do so to me and more also," i. 17; which is found with the simple exchange of God for Lord, in 1 Sam. iii. 17; xiv. 44; 2 Sam. iii. 9, 35; xix. 13; 1 K. ii. 23; xix. 2; xx. 10; 2 K. vi. 31. The other is, literally, though slightly different in the translation, "I have discovered to your ear." iv. 4. Comp. 1 Sam. xx. 2; 2 Sam. vii. 27. Calmet on Ruth. De Wette, vol. II. p. 320.

SECTION V.—TRUTH.

That these books are reliable as history, and are in the main, true, is a much more important question, than any pertaining to authorship.

Those things already noticed, will have more or less influence on the minds of men, in determining their convictions respecting the truth of these books. They have all the marks of candor, sincerity and truthfulness. There are reasons for believing that they were written near the time the events took place, by one every way competent to record them, and ought to be received as substantially true. The supernatural element is the only part of the books that is objectionable, in itself; and if the rest is objected to, it is doubtless mainly, if not entirely on that account, and not because there is a lack of evidence in respect to the books themselves. This subject of miracles has been discussed at length, in vol. II. ; and what is there said, will apply to the other books.

The truth of these books will be best shown, perhaps, by pointing out the fallacy of the arguments usually urged against them. It is one of the expedients of the Skeptic and Rationalist, to describe these books as "peculiar;" thus denying all unity of spirit, design and object in them, and weakening the confidence of men in their truth or reliability. Hence, De Wette says the book of Joshua is peculiar. Vol. II. p. 169.

The book of Joshua is not peculiar. It is precisely such a book as we should expect would follow the Pentateuch. It is in many respects like the Pentateuch. As the Lord promised to be with Joshua, as he had been

with Moses, i. 5, we should expect to find, recorded in the book, the same or similar exhibitions of divine power. These we do find. The passage of the Jordan was very similar to the passage of the Red Sea. The angel of the Lord appeared to Moses; and in like manner the angel appeared to Joshua. The Lord spake to Moses; and he spake to Joshua. Ex. iii. 2; Jos. v. 13; Ex. vi. 1, 10, 28; vii. 1, 8, 10, 19; viii. 1, 5; Num. iii. 1; ix. 1; Jos. i. 1; iv. 1, 15; v. 2, 9; vi. 2, etc.

Of Judges, De Wette says: "The mythology of this book is peculiar. In ch. ii. 1, an angel of Jehovah comes up from Gilgal to Bochim, to admonish the nation. But he speaks as if he were Jehovah himself, and not simply an angel." Other examples are quoted, namely, the appearance to Gideon, vi. 11, 14, 16; and to Manoah, xiii. 3. Vol. II. p. 197. And this is peculiar! Has the author forgotten the appearance of an angel to Hagar-to Abraham-to Mosès-to Joshua? Gen. xvi. 7-10; xxii. 15-18; Ex. iii. 2-6; Jos. v. 13-15; vi. 2–5. In all these instances, the angel was God himself.

In a note by the Editor of De Wette, the late learned Theodore Parker, we have the following comment on the appearance of the angel first mentioned. "Perhaps the original legend taught, that Jehovah himself appeared; and some redactor, thinking this too gross, ascribed the action to the angel of Jehovah. The redactor was very considerate; but, after all, he did not improve the passage much; since it still asserts that the angel was Jehovah, and not an angel merely !

Strange to tell, after declaring the mythology of Judges to be peculiar, he adds, in another place, (Vol. II. p. 200,) that the book has a striking resemblance to Joshua and Deuteronomy, and adds in respect to Joshua, "There is a similarity in the mythology; for example, Angel of Jehovah. ii. 1, sqq. vi. 11, 14. Miraculous signs, vi. 17, 36, as in Ex. iv., and elsewhere."

The books of Samuel are much like those of Joshua, Judges, and the preceding books. There is but one ap

pearance of an angel. 2 Sam. 24. The practice of erecting monuments of stones, to perpetuate the memory of important transactions, is reported in these books. 1 Sam. vi. 18; vii. 12. Significant names are given to persons and places. 1 Sam. i. 20; iv. 21; xxiii. 28. Proverbs are scattered through the other books; and we find them here in Samuel. "Saul among the prophets," "The blind and the lame shall not come into the house. 1 Sam. x. 12; xix. 24; 2 Sam. v. 6–9. There are in Samuel, as in the other books, some expressions that are accommodated to the low conceptions of God that generally prevailed in that age. 1 Sam. ii. 25; xv. 10–35; 2 Sam. xvii. 14.

