* 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 ravishedthat 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 makeAmong 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 differencebetween the king and his son-in-law, so popular a man, couldnot be unknown to persons in any measure removed from thevulgar. Therefore, Ahmeleoh's pleas of ignorance did notdeserve 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,hewas 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 andothers, mistake to mean, that he retired into the cave toease nature. But in Judges, iii. 21. we find that expressionto imply, that the servants of Eulon, king of Moab, supposedtheir master to have locked himself in, to repose himselfwith sleep, in his summer-chamber. This is farthercorroborated, in Ruth, iii. 7. where, when Boaz had eatenhis supper, he laid down on a heap of corn, doubtless totake his rest. Ruth, by her mother's instruction, went,uncovered his feet, and lay down by him—to have somerefreshment likewise. For, in the middle of the night, whenthe man awaked, surprised at finding an unexpectedbedfellow, and demanded who she was, the kind wench replied—"I am Ruth, thine hand-maid; spread therefore thy skirtover thine hand-maid, for thou art a near kinsman." In thepresent instance, it is evident, Saul slept in the cave; ashe discovered not the operation that had been performed onhis robe, till David called after him, to apprize himthereof.** 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 thatpissed 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 agreat reverencefor the Lord's anointed, though conscious, at the same time, thathe was alsothe 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 uponher, 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 thesecond timeof 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 ofany former obligationof 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 psalmupon 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 thepeculiar complexionof the people over whom he was placed; does not, on the whole, seem to suffer by comparison with any other king in thesamehistory; 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 tohisprivate 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 didhemerit 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 termsmote 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 smoteby 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 smiteby 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 rathersmotefor 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 mightand 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 hewouldplay before the Lord; and would be yetmore vilethan 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, shehadborne him children, and this disgrace to her was the consequence of a resolution made by her husband David, that she should have no more childrenby 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'sthirst.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 atemporaryfit 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)