Produced by David Widger





THE LIFE OF DAVID

OR, THE HISTORY OF THE MAN AFTER GOD'S OWN HEART

Omnia probate, benum tenete.--S. P.

Reprinted From The Edition Op 1766.

London:

Printed And Published By J. Carlile, 55, Fleet-Street.



To the REV. SAM. CHANDLER,

D.D. F.R. and A. SS.

To whom, Sir, could the republication of this little history with more
propriety be addressed, than to a gentleman to whom it is under such
considerable obligations? When it first appeared, it was honoured with
your notice in an especial manner; and is not a little benefited by your
_labours_. You, Sir, with a _careful_ hand noted its errors; and what
has stood the test of your strictures is certainly established with
additional authority. Whatever might be the motives which influenced _so
vigorous_ an exertion of your _learned_ and _critical_ powers--powers
so universally acknowledged and respected, the author of this piece
will not now inquire: it is sufficient to him, that they operated to the
extending the knowledge of his tract, among that class of readers who
stood most in need of the information it furnished; and he is persuaded
you will with pleasure hear his assurances, that the work owes no small
share of what approbation it may have gained, to your _elaborate review_
of it. Several worthy pious persons having candidly declared in private
conversation, (and unknowingly to the author himself) that the perusal
of your book really strengthened the facts advanced in the history. For
this, therefore, he considers you as entitled to his thanks; and that
his acknowledgments might be as public as the obligation, no method of
conveyance seemed more proper, than to prefix them to this new Edition
of "_The History of the Man after God's own Heart._"

He scorns, Sir, to follow the practice of Dedicators in common, who,
from venal motives, surfeit their patrons with fulsome adulation:
he will not, therefore, call the blushes into your countenance, by
expressing his private sentiments of your _learned_ Review of this
Historical Sketch, farther than by one observation; which is, that had
you been totally unknown in the republic of letters before, your apology
for the death of Uriah would alone have raised your literary fame beyond
the power of envious detraction. However, not to offend your modesty, he
desists from farther encomiums; but with a wish that you may long live
to enjoy the reputation acquired by so _laudable_ a performance, he
concludes with subscribing himself,

Sir, your greatly obliged, and very humble Admirer.




PREFACE.

Some reverend panegyrists* on our late king,** have, a little
unfortunately, been fond of comparing him with a monarch in no respect
resembling him; except in the length of his reign, thirty and three
years: which a lucky text informed them to be the duration of David's
sovereignty over the Hebrew nation. Had our good old king died a year
sooner, or had we been indulged with him a year longer, the opportunity
of applying this text would then have been lost; and in either case we
might not have heard of the parallel.

A reverence for the memory of a worthy Prince, has occasioned the
world's being troubled with a new history of king David, (which,
otherwise might not have appeared) merely to shew how the memory of the
British monarch is affected by the comparison.

"Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?" is the language of
Jesus Christ. "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good;" is the
language of the apostle Paul. The liberty thus granted is unlimited; but
it is more than mere grant of liberty, these are positive injunctions:
let no one then be so timid as to resign an inclination to satisfy
just doubts: in Britain, thanks to the obstinate heresy of our brave
forefathers, no audacious Romish priest dare prescribe limits to the
exercise of our reasoning faculties; and Protestant ones surely will
not: nay, they cannot, consistently with those principles which justify
their dissent from the Romish communion. An honest desire to obtain
truth, will sanctify the most rigid scrutiny into every thing. An
apostle has told us, that we are not to believe even an angel from
Heaven, who should preach any other gospel than that of Christ;* and,
no authority can be so sacred, as to set aside the _most valuable
distinction of humanity_, with which our Creator has furnished us; or to
give the lie to our most self-evident conceptions of right and wrong.

     * Dr. Chandler, Mr. Palmer and others.

     **  George the IId.


If that liberty, of which Britons boast the possession, means any thing,
it must primarily include freedom of thought; without which there can be
no freedom of action. Thus it must mean an uncontrolled power to examine
the validity of every proposition offered to our assent; without which
power, and the due exercise of it, our assent cannot be the assent of
rational beings. If the reformed religion means any thing, it must mean
a religion founded by the authority, not of councils and synods, but
of conviction, the result of private judgment. True Protestants do not
puzzle themselves about the decisions of Trent, Constance, or Dort; they
protest against all authoritative dictates; disciples of the meek, the
lowly, the humane Jesus, they seek of themselves to judge of right or
wrong. Who is most the Protestant, the friend to human kind, and to
truth? Those who appeal to the human understanding, and submit to the
public judgment whether things are really so or not; or those who say,
they are so, they shall be so, you shall acknowledge them to be so, or
else----?

     * Galatians i. 8.

Let not weak-minded Christians who think truth not able to maintain its
authority without legal enforcements, lament what they call licentious
abuses of that liberty on which we are happy to congratulate ourselves:
injudicious productions of the pen will always meet the treatment they
deserve. Fallacious pretensions to reasoning cannot deceive mankind in
these liberal times; nor can truth be obscured, when the attention of
honest inquiries after it, is properly exerted. If the little historical
sketch which follows, and which in fact, exhibits no more than what we
have all daily read, without presuming to decide upon; if it really
is that audacious calumny which many roundly affirm it to be; it will
doubtless be considered as such: if, on the contrary, it contains
undeniable matters of fact, fallaciousness will appear in the angry
objections against it; and the writer trusts, the futility of such
objections, have already been made sufficiently apparent.

The name of David has never been mentioned by divines but with the
greatest respect, from the time in which he lived to the present day;
and he is always quoted as an illustrious example of holiness! so
illustrious, that the greatest instance of purity that ever existed on
earth, was frequently saluted by way of eminence, in reference to him,
_Son of David!_ so illustrious, that on the death of the late king
of Great Britain, many sermons were preached and published, in which,
parallels are drawn betwixt him and this standard of piety, in order to
justify encomiums on the former, by declaring how nearly he resembled
the latter.

In what manner David first acquired, and has ever since maintained, this
extraordinary reputation, is not difficult to deduce, he was advanced,
by an enraged prophet, from obscurity to the Hebrew throne; and taught
by the fate of the unhappy monarch who was raised in the same manner,
whom he supplanted, and whose family he crushed, he prudently attached
himself to the cause of his patrons,* and they were the trumpeters
of his fame. The same order of men, true to their common cause, have
continued to sound the praise of this church-hero from generation to
generation, unto the present time: in like manner the grand violator of
the English constitution obtained the epithet of _holy Martyr_.

A new scrutiny being made, however, into David's claim to sanctity,
which, notwithstanding a very learned defence of him, turned out so
greatly to his dishonour; the scene has been shifted by a few whose
sense has overbalanced their bigotry by two or three scruples. Some
such, like Sheba of old, blow the trumpet and cry, "We have no part in
David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse!" In this manner
have some clerical weather-cocks veered about to an opposite point of
the compass; and David, who, till now has been considered as a man who
"did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside
from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only
in the matter of Uriah the Hittite," has, by one stroke of politics,
been resigned to the mercy of his detectors; and the importance of the
detection endeavoured to be annihilated, as the easier task; all which
appears with rather an ill grace, at a time when it is manifestly
extorted.

     * The Prophets and Priest.

Thus much being premised relating to the conduct of the champions for
orthodoxy, on the occasion of this little squib which has produced so
much bustle in the clerical hives, proceed we to say something of the
tract itself.

The intention was, without any regard to remote objects, or heed of
future consequences, which in fact ought _never_ to be considered in
investigating any point; to give a fair undisguised narrative of the
life and transactions of David, king of Israel.

This, however, was not so easy to perform, as it was to project; from
three difficulties which impeded the execution.

1. It is not easy to conquer the early prejudices of education in favour
of the Hebrew nation; which the careful inculcation of their story
during our infancy, hinders our seeing in a proper light: so that
relations which might shock humanity in what is called prophane history,
are read without any emotion but that of reverence, in _this_. This
misconception is in great measure assisted.

2. By their History being written _by themselves_: and difficult to be
corrected.

3. By the broken unconnected manner in which it is transmitted down
to us: which renders it impossible to give a complete narrative of any
period in it.

A common share of humanity, which a little attention to common sense
enabled the author to extend to every nation under Heaven as the objects
of it, relieved him from the first of these difficulties: to overcome
the other two, he has assumed the liberty of giving _his_ sense to what
appears dark, or misrepresented; which he hopes will not be denied him,
so long as it is not found that a forced construction is put upon any
thing cited; or, that it is represented in any other light than what it
naturally appears in, when considered with the freedom, which it is our
duty to use in the examination of every historical record.

And lest it should be imagined that too great liberties are taken with
the biblical writers; it may not be amiss to mention once for all, that
innumerable instances might be produced, to shew that the authority of
_the Lord_, so continually quoted to sanctify every transaction related;
constituted for the most part, nothing more than national phrases, which
obtained universally among so bigoted a people as on all occasions the
Jews appear to have been: one-twelfth part of whom were appropriated
to the priesthood! A phraseology in some measure similar obtained in
England, at that time, when shunning the cruel talons of papacy, the
people rushed into the jaws of wild enthusiasm. That the sense in which
the acts of David are here understood, is the most obvious and natural,
appears from the amazing pains it has occasioned his champions, to force
another upon them. Of this, the Life of David, by Dr. Delany, is a most
remarkable instance; but the gross palliations, puerile conjectures,
and mean shifts to which he has been driven, prove the difficulty of the
task; while they are too frivolous to bias any, but the most _Catholic
believers_.

Mr. Stockhouse, in his History of the Bible, has urged arguments against
particular passages, under the title of _Objections_; so cogent, that
_his answers_ to them, certainly could not be satisfactory even to
himself.

Dr. Chandler has lately added his name to the list of David's
apologists. Strange! that so holy a king should need the exertion of so
much learned and critical dexterity, to establish his fame for goodness
of heart! This gentleman's performance, which was published as a reply
to the first edition of the present work, is a very extraordinary piece;
and shews that, great learning is no security for soundness of judgment.
The Doctor's book has been considered in a letter addressed to him, and
published separately; to which the reader is referred for an examination
into the merits of his arguments. In answering the Doctor, new lights
opened on many occurrences, which, as far as they could be detached from
that particular controversy, are taken into the present edition.

The best of kings is a title which adulation and servility have always
conferred on the most contemptible, as well as the most detestable
tyrants; and the frequency of its application to the object is ever in
proportion as he is undeserving of it. Had the flattering sycophants
of king David been satisfied with applying to him this common-place
appellation, rational men, who form their conclusions from the result of
general experience, would have inferred only that he had been one of the
numerous herd of bad princes who have oppressed mankind, and there would
have been nothing peculiar either in the fact or the inference. But
when the extremity of adulation conferred on David the title of _The
Man after God's own heart_, thinking men, who know the source from which
such adulation ever flows, are prepared to expect, in the development of
his history, a character pre-eminently wicked, and in this they are not
deceived.

All historians of credit agree in describing _God's chosen people_,
the _Jews_, as the most vicious and detestable of mankind;* their own
historians confirm this character of them, and the whole series of facts
which constitute their history, prove it beyond a possibility of doubt.

     * Tacitus describes the Jewish people as formed of the worst
     outcasts of the surrounding nations, collected together by
     Moses, and kept for ever separated from the rest of mankind,
     by an opposition of manners, and hostility of sentiment. Nam
     passimus quisque, spretis religionibus patriis, tributa et
     stipes illuc congerebant; unde auctæ Judeorum res--ad versus
     omnes alios hostile odium--transgressi in morem eorum, idem
     usurpent; nec quidquam prius imbuuntur quam contemnere Deos,
     exuere patriam; arentes, liberos, fratres, vilia habere.--
     Ticiti Hist. Lib. v.

Among _the chosen people of God_--the most depraved of all nations--it
is pretty certain that the worst and wickedest man of that nation was
David, _The Man after God's own heart_. The truth of this proposition
will be abundantly proved in the following short history.

A question will here naturally present itself, how the Jews became so
much more vicious and depraved than their neighbours? And to resolve
that question, it will be necessary to consider in what respects their
laws and customs differed from those of others. It will be found that
they differed most essentially from all other nations in the world in
two particulars: 1st. They had more religion than any other nation;
and, 2dly. They had more priests. Other nations among whom superstitious
rites and ceremonies prevailed, were satisfied with practising them on
solemn festivals, and occasionally on particular or important events;
but the Jews practised their superstition incessantly: none of the
common duties, or ordinary functions of life, could be performed by
them, without a reference to the rules of their superstition; they
were bound to a strict observance of them whenever they ate, drank, or
performed any other of the natural functions.* **


     * Moses quo sibi in posterum gentem firmaret, novos ritus
     coutrariosque ceteris mortalibus indidit; profana illic
     omnia, quae apud nos sacra; rursum concessa apud illos, quæ
     nobis incesta.--Seperati epulis, discreti cubilibus,
     projectissima ad libidinem gens, aliena rum cubitu
     abstinent, inter se nihil illicitum, circumcidere genitalia
     instituere, ut diversitate noscanttir.--Taciti Hist. Lib. v.
     It is impossible to draw a more disgusting picture of a
     nation than this elegant and correct historian, in
     describing the Jews.

