LETTER XVI. WE come now to some observations on the character and conduct of David. And here, the extracts are more scanty than one should have expected, from, Messrs. Bayle, Morgan, and Co., or rather from the last retailer of this kind of ware, the Historian of the man after God's own heart. Page 21. David is scoffed at for his cruelty towards the Ammonites, shown by "putting them under saws and under harrows of iron,* &c." Whatever the words in the original may signify, it seems but reasonable to conclude, that if David inflicted on these people punishments extraordinarily severe, there must have been an extraordinary cause. We read in the book of Judges, that the men of Judah "pursued after Adonibezek, and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes." Had nothing more been related, this would have appeared a strange instance of savage and wanton barbarity. But what says the suffering prince himself? "Three-score and ten kings having their thumbs and great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table; as I have done, so God hath requited me."+ The cruelties practised by the Ammonites upon others might be returned, by the just judgment of Heaven, upon themselves. There is no ground for supposing that David treated them worse than they would have treated the Hebrews, or than prisoners of war were treated in those times: and Dr. Chandler, it is apprehended, has given very good reasons why the passage should be rendered in the manner following: "He brought forth the inhabitants, and put them to the saw, and to iron mines, and iron axes, and transported them to the brick-kiln," or rather "to the brick-frame and hod, to make and carry bricks;" that is, he reduced them to slavery, and put them to the most servile employments. See Chandler's Life of David, vol. ii. p. 227—a book, which should be carefully perused by those who are disposed to favor us with any fresh disquisitions on the subject of it. But we must proceed to David's sentence on the Amalekite. The two accounts of the manner of Saul's death, one given in the course of the history, at the close of the first book of Samuel, the other by the Amalekite, at the beginning of the second, are so different, that " one of them (the infidels say, page 26,) must be false." Very well; suppose it so to be, and what then? Why then, they put the following resolution of the difficulty into the mouth of their Tom Fool of a Christian, as they call him. "To this we can only answer, as it becomes the faithful in all such cases of seeming contradiction; namely, that they were both written by the pen of inspiration, conse quently must both be true, however contradictory or absurd they may seem to mere human reason." Well said, Tom! But let me ask these gentlemen, what mortal, besides themselves, Tom's elder brethren, ever imagined the Amalekite to have been inspired, when he told his story to David?— an idle pickthank fellow, who stripped Saul of his diadem and bracelets, and ran away full speed with them to David, to let him know that all was safe, his old enemy was fallen, and he had put him out of his pain! David saw through the character of the man, and, from his forward officiousness in the affair, probably concluded he had taken some undue advantage of Saul in his wounded state, and slain him, on purpose that he might find favor with his successor in the kingdom by bringing him all this good news. "As the Lord liveth who hath redeemed my soul out of all adversity," says he, upon another occasion, "when one told me, saying, 'Behold Saul is dead,' thinking to have brought good tidings, I took hold of him, and slew him in Ziklag, who thought that I would have given him a reward for his tidings." But whether David suspected it or not, as the narrative of Saul's death given in the course of the history is true, the story told by the Amalekite is certainly false in some particulars, which are inconsistent with that narrative. Nay, it is not probable, if indeed it be possible, that the main circumstance of all should have been true. Saul desires his * 2 Sam iv. 9, 10. armour-bearer to kill him, who refuses; he falls upon his sword; and the servant, seeing his master dead, does the same. Now, where is the interval, or opening, for the scene between Saul and the Amalekite to take place? Or would the armour-bearer, who refused to kill Saul, stand by, and suffer an Amalekite to kill him? But though David judged this man unworthy to be his friend, he may make a very good figure in the unbelievers' catalogue of saints, and I would recommend him to occupy a niche in that temple. Let us, however, for a moment, suppose, that David had judged otherwise; that he had rewarded him handsomely, and promoted him to honor. What would have been said, then? Why, that poor Saul had escaped the sword of the Philistines, but "this ruffian," such is the courtly appellation bestowed upon David, had employed an assassin to dispatch him, during the hurry and confusion of the retreat! Ŏ it had been a delicious morsel, exactly seasoned to the palate of infidelity! Page 27. The infidels are much disconcerted, it seems, about the book of Jasher: it was extant previous to the writing of the book of Joshua, and was not finished till after the accession of David to the throne of Israel; so that, as they apprehend, either the author of Jasher must have lived upwards of four hundred years, or the book of Joshua was not written till after the time of David. Here again, a little Hebrew would have done us no harm. It does not appear that