The Hebrew has, for accept, "smell." Valuable gifts are said to have a pleasant smell. A man, also, of great property, "has an agreeable smell." Why are you taking this small present to the great man? it has not a good smell." "Alas! I have been with my gifts to the Modeliar, but he will not smell of them;" which means, he will not accept them.-ROBERTS.

Ver. 20. Now therefore, let not my blood fall to the earth before the face of the LORD: for the king of Israel is come out to seek a flea, as when one doth hunt a partridge in the mountains.

Thus did David compare himself to a flea, to, show his insignificance before the king. When a man of rank devotes his time and talents to the acquirement of any thing which is not of much value, it is asked, "Why does he trouble himself so much about a flea?" In asking a favour, should it be denied, it will be said, "Ah! my lord, this is as a flea to you." "Our head man gave me this ring the other day, but now he wishes to have it again; what is this? it is but a flea." When poor relations are troublesome, the rich say, "As the flea bites the long-haired dog, so are you always biting me." Should an opulent man be reduced to poverty his FRIENDS forsake him, and the people say, Yes, the same day the dog dies the fleas leave him.". ROBERTS.

We find only two allusions to the partridge in the holy scriptures. The first occurs in the history of David, where he expostulates with Saul concerning his unjust and foolish pursuit: "The king of Israel is come out to seek a flea, as when one doth hunt a partridge on the mountains." The other in the prophecies of Jeremiah: "As the partridge sitteth on eggs, and hatcheth them not; so he that getteth riches, and not by right, shall leave them in the midst of his days, and at his end shall be a fool." The Hebrew name for the partridge is (p) kore, from the verb kara to cry, a name suggested by the harsh note of that bird. Bochart indeed denies that kore signifies the partridge; he thinks the woodcock is intended, because the kore of which David speaks in the first quotation, is a mountain bird. But that excellent writer did not recollect that a species of partridge actually inhabits the mountains, and by consequence his argument is of no force. Nor is the opinion of others more tenable, that the kore hatches the eggs of a stranger, because Jeremiah observes, "she sitteth on eggs and hatcheth them not;" for the passage only means, that the partridge often fails in her attempts to bring forth her young. To such disappointments she is greatly exposed from the position of her nest in the ground, where her eggs are often spoiled by wet, or crushed by the foot. The manner in which the Arabs hunt the partridge and other birds, affords an excellent comment on the complaint of David to his cruel and unrelenting sovereign; for observing that they become languid and fatigued after they have been hastily put up two or three times, they immediately run in upon them and knock them down with their bludgeons. It was precisely in this manner that Saul hunted David; he came suddenly upon him, and from time to time drove him from his hidingplaces, hoping at last to make him weary of life, and find an opportunity of effecting his destruction. When the prophet says the partridge sitteth on eggs, and hatcheth them not, the male seems to be understood; because both the verbs are masculine, and the verb yalad in the masculine gender cannot signify to lay eggs. The red partridges of France, says Buffon, appear to differ from the red partridges of Egypt; because the Egyptian priests chose for the emblem of a well-regulated family, two partridges, the one male, the other female, sitting or brooding_together. And by the text in Jeremiah, it seems that in Judea the . male partridge sat as well as the female. But while the incubation of other birds, which are by no means so attentive, is generally crowned with success, the hopes of the partridges are frequently disappointed by circumstances already noticed, which she can neither see nor prevent.PAXTON.

CHAPTER XXVII.

Ver. 2. And David said to Achish, Surely thou shalt know what thy servant can do. And Achish said to David, Therefore will I make thee keeper of my head for ever.

The head is always spoken of as the principal part of the body, and when a man places great confidence in another, he says, "I will make him the keeper of my life or head." An injured man expostulating with another, to whom he has been kind, asks, " Why is this? have I not been the keeper of your life." A good brother is called, "the lifekeeping brother." But any thing valuable also is spoken of as being on the head.-ROBERTS.

made

Ver. 10. And Achish said, Whither have ye a road to-day? And David said, Against the south of Judah, and against the south of the Jerahmeelites, and against the south of the Kenites.