     ** The Romans, though so numerous and powerful a nation, had
     but very few priests, compared to the Jews. The Augurs were
     at first only 3, and in process of time were increased to
     15. The Arnspices were 12. The Pontifices were at first but
     4, and were afterwards increased to 10. The Flamines were
     but 3. The Sàlit 12. The Feciales, who were 20 in number,
     though classed by authors among the priesthood, were merely
     civil officers employed as heralds. And the Vestals, or Nuns
     of Rome, were only 4; altogether between 50 and 60. Vide
     Kennett's Roman Antiq. And yet Saint Austin, De Cevitate
     Dei, Lib. iv. cap. 15, admits that the Romans were so
     virtuous, that God gave them the empire of the world because
     they were more virtuous than other nations, vet, with true
     Christian charity, he says, that they must nevertheless he
     damned as heathens. We do not find that the priests of other
     enlightened nations of antiquity were proportionality much
     more numerous than amoung the Romans. In England at present
     the number of the priesthood cannot be much less than
     20,000; there are near 10,000 parishes, each having one
     priest at least, several two, and some three or more,
     exclusive of Deans and Chapters, Prebends, &c. &c. and all
     these in the established church, as it is called, exclusive
     of a great variety of other sectaries of different
     denominations.


Other nations had a few priests dedicated to their gods or idols,
seldom exceeding a few dozen in a whole nation but the Jewish priesthood
constituted a twelfth part of the whole people, and claimed and
exercised the privilege of devouring a tenth part of the produce of the
country, without contributing any thing to its productive labour.* And
it is probable that the Jewish nation alone, though but a miserable
handful of semi-barbarous savages, had more priests than the rest of the
then known world collectively, and were consequently more vicious and
more enslaved than any other people.

     * The Jewish priesthood being one tribe, or twelfth part of
     the nation, do not appear to have assumed to themselves much
     more than an equal proportion, compared to their numbers, in
     taking the tithe or tenth part of the produce of the land,
     however unjust it may appear that they should be supported
     in idleness at the expence of the industry of the rest: but
     the English priesthood, though abundantly numerous, do not
     form above one five-hundredth part of the whole nation, yet
     they have the conscience to take also the tenth of the whole
     produce, which is near fifty times more than their just
     share, according to the proportion of their romish models,
     from whose example they pretend to derive them.

Mankind have been too long duped by that universal _cant_ of priests,
who, in their language, have ever affected to couple _religion and
morality_ together, and to represent them as _inseparably united_,
though the slightest attention must show that they are perfectly
_distinct_, and a full and mature consideration of the subject must
prove that they are even extremely _opposite_. They well knew that man,
in the most abject state of mental degradation to which superstition
could reduce him, must still acknowledge the force and excellence of
virtue and morality, and must perceive their necessary tendency to
promote his welfare and happiness. They well knew how useful to their
own views and interests it would be to persuade him that religion,
virtue, and morality, were one and the same, or, at least, intimately
and inseparably connected; the credulity of man gave credit to the
imposture without examination, and the uniform experience of above 2,000
years has not hitherto been sufficient to undeceive him.

Unhappy man! destined for ever to be the dupe of his own credulity, in
opposition to the testimony of his experience, and the evidence of his
senses. Does not the history of all ages show, that the most religious
nations have always been, and still are, the most vicious and immoral!

Another most formidable evil necessarily results from such a system of
superstition, that is, a state of civil slavery, which is always found
its universal concomitant. Whenever the human mind is debased and
degraded by a system of gross superstition, it becomes incapable of any
one manly, liberal, or independent sentiment; every energy of the mind
is lost, reason is surrendered, virtue, the chief support, if not the
sole foundation of freedom, is banished, and man is fitted to receive
the abject yoke of slavery; tyranny and despotism make an easy conquest
of him, and the priest is ever ready to rivet his chains, and perpetuate
his bondage, by the pretended sanction of Heaven. The power and
influence of the priest and the tyrant is ever in proportion to the
debasement of man; they have a common interest, have ever made a common
cause against him, and have constantly erected their common throne on
the ruins of his freedom, his welfare, and his happiness.

Let us not, therefore, be deterred from unmasking to the view of mankind
that immense mass of vice and depravity which constitute the foundation
of the Jewish superstition; let no blind veneration for that hideous
idol deter us from exposing its deformity; let us cultivate that which
is truly good and useful; let reason assume her just empire over the
mind of man, and credulity, ignorance, and folly, abdicate their usurped
dominion: then shall we soon behold the galling fetters of vice and
superstition broken by the irresistible power of virtue, morality, and
truth.




THE LIFE OF DAVID.

The first establishment of regal government among the Hebrews, was
occasioned by the corrupt administration of Joel and Abiah, the two sons
of Samuel, whom he had deputed to judge Israel in the decline of his
life.* The people, exasperated at the oppression they laboured under,
applied to Samuel for redress, testifying a desire to experience a
different mode of government, by peremptorily demanding a king.** At
this, however, Samuel was greatly displeased: not that his sons had
tyrannized over the people, for of that he takes no manner of notice,
neither exculpating them, nor promising the people redress; his chagrin
arose from this violent resumption of the supreme magistracy out of
the hands of his family; a circumstance for which he expresses great
resentment.*** He consults the Lord, and not knowing else how the
insurrection might terminate, in his name yields to their desires;
promising them a king with vengeance to them.**** "For,"(5) says the
Lord, "they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I
should not reign over them."(6) The people, nevertheless, resolving to
free themselves from present oppression, at the hazard of the threatened
judgments, obstinately persisted in their demand, and dispersed not
without a promise of compliance.

     * 1 Sam. viii. 3.

     ** Ver. 5.

     *** Ver. 6, &c.

     **** Ver. 11, &c.

     (5) Ver 7, compared with chap. ix.

     (6) Chap. x. 1.

Samuel, to all outward appearance, chose the most impartial method of
choosing a king, which was by lot, from among the people assembled by
tribes; but prudently pitches upon his man, previous to the election;
the whole tenor of his conduct manifesting, that he intended to give
them a king in name, but still to retain the supreme authority in
his own hands, by choosing one who should continue subordinate to his
dictates. Opportunely for his purpose, a young countryman, named Saul,
having rambled about to seek his fathers asses, which had strayed, and
finding all search after them vain, applied to Samuel as a prophet,*
with a fee in his hand, to gain intelligence of his beasts.

We gather from several passages in Jewish history, that there were
seminaries of prophets, i.e. the universities of the times, where
youth were trained up to the mystery of prophesying. We find there were
false prophets, nonconformists, not of the establishment; we find that
even the true ones were liable to be imposed on by their brethren;**
and we find moreover, by this instance, that prophets did not disdain
to give assistance in their prophetical character, concerning domestic
matters, for reasonable gratuities. A chief among the prophets, one
who had been a judge over Israel, is applied to in a pecuniary way, for
intelligence concerning lost cattle.***

     * 1 Sam. ix. 7, 8.

     ** 1 Kings, xiii. 18., Josephus in loco.

     *** Pretensions to divinations continue to this day, though,
     in the opinion of reformed churches, all prophesying and
     miracles have long since ceased. These modern prophets are
     drolly ridiculed by our facetious countryman, Butler, in the
     person of Sydrophel, a dealer,

          "In Destiny's dark counsel?,
          Who sage opinions of the moon sells;
          To whom all people, far and near,
          On deep importances repair.
          When brass or pewter hap to stray,
          Or linen slinks out of the way;
          When geese and pullen are seduc'd,
          And sows of sucking pigs are chous'd:
          When cattle feel indisposition,
          And need th' opinion of physician;
          When murrain reigns in hogs or sheep,
          And chickens languish of the pip;
          When yeast and outward means do fail,
          And have no power to work on ale;
          When butter does refuse to come.
          And love proves cross and humoursome;
          To him with questions and with urine,
          They for discov'ry flock, or curing.


It has been said, that this is the only instance recorded of a prophet
being applied to for purposes of this nature; but it appears that it
was usual for men to have recourse to prophets, and that the phrase was,
"Come, and let us go to the seer;"* and that prophetical intelligence
was paid for, is evident from the inquiry between Saul and his servant,
concerning their ability to gratify him.**

But, to proceed: Saul not only found his asses, but a kingdom into the
bargain; and had the spirit of the Lord given;*** to him which we
find taken away**** again, when he proved untractable: though it seems
somewhat odd, how he could possibly prove disobedient, while he acted
under the influence of this Divine Spirit! For, the possibility being
admitted, the advantage of inspiration is difficult to be conceived.

After Samuel had in private(5) anointed Saul king, and told him his
asses were already found, he dismissed him for the present. He then
assembled the people for the election of a king: at which assembly,
behold, the lot fell on the tribe of Benjamin; and in that, on the
family of Matri; and finally, on Saul, the son of Kish.(6) An election
somewhat resembling consistories for the appointment of bishops; where
the person being previously fixed on, God is solemnly prayed to for a
direction of their choice.

     * 1 Sam. ix. 9.

     ** Ver. 7, 8.

     *** Ch.x. 6.

     **** Ch. xvi. 19.

     (5) Ch. x. 1.

     (6) Ch. x. 20, 21.


It is not intended here to give a detail of the reign of king Saul;
the notice hitherto taken of him being merely because the life of David
could not be properly introduced without mentioning the alteration of
government, and the manner in which monarchy was established in Israel:
since Samuel's disappointment in Saul, naturally leads to his similar
choice of David.

The disobedience of Saul, in daring to sacrifice without his patron the
prophet,* who failed of coming according to his appointment; and his
lenity and prudence, in sparing the king, and some cattle, from a nation
which Samuel, in the name of the Lord, had commanded him utterly
to extirpate,** irrevocably lost him the favour of this imperious
inexorable prophet: and, in the end, produced the miserable destruction
not only of himself, but of his family: which will occasion no surprise,
when we consider the absolute dominion and ascendency which the Jewish
priests maintained over this ignorant superstitious people. A dominion
which every article in the Levitical law enlarged and strengthened.

We are not to imagine that the sparing Agag, king of the Amalekites, was
the only cause of this rupture between him and Samuel. For we may gather
from other parts of his history, that Saul was not over-well affected
towards his patrons the Levites;*** in subjection to whom he had too
much spirit to continue. Samuel quickly perceived he had mistaken his
man, he haughtily avowed his intention of deposing him;**** and ordering
Agag to be brought into his presence, he hewed him in pieces--"before
the Lord."(5)

     * 1 Sam. xiii. 8-14.

     ** Ch. xv. 3.

     *** Ch. 22.18,19. and Ch. xxviii. 9.

     **** Ch. xiii. 14. xv. 26. 28.

     (5) Ver. 33., Ch. xvi. 13.

We now come to the hero of the history.

In pursuance of his intention to make another king, Samuel went under
the pretence of a sacrifice, and anointed another country youth, which
was David, the youngest son of Jesse, the Bethlehemite; and gave him
the spirit of the Lord, which he had just taken from poor Saul.
The king, in the mean time, reflecting on the precariousness of his
situation, now that the priests, on the part of Samuel, were incensed
against him; and well knowing their influence among his subjects, fell
into a melancholy disorder of mind,* which his physicians were unable to
remove.**

This was artfully made the occasion of introducing David to court. The
king was advised to divert himself with music; and David was contrived
to be recommended to him for his skill on the harp.*** Saul accordingly
sent to Jesse, to request his son; which was immediately complied
with: and David was detained at court, in the capacity of the king's
armour-bearer.**** Here the story begins to grow confused, beyond
_lay_-skill to reconcile. A war with the Philistines is abruptly
introduced; in the midst of the relation of which, we are abruptly
informed that David returned from Saul to feed his father's sheep(5)
again; from whence his father sent him with provisions for his brothers,
who were in the army.(6) What can be thought of this? Jesse hardly
recalled his son from the honourable post of armour-bearer to the king;
it is not likely that he was turned off, since we afterwards find him
playing on the harp to the king, as before;(7) neither was it proper
employment for the king's armour-bearer to be feeding sheep, when the
army was in the field, and his majesty with them in person! Why--the
most easy method is to take it as we find it; to suppose it to be right,
and go quietly on with the story.

In the Philistine army was a man of extraordinary size, named Goliah,
who came out of their camp, day by day, challenging and defying any one
among the Hebrews to single combat, and to rest the decision of their
quarrel upon the event; an offer which no one among the Israelites was
hitherto found hardy enough to accept.(8)

     *1 Sam. xvi. 14.

     ** Josephus.

     *** 1 Sam. xvi. 18.

     **** Ver. 21.

     (5) Ch. xvii. 15.

     (6) Ch. xvii. 17.

     (7) Ch. xviii. 10.

     (8) Ch. xvii. 4, &c.

David is said to have arrived at the army just as it was forming for
engagement; at which time the giant advanced as before, with reproachful
menaces; and, after having enquired carefully concerning what reward
would be given to the conquerer of this giant, and learning that great
riches and the king's daughter were to be the prizes of conquest, David
courageously declared before Saul his acceptance of the challenge,*
notwithstanding the contempt with which his offer had been treated.

