Page images
PDF
EPUB

by asserting, that he was anointed not to supersede him while living, but to succeed him after his death;' or in plain facts either, by saying, that he was 'determined to wait that event, in the course of providence, and not to hasten it by any act of his own.' Let circumstances decide this point.

The personal character of Nabal, considering the affair of his return to David's demands, as delivered down to us; is hardly more material, than the motive for which Saul retired into the cave: not to be an implicit admirer of this adventurer, is sufficient even at this day to stamp infamy on a person's character. He had preserved his possessions without a wall hitherto ; and did not conceive himself under such obligations to David as he was represented to be: with the bluntness of a rustic he spoke his sentiments without reserve, which excited a resentment suitable to the character Nabal viewed him in. Like Saul, Nabal must no doubt be a madman, to differ with David; but your inferring a brutality in his conduct more than appears, or is probable; arguing from the degree of David's resentment*, is rather weak than acute.

It would be doing great service to David's character if you could prove any possible behaviour of Nabal, sufficient to justify such savage intention, especially from a person peculiarly pious. But as you own t David's resolution by no means to be vindicated,' why do you use any means for that purpose?

The fair Abigail averted the execrable deed! The acknowledged defects and redundancies in the old Testament books, render it impossible for you, Sir, or any one else, to say absolutely what did, or did not pass at this meeting. Thus much we know; that the lady was beautiful, the soldier young, and very susceptible of amorous impressions; that she obtained her suit, but that her husband, instead of rejoicing at his deliverance, and approving his wife's conduct, broke + Page 234.

* Page 139. + Page 141.

his heart on the occasion; and to close the story, that David immediately took her to wife; and not only her, but another also. Continency was not his virtue.

These circumstances are thought to justify the reflections they excited: and moreover, that if they had occurred in any other history, you, Sir, would have drawn conclusions not much different. Indeed, you must pardon the writer, who while he considers you as under the necessity of justifying many transactions, yet imagines you may sometimes secretly wish they had been otherwise than they are.

The peculiar elegance, purity, and precise difference of accepting faces, instead of persons: does not appear, for want of your having been more explicit. Though faces may be a more literal translation of your Hebrew, yet person seems more intelligible and agreeable to the meaning of the present passage. Why you recommend these favourite faces to the writer's remembrance as long as he lives*, is another hint too learnedly obscure for him to receive the benefit intended by it.

You produce next, Sir, what you call reasons †, to disprove the supposition that the two instances of David's sparing the life of Saul, were but different relations of the same fact. These reasons might have passed for good ones, perhaps, and have been credited with furnishing fresh hints of information, did they appear to be any more than a bare enumeration of the already known and acknowledged differences between the two relations; numbered and contrasted together. But since the case is no otherwise, since the writer shewed himself already apprized of them, aud since you have not added to the strength of them, it would have been as well if you had not congratulated yourself so much on the merit of transcription.

These different circumstances, however, though not altogether reconcilable, are not altogether so variable as you intend they should appear. To instance the

[blocks in formation]

first in your contrast: you oppose David's being in the wilderness of Engedi in one relation, to his being in the wilderness of Ziph in the other. While we remain satisfied with names, to be sure Ziph and Engedi are not the same: nothing can be clearer. But it would be of advantage to your argument to give the distance of these two places; for in the maps and accounts* of Judea, Ziph, Hachilah, Maon, Carmel, and Engedi, appear to have been in the neigbourhood of each other. Now in England, where any forest or heath is common to several bordering towns, it will have several local names at each, respectively. It is therefore more than probable, that the wilderness between Ziph and Engedi, might at each place obtain each name; and be generally known by either. Though David, therefore, is represented at this period, as making several movements†, in the strong holds in the wood, &c. they appear to have been within the compass of this wilderness of Ziph, or Engedi.

