DAVID.

David, king of the Jews, was one of the greatest men in the world, even though we should not consider him as a royal prophet, who was after God’s own heart. The first time that the scripture makes him appear on the stage of the world is to inform us that Samuel appointed him king, and performed the ceremony of anointing him. David was then but a mere shepherd; being the youngest of the eight sons of Jesse the Bethlehemite, descended in a direct line from Judah, one of the twelve sons of Jacob, and who dwelt at Bethlehem, a small city of the tribe of Judah. Some modern rabbins say that, when David was conceived, his father Jesse did not think that he lay with his wife, but with his servant maid, and thereby explain the seventh verse of the fifty-first psalm, wherein David affirms, that “ he was shapen in iniquity, and that his mother conceived him in sin.’’ “ This,” say they, “ signifies that his father Jesse committed an adultery

in begetting him, because though he begot him by his wife, he believed that he begot him by his servant maid, upon whose chastity he had made an attempt.”

I have just now read an Italian book, wherein this story of the rabbin’s is related in this manner. “David’s father loved his servant maid, and after having cajoled her several times, he told her at last, that she should prepare herself to lye with him that night. She being no less virtuous than beautiful, complained to her mistress, that Jesse would not let her be quiet. ‘ Che non poteva haver riposo, rispetto che il patrone continuamente la tentava per farla giacere una nocte con lui ' ‘ Promise to satisfy him this night,’ answered her mistress, ‘ and I will put myself in your place? This was done two or three nights, one after another. When Jesse perceived that his wife, with whom he had not lain a long time, was nevertheless with child, he accused her of adultery, and would not believe what she told him of the agreement she made with her maid. Neither he nor his sons would see the child she brought into the world, but looked upon him as a bastard; he treated her with the utmost scorn, and caused the child to be brought up among the shepherds in the country. He did not reveal this mystery to his neighbours, but concealed his shame, for his children’s sake. Things remained in that state, till the prophet Samuel went to look for a king in the family of Jesse. His choice not falling on any of the sons that were showed him, David was sent for; it was done with reluctancy, because they feared that a shameful secret would be discovered; but when they found that this pretended bastard was the person that the prophet looked for, their thoughts were altered, and nothing was heard but fine songs. David began with aTe Deum, he praised God that he had heard his prayers, and delivered him from the scandal of bastardy. Jesse went on, and said, ' the stone that the builders have refused, is become the corner stone that

shall support all the house.' His other sons, Samuel, &c. spoke also some sentences.” The Rabbi adds, “ hat Jesse’s design was good; his wife was old, his maid was young, and he desired to get more children. “ Il pensiero d’lsai era buono perche essendo la patrona vecchia, e la massera giovane, havea desiderio di haver altri figliuoli.” What a fine apology! If such excuses would do, what a multitude of lewd women would be secured from censure! Was there ever any doctrine about the direction of the intention more convenient than this?

Those who would adopt the impertinence of the rabbins concerning David’s conception, might easily admit another impertinent thing, which would be to place David in the number of illustrious bastards. The physical reason which is alleged why bastards are so often born with great natural talents, might take place here on the father’s part.

The scripture tells us, that he was sent to king Saul to cure him of his fits of frenzy, by the sound of his musical instruments; a service that made him so much beloved by Saul, that he kept him in his house and made him his armour bearer. The scripture says afterwards that David used togo home from time to time, to take care of his father’s flocks, and that his father sent him one day to Saul’s camp, with some provisions for three of his sons that were in the army. David, performing that order, heard the challenge, that a Philistine called Goliah, proud of his strength and gigantic stature, made daily to the Israelites, which none among them durst to accept, and expressed his great desire to fight that giant; whereupon he was brought to the king, and assured him that he should triumph over that Philistine. Saul gave him his armour; but David, finding it troublesome, put it off, and resolved to make use only of his sling; which he did so happily, that he brought down that swaggerer with a stone, and killed him afterwards with his

