such thing was done by David. All that David did was, to make foraging bandities useful members of society, by "He obliging them to follow some honest profession. there settled them to saws, and to harrows of iron, also to axes of iron, and he caused them to pass to the brickkiln."

OBJECTION.

The DEIST Supposes, "that the inhabitants of Ai, Libnah, Lachish, Hebron, Debir, &c. were destroyed by Joshua at the command of God."

ANSWER.

It certainly does appear in the common version, that both the men and women, young and old, ox and sheep, camel and ass, were put to death; but all these passages in the common version that countenance a destruction of the people, have no such signification or application according to the Hebrew.

OBJECTION.

"The Bible is evidence against itself; for in the 1st book of Samuel, ch. xxiv. 9. where an account is given of the number of men who drew the sword, they are said to amount to thirteen hundred thousand. But in the 1st book of Chronicles, ch. xxi. 5. where an account of the same transaction is given, this army is said to amount to fifteen hundred and seventy thousand; so that the difference is two hundred and seventy thousand."

ANSWER.

The great discrepancy there is between these accounts of the same transaction, has furnished objectors to the present day, with arguments against the authority of the Bible; for they say, "If the writer of the book of Samuel be right, then the writer of the book of Chronicles must be wrong, and vice versa: let Christians take which they will, the argument is decidedly and unquestionably against them, and proves in the most convincing manner the disordered state of the Bible; for if two evidences on any similar occurrence were to declare on oath, in any court of judicature, that each account was

strictly true, no jury could for a moment hesitate to declare that one must be perjured." All this appears to be plausible enough, but both writers are perfectly correct, and the difference between them is a certain proof of their truth; consequently if the numbers had been the same in both, it would have been evident proof to the contrary. In this xxist chapter of Chronicles, David commanded Joab to number all Israel and Judah, in consequence of which Joab and the rulers of the people took the number of the males who were able to go to war, or, in the words of the text, who drew the sword; and when Joab gave in the number to David, it is said to be," fifteen hundred and seventy thousand that drew the sword." In the 1st chapter of Numbers, verse the third, it appears that none were to be numbered for war, but those who had attained to the age of 20 years; now when Joab gave in the number of the people to David, there were among this number those who were under the age of 20 years, these David rejected agreably to the law. Chron. ch. xxiii. 24. "but David took not the number of them from twenty years old and under:" this accounts for the great difference. The next verse shews that this has a reference to the same transaction; "Joab the son of Zeruiah began to number, but he finished not, because there fell wrath for it against Israel, neither was the number put into the account of the Chronicles of king David." That is, the number of the men, after David had rejected all under 20 years of age, was not put in the book of Chronicles, but is recorded in the book of Samuel, to amount to thirteen hundred thousand. From which it appears that both these accounts are true; the greatest number being taken with respect to the law, which prohibited all under 20 years of age; the other after such regulation had taken place.

OBJECTION.

"The most rational men reject the science of magic or witchcraft, as a silly imposition on the credulity of mankind. The witch of Endor, and the Jewish law, both prove by divine argument, the existence of such professors, though, like miracles, they have now ceased to appear."

ANSWER.

I do not mean to blame the DEIST for quoting the word witch; he certainly is authorized so to do because it is injudiciously so written in the common versions; but I blame him for quoting any erroneous version in order to bring an evil report on the original Hebrew, where no such account of witches is to be found.

OBJECTION.

The DEIST brings two solemn charges against David when he was on his death-bed: the first is absolutely false as it stands in the authorized versions; the second is not true according to the Hebrew.

. He says, "But what shall we think of this Nero of the Hebrews, this man after God's own heart, this idol of the Christians, when we see him die in a manner uniform and consistent with the whole course of his life? What will be our reflections, when we find him with his last accents, delivering two cruel and inhuman murders in charge to his son Solomon ? murders, still farther aggravated by the included crimes of ingratitude and perjury! One of them to be executed on his old and faithful general Joab, who powerfully assisted him on all occasions, and who adhered to him in all his extremities, till the last, but who, notwithstanding, had not appeared in actual hostility against him, but only drank a glass of wine with the malcontents. His other charge was against Shimea, who reviled David at his retreat from Jerusalem, during his son Absalom's rebellion, but who made his submission when he returned victorious, and whose pardon David had sealed with a solemn oath."

