any occasion to recover it, that he might not be beholden to David's generosity, and live by courtesy at his table; and that he might mention it to Ziba, as he also was one of Saul's house and family. Mephibosheth's answer to the charge had nothing satisfactory in it, because he could never want an ass, or a servant to have conveyed him, had he desired or resolved to make use of them. Besides, as Ziba's carrying provisions to David plainly showed Ziba's belief and hope of David's restoration, he must know that if he had charged Mephibosheth falsely, the falsehood must have been discovered when David was resettled on the throne; and that being convicted of calumniating his master, he would, in all probability, have been so far from having Mephibosheth's whole estate confirmed to him, as that he would have lost his maintenance out of it for himself and family. And indeed David himself seems to me not to have been thoroughly satisfied with Mephibosheth's apology, by the answer he makes him: "Why speakest thou any more about thy matters ?" Let me hear no more of thy affairs. I will neither regard Ziba's charge, nor your vindication; an answer that evidently carries an air of coldness, indifference, and displeasure, and of one who did not choose to make any strict inquiry into Mephibosheth's conduct, but to admit his excuse, though in itself insufficient and unsatisfactory; and he therefore only adds: Thou and Ziba divide the land. If this be the true state of the case, as it appears to me to be, David's annulling the grant to Ziba, so far as to reinstate Mephibosheth in the possession of even half the land, was a noble instance of David's generosity, and of the grateful remembrance he retained of Jonathan's affection and friendship for him. But I must question the truth of the account, that David restored to Mephibosheth but half of the estate. Ziba had been an old servant in Saul's family, who had fifteen sons, and twenty servants. To him David had said: "I have given thy master's son all that pertaineth to Saul, and to all his house. Thou therefore and thy sons and thy servants shall till the land for him, and bring in the fruits, that thy master's son may have food to eat, viz. for his household and family. As for Mephibosheth himself, he shall always eat at my table, as one of the king's sons." Ziba therefore was to take care of the estate, to account for the profits of it to Mephibosheth, and to be himself and his whole family maintained out of the annual produce, for his care in cultivating it. This was a proper division of it between Mephibosheth, as lord of the estate, and Ziba as the farmer and manager of it. What now is the determination of David, upon his restoration to the throne? Mephibosheth had been entirely ousted upon Ziba's complaint; but after he had made his apology, David said to him: "I have said, Thou and Ziba divide the land." But where and when did David ever say, "I give each of you a moiety of the estate?" He first gave the whole in property to Mephibosheth, and afterward to Ziba; but never divided it, share and share alike, between them. And yet, "I have said, Thou and Ziba divide the land," must refer to some former division of the estate by David's order. But no such determination or order is to be found, but in that original one, in which the estate was divided between Mephibosheth in property, and Ziba as husbandman, for his own and family's maintenance. So that this last determination of David was so far from taking away one half of the estate from Mephibosheth, that it was in reality confirming the original grant, and restoring him to the possession of the whole, upon the same terms on which that possession was originally granted him. So that if David was too hasty in giving away Mephibosheth's estate to Ziba, he was, upon better recollection, as hasty in restoring it to him; and it ought to be acknowledged as a proof of his inviolable regard to his oath to Jonathan, since he had reason for just suspicion, that his son had been wanting in that affection and fidelity which he owed him, as his generous protector and benefactor. And though by his confirming the original grant, he left Ziba and his family a maintenance out of the estate, it was not as the reward of his treachery, of which there is no proof, but out of respect even to Saul, of whose house Ziba was, and as a recompense for his faithful adherence to him in his distresses, and that seasonable and noble supply with which he furnished him and his followers, when he was forced to abandon his capital, by the unnatural rebellion of his son Absalom. Hereby David did more than full justice to Mephibosheth, and at the same time rewarded Ziba by continuing him on

the estate, upon the former conditions of possessing it. Mr Bayle has a long article on this affair, in which he takes it for granted, that David restored Mephibosheth but one half of the estate, and says, "that some interpreters maintain, that Ziba's accusation was not unjust; or, at least, that it was founded on so many probabilities, that it might be credited without passing a wrong judgment;" but there are but few, says he, of that opinion; and he affirms, "that David found him a false accuser." But Mr. Bayle offers not a single procf for these assertions, and he who relates the different opinions of others concerning any fact, and declares on the unfavourable side of it, without giving his reasons for it, doth not act like a candid critic, but with the spirit of partiality and party. I must therefore leave these particulars to the judgment of the more candid and impartial reader, when he hath duly considered what hath been said above in order to obviate them; agreeing at the same time with him, that if Mephibosheth was unjustly treated, David's holiness could never make that sentence just, though Pope Gregory hath insisted upon it; and that to conclude the sentence was just, merely because David passed it, though it was unjust in itself, is to establish a very dangerous principle.-CHANDLER.