own sword, and cut off his head, which he presented to Saul. That prince asked his general, when he saw David go against Goliah, “whose son is this youth?” The general answered, that he did not know, and received orders to enquire about it: but Saul heard it himself from that young man; for, being brought to him after the victory, he asked him, “ whose son art thou?” and David answered him that he was the son of Jesse. It is somewhat strange that Saul did not know David that day, since the young man had played several times on his musical instruments before him, to disperse the black vapours that molested him. If such a narrative as this should be found in Thucydides, or in Livy, all the critics would unanimously conclude that the transcribers had transposed the pages, forgot something in one place, repeated something in another, or inserted some preposterous additions in the author’s work; but no such suspicions ought to be entertained of the Bible. Nevertheless, some have been so bold as to pretend, that all the chapters, or all the verses of the first book of Samuel, are not placed as they were at first. It seems to me that the Abbot de Choisi removes the difficulty much better. “ David was brought before Saul,” says he, “ who did not know him at first, though he had seen him several times, when he sent for him to play on the harp: but as this was many years before, and David was very-young, and came to court in the quality of a musician, and was then dressed like a shepherd, it can be no wonder that a king, full of business, and whose mind was distempered, should forget the features of a young man’s face, who had nothing considerable in him.” I only wish that he had not said:—That Saul had not seen David for many years; and that David was very young when he came to Saul’s court in the quality of a musician. There is no likelihood that he was much younger when he killed Goliah, than when he came the first time to Saul’s court; for when he made his first journey, he was a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters. He was but thirty years of age when he was elected king after the death of Saul; and there must be necessarily an interval of many years between the death of Goliah and that of Saul.

Saul kept David in his service, without suffering him to return to his father. But, because the songs that were sung in all the cities on the defeat of the Philistines, ascribed ten times more glory to David than to Saul, the king conceived a violent jealousy, which increased daily; the employments that he gave to David, to keep him from court, served only to make him more illustrious, and to procure him the affection and admiration of the Jews. By a false policy, he would make him his son-in-law; he was in hopes that the condition on which he was to give him his second daughter, would deliver him from that object of aversion; but he was deceived in his cunning. He asked an hundred foreskins of the Philistines for his daughter’s dowry; David brought him two hundred in full tale; so that, instead of perishing in the enterprise, as Saul hoped, he returned with a new addition of glory. He married Saul’s daughter, whereby he became still more formidable to the king; all his expeditions against the Philistines were very prosperous; his name grew famous; he was in very great esteem; insomuch that Saul, who knew his son-in-law’s virtue much less than the humour of the people, imagined that the death of David was the only thing that could secure him from being dethroned. He resolved then to be rid of him, and trusted his eldest son with that design, who, far from siding with his father’s jealousy, gave David notice of that black conspiracy. David fled, and was pursued from place to place, till he had given undeniable proofs of his probity and fidelity to his father-in-law; to whom he did no manner of harm, on two favourable

opportunities, wherein he might easily have killed him; upon which Saul resolved to let him alone: but, as David feared this prince might resume his wicked designs, he still kept upon his guard. Nay, he provided himself a safer place of refuge than before, in the land of the Philistines, He dwelt some time in the chief city of king Achish, with his little band of six hundred bold adventurers, but being afraid of putting this prince to charges, he begged he would assign him some other place of abode. Achish gave him the town of Ziklag. David removed thither with his adventurers, and suffered not their swords to rust in their scabbards; he often led them out in parties, and killed, without mercy, both men and women. He left nothing alive but the cattle, which was the only booty he returned with. He was afraid, lest the prisoners should discover the whole mystery to Achish, and therefore he carried none of them away, but put all to the sword, both male and female. The secret he would not have revealed was, that the ravages were committed not upon the country of the Israelites, as he made the king of Gath believe, but upon the lands of the ancient inhabitants of Palestine. To speak plainly, this conduct was very unjustifiable: in order to conceal one fault, he committed a greater. He imposed upon a king to whom he had obligations, and exercised great cruelty to cover that imposition. If any one had asked David, by what authority dost thou these things? what could he have answered? Can a private person, as he was, a fugitive, who finds shelter in the dominions of a neighbouring prince, have a right to commit hostilities for his own advantage, and without a commission from the sovereign of the country? Had David any such commission? on the contrary, did he not act in opposition to the intentions and interest of the king of Gath? If a private man, how great soever by birth, should he have himself now-a-days, as David did on this occasion, he would, undoubtedly, be called by names of little honour. I know the most renowned heroes, the most famous prophets of the Old Testament, have sometimes approved the putting to the sword every thing that had life; and therefore, I should be very far from calling that cruelty, which David did, had he been warranted by the order of any prophet, or if God, by inspiration, had commanded him to do so: but it evidently appears, from the silence of the scripture, that he did all this of his own accord.

