worldly blessings whatever,) the same he may as justly deprive them of for the sins of their fathers; because this is only exercising an act of dominion over the children with an additional circumstance of wholesome discipline over the fathers of those children, if living, or else of instruction and warning to parents in general, for the better promoting religion and righteousness in the world. I have answered this objection mildly, as the Objector made it civilly, to let the readers see, that if I do it not at other times, the fault is not mine. Rudeness, petulance, and barefaced impiety ought to be "rebuked sharply "," while softer replies are proper to be given to modest inquirers, to such as "ask with meekness and fear."

2 SAM. XXIV. 1.

AND AGAIN THE ANGER OF THE LORD WAS KINDLED AGAINST ISRAEL, AND HE MOVED DAVID AGAINST THEM TO SAY, GO, NUMBER ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

The Objector has several pretences to urge y against this part of sacred history, which must be examined in order. He asks, "How can we reconcile this story with "itself? In one place z it is said, God moved David to "number Israel: in another a, Satan provoked David. "Did God conspire with Satan in this act, in order to "destroy a number of innocent persons?" In answer hereto, I may observe, first, that this is another of his English objections. For if he had been disposed to look into the original, and had known any thing of the Hebrew idiom, he might have perceived that the text does not say that God moved David, (for the word God is not in the text at all,) but one moved, which comes to the same with, David WAS MOVED TO SAY, &c. as Castalio renders. It

u Tit. i. 13. 1 Tim. v. 20. Acts xii. 10.

x 1 Pet. iii. 15. See Mr. Twells's Crit. Exam. of the New Text, &c. p. 125.

y Christianity as Old, &c. p. 266.

z 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. a 1 Chron. xxi. 1.

is a very common idiom of the Hebrew language, thus to leave out the nominative of the verb active, (an indefinite person understood,) and then the verb is to be rendered passively, and the accusative following supplies the place of the nominative wanting, as here b. So now it is manifest, that there is no repugnancy between this text in Samuel and the other of Chronicles.

But a further objection made to the story is, that God should smite Israel, and destroy seventy thousand of them "for David's fault in causing the innocent sheep "(as he justly calls them) to be numbered." Truly, if any one else but God had done it, by his own authority, there might be a just handle for complaint: but God has an absolute right over the lives of all men; and if ever he does any thing seemingly hard, he knows how to make them ample amends. But as to the innocent sheep, which our writer speaks of, as justly 'so called by David, he knows nothing of that matter: neither were the people innocent in his sense, though they were in the sense that David intended. David reflected only on their innocence in one respect, as to the sin of numbering the people: that was David's sin, not theirs. But they had other sins many and great, which deserved punishment, and for which probably they would have been punished before, had it not been for the tenderness God bore towards David, who must have been a sufferer in it as well as they. But now when both king and people had deserved a correction, or judgment, then God was pleased to let loose his anger upon both. I do not found this upon mere conjecture: the text itself takes notice first, that THE ANGER OF THE LORD WAS KINDLED AGAINST ISRAEL; and then follows what relates to David, and his sin in numbering the people. So David was to be punished by losing such a number of his people and his sin was so much the immediate cause of that judgment, that had it not been for

:

See Gataker. de Stylo N. T. p. 68. Kidder, Demonstrat. part ii. p. 73, 74, 75. Bedford's Scripture Chronology, p. 559. Le Clerc in loc. Buxt. Thesaur. Gram. p. 430. Dachselii Bibl. Hebr. Accentuat. vol. i. p. 465.

that, along with the other, it would not have been sent. However, it cannot be said the people were strictly innocent, who but a few years before had run mad after Absalom, an unnatural rebel and usurper, deserting their rightful sovereign, one of the best of kings. What other sins they had committed, we need not inquire: that alone might be sufficient to deserve such a plague. God knows the proper times for taking vengeance of wicked men: and his judgments, if they come the slower, are the more

severe.

