being killed; it was only the criterion or teft, by which thofe of that tribe were distinguished from other Ifraelites, that they might be put to the fword according to their demerit, for their false reflections and infolent menaces against the victorious general. For it seems fuch could not utter Shibboleth, but only Sibboleth, as indeed we may fee the like at this day, among the inhabitants of different counties, where all speak the fame language.

Again he makes, Of the tribe of Benjamin killed by the other tribes 45000,' whereas they were according to the history only 2 5100; indeed it was impoffible there could be fo many killed as he represents, fince the whole number of the Benjamites, in conjunction with the men of Gibeah before the battle, according to the Hebrew and Chaldee, amounted only to 26700, Judges, xx. 15. but, according to the Vulgate, whose reading our author fometimes prefers, and to many* copies of the Seventy, fell fhort even of this fum by one thousand. Accordingly, it is faid, Judges, xx. 35. The children of Ifrael de❝ftroyed and smote of the Benjamites that day, twen'ty and five thousand, and an hundred men.' And to this account agrees the particular detail of their loffes in the field of battle, and in the paths of flight, together with the general combination of both into

* Bos in his edition of the Seventy from the Vatican MS. has only 23000, as the whole number of the Benjamite forces. But the Alexandrian and Oxford MSS. have 25000, befides the 700 of Gibeah; and theirs must be the true reading, because all copies have the numbers killed, and the numbers furviving, as above. Jofephus makes the number of the troops 25600, and the flain only 25000, Antiq.

5. 2. II.

one number which follows, ver. 44, 45, 46. allowance being made for the omiflion of the odd hundred, who are evidently fuppofed to have fallen fome where in this war, as it is faid only 600 men remained of their whole multitude at the rock Rimmon, ver. 47.

I have no right to find fault with his article about the‡ Bethshemites, who were struck dead for looking into the ark, as difingenuous. For the text, 1 Sam. vi. 19. is commonly read and tranflated in fuch a manner, that his state of the killed here 50070 men is perfectly exact. Yet it is well known to all who are acquainted with facred criticism, that Bochart, Le Clerc, and others, explain the original, even as it ftands at present, in fo different a way, that the whole number which perished on this occafion makes only seventy men. And Dr. And Dr. Kennicot, upon the authority of two Hebrew MSS. which have only one number in this place, instead of two numbers, so reforms the text, (how juftly I cannot now examine) as to be capable of no other sense than that seventy were all that died. But why does he defcribe their offence by looking at the ark, a thing which, on its return, appears natural and innocent, and in fome degree unavoidable, when the fault feems, both by the Hebrew and all verfions, fo far as I know, to have been undeniably their opening its cover, and infpecting it? Surely as none of the priests themselves, or at least none of the common Levites, were by the law allowed to touch this facred symbol of the divine presence, this renders their tranfgreffion higher, and, by confequence, the punishment more de

Philofophical Dictionary, page 194.

fenfible. See Numb. iv. 15-19. and compare Exod. xxiv. 1 5. with the paffage about the fate of the Bethfhemites, a little before referred to.

To finish my animadverfions on this chapter, whereas he calls the Jews, exterminated by the hand of God himself, or by their civil wars from the time that they wandered in the defert, till the time that they had a king elected by drawing lots, 239020, without reckoning those that died in the battles against the Canaanites, or that perished in the defert, (by which last he must fignify, that fell by natural disease and fatal accident) there must be deduced from this number, no fewer than 39900; for, that he swells the Jews, whom the Levites killed after the adoration of the golden calf, 20000 beyond the truth, was fhewed before; and now it hath been evinced, that he increases the flain of the tribe of Benjamin, 19900 beyond the hiftory. And it follows alfo, there would fall to be fubtracted ftill 50000 more, if either Dr. Kennicot's reading of the text in Samuel be the true one, or the explication of the text, in its present form, which these learned men, Bochart ‡ and Le Clerc, have proposed, as I incline to think it ought, fhould be preferred.

+ See Kennicot's Obfervations on I Sam. vi. 19.

Bochart Hierozoic. p. 1. lib. 2. cap. 36. Le Clerc Comment. in locum.

SECTION XIV.

Of falfhoods in his account of the Jews after Saul, in chapter forty-fecond; as, that David delivered up feven grandsons of Saul to the Gabonites, only to be perplexed. That he ordered Solomon to put to death Adonijah.—And that the ten tribes were enflaved or difperfed for ever, except fome hufbandmen who were kept to cultivate the land, &c.

MR. VOLTAIRE, in the forty-fecond chapter of his Philofophy of Hiftory, profeffes to treat of the Jews after Saul. But it will not detain us long. For he is very short in his relation of their affairs and tranfactions, through that part of this period of their ftate which the Scripture comprehends. And we now aim only to expose his misrepresentations hereof. Still, however, it affords additional proof that he is a very unfaithful guide.

t

Thus, he tells us, †' David delivered up feven grandfons of Saul to the Gabonites, only to be per'plexed,' when, from the facred writer, we learn they were only his five grandfons by his eldest daughter Merab, whom Michal his daughter had brought up for Adriel, and his two fons by his concubine Rizpah. Nor was his delivery of them the cause of his perplexity. It was indeed antecedent to it. For, having inquired of the Lord what offence gave rise to the famine which afflicted the land three years, and having been anfwered that it was the murder of the Gibeonites † Page 196.

by Saul and his bloody house, he sent to know what fatisfaction they demanded for the wrong. They, instead of defiring filver or gold as a compenfation, required that seven of his fons might be given into their hands to be put to death by them. Upon this only he appears to have been reduced to fome distress how he should gratify them, and fave Mephibofheth, the son of Jonathan his friend, from gratitude to his father, and regard to the oath of amity between them. And he extricated himself from it by seeking out and conveying to them these males of the family abovementioned, whom it was the more inexcufable in Voltaire to call Saul's feven grandfons here, as in the former sentence he had faid, 'Ifhbofheth and Me

phibofheth, Saul's fons, were affaffinated;' for this Mephibofheth was the very fon of Saul by his concubine Rizpah, who was delivered to the Gibeonites, and by them killed. See 1 Sam. xxi. 1—9. and compare 1 Sam. xviii. 19.-I fhall only add, how unreafonable in infidels to make the whole of this an artifice in David for fecuring himself and his family in the poffeffion of the crown? For this accufation there is no handle, fince he fpared all the male branches of Saul's house who had the firft claim, particularly Mephibofheth the next heir, as Jonathan's eldest fon, whofe fon Micah again had a numerous pofterity, 2 Sam. ix. 12. Perhaps these very men who were put in the power of the Gibeonites, had been employed in murdering and plundering them, that they might enrich themselves with their spoils.

Again, he fays, David ordered ‡ Solomon his fon *to put to death Adonijah his other fon, and his gePage 196.

P