After the expedition was over, David returns to Achish, and upon being asked where he had made his incursion, David answers: Against the south of Judah, and against the south of the Jerahmeelites, and against the south of the Kenites. Mr. Bayle, not with extreme good manners, calls this A LIE. But, with his leave, the answer was literally true, but ambiguous; for all those people dwelt on the south of Judah, &c. Achish, through self-partiality, understood the answer to mean, that the incursion was made on the southern borders of Judah, the Jerahmeelites and Kenites themselves, though David asserted no such thing. David therefore was not guilty of any falsity; and if he was in any thing to blame, it was for giving an ambiguous answer to a question to which he was not obliged to give any direct reply. Mr. Bayle says, "This conduct was very unjustifiable, in that he deceived a king to whom he had ob.igations." But David's answer was not such as necessarily to impose on Achish, and therefore it may be as truly said, that Achish put a deceit upon himself, as that David deceived him. I allow he intended to conceal from Achish who the people were that he invaded, and this he did, not by a lie, but by an answer true in fact. The precise determined truth was, that he had made an incursion on the south of Judah and the Kenites. The Amalekites dwelt on the south of Judah, and the Kenites lived intermingled with them, till they removed by Saul's order, when he was sent to destroy the Amalekites, and probably returned to their former dwellings, after that expedition was over. It is certain at least, that they were much in the same situation as before; viz. on the south of Judah, and at no great distance from the country of the Amalekites; and therefore Achish might as reasonably have understood David's an- . swer to mean, that he invaded the Amalekites and neighbouring hordes, who dwelt beyond the south parts of Judah, as that he invaded the southern parts of the very country of Judah. For the original words will equally bear this double version: against the country south of Judah, &c. and, against the south country of Judah. If Achish took David in a wrong sense, I do not see that David, in his circumstances, was obliged to undeceive him. For as he had done Achish no injury in the expedition against the Amalekites, &c. so neither did he, in permitting him quietly to impose on himself. Whereas, had he convinced Achish of his mistake, he would have endangered his own life, and the destruction of all his people. The greatest and best casuists have allowed, that ambiguous answers are not always criminal, but sometimes justifiable, and particularly in the critical situation in which David now was. Thus Grotius: "When any word, or sentence, admits of more significations than one, whether from common use, or the custom of art, or by any intelligible figure; and if the sense of one's own mind agrees to any one of these interpretations, it is no lie, though we should have reason to think, that he who hears us should take it in the other Such a manner of speaking should not be used rashly; but it may be justified by antecedent causes; as when it is for the instruction of him who is committed to our care, o when it is to avoid an unjust interrogation; i. e. as Grono vius explains it, such an interrogation, which, if we gave

a simple plain answer to, would hazard our own safety, or that of other innocent persons." Of this sentiment were Socrates, Plato, Xenophon, Cicero, the Stoics, Aristotle, Quintilian, and others mentioned by Grotius; and it may De reasonably expected, that those who condemn David for his ambiguous answers to Achish, should fairly prove, that they are in their nature, and therefore always, criminal; or in what circumstances they are so; or that there is somewhat in this answer of David that peculiarly renders

it so.

Mr. Bayle thinks he says something very considerable, when he says, "that he deceived a king to whom he had obligations; others charge him with ingratitude, because he deceived his patron and benefactor." This would be an objection of some weight, if it could be proved that he deceived him to his real injury or that of his country. But this, as hath been shown, cannot be proved. A man may lawfully conceal his sentiments, on some occasions, even from a real friend and benefactor, who asks him questions, which, if clearly answered, may be prejudicial to his in

terest.

