Israel was not buried; he was cast into the plat of ground, exposed for the murder of Naboth. It is said that they buried him, because he was "the son of Jehoshaphat who sought the Lord with all his heart." And the writer of the book of Chronicles says that his servants buried him at Jerusalem. This statement of the death of Ahaziah in the book of Kings, is concerning the very same thing in the book of Chronicles. It is said 2 Chron. xxii. 6. "Azariah (the same is Ahaziah) the son of Jehoram king of Judah went down to see Jehoram the son of Ahab."-In conformity with this, it is said in 2 Kings ix. 21. "And Joram king of Israel, and Ahaziah king of Judah went out, each in his chariot, and they went out against Jehu." The 27th verse is the same in sense as 2 Chron. xxii. 9. The first says, that "Ahaziah fled by the way" of the garden-house, and Jehu followed after him-the second that " he hid himself in Samaria.”

OBJECTION.

"2 Chron. xxii. 1. says, that the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah, his youngest son, king in his stead; for the band of men that came with the Arabians had slain all the eldest. It appears, however, from 2 Kings x. 12. that Jehu, king of Israel, put himself to the trouble of slaying them over again, regardless of their being carried away and slain before."

ANSWER.

The men who were slain by Jehu, 2 Kings x. 13, 14. who had violated the law of the land, do not appear to have been the brethren of Ahaziah, according to the flesh, but brethren in a national sense, of the same profession and nation. See where the word has this application, Lev. xxv. 39.-Prov. xviii. 19; in the 2 Kings x. 14.

OBJECTION.

"Whoever will be at the trouble to compare the chronologies of the kings of Judah and Israel, will find a sad mass of confusion to clear up, and a great disagreement in the end, which no one can set right. 2 Kings viii. 26. says,

Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign; 2 Chron. xxii. 2. says forty-two; but his father Jehoram being only thirty-two years old when he began to reign, and having reigned only eight years, the son at this rate must have been two years older than the father."

ANSWER.

But if we find, that there is no "confusion” in the chronology as it stands in the present translation, no “disagreement in the end" which (as these objectors say) "no one can set right;" may I not ask, how such writers can stand excused before the public, who either through ignorance or design, have misled thousands, by stating that which is not true?

It appears, that Jehoram of Judah was, on account of his idolatrous practices, but nominally retained in the government, 2 Chron. xxi. 20. It is said in the translation, he departed without being desired. This has been understood to refer to his death, but such an expression is not to be found in Scripture. The word chemdah means to desire, to notice, according to idiom; the clause truly reads, "he departed without being noticed:" that is he had nothing to do with the government, being abroad engaged in wars, and thus afterward not noticed so as to be the executive branch of the legislature. And the same verse settles this point, for he was not considered as a king at his death ; viz. "They buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings."

We find that when the kings of Judah and Israel were absent, that they always appointed their eldest sons to govern the kingdom. Now Jehoshaphat having engaged to go to war with the king of Israel against the Moabites, 2 Kings xi. 7. appointed his son Jehoram to govern in his absence; the time of this appointment appears to have been in the thirteenth year of Jehoshaphat; now Jehoshaphat reigned twenty-five years, and his son Jehoram was associated in the government of the kingdom for the remaining twelve years, at which period he was thirty-two years old, 2 Kings viii. 17. and his son Ahaziah twelve. Now twelve years of the reign of Jehoram in conjunction with Ahaziah

E

during the life of Jehoshaphat, who was abroad engaged in wars, 1 Chron. xxi. 8, 9. 16, the laws were administered in their joint names.

So that, if the twelve years of the reign of Jehoshaphat, when he was absent in the wars, during which time Jehoram and Ahaziah were appointed to the regency, and the eight years of the reign of Jehoram, in conjunction with his son, during the time that Jehoram was at war with the Edomites, the Philistines and the Arabians, be added; it makes twenty years that Ahaziah was associated in the administration of the laws: which added to twenty-two years, the age of Ahaziah when he is said to begin his reign, 2 Kings viii. 26. will make him forty-two years old, according to 2 Chron. xxii. 2. when he began to reign alone at the death of his father, and reigned one year.

