppose, that Moses, as a Legislator, wrote only the Edicts and Commandments which he gave to the Peo∣ple, and that he left the care of collecting and transmitting to Posterity the most considerable Passages of State to these above mentioned Scribes or Prophets. Answer. This Supposition is founded upon very uncertain Conjectures, and precarious Principles. The Egyptians, say they, had such Scribes or Registers to write down their Sacred Transactions, and therefore there were such also amongst the Jews. A very fine Consequence this! 'Tis credible however that Moses established such an Order of Men. But what Proofs have they to support this tottering Supposition? Why, Jo∣sephus and Eusebius tell us, that amongst the Hebrews it was not lawful for every one to write their History, but only for the Prophets who were inspired by God. All this may be very true; but then Josephus and Eusebius understand by these Prophets no other Persons but Moses, and those after him, who wrote the Books of the Old Te∣stament down to the Reign of Artaxerxes. We must pass the same Judgment of Theodoret, say they, and the other Fathers: Now this, in my Opinion, is to make 'em speak things they never thought of, and not to understand them a∣right. As for what they add farther concerning these Prophets, whom they have invested with an Authority to add or diminish from the Books of Scripture, this is still more improbable than the other. They barely tell us instead of proving it, that in the Books of Kings several other Memoirs are quoted, from whence they draw this Conclu∣sion, that all the Books of the Bible, which have come down to our Hands, are only Abridgments and Summaries of the ancient Acts. But does it follow from hence, that all the other Books of the Bible were used after this rate? Does it fol∣low, that they added to, or retrenched from them, after they were once made? Or lastly, that they were composed by these Prophets? They would have it proceed from this Reason, that there are so many Contradictions in the Books of the Holy Scripture. They say that this is the Reason of the Differences between the Chronicles and other Historical Treatises of the Bible, of that variety of false Conjectures that ruine the Autho∣rity of the Scriptures; and what is yet more ma∣terial, that 'tis not impossible to reconcile these seeming Contradictions. To this purpose they a∣mass together a great quantity of other Conje∣ctures of this Nature, very subtilely invented, but weak and ill-grounded, and yet upon the strength of these, they make the Authority of the Bible to depend, after they have endeavoured to under∣mine the solid Foundations which bear it up. Thus by pretending to advance Criticism, they forsake the Rules of true Judgment, and follow the Fantastick Chimaera's of their own Imagina∣tions. There is no weight in what they have in∣vented themselves, or what they have found rea∣dy invented to their Hands by some Rabbies; and yet at the same time they scruple and doubt of several things that are clearer and better established.

Although I did not name Mr. Simon in my first Edition, yet he very well perceived that this re∣proach was addressed to himself. The manner wherein he answered me, sufficiently shewed, that he was sensibly touched, however this his Car∣riage does not in the least justifie him. For in stead of demonstrating by solid Reasons, that the Reproaches I fasten'd upon him, were undeserved and ill-grounded, he has filled his Letter with no∣thing but Contumelies and scornful Reflections, which shews how heinously he resented the Li∣berty I took in examining his Hypothesis; and this all sensible Men observed as soon as ever his Letter appear'd in publick. But now to make it evident to the whole World, that I have Reason on my side, viz. that Mr. Simon is in the wrong for quarrelling with me upon this occasion, I shall only cast my Eyes on the Preface of his Book, where he sets down the Principles of his Work at length: The World will observe, (says he) that having considered nothing in this Essay but the Prophet of those who have a mind to know the Grounds of the Holy Scriptures, I have inserted abundance of Prin∣ciples, very usefull to resolve the most weighty Dif∣ficulties of the Bible, and at the same time to an∣swer those Objections which are usually made against these Holy Books. These Principles are reducible to three Heads: The first is, That there were al∣ways amongst the Hebrews a sort of Prophets, or Publick Registers, Divinely inspired, who made what Alterations or Additions they thought fit, in the Books of the Old Testament. The second is, That they heretofore wrote their Books upon