But he had obligations to Achish, who was his patron and benefactor. What were these great obligations, and in what respects was Achish a benefactor to David? Why, he allowed him, and his followers, a safe retreat into his country from the persecutions of Saul, for about sixteen months; first, at Gath his capital, and soon after, upon David's request, at Ziglag. But with what view did Achish allow him this retreat? Not with the noble generC ous view of giving refuge to a brave man, ungratefully persecuted, and driven into exile by the unrelenting malice of an arbitrary prince; but merely from political mercenary considerations; to detach so great a general, and so brave a body of soldiers, from the interest of their country, and to prevent their joining with the Hebrew army in the defence of it, against that invasion which the Philistines were now meditating, and to engage him in actual hostilities with his own nation, that he might make him and them perpetual and irreconcilable enemies to each other. This appears from what Achish said, either to himself, or some of the Philistine princes, upon the invasion of the Geshurites, &c. He hath made his people Israel utterly to abhor him, therefore he shall be my servant for ever. Both Achish and David seem to have acted merely upon political principles in this affair, and their obligations to each other to be pretty equal. David fled for protection to Achish, but with no design to assist him against the Hebrews. Achish received David, not out of any love and friendship to him, but to serve himself, by engaging David and his forces against the Hebrews, and thereby to put him under a necessity of continuing in his service for ever. They both appear to act with great confidence in each other, without either letting the other into their secret and real views; and therefore as Achish was under no obligation to David for his retiring to Gath, David was really under as little to Achish for the reception he gave him; for as David would not have put himself under his protection, but to serve his own purposes; so neither would Achish have received him, had he not had his own views of advantage in doing it. David's deceiving Achish therefore received no aggravation from any ingratitude in David towards him; but the shelter Achish gave him was upon the mean, dishonourable, perfidious principle, of making David a detestable traitor to his king and country.-CHAND

LER.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

Ver. 1. And it came to pass in those days, that the Philistines gathered their armies together for warfare, to fight with Israel. And Achish said unto David, Know thou assuredly, that thou shalt go out with me to battle, thou and thy men. 2. And David said to Achish, Surely thou shalt know what thy servant can do. And Achish said to David, Therefore will I make the keeper of my head for ever.

Soon after these transactions, while David yet femained in the territories of the Philistines, they formed their army invade the Hebrews, when Achish said to David: Know thou assuredly, that thou and thy men shall go with

me to the camp; his troops being now increased by a party from the tribe of Manasseh. David answered him: Therefore thou shalt know what thy servant will do; i. e. as some interpret the words: Achish met with a cheerful compliance from David; and Mr. Bayle affirms, that i was not owing to David, that he did not fight under the standard of this Philistine prince, against the Israelites, in the unhappy war wherein Saul perished; or, as he further says, that when the Philistines had assembled their forces, David and his brave adventurers joined the army of Achich, and would have fought like lions against their brethren, if the suspicious Philistines had not forced Achish to dismiss them. I am extremely glad, however, that the princes of the Philistines, who may reasonably be supposed to know as much of David's dispositions and views as any modern writers can do, were of a quite different opinion from Mr. Bayle and his followers; who instead of believing with Achish and Mr. Bayle, that David would have been so very fierce against his own people, made no doubt but he would have fought like a lion, or a tiger, against Achish and the Philistines. And indeed David's answer to Achish implies nothing like a cheerful compliance with him, to engage with his forces against his own people Achish did not directly ask this, and therefore David had no occasion to make the promise. The demand was only that he would go to the camp. And the answer was, that he would there make Achish witness to his conduct. But this was so far from promising that he would employ his men, as Achish promised himself, as that it seems rather to imply a kind of denial; and would appear, I believe, very unsatisfactory to most persons in like circumstances: "You shall see what I will do. I make no promise, but I will go with you to the camp, where you yourself will be judge of my conduct." An evidently cold and evasive

answer.

Thus far there appears to be nothing blameable in David's conduct, and it is worthy of observation, that David's going to the camp was not his own forward officious proposal to Achish, but the order of Achish to him, which he was not then in circumstances to dispute, and which, in his situation, he was forced to obey; and therefore it is not true, that David voluntarily offered his assistance against Saul and the Hebrews, to the Philistine army. If he was in any thing to blame, it was for throwing himself in the power of the Philistines. But he thought that this was the only method left him for the preservation of his life from the power and malice of Saul, who was therefore in reality responsible for David's conduct in this instance, and the real cause of that embarrassment, in which he now unhappily found himself. His situation was undoubtedly very delicate and dificult, and it hath been thought impossible for him to have performed an honourable part, let him have acted how he would; and that in his circumstances, he would not have deserved a much better character, had he betraved his benefactor for the sake of his country, than he would, had he betrayed his country for the sake of his benefactor. But it hath been shown, that David owed Achish little thanks for the refuge he gave him, and that his debt of gratitude on this account was too small, to prevent him from exerting himself in his country's service, whenever he had an opportunity. But supposing his obligations to Achish were real, yet surely the affection and duty he owed his country were infinitely superior to any demands of friendship and gratitude that Achish could have upon him. I will therefore suppose that David was reduced to the necessity of acting contrary to the gratitude he owed Achish, or the natural affection and duty he owed his country. And can there be a moment's doubt, whether private affection should not give place to public? Or, whether one particular accidental obligation to the avowed enemy of a man's country, and that greatly lessened by political views of interest in him who conferred it, should not yield to innumerable obliga tions, arising out of nature, constant and immutable, an.i

