Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	good_a	people_n	time_n	1,769	5	3.1061	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70111	An excellent discourse proving the divine original and authority of the five books of Moses written originally in French by Monsieur Du Bois de la Cour, and approved by six doctors of the Sorbon ; to which is added a second part, or an examination of a considerable part of Pere Simon's critical history of the Old Testament ... by W.L.	Filleau de la Chaise, Jean, 1631-1688.; Lorimer, William, d. 1721.	1682 (1682)	Wing F904; ESTC R28418	86,453	212

be called by that name among the Hebrews for we see that God called it by that name and the signification of the name agreeing so admirably well with what followed thereupon it is not likely that ever it was wholly forgotten amongst the Posterity of Abraham If any should say that it may seem the name Moriah was given to that Land rather after than before the Lord had manifested himself to Abraham on the Mount I Answer First That can never be proved why might not the Lord God give it that name before-hand which should signifie what he was there to do on the behalf of Abraham The Text says That God bid Abraham get him into the Land of Moriah and their offer c. I Answer Secondly Granting that it was given to that Land after the Lord had manifested himself to Abraham on the Mount yet it does not follow that therefore it must be after Moses also and in Solomon's time when the Temple was Built upon Mount Moriah 2 Chron. 3. 1. Certainly it might have that name long before Moses and yet not have it till after Abraham had done offering the Ram instead of his Son for as Abraham immediately after called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh the Lord will provide with respect to the Answer which he had given his Son Vers 8. My Son God will provide himself a Lamb for a Burnt-Offering So he might at the same time call that part of the Countrey the Land of Moriah or the Land of Vision as the Vulgar Interpreter and Symmachus render it because there he had seen God in a most signal manner there God had given him a sensible and most convincing demonstration of his special Providence and of his peculiar discriminating Grace and Love to him and his Seed Thirteenthly and Lastly P. Simon Objects Deut. 3. 11. and thereupon says If we diligently read what is writ concerning the Bed of Og King of Bashan we shall find that those who have collected these Books have added some words to illustrate the words of the Text by conforming them to the practice and custome of their own times Answer I have diligently read what is there written concerning the Bed-stead of Og King of Bashan both in the Original and in several Translations and yet I do not find by what I read there either that any Body besides Moses collected those Books or that he who collected them hath added some words to illustrate the words of the Text by conforming them to the practice and custome of his own time I suppose P. Simon would have us believe that the last words Beammath Ish after the Cubit of a Man have been added to the Text after the time of Moses but he must first prove that there was no such distinction of Cubits known in the World in the time of Moses and so that Moses could not write these words which express one Member of the distinction methinks it is very easily conceivable that Moses himself might be moved to add this explication of his own words if we consider that there might be diverse sorts of Cubits than in use of which some might be longer than others now if it had been only said that Nine Cubits was the length and Four Cubits the breadth of the Giants Bed-stead the Reader would not have known what Cubits he meant and consequently would have still remained ignorant of the exact measure of the Bed-stead therefore Moses to take away all ambiguity adds for explication of his own words that it was the Cubit of a Man i. e. the common ordinary Cubit which was then so well known amongst the Israelites that there remained no more ground of doubting of what measure the Giants Bed-stead was and if any were so incredulous as not to believe Moses relation of the length and breadth of the Giant Bed-stead they might go themselves to Rabbath and there see it and measure it by the Cubit of a Man But some may say How came King Og's Bed-stead to be at that time in Rabbath amongst the Ammonites I Answer it might come to be there any of these Three ways 1. In time of War the Ammonites might have plundered the Countrey of Og King of Bashan and might have carried his Iron Bed-stead with other spoil into their own Countrey or 2. King Og being to fight with Moses and the Israelites at Edrei and fearing the event of the Battel as he had good reason might send his own Iron Bead-stead with many other necessary things to Rabbath to be secured for him amongst the Ammonites whither he might intend to flee in case he should be vanquished in the Battel at Edrei and be able to make his escape or 3. the Israelites having Conquered the whole Kingdom of Bashan and utterly destroyed all the Inhabitants King Og and all his Subjects taken all his Cities to the number of Sixty and possessed themselves of all that belonged to him or his People if this Bed-stead was in the whole Kingdom at that time it must of necessity fall into the hands of the Israelites and Israel being at Peace with the Ammonites they might come and Trade with the Israelites and especially at such a time they might come to buy part of the Spoil and amongst other things their curiosity might prompt them to buy the Iron Bed-stead of the Giant Og and to carry it into their own Countrey which in former times had been a Land of Giants as appears from Deut. 2. 