little Leaves, which they rowled one over ano∣ther round a small piece of Wood, without stich∣ing them together; whence it happen'd some∣times, that not taking sufficient care to preserve the order of these ancient Leaves or Volumes, the things themselves treated of, have sometimes been misplaced. The third is, That there is a great deal of Reason to believe, that those Per∣sons who joyned these old Memoirs together, to keep up the Body of those Canonical Books which are now remaining, made no scruple at all to cut off several Synonymous Terms, which were found in their Copies, and were perhaps in∣serted only for a fuller Illustration. These are the great and admirable Principles of Mr. Simon, his publick Registers, his Rolls, and Synonyma's. Here is, according to him, a way to resolve the most perplexed Difficulties of the Bible, and to defend its Authority against the Disciples of Spi∣nosa. Here is an infallible Expedient whereby we may confound the Socinians and Protestants, and invincibly prove the Inspiration of the Holy Books. And lastly, here is a never-failing Salve to silence all the Objections that can be urged against the Scripture. I am of Opinion that Mr. Simon will find very few People who will be in∣clined to subscribe to the Usefulness of these Prin∣ciples. But this is not the Business I design to examine, 'tis their Solidity I desire to see, upon which he values himself so exceedingly. For if it be made evident, that these Principles are only established upon weak frivolous Conjectures, then adieu to all those Advantages, say I, that may be drawn from thence. Let us therefore examine all the Proofs that Mr. Simon has brought together in his Critical History, and other Books.

The first of his Principles, is that about the Scribes or Registers that were divinely inspired. But he gives us no Proofs of this matter in his Preface; it seems that was not the proper place. In the first Chapter of his Critique, which is a sort of a second Preface, he contents himself with saying, That he gives the name of Prophets to the Authors of the Books of the Bible, and with repeating what he said before in his Preface con∣cerning the great advantage of these publick Scribes; as if it were enough for him barely to assert these things, without giving himself the trouble of proving them. But in the second Chapter he endeavours to make this whole mat∣ter evident, and therefore let us consider by what Reasons he offers to do it. In the first place he observes, that the Jewish State acknowledged no other Chief or Head, but God. From this Prin∣ciple he concludes, that God himself gave 'em Laws by the Ministry of Moses, and of the o∣ther Prophets who succeeded him. This Con∣clusion is undeniable, but it was not necessary to prove it by a Principle more obscure than the Conclusion that is drawn from thence. But we are not concerned to know, whether there were any of these Prophets amongst the Hebrews, for that is a constantly received Truth; but 'tis our business to know, In the first place, Whether there were in all Ages amongst the Jews those Scribes or Registers whom he talks of, who look∣ed after the Records and Histories of the Affairs of that Nation. Secondly, Whether they were divinely inspired. Thirdly, Whether they are the Authors of the Books of the Bible. 'Tis Mr. Si∣mon's business to prove these three Propositions, and not barely to tell us in general, that there were Prophets amongst the Jews. The second Remark made by Mr. Simon is this, That in all well-regulated Kingdoms, and especially in the Ea∣stern Nations, they had always certain Persons, who took care to see, that the most important Occurren∣ces of State were preserved in Writing. I thought indeed that Mr. Simon would have concluded from this Observation, that they had such Per∣sons likewise amongst the Jews. He disowns this Consequence, and therefore this can only pass for a Comparison, and so we must look for other Arguments to shew there were such publick Scribes amongst the Jews. It carries a great deal of Probability with it, continues he, that Moses, upon the first establishment of that State, set up this sort of Scribes, whom we may call Publick or Di∣vine ones, to distinguish 'em from particular Wri∣ters, who usually engage to write the History of their own Times from no Motives but those of In∣terest. However 'tis not certain that Moses ever did institute these Scribes, 'tis a mere Conjecture and nothing else. But how does Mr. Simon en∣deavour to prove it? He gives us two Reasons in a Parenthesis; the first is, Because Moses was bred up in the Aegyptian Court, where they had Priests, to whom they gave the name of Scribes or Registers, of Sacred Things. As if it were necessary, or in∣deed probable, that Moses would appoint a∣mongst the Children of Israel whatever he saw practised by the Aegyptians. He ought to have produced some Reason, or at least some Conje∣cture, to prove that Moses imitated them in this. But Mr. Simon omits to do it. The second Rea∣son, which he alledges to prove that Moses esta∣blished this sort of Scribes amongst the Jews, is▪ Because he was a perfect Law-giver; as if it was necessary for a perfect Law-giver to institute such a Custom. Was not Lycurgus a perfect Law-giver? And yet, by the acknowledgement of Mr. Simon himself, he did not appoint any of these publick Scribes in his Commonwealth. But for what purpose I wonder should Moses set 'em up amongst the Jews, when he himself had written their Laws and History. Besides, could Mr. Si∣mon undeniably prove, that there were these pub∣lick Scribes in the time of Moses, yet it would not follow from thence, that they were the Authors of the Pentateuch. And thus we see, that all Mr. Simon's admirable Conjectures to show, that the Books of the Pentateuch were wtitten by the Scribes divinely inspired, fall to the ground, with∣out doing what they were produced for.