which to counteract would argue the most detestable baseness, perfidy, and iniquity? Had David therefore been reduced to the hard necessity of fighting against Achish, or his country, though the alternative would have been grating to a generous mind; yet his preferring his duty, which he owed to his country, to his personal obligations to Achish, was right in itself, would have been truly heroic, and deserved immortal applause and commendation. Such was the virtue of the ancient Romans, that they would

nave sacrificed the love of father, son, brother, the nearest relations by blood and affinity, the obligations of friendship, and even life itself, to their affection to their country. And would they have scrupled, or thought it dishonourable, to have sacrificed some personal obligations to an avowed enemy of it, when such sacrifice was necessary to its preservation and safety?

But it is possible, that if David had continued with the Philistine army, he might not have been reduced to the necessity of employing his arms against either his country, or the Philistines. May we not suppose, that before the engagement, David might have proposed terms of peace, in order to prevent it? Might he not have told Achish, that notwithstanding his personal obligations to him, he had none to the Philistines in general, and therefore could not stand still, and see his countrymen destroyed by the Philistine forces? That unless they would give over the expedition, he should think himself obliged to join the army of Saul, and do his utmost to prevent their destruction? And would not this have been acting like a man of honour, a lover of his country, and been consistent with any gratitude that he owed to Achish for his protection? This, I think, I may safely affirm, that it is in all views of policy impossible that, as Mr. Bayle asserts, he could have fought under the standard of the Philistine princes against the Israelites. For as he had in immediate view the throne of

Israel, had he fought in the Philistine army against his own nation, it must have irritated all the tribes of Israel against him, and according as Achish wished, made all his people abhor him for ever; whereby he would have cut off every possible prospect of succeeding to the crown. But David was too prudent a man to take such a step, and if Achish endeavoured, by forcing him into his camp, to ensnare and ruin him with his own nation; as he well knew the intention of Achish, he had a right to guard against it, to counteract policy by policy, and though obliged to give an answer, to give him such a one, as should leave himself at liberty to act as prudence and duty should direct him. And finally, had he turned his arms against the Philistines, he might have shown his gratitude to Achish, without injuring his country, by affording him protection in his turn, and securing his person, and the lives of many of his people, had the Israelites been victorious in the engagement. However, Achish had such an opinion of his interest in David's friendship, that he took his answer in good part, and concluding that he was entirely gained over to his interest, and the more effectually to secure and encourage him, promises him: "I will make you keeper of my head for ever:" you shall be always near me, and have the charge of my person. David made no reply, but kept himself entirely upon the reserve, without disclosing the real sentiments of his mind. He followed Achish with his forces, who marched into the territories of the Hebrews, and encamped at Shunem, in the tribe of Naphtali; while Saul, with his army, pitched their tents on the famous mountains of Gilboa.-CHANDLER.