19 20 21. and no doubt they might have ancient Monuments of those Giants whom they called Zamzummims remaining amongst them and those that wanted might be desirous to have by them some such Monuments of Giants to show as well as their Neighbours and this might be done before Moses either spoke or wrote the words of that Verse Objected by P. Simon Thus you see that any of these Three ways the Iron Bed-stead of Og might come to be in Rabbath of the Children of Ammon when Moses wrote the Book of Deuteronomy There are yet Two Objections against Moses his being the Author of the Pentateuch which I remember I have read in Spinosa his Tractatus Theologico Politicus and because I would omit nothing of any Moment that the Adversaries have written against the Truth which the Church of God believes and I defend I shall here set them down and Answer them as I have done with P. Simon 's Fourteenthly Then Spinosa Objects Deut. 2. 12. where it is said That the Children of Esau destroyed the Horims and dwelt in their stead as Israel did unto the Land of his Possession which the Lord gave unto them now he pretends that this could not be written by Moses because Israel did not destroy the Canaanites and take possession of Canaan till after his Death I Answer At this rate of arguing a Man might prove that our Lord Christ when he instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist did not speak these words This is my Blood which is shed

for many This is my Body which is given or broken for you because his Blood was not shed nor his Body broken till the Day after and yet it is most certain that he did speak those words when he instituted the Holy Sacrament the Night before his Death But then you will ask why did our Lord speak so why did he say This is my Blood which is shed this is my Body which is broken when neither was the one shed nor the other broken I Answer He did so because it was an ordinary way of speaking amongst the Jews to express themselves in the Preterit or Present Tense when they were talking or writing of a thing that was shortly and certainly to come to pass and therefore the Vulgar Interpeter attending more to the sense than to the bare words of our Lord renders them Hic est sanguis meus qui pro multis effundetur hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur this is my Blood which shall be shed and my Body which shall be given after the same manner may we understand the words of Moses as Israel did i. e. as Israel shall shortly and certainly do to the Land of his Possession besides there was this good reason why Moses should use the Preterit Tense because the thing he was writing of was partly past already Israel had already destroyed the Inhabitants of Two Kingdoms and taken actual possession of the Land and it was partly to be within a short time Israel was shortly to do so by all the other Inhabitants of the Land of his possession which God had given him Moses then having reason to write as he did Spinosa had no reason to cavil at the manner of his expression Fifteenthly He Objects Deut. 3. 14. and from these words Jair called them after his own name Bashan-havoth-jair unto this Day infers that this must have been written long after Moses Answer Some think that these words VNTO THIS DAY have been after Moses put in the Margin and in process of time have crept into the Text or else that Ezdras hath inserted them into the Text. But there is no necessity of Answering thus for First Moses wrote the Book of Deuteronomy some Months after Jair had taken the Countrey of Argob and called it after his own name Bashan-havoth-jair therefore Moses himself might very well say that the Countrey of Argob was called after the name of Jair unto this Day that is from the time of Jair his taking of it and calling it Bashan-havoth-jair unto the Day of Moses writing that part of the Book of Deuteronomy for there was nothing but truth in his so saying Secondly Moses wrote the Book of Deuteronomy not only for the present Generation but also for the Generations to come according to that of the Psalmist Psal 102. 