not prove. Tis evident, and no Man can deny it. Let any Man look over the Kings of Judah, and begin where he will, and he'll foon find fpace enough here for thefe eight Kings to fucceed each other, though they had been fucceffively Father and Son, which they, whom Mofes mentions, were not.

a

2. 'Tis very unfairly done. to reckon from Facob to Mofes and Obed; and thence to infinuate, that there cou'd not be fo many Generations from Efau to the Times of Mofes, who is fuppos'd to give this Relation. This is perfect Practice and Artifice. We might have looked for it from a Deift or a Disciple of Mr. Hobbs, but not from one who pretends to be an Advocate for Mofes, as this Author does. Two ways the unfairness of this Pratice may be discover'd. (1.) From hence that he cannot but know that there is a great difference in these things. The Descents are more frequent in fome Families than others, as the Perfons marry fooner or later, as their eldeft and first-born Sons live or die in their minority, &c. Who does not know that St. Matthew reckons from Abraham to Jefus but 42 Defcents, St. Luke 56. From Salathiel to Jofeph in St. Matthew, are reckon'd but 12 Generations; but in St. Luke the Generations from Jofeph to the fame Salathiel (as is supposed at leaft) are no fewer than 21. Nor is there in all this any great Difficulty: Admitting Salathiel in each place to be one and the fame

Perfon:

"

Perfon: And where feveral Lines are drawn from the fame Head of a Family, there is very often a great difference in the number of Defcents. And the Generations from David to Jofeph may well differ in St. Matthew and St. Luke, when 'tis remembred that they are reckon❜d by Solomon, or by his Brother Nathan. Twou'd be too great a Digreffion; or else 'twere very eafie to give a very large and clear account of this matter. (2.) It is very unfairly done to infinuate, that there being but fo many Generations from Jacob to Obed and Mofes, therefore 'twas not probable there fhou'd be fuch a Succeffion of Kings from Efau. 'Tis true,. Jacob and Efau were of an Age, but he conceals fomething of moment. They were not fo when they marry'd: Efau marry'd when he was forty years old, but Jacob staid till he was near fourícore before he marry'd. Here is near 40 years difference, which is of great moment in this matter. This Author, in his Appendix, affirms (I will not answer for the Truth of it, nor is this a place to dispute it) that Jacob marry'd Leah in the 85th. year of his Age. And for what he knows, Mofes might be near 120 years old when he wrote this Relation of the Kings of Edom. Upon the whole matter, here is space enough for these Succef fions. Jofeph died when he was 110 years old, and yet he faw Ephraim's Children of the third Generation, Gen. 50. 23, 26.

(3)

3. Though

3. Though here be space enough for these eight Kings, though they were Father and Son, yet we have no Cause to believe they were Father and Son, but juft ground to believe they were not. And if they were not, then might the lefs time serve for their Succeffion to one another. We have thefe grounds to believe they were not Father and Son; That, (1.) They are faid to be of divers Cities or Places from each other; One of Dinhabak, his Succeffor of Bozrah; a Third of the Land of the Temanites: Tis not very likely that the next Heir fhou'd live in another City or Country, and at a Remove from his Predeceffor. (2.) 'Tis not faid upon the Death of a King that fuch a one his Son reigned in his ftead. But when Bela died, 'tis faid that Jobab the Son (not of Bela, but) Zerab reigned in his ftead; To him fucceeded Hufham, of the Land of Temani; To him Hadad, the Son of Bedad; To him Samlah of Mafrekah; To him Saul of Rehoboth; To him Baal-Hanan, the Son of Achbor, &c. So that the fucceeding King might, for what this Author knows, be as old or older than his Predeceffor; and then a very little space might ferve for eight Kings to fucceed each other in; the fix laft Kings of Judah (where Father was fucceeded by the Son) took up not above 56 years.

4. That Mofes knew there wou'd be Kings over Ifrael, is unquestionable from Deut. 17. where he delivers Laws concerning that mat

ter:

ter: This being one of those three things that were made known to him, but were not to take effect (as Maimon well obferves) till they were in poffeffion of the Land of Canaan. [Maimon H. Melach. c. 1.

The giving up thefe nine Verfes is a thing of most dangerous Confequence. At this rate this Author may give away more of the Holy Writings when he pleaseth. And then we fhall be fure of nothing. For who the Author of them is, he fays not; nor can the Reader know from our Author whether he were an infpir'd Author or not. Nor does he give any just cause why any Man fhou'd infert thefe nine Verses here, had they not been written by Mofes from the beginning; I am fure he can give none.

To what hath been faid, I add, That Mofes himself was a King over Ifrael; and then the Kings that reigned in Edom before Mofes was King, may well be faid to have reigned before any King over the Children of Ifrael, Mofes had the title of King: He was King in Jefarun, Deut. 33. 5. Nor was it a bare title, He was really a King, as appears from the Pentateuch. This is proved at large by Mr. Seb den, [de Synedriis, l. 2. c. 1, 2.] This alone is a juft and full Anfwer to the Objection, which was fufficiently answered before. So far are we from being forced to part with nine Verfes at once, that we are under no difficulty at all. 'Tis plain that when Mofes came out

of Egypt, that Edom was under Dukes, Exod. 15.15. These cou'd not be the first fett of Dukes, mention'd Gen. 36. 29, 30. For they were Horites; and if they were the fecond fett, v. 40.-then were the eight Kings dead before Mofes was King in Jefurun.

After all, thefe eight Kings might be Horites (called Horim, Deut. 2. 12.) whom the Children of Efau difpoffeffed and fucceeded, for any thing that appears. They are faid to have reigned in the land of Edom (and fo the Horite's Land was when Mofes wrote these words) but not to be defcended or come from · Efau, as is exprefsly faid of the following Dukes, v. 40. This account agrees with the Context. We have an account just before of the Dukes of the Horites, the Children of Seir in the land of Edom, v. 21. Though these are faid to have been Dukes in the Land of Edom, yet they were not defcended from Efau, but from Hori, in the Land of Seir, v. 30. And then there's no ground to believe the eight Kings were defcended from Efau, because they are faid to have reigned in the land of Edom, fince the Dukes in the land of Edom were Ho rites, and did not come from Efau. Besides, the 4th. of these eight Kings is faid to have fmitten Midian in the Field of Moab, v. 35. If by Midian be meant the perfon fo called, Gen. 25.2. then there can be no doubt of this matter. For then these eight Kings cou'd not be. the Pofterity of Efau, but Horites they might

be,