Jasher was the name of an individual, or that the book so styled was all written in the same age by the same man. The transactions of the times were regularly entered in a public register, by a person denominated the Recorder, or Historiographer, a stated officer to the Jewish kings. And the book of Jasher was the standard authentic book, in which they were so entered by authority, and from which extracts were made, as occasion required. Page 29. Some difficulties are started relative to the history of David numbering the people. In our translation we read, 2 Sam. xxiv. that "the Lord moved David to number Israel" and, 1 Chron. xxi. that "Satan moved him to do it." Nothing is more common with the sacred writers, than to represent God as doing that which, in the course of his providence, and for the purposes either of mercy or judgment, he permits to be done by the instrumentality of second causes, animate or inanimate, corporeal or spiritual. In the case of Ahab, 1 Kings, xxii. he is represented, after the manner of men, and in condescension to our capacities' as a king keeping his court, with spirits of all kinds in waiting before him, prepared to execute his will upon earth. One of these spirits is commissioned to influence the false prophets, and they persuade Ahab, who will not listen to the true prophet of God. Taking the matter, therefore, as it stands in our English translation, the import of both passages laid together, according to a fair explanation, would evidently be, that, for good and sufficient reasons known to himself, God permitted Satan to tempt, and David to yield to the temptation, in this instance. But if we consult the original, we shall find there is no necessity to suppose that David was excited either by God or by Satan. The word Satan, though often denoting that person who is emphatically styled THE Adversary, signifies only, in general, AN Adversary; and therefore the passage 1 Chron. xxi. may very properly be rendered, "An adversary stood up against Israel, and excited David." This adversary might be some counsellor, or &c. The other passage, 2 Sam. xxiv. may as properly be translated, "The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel and one excited David," or, "David was excited by some one " (the person mentioned in Chronicles,) saying, "Go, number Israel." Of the different kinds of punishment offered to David for his choice, upon this occasion, one is that of a famine for seven years, according to 2 Sam. xxiv. but for three years only, according to 1 Chron. xxi. It has been observed by some learned men, that the year in which this happened was the fourth year since a famine had commenced on another occasion, mentioned 2 Sam, xxi. 1. This circumstance considered, the question, as it is worded in one. place-" Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land ?” is tantamount to saying, "Wilt thou choose three additional years of famine," &c., which removes the apparent contradiction. It may be urged, that "the prophet delivered the message no more than once, and therecould not have said both.” fore must have said either seven or three: he True but the sacred, like other historians, often relate the same conversation in different terms; that is, they give the sense and substance of what passed, varying the phraseo logy. Instances frequently occur in both | plague amongst them, when thou numberest them." A very observable expression; for Testaments. If no other satisfactory solution of the dif- when David numbered them, this was the ficulty could be assigned, candor and common sense surely would suppose, that the word seven, in 2 Sam. xxiv. was originally three, especially as three is the word in the Greek version of the Seventy.* But" If David only sinned, why should the punishment fall upon the people?" very thing that happened; there was a plague among them, in consequence of their being numbered. They might be in such a state, that God would not accept them, or their offerings. It is not improbable that they should be in such a state, if we consider what corruptions must needs creep in under Saul's Such is the union between the king and wicked reign and David's long wars, during people, like that between the head and the most of which time the country had been body, that this happens continually in the overrun by the Philistines, &c., who would natural order of things; and therefore, why propagate their idolatry, with its flagitions not judicially? What greater misfortune can concomitants. In short, Israel had provoked befall a king, or a father, than the loss of his God; for otherwise, his anger would not have subjects, or his children? It is possible, how-been kindled against them, as we are informever, that such might not be altogether the ed that it was; their offences called for puncase, in the present instance, though David, ishment, and, on the numbering of the peolike a true patriot king and most affectionate ple, an opportunity was taken to inflict it. father, intercedes for his people, and desires Joab appears to have been aware of the to receive in his own person and family the consequence, as a known case. "Why," stroke that was ready to descend on them: says he "will my lord the king be a cause of "I have sinned, and done wickedly: these punishment, trespass, or forfeiture, to Issheep, what have they done? Let thine rael?" as if he knew that, upon a visitation, hand, I pray thee, be upon me, and upon my they must be punished who should be found father's house." Notwithstanding all this, I guilty; and