be, (Gen. 14. 6.) and then they had finished their Reigns before Mofes was King in Jefu

run.

Obj. III. The Writer of the Pentateuch gives names to Places, which did not belong to thofe Places till after the time of Mofes; and therefore Mofes could not be the Author of the Pentateuch, at leaft as we now have it. Here they instance in Hebron and Dan. "Tis pretended that Hebron was not fo called till after the time of Mofes, Jofh. 14. 15. with chap. 15. 13. Nor Dan neither, as appears from Judges 18.29. I answer,

1. And firft as to Hebron. And here 'tis to be confider'd what Joshua fays on this occafion. He does not fay it was not called Hebron before that time. His Words are thefe, The name of Hebron () before was Kirjath-Arba, chap. 14. 15. i. e. It had formerly another name; more than that he fays not. For what appears, it might be call'd Hebron in the time of Mofes. Here's no inconsistence at all; the Hebrew which we render before, admits of great Latitude: Sometimes it denotes a long time before, and we render it of old, Pfal. 102. 26. Elsewhere (where we render it afore-time) it fignifies a long time before, as Nehem. 13.5. But we render it in old time, Deut. 2. 20. Mofes and fofbua were Contemporary, and well might the City be call'd Hebron in the time of Mofes, though it were in

old

old time call'd Kirjath-Arba. We have an inftance to this purpose beyond all exception. Bethel of old time was called Luz, Judges 1.23. and yet it was called Bethel long before the time of Mofes, Gen. 28. 19. Hebron was a very ancient City; and it is not for nothing that this is remark'd, Numb.13. 22. And though it were of old time call'd Kirjath- Arba, yet even in the time of Joshua, and after the Remark, chap. 14. 15. Hebron it is call'd, as by the name it was most commonly known by. When 'tis call'd the City of Arba, it follows, (and it feems to be by way of Explication, which fuppofeth it most known by the following Name) Which City is Hebron, Josh. 15.13. Again, Kirjath-Arba, which is Hebron, v. 54. Had not Hebron been the common and famed Name of it, it hou'd rather have been Hebron, which is Kirjath-Arba. See chap. 20.7. and 21. 11. They must have a great inclination to drop Mofes, who will be mov'd by fuch a flight pretence as this.

2. As to Dan, the pretence is less than for the other, if it be poffible: For who can af fure me that Dan, Gen. 14. 14. is the fame with that, Judges 18.29? And if it be not, then is the Objection just nothing at all, Befides, if it were the fame place, the fame answer might be given as to the Cafe juft before. But alas, Dan is an older Name than these Objectors feem to be aware of, as the River ForDan intimates; for part of its Name it had

from

from a place call'd Dan. And this is, I think, placed beyond controverfie, if we confider what Jofephus relateth on this occafion; who must be allowed, in a matter of this nature, to be of greater authority than these Modern Objectors. He tells that Abraham fell on the Affyrians, Tel Aávov; i. e. about Dan: Tws ἡ ἑτέρα το Ιορδάνε προσαγορεύεται πηγή. i. e. For fo the other Fountain, or Spring-head of Jordan, is called, Antiq. l. 1. c. 10. He that was willing to give away the nine Verfes from Gen.36. will not allow any force in this pretence, though he is content to part with Hebron.

Obj. IV. It is pretended that Mofes cou'd not write those words, Deut. 2. 12. The Horims alfo dwelt in Seir before-time, but the children of Efau fucceeded them, when they had deftroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their ftead; as Ifrael did unto the land of his poffeffion, which the Lord gave unto them. The force of the Objection lies in the latter part of the words, as Ifrael did, &c. By which it's pretended is meant, that Ifrael dwelt in Seir, and expell'd the Idumeans, but that this hapned not in the time of Mofes, as appears from v. 5. but long afterwards. This being that which David mentions Pfal. 108.9. and which was in his time effected, 1 Chron. 18. 13. [Preadamit. l. 4. c. 1.] I anfwer, That here is no mention of the Ifraelites poffeffing the Land of the Idumaans: That is fiction, and without

I

any

any fhadow of ground from this Text. And for the true meaning of the place, I referr the Reader to the Note on Deut. 2. 12.

Obj. V. It is pretended that Mofes could not write those words, Gen. 12. 6. And the Canaanite was then in the Land. This Objection is made by Mr. Hobbs and by Spinofa. The utmost of it amounts but to thus much, That these words cou'd not be writ by Mofes, because it wou'd be impertinent for him to fay this which was fo well known at that time. For the Canaanite continu'd above 400 years in the Land after this,, and therefore those words were added by fome hand after the Destruction of the Canaanites.

Before I answer this, I observe this by the way, That this Objection is not of the fort of fome others, which pretend, that Mofes cou'd not write some paffages, because the words they infift on mention fome-thing that hapned after his time. That cannot be pretended here. Here all that can be faid, is, That we cannot think Mofes wou'd write these words without a Cause.

I answer, 1. That what Mofes fays is, that the Canaanite was THEN in the Land: i. e. He had in thofe early days of Abram poffeffion of that Land which God intended above 400 years afterward to bestow on the Pofterity of Abram. In the very next words we read, And the Lord appear'd unto Abram, and faid unto thy Jeed

feed, Will I give THIS Land: i.e. This very Land which is now in poffeffion of the Canaanite, and for that reafon call'd the Land of Canaan, chap. 11. 31. We have a particular account of the Deftruction of the Canaanite, and of the precife time when it hapned: But that Relation does not tell us how long they had been poffeffed of it. That we learn here. The Objectors force a fenfe upon the words. As if these words, The Canaanite was then in the Land, imported thus much, The Canaanite was not as yet difpoffefs'd of the Land. Whereas the Text onely tells us that they were Poffeffors of it THEN, when Abram came first to it, and when God promis'd it to his Pofterity. And then the words have no reference to the Destruction of the Canaanites, but to their early Poffeffion onely.

2. It is very certain that the word Canaa nite fometimes fignifies a particular Tribe or Family fo call'd, and not the general Name of the Inhabitants of that Land: Thus the word fignifies, Gen. 13. 7. 15. 21. Numb. 13.29. 14. 25. And then Mofes onely relates that in that tract of Land in which Abram then was, this Tribe dwelt.

3. It is very unreasonable therefore to object this against Mofes his being the Author of thefe words; and that, because we do not understand the reafon of his bringing in thefe words in this place. Because there might be fufficient Reasons, though at this distance we

were