145 



then, shall we refer the conduct of the Philistines, who seeiii 

 spontaneously to forget and overlook their late and lengthened 

 subjection, while they remember, without effort, their former 

 and remote triumph? And, on Avhat principle equally irre- 

 concileable and anomalous, have the historians of Israel so 

 carefully recorded the oppressive domination of the Philis- 

 tines during forty years, (Jud. 1. 3. 1.) and so completely for- 

 getten their subsequent subjugation, and the triumph of their 

 countrymen during a period equally long ? Surel}', they were 

 bound to record the mercies, equally as the punishments of 

 heaven, when writing the history of the particular providence 

 of God. But we see, on the one hand, the Philistines ex- 

 pressly assert their dominion over Israel, and implicitl}' at 

 least, deny their own subjection; and we see on the other, the 

 sacred historians acknowledge the explicit justice of theii- 

 statement, admit the subjection of their countrymen, and set 

 up no claim to any subsequent authority over their oppressors. 

 Are we then to admit into the history of truth, facts, state- 

 ments, and periods, unauthorized, nay, contradicted bj- Scrip- 

 ture, in order to serve the purposes of system— surely not. 



But we may also remark, as an observable singularity, that 

 Samuel, when recounting to the people, the mercies and the 

 punishments of God, notices three particular oppressions: — 

 that of Jabin, of the Philistines, and of the- king of Moab. 

 But he records four deliverers, and among them Jepthah and 

 himself. The oppression of the Ammonites, from which 



u 2 Jepthah 



