wou'd not bestow their Land upon them, Deut. 2. It is the business of Mofes to fhew that the Ifraelites had not broken that Law. It is true it might be pretended (and was pretended afterwards in the days of Jephthah) that they had broken it: Because upon the Conqueft of Sihon and Og, 'tis certain that the Ifraelites had taken poffeffion of those Lands which fometime belong'd to this People, whom they were forbid to disturb. But 'tis to be confider'd, that thefe Lands were at that time in the poffeffion of the Amorites, who had difpoffeffed the Ammonites and Moabites. I will not fo far make a digreffion, as to fhew who were the Poffeffors of these Lands from the Time of Abraham. I fhall content my felf in fhewing the design of Mofes in this relation: And that was, (1.) To fhew when the Ifraelites came to the River Arnon, they found it to be the Boundary or Border between Moab and the Amorites. This he affirms v. 13. and confirms it out of a known Book in those Times, call'd The Book of the Wars of the Lord, V. 14. (2.) To prove that the Country which the Ifraelites took from Sihon, and which did formerly belong to the Moabites, was quite loft from the Moabites in the time of a former King before Balak. This is affirmed v. 26. And therefore Ifrael found Sihon in full pos feffion of this Country. This he alfo proves from some known and acknowledged Sayings at that time, that ferv'd to preferve the me

mory

mory of the fact. Whether it were in some Song, or contain'd in fome Commentary of Facts that were paffed, I enquire not, v. 27, 28, &c. The words feem to imply that the victorious Amorites did exprefs their Triumph on the score of their Victory over the Moabites in those terms which the Text lays before

us.

This account of the defign of Mofes, and his way of gaining that defign, will eafily give the Reader to understand that these words muft needs be obfcure and difficult, because we are not acquainted with the perfect Hiftory of thofe Times, nor with the Memorials of Facts that then had hapned.

Secondly, I proceed to fhew the great Vanity of the foregoing Pretence. I might very well premise that the Proofs that Mofes wrote not these Books, had need be very clear, or elle we are guilty of great Vanity in admitting them: And this is far from that, it being one of the most difficult and obfcure Paffages of the whole Pentateuch.

But ftill here is nothing proved. That Mor fes wrote this Book, called, The Wars of the Lord, appears not; And granting it to be true, it is nothing to the purpose. For why might not Mofes cite a Book of his own Writing, as well as another and later Author? And what if Mofes did write the Wars of Amalek, muft he therefore write that of the "Amorites Warring against the Moabites, before

he

he was concerned with them, alfo? These kind of pretences may amuse fome that are not given to Thinking, they can never prevail with them that confider duly.

Obj. X. 'Tis pretended that the Pentateuch was not written by Mofes, but rather of him: And that, because Mofes is generally mentioned by the Writer as a third Perfon: And befides that, we find Mofes is commended in the Pentateuch, (Numb. 12. 6, 8. Deut. 34. 10.) And if we take him for the Writer of those Books, we must suppose him also to have commended himself, which will hardly be granted in a Man of fo great Humility and Wisdom as Mofes was. I anfwer,

1. As to the Pretence that Mofes is not the Author, because he speaks of himself as of a third Perfon; then it follows, That whoever does in his History or Work mention himself, (as Mofes in thefe Books is fuppofed to do) he cannot be the Author of that Book or Relation: This wou'd be to conclude too much. And yet if this Propofition be not true, this Objection hath, fo far as it goes, no manner of force in it. That he cannot be the Author of a Book that mentions himself as a third Perfon, may be affirm'd indeed eafily, but can never be proved. If this were admitted, we must discharge several Authors of the Books of the Holy Scriptures both of the Old and New Teftament allo; and then we must not be

lieve that Julius Cæfar wrote the Commentaries that go under his name, or Jofephus that part of his reputed Works, where he speaks of himself as of a Third Perfon. 'Tis hardly credible that the Objectors can believe the Confequence of this Objection, and I think there is no fear (if they should) that any indiffe rent Perfon fhou'd believe with them.

2. As to the fecond Part of the Objection; That we cannot fuppofe that Mofes wou'd commend himself, nor confequently that he fhou'd write the Pentateuch where he is commended. I answer, That this Objection, whatever may be inferr'd from it, does not conclude that Mofes was not the Author of these Books. For 'tis not impoffible for a Man to write an Encomium of himself. But let us confider the Matter more closely.

'Tis faid indeed that the Man Mofes was very meek above all the Men which were upon the face of the Earth, Numb. 12. 3. This is faid upon occafion of what was faid against him by Miriam and Aaron. They fpake against him very fharply: Upon which 'tis faid, And the Lord heard it. Mofes is not faid to take notice of it himself: He was not like to give any just offence, nor apt to fall into anger when others reproach'd him. It follows, Now the man Mofes was very meek, &c. I do not fee what there is in these words unbecoming Mo fes Here's no boafting or pride; no fhadow or foot-fteps of it. He had a juft occafion to mention,

mention, that he had neither provoked these angry perfons, nor did he highly resent the reproaches they followed him with. He might fay this well enough, and ascribe due honour to God, who had wrought this Temper in him. The best Man in the World may well be allowed to defend his own Innocence, and to own the great Things which God hath done for him. The Objection will lie against Job, against the Pfalmift, against St. Paul, as well as against Mofes, if a good Man may not lawfully, upon any occafion, fpeak well of himself.

For what follows in v. 6, 7, 8. where Mofes is preferr❜d to any other Prophet, 'tis certain that they are the Words not of Moses, but of God himself. And well might he write what God himself faid upon this occafion, especially when it tended fo much to justifie his Divine Miffion, upon the credit whereof the fuccefs of all his Ministry intirely depended.

The Sin of Mofes is related (Numb. 20. 12. (2.) and the Punishment inflicted on him on that account. The relating of this is as strong an Objection against another Perfon's writing thefe Books, as what is nam'd above is against Mofes. For, fuppofing another Perfon had been the Writer, that Writer must be fuppos'd not onely to relate what we read (Numb. 20.) but to repeat it frequently alfo.

Obj. XI. It is pretended that Mofes cannot be supposed to be the Author of thofe

words,