I shall add one word in relation to what he had determined to do to Nabal. Whilst Nabal, who had vast riches, was shearing his sheep, David sent to beg of him some gratuity in a very obliging manner. The messengers did not fail to tell him that his shepherds had never been injured by David’s people. Nabal, being very churlish, asked rudely who David was, and upbraided him with having shaken off his masters yoke; in a word, he declared he was not so imprudent as to give to strangers and vagabonds, what he had provided for his own servants. David enraged at this answer, ordered four hundred of his men to arm, and put himself at their head, being firmly resolved not to save a soul alive, but to slay them all with the sword. He even bound himself to it by an oath; and if he did not execute this bloody resolution it was owing to Abigail, who came to pacify him with presents and fair words. Abigail was Nabal’s wife, a woman of great merit, handsome, witty, and so agreeable to David, that he married her after her husband’s death. Now let us deal plainly; is it not manifest beyond contradiction, that David was about to do a very criminal action? He had no right to the goods of Nabal, nor any authority to punish him for his incivility; he was roving up and down the world with a gang of trusty friends. He might, indeed, have asked some gratuity of those who could afford it; but if they refused, he ought to

have taken it patiently, and he could not compel them to it by military execution, without plunging the world again into the dreadful confusion which they call the state of nature, where no law obtained but that of the stronger. What would one say now of a prince of the blood of France, who being out of favour at court, should make his escape with such friends as would be willing to share his fortune? what opinion I say, could we entertain of him, if he went about raising contributions in the countries where he cantoned, and put to the sword in those districts, all that refused to pay his taxes? What should we say if this prince should fit out some vessels to infest the seas, in order to seize all the merchant ships he could lay hold of? In truth, had David any right to exact contributions of Nabal, to massacre all the men and women in the country of the Amalekites, &c., and to carry away all the cattle he found there? If one should answer that the law of nations, the jus belli et pacis, about which so many fine systems have been made, are now better known than formerly; and, therefore, such a conduct was more excusable in those days than now, I grant it; but, at the same time, the profound respect we ought to have for this great prince, this great prophet, should not hinder us from disapproving the blemishes that occur in his life; otherwise we shall give occasion to libertines to reproach us, and say that, to determine an action just, it is sufficient that it should be done by certain persons we reverence. Nothing can be more prejudicial to Christian morality. It is of great importance to the true religion, that the lives of the orthodox be judged by the general notions of justice and order. David would have even fought under the banner of the king of Gath, against the Israelites, in that unhappy war in which Saul perished. Moreover, whilst David with his little flying camp was employed in ravaging the countries of the infidels, wherever he could penetrate, the Philistines were preparing for war against the Israelites. They gathered all their forces together. David and his bold adventurers joined the army of Achish, and would have fought like lions against their brethren, if the jealous Philistines had not obliged Achish to dismiss them. They were afraid that David and his men, in the heat of battle would fall upon them, in order to make their peace with Saul. When David understood that he must quit the army, because of these suspicions, he was extremely concerned. He had a mind then to contribute, with all his might, to the victory of the uncircumcised Philistines over his own brethren, the people of God, the professors of the true religion. I leave it to nice casuists to determine whether or not these sentiments became a true Israelite.

After the death of Saul, David returned into Judea, and was there proclaimed king by the tribe of Judah. Nevertheless, the other tribes submitted to Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, which was effected by Abner’s fidelity. Abner, who had been general of the army under King Saul, placed Ishbosheth upon the throne, and supported him on it against the attempts of David; but being full of resentment, because Ishbosheth reproved him for having taken one of Saul’s concubines, he entered into a treaty with David to procure him the kingdom of Ishbosheth. The negociation would have been soon concluded, to the satisfaction of David, if Joab, to revenge a private quarrel, had not killed Abner. The death of Abner only hastened the ruin of the unfortunate Ishbosheth. Two of his chief captains slew him, and brought his head to David, who, far from rewarding them for it, as they expected, ordered them both to be put to death. The subjects of Ishbosheth quickly submitted themselves to David. This prince had reigned seven years and a half over the tribe of Judah, and afterwards he