Saul, relying on the youth's ardour and assurance of victory, girded his
own armour on him:** but David put it off again, trusting entirely to a
pouch of stones, and his own skill in slinging.*** The success answered
his hopes, and stamped, what would otherwise have been deemed a rash
undertaking, with a more respectable name; he knocked Goliath down with
a stone; then ran in upon him, cut his head off with his own sword, and
brought it triumphantly to the king of Israel.**** The consequence was
the defeat of the 'Philistines.

Here we meet with another stumbling-block. For, though Saul, as has
already been observed, had sent to Jesse expressly for his son David;
though David had played to him on the harp; though Saul had again sent
to Jesse, to desire that David might be permitted to stay with him; and
in consequence of this had given him a military appointment about his
person; though he had now a fresh conference with him; had just placed
his own suit of armour on him; and though all the occurrences must have
happened within a small space of time, yet his memory is made so to fail
him on a sudden, that he knew nothing either of David, or his parentage!
but while David went to meet the giant, he enquired of others, who
proved as ignorant as himself, whose son(5) the stripling was? This
stumbling-block must likewise be stepped over, for it is not removeable.

     *1 Sam. xvii. 32.

     ** Ver. 38.

     *** Ver. 40.

     ****Ver. 49.

     (5) Ver. 55., Ch. xviii. 3.


The reputation which this gallant action procured to David, soon gained
him advancement in the army, and a warm friendship with Saul's son,
Jonathan. But the inordinate acclamations of the people, on account of
the death of the Philistine giant, "Saul hath slain his thousands, and
David his ten thousands;"* a rhodomontade out of measure extravagant,
when we compare the two subjects of the contrast, justly occasioned Saul
to view David with a jealous eye. We have all the reason in the world to
believe that Samuel and the priests made every possible advantage of an
adventure so fortunate for their intended king, to improve his growing
popularity, which even at its outset had so far exceeded all bounds of
decency: "What," said Saul, "can he have more but the kingdom?"** and we
may therefore conclude that the king saw enough to alarm him; for we are
told, that "Saul eyed David from that day and forward,"***Thus we find
that on the following day, while David played as usual on his harp
before Saul, the king cast a javelin at him,**** which David avoided.
Saul then made him captain over a thousand, saying, "Let not mine
hand be upon him, but let the hand of the Philistines be upon him," an
expression however which is evidently put into Saul's mouth, since it is
impossible he could have made use of it openly. He made him the offer of
his daughter Merab for his wife, in consequence of the defeat of Goliah;
but she, we know not why, was given to another;(5) afterwards he gave
him Michal: and David's modesty (6) on this occasion was incomparably
well acted; he knowing himself, at the same time, to be secretly
intended for the kingdom by Samuel.

Saul, upon reflection, concluding it dangerous to execute any open act
of violence against this young hero, politically hoped to ensnare him,
by exalting him high in favour, or to get rid of him by putting him upon
his mettle, in performing feats of valour; for a deficiency of valour is
not to be numbered among David's faults. It was with this view that
the king yet required of him an hundred Philistine foreskins(7) as the
condition of becoming his son-in-law. He produced double the number "in
full tale."(8)

     * 1 Sam. xxii. 7.

     ** Ch. xviii. 8.

     *** Ver. 9.

     **** Ver. 11.

     (5) Ver. 17.

     (6) Ver. 10.

     (7) Ver. 23., Ver. 25. (according to Josephus 600 heads).

     (8) 1 Sam. xviii. 27.


This demand, after David appeals to have fulfilled the prescribed
conditions, seems not only unjust, but also, even making allowance
for Hebrew customs, very ridiculously expressed. It must have been a
glorious sight to have seen David bring the foreskins to king Saul,
strung perhaps on a piece of pack-thread, and dangling in his hand, or
thrown across his shoulders like a sash: and if Miss Michal was present,
how must her pretty little heart exult when the required number being
told off, as many more were gallantly presented at her feet!

David still advanced in his military** reputation, and met with a
powerful advocate in the person of Jonathan, his brother-in-law and
faithful friend, who effected a temporary reconciliation between him
and Saul;*** at which time Saul swore he would no more attempt his life.
Nevertheless, whether it was that he could not get the better of his
jealousy, or that he discovered more than is transmitted down to us, we
know not; consequences incline us to the last conjecture: Saul made two
more attempts to kill him;**** from one of which he was protected by
his wife Michal; and finding it not safe to stay at court, he fled to
Samuel, in Ramah.(5) Hither Saul sent messengers to apprehend him;(6)
but these, it seems, seeing Samuel presiding over a company of prophets,
and prophesying, were seized with a spirit of prophesying also; and not
only so, but it is related that Saul finding this, went at last himself,
to just the same purpose; for he likewise prophesied,(7) stripping off
his cloaths, in which ridiculous condition he continued for a day and a
night.

     ** Ver. 30. xix. 8.

     *** Ver. 4.

     **** Ver. 10, 11.

     (5) Ver. 18.

     (6) Ver. 20.

     (7) Ver. 23.

This is an extreme odd relation! That the solemn appearance of an
assembly of prophets, presided over by a person so respectable, and
heretofore of such great authority in Judea, might influence, in an
extraordinary manner, persons entrusted with a commission to apprehend
or kill a man patronized by these prophets, exhibits nothing wonderful;
they might easily perhaps, be prophesied out of their errand; and might
then prophesy in concert. Prophesy is a vague term, not always limited
to the prediction of future events; the extempore preaching of many
dissenters, and the discourses of the Quakers, who profess to speak as
the Spirit gives them utterance, seem to come under the term prophesy.
These persons can work themselves and others into such fits of
enthusiastic intoxication, that they believe themselves agitated by
supernatural influence. Such might be the prophesying here mentioned.
But Saul prophesied! so it is said. Had the subject of Saul's
prophesying, been transmitted down to us, it might have greatly
illustrated this passage in the history; but no, he is barely said to
have _prophesied_; and we are prudently left to guess what. Being thus
at liberty, we, among other expositors, may easily surmise what he might
take for his text, and was the general tenor of his discourse, on this
particular occasion.

Afterward David had a private interview* with Jonathan; for he durst not
venture to appear at court. At this meeting, Jonathan, who had conceived
too great an affection for this man, and was at length seduced by him
from the duty and allegiance which he owed to his father and king,
solemnly promised** that he would sound his father's intentions on the
next day, which being the festival of the new moon, David's attendance
was expected at the king's table; and that he would warn him of any
danger intended him.

     * 1 Sam. x. 1.

     ** Ver. 12.

David lay hid in the field until Jonathan brought him the required
intelligence; and when the king inquired, concerning him, Jonathan as
had been before concerted, said that he had requested leave to go and
perform a family sacrifice at Bethlehem. Saul's reply on this occasion
is very pertinent, and shows his antipathy to David not to have been
the causeless inveteracy of a disordered mind. "Then Saul's anger was
kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse
rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of
Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's
nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou
shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom: wherefore now send and fetch
him unto me; for he shall surely die."* Jonathan expostulated with his
father, and had a javelin hurled at him for his reward.**

David being advertised, according to agreement, of the king's
disposition toward him, retired to Ahimelech, the high priest, at the
city of Nob who treated him with shew-bread, and armed him with the
sword of Goliah, which had been hung up and consecrated to God.***

We may consider David's resuming this sword, after its dedication as
a religious trophy, whatever gloss may be put on his interview with
Ahimelech, to be a clear manifestation of hostile intentions, or a
declaration of war against his father-in-law, for which he now took the
first opportunity to prepare. Thus accoutred, he fled out of Judea, to
Achish, king of Gath;**** intending, as we have good reason to believe,
to enter into a treaty of alliance with him against the Hebrews; but
the popular cry was against him before he accomplished any thing, or at
least any thing that has reached our times.

     * Ver. 30, 81. Josephus in loco.

     ** Ver. 33.

     *** 1 Sam. xxi. 1.

     **** Ver. 9. Josephus.


Here David appears to disadvantage in point of policy: for though his
carrying with him the sword of Goliah was artful enough, and likely to
collect followers in Judea, since it was a continual witness of that
prowess which had gained him such extraordinary reputation; yet, for
him, under this circumstance, to throw himself into the power of the
Philistines, among those very people from whose champion he had ravished
_that sword_, was the highest imprudence! and we perceive he might
have suffered for it, had not he made use of a stratagem to procure his
release, which he effected by acting the madman.* Mankind seems to have
been very easily imposed on in those days.

David, now thinking it time openly to avow his design of disputing the
crown with Saul, went to a cave called Adullam, which he appointed the
place of rendezvous for his partizans. Here we are told he collected
together a company of debtors, vagrants, and disaffected persons, to the
number of four hundred; and opened his rebellion, by putting himself at
the head of this body of men:** men, whose desperate situations under
the government in being, rendered them fit agents to disturb it, and
proved the surest bond to connect them to a partizan thus embarked in
an enterprize against it. Hither also came to him his father and all his
brethren; and the first movement that he made was to go to the king of
Moab, to obtain a retreat for his father and mother, until he knew the
event of his enterprise.***

By the advice of the prophet Gad, David next marched into the land of
Judah:**** Gad, no doubt hoped, that as the young adventurer was of that
tribe, he would there meet with considerable reinforcement. When Saul
heard of this insurrection, he pathetically laments his misfortune to
those about him, that they, and even his son Jonathan, should conspire
against him.(5)

     * 1 Sam. xxi. 13.

     ** Ch. xxii. 2.

     *** Ver. 2.

     **** Ver. 6.

     (5) Ver. 7, 8, 9.


Then started up one Doeg, an Edomite, who informed Saul, that he had
seen David harboured by the priests in Nob. Upon this, Saul summoned all
those belonging to that city before him, with Ahimelech their chief,
who began to excuse himself as well as he could; but Saul remembering,
without doubt, the threatening of Samuel, concerning the affair of
king Agag;* and considering these priests as traitors, from this
corroborating evidence against them, he commanded them all to be slain,
to the number of eighty-five persons.** Moreover, agreeable to the
barbarous usage of that nation, the massacre included the whole city of
Nob, man and beast, young and old, without exception.

Though the king's rage in this instance exceeded not only the bounds of
humanity, but also of good policy, it nevertheless serves to show how
deeply the priests were concerned in the rebellion of David; since
he could not be mad enough to commit so flagrant an act, without some
colourable pretence;*** and shows also that Saul had not so great an
opinion of their holiness as we, at this distance of time, are, by their
own annals, instructed to have. Had Saul been more implicit, he might
have enjoyed the name of king, have continued the dupe of the priests,
have died in peace, and his children have succeeded quietly to the
inheritance. But,

     "Ye gods! what havoc does ambition make
     Among your works!"

During this time, David rescued the city of Keilah from the
Philistines,(5) who were besieging it, hoping to make it a garrison for
himself.

     * 1 Sam. xiii. 14, xv. 26, 28.

     ** Ch. xxii. 16-18.

     *** Ver. 19.

     **** In so small a territory as Judea, the difference
     between the king and his son-in-law, so popular a man, could
     not be unknown to persons in any measure removed from the
     vulgar. Therefore, Ahmeleoh's pleas of ignorance did not
     deserve credit.

     (5) 1 Sam. xxiii. 3.


But upon the approach of Saul, not thinking himself able to maintain it,
being as yet but six hundred strong, and not choosing to confide in the
inhabitants, whose loyalty even his recent kindness to them could not
corrupt, he therefore abandoned it, and retired to the wilderness.*
This passage alone is amply sufficient to confirm the reality of David's
rebellious intentions; it is, therefore, worth analyzing. That he
delivered this city from the depredations of the Philistines, and that
by this action he hoped to purchase the friendship of the inhabitants,
are acknowledged: the use to which he intended to convert this
friendship, is the point to be ascertained. Saul was advancing to
suppress him. Had he seduced them from their allegiance, and obtained
the expected protection, he would have deprived Saul of this city, which
city might have been considered as a garrison. The old plea, of
his providing only for his personal safety, against his malignant
persecutor, has often been urged; but his intended retention of a city,
to secure that safety, was a flagrant rebellious intention. Had he
gained this one city, as his strength increased, he would have concluded
as many more as he could have procured, necessary for his preservation,
until he had monopolized the whole country, agreeable to the grant of
Samuel, which would then have justified the usurpation; but disappointed
in the first step, by the loyalty, miscalled treachery, of the Keilites,
he evacuated the town, having lost the recompence of his labour, and
with his men "went whithersoever they could go."** In the wilderness
Jonathan came privately to see him, and piously engages in the cause
against his own father, by covenant; in which it was agreed, that if
David succeeded, of which Jonathan is very confident, _he_ was to be a
partaker of his good fortune but as Jonathan was not to join him openly,
he went home again.

Saul, having received intelligence of David's retreats, pursued him from
place to place, until he was called off by news of an invasion of the
land by the Philistines;*** whether of David's procuring or not, we are
uncertain: thus much is certain, and does not discredit the supposition,
that he quickly after took refuge among those Philistines.

     * 1 Sam. xxiii. 13.