Thus it is clear that when Jehoram had reigned in con-junction with Jehoshaphat to the time of his death, he was thirty-two years old, and his son Ahaziah fourteen, to which add eight years, the reign of Jehoram, will make him forty years old at his death, 2 Chron. xxi. 20. and Ahaziah twenty-two, according to 2 Kings viii. 26. So that the writer of the book of Kings notices the whole time that Ahaziah was associated in the government; but the writer of the book of Chronicles, ch. xxii. 2. only notices his reigning alone at the age of forty-two, which was one year. From which it is obvious, that the son is not made in the narrative" two years older than the father," as is asserted by these objectors, and as has been said by such superficial writers in all Christian ages: but that the narrative plainly shows, that when Jehoram the father of Ahaziah was thirtytwo years old, Ahaziah was fourteen; and that when Jehoram had reigned eight years, he was forty, and Ahaziah twenty-two, according to the received translation.

OBJECTION.

"Sometimes he causes people to hearken to bad advice, to the intent that he may bring evil upon them.' them.' Do we not find the prophet Micah representing the Lord as holding a council, and concerting measures for the destruction of Ahab by falsehood and lies? Does he not approve of the

advice of that spirit, who said, 'And I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets?' which upright council was immediately followed, thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also; go forth and do so.' 1 Kings xxii. 22."

ANSWER.

This is a personi

To all these charges I answer, no. fication of the foreknowledge of God, applied to the idolatrous priests of Ahab, whose hearts were open to the allsearching eye of God. Thus that the lying spirit in them, would persuade Ahab. In the Hebrew it is not said, "thou shalt persuade him ;" but it refers to the omniscience of God, and reads, “ thou wilt persuade him."

OBJECTION.

"It appears evident that the prophets officiated for gra tuities. Jeroboam sent ten loaves and cracknells, and a cruse of honey, 1 Kings xiv. 3. Benhadad sent to the prophet forty camel load of the good things of Damascus, 2 Kings viii. 9. And Naaman brought no less than one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five pounds sterling in silver, and six thousand pieces of gold, with ten suits of clothes. 2 Kings v. 5."

ANSWER.

These objectors ought to have known that Jeroboam, Benhadad, and Naaman, were idolators; and that it was the custom of the idolatrous priests to take presents of their enquirers. But not so the prophets of God, yet they are here by these objectors represented as receiving these valuable presents. Such assertions however must be made either through ignorance or design; for it is expressly said concerning the prophet (who is charged by these writers with receiving one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five pounds sterling in silver, six thousand pieces of gold, and ten suits of clothes) that he refused the offer of the Syrian general, and did not take any thing, verse 16. "But he

said, As the Lord liveth before whom I stand, I will receive none and he urged him to take it, but he refused." After so false a statement of the case, I leave the honest rea

der to conclude what credit can be given to any thing that can be said by these writers.

C

OBJECTION.

"1 Kings xv. 2. says, Abjiam's mother was Maachah the daughter of Abishalom; the 10th verse of this chapter says, she was the mother of Asa."

ANSWER.

This statement is very true, but to bring this forward as an objection, serves only to expose the ignorance of the writers. These finders of errors where no errors are to be found, ought to have known, that it is common in Hebrew to call those sons and daughters, who are very remote from an ancestor; for example, Amaziah was the tenth from David, and yet David is said to have been his father, 2 Kings xiv. 3-Deut xxvi. 5-Ahaz was the thirteenth from David, and yet David is called his father, 2 Kings xvi. 2. So that Maachah the mother of Abijam the father of Asa, though she was the grandmother of Asa, was in the sense of Scripture, the mother of Asa.

OBJECTION.

"We are told that Rehoboam took him Mahalah the daughter of Jerimoth the son of David, to wife, and Abihail the daughter of Eliab the son of Jesse, 2 Chron. xi. 18. The 20th verse then says-' And after her, he took Maachah.' The question is, did he take two wives at the same time, and if so, which of the two do the words after her mean? Surely the writer would have said after them, had this been as it is stated."

ANSWER.

There is no error in grammar here, and if there be in any other part of the received translation, it has been an oversight in the translators. And if the magnitude of such a work as that of the translation of the Bible, be duly considered, objectors may wonder that they did not make

more errors.

There is no authority for the conjunction and, viz. and