reigned about thirty years over all Israel. This long reign was remarkable for great success, and glorious conquests. It was not much disturbed except by the wicked attempts of this prince’s own children, who are commonly the enemies which sovereigns have most reason to fear. The most remarkable of their wicked attempts was the revolt of Absalom, who forced this great prince to fly from Jerusalem in a mournful condition. He went with his head covered, bare footed, melting in tears, and his ears filled with the lamentations of his faithful subjects. Absalom entered Jerusalem as in triumph; and, that his party might not abate of their zeal, from a notion that this difference between father and son would be made up, he did one thing sufficient to make them believe he should never be reconciled to David. He lay with the ten concubines of this prince, in the sight of every body. It is very likely this crime would have been forgiven; the extreme affliction, into which his death threw David, is a proof of it. David was the best father that ever lived; his indulgence to his children was excessive, and he himself was the first that suffered for it. For, had he punished the infamous action of his son Amnon as it deserved, he would not have bad the shame and sorrow to see another revenge the injury done to Tamar: and had he chastized, as he ought, the person who revenged this injury, he would not have run the hazard of being entirely dethroned. David had the fate of the most part of great princes; he was unfortunate in his own family. His eldest son ravished his own sister, and was killed by one of his brothers for that incest: the author of this fratricide lay with the concubines of David. What scandal is here given to pious souls, to see so much infamy in the family of this king !

Thus David was very near being reduced to the low condition in which Samuel found him. Humanly speaking, this reverse of fortune would have been

unavoidable, if he had not found some persons about his son Absalom, who acted the part of traitors. David's piety is so conspicuous in his psalms, and in many of his actions, that we cannot sufficiently admire it. But there is another thing no less wonderful in his conduct, viz. that he knew so happily how to reconcile so much piety with the loose maxims of the art of governing. It is generally believed that his adultery with Bathsheba, the murder of Uriah, and the numbering of the people, are the only faults he can be charged with; but it is a great mistake, as there are many other things in his life that deserve censure. I have already taken notice of some of them, which happened while he was a private person: here are others, which relate to the time of his reign.

His polygamy cannot well be excused: for, though God permitted it in those days, we must not think one might stretch it very far, without indulging too much to sensuality. Michal, the second daughter of Saul, was David’s first wife: she was taken from him during his disgrace; he married successively several others, and still continued to demand back the first. Before she could be restored to him, she must be forced from a husband that loved her exceedingly, and who followed her as far as he could, crying like a child. David did not scruple to match with a daughter of an uncircumcised prince; and though he had children by several wives, yet he took concubines at Jerusalem. Undoubtedly, he chose the handsomest he could find; so we cannot say, with regard to the pleasures of love, that he took much pains to mortify nature.

When he heard of Saul’s death too, he bethought himself, without loss of time, how to secure the succession. He went to Hebron, and, as soon as he arrived there, the whole tribe of Judah, whereof he had gained the chief men by presents, owned him for king. Abner had not preserved the rest of the succession

for the son of Saul, doubtless, by the same method, I mean the gaining the chief men by presents, David would have been king of all Israel. But what happened after Abner, by his fidelity, had kept eleven entire tribes for Ishbosheth? the Very same thing that would happen between two infidel and most ambitious kings. David and Ishbosheth made continual war upon each other, to see which of the two should get the other’s portion, in order to enjoy the whole kingdom without division. What I am going to say is much worse; Abner, displeased with the king his master, contrives to strip him of his dominions, and to deliver them up to David; he communicates his design to David; he goes to him himself to concert with him the means of bringing it about. David lends an ear to this treacherous villain, and is well pleased to get a kingdom by intrigues of this nature. Can it be said these are the actions of a saint? I own there is nothing in them but what is agreeable to the maxims of policy, and the ways of human prudence; but it can never be proved that the strict laws of equity, and rigid morals of a faithful servant of God, can allow of this conduct. It is to be observed, David did not pretend that the son of Saul reigned by usurpation; he granted he was a righteous man, and consequently a lawful king.

I am of the same mind also, as to the cunning David made use of, during Absalom’s revolt. He would not suffer Hushai, one of his best friends, to accompany him; he ordered him to go over to the party of Absalom, that he might give bad counsels to this rebellious son, and be able to inform David of all the designs of the new king. This cunning, without doubt, is very commendable, if we judge of things according to human prudence, and the policy of princes; it saved David, and from that age, even to our own inclusively, has produced a multitude of adventures, beneficial to some and destructive to others; but a rigid

casuist will never take this cunning for an action worthy of a prophet, a saint, a righteous man. A good man, as such, will rather lose a crown, than be the cause of his friend’s damnation; and it is to damn our friend, as much as in us lies, to push him on to commit a crime; which it is, to pretend with zeal to espouse the party of a man, with a view to ruin that man, by giving him bad counsels, and discovering all the secrets of his cabinet. Is it possible for one to act a more treacherous part than Hushai did? As soon as he perceives Absalom, he cries out, “ God save the king and when he was asked how he came to be so ungrateful as not to accompany his intimate friend, he gives himself devout airs, and alleges reasons of conscience: “ His will I be,” says he, “whom the Lord hath chosen.”