Let us now see, if he is more fortunate in his Citations. The first is from Josephus, who tells us, That amongst the Jews it was not lawful for every one to write their Annals, but that this Pro∣vince was only reserved for the Prophets, who knew remote and future Things by Divine Inspira∣tion, and committed to Writing all the remarkable Passages of their time. Now to this I formerly answered, That Josephus by the Prophets under∣stands no more than Moses, and those that wrote the Books of the Old Testament after him. Mr. Simon answers, That the Reasons of Josephus are

〈…〉〈…〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 faithfully Translated are these; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 body 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to write History, th•…•… is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at all 〈◊〉〈◊〉 our Histories. They are the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wh•• write, either about ••••∣•••••••••• T••i••gs 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••••••••n•••• a long time ago, and which they •••••••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Divine Ins••••••••••ion, or about Things that happened i•• their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ti••••, and those they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as they ••••re 〈◊〉〈◊〉. We have not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Books that contradict 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ano∣ther, and ••••••y serve to perplex the Reader. We have only twenty two, which contain the History of all times, and to which we resign our Belief with a great deal of Justice. Of these Books there are five by Moses.... Fr•••• Moses down to Artaxerxes King of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lived after X••••xes, the Pro∣phets in thirteen Books wrote the History of their Times. The four following co••••••in Hy••••••s i•• Praise of God, and several Moral Pr••c••pts. In short, fr•••• Artaxe••x•••• down to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 own Times we have our History very well written, but these Books are not of the same Authority with the former, because there has not been a continued and regular Successi∣on of ••rophets. Nothing in the whole World can be more directly oppo••••te to Mr. Simon's Hypo∣thesis than this passage of J••sep••••••. Mr. Simon supposes, that in Moses's time there were publick Scribes, who cited the Memoi••s from whence they composed the ••••••tat••••••ch; and J••s••ph••s expresly tells us, that these five first Books were written by Moses. Mr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 supposes, that the follow∣ing Books are only Abridgments of those anci∣ent Memoirs, that were from time to time writ∣ten by the publick Scribes, and afterwards col∣lected together by others of the same Character; and J••sep••••s supposes, they were written in the same manner as we now find 'em, by the Pro∣phets that lived upon the spot when these things, which they have delivered, were transacted. Mr. Simon would needs have it, that in the Jewish Nation there were always publick Scribes divine∣ly inspired; and Josephus plainly tells us, that the Succession of Prophets failed after Artaxer∣xes. Now what can be more irreconcileable than all this? Besides, 'tis observable, that Josephus's Prophets are different from Mr. Simon's publick Scribes. They were not Men intrusted with the Registers, and appointed to write History: But Prophets, whom from time to time we find a∣mongst the Jews, who took care to transmit the Passages of their time to Posterity; and their Books are not at all different from those, which the Jews acknowledged for Canonical in the time of Josephus. From all which it necessarily fol∣lows, that this passage confirms my Hypothesis, and utterly destroys Mr. Simons: For we maintain with Josephus against Mr. Simon, That Moses is the Author of the Pentateuch, and that the other Authentick Books of the Old Testament were written by Men divinely inspired, or by Prophets who lived n••ar the times wherein those Occur∣rences happened which they delivered, though we do not ••••••••ainly know their Names: 'T•••• to these Books and not to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that we are to apply the Words of St. Gregory upon Job, which Mr. Simon manifestly ••••••verts and abuses in his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Chapter, Q•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 seripserit v••ld•• superv•••••••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Auctor Lib•••• Spirit•••• S••nct•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 credatur. For this Father speaks this only with relation to the Book of Job, wh••se Author is unknown to us.

