who provoked David to number them as in 1 Chron. xxi. it necessarily was not Satan, but Israel, who was the adversary, "the instigator of this unhappy business," and that neither of the "inspired writers tells a lie," as is asserted by these calumnious and unblushing writers.

OBJECTION!

In the same stile, on the ground of supposed contradiction, objectors proceed. There is an argument still more formidable in the account concerning David, after the death of Saul, which is, that they are so very different, that one of them must be false. David commanded that the children of Judah should be taught the use of the bow; behold it is written in the book of Jashur. Many difficulties arise here about. the book of Jashur. It was extant previous to the writing the book of Joshua, the author of that book quoting it; and by the foregoing text it appears, that it was not finished till after the accession of David to the throne of Israel. Now if Joshua wrote the account of his own transactions, as is generally believed, the author of Jashur must have lived upwards of four hundred years; and if the book of Jashur was not written till after the time of David, and by an unknown hand, it comes under the description which is at the beginning of the second of these questions."

ANSWER.

I answer, both are true. This objection is taken from Paine, who copied it from deistical writers of former ages. It is truly astonishing that any man or set of men can sit down, and with all the consequence of truth, presume to trouble the public with statements which are absolutely false. But it does not appear by the foregoing text, that the book of Jashur was not finished till after the accession of David to the throne of Israel: the foregoing text only says concerning David, that he bade them teach the children. of Judah the use of the bow: and the verse concludes thus, "Behold, it is written in the book of Jashur." Not that any thing that David said, or did, was written in the book of Jashur; but that the use of the bow was written in the

book of Jashur; the instrument by the expert use of which they were to defend themselves.

OBJECTION.

"Mr. Volney is of opinion that the texts are at variance in the recapitulated sums; for instance, 2 Kings xiv. 23. says, in the fifteenth year of Amaziah, king of Judah, Jeroboam became king of Israel, and in the fifteenth year of this Jeroboam, Amaziah terminates a reign of twentynine years; verse 17. 'Therefore Uzziah, son of Amaziah, succeeded him, and reigned in the sixteenth year of Jeroboam:' and yet the text says (ch. xv. 1.) that it was in the twenty-seventh year.'

ANSWER.

It is evident that there was an interregnum; for in 2 Chron. xxv. 27. it is said, " After the time they had made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish." And this interregnum appears to have been fourteen years, which, with the fifteen of Amaziah, when Jeroboam began to reign, make twenty-nine years, the whole reign of Amaziah, when his son Uzziah was made king. See verse 23, 24, 25. the enemy brake down the wall of Jerusalem-took all the vessels that were found in the house of God-the treasures of the king's house; the hostages also, and returned to Samaria. After which interregnum they made Uzziah king.

OBJECTION.

"Another similar fault recurs," says Mr. Volney; "for Jeroboam having reigned forty-one years, fifteen of which were in the time of Amaziah, the remaining twenty-six must have been during Uzziah's reign; consequently Zachariah, son of Jeroboam, succeeded him in the twentyseventh year of Uzziah and yet the text says the thirtyeighth year." 2 Kings xv. 8.

ANSWER.

Jeroboam reigned fourteen years to the death of Ama

ziah; and as there was an interregnum when Amaziah fled to Lachish, verse 27. during the infancy of Uzziah, and as Uzziah began to reign alone in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam, which makes forty-one years, the time of the reign of Jeroboam; it appears that Uzziah was made regent the last three years of the life of his father; which three years being deducted from forty-one, the whole reign of Jeroboam, leaves the thirty-eighth year of Uzziah, when Zachariah, the son of Jeroboam, began to reign. From which it will appear evident, that the statement given by Mr. Volney, that "the succession of Zachariah the son of Jeroboam, in the twenty-seventh year of Uzziah, contradicts the Scripture account, which states it to be in the thirty-eighth year," is an error made by that writer, among the many other gross misrepresentations he has had the confidence to lay before the public.

OBJECTION.

Again," says Volney, (2 Kings xvi. 2.) " Ahaz the son of Jotham, succeeded him at the age of twenty, and reigned sixteen years; consequently he lived thirty-six. His son Hezekiah succeeded him at the age of twentyfive; therefore Ahaz was a father at eleven, which in history is too extraordinary not to have been noticed."

