OBJECTION.

"We shall now proceed to consider a few of their prophetical predictions, and see whether the event corresponded with the prophesy or not. The prophet Nathan was sent to tell David that his house and kingdom should be established for ever before him, 2 Sam. xii. 16.-This grant the Lord confirmed to David himself, Psa. Ixxxix. 35, 36. Neither the Lord nor the prophets, however, foresaw the destruction of the government and subjugation of the country by the Romans."

ANSWER.

These writers ought to have known, that the word gnolaam, in Hebrew, has two applications, the one when it is applied to things of eternity, and properly means, according to our acceptation of the word, for ever; see Psa. xc. 2. from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God"— ciii. 17-cv. 10., &c. But when it is applied to things of time, as to the duration of states, things or kingdoms, it always means to the end of the thing in question. Gen. vi. 3. Gen. vi. 3. "My spirit shall not always strive with man"-Exod. xxi. 16. "He shall serve him for ever"-1 Sam. i. 22-ch. xxvii. 12. So much for the first objection of these rash and ignorant writers.

The second remark is made in these irreverent words: "Neither the Lord nor the prophets, however, foresaw the destruction of the government and the subjugation of the country by the Romans." This is only assertion destitute of any proof: we shall however find that the " destruction of the government, and consequently the subjugation of the country," was foreseen and foretold. It is certainly true that the word Romans is not mentioned in the prophesy of the destruction of the government and the total subjugation of the country; but all the circumstances and things which came upon the Hebrews at the time of their complete ruin as a government, by Vespasian the Roman, are most particularly foretold by the sacred writer, fifteen hundred years before their accomplishment. Deut. xxviii. 49. "The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far,

D

as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand." It is evident that this nation could not be the Babylonian, for the Babylonish language was understood by the Hebrews; it was a dialect of the Hebrew, and written in the Hebrew character. And that which most certainly establishes the truth of the prophesy, viz. that the destruction of the government and the subjugation of the country by the Romans" was foretold, will appear in the 64th verse of the same chapter; which event, as foretold, immediately followed the destruction of the government by the Romans; viz. "And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other."

OBJECTION.

"2 Sam. xi. 3. Bathsheba the daughter of Eliam; but in 1 Chron. iii. 5. Bathshua the daughter of Amiel. Can both these writers be correct?"

ANSWER.

Yes, both are correct. The Hebrew word Eliam, is a compound word of El, God, and iam, with me; and which being translated, reads God with me. The word Amiel, is only the same word transposed, which then reads, with me God. This mode of transposition was customary among the Hebrews, and is the same as when we say, God is good, or good is God; it amounts to the same, without changing the person: and therefore both the writers are correct. Thus names of persons and things in Hebrew are significant, very different from names in the European languages, which have no meaning.

OBJECTION.

"Shall seven years of famine come to thee in thy land? 2 Sam. xxiv. 13. But in 1 Chron. xxi. 12., the corresponding narrative, it is said; Choose thee three years famine. Did the prophet offer both a seven and a three years famine?"

ANSWER.

No; neither do these statements contradict each other, as is asserted by objectors. The xxist chapter of 2 Sam., which is evidently connected with the xxivth (for the xxiid and xxiiid are only parenthetical, the xxist being the xviiith Psalm, written by David at this time, and the xxiiid a list of his chief captains)-the xxist chapter, I say, which is historically connected with the xxivth, informs us, that three years of famine had already been in the land, ver. 1. And this year, when Gad delivered the message, was the fourth; so that three years in addition would have made the famine to have ended in the seventh year. It is to be observed, that frequently the incomplete years are taken for complete years: as when Jeroboam is said to have reigned twenty-two years, 1 Kings xxiv. 20; it is to be understood of twenty-one complete years, at the beginning of the twenty-second-for as the three years of famine had but just passed, and the land had only begun to offer its produce, therefore the fourth year, though an incomplete year, numbers as one of the seven, as three years in addition would end in the seventh year, viz. "Shall seven years of famine be completed unto thee in thy land." But the writer of the book of Chronicles is equally correct with regard to the famine in future; "Choose thee three years famine;" though he takes no notice of the years of famine which had already elapsed. From which it is evident, that there is no contradiction in the two statements; the passages are truly translated in the common version; the developement has only escaped the notice of commentators.

OBJECTION.

“ 2 Sam. xxiv. 24, it is said, So David bought the threshing-floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.' But in 1 Chron. xxi. 25, where the same thing is also recorded, it is said, So David gave to Ornan for the place, six hundred shekels of gold.'

ANSWER.

Objectors say, "This is an insurmountable objection,

for no Christian, or Jewish commentator has ever reconciled these contrary statements to this day." It is true enough, that many statements are not yet reconciled, as the reader will see in these pages; but nevertheless we are obliged to those commentators, who from age to age have been labouring to approach to something like truth. Kennicott doubted the integrity of the Hebrew text; therefore it is no wonder we should be told by objectors, "It must be admitted as proof of the disordered state of the Bible." We shall find, that no such proof can be admitted—that there is no contradiction in these passages-and that one is a confirmation of the truth of the other.

In the passage in Samuel, it is said, "So David bought the threshing-floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver." But the passage in Chronicles is applied, not to the threshing-floor, but to the whole of the extensive plot of ground, by the word bamaakom, rendered for the place. Had the passage in Samuel said, he gave fifty shekels of silver for the place, there would have been ground for objection; but this is not the case; therefore the objection falls to the ground. For nothing can be more certain than that the passage in Samuel has reference only to the particular place on which the altar was built. Equally as evident it is, that the passage in Chronicles has reference to the whole extensive area of the mount, which surrounded the threshingfloor, and which was bought by David for the purpose of building the temple thereon. So that Gad, the finisher of the 2nd book of Samuel, after his death, who was present when the altar was erected on the threshing-floor, mentions fifty shekels of silver which were given for the threshingfloor; while the writer of the book of Chronicles records the whole sum, six hundred shekels of gold, which David gave for the whole piece of ground.

OBJECTION.

"1 Kings vii. 15. makes the two pillars of the porch eighteen cubits; 2 Chron. iii. 15. makes them thirtyfive."

ANSWER.

This appears to be an obvious contradiction: and objectors ask, "If the pillars could be eighteen cubits, and thirty-five cubits?" I say yes, agreably to the meaning of the writers, who are accurate in their description.

The writer of the book of Kings describes the height of each pillar when erected, to be eighteen cubits, and he uses the word komath, the proper word for height; but the writer of the book of Chronicles describes the length of the pillars together when cast, of which cast the two pillars were made; and therefore he does not use the word komath, i. e. high, but orek, which means the whole length of the pillar-work.

But if the pillars were each eighteen cubits, the pillarwork must have been thirty-six cubits; how then can it be said by the writer of Chronicles, that the pillars were thirtyfive cubits? The word chout, which is rendered a line, means a fillet, into which the pillar was received, half a cubit deep, and which then reduced each pillar half a cubit: consequently the whole pillar-work of brass was thirty-five cubits. So that the writer of the book of Kings describes the height of the pillars with the fillets, making the pillars eighteen cubits each; while the writer of the book of Chronicles records the length of the pillar-work in which the fillets covered each pillar half a cubit.

OBJECTION.

The DEIST proceeds. "How truly great, how far above the common weakness of humanity, appears the man after God's own heart, at the taking of the city Rabbah! He brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln."

ANSWER.

It might be possible to put persons under harrows, because the harrow is dragged over; but it is difficult to conceive how people could be put under saws, and under

axes.

The true translation, however, will prove, that no