18. This shall be written for the Generations to come and consequently knew that these words unto this Day would be further verified in after Ages Therefore he might purposely use these words unto this Day as intending thereby to signifie unto the Israelites in their several Generations that the Countrey of Argob was called after the name of Jair Bashan-havoth-jair from Jairs first taking of it unto their time there being then no falsity nor absurdity in the words unto this Day as here used Moses himself might very well be the Author of them nay they are so significant with respect to future Generations as I have shewed that Moses his Wisdom appears in choosing to express himself in such words as were actually true when he first spoke and wrote them and yet were to be further verified in all succeeding Generations so long as the Hebrew-Commonwealth stood so much for Answer unto Spinosa his Two Objections I have now gone through all that P. Simon hath written to prove that Moses could not be the Author of the Pentateuch I have examined all his Arguments and Answered every one of them there is not one good Argument amongst them all not one that can prove his position That Moses cannot be the Author of the Books attributed to him and verily many of them are I think such pitiful trifling things that a reasonable Man and Christian should be ashamed of them The reason why I meddle with no more of his Critical History than what concerns the Pentateuch is First Because this was defigned to accompany the precedent Discourse concerning the proofs of the Books of Moses and therefore I thought fit to deal with P. Simon only upon that point wherein he seemed to contradict what the Author of the excellent Discourse affirms and proves that so his Objections being all Answered that Discourse may remain firm and unshaken and in its full strength and that Infidels may not pretend that P. Simon has confuted it which is so far from being true that the vain succesless attempt of so great a Man as P. Simon is accounted to prove that Moses could not be the Author of the Pentateuch is an Argument that the thing is not practicable it cannot be done for if it could P. Simon is counted as able and to me seems to have been as willing to have done it as any other Man Secondly Because if the Divine Truth and Authority of Moses and his Law and of Christ and his Gospel be well secured our Christian Religion is secured in its main strength and fundamental grounds against Atheists and Infidels As for the rest of P. Simon 's Book I doubt not but some Men of greater Abilities for such a work than I will in due time thoroughly examine it and separate the Chaff from the Wheat allowing him his due praise where he hath done well and chastising him where he hath done evil you may guess by this that it will not be so difficult to do it as some may apprehend In the mean time if his vain Cavils at several expressions here and there in the Holy Scriptures should be a tentation unto any to think meanly of the Scriptures themselves I desire such if they can to read some part of Origens Philocalia Chap. 1. Pag. 4 5. in Spencers Edition at Cambridge 1658. and to consider that as Origen says Every one of the Works of God do not equally but some more and some less declare and shew forth the Glory of God in his Beeing and Providence after the same manner all the parts of God's written Word do not equally but some more clearly and some more obscurely evidence themselves to be of God And as there are some dark occurrences in Providence that tempt weak and sinful Men to doubt of God's Beeing and Providence just so there are some dark and difficult passages in Holy Scripture that tempt Men to doubt of the Divine Verity and Authority of of the Scriptures and yet as none but Fools Psal 14. 1. will disbelieve the Beeing and Providence of God because there are some things in his Nature and Providence which they cannot comprehend so no Wise Man will disbelieve the Holy Scriptures because there are here and there some passages in them which he cannot understand Lo they have rejected the word of the Lord and what Wisdom is in them says the Prophet Jeremiah Jer. 8. 9. Indeed there can be no true Wisdom in them who reject the Word of the Lord for his Word believed and practised is our Wisdom and our Understanding and makes us a wise and understanding People Deut. 4. 5 6 The Testimony of the Lord is sure making Wise the Simple Psal 19. 7. If ever then we would be truly Wise let us against all Tentations to the contrary esteem highly of and adhere stedfastly unto the Holy Scriptures of Truth for it is they that are able to make us wise unto Salvation through Faith which is in Christ Jesus 2 Tim. 3. 15. If what I have here written do contribute any thing towards the helping of Christian Readers to keep up in their Souls a due esteem of and reverend regard unto the Holy Scriptures and towards the strengthning of them against Tentations to unbelief I have obtained my end and desire them to let me have the help and benefit of their Prayers but let him have all the Praise who is the Father of Lights and the God of all Grace unto whom be Glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all Ages World without End Amen FINIS a Exod. 5. 1 2 3. 7. 1 2 3 4 5. 3. 14 15 16 17 18. 4. from 1 to 9. 6. from 1 to 8. Deut. 4. 9 to 24. b Exod. 20. 3 4 5 6 7 c. ibid. v. 20 22 23. 23. 13. Deut. 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10. 7. 1 2 3 4 5 6. 12. 29 30 31 32. 18. 9 10 11 12 13 14. Deut. 4. 32 to 41. Exod. 20. 24 latter part of the Verse Deut. 4. 7. c Exod. 20. 17. Lev. 19. 17 18. d Exod. 21. 13. Deut. 19. e Levit. 25. 23 c. f Exod. 21. 1 2 c. Deut. 15. 12 to 19. 24. 14 15. g Deut. 15. 6 to 12. Exod. 22 25 26 27. h Exod. 22. 21. Levit. 19. 33. 34. i Exod. 22. 22 23 24. k Exod. 20. 12. 22. 28. Deut. 17. 11. l Deut. 1. 16 17. 17. 16 17 18 19 20. 25. 1.