Ver. 29. And the king said unto him, Why speakest thou any more of thy matters? I have said, Thou and Ziba divide the land.

This form of speech is exceedingly common when a man wishes to confirm any thing, or when he wants to give weight to a promise. To show that all will be fulfilled, he says, Nan-chon-nain-nea, "Oh! I have said it."-ROBERTS.

CHAPTER XX.

Ver. 1. And there happened to be there a man of Belial, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite; and he blew a trumpet, and said, We have no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: every man to his tents, O Israel.

When slaves are liberated from their owners, they say, "We have no pangu, i. e. part, in them, nor they in us." It is also very common to mention the name of the person, and that of his father; and this sometimes implies disgrace, especially when the family has arisen from obscurity, and therefore to allude to its origin is to insult the descendants. -ROBERTS.

Ver. 1. And there happened to be there a man of Belial, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite; and he blew a trumpet. and said, We have no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: every man to his tents, O Israel. 2. So every man of Israel went up from after David, and followed Sheba the son of Bichri: but the men of Judah clave unto their king, from Jordan even to Jerusalem.

The blame of this new rebellion hath been charged en David, and he censured for thus inadvertently plunging himself into fresh troubles, by suffering himself to be conducted home by a deputation from the tribe of Judah. The learned authors of the Universal History, have made a like observation on this part of David's conduct, and say, that "the partiality, which he showed to his own tribe, in inviting it to come foremost to receive him, raised such a jealousy in the other ten, as ended at length in a new revolt." But where doth the history justify this reflection, that he was partial to his own tribe, in inviting it to come foremost to receive him? The truth is, that he did not invite them at all to come and receive him, till he had been informed by expresses from all the other tribes, that they were universally in motion to restore him, and his message to them only was: "Why are ye the last to bring back the king?" Not, why are ye not the foremost? And though the other tribes complained to that of Judah, “Why did

ye despise us, that our advice should be first had in bringing back our king?" Yet the tribe of Judah was so far from coming to meet the king, out of any regard to, or contempt of, their brethren, that the very zeal and movements of those tribes, in David's favour, was the principal motives urged by him, to bring back the tribe of Judah to their duty, and their great inducement to return to their allegiance to him. This was paying a real deference to their judgment, and what they ought to have been pleased with, and highly applauded. It is true, that the tribes all concurred in their resolutions to restore him, and were taking the proper methods to effect it, yet that David continued at Mahanaim, till the deputies from Judah came to him there, with an invitation from the whole tribe to repair to Jérusalem, and to assure him, that they would receive him in a body at Gilgal, and prepare every thing necessary for his passage over Jordan. Nor could he indeed set out for Jerusalem, till he had received certain information, that the men of Judah, and Amasa, who was in possession of it, would quietly permit him to return to it, without endangering his own person, or hazarding the peace of the nation, should he attempt to reduce the city by force. But when he knew the city would open her gates to him, it is no wonder he should resolve immediately to begin his march to it, as he had now nothing to fear from that quarter, and imagined, that as all the tribes had declared for him, the sooner he acted agreeably to their desires, they would be the better pleased, and without the formality of any particular invitations, receive him with open arms, wherever he should meet them.

