ceived nemine contradicente for a Book of Divine Authority.

But if they have recourfe to this Objection that the Scriptures of the Jews were not wholly Suppofititious, but were altered only with respect to fome important Places, and were effentially corrupted, (for this is the only way the Incredulous can take,) we shall plainly make it appear to them, that fuppofing they were all at corrupted as they pretend, they were wholly Suppofititious. And in effect, what remains in the Scriptures of the Jews, after you have taken away from them the Prophefies, the miraculous Matters of Fact, and all other things which they relate to them? For those are what we call here the Effentials of thofe 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 defigned for the Commemoration of fome 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 thofe things which relate to them? nothing in the leaft. Thus it appears, that to pretend that the Scriptures of the Jews were effentially altered, that is, in all thofe Places which evi denced the Divinity of them, fuppofing they were true, is as much as to fay, that they were wholly Suppofititious.

R 3

Now

Now do but joyn all these Circumstances together, the Time, the Place, the Perfons, their Interefts, the Division of the Tribes, the Competition of Perfons, the fetled Worship and Cuftoms of the Jews, the Cautions of the Lawgiver,the frequent Repetitions in them, the force of Education, the Commemorations, the Defcriptions 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 fubmiffion which you owe to Divine Providence.

But let us now hear what Objections the Incredulous raife against our Principles; Spinofa has collected feveral Difficulties against the Books of Mofes, which we fhall now answer, without breaking off the Connexion of our Principles.

CHAP. VII.

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

N the beginning of his Book, our Adversary brings in fome 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 fhew 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 compofe the Preface of the Book called Deuteronomy, because according to the Tranflation he used, it begins after this maner, Thefe be the Words which Mofes Spake unto all Ifrael on the other fide Jordan: Becaufe, fays 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 1392 the Word which is used in the Original, fignifies indifferently on this fide, or on the other fide, according as it is applied; and fince 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 fuppofe a thing that is still in queftion.

II. He gives us to understand, that the Book of the Law was written in the compafs only of one Altar, which according to the Opinion of the Rabbins confifted of but Twelve Stones : Whence it follows, fays he, that the Book of Mofes was of much lefs Extent than the Pentatruck. But we may perceive by that his Spite against the truth, fince 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, fuppofing there were but Twelve Stones, or not Twelve, 'tis certain however this Objection can never anfwer his Expectation, For if there were but Twelve, how could ever Joshua have written upon them the whole Law of Mofes, which contained the Deca

R 4

logue,

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 fhall fhew it hereafter ?

Gin, 12. 6.

13.7.

III. He quotes fome Places out of Genefis, wherein 'tis faid, that Abraham went into the Land of Canaan, and that the Canaanite was then in the Land ; which, fays he, the Hiftorian doubtlefs only faid, because in his time there were no Canaanites left in that Land,and confequently Mofes could never be that Hiftorian.

Aben. Ezra who was the Author of this Objection, furnishes us alfo with an Answer to it. It is likely, fays he, that Canaan Father of the Canaanites, feized upon the Land of Canaan, whilst it was subject to another Mafter: So that according to this Explanation, the Senfe of that Place would be to this effect. Now the Canaanite was then in the Land, and had already poffeffion 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 poffeffion, 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 eftablishes, and in the confequence which he infers from it. For First of all, 'tis faid indeed in Genefis, that Canaan was Father to the Jebufites, the Amorites, &c. That the Families of the Ca

naanites

naanites were afterwards difperfed; that the extent of their Limits was from Guerar unto Gaza; but it fays nothing else. Does that therefore hinder, but that fome 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 fome time before Abraham came into that Land? He is further mistaken in the confequence 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 difperfed up and down; their Families were increased, and coming by little and little near unto the Land, the Children of Canaan had already poffeffed 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 Mofes, 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 fo we may be the better affured which of them is the most reafonable.

Efdras who wrote in an Age wherein there was never fo 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 ftill in the Land; that is, that in Abraham's time, they were not yet driven out of it by the Ifraelites