"berest them." A very observable expression; for when David numbered them, this was the 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 wicked reign and David's long wars, during most of which time the country had been overrun by the Philistines, &c. who would propagate their idolatry, with its flagitious concomitants. In short, Israel had provoked God; for otherwise, his anger would not have been kindled against them, as we are informed that it was; their offences called for punishment, and, on the numbering of the people, an opportunity was taken to inflict it. Joab appears to have been aware of the consequence, as a known case. "Why," says he, "will my lord the king be a cause of punishment, trespass, or forfeiture, to Israel?" as if he knew that, upon a visitation, they must be punished who should be found guilty; and was unwilling that the number of the king's subjects should be lessened. But David might think it necessary, and his zeal prevailed. Otherwise, it is extraordinary that such a man as Joab should see what David either could not or would not see.

66

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

.3 .Chron. xxi 1 לאשמה ?

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

66

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

66

66

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, whether there was any plague at all, "how and why it came, and how it went and disappeared of a sudden.”

66

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 foretel 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 same as to be. Thus, of Messiah it is said, chap. ix. 6. "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor," &c. though he was never cailed 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 na❝tion, together with the angel Gabriel, should mis"take, 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's garments, have predicted with equal certainty the more important circumstance of his "death and resurrection?"

66

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 Reve"lation of St. John should be more obscure and

66

enigmatical than any which was written during the typical and shadowy dispensation 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 have been explained to general satisfaction; and others may be so explained hereafter, as by the studies and labours of different persons, the symbo