was unwilling that the number say, it should seem, that the people were by of the king's subjects should be lessened. But no means without fault. For the history David might think it necessary, and his zeal opens thus: "The anger of the Lord was prevailed. Otherwise, it is extraordinary kindled against Israel, and❞—as a consequence that such a man as Joab should see what David of it-" David was excited to number Israel." either could not or would not see. But of what nature, then, after all, was this act of numbering the people, and why should it have been followed by a plague ? I am persuaded that we are much in the dark upon this point. If any light can be thrown upon it, that light must proceed from a passage in the book of Exodus, ch. xxx. 12, where God says to Moses, "When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them." To number the people, then, was not, as it should seem, merely to count them out of curiosity or vain-glory. It was a religious rite, it was a muster, a review, a visitation, an inquisition into their conduct, into the religious and moral state in which they at that time stood before their God. For upon such inquisition something came out, or appeared against them, which required an offering, by way of atonement or ransom for their souls: "They shall give a ransom, that there be no * Τρια ετη. This account of the transaction was offered to the public, many years ago, by a learned writer, well skilled in biblical knowledge and criticism. That it is entirely free from objection, or will solve all difficulties, is more, perhaps, than can be affirmed. But it is curious, and certainly deserves attention. On the whole, to adopt the words of Dr. Chandler, "If they who object, credit the history of the Old Testament in this part of it, and think it is true, that one of these three plagues was offered to David as the punishment of his offence; that he chose the pestilence, that it came accordingly, and was removed upon his intercession; they are as much concerned to account for the difficulties of the affair, as I or any other person can be. If they do not believe this part of the history, as the sacred writers represent it, let them give us the account of it, as it stands in their own imagination; and tell us, whe ther there was any plague at all, how and why it came, and how it went and disappeared of a sudden." 1 Chron. xxi. 3. LETTER XVII. A FEW more doubts remain, touching the prophecies, and some passages in the New Testament. Page 39. "The great evangelical prophet could foretel the downfall of Babylon by Cyrus, but could not tell the name of the Messiah." Who enabled him to foretell the downfall of Babylon by Cyrus?" He might take the advantage of writing that prophecy after the events took place," say the infidels, page 40. But how so? Isaiah spake of Cyrus at least one hundred years before his birth. Had a history of Cyrus been among the books of Scripture, under the name of Isaiah, they would have placed the author, for longevity, in the same class with their friend Jasher. "Isaiah could not tell the name of the Messiah." He could have told it, had it been communicated to him, as that of Cyrus was. He has described Messiah in a manner not to be mistaken. There might be very good reasons why the name was not declared beforehand. And as God did not see proper to do it, there certainly were such reasons. But if Christ were intended by the name Immanuel, the prophet was mistaken, for he was never called by that name.". The first commentator one opens will inform one that, in Scripture language, to be called is the name as to be. Thus, of Messiah it is said, chap. ix. 6, "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor," &c., though he was never called by any of the names there enumerated; of the same person, Jer. xxiii. 6, “This is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness;" of Jerusalem, Isa. i. 26. "Thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness." No man should presume to criticise a book, if he will not be at the pains to study the phraseology peculiar to it. Page 40. "If the prophecies are evident and clear, how happened it, that the whole Jewish nation, together with the angel Gabriel, should mistake, and suppose the kingdom of Messiah to be temporal?" The angel Gabriel was certainly under no mistake upon this point, because, of Christ he says expressly, Luke i. 33. "He shall reign for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end." And as to the case of the Jews, it is treated of at large in a discourse under that title, by the author before mentioned, at page 173, to which these gentlemen are referred. Page 40. "Could not those inspired writers, who prophesied concerning things of no consequence, as the thirty pieces of silver, and the casting lots for Christ garments, have predicted with equal certainty the more important circumstance of his death and resurrection?" The death and resurrection of Christ are predicted in the strongest terms, Psal. xxii. cx. Isa. liii. And what can add more weight to this kind of evidence, than the prediction. of particulars so minute and circumstantial as those of the thirty pieces, and the division of the garments by lot? One would think, at the contemplation of them, all infidelity would stop its mouth, instead of opening it. Page 41. "In short, they beg to be shown a single prophecy, concerning which divines are agreed." What Tully said of philosophers may be true perhaps of divines, considering the multitude of them that have lived from the