The second Author, that Mr. Simon alledges in his Critical History to prove these S••ribes divinely inspired, is Eus••bius: Eusebius, says he, confir•••• this Opinion, when he takes notice, that amongst the Jews it was not allowed for all sorts of People to pass their Judgment upon those Men that were in∣spired by the Holy Spirit to write Holy Books. He cites in the Margin, Eusebius de praeparatione E∣vangelic••; that is to say, a great Book in Folio; I have diligently hunted after this passage there, but have not been so happy as to meet with it. But let the matter be how it will, I don't see what Assistance it brings to Mr. Symon's Hypo∣thesis; The Jews had Writers that were divinely inspired; Who questions it? As also, That it did not belong to all the World to judge who they w••re, that were thus divinely inspired; but this Province was reserved for those Persons, who had the same Inspiration themselves. Well then, suppose it were so, does it therefore follow that the Books of Moses were composed by the Kee∣pers of Registers? Does it follow that those who were appointed to write History, and that too out of the publick Memoirs, were divinely inspi∣red? Or lastly, That all the Books of Scripture which we now have, are but so many Abridge∣ments extracted out of these Memoirs. As for what remains, Mr. Simon could not have cited any Author more contrary to his own Hypothe∣sis, than Eusebius, and that even in this very Book De Praeparatione Evangelicâ. For one of the great Principles, which he there establishes in several places, is the Authority and Antiquity of the Books of Moses, which he always suppo∣ses to have been written by that Prophet in the same manner as we have 'em at present. The Truth of this Assertion he confirms by these three Propositions, which he lays down in the begin∣ning of the 14th Book. The first is, That Mo∣ses is ancienter than any Greek Author. The second, That he has written what he had learned of his Ancestors. The third, That the Jews have neither added nor diminished from the Writings which he left them. And now I'll leave the World to judge whether these Principles of Eu∣sebius agree with those of Mr. Simon.

The third Author cited by Mr. Simon is Theo∣doret. It must be confessed, that this Father owns, (as well as several other Authors have done) that the Books of Kings and Chronicles were composed from very ancient Memoirs. But this is not the point in Question. We confess, we are not assured of the Authors of those Books. We acknowledge they are a Collection drawn out of old Memoirs. But we demand of Mr. Si∣mon, whether it follows from hence, that the Pentateuch, and other Books of the Bible, are of the same Nature. This is a thing which Theodo∣ret wou'd beware of saying, because he owns Mo∣ses to be the Author of the Pentateuch. 'Tis

with this Assertion he begins his Pre•••••••• to the Books of Kings, from whence Mr. Simon has drawn these passages which he qu••••••s After ha∣ving explained the Books of Moses, &c. To these three Authors has Mr. Simon in his Letter to Mon∣sieur L' Abbe, added the Author of the Synopsis, attributed to St. Athanasius. This Author fol∣lows the Opinion of Josephus, and after having observed that the five first Books of the Bible do without dispute belong to Moses, he says, that all the following Books are not written by those whose Names they bear, but that they were composed by Prophets who lived from time to time. Lastly he observes, when he is speaking concerning the ••••r••∣••icles, that one finds several Historical Books of the Prophets quoted there. And what does all this make for Mr. Simon's Hypothesis? Have not we said the very same thing? Does not all the World agree as to this particular? Had Mr. Simon kept himself here, no Body would have fell upon him.