Ver. 7. Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and inquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at En-dor. 8. And "Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up whom I shall name unto thee. 9. And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die? 10. And Saul sware to her by the LORD, saying, As the LORD liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing. 11. Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me

up Samuel. 12. And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul. 13. And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

How long the profession of necromancy, or the art of raising up the dead, in order to pry into future events, or to be informed of the fate of the living, has obtained in the world, we have no indications from history. We perceive no footsteps of it in the ages before the flood, and yet it is strange that a people, abandoned to all kind of wickedness in a manner, could keep themselves clear of this; but our account of these times is very short. The first express mention that we meet with of magicians and sorcerers is almost in the beginning of the book of Exodus, where Moses is soliciting the deliverance of the children of Israel out of Egypt; and therefore Egypt, which affected to be the mother of most occult sciences, is supposed to have been the inventress of this. From Egypt it spread itself into the neighbouring countries, and soon infected all the East; for, as it undertook to gratify man's inquisitiveness and superEgypt, it is certain that the Israelites brought along with stitious curiosity, it could not long want abetters. From them no small inclination to these detestable practices, and were but too much addicted to them, notwithstanding all the care that the state had taken to suppress them, and the provision which God had made, by establishing a method of consulting him, to prevent their hankering after them. The injunction of the law is very express:- When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer; for all that dc these things are an abomination to the Lord." And therefore their punishment was this:-"A man or a woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones, their blood shall be upon them." Nor was it only the practisers of such vile arts, but those likewise that resorted to them upon any occasion, that were liable to the same punishment; for "the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a-whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people, saith the Lord." Such was the severity of the Jewish laws against those who either practised or encouraged any manner of magical arts; and it must be said in Saul's commendation, that he had put the laws in execution against such vile people; he had destroyed and drove away those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards out of the land; and yet, (observe the weakness as well as wickedness of the man!) when himself fell into distress, and had abundant reason to believe that God had forsaken him, he flees to one of these creatures for relief, and requests of her to raise up his old-friend Samuel, as expecting, very probably, some advice from him: but, whether this was really done or not, or, if done, in what manner it was effected, are points that have so much exercised the heads and pens, both of ancient and modern, both of Jewish and Christian writers, that little or nothing new can be said upon them; and therefore all that I shall endeavour to dc, will be, to reduce their several sentiments into as narrow a compass, and to state them in as fair a light, as I can, by inquiring into these three particulars:1. Whether there was a real apparition. 2. What this apparition (if real) was; and,

3. By what means, and for what purposes, it was effected. 1. It cannot be denied, indeed, but that those who explode the reality of the apparition, and make it to be all nothing but a cheat and juggle of the sorceress, have found out some arguments that, at first sight, make a tolerable ap pearance. They tell us that the sacred history never once makes mention of Saul's seeing Samuel with his own eye It informs us, indeed, that Saul knew him by the descrip tion which the woman gave, and that he held, for some considerable time, a conversation with him; but since it 1. nowhere said that he really saw him, "why might not the

woman counterfeit a voice, say they, and pretend it was Samuel's? When Saul asked her to raise him up Samuel, i. e. to disturb the ghost of so great a prophet, she might think he was no common man; and when he swore unto her by the Lord, that he would defend her from all danger, he gave her intimation enough that he was the king. The crafty woman therefore having picked up the knowledge of this, might retire into her closet, and there, having her familiar, i. e. some cunning artful man, to make proper responses, in a different voice, might easily impose upon one who was distracted with anxious thoughts, and had already shown sufficient credulity, in thinking there was any efficacy in magical operations to evocate the dead. The controversy between Saul and David every one knew; nor was it now become a secret, that the crown was to devolve upon the latter; and therefore that part of the discourse, which passed between Saul and Samuel, any man of a common genius might have hit off, without much difficulty. Endor was not so far distant from Gilboa or Shunem, but that the condition of the two armies might easily be known, and that the Philistines were superior both in courage and numbers; and therefore his respondent, without all peradventure, might prognosticate Saul's defeat; and though there was some hazard in the last conjecture, viz. that he and his sons would die in battle; yet there was this advantage on the side of the guess, that they were all men of known and experienced valour, who would rather sacrifice their lives than turn their backs upon their enemies." Upon the whole, therefore, the maintainers of this system conclude, that as there is no reason, so there was no necessity, for any miraculous interposition in this affair, since this is no more than what any common gipsy, with another in confederacy to assist her, might do to any credulous person who came to consult her.