     ** Ib.

     *** Ver. 16-18, 27.

After repelling the invaders, Saul, however, returned to the wilderness
of Engedi, in pursuit of David, with three thousand chosen men. At
this place we are told of an odd adventure, which put the life of Saul
strangely into the power of David. He turned in to repose himself*
alone in a cave, wherein at that time, David and his myrmidons were
secreted.**

     * The words are, "to cover his feet:" which Josephus and
     others, mistake to mean, that he retired into the cave to
     ease nature. But in Judges, iii. 21. we find that expression
     to imply, that the servants of Eulon, king of Moab, supposed
     their master to have locked himself in, to repose himself
     with sleep, in his summer-chamber. This is farther
     corroborated, in Ruth, iii. 7. where, when Boaz had eaten
     his supper, he laid down on a heap of corn, doubtless to
     take his rest. Ruth, by her mother's instruction, went,
     uncovered his feet, and lay down by him--to have some
     refreshment likewise. For, in the middle of the night, when
     the man awaked, surprised at finding an unexpected
     bedfellow, and demanded who she was, the kind wench replied--
     "I am Ruth, thine hand-maid; spread therefore thy skirt
     over thine hand-maid, for thou art a near kinsman." In the
     present instance, it is evident, Saul slept in the cave; as
     he discovered not the operation that had been performed on
     his robe, till David called after him, to apprize him
     thereof.

     ** 1 Sam. xxiv. 3.


This, one would imagine to have been a fine opportunity for him to have
given a finishing stroke to his fortune, by killing Saul, and jumping
into, the throne at once: but David knew better what he was about,
than to act so rashly. He could entertain no hopes that the Jews would
receive for their king a man who, with such great seeming holiness,
should imbrue his hands in the blood of the Lord's anointed. Beside,
what evidently destroys the boasted merit of David's forbearance toward
Saul, in this instance, is an obvious, though overlooked consideration,
that, compared with David, Saul had a strong army with, him; and had the
king been missing, had he been observed to enter the cave without coming
out again; and upon search, had he been there found murdered, there
would not have escaped, of all that pertained to David, any that
_pissed against this wall_. Of this David could not be insensible;
and therefore, only privately cut off the skirt of Saul's robe,* and
suffered him to depart in peace. When the king was gone out from
the cave, David calls after him, and artfully makes a merit of his
forbearance, protesting an innocency, to which his being in arms was,
however, a flat** contradiction. Saul freely and gratefully acknowledges
himself indebted to him for his life, and seems so well convinced of his
own precarious situation, that he candidly confesses it; only tying
him down with an oath,*** not to destroy his children after him--an
obligation which, in due time, we shall see in what manner remembered
and fulfilled by David.

     *1 Sam. xxiv. 4.

     ** Ver. 8-15.

     *** Ver. 21.

Saul must certainly have been greatly fatigued, or strangely overseen,
to have let David catch him at so great a disadvantage--a conduct
not usual with good generals. Yet, while we credit the relation, the
meanness of his reply to David's harangue, can be no otherwise accounted
for. Saul does not appear to have wanted resolution on other
occasions; but to acknowledge his assurance that David would obtain the
sovereignty, and poorly to entreat a fugitive rebel in behalf of his
family! is a conduct not even to be palliated, but upon the foregoing
supposition. We must either condemn the general or the king, neither of
which characters appear with extraordinary lustre upon this occasion.
David, on the other hand, dissembles admirably here, pretending to Saul
a _great reverence_ for the Lord's anointed, though conscious, at
the same time, that _he was also_ the Lord's anointed, and anointed
purposely to supersede the other Lord's anointed; and, moreover, was at
this very time aiming to put his election in force! But, as the people
were not of his council, and he knew their great regard for religious
sanctions, it was certainly prudent in him to set an example of piety,
in an instance of which he hoped, in time, to reap the benefit himself:
About this time Samuel died.*

We next find our young adventurer acting the chief character in a
tragi-comedy, which will farther display his title to the appellation of
being a Man after God's own heart.

There dwelt then at Maon, a blunt rich old farmer, whose name was Nabal.
David hearing of him, and that he was at that time sheep-shearing, sent
a detachment of his followers to levy a contribution upon him,** making
a merit of his forbearance, in that he had not stolen his sheep, and
murdered his shepherds.*** Nabal, who, to be sure, was not the most
courteous man in the world, upon receiving this extraordinary message,
gave them but a very indifferent reply, including a flat denial. "Who,"
says he, "is David? and who is the son of Jesse? There be many servants
nowadays that break away every man from his master. Shall I then take
my bread, and my water, and my flesh that I have killed for my shearers,
and give unto men whom I know not whence they be?"**** Upon receiving
this answer, David, without hesitation, directly formed his resolution;
and arming himself, with a number of his followers, vowed to butcher
him, _and all that belonged to him_, before the next morning.(5) And how
was this pious intention diverted? Why, Abigail, the charming Abigail!
Nabal's wife, resolved, unknown to her spouse, to try the force
of beauty, in mollifying this incensed hero, whose disposition for
gallantry, and warm regard for the fair sex, was probably not unknown at
that time. Her own curiosity also might not be a little excited; for the
ladies have at all times been universally fond of military gentlemen: no
wonder, therefore, that Mrs. Abigail, the wife of a cross country clown,
was willing to seize this opportunity of getting acquaintance with
captain David.

     * 1 Sam. xxv. 1.

     ** Ver. 5--9.

     *** Ver. 7.

     **** Ver. 10, 11.

     (5) Ver. 13, 14-22.

And this motive certainly had its force, since she could not as yet have
known David's intention: we may observe she was told of it by David at
their meeting.* She prepared a present, and went to David, saying,
very sententiously, "Upon me, my Lord, upon me let this iniquity be:"**
judging, very humanely, that could she get him to transfer his
revenge upon _her_, she might possibly contrive to pacify him, without
proceeding to disagreeable extremities. Nor was she wrong in her
judgment; for we are told, "So David received of her hand that which she
had brought him, and said unto her, go up in peace to thine house; see
I have hearkened to thy voice, _and have accepted thy person_."*** But
however agreeable this meeting might have been to Abigail, we do not
find that Nabal was so well pleased with the composition his wife had
made for him; for when he came to understand so much of the story as she
chose to inform him of, he guessed the remainder, broke his heart, and
died in ten days afterward. David loses no time, but returned God thanks
for the old fellow's death, and then Mrs. Abigail was promoted to the
honour of being one of the Captain's ladies.(5)

We are now told another story extremely resembling that of the cave of
En-gedi. Saul again pursues David with three thousand chosen men; again
fell into his hands during his sleep; only that here David stole upon
him in his own camp; he ran away with the king's spear and bottle of
water, and Saul went back again as wise as he came.(6)

     * I Sam. xxv. 34.

     ** Ver. 24.

     *** Ver. 35.

     ****Ver. 37,38.

     (5) Ver. 39.

     (6) Ch. xxvi.

The opinion of Mons. Bayle seems most probable concerning this
adventure, who looks upon it but as another detail of the former affair
at En-gedi; and that for very good reasons. For, upon a comparison of
both, as laid down in the 23d, 24th, and 26th chapters of 1 Samuel, we
may remark,

I. That in each relation Saul pursues him with the same number of chosen
men.

II. That both adventures happened at or very near the same place.

III. That in each story David comes upon Saul in much the same manner,
withholds his people from killing him, and contents himself with taking
away a testimonial of the king's having been in his power.

IV. That in the second account, When David is pleading the injustice of
Saul's persecuting him, as he terms it, he does not strengthen his plea
by representing to him that this was the _second time_ of his sparing
him, when he had his life so entirely in his power; and that Saul's
pursuing him this second time, was a flagrant instance of ingratitude,
after what had happened on the former occasion.

V. That in the second relation, Saul, when he acknowledges David's
forbearance and mercy to him in the present instance, makes no mention
of _any former obligation_ of this kind, although it was so recent, and
in the main circumstance so similar.

VI. That the historian, who evidently intended to blacken the character
of Saul, and whiten that of David, does not make the least observation
himself, in the second narrative, of reference to the first.

These reasons prove, beyond doubt, that we are furnished with two
relations of the same adventure. To account for the double record,
and their variations, must be left to commentators, connectors, and
harmonizers, who are used to compromise affairs of this nature.

David finding that with his present strength, he was unable to maintain
any footing in Judea, puts himself once more under the protection of
Achish, king of Gath.* Achish, who does not appear to have been a very
powerful prince, seemed to consider David alone, and David at the head
of a little army, as two very different persons: for he now assigned
him a place named Ziklag, for a habitation, where he remained a year and
four months.**

     * 1 Sam. xxvii. 1-3.

     ** 1 Sam. xxvii. 6, 7.


As he had now a quiet residence, those who entertain an opinion of
David's sanctity, would be apt to suppose he would here confine himself
to agriculture, to composing psalms, and to singing them to his harp;
but David found employment more suited to his genius. It is not intended
here to be insinuated that he might not sing psalms, at leisure times;
but his more important business was to lead his men put to plunder the
adjacent country. We have the names of some nations, as they are called,
but which must have been small distinct communities, like the
present camps of wandering Moors and Arabs, over whom he extended
his depredations: these are the Geshurites, the Gezrites, and the
Amalekites.** Of these people he made a total massacre, at those places
where he made his inroads; saying, very prudently, "Lest they should
tell of us, saying, so did David, and so will be his manner, all the
while he dwelleth in the country of the Philistines."***

After thus carefully endeavouring to avoid detection, he brings his
booty home, which consisted of all which those miserable victims
possessed.**** He made presents of this to his benefactor king
Achis,(5)| who, demanding where he had made his incursion, was answered,
against the south of Judah, &c.(6) intending by this falsity to
insinuate to the king his aversion to his own countrymen, and attachment
to him. "And Achish believed David, saying, he hath made his people
Israel utterly to abhor him; therefore he shall be my servant for
ever,"(7)

The Philistines at this time collected their forces together, to attack
the Israelites. To which service Achish summoned David,(8) and met with
a cheerful compliance.

     ** Ver. 8.

     *** Ver. 9, 11.

     **** Query, whether David might not compose a psalm
          upon this occasion.

     (5) Josephus.

     (6) 1 Sam. xxvii. 10.

     (7) Ver. 12.

     (8) Ch. xxviii. 1.

"Surely," says David, "thou shalt know what thy servant can do."* He
accordingly marched his adherents with the troops of king Achish; but
when the princes of the Philistines saw a company of Hebrews in their
army, they were much surprized, and questioned Achish concerning them.
The account which Achish gave of them, did not satisfy the princes, who
justly feared their captain might prove a dangerous auxiliary. "Make
this fellow return," said they, "that he may go again to the place which
thou hast appointed him, and let him not go down with us to the battle,
lest in the battle he be an adversary to us: for wherewith should be
reconcile himself to his master; should it not be with the heads of
these men David was accordingly dismissed, very much mortified at their
distrust of him.**

Here now was a signal evidence of David's righteousness! The Hebrews,
according to their own testimony, understood themselves to be the
favourite people of God, and David is delivered down to us as a
distinguished character for piety among this peculiarly esteemed people.
Yet could this very man, without any hesitation, freely join himself and
company, to an army of uncircumcised idolators, marching with hostile
intentions against his countrymen! His advocates indeed pretend, that
had his offers been accepted, he would nevertheless have gone over to
the Israelites, at the commencement of the battle: this is taking off
the charge of one crime, by imputing to him another equally bad--a most
base act of treachery! As, however, the Israelites, on the foundation of
their own intimacy with the Deity, thought they had no more obligations
to a moral conduct towards the heathens, than the Roman Catholics now
imagine they have to keep faith with heretics; these advocates endeavour
to preserve the piety of David's character, at the expence of what
David, according to this method of arguing, did extremely well without,
on all occasions; namely, _honesty_.***

     * 1 Sam. xxviii. 2.

     ** Ch. xxix. 4.

     *** Ver. 8, 11.

Upon his return to Ziklag, he found that, during his absence, the
Amalekites had made reprisals upon him, and burnt Ziklag; and had
carried off all the women captives.* But in the relation there is one
remark well worth noting, which is that "they slew not any either great
or small"**--so much more moderation had these poor heathens in their
just revenge, than the enlightened David in his unprovoked insult. If
they came to avenge so savage an insult, it shewed great consideration
in them to spare the innocent, the guilty being absent: if they only
came on the common principle of plunder, the bare comparison of the
different treatment of the sufferers in each instance, speaks forcibly
without amplification. Upon this misfortune, his band began to mutiny,
and were on the point of stoning*** him; when he, who knew how to soothe
them, enquired of the Lord what he should do? and evaded their rage, by
inspiring them with a resolution to pursue the Amalekites, and with the
hopes of recovering all their losses. He, therefore, with four hundred
picked men, set out on the pursuit, and by the way found a straggler****
who had fainted: after recovering him, they gained, by his means,
intelligence of their route. David came upon them unexpectedly, at a
place where they were, without apprehension, regaling themselves after
their success: and though David's men recovered all they had lost,
together with other booty, and found their wives and children unhurt:
yet could not their captain resist so inviting an opportunity of
gratifying his delight in blood-shedding: the pursuit and slaughter
continued from the twilight (we know not whether of the morning or
evening) of one day, until the evening of the next. None escaped but a
party which rode upon camels.(5)

     * 1 Sam. xxi. 1.

