LET.

and David's long wars, during moft XVI. of which time the country had been overrun by the Philistines, &c. who would propagate their idolatry, with it's flagitious concomitants. In short, Ifrael had provoked God; for otherwife, 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 the people, an opportunity was taken to inflict it. Joab appears to have been aware of the confequence, as a known case. "(fays he) will my lord the king be "a caufe of punishment, trefpafs, or

ઃઃ

"Why

forfeiture, to Ifrael?" As if he knew, that, upon a vifitation, they must be punished who should be found guilty; and was unwilling that the

XVI.

LET. number of the king's fubjects should be leffened. But David might think it neceffary, and his zeal prevailed. Otherwife, it is extraordinary that fuch a man as Joab fhould fee what David either could not, or would not fee.

This account of the tranfaction was offered to the public, many years ago, by a learned writer, well skilled in biblical knowlege and criticism. That it is entirely free from objection, or will folve all difficulties, is more, perhaps, than can be affirmed. But it is curious, and certainly deferves attention.

On the whole, to adopt the words of Dr. Chandler, "If they who object, credit the hiftory of the Old "Teftament in this part of it, and "think it is true, that one of these

"three

XVI.

"three plagues was offered to David, LET. "as the punishment of his offence; "that he chofe the peftilence, that "it came accordingly, and was re"moved upon his interceffion; they 66 are as much concerned to account "for the difficulties of the affair, as "I or any other perfon can be. If

66

they do not believe this part of the "hiftory, as the facred writers repre"fent it, let them give us the ac"count of it, as it ftands 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 fudden."

LET

LET.

XVII.

LETTER

A

XVII.

FEW more doubts remain, touching the prophecies, and fome paffages in the New Testament.

P. 39. "The great evangelical "prophet could foretell the downfall "of Babylon by Cyrus, but could "not tell the name of the Meffiah."

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," fay the infidels, P. 40. But how fo? Ifaiah fpake of Cyrus at least 100 years before his birth. Had a history of Cyrus been among

among the books of Scripture, under LET. the name of Ifaiah, they would have XVII. placed the author, for longevity, in the fame class with their friend Jafher. "Ifaiah could not tell the name of "Meffiah." He could have told it, had it been communicated to him, as that of Cyrus was. He has described Meffiah in a manner not to be miftaken. There might be very good reafons why the name was not declared beforehand. And as God did not fee proper to do it, there certainly were fuch reasons.

But if Chrift 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 fame as to

be