They who undertake to oppose this opinion lay it down for a good rule, in the interpretation of scripture, that we should, as far as we can, adhere to the primary sense of the words, and never have recourse to any foreign or singular explications, but where the literal is inconsistent, either with the dictates of right reason, or the analogy of faith. Let any indifferent person then, say they, take into his hand the account of Saul's consulting this sorceress, and upon the first reading it he must confess, that the notion which it conveys to his mind, is that of a real apparition; and since the passages that both precede and follow it, are confessedly to be taken in their most obvious meaning, why should a strange and forced construction be put upon this? Apparitions indeed are not very common things; but both sacred and profane history inform us, that they are realities, as the examples of Moses and Elias, conversing with our Saviour on the mount, and the several bodies of saints, which slept, coming out of their graves after his resurrection, and appearing unto many, do abundantly testify. It is owned, indeed, that according to the series of the narration, Saul did not see the spectre (be it what it will) so soon as the woman did, because, probably, the woman's body, or some other object, might interpose between him and the first appearance; or perhaps, because the vehicle which Samuel assumed upon this occasion, was not as yet condensed enough to be visible to Saul, though it was to the woman: but, that he did actually see him is manifest, because, when he perceived (which word in the original signifies seeing so as to be assured of our object) that it was Samuel, he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself, which a man is not apt to do to bare ideas or imaginations.

Persons of this woman's character, who are under the displeasure of the government, generally affect obscurity, live privately, and are little acquainted with affairs of state; but suppose her to have been ever so great a politician, and ever so intimate with what had passed between Saul and Samuel heretofore, ever so well assured that God had rejected him, and elected David in his stead; yet how could she come to the knowledge of this, viz., that the battle should be fought the next day, the Israelites be routed, Saul and his sons slain, and their spoils fall into the enemy's hands; since each of these events (even in the present situation of Saul's affairs) were highly casual and uncertain? For might not this prince lose a battle without losing his life? Or if he himself fell in the action, why must his three sons be all cut off in the same day? Whatever demonstrations of innate bravery he had given in times past,

after such severe menaces as he now received from the apparition, prudence, one would think, would have put him upon providing for his safety, either by chicaning with the enemy, or retiring from the field of battle, without going to expose himself, his sons, and his whole army, to certain and inevitable death. These are things which no human penetration could reach, and which only he who is the ab solute and Almighty ruler of all causes and events, could either foresee or predict. But the truth is, those menacing predictions, how proper soever for a messenger sent from God to utter, were highly imprudent either in this witch's, or her accomplice's, mouth: for since they knew nothing of futurity, and were, at the best, but put to conjecture, it is much more reasonable to believe, that at such a juncture as this, they would have bethought themselves of flattering the king, and giving him comfort, and promising success, and not of thundering out such comminations against him as might probably incense him, but could do them no good. They could not but know that the temper of most kings is, to hate to hear shocking truths, and to receive with the ut most despite those that bring them ill news: and therefore it is natural to suppose, that had these threatening replies been of the woman's or her confederate's forming, they would have given them quite another turn, and not run the hazard of disobliging the king to no purpose, by laying an additional load of trouble upon him. The truth is, the woman, by her courteous entertainment of Saul, seems to be a person of no bad nature; and therefore, if she had an accomplice, who understood to make the most of his profession, his business, at this time, must have been to sooth and cajole the king, which would have both put money in his pocket, and saved the credit of his predictions. For, had he foretold him of success and victory, and a happy issue out of all his troubles, he and the woman had been sure of reputation, as well as further rewards, in case it had happened to prove so; and if it had not (since no one was privy to their communion) the falsehood of the prediction upon Saul's defeat and death, must, in course, have been buried with him.

From these reasons then we may infer, that the woman, in this transaction, did not impose upon Saul, since he had a plain sight of the apparition; what the apparition foretold him, was above human penetration; and (upon the supposition of a juggle) the witch and her confederate would have certainly acted clean contrary to what they did. And so the next,