The last Author, whom Mr. Simon cites to ju∣stifie his Hypothesis, is the Author of the Chroni∣•••••• Alexandrinum. This Author in the place tran∣scribed by Mr. Simon, tells us, that there were some Prophets who wrote their own Prophesies themselves, as David the Book of Psalms, and Da∣niel his Prophecy; and that there were others who did not write themselves, but that they had Scribes in the Temple, who wrote down, as it were in a Journal, the Words of each Prophet...... That the Books of Kings were thus composed by parts, that under Saul's Reign they wrote whatever passed in his time, and so likewise in David's time, and the other Kings; That the Chronicles are but a Collection of Registers, and several Papers of their Kings; That Moses wrote the Pentateuch; That Joshuah is the Author of the Book which bears his Name; That the Book of Judges was written by the Scribes in the Temple from time to time, as well as that of Ruth; That Salomon composed the Proverbs, the Canticles, and Ecclesiastes. This Author's Hy∣pothesis is extreamly different from that of Mr. Si∣mon. 1. He supposeth for a certain truth, that Moses was the Author of the Pentateuth, and does not attribute his Works to the publick Scribes or Abbreviators. 2. He does not say, that these publick Scribes were inspired by God, or that they wrote the History of themselves. He supposes the Prophets dictated that to them as well as their Prophecies. 3. He believes that the Books of Kings and Judges were the very Origi∣nals from the Prophets, which were joyned to∣gether. Instead of which Mr. Simon believes, that these Books are Abridgments. I won't lose so much time as to answer the Rabbi's, and other Authors of that Stamp, whom Mr. Simon has mu∣stered up in his last Letter. 'Tis visible there's not one single Author he quotes that is of the same opinion with himself. For, In the first place, they all of 'em acknowledge, That the Books of the Pentateuch ought not to be attributed to Scribes, or to Prophets divinely Inspired, but to Moses himself. Secondly, they say, That the following Books were written by Persons divinely Inspired, to whom they gave the name of Pro∣phets, but they don't tell us, that these Prophets were Supervisors of the Registers, or publick Scribes. Thirdly, they acknowledge, That there were ancient Memoirs, or ancient Histories, often quoted in the Books of Kings, and the Chronicles. No body doubts this, I have frequently observed it, and have made a Catalogue of the Books that are quoted in the Old Testament. But it does not f••llow from hence, that all the Books of the Bi∣ble are Extracted from these Memoirs, and Com∣piled a long time after. Mr. Simon has given these publick Scribes authority to change, to enlarge, and abridge these Sacred Books as they see conve∣nient. To prove this, he quotes Don Isaac A∣barbinel, a Learned Spanish Jew, as if we were obliged to take all for Gospel that these Rabbi's have been pleased to deliver. He joyns Procopius and Theodoret to this Jew, as Men that have ob∣served, that the Books of Kings and Chronicles were drawn out of several other Historical Books. Not to displease Mr. Simon, he has mightily alter∣ed the Point, for this is not the Question under debate. We agree with him, that the Authors of the Books of Kings, and the Chronicles, com∣piled their Histories out of Memoirs and parti∣cular Historians whom they found, as Livy and Mez••ray made use of the ancient Historians to compose their Histories: But for all this, we dare not say, they have changed or diminished the an∣cient Histories, that always continued in the same condition they were in, nor that they had a Pri∣vilege to do this, much less that they have made any considerable Alterations or Additions to the Books of Moses. Mr. Simon at last brings in a very dangerous Maxim, though he covers it under a specious appearance of Usefulness: It would be dangerous, says he, to pretend to Correct one Book of Scripture by another, because they don't agree altogether themselves. 'Tis very truly said, that we ought not to Correct one Book of Scri∣pture by another: But it is not true, that two Books of the Scripture don't altogether agree with each other. There is not any real Contra∣diction between the Books of the Bible; if there are any apparent ones, the fault does not lie in the Authors, but in our want of understanding them. 'Tis a piece of extraordinary Rashness and Presumption to suppose with Mr. Simon, that there are real Contradictions in the Books of the Bible, that the Author of the Chronicles has re∣ported Matter of Fact otherwise than it is in o∣ther places, or that the Genealogies and Chrono∣logy of the Scriptures are faulty, and the like: I know, says Mr. Simon, that it is expresly forbid∣den in Deuteronomy to add or diminish a Tittle from the Word of God. Here then there is an ex∣press Text against Mr. Simon's Hypothesis. Now to answer this Passage, he ought to alledge some other place of Scripture, which restrains and li∣mits this Prohibition to private Persons, or gives Permission to the Prophets and publick Scribes to do the contrary. But Mr. Simon thinks it enough to quote the Author of the Book Cozri, who is of the same opinion, but by a peculiar Misfortune that attends him, we find, that a certain Com∣mentator towards the bottom of the Page, where this Book is quoted, observes, That the Author of the Book Cozri does not speak of the Scripture in that place, but only of the Explication of the Com∣mandments, which depended upon the Judges of the

