direction; or whether the writer were on the east, or on the west of the Jordan; it neither affects the genuineness, nor the authenticity of the Pentateuch.

How much more like a liberal scholar would it have been, if this gentleman had said that he was not critically acquainted with the Hebrew scriptures. It is astonishing that not a single individual who has written against the genuineness and authenticity of the Bible, from the time of Por phyry and Celsus in the second century, has even had a critical knowledge of the language in which sacred original scripture is written.

OBJECTION.

(Judges iii. 30.) "It is impossible that Ehud judged, that is to say, governed eighty years."

ANSWER.

It is not said "that Ehud governed eighty years:" but that the land had rest eighty years.

OBJECTION.

"Samson after having killed a thousand Philistines with the jaw-bone of an ass, feels a violent thirst; he beseeches the god Thou to take pity on him: God makes a spring of water to issue from the jaw-bone of an ass.”

ANSWER.

This objection now brought forward by Mr. Volney, was also a favorite one with Mr. Voltaire. The latter gentleman had but a very slender knowledge of the language in which the Scriptures were originally written; and Mr. Volney does not appear to be critically acquainted with the sacred language, so absolutely necessary for those to understand who pretend to make objections to the received translations.

The narrative says, that after Samson had slain the Philistines, he cast the jaw of the ass away: therefore it is not likely that the water came out of the very jaw-bone. The word Lehi, which signifies the Jaw, is also the name of the valley, agreably to the 9th verse, where Samson is said to have slain the Philistines. It is then said, that God

clave a hollow place which was in the Jaw; it is not said that God clave a hollow place which was in the jaw-bone of the ass; but a hollow place that was in Lehi, or the valley of the Jaw, where the Philistines had spread themselves; and there sprang forth water. It is further said in the 19th verse, that this fountain, or spring of water, is in Lehi unto this day. From which objectors will see, that even according to the authorised versions, the water came forth, not from the jaw-bone of the ass, but from the cloven rock which was in Lehi, or the valley of the Jaw.

This is the sense of the passage in the Hebrew, and which was so understood by the ancient Jews. Josephus, book v. ch. vii. says, "There gushed from a neighbouring rock a stream of the purest water for the relief of his thirst, and this to the present time bears the name of the Jaw."

OBJECTION.

"The Jebusites dwelt with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day'- a passage, which demonstrates that the book of Joshua was not written until after David, when, and not before, the conquest of the Jebusites took place. It is beyond a doubt, that they never dwelt with the Jews in the time of Joshua, since in the first part of the above quoted passage, he says, As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out! How then did the Jews inhabit Jerusalem in the days of Joshua ?"

ANSWER.

But how does the Jebusites' dwelling with the children of Judah demonstrate that the book of Joshua was not written until after David, when, as objectors say, and not before, the conquest of the Jebusites took place? If these objectors had referred to Joshua x. 1. they would have found that the conquest of the Jebusites took place in the time of Joshua. Here we find that the Jebusite king of Jerusalem, with the other kings, combined their armies against Israel, ver. 5th.-they were defeated ver. 10.-Joshua took all the spoils of their cities, ch. xi. 14.—and the whole land, ver. 23. and he gave it for a possession to Israel, ch. xii. 7. And

in the division ch. xix. 18, we find that Jebusi, which is Jerusalem, was given to the tribe of Benjamin. This conquest of Jerusalem in the time of Joshua, is also confirmed in Judges, ch. i. 8. where it is said that "the children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem and taken it, and smitten it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire." This was 500 years before the time of David. How then are these writers justified in saying, that the conquest of the Jebusites did not take place until after David? After the conquest of Jerusalem in the time of Joshua, by Judah, the Jebusites, whose government was then overthrown, were permitted to dwell in Jerusalem; the children of Israel did not drive them out, and take their property. So when the land was divided, and the principal city given to the tribe of Benjamin, the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem, but suffered them to dwell and enjoy their property. It must be allowed of course, that before the time of David, the Jebusites had rebelled against the Israelites, as it is said 2 Sam. v. 6, 7, 8. that David conquered them and took the city. And thus the writers of the DEIST have copied what has been said on this subject by former objectors, who first made this error concerning the taking of Jerusalem, and who having supposed that it was not taken till the time of David, have erroneously concluded "that the book of Joshua was not written until after David, when (say they) the conquest of the Jebusites took place."

OBJECTION.

""The Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountains, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.' It is difficult to conceive (says the DEIST) how the Lord of heaven and earth, who had so often changed the order, and suspended the established laws of nature in favor of his people the Jews, could not succeed against the inhabitants of a valley, because they had chariots of iron."

ANSWER.

Truly so; but this error is in the translation. Objectors

should have known that the word yoresh, which is rendered he drave out, does not refer to the Lord, as has been supposed, but to the last or most proximate noun Judah, a collective noun singular: the first clause reads, "Then the Lord was with Judah, and he (Judah) possessed the mountain." We have a similar construction in Numb. xxiii. 4. “And God met Balaam, and he said unto him :" but it was not God that spake to Balaam; it was Balaam who spake before God. The verse under consideration. reads; "Then Jehovah was with Judah, and he (Judah) possessed the mountain; therefore could he not have dispossessed the inhabitants of the valley though they had chariots of iron ?"

The obvious meaning of which is, that when the Lord was with them, or when they abolished the idolatry of the people, God gave them success in overthrowing the governments of those who dwelt in the mountains; and therefore, as the Lord was with Judah, that is, as they then were the true worshippers of God, they could with the same ease have dispossessed the inhabitants of the valley, by destroying their idolatry, though they were a very formidable people"though they had chariots of iron." But the Hebrews had now begun to relax as to the command, and suffered the nations they had subjugated, to follow idolatry; for it is said in the very next verse-" And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites, that inhabited Jerusalem."

OBJECTION.

"The Jews had not even a pretence to despise their neighbours for offering human sacrifices. The case of Jephtha shows plainly that this barbarity was among God's people."

ANSWER.

common

Human sacrifices were prohibited by the divine law, on pain of death; there is not a single proof to be found that ever the Jews offered human sacrifices.

It is certainly said by Jephtha-"Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall

surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burntoffering." But an obvious error in the translation has been the cause of this unfounded charge, made against a people surrounded by populous nations, worshippers of images, stocks, and stones; and yet who preserved the pure worship of God.

The vau which is prefixed to the word hagnalitiho, is rendered by and, viz. AND I will offer it up; but it should be translated, as with the same construction it is in Exodus xxi. 15. by or, viz. and he that smiteth his father, OR his mother. The clause then truly reads-shall be theLord's; OR, I will offer it up for a burnt-offering. From which it is evident that Jephtha did not sacrifice his daughter, nor is it countenanced in any other part of the Bible.

OBJECTION.

"In the viiith chapter of the 2 Kings verse 10. it is said: 'And Elisha said unto him, Go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover; howbeit the Lord hath shewed me, that he shall surely die.' If he might certainly recover,' how was it possible that God should say,, He shall surely die?' Here is a falsehood put into the mouth of the prophet, and yet this is called Sacred Scripture!"

ANSWER.

If so serious a charge could be proved, it would in a great measure weaken the truth of the sacred testimony. In this verse the translators have omitted the translation of the negative to, which makes good sense of the passage in Hebrew; viz. "And Elisha said to him, Go, say not to him, Thou shalt certainly recover; for the Lord hath showed me, that he shall surely die."

OBJECTION.

"The Lord threatens to visit the iniquities of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation, Exod. xx. 5; χχχίν. 7 ; Deut. v. 9. This he

flatly denies, Deut. xxiv. 16. 2 Chron. xxv. 4,"