Again, when David, by reason of old age, could not be warmed by all the clothes they covered him with, it was thought proper to seek for a young virgin, who might take care of and lie with him. He suffered them to bring to him for this purpose, the most beautiful girl they could find. Now, can this be said to be the action of a very chaste man? Will a man who is filled with the ideas of purity, and entirely resolved to do what order and good morals require of him, ever consent to these remedies? Is it possible to consent to them without preferring the instincts of nature, and the interests of the flesh to those of the spirit of God?

David has been blamed long since, for having committed a flagrant piece of injustice against Mehibosheth, the son of his dear friend Jonathan. The fact is, David no longer fearing the faction of king Saul, was pleased to shew himself liberal to all those who might still remain of that family. He heard, that a poor lame man called Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, was yet alive; he sent for him, and gave him all the land that had belonged to king

Saul, and commanded Ziba, an old servant of that family, to improve it for him, and for the maintenance of Mephibosheth’s son: as to Mephibosheth himself, he was to eat as long as he lived at king David’s table. When this prince made his escape from Jerusalem, that he might not fall into the hands of Absalom, he met Ziba, who brought him some provisions, and told him in one word, that Mephibosheth staid at Jerusalem, in hopes of recovering the kingdom amidst these revolutions; upon which, David gave him all that belonged to Mephibosheth. After the death of Absalom, he found Ziba had been a false accuser, and yet took from him but half of what he had given him, and restored to Mephibosheth only the half of his estate. Some authors pretend that this injustice, which was so much the greater as David had been infinitely obliged to Jonathan, was the reason God permitted Jeroboam to rend in two the kingdom of Israel. But it is certain, the sins of Solomon were the cause that God permitted this division. All the interpreters have not left David without apology. Some pretend, that Ziba’s accusation was not unjust, or at least it was grounded upon so much probability, that one might give credit to it without being guilty of a rash judgment. But there are not many of this opinion. Most of the fathers and moderns believe, that Ziba was a slanderer, and that David suffered himself to be imposed on. The opinion of Pope Gregory is to be taken particular notice of: he owns Mephibosheth was falsely accused, and yet pretends that the sentence which deprived him of all his estate was just. This he maintains for two reasons; first, because David pronounced it; secondly, because a secret judgment of God interposed in it. ‘ Non me latet, præter interpretes in contrarium supra adductos, S Gregorium contra Davidem stare lib 1, Dialo c 4. Quamvis enim ait, latam a Davide contra innocentum Jonathæ filium sententiam, quia per Davidem lata est, et occulto Dei judicio pronunciata, justam credi, tamen disertè agnoscit Mephibosethum fuisse innocentem. Ex quo aperte sequitur sententiam Davidis non fuisse justam. In quo cogimur S Gregorio non adærere; cum compertissima sit Davidis sanctitas; nec cum postea sarcisse hujusmodi dispendium aliunde constet. Besides the interpreters above quoted for the contrary opinion, I know St Gregory is against David, 1. 1. dialog. cap. 4. For though he says, the sentence of David against the innocent son of Jonathan is believed to be just, because it was passed by David, and pronounced by the secret judgment of God, yet he expressly acknowledges that Mephibosheth was innocent. Whence it evidently follows, that the sentence of David was not just. In which I am forced to differ from St Gregory; since the holiness of David is very well known, and it does not appear that he afterwards repaired this injury.” Theoph. Raynaud. page 232. ⁹² The author I quote goes another way to work; “ since the holiness of David,” says he, “ is very well known, and since he never ordered that satisfaction should be made for the wrong done to Mephibosheth, we must conclude the sentence was just.” This is to establish a very dangerous principle: we should be no longer at liberty to examine by the notions of morality the actions of the ancient prophets, in order to condemn those which are not conformable thereto; and so, libertines might accuse our casuists of approving certain actions, which are manifestly unjust, in favour of some men, and through respect of persons. Let us say rather, and apply to the saints what has been said of great wits, nullum sine venia placuit ingenium. The greatest saints have sometimes need of a pardon.