Your third reason, in the Engedi column, of Saul's being alone and strayed from his men, had been previously denied by you, and termed a 'silly supposition;' it therefore cannot now be very wise. The author does not pretend to harmonize any more of them: the identity of place; the general similitude of the actions; differing only in relative circumstances; the small interval of time that must have been between them, occupied only by the story of Nabal; the abrupt introduction of the second relation, after this story, without proper connection; and the total silence in it of all reference or allusion to a recent adventure so strikingly similar, still seem to argue a strange repetition.

You indeed undertake to account for the entire omission of all reference to the former adventure in the

* Particularly "Wells' Sacred Chronology," vol. III. p. 35, 36. second edit. The maps of Judea, indeed, are very vague, though sufficiently satisfactory as to this point. + Page 135.

+1 Sam. xxiii. 14, &c.

latter*. But your imputing it to David's politeness, and to Saul's consciousness, is not supported by any thing stronger than your apparent † persuasion.

David's conduct, while protected by Achish king of Gath, is the next subject of your panegyric. You, Sir, who are as intent upon abusing Saul, as either Bayle, Morgan, or this writer, or an association of all three could possibly contrive to bestow on David; take every occasion to draw parallels between them, resulting constantly in a new imputation on the memory of Saul! In this place you say‡, that according to this writer, 'It was no crime in Saul to do what David did; and he shall pass unreproved for the same action that shall mark out David as a free-booter and murderer.' You are again to be told, Sir, that you are mistaken (if it really is a mistake) in supposing that the character of Saul was patronised in that little history, Not being the principal object of attention, he was no farther insisted on, than the connection he had with the story, required. With regard to the present question, it is to be noted that Saul, in his expedition against the Amalekites, acted in obedience to that authority, to which in your opinion he was bound to have yielded. David, on the contrary, produces no commission for his inroads on the Amalekites, Gezrites and Gessurites, but appears actuated only with a desire of plunder. You add §, indeed that these three clans were not confederates with Achish, but in a state of hostility with him. It is not supposed that there was any settled amity maintained among these different tribes, but how valid the proofs you have not produced may be, to prove the alleged hostility in question, cannot be determined: what you have cited, only alludes to the particular retaliatory incursions on Ziklag, which was in the land of the Philistines. Had David considered them as enemies to his patron king Achish, tell us, Doctor, why "David saved neither man nor woman † Only this once, Doctor? 1 Sam. xxx. 16.

* Page 147. + Page 152

§ Page 153.

alive, to bring tidings to GATH, saying, 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 !"

[ocr errors]

Such, however, was the reason that David gave for his massacre of these poor wretches, which contrary to Scripture and common sense, you say was in reality doing king Achish service.* But his excuse neither agrees with this plea nor with another, which you are kind enough to lend him: namely, that the Amalekites were many ages before doomed to destruction; and the Gessurites and Gezrites, who were old inhabitants of the land, Canaanites, were commanded to be extirpated by God himself, for such reasons, as renders such a command worthy his character.'

The true cause of the antipathy between these people and the Hebrews, has already been hinted;§ but is the verbal denunciation of such cruel dooms by the Creator, agreeable with Prop. III.? The Lord is able to fulfil his own decrees in the ordinary course of his providence, and they are thus less liable to be questioned, that when effected by men, evidently interested in such extirpations.

But if we assume the supposition that David, contrary to his own express words, had in view the fulfilment of this old sentence of death; yet it was surely an ill-chosen time for a man persecuted, and just escaped from danger of his own personal safety, to undertake the execution of purposes requiring great power! but this being nevertheless granted to be the case, what meaneth this bleating of sheep, braying of asses, and lowing of oxen? and these camels loaden with wearing apparel? Surely David has not been guilty of the crime which Saul is so heavily charged with? Yet this appears to be the case, and is no crime now! So

* Page 153.

+ Page 153.

The Doctor is desired to turn to Joshua xiii. 13. or to any other place where the Geshurites are proscribed.

§ See page 31.

1 Sam xxvii. 9.

F

¶ 1 Sam. xv. 9, &c.

« PreviousContinue »