were not able to difcern them: And at this rate we may reject any ancient Author whatsoever. I add, that 'tis to be confidered what Land is meant in these words. 'Tis faid that Abram paffed through the Land to the place of Sichem : It follows, The Canaanite was then in the Land, [viz. of Sichem.] But thefe Canaanites were deftroyed, and their City fpoiled, and their Land driven, before the Ifraelites went into Egypt, and therefore before Mofes wrote these words, Gen. 34. In Abram's time the Canad nite was in that Land (and even then he durft go thither and profefs the Worfhip of the true God,) but he was not there afterward, being deftroyed by Jacob's Sons: That Land being void, they came thither to feed their Flocks, Gen. 37. 14. The Words are well rendred by a late Writer: Et Cananæus quidem tunc tempo"ris in eo tractu fuit.

Obj. VI. Tis farther objected, that Mofes cou'd not be the Author of some part of Deut. 3. And two places are infifted upon; viz. v. 11. For onely Og King of Balhan remain'd of the remnant of Giants: Behold his bed-fread was a bed-ftead of Iron: is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon, &c. These words, 'tis faid, cou'd not be written by Mofes, but by a later Author; for Mofes need not to have mention'd the Bed-stead to thofe Jews his Contemporaries, who had feen the Giant himself: Befides, tis pretended that this Bed-stead was not

found

found out till the times of David, 2 Sam.12. 30. And therefore these words must be written by a later Author than Mofes. The other place is V. 14. Fair the Son of Manasseh took all the Coun-try of Argob, unto the coafts of Gefburi and Maachathi, and called them after his own name, BaJhan-Havoth-Fair unto this day. 'Tis pretended that these words were added by a later Writer by way of Explication of v. 13. And that Mofes wou'd never have faid unto this day, if he had been the Writer of these words; and that therefore the words were written by a much later Writer, who gives an account of this matter, à longissimâ & prima origine; i. e. from the very ancient and firft Original. To which I anfwer,

First, As tov. II. For the mention of the Bed-ftead, Mofes cannot be charged with impertinence: He mentions it ad fidem faciendam; and he wrote for Pofterity, and not barely for those who were then living: Befides, there might also be very many of them who never faw the Giant; and to fuppofe it fhou'd have been in Bafhan, proves nothing at all: To affirm that this Bed-stead was not found till David's time, and to cite to that purpose, 2.Sam. 12. 30. is to abuse the Reader, for there's no fuch thing to be found there.

Secondly, As to v. 14. 'Tis a lewd thing to fuppofe that Verfe inferted by another hand, and to offer no proof. If there be any thing like a proof, it must be fetch'd from thofe

words,

words, Unto this day. I fhall fhew that there is nothing in that expreffion that will inferr a Writer later than Mofes.

The Objection is in it felf very unreafonable. Thefe Objectors have fome pretence when they urge against Mofes, that he wrote of things after his time. But fhall he be blam'd also when he writes of things that hapned in his own time? This is very unfair dealing. But that I may not pass any thing over that these Objectors can urge, let us fee what, unto this day, imports. No Man'can inferr any more from it, but this, That the thing was done and fully completed. And fo it was in this cafe. Fair had taken 'these Places in the time of Mofes, and given these Names to them. And if they were so called in the time of Mofes, he might as truly and as properly fay they were fo call'd to this day, as if they had been fo call'd for a thousand years paft. Mofes fays of the Egyp tians, The Lord hath destroyed them to this day, Deut. 11.4. This he might have faid as properly the day after they were deftroy'd, as he coud, that might have faid it an hundred years after. No more is meant, but that then the Egyptians were deftroyed; That Deftruction was not yet to happen. 'Tis evident these words do not import a long time elapfed. I have walked before you from my Childhood, to this day; i. e. Hitherto, fays Samuel to the Ifraelites, 1 Sam. 12. 2. Achifh fays of David, I have found no fault in him, fince he fell unto

me;

me, unto this day, 1 Sam. 29. 3. Here's no ancient History referr'd to: Compare 1 Sam. 30.25. with Jerem. 32. 31. This faying is commonly reported among the Jews untill this day, (Matt. 28. 15.) Untill this day cannot relate to ancient Times, for St. Matthew wrote his Gospel not long after the Events he relates a little before.

Obj. VII. It is farther pretended that Mofes cou'd not be the Author of those words: And the children of Ifrael did eat Manna fortyyears, untill they came to a Land inhabited: They did eat Manna, untill they came to the borders of the Land of Canaan, Exod. 16. 35. Here Mofes (if he be the Author of thefe words) muft be granted to write of fomething that hapned after his death; for he did not live to that time of forty years, whiles the Ifraelites did eat Manna. See Jof. 5. 12. Some anfwer (fays the Author of the Commentary on Genefis, mention'd above) that Mofes knew (as appears from Numb.14.33.) That after forty years, upon the entring of the Ifraelites into Canaan, Manna fhou'd cease. But this (fays he) is related here, not fore-told: And therefore (fays he) Mofes ufeth the Preterperfect tense, They did eat: And therefore he is for giving up this place alfo, as he did the nine Verfes before. To which I return the following An fwer.

1. Tis manifeft that this Commentator on Genefis trifles, when he lays a ftrefs upon the Preterperfect tenfe, by which the Ifraelites eating Manna is exprefs'd. He cannot but know that 'tis an Obfervation of no weight in this matter. Nothing is more common among the Sacred Writers than fuch an Enallage of Tenfe. And it must be allow'd, efpecially in the Writings of the Prophets, who speak of Things certainly to come to pass,, as of Things already paft. This very word 2 is by our Interpre 178 ters elsewhere rendred by a future: All they that are fat upon Earth shall eat and worship, PL. 22.29. And that rendring of the word may be defended very eafily: It not onely may be fo rendred, but in that place it ought fo to be, as is evident to him that confiders the Context. Again, Ifa. 65. 21. we have the fame word, and it hath there the fignification of a future, as appears from the Context. To which I may add, Hofea 4. 10. and Zechar. 12. 6. in which places this very word occurrs, and fignifies as a future. See alfo Gen. 45. 18. where this word is rendred, Te fhall eat. And however tis rendred here, or ought to be render'd; yet certain it is, that Author ought not to have infifted on that which is fo very frivo-. lous.

2. Suppofing Mofes to have written thefe words, yet here is no juft Charge or Imputation can be brought against him. Will any Man fay that he wrote that which is not true?

That