ANSWER.

With regard to the reign of Uzziah, fifty-two years, it may at first sight appear a little strange to say, that his son Jotham, who is said to have reigned 16 years, reigned both 16 and 6 years. It is said that Uzziah, surnamed Azariah, was smote with a leprosy, and he was a leper to the day of his death, and that according to the law, he dwelt in a several house, that his son Jotham was the appointed regent during the life of the king, and this regency appears to have been 10 years. The Hebrew is correct, for the king was not dethroned because of his sickness; all the public acts were done in the name of the king, who reigned alone 42 years, and in conjunction with his son Jotham 10 years, making the time, according to the present translations, 52 years. And it is also true that Jotham reigned 16

years, 10 in conjunction with his father, and 6 alone. Therefore the translation is correct, which states. that Jotham reigned 16 years.

Now though the translation states that Jotham began to reign at the age of 25 years, it is evident that he did not begin to reign alone till he was 35 years old. So that he was the father of Ahaz, not at 16, but at 26 years old.

And though it is said of Ahaz that he was 20 years old when he began to reign, and Hezekiah his son 25, which makes Ahaz a father at eleven; yet, as it was the custom of the eastern kings in those ages, for the heir to the throne to reign in conjunction with the king at the latter part of his life, Ahaz appointed his son Hezekiah to govern in his absence, while he was engaged in wars against Resin the king of Syria, 2 Kings xv. 37. So that though it is said of Hezekiah that he began to reign at the age of 25 years, if the years he administered the laws during the absence of the king be added, he will be found to have begun to reign alone, at a much later date. Consequently it cannot be allowed, agreably to the Scripture, that "Ahaz was a father at eleven years old ;" or that "the compound dates of the book of Kings are incorrect," as is asserted by objec

tors.

OBJECTION.

"There perhaps is nothing more conclusive as to the disordered state of the chronology of the Bible, than the following passages; there certainly cannot be any thing more contradictory. It is said in the 2 Chron. xvi. 1. In the six-and-thirtieth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah.' But it is said in 1 Kings xvi. 8. In the twenty-and-sixth year of Asa king of Judah, began Elah the son of Baasha to reign over Israel.' Now the question is, if Baasha died in the twenty-andsixth year of the reign of Asa,' as is evident in the above verse of 1 Kings, how could he go up against Judah in the • six-and-thirtieth year of the reign of Asa,' as it is recorded in the 2d of Chron. ?”

ANSWER.

The reasoning on these passages as they now stand in the common versions, must be admitted. But as in the original Hebrew there are no contradictions, it will be evident to every intelligent reader, that no man should presume to give a decided opinion on any translation of what has been called contradictory, unless he critically understands the language in which the Scriptures were originally written. This will be allowed by every judicious reader, and it will appear very evident indeed, when we have the true translation of one word in the first verse I have quoted.

The word lemalkouth, which is in the common version rendered, of the reign, has no such meaning in any part of Scripture; it means the kingdom; see 1 Chron. xii. 23ch. xxviii. 5-2 Chron. xi. 17. Thus by a true translation of one word the objection vanishes, and the solution of this problem becomes plain and satisfactory.

The reader will observe that on the death of Solomon, ten tribes came to Rehoboam who succeeded to the throne, and petitioned to have their burdens made lighter. But on being refused, they then divided and set up the kingdom of Israel; while the two tribes took the title of the kingdom of Judah. Now it was in the "six-and-thirtieth year of the kingdom of Judah," or in the " six-and-thirtieth year after the division of the government, that Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah," and not the six-and-thirtieth year of the reign of Asa. The clause truly reads thus-" In the six-and-thirtieth year of the kingdom of Asa, Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah.

OBJECTION.

"Ahaziah was killed twice, once in Samaria, where he was slain and buried, 2 Chron. xxii. 8, 9. also at Megiddo, and buried at Jerusalem, 2 Kings ix. 27."

ANSWER.

I would advise these writers to adhere to truth in their statements; it is not said that Ahaziah was buried in Samaria, but that he was buried; for his companion the king of