XII.-The Reign of David over the tribe of Judah, and of Ishbosheth over the other XIII. The Reign of David over United Israel, about 1047 B. C. UNIVERSAL HISTORY. LETTER I. REMARKS PRELIMINARY TO THE HISTORY OF THE HEBREWS. I TRUST that all who have read the preceding letters will readily accord to me a sincere desire to discover and proclaim the truth, whatever may be the conclusions to which it may lead. Such I conceive to be the highest duty of the historian; and the sacred obligations it imposes on me I shall still endeavor fearlessly to fulfil, though it may tend to results widely at variance with prevailing opinions. Religion is built on faith; history on facts. This maxim I here repeat, as it is highly necessary to be held in constant remembrance; for as history is based on facts, it becomes the duty of the historian to examine the statements of historical writers, whoever they may be, weigh their evidence, and, as far as possible, distinguish the false from the true. This duty becomes the more important in questions that involve the dearest interests of mankind. These considerations naturally present themselves to my mind as I am about to treat of the history of the Hebrews. Among Christians it has generally been promulgated, that the religion of Christ is in some degree supported by the ancient writings of the Hebrews, to which the collective name of "The Old Testament" is given. Though it may not properly belong to the historian to review such an opinion, yet as I feel myself bound to dissent from some of the historical statements in these writings, I deem it necessary in the course of this work, to show that this dissent cannot be construed into an attempt to invalidate the divine truths of the doctrine of Christ, for I trust I shall be able fully to convince you that the Christian religion is entirely independent of the ancient Hebrew records. Thanks be to God! it is not necessary to veil the crimes of the Israelites and the deceptions of their priesthood, lest the eternal truths which He has been pleased to reveal to mankind should be placed in jeopardy. The divine doctrine of Christ is not in want of these frail bulwarks which credulity and ignorance have supposed to be its surest defence. Should every word of the ancient Hebrew writings be proved false, still the Christian religion would stand triumphant on the immovable rock of truth. Yet because I maintain that in the historical narrations of the Old Testament there are many palpable errors, no one can justly attribute to me the folly, and even blasphemy, of attacking the sublime and momentous truths that are found in this book. Fortified by a firm resolution faithfully to perform my duty as an impartial historian-and by the conviction that God will always bestow victory on truth, I shall, as with a shield of brass, feel myself protected against any attacks that may be directed against me, for disregarding opinions which for centuries have been transmitted from generation to generation among Christians, and which so very few writers, sincerely attached to the Christian religion, have dared to oppose. Conscious of no other motive than that of a sincere desire to promote the cause of truth, and to enlighten those of my fellow-men who have had no opportunity of thorough investigation, I profess no concern for the invectives of which I anticipate to be made the object. Thus much I have now said for the purpose of preventing misrepresentations, and of giving a brief statement of the reasons that have induced me to oppose opinions hitherto so prevalent in the Christian community. I will, however, soon show that my views are supported by many of the most eminent divines, both of the past and present time. Our knowledge of the ancient Israelites, or Hebrews,* is gathered chiefly from their own records. It is, therefore, to be seen what reliance can be fairly placed upon the statements thus communicated to us. First let us listen to the testimony given by one of themselves, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. This celebrated writer first tells us that the Chaldeans, the Egyptians, and the Phoenicians, were in possession of written records, containing traditions that pretended to give a true account of the very infancy of mankind; that these nations-or, that is, their priesthood-took especial care to omit nothing that was transacted among themselves; and that "these records were esteemed sacred, and put into public tables, as written by men of the greatest wisdom among them." Then he proceeds to inform us that the ancestors of the Jews "took no less care about such records;" "for," he remarks, "I will not say that they took greater care than the others I spoke of;" and further he continues to relate that the * The appellation of Hebrew, so far as we have means to ascertain, was first given to Abraham, by the people of Canaan among whom he dwelt (Gen. xiv. 13). Some think that it was applied to him on account of his migration from Mesopotamia on the other side of the Euphrates, as passenger over that river, into the land of Canaan, because Heber signifies on the other side of a river or sea, or anything. Some again consider it as a patronymic derived from Heber, the great-grandson of Shem, from whom Abraham is said to have descended. The latter is the opinion of Josephus. + Joseph. cont. Ap. 1. i. Ibid, as before. Israelites committed that matter to the high priests and to their prophets, and that their records had been written all along, down to his own times, with the utmost accuracy. Lastly, he adds, that every one was not permitted of his own accord to be a writer, and that there were no discrepancies in what was written. Thus he evidently indicates that the composition of the records of the Hebrews was monopolized by the priesthood. It would therefore be nothing remarkable if there were then no disagreements—though such is not now the case; but the cause of this difference will appear from what is to be said hereafter. That portion of the Hebrew records written before the time of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who lived in the fifth century before our era, is said by Josephus to be justly believed as divine. "But," adds he, "it is true our history hath been written, since the time of Artaxerxes, very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and," continues he, "how firmly we have given credit to these books of our nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has ever been so bold as either to add anything to, or take anything from them, or to make any change in them;* but it has become natural to all Jews, immediately and from their own birth, to esteem these books as containing divine doctrines." Josephus thus clearly testifies, that at least the most ancient records of the Hebrews were believed by these people to be divine;† that they did not consider themselves permitted to alter them; and that there were no discrepancies to be found in these records. But it so happens, that what Josephus himself relates in his historical works, differs in many instances greatly from what we find recorded in the ancient writings of his nation; and, moreover, that there are several statements in these very writingssome of which I have already pointed out-which clash with each other. This proves, either that the account Josephus gives us of the sanctity in which these writings were held, is not true-which, however, is not likely, as it is supported by other evidence or what is far more probable, that they have undergone falsifications through design, or the carelessness of copyists. The writings contained in the Old Testament‡ have been divided into * This boast of Josephus is but poorly confirmed by what has actually taken place; though nobody but the priests evidently dared to make such alterations. The Egyptians and other nations of antiquity held a similar opinion in regard to their own ancient records. The cause of this is evident. The priests and lawgivers in ancient times, in order to make the people submit to the precepts and laws they had framed, were often obliged to pretend that they had received them from superior powers. The practice of giving the names of Old and New Testament to the sacred writings of the Hebrews and the Christians, arose from the language of the old Latin version of these writings-the versio vulgata The Latin word, testamentum-will-was considered to corres |