Sanedrim▪ who had po••••r 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••xt••••d or limit the•• according to the circumstances of Ti•…•…, and •…•…r∣gent Occasions▪ What b••com•••• then of Mr. S•…•…'s Answer▪ It stood only upon the Authority of the Author of the Book C•…•…, and now we see, that this very Author will not be brought to say what he would have him▪ Af•…•… all, Mr. Simon quotes the Common Opinion of the Fathers, who believe, that the Collection of the Old Testament, such as it now is, was composed by •…•…ah, which confirms, says he, what I am now maintaining; for Ezrah could not correct and restore these Books, which, ac∣cording to them, had been •…•…pted during the time of the Captivity, but in the Quality and Character of a Prophet and publick Scribe, and therefore he is called a Scribe by the way of Excellence in the Bible. I would willingly know what necessity there was, that Ezrah should restore the Holy Scripture in quality of Publick Scribe, or Master of the Rolls. Is it not infinitely more probable to imagine he did it, because he was commanded to restore the Religion and Laws of the Jews in their ancient Purity, as being their Chief and High-Priest. Whenever he is called a Scribe in Scri∣pture▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not in Mr. Simon's sense, but because he was well skilled and knowing in the Law of the Lord. We need only give our selves the trouble to read this passage, Ez. 7. v. 6. Ezra went up from Babylon, and he was a ready scribe in the Law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given▪ That is to say, he perfectly understood the Law, the Word Scribe being taken in the same sense in Jeremiah, ch. 8. v. 8. And it does not sig∣nifie any thing else in the New Testament, where this Name is given to all the Doctors of the Law.