I shall say nothing of what Michal, one of

David’s wives, reproached him with, in regard to the figure he made when he danced in public. If he had uncovered his nakedness, the action might pass for an ill one, morally speaking; but if he only made himself contemptible by his postures, and by not supporting the dignity of his character, it was at most but an imprudence, and not a crime. We must consider well upon what occasion he danced; it was when the ark was brought up to Jerusalem; and consequently the excess of his joy, and of his capers, testified his attachment and sensibility for holy things. A modern author has endeavoured to justify the nakedness of Francis of Assisi by that of David: “ Michal, David’s wife,” says he, “ having seen from a window her husband, who, being transported with a holy fervour, leaped and danced before the ark of the Lord, despised him in her heart,” and, rallying him, said, “ How glorious was the King of Israel to day, who uncovered himself in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!” These last words of the holy text seem to intimate that David stripped himself stark naked; however, as the same text, speaking of David’s dance before the ark, says he was girded with a linen ephod, I do not think he was quite naked. But he uncovered himself so much, that he seemed to be naked, and that it was thought unbecoming the gravity and majesty of a king; especially as it was done publicly and before a great multitude. The action of David, attended with all these circumstances, is not more justifiable than that of St Francis, who had very few spectators: St. Francis of Assisi being brought by his father to the bishop to renounce his patrimony, and give up every thing he had, he delivered to him his very clothes, and stripped himself stark naked before the company. The bishop rose from his seat, and covered him with his cloak. Bonaventure’s Life of St Francis. ⁹³ so that if the action of the one deserves censure, that of the other cannot be exempted from it; and indeed we read that Michal derided him for it. But let us see whether the Holy Spirit did so; and we shall judge by that whether we ought to ridicule the action of St Francis. Afterwards he relates the answer David made to Michal, and what the scripture observes concerning her barrenness. A great many ladies would deserve to be barren, if having Michal’s taste were a sufficient reason, for it. It would be thought very strange all over Europe, if, upon a day of procession of the holy sacrament, kings should dance in the streets without any thing but a little sash round the waist.

The conquests of David shall be the subject of my last observation. There are some rigid casuists, who do not think a Christian prince can lawfully engage in a war, through a desire only of aggrandizing himself. These casuists approve of no wars but those that are defensive, or in general such as tend only to restore to every one his own. At this rate, David had frequently undertaken unjust wars: for, besides that the holy scripture represents him pretty often as the aggressor, we find he extended the bounds of his empire from Egypt to the Euphrates. That we may not then condemn David, it is better to say that conquests may sometimes be permitted; and therefore we ought to take care, lest, in exclaiming against modern princes, we should inadvertently asperse this great prophet.

But if, generally speaking, the conquests of this holy monarch were glorious to him, without prejudice to his justice, we can hardly agree they were so when we come to particulars. Let us not by conjectures rake into secrets, which history has not revealed. Let us not conclude, that because David was pleased to make an advantage of Abner’s and Hushai’s treachery, therefore he practised all manner of cunning against the infidel princes, whom he

subdued. Let us confine ourselves intirely to what the sacred history tells us of the way in which he treated the conquered. “ And he brought forth the people that were in Rabbah; 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 he did unto all the cities of the children of Ammon.” 2 Sam. ch. xii, ver. 31. ⁹⁴ The Geneva bible observes in the margin of this verse, that these were kinds of capital . punishments used in former times. Let us see how he treated the Moabites: “he measured them with a line casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he, to put to death: and with one full line to keep alive. 2 Sam. chap. viii, ver. 2. ⁹⁵ That is, he had a mind to put to death exactly two thirds, neither more nor less. Idumea met with rougher usage; for there he ordered all the males to be slain: “six months did Joab remain there with all Israel, until he had cut off’ every male in Edom. 1 Kings, chap. xi, ver. 15. ⁹⁶” Can one say, this way of making war is not to be condemned? Have not even the Turks and Tartars a little more humanity? And if an infinite number of pamphlets exclaim every day against the military executions of our own time, which are indeed harsh, and much to be blamed, but gentle when compared with those of David, what would the authors of these pamphlets say, if they had the saws, the harrows, the brick-kilns of David to complain of, and the general massacre of all males, old and young? Even in his dying words we find the obliquities of politics. Understand me rightly: I do not mean that David in this condition did not speak according to his mind; but that the plain and free manner, in which he opened his heart, shews he had formerly, upon two remarkable occasions, sacrificed justice to interest. He knew very well that Joab deserved death, and to let the murders, whereof he had been guilty, go unpunished, was a manifest injustice against law and reason. Nevertheless, Joab had kept his posts, his credit, and authority. He was a brave man; he served the king his master faithfully, and to good purpose; and there was reason to fear some mutiny, if they attempted to punish him. These were political reasons, which made the laws give place to advantage. But, when David had no farther occasion for this general, he ordered him to be put to death: this was one of the articles of his last will. 1 Kings, chap. ii, ver. 6. ⁹⁷ Solomon his successor was charged with the like order against Shimei. This man, knowing David had made his escape from Jerusalem in great disorder, upon the account of Absalom’s revolt, came to insult him by the way, and used reproaches yet harder than the stones he threw at him. David bore this injury very patiently; he acknowledged and adored the hand of God in it, with marks of singular piety; and when his affairs were re-established, he pardoned Shimei, who was one of the first that came to submit themselves, and implore his mercy. David swore to him he would not put him to death, and kept his word to his death-bed; but finding himself in this condition, the gave a charge to his son to kill him; a plain proof that he suffered him to live only to get himself at first the name of a merciful prince, and afterwards' to avoid being reproached to his face for having broken his promise. I should be glad to know whether, in strictness of speech, a man, who promises life to his enemy, performs his promise, when by his last will he orders him to be put to death.

