indifferently Cis or Trans, on this fide or beyond. I do not deny but that the word fometimes fignifies on the other fide or beyond, Josh. 2. 10. 7.7. 9. 10. 22. 4. Judg. 10. 8. But then it does alfo fignifie on this fide, as 'tis here rendred. And thus it does undeniably, Joh. 1. 14, 15. 9. 1. Deut. 3. 8. (of which more afterwards:) But it does not fignifie one or the other neceffarily, and from the natural Importance of the Hebrew word. All that it neceffarily fignifies, is, on the fide. Thus it fignifies, Joh. 5. 1. on the one fide, and on the other this word fignifies indifferently, of which we have a most pregnant and remarkable in ftance, 1 Sam. 14. 4. compard with v. 40, 'Tis faid, that between the paffages by which Fa nathan fought to go over unto the Philistine's Garrifon, there was a fharp rock() on the one fide, and a fharp rack (1) on the ather fide. Here is one and the fame word (ay) in each place, which therefore belongs equally to one fide or the other, and the very fame word is tranflated truly on the one fide, and, on the other fide. And these Sides are afterwards explained, v. 5. The one was fituate North-ward, and the other South-ward. The North and the South were the two Sides of that paffage; the fharp Rock on the North-fide, as to the paflage, might as truly be faid, with respect to the paffage, to be a as well as that on the South. Compare verfe 40. of this Chapter. To which I fhall add a paffage

in

in the Book of Joshua that puts this matter beyond all difpute and controverfie. 'Tis to be found in chap. 22. 4. compared with v. 7. Fofhua bids the Reubenites and Gadites, &c. to go to the Land of their Poffeffion, which (fays he to them) Mofes, the fervant of the Lord, gave you (ay) on the other fide fordan. If we compare v.7. we shall find 'tis said, that to the half tribe of Manaffeh Mofes had given poffeffion in Bahan: but unto the other half thereof, gave Joshua among their brethren (a) (for fo is the Keri, and fortis to be read therefore) on this fide fordan weft-ward, which is an Evidence beyond exception, that a fignifies promiscuoufly and indifferently on the one fide, and on the other, on the Eaft or Weft-fide.

3. If it be demanded how we shall then know, when it fignifies on this, or on the other fide. I anfwer, (1.) That in this very case the Scripture determines the fenfe by adding fome word to direct us. There could be but two fides of Jordan, the East and West. On the latter lay Jericho and the Land of Canaan. On the Eaft-fide was Mofes, when he fpake the words mention'd in Deuteronomy. And we are fometimes told what fide is meant: the fide toward the Rifing of the Sun, Job. 12. 1. There is the Eaft-fide: We have mention of the Weft-fide, Joh. 5. 1. Again, of the Eastfide, chap. 13. 27, 32. And thus again, Numb. 32, 19. Eaft-ward is added by way of Expli

t

cation,

cation, and Weft-ward is added (Fosh: 22. 7.) to determine the fenfe. Here is the word aya in all these places, but that Hebrew word fignifying indifferently the Side (what-ever fide it were therefore the Eaft or Weft are added to determine its fenfe, which is a great proof that the word alone did not fignifie neceffarily this fide or the other, on this fide or beyond. (2.) The Subject-matter does direct us at other times. Thus where Jofbud tells the Renbenites of the Land which Mofes gave, he adds it lay 29, which there muft fignifie (as we have tranflated it) on this fide Jordan And as the Subject-matter determines the fenfe, fo there is no doubt left from what follows in the next Verse toward the Sun-rifing, JoshT: 14, 15. And the Subject-matter does likewife determine the fenfe of this word, Joff. 9. 1. Deut. 3.

8.

4. And as y fometimes fignifies on this fide, fo it were very eafie to fhew that ay does fo likewife. But I need not fpend any time in fhewing that. The Reader will be eafily fatisfied who will take the pains to confult and compare diligently the following places, 1 King, 4.24. with 2 Chron. 9. 26, and Exod.23.31. To which may be added, 1 King. 14. 15. with Ezra 4.10, 16. and chap. 5.6.

To what hath been faid, I add, That when Jofephus mentions this paffage, that is related Deut. 1. 1 and which we tranflate, on this fide Jordan, he expreffeth it by 6 (c)

Iogdam; i.e.

about

about or near Jordan; which he presently after oppofeth to wear Tê logdars; i.e. beyond fordan, Jofeph. Antiqu. 1. 4. c. 8.]

This is fufficient to juftifie our English Verhion, and to render this Objection void of all power and force; it plainly argues in the Objectors great Ignorance or fomething worse.

Obj. H. It is pretended that Mofes could not write what we read, Gen. 36.31. Thefe are the Kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any King over the children of Ifrael. These words must be written ('tis pretended) by one who liv'd after there were Kings in Ifrael, which was dong after the Death of Mofes Iwould willingly give this Objection its full ftrength, before I anfwer it. And I find a late Writer hath done it to my hand in his Prolegomena to his Commentary on Genefis, printed at Amfterdam 1693. The fubftance of what he fays is as follows: Eight Kings are reckon'd up fucceeding each other; There were not more than fo many Generations, or Perfons generated, from Jacob to Obed, the Grand-father of David. But from Jacob to Mofes there were but four, reckoning Mofes for one. Then he tells what fome anfwer; viz. That Mofes fore-knew that there would be Kings over Ifrael, Deut. 17. But then he does not think it credible, that God fhould reveal to him how many Kings, and what their Names fhou'd be that were to reign in Edom.

He

He cannot think it a Prophecy. He tells us of fome-body (but 'tis with a Nefcio quis) who affirms thefe Kings reign'd in feveral places at the fame time. He concludes (as if he had been retain'd against Mofes) Si candidè hic agere licet, &c. That if he may deal candidly, 'tis beft to own that the nine Verfes, from v. 31. to 39. were added by fome-body (he might here have put another Nefcio quis) who liv'd after the Kingdom eftablish'd in Ifrael.

Before I go any farther, I will grant what he fays of the Defcents from Jacob to Obed and from him to Mofes: I will grant the Words are not a Prophecy; and that these Kings reign'd fucceffively one after another; but will by no means allow that these words are not the words of Mofes. I will fully answer the Objection, and fhew the falfe Reasoning of this Author in the following Particulars.

1. He might have fpar'd his pains in computing the Defcents from Jacob to Obed and Mofes as things nothing to the purpose. He wou'd, I know, infinuate by it, that there was not time enough from Efau to the times of Mofes for fo many Kings to reign fucceffively; and that therefore Mofes cou'd not give us this Relation. This he should have confider'd better before he had given up the place. From the Marriage of Efau, to the Death of Mofes, are no less than 345 years. Here's room enough for eight Kings fucceffively. And that there are fo many years in this space, I need (e)

tiot