The second Principle of Mr. Simon depends up∣on the changing of the Rolls or Volumes in which these Sacred Books are written. I said before, that this Conjecture is only pleasant because it is new, and that it was a Chimaera, that had nothing at all to do with the Argument in hand. Mr. Simon answers me immediately, That what I call a Chimaera, was a very ancient opinion, and likewise taken no∣tice of by the most ancient Criticks. It was there∣fore his business to look after his Proofs. But I have no Exceptions to make to the Antiquity of Rolls; (for 'tis very plain that they formerly wrote upon Leaves which they rolled together) but only to the ill use he makes of 'em. He ought to have shown by convincing Instances, that these Rolls frequently occasioned Transposi∣tions, and he ought likewise to have applied this Conjecture to some Examples in Scripture which had suffered by this disorder. But this I defy him to do after all his attempts, he dares not under∣take any thing of that nature, but contents him∣self to say in general terms, That it may be so. I said also, That this Conjecture had nothing to do with the Subject, because if we supposed, that some little confusion might accidentally happen in the rolling of these Leaves, yet the Abridgers might easily rectifie 'em and set 'em in order. To this Mr. Simon replies, that 'tis to no purpose to talk of the Abridgers, because these Leaves were disordered long after the Collection of the Abridgments. I did indeed believe Mr. Simon had spoken of the Leaves of the Originals or Memoirs, out of which, as he pretends, they made an Abridgment of the Bible, and I am still of opinion, that he is thus to be understood, where he says, p. 35. I much doubt whether we are to attribute to Moses and the publick Scribes, that lived in his times, the disor∣der and confusion which we find in several places of the Pentateuch: There is great probability for us to believe, that as they wrote their Books then upon little Rolls, or single Leaves, which they rolled one upon another, the order of these Leaves has been changed. Now it was very probable, that this then had a relation to Moses, and the publick Scribes: But since Mr. Simon is willing to have it under∣derstood of the Times that followed these Abridg∣ments, he ought to inform us, that the little Or∣der which we find, as he pretends, in the Penta∣teuch, proceeded from the changing of these Rolls. But this he can never be able to do, and I challenge him to apply this Conjecture to the Examples which he produces; as one may readily rectify a printed Sheet of Paper which was transposed in binding a Book. Hence it follows, that this second Principle of Mr. Simon is so very far from being well grounded, that 'tis indeed wholly useless. As for what concerns his third Principle, which is the Repetition of the Synonymous Terms, from whence he pretends to conclude, that the Books of the Bible are composed from several ancient Memoirs, 'tis a false and frivolous Conjecture; for there is much greater reason for a Man to believe, that these Repetitions came from one Author, who wrote these Things a•• Memoirs at first, than from an Epitomizer, who has weaved one conti∣nued History without making any repetition of the same Things, or the same Words: Besides, that these Repetitions which Mr. Simon produces as Examples, are not absolutely needless, but serve either to Illustrate what has been said, or else to Corroborate some Circumstance or other, or last∣ly, to give more Force and Efficacy to what is written. 'Tis no unusual thing to meet with Re∣petitions of that nature in most Authors, and prin∣cipally in those, that write the History of their own times with an air of Simplicity and Unaf∣fectedness.

Eleventh Objection. 'Tis pretended that the Re∣petitions, which we meet with in the Pentateuch, were not in all probability made by Moses, but ra∣ther by them, who made a Collection of the Holy Books, and have joyned together several Precepts or Explications of the same Words. There are abundance of these Repetitions which they pro∣duce. They say moreover, that there are many Repetitions of the same thing differently related, and this makes it appear, that this History is drawn from several different Memoirs. They add, That we cannot rationally attribute them to Moses, because of the little Order or Regularity we find them in. They produce upon this occasion a Con∣jecture that is pleasant enough, because new. There is reason to imagine, say they, that as they wrote their Books in those times upon Rolls, or separate Leaves, which they rolled one upon another, the order of the Leaves has been changed and inverted. And so they pretend, that the diversity of Style, which is to be found in the Books of the Pentateuch, is a satisfactory Proof, to shew that the same Wri∣ter was not the Author. Answer. All these Ob∣jections

are extremely weak and impertinent, and rather destroy, than contribute any thing to the Hypothesis they are produced to establish. For can any Man in the World believe, that an Au∣thor, who had abridged any History, would so often repeat the same things, that he would pre∣serve no order, and not write in the same style throughout. On the contrary, Don't all Abbre∣viators make it their business to make their Rela∣tions in as few Words as possible, regularly, and after an uniform manner? The contrary Faults more frequently belong to the first Authors of History, who naturally and simply recount all Affairs which they know. This sort of Repeti∣tion is very familiar and common among the An∣cients, and particularly amongst those, who wrote an History or Fable first; and they are rarely found in Historians, who compile their Works out of the Memoirs of other Men, the reason is, because the first write naturally, just as they speak, without Meditation and Study, and the others on the contrary, having all their Matter ready fitted to their hands, are only at the Expence of ran∣ging, and digesting it Methodically. The Repeti∣tions, which we find in the Pentateuch, are often necessary to explain the Particularities of those Things, which at first they were forced to relate in general; for this reason it is, that the particu∣lar Circumstances of the Creation of the World, which were set down in the first Chapter of Gene∣sis, were afterwards told over again, more parti∣cularly in the second. 'Twas the Genius and Cu∣stom of the Hebrews to repeat the same Words, as it was indeed the fashion of all the Ancients.