     ** Ver. 2.

     *** Ver. 6.

     **** Ver. 11.

     (5) Ver. 17.

Of the spoil taken from these people, David sent presents to the elders
of his own tribe of Judah, "and to all the places where David himself
and his men were wont to haunt."* By which means he kept them attached
to his interest.

The dispute between the Philistine and Hebrew armies, did not terminate
but by the defeat of the latter, the death of Saul, and of three of his
sons.**

Such was the catastrophe of king Saul! a man advanced from the humble
state of a shepherd, by the prophet Samuel, to be his deputy in the
government of the Hebrew nations under the specious name of king: a man,
who allowing for the _peculiar complexion_ of the people over whom he
was placed; does not, on the whole, seem to suffer by comparison with
any other king in the _same_ history; or whose character appears to be
stained with any conspicuous fault, except that he was one degree less
cruel than his haughty patron: and was disobedient enough to endeavour
to be in effect, what he was only intended to be in name. On the whole,
he appears to have been strangely irresolute and inconsistent with
himself; and is perhaps represented more so than he might really have
been: but the undertaking to render himself independent was an arduous
task for one in his situation; therefore his actions and professions
might sometimes disagree. However, it is impossible to argue from every
expression that may be produced; we must form our judgment from leading
events, and corresponding expressions; and determine as they tally with
probability. If Saul himself, however he is represented as subscribing
to it, was really assured of David's destination to supersede him by
divine decree, there was nothing left for him but resignation: Can man
fight against God? since therefore his continual aim was to destroy
David, it argues against this assurance: and if Saul himself was mad,
surely his soldiers were not: how came he to find an army as mad as
himself, to persecute the Lord's anointed.

     * 1 Sam. xxx. 31.

     ** Ch. xxxi.

We shall now have an opportunity to observe the conduct of our hero in
a regal capacity. The death of Saul facilitated his advancement to
a sovereignty, to which he had no pretension, either by the right of
inheritance, which was claimed by Ish-bosheth, a remaining son of Saul;
nor by popular election, which Saul himself had the shew of; but by
the clandestine appointment of an old prophet; which inspired him
with hopes, of which, by arms and intrigue, he at length enjoyed the
fruition.

David had returned to Ziklag but two days, when on the third, there came
to him an Amalekite, who officiously informed him of the event of the
battle between the Israelites and Philistines. He owned himself to be
the person who killed Saul, after his defeat, at his own request: he
being already wounded.

He hoped to be well rewarded for his news, by David; whose intentions
were so well known, that he presented him with Saul's crown and
bracelet*. But, alas! he knew not David, and perished in the experiment:
David ordering him to be killed for daring to slay the Lord's
anointed.** David's treatment of this Amalekite, is agreeable to the
customary rules of politics; and has nothing therefore remarkable in
it, farther than it is rendered so by peculiar circumstances. Saul
was declared to be rejected by God, and David was the pretender to his
throne; it may therefore be imagined by some, that this man might have
had some claim to _his_ private gratitude, especially considering the
account the Amalekite gave of the matter.

Who can help smiling at the relation of David's tearing his clothes off
his back, and bursting into a sorrowful lamentation for the death of a
man, to whose destruction he had so freely offered to lend assistance
but just before?

Upon this alteration of affairs, David, asking counsel of the Lord, was
advised to leave Ziklag, and go to Hebron, one of the cities of Judah;
whither he and all his men repaired.***

     * 2 Sam. 10.

     ** Ver. 15.

     *** 2 Sam. ii. 1.

There he got his partizans to anoint him king over Judah; at the same
time that Abner, Saul's general, had, at Mahanaim, made Ishbosheth,

Saul's son, king over Israel.* It may be remarked here, that David did
not seem to claim in right of the sacred unction bestowed on him long
since by Samuel. He realized his title indeed, as soon as he could make
it out, by the law of force: but if his divine title to the Hebrew crown
was universally known, and if, as has been urged, Ish-bosheth had none
at all, how came David's title not to be universally acknowledged? Did
only one tribe believe in it? Yet David, with the divine grant, was
obliged to obtain the sovereignty by arms and intrigue! just for all
the world like the wicked, who attain their desires by exactly the same
means, to all external appearance. Upon this division of the kingdom,
a battle was fought at the pool of Gibeon, between the army of
Ish-bosheth, commanded by general Abner, and that of David, headed
by Joab: victory declared in favour of the latter, with small loss on
either side, except that Joab lost his brother Ahasel, who was killed by
Abner's own hand.**

We must here be content with general hints; being only informed that
"there was long war between the house of Saul and the house, of David:
but David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed
weaker and weaker."*** What very much conduced to this, was an ill-timed
quarrel between king Ish-bosheth and general Abner, concerning one of
Saul's concubines, with whom Abner had been too familiar:**** and his
resentment of the notice taken of this amour, occasioned a treaty to be
negociated between him and David, whom Abner engaged to establish over
all Israel.(5) David accepted his offer, but demanded, as a preliminary,
the restoration of his first wife Michal;(6) who, during the disputes
between him and Saul; had been espoused to another.(7)

     * 2 Sam. ii. 4, 8.

     ** Ver. 17, 23.

     *** 2 Sam. iii. 1.

     **** 2 Sam. iii. 7.

     (5) Ver. 12.

     (6) Ver. 13.

     (7) 1 Sam. xxv. 44.


This demand he likewise made openly, by an express message to
Ishbosheth, who kindly complied with it: the poor man who had since
married her, following her weeping all the way.**

It is impossible to avoid noting David's amorous disposition here;
which could not be content with six wives, who bare him children*** (no
mention of those who did not), but was yet so warm, that it took the
lead even in his most important concerns.--We will not pretend to assign
the cause of that sad disorder, the symptoms of which are described in
the 38th Psalm.

After Abner had traitorously endeavoured to advance the interest of
David****; he had an interview with him;(5) which, quickly after he
returned, coming to the ears of Joab; he, who does not appear to have
been acquainted with the secret spring which actuated Abner's zeal for
the cause of David; represented to him the imprudence of admitting a man
among them, who to all appearance came only as a spy. Unknown to David,
he sent for him back again, and privately stabbed him, in revenge
for the loss of his brother Asahel.(6) This was a most base piece of
treachery, worthy the servant of such a master: to assassinate a man in
cool blood, in revenge for an action which was committed in the heat of
battle, in self-defence, and even after fair warning given.

Upon the murder of Abner, David again acts the mourner;(7) which has a
greater probability of being sincere now, than when he grieved for the
unhappy Saul; because the false Abner was preparing to do him essential
service, by betraying his master's cause.

     ** 2 Sam. iii. 15, 16.

     *** Ver. 2, &c.

     **** Ver. 17.

     (5) Ver. 20.

     (6) Ver. 27.

     (7) Ver. 31, &c.


But the event proved full as advantageous to David; as will presently
appear.

When Ishbosheth and his friends heard of the fate of Abner, who had
been the very life of their cause; it dejected all their spirits; and
two villains, named Rechab and Baanah, hoping to make their fortunes by
the public calamity, went and murdered their master king Ishbosheth,
as he was reposing himself during the heat of the day, and brought his
head to David*. But not reflecting on an obvious maxim in politics, they
like the Amalekite before, who claimed the merit of killing Saul, soon
found that, he thought it adviseable to punish the traitors, whatever he
thought of the treason.**

     * 2 Sam. iv. 5, &c.

     ** Ver. 12.


Had David reflected on all the circumstances which led to this murder,
with that tenderness becoming a person professing so much piety, his
compunction would have greatly embarrassed him in the proper behaviour
on this occasion. For if these two execrable villains deserved
punishment, what did _he_ merit who was the primary cause of so
nefarious an action? Two poor rogues from subordinate views, effected by
assassination what David sought at the head of an army, which naturally
reminds us of the pirate and Alexander. So strangely do relative
circumstances bias our judgment of things essentially alike. Had David
aspired to no other sceptre than his shepherd's crook, the villains
had not presumed on the usurper's gratitude; and Ish-bosheth, who was
a quiet prince, might have reigned long an honour to himself and a
blessing to his country.

Ish-bosheth does not appear to have been a man of parts, qualified to
contend with such an antagonist as David; for nothing is recorded of
him: Abner was the person who raised him; and had he lived, would as
easily have deposed him, and though no qualifications are a security
against assassination, yet, as in the case of another unfortunate
monarch, Darius, king of Persia; such cowardly wretches generally take
the advantage of precipitating misfortunes already commenced, that they
may pay their court to the rising sun.

The murder of this unhappy son of an unhappy father, advanced David
to the dignity to which he aspired,* (though we shall see in a passage
which reflects no great honour on him, that Saul had more sons yet
living.) He was now in his thirty-eighth year; having reigned seven
years and an half in Hebron** over the tribe of Judah.

Although David was now invested with that supremacy which had been the
aim of his endeavours since the time that Samuel inspired him with the
spirit of ----- ambition; yet could not his enterprising genius continue
satisfied with such an exaltation. The first object of his attention
now, was the city of Jerusalem, then inhabited by the Jebusites; (but it
was of no importance who inhabited it, if David conceived a desire for
it): this city he besieged and the inhabitants relying on the strength
of their fortifications, out of derision planted cripples on their
ramparts to guard their walls; saying "except thou take away the blind
and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither."*** Nevertheless David
carried the place, and made it his chief city.****

N. B. He supplied himself with, more wives and concubines out of his new
acquisition.(5)

While he was thus amorously engaged, the Philistines hearing that he Was
made king over all Israel, came and disturbed him; but David according
to the usual term _smote them_;(6) and his strokes were always
sufficiently felt.

The comic tale of David's bringing home the ark will not be long dwelt
upon; it may only be remarked, that it was brought on a new cart, drawn
by oxen; and that Uzzah some way or other lost his life, to, as the text
reads, was smote _by the Lord_,(7) for his impiety in saving the ark
from being overturned.(8)

     * 2 Sam. v. 3, 1 Chron. xi. 3.

     ** 2 Sam. ii. 11.

     *** Chap. v. 6. Josephus.

     **** Ver. 7. 9., 1 Chron; xi. 5. 7.

     (5) 2 Sam. v. 13.

     (6) Ver. 20, 25., 1 Chron. xiv. 11.

     (7)  Query, whether the Lord did not sometimes smite
          by the hands of the priest.

     (8)  Sam. vi. 7.


But if "the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looked on the outward
appearance, but the Lord looked into the heart." the intention of Uzzah
was indisputably good, and the alledged crime surely pardonable; the
seeming exigency precluding all hesitation and reflection. Had the ark
been really overturned for want of this careful prevention, Uzzah might
then, it would be naturally imagined, have been rather _smote_ for
neglecting to save it. However, it was no longer trusted to prophane
hands, but carried the remainder of the way upon the more holy shoulders
of the Levites,* with great parade: attended by musicians, and by David
himself who, dressed in a linen ephod, _danced before the Lord with all
his might_ and this, in such a frantic indecent manner, that he exposed
his nakedness to the bye-standers. Wherefore his wife Michal sneered at
him: "How glorious was the king of Israel today, who uncovered himself
to-day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain
fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself."** David, it seems, was of a
different opinion; for he told her he _would_ play before the Lord; and
would be yet _more vile_ than she had represented him;--adding, "and of
the maid-servants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in
honour."*** Some staunch zealots have very prudently spiritualized
this part of David's answer, and given the mystical sense of it; the
prophane, who are content with the evident signification of words,
having construed it no otherwise than into an insinuation that he had no
cause to be ashamed of what he exposed. Fie on them!

This story is concluded with a remark as odd as the rest of
it:--"Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child until the day
of her death.(5)

     * 1 Chron. xv. 2, 15.

     ** 2 Sam. vi. 14.

     *** Ver. 20.

     **** Ver. 22.

     (5) Ver. 23.

For, if Michal had hitherto borne no children, neither to David, nor
to her immediate husband, her barrenness must have been constitutional;
and, preceding her offence, could not be a punishment inflicted in
consequence of it. Moreover, if, on the other hand, she _had_ borne him
children, and this disgrace to her was the consequence of a resolution
made by her husband David, that she should have no more children
_by him_: her quiet resignation, under this imposed widowhood, is by
inference a high compliment on this poor woman's conjugal virtue! which
was far from the historian's intention to bestow. Indeed there is great
reason to credit Michal, and to believe that David really behaved with
all the extravagance she ascribes to him: for she appeared before
this affair as a discreet kind of a woman; no instance of folly being
produced in her, unless the contrivances she made use of to save her
husband from the effects of her father's rage may be allowed to bear
such interpretation. Whatever judgment however is passed upon Michal's
censure of David's behaviour in this procession, it showed great cruelty
and ingratitude in him to fix so disgraceful a stigma on her; and not
to make allowance for female indiscretion, the worst name that could be
bestowed on her fault.