"God,

2. Inquiry meets us, namely, What this apparition was? Some of the ancient doctors, both of the Jewish and Christian church, have made an evil angel the subject of this apparition, in pure régard to t: honour of God. say they, had sufficiently declared his hatred against necromancy, and all kinds of witchcraft, in the severe laws which he enacted against them; but it is certainly denying himself, and cancelling his own work, to seem in the least to countenance or abet them, as he necessarily must do, if, upon the evocation of an old hag, any messenger is permit ted to go from him. Far be it from us therefore to have such conceptions of God. He is holy, and just, and uniform in all his ways; and therefore this coming at a call, and doing the witch's drudgery, must, only appertain to some infernal spirit, who might possibly find his account in it at last. It was one of this wicked crew, that either assumed a phantom, or a real body, appeared in a mantle like Samuel, spake articulately, and held this conversation with Saul; which, considering his knowledge and foresight of things, he was well enough qualified to do, notwithstanding the sundry predictions relating to future contingencies, which are contained in it." How far the honour of God is concerned in this transaction, will more properly fall under our next inquiry: in the mean time, I cannot but observe, that whatever incongruity may be supposed in the real appearance of Samuel, it is not near so much, as to find one of the apostate spirits of hell expressing so much zeal for the service of the God of heaven, and upbraiding Saul with those very crimes which he himself tempted him to commit; as to find this wicked and impure spirit making use of the name of God (that sacred and tremendous name, whose very pronunciation was enough to make him quake and shiver) no less than six times, in this intercourse with Saul, without any manner of uneasiness or hesitation; as to find this angel of darkness and father of lies, prying into the womb of futurity, and determining the

most casual events positively and precisely. We do not indeed deny but that the devil's knowledge is vastly superior to that of the most accomplished human understandirg; that his natural penetration, joined with his long experience, is such, that the greatest philosophers, the subtlest critics, and the most refined politicians, are mere novices in comparison of him; yet what genius, (however exacted and improved,) without a divine revelation, could (as we said before) be able to foretel things that were lodged in God's own breast, viz. the precise time of the two armies engaging, the success and consequence of the victory, and the very names of the persons that were to fall in battle. This is what the apparition plainly revealed to Saul and yet this, we dare maintain, is more than any finite understanding, by its own mere capacity, could ever have been able to find out. But (without this multitude of arguments) if we are to take the scripture in its plain and literal sense, read we over the story of Saul and the witch of Endor ever so often, we shall not so much as once find the devil mentioned in it. And therefore it is somewhat wonderful that he should be brought upon the stage by many learned men, merely to solve a difficulty which, upon examination, appears to be none at all. But now on the other hand, it appears that through the whole narration, Samuel is the only thing that is mentioned. It is Samuel whom Saul desires to be called up; Samuel, who appeared to the woman; Samuel, whom the woman describes; Samuel, whom Saul perceives and bows himself to, with whom he converses so long, and, because of whose words, he was afterward so sore afraid. The scripture indeed speaks sometimes according to the appearance of things, and may call that by the name of Samuel, which was only the semblance or phantom of him : but that this cannot be the sense of the matter here, we have the testimony of the wise son of Sirach, (an excellent interpreter of canonical scriptures,) who tells us expressly, that Samuel, after his death, prophesied and showed the king his end; pursuant to what we read in the version of the Septuagint, viz. that Saul asked counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, and Samuel answered him. So that, upon the whole, we may be allowed to conclude, that it was the real soul of Samuel, clothed in some visible form, which, at this time, appeared to the king of Israel: but by what means, or for what purposes, it appeared, is the other question we are now to determine.

3. Several of the fathers of the Christian church were of opinion, that the devil had a certain limited power over the souls of the saints, before Jesus Christ descended into hell, and rescued them from the tyranny of that prince of darkness. St. Austin, in particular, thinks that there is no absurdity in saying, that the devil was as able to call up Samuel's soul, as he was to present himself among the sons of God, or set our Saviour on one of the pinnacles of the temple; and a learned Jewish doctor supposes that devils have such a power over human souls, for the space of a year after their departure, as to make them assume what bodies they please; and thereupon he concludes, (but very erroneously,) that it was not a year from the time of Samuel's death to his appearance. But these are such wild and extravagant fancies as deserve no serious confutation. It is absurd to say that the souls of saints (such as we are now speaking of) were ever in hell, and more absurd to say, that if they are in heaven it is in the power of any magical, nay, of any diabolical incantation, to call them down from thence. Great, without all doubt, is the power of apostate angels; but miserable, we may say, would the state of the blessed be, if the other had any license to disturb their happiness, when, and as long as they pleased: "For God forbid," says Tertullian, "that we should believe the soul of any holy man, much less of a prophet, should be so far under his disposal, as to be brought un at pleasure by the power of the devil." Since the devil then has no power to disturb the happiness of souls departed, this apparition of Samuel could not proceed from any magical enchantments of the sorceress, but must have been effected by the sole power and appointment of God, who is the sovereign Lord, both of the living and of the dead: and, accordingly, we may observe from the surprise which the woman discovered upon Samuel's sudden appearing, that the power of her magic was not concerned therein, but that it was the effect of some superior hand. The scripture relates the matter thus: "When the woman saw Samuel,