But we are not to believe, that there is so lit∣tle order, as they would make us believe, in the Pentateuch, and if there were less than there real∣ly is, that would be rather an Argument to show it belongs to Moses, who wrote without Art, Method, and Affectation, as those People gene∣rally do, who leave Memoirs behind them of those Passages, wherein themselves bore a share. The conjecture about the Rolls is an extravagant Whimsie, that makes nothing at all to the pur∣pose, for if there were any confusion of the Leaves, the Abbreviators might without any great diffi∣culty set them right in their true order. Lastly, what they pretend about the considerable diffe∣rence of style in the Pentateuch, is notoriously false: On the contrary, a Man may observe all along the Genius of the same Author; and if he sometimes does not happen to enlarge upon the Affairs, which he relates, 'tis because his Matter required shortness, or because he did not judge it convenient to use that liberty. Now we can∣not in justice call this a difference of Style, when all the rest is agreeable, and of a piece.

But let us leave Mr. Simon to answer his Ad∣versary, who pretends, as well as himself, that the Pentateuch does not belong to Moses, but to a Jewish Priest sent from Babylon to instruct the Christians. His Conjectures, which are easily an∣swered, are these:

In the first place, he says, That the 11th and 12th Verses of the second Chapter in Genes••s could not be written by Moses. The name of the first is Pison, that is it which compasseth the whole Land of Havelah, where there is Gold. And the Gold of that Land is good, there is Bdellium, and the Onyx Stone. These Remark, ssays Mr. Simon's Adversary, seem to proceed from an Author who had been in that Country, that is to say, in Chaldea, for Pison is an Arm of Euphrates, that discharges it self into the Persian Gulf. It is by no means probable, that Moses, who never went far from Aegypt, should be able to give so particular a relation of a Coun∣try so remote and distant, in a time when such Voyages were very rare, and attended with abun∣dance of Difficulties. But I would willingly un∣derstand what should hinder Moses from know∣ing, that this Country was watered with the Ri∣ver Pison, and how was it possible for him to give a description of the place, unless he had given the most publick and commonly known Marks. We see plainly, that some Countries, though never so remote, are yet known well enough for those excellent and precious Commodities that are found there, which are to be met with no where else, and which are transported from thence to o∣ther places. 'Tis not necessary for a Man, to go to Potosi, to be informed, that the Gold of that Country is very fine, and in great plenty; or to make a Voyage to the Indies, to know that Pearls and precious Stones, are found there; nor is there any more strength in the second Reason▪ which supposeth, that the exactness wherewith this Author describes the erecting of the Cities of Mesopotamia and Assyria, v. 18. of the 10th Chap∣ter of Genesis, is a clear indication, that the Wri∣ter thereof had been in that Country. For is it necessary that an Historian should have been in all the places he mentions? On the other hand, Was there ever any Historian in the World that has seen all the Countries which he gives an ac∣count of?

These are this Author's private Guesses: We have already answered those which have been started by Hobbs, Spinosa, and Mr. Simon, as well as himself, but don't think it worth the while to throw away any time in refuting those extrava∣gant Whimsies he makes so much noise about, to prove that the Pentateuch was written by a Sa∣maritan Priest. They are so weak and pitiful that they deserve no body's Consideration, and indeed if such Reasonings were to be allowed, I don't know one single Book in the World which might not upon as good Grounds be taken away from the true Author, and bestowed upon another. From hence we may see, of what ill consequence it is to give ones Imagination too large a Scope, and mistake bare Conjectures for eternal Truths.