As in other books, so in these, we find a record of sundry miracles. The evils brought on the Philistines, while the ark was among them; the direction of the kine to a city of the priests, among the Hebrews; the punishment of those who violated the enactments of Moses, by looking into the ark; the thunder that came, at the bidding of Samuel, in harvest time, &c., &c., are of this kind.

Again, De Wette points out, in these books, a large number of what he calls contradictions. Books, that are full of contradictions, can not be true. On this subject we remark, in general terms, that no author would allow to remain in his book, a real and evident contradiction. Contradictions do not lie on the surface, exposed to the observation of the most superficial readIf any part of this narrative be contradictory, in any proper sense of the term, it is obvious that the discrepancy was not seen by the author; and he must be allowed to have understood his own language.

er.

The contradiction in Joshua, that is affirmed of the record of the conquest, as compared with the portion of country still in the hands of the Canaanites, has been before explained. For more on the same subject, the reader may consult our comments on Jos. x. 41; xi. 16, 17; xiii. 2-6. p. 233.

Hebron is said to be "utterly destroyed;" and yet, a little later, it is found to need destroying the second time; and still later, it appears to be destroyed the third time. x. 36, 37; xi. 21; xiv. 12, 13. The same thing is stated of Debir. Comp. x. 38, 39, with xi. 21 and xv. 15-17. De Wette adds to this still another passage, making the same place to be again destroyed; but the passage is so obviously a repetition of a previous record, that we cannot doubt De Wette himself was aware of the fact. Jud. i. 11-13. Perhaps he would have us believe, that Joshua died twice, and was twice buried; because the fact is recorded, both in Joshua and Judges; or else admit the record to be contradictory! Jos. xxiv. 29, 30; Jud. ii. 8, 9.

Such passages are not contradictory. In some instances, there are two destructions. On the approach of Joshua and his army, many of the people would flee away and hide themselves in the caves and dens, with which that country abounded; so that when all were "utterly destroyed," that were in the city, or could be found, there were people enough concealed, to make a formidable resistance, on another occasion. There is scarcely a city, on the face of the earth, where this would not occur, under like circumstances; and, therefore, it is fair to conclude that it occurred in the days of Joshua

A "contradiction" is stated by De Wette, on p. 178, Vol. II., that is quite amusing. "In these accounts some anachronisms naturally occur. Thus, in xvi. 2, Luz is mentioned as one of the boundaries of the tribe of Joseph; (?) but in Jud. i. 26, Luz was not built till after the death of Joshua."

It is difficult to understand how De Wette, or anybody else, can read the passage in Judges, without seeing, that the Luz mentioned in the boundaries, is the one destroyed by the children of Joseph; and the one built after the death of Joshua, is the one alluded to as being built by the very man who betrayed the other city.

Such are the facts, as given in the record; and "he that runs may read " them. It appears from a note that the error has been pointed out to De Wette; but he fails to perceive it!

Our author does not point out any contradictions in Judges; but he redeems himself for this omission, by the number he finds in Samuel. We cannot notice them all, but we will place before the reader the most important ones.

1. When David killed Goliath, it is said, that he brought his head to Jerusalem. But it appears from another passage, that Jerusalem was not at that time in the possession of the Israelites, or at least was not the capital. 1 Sam. xvii. 54.

Explanation. The head was disposed of for a time, elsewhere; but after Jerusalem became the royal seat, it was carried thither. The historian, writing out the facts afterwards, did not see fit to mention both cir cumstances, concerning the head, but only the most important, namely, that it was brought to Jerusalem. Not suspecting that he was writing anything but the truth, (as indeed he was not,) he gave occasion for an apparent contradiction, that he might have avoided, by being more particular.

2. While David was hiding in different places, from Saul, his enemies informed Saul that he was at the hill of Hachilah, south of the desert. In another place, they report that he is at Hachilah, east of the desert. 1 Sam. xxiii. 19; xxvi. 1.

Explanation. It is notorious that the Hebrews never mention a place, as between two points of the compass. A place that was south east, as in the case before us, was spoken of indifferently, as south or east.

3. David spares the life of Saul, once in a cave, and again in his camp. 1 Sam. xxiv. 7; xxvi. 9. Assuming that these are different accounts of the same transaction, they are made contradictory.

Explanation. We have no right to assume that these