From what I have said, in this and the foregoing remarks, it may be easily inferred, that if the Syrians had been such libel-makers, as the Europeans

are now-a-days, they would have strangely disfigured the glory of David. With what epithets, with what infamous names would they have branded that troop of banditti, that came to join him, after he retired from the court of Saul? The scripture inform us, “ that all those who were persecuted by their creditors, all malecontents, and all those who were in distress, gathered themselves unto him, and he became their captain.” 1 Sam. chap, xxii, ver. 2. ⁹⁸ Nothing can be liable to a worse construction than this. The historians of Cataline and Cæsar would furnish colours enough for a satirical picture. History has preserved a small specimen of the reproaches, to which David was exposed among Saul’s friends. This specimen shews they accused him of being a man of blood, and that they considered the revolt of Absalom, as just punishment for the mischief, which they said he had done to Saul, and to all in his house. I put the words of scripture in the margin; The words of Shimei, according to the scripture, arc these: come out, come out, thou bloody man, and thou man of Belial: the Lord hath returned upon thee all the blood of Saul, in whose stead thou hast reigned, and the Lord hath delivered the kingdom into the the hands of Absalom thy son, and behold thou art taken in thy mischief, because thou art a bloody man. 2 Sam. chap. xvi, ver. 7, 8. ⁹⁹ and here follow those of Josephus: Antiq. lib. 7, chap. 8, page 230. ¹⁰⁰ But a kinsman of Saul, whose name was Shimei, came out upon David near Bahurim,.... falling upon him at once with stones and curses; and as his friends protected him, the more he reviled him, calling him a bloody man, and the author of much mischief, and thanked God for taking the kingdom from him, and for making his own son the instrument of his punishment, because of those things he had done against his master.” But they exaggerated matters: it is true, that according to the testimony of God David himself was a man of blood; and therefore the Lord would not permit him to build the temple. It is true likewise, that to pacify the Gibeonites, he delivered to them two sons, and five grandsons of Saul, who were all seven hanged; but it is false, that he ever made an attempt, either upon the life or the crown of Saul.

Those, who shall think it strange that I speak my mind about some actions of David, compared with natural morality, are desired to consider three things: 1st. They themselves are obliged to own, that the conduct of this prince towards Uriah, is one of the greatest crimes which can be committed. There is then only a difference of more or less between them and me; for, I agree with them, that the other faults of this prophet did not hinder his being filled with piety, and a great zeal for the glory of God. He was subject alternately to passions and grace. This is a misfortune attending our nature since the fall of Adam. The grace of God very often directed him; but on several occasions passion got the better; policy silenced religion. 2d. It is very allowable for private persons, like me, to judge of facts contained in scripture, when they are not expressly characterised by the holy Spirit. If the scripture in relating an action condemn or praise it, none can appeal from this judgment; every one ought to regulate his approbation or censure upon the model of scripture. I have not acted contrary to this rule: the facts, upon which I have advanced my humble opinion, are related in the holy scripture, without any mark of approbation affixed by the Spirit of God. I have observed, the scripture informs us, that David consulted and followed the orders of God, when he was to repel the aggressors, 1 Sam. chap, xxiii and xxx; but that he did not consult God, when he intended to destroy Nabal, nor when he was going to destroy the neighbours of king Achish, and made

him believe he ravaged the dominions of Saul: this is a sign God did not approve such kind of actions. 3d. It would be doing an injury to the eternal laws, and consequently to the true religion, to give libertines occasion to object, that when a man has been once inspired by God, we look upon his conduct as the rule of manners; so that we should not dare to condemn the actions of people, though most opposite to the notions of equity, when such a one has done them. There is no medium in this case; either these actions are not good, or actions like them are not evil; now, since we must chuse either the one or the other, is it not better to take care of the interests of morality, than the glory of a private person? Otherwise, will it not be evident, that one chuses rather to expose the honour of God than that of a mortal man?

