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.

[h] They would only prove, that the same thing has happened to the Books of Moses, which has almost happened to all the ancient Authors, viz, That some few Words, Names, and Terms, have been added or altered to render the Narrative more intelligible.] If one examines all these Objections that I have already answered, he will be convinced they prove no more, and that one might have answered al∣most all of them by this very Remark. Mr. Si∣mon, who cannot contradict me in this Point, is mighty desirous to set upon me another way, by objecting, that in my Preface, and other places of my Book, I have laid down Rules which seem to prove from these Additions, that the Penta∣teuch is a supposititious Work: For it seems I had

affirmed in the first part of my Preface, That im∣postors for the most part relate Matters of Fact that happened after the Death of those whom they speak of, and they give an Account of Cities and People that were not known in the time of those Authors whose Names they assume. From whence Mr. Si∣mon draws this Consequence, that since I own there are several such Additions in the Pentateuch, a Disciple of Spinosa may thence conclude, that according to my Rule 'tis a supposititious Work. To this I answer, that this Objection of Mr. Si∣mon shews, that he has not so great a share of good Sense, and closeness of Arguing, as he has of Rabbinical Learning. For if he had only consi∣dered the General Remark which I made in my Preface about the Rules of Criticism there laid together, he could not have been guilty of so ma∣nifest a Solecism as this. I desire him to mind these Words a little: A Man may say, that all these Rules which I have here laid down, are con∣vincing and probable in different degrees, but that the Sovereign and Principal Rule is the Judgment of Equity and Prudence, which instructs us to ballance the Reasons of this and t'oher side, in distinctly con∣sidering the Conjectures that are made of both sides. Now this is the General Rule of Rational Criti∣cism, and we abuse all the rest if we don't chiefly make use of this. Let us now apply it to the pre∣sent Question. There are in the Pentateuch some Terms, and Names of Cities, and other Passages that could not come from Moses; must we there∣fore hastily conclude that it was not written by Mo∣ses, because 'tis a certain sign that a Book is spuri∣ous, when one finds such Occurrences in it, as have happen'd after the Death of the Author to whom it is attributed, and because we there meet with some Names of Cities and People that were not known in his time? Or on the other hand, Does it follow, because the Pentateuch was writ by Mo∣ses, notwithstanding some Additions which are there to be found, does it I say thence follow, that the above-mentioned Rule is false? These two Consequences are very indiscreetly drawn, but the Rule is still good, and the Books of the Penta∣teuch may yet be written by Moses. The Rule is good, but we ought to make a good use of it. When there are no certain Proofs of the Antiqui∣ty of a Book, and besides there are other Conje∣ctures to incline us to doubt of it, we may in pur∣suance to this Rule, conclude it spurious. But when it is past Dispute that such a Book is writ∣ten by such an Author, and there is an infinite number of evident Arguments to demonstrate the truth of it; then we are necessarily to conclude, that these Words, and Terms, and Names, were afterwards added. After all, where there are Rea∣sons on one side, as well as on the other, we ought carefully to ballance them, to weigh one against the other, and at last to determine the matter on that side, where the greatest appearance of pro∣bability lies. These are the true Rules of Criticism, which it seems Mr. Simon is ignorant of, or at least does not rightly examine, otherwise he could ne∣ver have forgot himself so far, as to accuse me wrongfully for giving favourable Rules to the Disciples of Spinosa. The fault is by no means to be imputed to these Rules, which almost every Critick has given before me, but 'tis his way of Arguing, and drawing of Inferences that has been favourable to the Spinosists. His Conjectures, and Objections, and in short his Hypothesis, has ser∣ved to confirm those Persons in their Errors, be∣sides that several places of his Book give the grea∣test Blow imaginable to the Authority of the Ho∣ly Scripture; When he asks me, What answer I will return to a Spinosist, who to prove that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, shall use my own Reasons to show that the Liturgy of St. James, as 'tis commonly received by the Oriental Nations, was not made by him? I will answer him, that there are not the same Reasons to induce a Man to believe that St. James was the Author of that Liturgy, which goes under his Name, as that the Books of Moses were written by him: That this was never affirmed in any of the Epistles of the Apostles, that the Ancients never speak of it, that this Liturgy does not agree with the Discipline that was in use in St. James's time. Whereas the Scripture informs me that Moses was Author of the Pentateuch, and Jesus Christ and his Apostles have assured me of the truth of it, and all the an∣cient Writers have testified so much, besides the Universal Agreement of all People in this matter. 'Tis therefore a manifest Injustice and Calumny in Mr. Simon to accuse me for designing to destroy the Books of Moses, under a pretence of defending them against the Spinosists.

Nor does Mr. Simon reason better in applying what I have said with regard to the Book of Jo∣shuah, to the Books of the Pentateuch; 'tis but comparing the Arguments I brought to prove that the Books of the Pentateuch belonged to Moses, with those that are commonly produced to prove that the Book of Joshuah was written by Joshuah, and any Man will soon perceive the mighty diffe∣rence between one and the other, and that the Reasons that are alledged in favour of Moses, are infinitely stronger than those that are urged to prove that Joshuah composed the Book that bears his Name. No Man ever yet doubted that the Pen∣tateuch was written by Moses, but 'tis not the same case with the Book of Joshuah. Mr. Simon supposeth there is as much evidence for one, as the other; in order to prove this, he imagines that all those formal places of Scripture that are produced to shew that Moses was Author of the Pentateuch, reduce themselves to this Head, viz. That Moses wrote the Law; and he pretends there is the same reason to affirm, that Joshuah added the Book of his History to the Books of the Law. But if any one will give himself the trouble to consider the passages that are to be found in the Notes (b) and (c), he will be perswaded that they are very posi∣tive as well as numerous, and don't lie in so nar∣row a compass as those which are brought in be∣half of Joshuah: Besides, 'tis but reading the 24th Chapter of the Book of Joshuah, where we find this last passage, and we shall see that it may be very well understood of the Moral and Ceremonial Precepts that are mentioned in that place. From hence it evidently appears, that there's a vast diffe∣rence between the Reasons that prove Moses to be the Author of the Pentateuch, and those that seem to intimate that Joshuah composed the Book which contains this History; and that a Man without in∣curring the guilt of rashness, may doubt whether

he is the Author of that Book; but that he can∣not doubt whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch, without being guilty of that crime to the highest degree. At the same time I will not absolutely deny that Joshuah was Author of the Book that carries his Name; I have only observed, that it is not absolutely certain, and 'tis an easie matter to take notice, that I rather incline to that party which assigns it to Joshuah.