ANSWER.

I will beg the attention of the reader to the "included crime of ingratitude" toward Joab. In the first place, Joab had been guilty of the crime of murder; he had murdered two captains of the host who stood in the way of his glory, and thus "shed the blood of war in peace,' 1 Kings ii. 5. He had also committed another murder;

the king had commanded that his son Absalom should not be put to death; but in defiance of this command of his sovereign, he murdered the royal youth. And notwithstanding all these murders, David sought not to take his life.

Now I will refer the reader to the crime of Joab, which the DEIST palliates by saying, it was "only drinking a glass of wine with the malcontents.' But previously I should show the reader what was the real charge of David to Solomon respecting Joab. The translation is perfectly correct, viz. "But let not his hoar-head go down to the grave in peace." From this expression, the DEIST supposes that David charged Solomon to murder Joab.

Solomon however had succeeded to the throne, and Joab joined in the cause of Adonijah in rebellion against Solomon, ver. 28. and when Joab heard that the king and the people had made Solomon king, he knew that he had transgressed the law, which was death. Therefore David did not charge Solomon to murder him, " to bring down his hoar-head to the grave with blood;" but "not to suffer him to go down to the grave in peace:" the meaning of which phrase is, that he was not to hold him guiltless, but to keep a watch over his actions.

The second charge which the DEIST brings against David is perjury and murder. In the common version of 1 Kings. ii. 9. it is said; "But his hoar-head bring thou down to the grave with blood." A very different charge from that respecting Joab: nevertheless we shall find that the charge given to Solomon by David respecting Shimea, was not to murder him, but to save his life after David's decease. It is only the DEIST who brings this charge against David, being guided by the error made in the translation. The translators have omitted the translation of the negative:" the clause when truly rendered, reads-" Neither bring thou down his hoar-head with blood to the grave." It is therefore so far from being true that David sought the death of Shimea, or commanded Solomon to kill him, that on the contrary, mindful of his oath, he laid his injunctions on Solomon also to keep it in memory; and the history proves the fact. the fact. Shimea was allowed to live within a cer

tain district, and that on pain of death; nor was he put to death till he incurred this forfeiture by breaking his parole.

OBJECTION.

"David by the instigation of the Lord, numbered the people of Israel and Judah." 2 Sam. xxiv.

ANSWER.

It is not true that David was instigated by the Lord to number the people. It is indeed true that these objectors are not acquainted with the common acceptation of words, nor are they able, or perhaps willing, to read the passage so as to understand its true meaning and application. The verb moved does not refer to the Lord, but to the most proximate noun, Israel, a collective noun singular. The verse reads" And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, for he (Israel) moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." Hence it is plain that these objectors have altogether misapprehended the obvious meaning and application. And yet it is astonishing to see with what boasting confidence the DEIST refers to the same circumstance in 1 Chron. xxi. He says, "This memorable event has not escaped the inspired penman of the book of Chronicles, who affirms, that Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number them. And he begs to be informed," whether the Lord, and Satan, be one and the same person; and if not, which of the two was the instigator of this unhappy business, and which of the two infallible and inspired writers tells the lie!!!" It is astonishing that these pretenders to learning can presume to give such hasty and decided opinions. Such presumptuous writers have in time past brought this objection against the Bible, but they should have known that the word Satan is a Hebrew word; and that if the translators had translated it, we should have had the word adversary, ins.ead thereof, as the same word is rendered when applied to the angel (messenger) of the Lord, who was an adversary to Balaam, From which the reader will see, that it was Israel that moved David to number the people, 2 Sam. xxiv.; and as it was the same Israel, under the name Satan, or the adversary,