peaceable possession of the Land of Canaan after they had driven out another People that was there before them But I leave it to the Jews to Answer thus I adhere to the Answer given above to which I add that the Canaanites were actually driven out of the Two Kingdoms of Sihon and Og which lay on the East-side of Jordan before the death of Moses and shortly after his death they were to be likewise driven out of those Kingdoms which lay on the West-side of Jordan therefore Moses might very well say That the Canaanites were then in the Land as intimating thereby that now they were partly turned out and partly as it were a turning out of the Land and in a short time it might be truly said of them The Canaanite is not now in the Land By all which it plainly enough appears that there is no weight in this Objection of P. Simons Twelfthly He Objects Gen. 22. 14. and says It is not likely that Moses was the Author of this proverbial way of speaking in the Monnt of the Lord it shall be seen since he who has added this to the Text tells us that it was an usual Proverb in his time besides that this Mount seems to be one of the Mounts of the Countrey of Morea and the name of Morea was not given it till a long time after Answer First What though Moses was not the Author of this proverbial way of speaking Abraham or Isaac might be the first Authors of the Proverb and it might be continued amongst God's People from Abraham or Isaac down to Moses's time and Moses writing the History of those times as he was guided by the Spirit of God amongst other memorable things he relates this matter of Fact that that proverbial speech had been perpetuated in the Church of God and was used by the Godly in his time so that whoever was the first Author of the proverbial speech In the Mount of the Lord it shall be seen or in the Mount the Lord shall be seen i. e. in due time and place God will help and provide for his faithful obedient Servants and they shall see it God will shew himself to be a present help unto his People that trust him in their greatest straits and difficulties I say whoever was the first Author of this proverbial Speech nothing hinders but Moses might be and was under God the Author of the Historical Relation of it Answer Secondly But how does P. Simon prove that Moses was not the Author of it why says P. Simon because he vvho has added this to the Text tells us it vvas an usual Proverb in his time Ansvver A rare vvay of proving that Moses could not vvrite it because another has vvritten it since Moses and added it to his Text. But good Father this is begging not proving It is the thing in question vvhether another than Moses vvrote it and added it to his Text and hovv novv do you prove that another vvrote it and added it to Moses's Text for that is to be proved and not taken for granted And it vvill not prove it to say that he vvho vvrote it tells us that it vvas an usual Proverb in his time For suppose Moses himself had both been the first Author of it and also the vvriter of it in this place of Genesis he might tell us that it vvas an usual Proverb in his time he might have been the Author of it at the Red-Sea vvhen he said unto the People Exod. 14. 13. Fear ye not stand still and see the Salvation of the Lord which he will shew you to Day he might then have put the People in mind of vvhat God had done of Old for their Father Abraham vvhen he vvas going to Sacrifice his Son on the Mount vvhich the Lord had told him of and from thence he might take occasion to say In the Mount of the Lord it shall be seen or in the Mount the Lord shall be seen i. e. your extremity this Day shall be Gods opportunity to shevv himself to be your present and povverful Helper and Deliverer from vvhich Day forvvard it might have been remembered and so have passed into a Proverb among the People and Tvventy or Thirty Years after Moses might vvrite it vvith his ovvn hand What incongruity vvould there be in all this suppose it had been thus That Moses had been the first Author and likewise the Historical Relator of the same proverbial Speech for my part I can discern none at all but this I have said only to shew P. Simons pitiful lame way of reasoning for I adhere to what I have written before that whoever was the first Author of the Proverb whether it was Abraham or Isaac c. yet Moses might be and was the Historical Relator of it But P. Simon Objects further That this Mount seems to be one of the Mounts of the Countrey of Morea and the name of Morea was not given it till a long time after I Answer Granting what P. Simon says That the Mount on which Abraham was to have offered his Son may seem to have been one of the Mounts of the Countrey of Morea and that the name of Morea was not given it till a long time after I deny that it can be proved from thence that Moses was not the Author of the Pentateuch and of this passage in it for the name of Morea might be given unto that Countrey first by the All-knowing God when he commanded Abraham to go into it and offer his Son upon one of its Mountains Gen. 22. 2. and then a long time after the Inhabitants of it by common consent might give it the very same name of Morea and might be moved so to do by hearing and believing a credible report That God himself speaking with Abraham had a long time before given their Countrey the name of Moriah after which time it might be commonly known in those parts of the World by the name of Moriah whereas before it might have been known under that name only by Abraham Isaac and some Devout People of Abraham's Posterity by this I only intend to shew the inconsequence of P. Simon 's Argument he is still so unhappy in his reasoning that though the premisses be granted him yet the conclusion will not follow But now if by these words the name of Morea was not given it till a long time after P. Simon means That that Countrey was not called Moriah till a long time after Moses I Answer That he but begs the Question and what he affirms without Proof I utterly deny and give this good Reason for my denyal of it because the Text says expresly Gen. 22. 2. That God commanded Abraham to take his only Son Isaac and go into the Land of Moriah and offer him there for a Burnt-offering c. From which words it seems very evident that if that Land was not called by the name of Moriah before yet then at least it began to