David is doubtless a sun of holiness in the church; he there diffuses by his writings a fruitful source of consolation; but that sun had its spots, and the scripture relating them historically, every one is at liberty to pass a judgment upon them: let us conclude with saying, that the history of David may comfort many crowned heads against the alarms, which rigid casuists may give them, in maintaining, that it is hardly possible for a king to be saved.

The article of David, which I have just read in the Dictionary of the Bible, will supply me with matter enough for a remark; and first, it is not true that David was born one hundred and ten years before the birth of Jesus Christ: there is above one thousand years between the birth of the one and the birth of the other. Neither ought the author to have suppressed the incursions made by David on the allies of his patron, nor the lie he made use of in persuading King Achish that he made them on the lands of the Israelites. The unjust war he made on that people, in which he put to the sword both men and women,

should also have been recorded. It is not allowable in a dictionary to imitate the panegyrists, who take only the fair side of a character; the author should act the historian; he should relate both the good and the bad; it is what the scripture has done. We cannot therefore approve the affectation, which appears here, of saying nothing of David’s artifices, both against Ishbosheth and against Absalom, and of mentioning only the wars in which David was first attacked. Should not some notice have been taken of those in which the scripture represents him as the aggressor, and of the astonishing severity with which he treated the vanquished? The author does worse than suppress; he supposes, without the authority of the scripture, that the Syrians, the Ammonites, and the other neighbouring people, attacked the Israelites; the sacred history plainly intimates that they only endeavoured to defend themselves, in which they failed of success. See 2 Sam. chap. viii. ¹⁰¹ He supposes, likewise, with as little foundation in the scripture, that this prince married the young girl who was brought to him to endeavour to revivify him. I could excuse him this, without injuring what I have said concerning this fine method of reviving the natural heat. The least rigid of our modern casuists, I believe, would not judge it fit that an old man, utterly incapable of consummating the marriage, should wed a young girl with the sole view of warming his feet and hands by her side. Without doubt, they would think him guilty of a sin, and that he would cause his consort to sin likewise. Lastly, the author strives, in vain, to remove the difficulty that is obvious to all readers, when they consider that Saul did not know David on the day that Goliah was killed. I forgot to observe that David ought not to be blamed for excluding his eldest son from the succession. He no doubt left his kingdom to Solomon, in prejudice of the right of primogeniture; a right which, in hereditary crowns, ought to be inviolably preserved, unless we would open a door to a thousand civil wars. But he had very good reasons to set aside this right, since Adonijah, his eldest son, had been so impatient to reign, that he mounted the throne before David’s breath was out of his body. This good father durst not show his resentment against an impatience, which in reality differed nothing from usurpation; he had always been very indulgent to his children, and his almost decrepid age was not very proper to correct the easiness which accompanies tender hearts. Solomon’s mother, however, incited and directed by a prophet, whom Adonijah had not invited to a royal festival, frustrated the design: she and the prophet obliged David to declare himself in favour of Solomon, and to give all necessary orders for the inauguration of this young prince. Adonijah thought he was undone, and fled for refuge to the horns of the altar; but Solomon assured him he would do him no hurt, provided he behaved himself well. However, he caused him to be put to death, for a reason that seems frivolous enough; I mean because Adonijah had asked in marriage the Shunamite, who had served to cherish David. This confirms what I said before, that this royal prophet was unfortunate in his children: they had no natural affection, either to him or to one another. Here the wisest of them all sheds the blood of his elder brother for a trifle: for, we must not imagine he would have put him to death because of the irregularity of his love. All the sons of David should have looked on the Shunamite as forbidden fruit. Her virginity had belonged to their father; and he would actually have taken possession of it, had he been able. Adonijah was therefore to blame to cast his eyes on this girl; but it was not for this reason his brother killed him: it was because his demand raised the jealousy of Solomon, and made him fear that, by the frequent practice of asking favours, he would soon bethink himself to make the best of his birthright. A policy, in some respects, like that of the Ottomans, lost him his life.—Art.David.