After this, David smote the Philistines, not sparing even Gath, that
city which had so humanely protected him.* He then smote the Moabites,
putting to the sword two-thirds of the nation, by causing them to lie
prostrate on the ground, and measuring them by lines; "even with two
lines measured he to put to death; and with one full line to keep
alive:"** so systematic was his wrath! Hadadezar, king of Zobah, was the
next whom he smote; who being assisted by the Syrians of Damascus, he
next smote them.*** Yet all this smiting and slaying is so obscurely
mentioned, that we know nothing of the offences committed against this
mighty chief, to excite such blood-thirsty indignation.

     * Sam. viii.  1., Chron. xviii. 1.

     ** 2 Sam. viii. 2.

     *** Ver. 3. 5.,  1 Chron. xviii. 3, 5.

Indeed, the cause is, without much difficulty, deducible from the
produce of these wars, which sufficiently indicate the nature of David's
_thirst._ Great quantities of gold, silver, and brass, are said to have
been brought to Jerusalem;* and the priests may with reason be supposed
to be the instigators to these wars; since we find all the plunder
surrendered to them.** We have therefore no cause to wonder at the
exalted praises they have bestowed upon the instrument of their wealth.
He is said to have "gat him a name, when he returned from smiting the
Syrians."*** --This may very easily be credited; but it is to be feared,
that if the name he gat from the Jews, and that which he gat from the
Syrians were compared, they would not accord extremely well together.

David was at this time seized with a _temporary_ fit of gratitude toward
a lame son of his old friend Jonathan, named Mephibosheth, to whom he
restored all the private patrimony of his grandfather Saul, and took
him into his family;**** not without due consideration, it is to be
supposed; since by that means he kept him under his own eye. But this
gratitude, was not lasting; for upon an accusation preferred against him
by his servant, David readily bestowed all Mephibosheth's possessions
upon that servant;(5) yet, when the accusation was found to be
false, instead of equitably punishing the asperser of innocence, and
reinstating Mephibosheth in his former favour, he restored to him but
half the forfeiture of his supposed guilt,(6) leaving the villain
Ziba in the quiet possession of the other half, as the reward of his
treachery.--But of this in its proper place.

The next memorable act recorded of David, is the only acknowledged crime
that he ever committed; all his other transactions being reputed "right
in the eyes of the Lord."(7)

     * 2 Sam. viii. 7, 8, 10., 1 Chron. xviii, 2, 4, 8, 10.

     ** 2 Sam. viii. 11., 1 Chron. xviii. 11.

     *** 2 Sam. viii. 13.

     **** Chap. ix. 1.

     (5) Chap. xvi. 4.

     (6) Chap. xix. 29.

     (7) 1 Kings xv. 5, compared with 1 Chron. xxi. 1.


In the midst of an obscure detail of smiting and slaying; in revenge
for the contemptuous treatment of some ambassadors, sent by him with
compliments of condolence; but who, perhaps deservedly, were considered
as spies; while Joab was with the army prosecuting the siege of Rabbah,
a chief city of the Ammonites; David, then at Jerusalem, walking one
evening on the roof of his palace, perceived from that eminence a
handsome woman bathing herself.* Fired with the sight, he sent to
enquire who she was: and understanding she was Bathsheba, wife to Uriah,
who was at that time opportunely absent in the army under Joab, he
caused her to be brought to him directly, (no ceremony in the case)
and after gratifying his inclination, sent her home again.** Some time
after, the woman finding herself with child, naturally informed the
king of it. He, never at a loss for ways and means, immediately ordered
Uriah home;*** of whom he enquired news concerning the operations of the
campaign, and then dismissed him to his own house, sending after him a
present of victuals.**** David intended the good man a little relaxation
from the fatigues of war, that he might kiss his wife, and be cheated
into a child more than he had a natural right to; but whether Uriah
had received any intimation of the honour his Majesty had done him; or
whether he honestly meant the self-denial which he professed, we are
not advertised: however, Uriah would not go home but slept in the
guard-room, with the king's servants.(5) David took care to be informed
of this, and questioned Uriah concerning the reason of it. Uriah urged
a scruple of conscience against going to enjoy any indulgence at
home, while the ark, Joab, and the army remained in tents in the open
field.(6) He was detained another night; when David made him drunk,(7)
waiting to see what effect that might have. It was still the same;
Uriah, like many other drunken men, was resolved not to go home.

     *2 Sam. xi. 2.

     ** Ver. 4.

     *** Ver. 6.

     **** Ver. 8.

     (5) Ver. 9.

     (6) Ver. 11.

     (7) Ver. 35.

David, finding him so obstinate, altered his plan of operations, and
determined then to get rid of him for ever. To which intent, he sent
him back to the camp, with a letter to the general. "And he wrote in the
letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the fore-front of the hottest battle,
and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten and die."* This
instruction was accordingly complied with;** and then Bathsheba, like
another Abigail, was taken into David's seraglio.***

Nathan the prophet read David an arch lecture upon this subject;**** and
he, who took care not to disagree With his best friends, bore with the
reproof, and humbled himself accordingly.

This complicated crime committed by David is universally allowed;
but people think so little for them selves, that even _this_ would
be qualified, were it not found ready condemned to their hand in the
relation of it. This crime is given up too, as the _only stain_ in
David's character: but the circumstances of it will not permit this to
be granted, abstracted from any consideration of the man. For, though a
generally good man may, in a sudden start of any of the passions,
lose government of himself so far, as to violate conjugal fidelity, or
perhaps suddenly to kill another; yet a deliberate scheme, including
_two_ such crimes, can be concerted only by a _bad heart_. It is also to
be remarked respecting his famous repentance of this black transaction,
that he shewed no tokens of relenting until it was extorted from him
by artifice! and that even then, though he mourned his crime, he never
entertained a thought of relinquishing future commerce with the woman so
wickedly obtained, but kept her until he died! and altered the regular
course of succession, in favour of a son he had by her.(5)

It is hoped the supposition may be allowed, that the noise this
righteous affair made, might be one motive for Joab's desiring David to
come and partake some of the honours of the campaign:(6) an opportunity
of which he prudently laid hold: but--fatal was his presence wherever he
appeared.

     * 2 Sam. xi. 15.

     ** Ver. 17.

     *** Ver. 27.

     **** Ch. xii. 1.

     (5) Kings i. 13.

     (6) 2 Sam. xii. 27, 28.


How shall a person subject to the feelings of humanity, (a security of
more avail among men than the most binding laws) how shall a man, not
steeled to a very Jew, find expressions suited to the occasion, when he
relates the treatment of this poor city, Rabbah? The study would be as
difficult as unnecessary; the simple unexaggerated tale, if seriously
attended to, will shock the humane reader sufficiently. The city was
taken and plundered; and David "brought forth the people that were
therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under
axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln, and thus did he
unto all the cities of the children of Ammon."**

     * It is supposed that the ancient slavery of the Jews to the
     Egyptians, and the labour they were employed in by their
     lordly taskmasters, the making bricks, might be a current
     reproachful jeer upon the Jews, when any quarrel happened
     between them find their neighbours; and that the making
     their prisoners pass through the brick-kiln, was a cruel
     method of revenging such affronts. A conjecture not
     improbable.

     ** 2 Sam. xii. 31., 1 Chron. xx. 3.


The precise punishments here alluded to are not understood at this time:
writers being much divided in their expositions of these words; but that
extraordinary punishments are meant, cannot admit of a doubt; for though
_believers_ expound the putting the Ammonites _under_ saws and harrows,
into the making slaves of them, and that these were the tools with which
they laboured; yet this will not agree with the latter of the texts
whose authority is mentioned in the note; where it is said, that he
[David] "cut them with saws and with harrows of iron, and with axes."
And should more evidence be yet required, Josephus also writes, that
"the men were put to death by exquisite torments." The general truth of
the fact stands therefore unimpeached. And is it thus the people of God,
headed by a man styled, in a peculiar manner, _the man after God's own
heart_, used the prisoners of war? _Bella! horrida bella!_

It would not be easy to select any period of any history more bloody,
or abounding more in wickedness of various dyes than that which is the
object of the reader's present attention. Instances succeed so quick
that the relation of one is scarcely concluded, but fresh ones obtrude
upon notice.--But now horrors of a different hue demand our attention.

Ammon, one of our hero's sons, ravished his sister Tamar, and then
turned her out of doors.* Absalom, her brother by the same mother,
seemingly took no notice of it, until two years after; when he invited
all his brothers to a feast at his sheep-shearing; where he made Amnon
drunk, and murdered him** in so deliberate, and yet so determined was
his revenge! Absalom on this account, fled out of Judea, for three
years*** until, at the entreaty of Joab, he was invited home again
by his father, whose favourite he was.**** But though he returned to
Jerusalem, yet would not his father see him for two years more.(5)

Absalom, during his exile, conceived a design of deposing his father;
for after their reconciliation, his first attention was to render
himself popular. To this end he set up a splendid equipage:(6) but
politically increased his affability with his magnificence: rising up
early, and planting himself in the way, to salute all who came to
his father's levee. Of these he kindly enquired their business, or
grievances; throwing out hints of the king's remissness in the execution
of justice, and how uprightly he would conduct himself, were their
causes to be determined by him.(7)

     * 2 Sam. xiii. 14

     ** Ver. 28.

     *** Ver. 88.

     **** Chap. xiv. 21, 24.

     (5) Ver. 28.

     (6) Chap. xv. 1.

     (7) Ver 2, 4.

The profession of piety is universally, and was in particular a-mong
this people, the most successful disguise for crafty designing men to
assume. When Absalom, therefore, thought his scheme sufficiently ripe
for execution, he desired leave of his father to go to Hebron, to
perform a vow made by him while a refugee in Syria.* At Hebron he set
up his standard, and his followers assembled in such numbers, and the
defection was so general, that David thought it adviseable to retire
from Jerusalem.**

With him he took all his family and dependants, except ten concubines,
whom he left in his palace to keep house.*** The priests, Zadock and
Abiather, with the ark, would also have gone with him; but he thought it
would be more for his service for them to remain in the city as spies;
to send him intelligence how matters went.**** It is no inconsiderable
part of politics to know how to suit men with proper employments,
Ahitophel, his prime minister, joined the malecontents;(5)
to balance which misfortune, David prevailed on Hushai, a trusty man of
some importance, to remain in the city, that he might ingratiate
himself with Absalom, thwart the counsels of Ahitophel, and transmit
intelligence to him from time to time through the conveyance of the
priests, whose sons were to carry on the correspondence.(6) Having
concerted matters thus, he evacuated Jerusalem, and Absalom entered(7)
it.

When David was upon his journey from the city, he was met by Ziba,
servant to Mephibosheth, with asses and provisions for his majesty's
accommodation in his retreat:(8) of whom, when David enquired why
Mephibosheth did not come with him; this treacherous servant told him
that he staid behind at Jerusalem, hoping to obtain the kingdom of his
grandfather, during this disturbance:(9) by which lying aspersion, he
gained a grant of all his master's possessions.

     * 2 Sam. xv. 7.

     ** Ver. 12,14.

     *** Ver. 16.

     **** Ver. 27,28,

     (5) Ver. 12, 31.

     (6) Ver. 32, &c.

     (7) Ver. 37,

     (8) 2 Sam. xvi. 1.

     (9) Ver. 3.

Here we may introduce a circumstance, which is so far material, as it
serves to shew, that the sanctity of David was not quite so universally
assented to, as may be imagined, while he was living; and his actions
not only fresh in memory, but more perfectly known, than possibly, was
prudent to transmit to these distant ages.

As David prosecuted his flight, he was met by a man of Saul's family,
whose name was Shimei. This man as he came on, kept muttering curses
between his teeth, and at length cast stones at the King and his
attendants, calling out to him, "Come out, come out, thou bloody man,
and thou man of Belial; the Lord hath returned upon thee all the blood
of the house of Saul, in whose stead thou hast reigned, and the Lord
hath delivered the kingdom into the hand of Absalom thy son; and behold
thou art taken in thy mischief because thou art a bloody man."* This is
pathetic, and truly characteristic of the person to whom the speech
was addressed. Some of his retinue were at the point of silencing; this
brawler with the "ultima ratio regum;"** but David prevented
it,*** wisely considering this not to be a season for proceeding to
extremities.

Absalom, in the mean time, being come to Jerusalem, like a buck of
spirit, took the damsels which his father had left to keep house, and
cuckolded the old man by way of bravado, on the top of it****; in a tent
erected for this heroic purpose!

Ahitophel advised Absalom to select twelve thousand men, and pursue
David directly, before he had time to recover his surprize;(5) which was
certainly the best resolution that could have been formed. But Hushai,
as was concerted, proposed a different plan of operations; opposing to
the former, the well known valour and military skill of the old king;
and the hazard of making him and his men desperate.(6)

     * 2 Sam. xvi 7, 8.

     ** The motto on French cannon.

     *** 2 Sam. xvi. 9, 10.

     **** Ver. 21, 22.

     (5) Chap. xvii. 1.

     (6) Ver. 8.