days of the apostles to the present times; namely, that there never was an opinion, however absurd, which has not been maintained by some one or other. And therefore, to reject the evidence of prophecy, till all divines shall agree exactly about it, argues a conduct as wise in the infidels, as if they should decline sitting down to a good dinner, till all the clocks in London and Westminster struck four together. Page 41. "They desire to know why the Revelation of St. John should be more obscure and enigmatical than any which was written during the typical and shadowy dispensations of Moses? Much valuable instruction in the doctrines and duties of religion may be gathered from the Revelation, in the most clear and perspicuous manner; witness the Moral Reflections on that book, by Pere Quesnelle. Of the predictions in the former part of it, many Thus much premised, let us hear the objection. have been explained to general satisfaction; | great an advantage against the Christians, and others may be so explained hereafter, as this circumstance alone, as Dr. South well by the studies and labors of different persons, remarks, were we not now able to clear the the symbolical language of Scripture be- point, ought with every sober and judicious. comes better understood, and the events pre-person to have the force of a moral demondicted are brought forward in their order. stration. If sufficient reasons may be assigned why prophecy should be in some degree obscure for a time, they will hold with regard to those of the New, as well as those of the Old Testament. Let gentlemen bestow due attention on the evidences of Christianity so often set before them. When they shall thereby be happily induced to believe, it will be time enough to argue with them on such points as the obscurity of St. John's Revelation, and the doctrine of the Trinity, which is scoffed at in a very unbecoming manner, page 32. Thus much for prophecy. We proceed to some objections against particular passages in the New Testament. Of these, the first respects the difference between the genealogy of our Lord Christ, as given by St. Matthew, and that given by St. Luke. On this subject let it be observed, 1st. That genealogies in general, and those of the Jews in particular, with their method of deriving them, and the confusion often arising from the circumstance of the same person being called by different names, or different persons by the same name, are in their nature, and must be to us, at this distance of time, matters of very complicated consideration, and it is no wonder they should be attended with difficulties and perplexities. 2dly. The evangelists, in an affair of so much importance, and so open then to detection, had there been anything wrong to be detected, would most assuredly be careful to give Christ's pedigree as it was found in the authentic tables, which, according to the custom of the nation, were preserved in the family, as is evident from Josephus, who says, "I give you this succession of our family, as I find it written in the public tables." 3dly. As it was well known the Messiah must descend from David, the genealogical tables of that family would be kept with more than ordinary diligence and precision. 4thly. Whatever cavils the modern Jews and others make now against the genealogies recorded by the evangelists, the Jews their contemporaries never offered to find fault with, or to invalidate the accounts given in the Gospels. As they wanted neither opportunity, materials, skill, nor malice, to have done it, and it would have offered them so Page 33. "Matthew reckons twenty-seven generations from David to Christ; Luke reckons forty-two, and the names totally disagree. Matthew traces the descent from Solomon, and Luke from Nathan, both sons of David. According to our feeble notions, twenty-seven cannot be equal to forty-two neither can Nathan be imagined to be Solomon." But were the objectors never informed that, in the opinion of those who have most considered this question, and were best qualified to consider it, St. Luke deduces the genealogy of our Saviou, not, as St. Matthew does, on the side of Joseph, but on the side of Mary, who by Jews and Christians is agreed to have been the daughter of Heli. If therefore Jacob, according to St. Matthew, were Joseph's father by nature, Heli, who is said by St. Luke to have been his father, could only have been his father-in-law, by his marriage with Mary, the daughter of Heli, whose genealogy is then given by St. Luke; to show that every way Christ sprang from Judah." as was evident (by the testimony of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews) to all of that age; and that he was "of the seed of David ;" his real mother, no less than his supposed father, being "of the house and lineage of David." Disputes may be raised and maintained to the end of the world on many other difficulties which occur in the two genealogies. "But those who are acquainted with the customs of the Jews, know there are many genealogies which seem repugnant, and yet are not so. And that may happen various ways, as may easily be proved from books which the Jews and we jointly acknowledge. There are several methods of reconciling these difficulties, though it be often hard to say which is the best, at the distance of so many ages, all records and even memory of these things being utterly lost."* I would gently admonish the infidels, if they touch upon this subject again, to behave with better manners than they have done in their thirty-fourth page. |