she cried with a loud voice, and the woman spake unto Saul, saying, Why hast thor deceived me, for thou art Saul? And the king said unto her, Be not afraid, what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth." Now it is plain from this narration, that the woman saw something she was not accustomed to see. Her necromancy had ordinary power over demons only, or such wretched spirits as were submitted to the devil's tyranny; but, on this occasion, she saw an object so august, so terrible, so majestic, so contrary indeed to any thing she had ever raised before, and that coming upon her before she had begun, her enchantments, that she could not forbear being frightened, and crying out with a loud voice, as being fully satisfied that the apparition came from God.

"But since the scripture assures us, that God had wholly withdrawn himself from Saul, and would answer him, neither by prophets nor by dreams; how can we imagine that he should, all on a sudden, become so kind as to send Samuel to him, or that Samuel should be in any disposition to come, when it was impossible for him to do any good by his coming?" Now there seems to be some analogy between God's dealing with Saul in this particular, and his former treatment of the prophet Balaam. Balaam was for disobeying the orders which God had given him to bless the Israelites; and was searching into magical secrets for what he could not obtain of God, viz. a power to change into curses the blessings which God pronounced by his mouth. In this case there was but small likelihood that God would continue to communicate himself to a person so unworthy of any extraordinary revelation; and yet he did it: but then, it was with a design to reveal to him those very miseries from which his mercenary mind was so desirous to rescue the Midianites. The application is easy and it further suggests this reason why God appointed Samuel at this time to appear unto Saul, viz. that through him he might give him a meeting, where he least of all expected one; and might show him that the fate which his own disobedience had brought upon him was determined; that there was no reversing the decrees of heaven, no procuring aid against the Almighty's power, no fleeing (though it were to hell) from his presence, no hiding himself in darkness from his inspection; with whom darkness is no darkness at all, but the night is as clear as the day, and the darkness and light are both alike. That the souls of men departed have a capacity, and, no doubt, an inclination to be employed in the service of men alive, as having the same nature and affections, and being more sensible of our infirmities than any pure and abstracted spirits are, can hardly be contested; that in their absent state, they are imbodied with aerial, or ethereal vehicles, which they can condense of rarify at pleasure, and so appear, or not appear to human sight, is what some of the greatest men, both of the heathen and Christian religion, have maintained; and that frequent apparitions of this kind have happened since the world began, cannot be denied by any one that is conversant in its history if therefore the wisdom of God (for reasons already assigned) thought proper to despatch a messenge: to Saul upon this occasion, there may be some account given why the soul of Samuel (upon the supposition it was left to its option) should rather be desirous to be sent upon that errand. For, whatever may be said in diminution of Saul's religious character, it is certain that he was a brave prince and commander; had lived in strict intimacy with Samuel; professed a great esteem for him in all things; and was by Samuel not a little lamented, when he had fallen from his obedience to God. Upon these considerations we may imagine, that the soul of Samuel might have such a kindness for him as to be ready to appear to him in the depth of his distress, in order to settle his mind, by telling him the upshot of the whole matter, viz. that he should lose the battle, and he and his sons be slain; that so he might give a specimen (as the Jews love to speak in commendation of him) of the bravest valour that was ever achieved by any commander; fight boldly when he was sure to die; and sell his life at as dear a price as possible; that so, in his death, he might be commemorated with honour, and deserve the threnodia which his son-in-law made on him; "The beauty of Israel is slain upon the high places; how are the mighty fallen! From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, the bow of Jona.