He advised a collection of all the troops in the kingdom; that success
might be in a manner insured; and that Absalom should command them in
person. By which means, he affirmed that they should overwhelm David and
his party, wherever they found him.* Hushai gained the ascendancy; and
when he knew that his scheme was accepted, he gave immediate notice to
the priests:** with instructions for David how to conduct himself.***
David divided his forces into three bodies; commanded by Joab, Abishai,
and Ittai: but by the prudent care of his men, was not permitted to
hazard his person, by being present in action.**** When he had reviewed
his army, he gave his generals especial charge to preserve the life
of Absalom; and with a policy that reflects honour upon his military
knowledge, expected the enemy in the wood Ephraim:(5) a covert
situation, being the most judicious that could be chosen, for a small
army(6) to encounter one more numerous. David's men were tried veterans,
among whom were the remains of those who served under, and lived with
him at Gath;(7) whereas, Absalom's army must have consisted chiefly of
fresh men. The battle decided in favour of David(8) with great slaughter
of the rebel army: and as Absalom fled on a mule, his hair, which is
celebrated for its beauty and quantity, entangled in the boughs of an
oak, and he remained suspended in the air; while his mule ran away from
between his legs.(9) He was observed in this condition by a man who went
and told Joab; and he, who consulted the safety of David, rather than
his parental weakness in behalf of an unnatural son, killed Absalom with
a dart.(10)

David grieved immoderately for this reprobate son, on whom he had
misplaced a great affection:(11) and though he had _acted_ the mourner
on several former occasions, this is the only one, in which his
sincerity need not be questioned.

     * 2 Sam. xiii. 11.

     ** Ver. 15.

     *** Ver. 16.

     **** Chap. xviii. 1-3

     (5) Ver. 4-6.

     (6) According to Josephus, David had but four thousand men.

     (7)  2 Sam. xv. 18.

     (8) Chap. xviii. 7.

     (9) Ver. 9.

     (10) Ver. 14.

     (11) Ver. 33., Chap. xix. 4.


It is true, he might be really concerned at the murder of Abner; but men
circumstances ought to be attended to; Abner was killed prematurely;
he had not finished his treacherous negociation; David had much to hope
from him; but--when his expectations had been answered, it is far from
being improbable, that he would have found an opportunity himself to
have got rid of a man, on whom he could have placed no reliance. But to
return.

David was roused from his lamentations by the reproaches of his
victorious general,* who flushed with success, told him the truth, but,
perhaps, told it too coarsely. It is evident that Joab now lost the
favour of his master, which the murder of Abner, the killing Absalom in
direct contradiction to David's express order; and lastly, his want of
sympathy, and his indelicacy in the present instance, were the apparent
causes.

After the battle, he invited Amasa, Absalom's vanquished general, to
return to his duty: very imprudently and unaccountably promising him the
chief command of his army in the stead of Joab;** which was seemingly
but an unthankful return for the victory that officer had just gained
him, and for his attachment to his interest all along. Amasa, it is
true, was a near relation; but Joab, according to Josephus, stood in
the same degree of consanguinity; they being both the sons of David's
sisters, this offer must therefore have been rashly influenced by his
resentment against Joab, as before mentioned.

The remains of Absalom's scattered army dispersed to their homes in
the best and most private manner they could:*** but David inadvertantly
plunged himself into fresh troubles, by causing himself to be conducted
home by a detachment from the tribe of Judah.**** This occasioned
disputes between that and the other tribes. They accused Judah of
stealing their king from them.(5)

     * 2 Sam. xix. 5-7.

     ** Ver. 13.

     *** Ver. 3,

     **** Ver. 11, 15.

     (5) Ver. 41.


Judah replied, that they gave their attendance, because the king was of
their tribe; and that it was their own free will:* the others rejoined
that they had ten parts in the king, and that their advice should have
been asked as to the bringing him back.** At this juncture, one Sheba
took advantage of the discontent, "and blew a trumpet, and said, we have
no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: every
man to his tent, O Israel."*** The consequence of this, was a second
insurrection. Amasa was ordered to assemble an army to suppress it;
but not proceeding with the desired speed, Abishai was afterward
commissioned with the same trust; Amasa and Abishai met and proceeded
together, and were joined by Joab and his men. But Joab, not thoroughly
liking to serve under a man he had so lately vanquished, and having as
few scruples of conscience as his old master, made short work, stabbed
Amasa, and reassumed the command of the whole army.****

Being once again supreme in command, Joab proceeded directly to the
reduction of the malecontents who shut themselves up in the city of Abel
of Beth-maacha: he battered the town, but by the negociation of a woman,
the inhabitants agreed to throw Sheba's head to him over the wall; which
they performed;(5) and thus was quiet once more restored. Joab returned
to Jerusalem, where we are told that he was general over all the host
of Israel.(6) Not a syllable appears of any notice taken by David of
the murder of the general by himself appointed: and of the assassin's
usurping the command of the army.

Not finding room in its proper place, it shall now be noticed, that
when David was returning to Jerusalem from the reduction of Absalom's
rebellion; with the men of Judah, who came to escort him, Shimei, the
Benjamite,(7) joined him at the head of a party of his own tribe.

     * 2 Sam. xix. 42.

     ** Ver. 43.

     *** Chap. xx. 1.

     **** Ver. 7, 9.

     (5) Ver. 15, 16, &c.

     (6) Ver. 23.

     (7) Ver. 16.


This man, who at a former meeting, so freely bestowed his maledictions
on David when a fugitive: upon this change of circumstances, reflecting
on the king's vindictive temper, came now to make his submission: David
accepted his acknowledgements, and confirmed his pardon with an oath.*

We shall have occasion to refer to this passage anon.

Mephibosheth came also to welcome David on his return, and undeceive him
with regard to the false Ziba's representation of him;--but he appears
to have met with no other redress, than a remittance of _half the grant_
made to Ziba of his estate.**

     * 2 Sam. xix. 28.

     ** Ver. 29.

These intestine troubles put David upon pondering how to secure himself,
as far as he could forecast, from any future disturbance.

It is the part of good politicians, not only to form wise designs
themselves, but also to make proper advantage of public occurrences,
that all events indiscriminately may, more or less, lead to the purposes
wanted to be obtained. Of this policy we shall observe David to be
mindful, in the ensuing transaction. Not that a panegyric upon his
contrivance in this instance is by any means intended; for certainly
a more barefaced transaction was never exhibited: such indeed as could
only have been attempted among the poor bigoted Jews. It is sufficient,
however, that it answered David's purpose; than which more could not
have been expected from the most complete stroke that refined politics
ever produced. But view it in a moral light, and certainly a blacker
piece of ingratitude and perfidy can hardly be imagined. It was
impossible to continue the narrative without prefacing thus much.

David having with much trouble, from his competition with Ish-bosheth,
established himself upon the Jewish throne; and having in the latter
part of his reign been vexed, and driven to disagreeable extremities,
by the seditious humour of his subjects, the rebellion of his own son
Absalom, and the revolt of Sheba; his mind now fell a prey to suspicion.
He called to remembrance that some of Saul's family were yet living;
whom, lest they should hereafter prove thorns in his side, he concluded
it expedient to cut of.

Whenever David projected any scheme, a religious plea, and the
assistance of his old friends,* were never wanting. A famine befel
Judea, which continued three years: probably occasioned by the preceding
intestine commotions. "David inquired of the Lord: and the Lord
answered, it is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the
Gibeonites."** But where is this crime recorded? Samuel charged Saul
with no such slaughter: he reproached him with a contrary fault, an act
of _mercy!_ which is assigned as one of the reasons for deposing him.
So that this crime was not recollected,*** till many years after the man
was dead! and then God punishes--whom? a whole nation, with three years
famine: which, by the by, was not sent as a punishment neither; but
merely as a hint of remembrance, which ended in hanging the late king's
innocent children!

The oracular response dictated no act of expiation; but only pointed out
the _cause_ of the famine. So that the Gibeonites (who, by the way, had
hitherto made no complaints that we know of) were applied to**** for a
knowledge of what recompence they demanded.

     * The prophets and priests.

     ** 2 Sam. xxi. 1.

     *** If God sought vengeance for a particular act of cruelty
     perpetrated by Saul: when was vengeance demanded for David's
     massacre of the Edomites, the Moabites, the Ammonites, the
     Jebusites, and others, who at times became the object of
     David's wrath? That the charge may allude to some former
     affair, is not contested; it is, however, truly remarkable,
     that there should be no chronological record of a fact,
     which after such a length of time demanded an expiation so
     awfully hinted, and so extraordinary in its circumstances!

     **** 2 Sam. xxi. 2, 3.

They required no gifts, neither that for their sakes David should kill
any man in Israel (which qualifying expressions seems artfully intended;
since they only required David to _deliver_ the men to _them_, that
_they_ might kill them); but that seven of Saul's sons, should be
surrendered to them, that they might hang them up--_unto the Lord_.*
David, not withheld by any motives of gratitude toward the posterity of
his unhappy father-in-law, but in direct violation of his oath at
the cave of En-gedi,** granted the request he must himself have
instigated,*** sparing only Mephibosheth, who luckily was so unfortunate
as to be a cripple, and so much a dependant on David, and kept under
his own eye, that he had no room for apprehension from him. He therefore
reserved Mephibosheth, in memory of another oath between him and
his father Jonathan. Mephibosheth having such a shocking scene to
contemplate, and, considering his decrepitude, might (as he really was)
with little hazard be preserved, as an evidence of probity in this pious
king.

A conscience of convenient flexibility is of great use: thus David being
under obligation by two oaths, forgot one, and remembered the other.
When Creon, in OEdipus, was interrogated concerning his conscience, he
replied--

     --"'Tis my slave, my drudge, my supple glove,
     My upper garment, to put on, throw off,
     As I think best: 'tis my obedient conscience."

David, now thinking himself securely settled, was moved both by God****
and by Satan,(5) to cause his subjects to be numbered: which is,
oddly enough, imputed as a great sin in him to require: for, poor
man, according to the premises, he was but a passive instrument in the
affair.

     * 2 Sam. 6.

     ** 1 Sam. xxiv. 21, 22.

     *** 2 Sam. xxi. 6.

     **** Chap. xxiv. 1.

     (5) 1 Chron. xxi. l.


Even David should have his due. The prophet Gad called him to account
for it; and as a punishment for this sin of compulsion, propounded to
him for his choice three kinds of plagues, one of which _his subjects_
thereby necessarily incurred seven years famine, three months
persecution from enemies, or three days pestilence.* David chose the
latter.

It may be as well to decline this story, as to enter into, any more
particular consideration of it. From the above state of the case, the
intelligent reader will need no assistance in making his own private
reflections on it.

We have now attended David down to the decline of his life: when his
natural heat so far decayed, that no addition of clothing** could retain
a proper degree of warmth. His physicians prescribed a young woman to
cherish him in his bed, by imparting to him a share of juvenile heat.***
This remedy may be very expedient in cases of extreme age: but why
beauty should be a necessary part of the prescription is difficult to
conceive. They sought a _fair damsel_; and the damsel they found, was
_very fair._**** Possibly David might himself direct the delicacy of
the choice: but if his physicians intended it as a compliment to
their master, it indicated a very insufficient knowledge of the animal
oeconomy: thus to stimulate the old man, and harass a carcase already
sufficiently worn out: whereas a virgin of homelier features, at the
same time that she would have furnished an equal degree of warmth, would
have been less liable to put wicked thoughts in the patient's head.(5)
However, the historian has taken care to inform us, that "the king knew
her not:"(6) an assertion, which, from the premises, there does not
appear any reason to controvert.

     * 2 Sam. xxiv. 13., 1 Chron. xxi. 12.

     ** 1 Kings, i. 1.

     *** Ver. 2.

     **** Ver. 8, 4.

     (5) "Boerhaave frequently told his pupils that an old German
     prince, in a very infirm state of health, being advised to
     lie between two young virtuous virgins, grew so healthy and
     strong, that his physicians found it necessary to remove his
     companions." Mackenzie on Health, p. 70, Notes.

     (6) l Kings, i. 4.

While the king lay in this debilitated extremity of life, he was
destined to experience yet another mortification from his children.
Adonijah his eldest son, since the death of Absalom, taking advantage
of his father's incapacity, foolishly assumed the title of king,* which,
had he been a little less precipitate, would have soon fallen to him,
perhaps, without contest. For though David afterwards is represented as
having secret intentions to alter the succession, yet the countenance
shewn to his pretension by Joab, the general, by Abiathar the priest,
and even by all his other brothers,** seem to indicate, that had
Adonijah been more prudent, we should not now have heard so much of the
wisdom of Solomon, It is possible Adonijah might, even as it was,
have maintained his anticipated dignity, had he not, like Saul before,
slighted his most powerful friends. He made an entertainment, to which
he invited all his brothers, except Solomon;*** but what ruined him, was
his not inviting Nathan the prophet; it was _there_ the grudge began:
and the exclusion from this merry bout, and the confidence of the party,
caused the prophet's loyalty to exert itself,**** which might probably
have been suppressed by a due share of Adonijah's good cheer.

     * Ver. 5.