But the Objector has farther scruples against the whole story, from the appearing disagreement of the numbers in the muster-rolls of the people, comparing different places. of Scripture together, and particularly three d. This must be owned to be a scholar-like objection, and it has employed the thoughts of very learned and considerable men; such as Buxtorf, Pfeiffer, Bochart, and others. The sum of their account is, that the difference arises by the standing legions (which attended monthly on the king) being reckoned in one place, and omitted in another, and so vice versa. I need not be more particular, because the English reader, that has a mind to examine into this matter, may see it explained more at large, either in Bishop Patrick f, or Lightfoots, or in Mr. Bedford h. Indeed Le Clerc, not satisfied with the common solution, suspects there has been some error in the numbers, owing to the negligence or rashness of copists. I shall not pretend to judge in so nice a case, about which very pro

e About five or six years, according to the common chronology, placing Absalom ́s rebellion A. M. 2981, and this plague A. M. 2986, or 2987. Le Clerc indeed intimates a suspicion, as if this history had been misplaced, and that it should precede Absalom's rebellion but he offers it as a bare conjecture, assigning no reasons. Cleric. in 2 Sam. xxiv. 1.

41 Sam. xi. 8. 2 Sam. xxiv. 9. 1 Chron. xxi. 5.

• Buxtorf. Anti-Crit. p. 403, 404.

Hieroz. part. i. lib. ii. cap. 38. p. 375.

f Patrick on 2 Sam. xxiv. 9.

* Lightfoot, Op. vol. i. p. 68.

Pfeiffer. Dub. Vexat. p. 527. Bochart.

Bedford's Scripture Chronology, p. 559.

bably the most learned will differ, according to the sentiments they have of the integrity of the Hebrew text; some admitting of slight corruptions in the text by mistakes of librarians, others admitting none. There appears no absolute necessity of supposing any here. The common solution is a very good one: and Le Clerc's main objection (founded upon a calculation of the whole number of inhabitants, and upon a supposition that the land of Judea could not maintain them) is too precarious in both its parts, to build any thing certainly upon.

But however that question be determined, yet certainly there will be neither foundation nor colour for what our writer says afterwards, that "there is scarce a chapter (of "the Old Testament) which gives any historical account "of matters, but there are some things in it which could "not be there originally i." This is a petulant slander, and thrown out at random, by one that knows little of the affair beyond guesses or wishes; and therefore I leave it to the readers to judge what weight it ought to carry with it. Such as have leisure and abilities to examine into the integrity and uncorruptness of the sacred code, may consult, among others, Buxtorf k more particularly, and Wolfius', and Carpzov m, in Latin, who have abundantly vindicated the same from all material objections: and if the English readers want satisfaction, they may see what will be sufficient in the books referred to in the margin".

I KINGS XIII.

This chapter relates the story of the man of God, the Prophet of Judah, and his disobedience to God, owing to the falsehood and treachery of the old Prophet of Bethel.

Christianity as Old, &c. p. 267.

* Buxtorfii Anti-Critica contra Cappellum.

I Wolfii Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. ii.

m Carpzovii Introductio ad Libros V. T. Carpzovii Critica Sacra.

n Jenkins, vol. ii. chap. iv. v. Moses Marcus's Defence of the Hebrew Text against Mr. Whiston.

Upon which our Objector thus descants. Speaking of the Prophet of Judah, he observes that he "went contrary to what God had commanded him by an im"mediate revelation, because a known Prophet assured "him, he had afterwards a different revelation for him: a crime so heinous in the eyes of the Lord, that he destroyed this Prophet after a most signal manner; "though he had to plead for himself, that the Prophet, "who spoke to him in the name of the Lord, could have "no interest in deceiving him; and that there was no"thing in the command but might as well come from "the Lord, as what himself had received." He has more to object against this part of sacred history: but I think it best to stop here, and to examine his cavils so far first, and then to proceed to the rest. Here are, I think, three insinuations, intended to extenuate the Prophet of Judah's crime, and to make his so exemplary punishment appear hard and cruel. It was a known Prophet that deceived him; and one that had no interest to serve in it; and there was nothing in the nature of the two commands to give light, or to discover which should be preferred. These particulars must be examined in their order.

1. As to the Prophet's being a known Prophet, unless he was known to the Prophet of Judah, that circumstance is of no weight in the case. But it appears from the history, that they did not know one another: for the Prophet of Bethel, when he had found the other Prophet, asked him, if he was the " man of God" that came from Judah P, which he need not have done, had they been before acquainted. This therefore is one aggravation of the Prophet of Judah's crime, that he suffered himself to be imposed upon by a stranger, by one that he did not know, and against the express command of God whom he did know.

2. As to the old Prophet's having no interest in deceiv

Christianity as Old, &c. p. 328. P1. Kings xiii. 14.