     ** Ver. 9, 19, 25.

     *** Ver. 9, 10,

     **** Ver. 11.

Let not the writer be accused of putting a malicious construction upon
every transaction he produces. Pray, reader, turn to your bible: in the
tenth verse of the first chapter of the first book of Kings, you will
find a remark that Nathan was not called to the feast. The very next
verse begins, "Wherefore, Nathan spake unto Bathsheba, the mother of
Solomon," &c. He was certainly nettled at the slight put on him, and
some others, in not being invited to Adonijah's feast, else he would
not have insisted on that circumstance; which had better been waved. The
supposition is not so ridiculous as has been represented; for surely
the probability of Nathan's being corrupted, was not less than that of
David's sons; who, yet, all of them, except Solomon, (who, had he
been invited, had some private reasons to the contrary, which their
proceedings shew them to have been aware of) were agreeable to settling
the succession on their elder brother; though certainly as much
interested in the disposal of the kingdom, as Nathan could be.

Nathan and Bathsheba concerted to inform David of this matter;* where
the affronted prophet could not forget the slight put upon him; but,
it being foremost in his mind, he insists upon the circumstance of
exclusion, in an earnest manner; "But me, even me, thy servant, and
Zadok the priest, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and thy servant
Solomon, hath he not called;"** which spake the cause of his officious
loyalty but too plainly. David here acknowledges the promise by which
he waved the right of primogeniture in favour of Solomon, Bathsheba's
son.*** He now directed him to be set upon a mule, to be proclaimed and
anointed king of Israel, by his appointment.**** The acclamations of the
people upon this raree-shew disturbed the opposite party at their
table; and an event, so unexpected, quite disconcerted them: they all
dispersed;(5) Adonijah ran to the tabernacle, and took sanctuary at
the altar. He obtained of Solomon a conditional promise of pardon,(6)
depending on his good behaviour.(7)

     * 1 Kings i. 13.

     ** Ver. 26.

     *** Ver. 30.

     **** Ver. 33, 38.

     (5) Ver. 41, 49, 50.

     (6) Ver. 52.

     (7) Solomon soon found a pretence, ridiculous enough, but
     sufficient in his eyes, to get rid of Adonijah, when his
     father was dead.


And now, methinks, some gentlewoman, of more than feminine patience,
whose curiosity may have prevailed with her to proceed thus for, may
here exclaim; "It must be granted, Sir! that David had his faults; and
who has not? but what does that prove? only that he was a man. If he
was frail, his repentance was exemplary; as you may perceive, if you
can prevail with yourself to read some of his psalms. Indeed, after your
ill-treatment of the scripture, it will avail little to tell you that
you contradict those inspired penmen, who expressly stile David, _the
Man after God's own heart_. Nay, your writing against him, under that
epithet, shews sufficiently the rancour and impiety of _your heart_; so
that I am fearful there are small hopes of reclaiming you."--Good Madam!
hear me calmly, and we shall part excellent friends yet. Had David not
been selected from the rest of mankind, why then--it is possible--hardly
possible--he might pass in the gross, with the rest of the Jewish kings.
But, when he is exalted and placed in a conspicuous point of view, as an
eminent example of piety! he then necessarily attracts our notice in an
especial manner, and we are naturally led to wonder, that a more happy
subject of panegyric had not been chosen. If he was an holy psalmist; if
he is styled the Man after God's own heart; he also lived the life here
exhibited: and his capability of uniting such contrarities, does but
augment his guilt!

Yet, even in his psalms, he frequently breathes nothing but blood,
and the most rancorous resentment against his enemies. Of these take
a specimen or two, from the elegant _ekeings_ out of that transcendent
pair of geniuses, Messrs. Thomas Sternhold and John Hopkins; in
recommendation of whose version, and the taste of our countrymen, it
may be truly affirmed, that their psalms have gone through more editions
than the works of any other poet, or brace of poets, whatever.

Psalm lxviii. 22-24.

     And he shall wound the head of all
     His enemies also,
     The hairy scalp of such as on
     In wickedness do go.

     From Basan 1 will bring, said he,
     My people and my sheep,
     And all my own, as I have done.
     From dangers of the deep.

     And make them dip their feet in blood
     Of those that hate my name;
     The tongues of dogs they shall be red
     With licking of the same.


Again, in Psalm lxix. 24--27.

     Lord, turn their table to a snare,
     To take themselves therein,
     And when they think full well to fare,
     Then rap them in their gin:
     And let their eyes be dark and blind,

     That they may nothing see;
     Bow down their backs, and let them find
     Themselves in thrall to be:
     Pour out thy wrath as hot as fire,

     That it on them may fall,
     Let thy displeasure in thine ire
     Take hold upon them all.
     As desarts dry their house disgrace,
     Their seed do thou expel,
     That none thereof possess their place,
     Nor in their tents once dwell.


Very pious ejaculations for the whole congregation to _sing to the
praise and glory of God!_

David's failings, as they are qualifyingly termed, are generally
mentioned as exceptions to the uniform piety of his character: but, if
David ever performed any truly laudable actions, _those_ are the real
exceptions to the general baseness which stains the whole of a life
uncommonly criminal.

The writer does not pledge himself to reconcile rapine and cruelty,
with morality and religion; there are Commentators who love these knotty
affairs; to them they are left. When the vindictive tenor of any of
David's psalms has been insisted on, the translation is immediately
censured; prudently enough; as every one who has sense to perceive
the incongruity between such bloody wishes and denunciations, and the
acknowledged purity and mercy of the All-beneficent Father of Nature,
may not have learning enough to dispute about Hebrew points, and to make
them point what meaning he pleases. However, such a one, by comparing
the labours of Hebrew critics, may yet be enabled to form some sort of
judgment between them. For instance, in that terrible 109th psalm, it
is certain our Doctors in Divinity do not like it: but something must be
done with it: some, therefore, say, that the verbs are not translated in
their proper tenses, and that prophetic declarations are thus mistaken
for the Psalmist's execrations: others again say, that to be sure they
_are_ imprecations, but not the imprecations of David; but those of his
enemies on him, which he there only relates! O happy men! why do not we
all learn Hebrew? His exemplary repentance is pleaded; is it any where
to be found but in the psalms? "By their fruits ye shall know them."
If David was ever truly pious, we shall certainly perceive it in his
behaviour on his death-bed. _There_, it is to be hoped, we shall find
him forgiving his enemies, and dying in charity with all mankind. This
is what all mankind in general make a point of, from the saint to the
malefactor. David, therefore, must certainly give us an extraordinary
instance of his attention to this important evidence of contrition,
But what shall we think, when we see this Nero of the Hebrews die in a
manner uniform and consistent with the whole course of his life? What
will be our reflections, when we find him, with his last accents,
delivering two cruel and inhuman murders in charge to his son Solomon?
Murders still further aggravated by the included crimes of ingratitude
and perjury! one of them to be executed on his old faithful general,
Joab, who powerfully assisted him on all occasions, and who adhered to
him in all his extremities, till at the last, when he had justifiable
cause for chagrin: but who, notwithstanding, had not appeared against
him in actual hostility; but only drank a glass of wine with the
malcontents. It will avail nothing to plead the private faults of the
man; we are now to consider him as relative to David, in his public
capacity. In which light we must loath the master, who died meditating
black ingratitude against so faithful, so useful a servant. For even
his defection at last may, perhaps, admit of being interpreted into a
patronization of that particular plan for the succession, rather than
into a rebellion against the superannuated monarch.

His other charge was against Shimei, who reviled David at his retreat
from Jerusalem, during Absalom's rebellion; but who made his submission
to him, when he returned victorious: and whose pardon David had sealed
with a solemn oath.*

Attend we now to the cause of these reflections. After exhorting Solomon
on his death-bed, to keep the statutes of the Lord, David proceeds:

"Moreover, thou knowest also what Joab, the son of Zeruiah, did to me,
and what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, unto Abner
the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed
the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle that
was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet."

"Do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let NOT HIS HOAR HEAD GO DOWN
TO THE GRAVE IN PEACE."**

This was afterwards fulfilled in the basest manner, by the administrator
to this pious testament.

David concludes thus:

"And behold, thou hast with thee Shimei, the son of Gera, a Benjaminite
of Bahurim, which cursed me with a grievous curse, in the day when I
went to Mahanaim; but he came down to meet me at Jordan, and I sware to
him by the Lord, saying, I will not put thee to death with the sword:

"Now, therefore, hold him not guiltless: for thou art a wise man, and
knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him; but his hoar head bring
thou down to the grave with BLOOD."*** --That is to say, 'It is true, I
promised not to put him to death, but thou art a wise man, and knowest
what thou oughtest to do; thou knowest thyself not to be bound by that
obligation; therefore his hoar head, &c. So saying, he expired!

     * 2  Sam. xix. 23.

     ** 1 Kings ii. 5, 6.

     *** Ver. 8, 9.


This command was also executed in a manner, worthy of a son of SUCH A
FATHER.

To take a retrospect view of the foregoing narrative; in few words may
be seen the sum total of the whole. A shepherd: youth is chosen by
a disgusted, prophet, to be the instrument of his revenge on an
untractable king. To this, end he is inspired with ambitious hopes, by
a private inauguration; is introduced to court, in the capacity of a
harper; and by knocking down a man with a stone whom, if he had missed
once, he had four more chances of hitting, and from whom, at the last,
he could have, easily ran away; he was advanced to the dignity of
son-in-law to the king. So sudden and unlooked for a promotion within
sight of the throne, stimulated expectations already awakened; and Saul
soon perceived reasons to repent his alliance with him. Being obliged to
retire from the court, he assembled a gang of ruffians, the acknowledged
outcasts of their country, and became the ringleader of a lawless
company of banditti. In this capacity he seduces his brother-in-law,
Jonathan, from his allegieance and filieal duty; and covenants with him,
that if he obtained the kingdom, Jonathan should be the next person in
authority under him.

He obtains a settlement in the dominions of a Philistine prince where
instead of applying himself laudably to the arts of cultivation he
subsists by plundering and butchering the neighbouring nations.

He offered his assistance to the Philistine armies, in a war against his
own country, and father-in-law; and is much disgusted at their distrust
of his sincerity. He however, availed himself of the defeat and death of
Saul, and made a push for the kingdom.

Of this he gained only his own tribe of Judah: but strengthened by this
usurpation, he contested the remainder with Saul's son, Ishbosbeth,
whom he persecuted to the grave: Ishbosbeth being assassinated by two
villains, with intention to pay their court to the usurper. He is now
king of Israel: In which capacity he plundered and massacred all his
neighbours round him at discretion. He defiled, the wife of one of his
officers, while her husband was absent in the army: and finding she was
with child by him, He, to prevent a discovery, added murder to
adultery; which being accomplished, he took the widow directly into his
well-stocked seraglio. He then repaired to the army, where he treated
the subjected enemies: with the most wanton inhumanity. A rebellion is
raised against him by his son Absalom, which he suppressed, and invited
over the rebel-general, to whom he gave the supreme command of his army,
to the prejudice of the victorious Joab. After this, he cut off the
remainder of Saul's family, in defiance to the solemn oath by which he
engaged to spare that unhappy race; reserving only one cripple from whom
he had not apprehensions: and who, being the son of Jonathan, gave him
the opportunity of making a merit of his gratitude.

When he lay on his death-bed, where all mankind resign their resentments
and animosities, his latest breath was employed in dictating two
posthumous murders to his son Solomon! and, as if one crime more was
wanting to complete the black catalogue; he cloathed all his actions
with the most consummate hypocrisy: professing all along the greatest
regard for every appearance of virtue and holiness. These, Christians!
are the outlines of the life of a Jew, whom you are not ashamed to
continue extolling as a man after God's own heart!

This Britons! is the king to whom your late excellent monarch* has been
compared!

     * George II.

What an impiety to the Majesty of Heaven!

What an affront to the memory of an honest prince! It is with great joy
the writer of these memoirs takes his leave of a story, with which, by
this time he is sufficiently disgusted. He entered upon it, however,
from honest motives; and he concludes it with the consciousness of having
performed a work, which he flatters himself will prove acceptable to
all who entertain adequate conceptions of the eternal rectitude of that
great Creator of the universe, whom they profess to adore. He despises
all the pious ravings and anathemas which have been thundered against
him by some reverend inquisitors: he expected them, has exposed them;
and hopes he may, without offence finally reply in the words of their
forgotten master, "Father forgive them, for they _know not_ what
they do." Those who estimate a man's religion by his implicitness to
prescribed notions, and who think it their duty to stifle their living
objections in compliance to the dead letter; (for objections they will
have, and very strong ones too) such have, and will undoubtedly
be shocked at this publication. Such may produce numerous texts in
opposition to what is here produced; and can inspired writers be
inconsistent with themselves? It is not at present necessary to discuss
that question. Argue that point among yourselves; the printer will at
least profit by your disputes; though you may happen to

     ----Explain a thing till all men doubt it.
     And write about the subject, and about it:
     So spins the silk-worm small its slender store,
     And labours till it clouds itself all o'er.

This, yet, is none of his concern. The love of truth is a motive
which ought to supersede every other consideration: for every other
consideration is subordinate in comparison with it. Truth requires no
tenderness of investigation, and scorns all subterfuges. It is, when
displayed,

     ----divinely bright.
     One dear, unchang'd, and universal light.

To rescue truth, therefore, from obscurity and disguise, is the most
rational way of giving

_Glory to God in the highest; and on earth, peace: good-will toward
men._