The pretence, that the men of Judah had stolen him away, was unreasonable and unjust. For while he was at Mahanaim, the tribes on that side Jordan all declared for him, and accompanied him to the passage of that river, and went over with him to join the rest of their brethren, who were come down to meet him; so that when they were all united at the passage of the river, there were actually present, by large deputations, the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and five others, who waited on him in his march to Gilgal. The truth of the case seems to be, that the deputations from the more distant tribes, not being able to get farther than Gilgal, before the king's arrival there, envied the other tribes, and particularly that of Judah, which had the principal share in providing every thing necessary for the king's passage over Jordan, and laid hold of the first opportunity to express their resentment against them. This was heightened by the imprudent haughty answer, which the men of Judah made to their expostulation, that they had a peculiar right in the king, as he was near akin to them, because he was of their own tribe; and seeming to insinuate, that they came voluntarily, but that the other tribes came with an expectation of being provided for at the king's expense, and hoping some donative from him, as the reward of their submission to him. This, I think, is plainly implied, when they told them: "Have we eaten at all at the king's cost? Or hath he given us any gift?" Words which seem to carry a tacit insinuation, that other tribes expected both. This reflection, and the claim of a particular interest in the king, disgusted all the other tribes in general, and disposed them to enter into violent measures to revenge themselves. David, upon the whole, seems to me to be nowise blameable on account of Sheba's revolt, but that it was occasioned by misunderstandings between the tribes themselves, which it was not at that time in his power to prevent.-CHANDLER.

Ver. 3. And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed them, but went not in unto them: so they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood.

In China, when an emperor dies, all his women are removed to an edifice called the Palace of Chastity, situated within the walls of the palace, in which they are shut up for the remainder of their lives.-BURDER.

Ver 9. And Joab said to Amasa, Art thou in

health, my brother? And Joab took Amasa by the beard with the right hand to kiss him. D'Arvieux was present at an Arabian entertainment, to which came all the emirs, a little while after his arrival, accompanied by their friends and attendants: and after the usual civilities, caresses, kissings of the beard, and of the rank and dignity, sat down upon mats. It was in this way, hand, which every one gave and received according to his perhaps, that Joab pretended to testify his respect for Amasa, his rival in the favour of the king; he took him by the beard to kiss him, or agreeably to the custom of these emirs, or Arabian chieftains, to kiss the beard itself; and in this stooping posture he could much better see to direct the blow, than if he had only held his beard, and raised himself to kiss his face; while Amasa, charmed by this high compliment, which was neither suspicious nor unusual, and undoubtedly returning it with corresponding politeness, paid no attention to the sword in the hand of his murderer. It is extremely probable that Judas betrayed his Lord in the same way, by kissing his beard. The evangelists Matthew and Mark say, that he came directly to Jesus, and said, Hail, Master, and kissed him; but Luke seems to hint, that Judas saluted him with more respect. Jesus, according to Matthew, had time to say, before he received the kiss from Judas, "Friend, wherefore art thou come?" and while Judas was kissing his beard, Jesus might express himself with great ease and propriety, as Luke relates, "Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss ?"-PAXTON.

Ver. 18. Then she spake, saying, They were wont to speak in old time, saying, They shall surely ask counsel at Abel: and so they ended the matter.

Intimating, that the city of Abel was very famous, in ancient times, for giving advice, and determining controversies. But of this there is no intimation except in this place, and the sense seems very forced and unnatural. I think R. S. Jarchi's exposition leads to the true interpretation, which our learned Bishop Patrick seems also to approve; who observes, that the word now refers, not to old time, but the beginning of the siege. As if she had said, When the people saw thee lay siege to the city, they said surely they will ask us, if we will have peace, and then we shall soon come to an agreement, and make an end; putting Joab in mind of the rule in the law, Deut. xx. 10, which commands them to offer peace to the cities of other nations, when they came to besiege them, and therefore much more to a city of their own, as Abel was. This agrees well with what follows, that they were a peaceable people, and faithful to their prince, and therefore would not have refused to yield to him upon summons.-CHAND

LER.

Ver. 23. Now Joab was over all the host of Israel and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and over the Pelethites. This hath occasioned a very severe reflection on David's honour and justice, and he is reproached because Joab was continued in the command, and not a single syllable of any notice taken by David of the murder of Amasa, whom he himself had appointed general; as though David had acquiesced in the murder, and confirmed Joab in the command of the army, as the reward of it. But that David greatly resented this murder of Amasa, is evident from his last advice to Solomon, in which he nobly recom mends, and gives it in charge to him, to do justice on that bloody assassin for the murders of Abner and Amasa. David was not now able himself to do it, and Joab was too powerful a subject to be brought to any account. We have seen that he had insolence enough, after Absalom's death, to threaten the king with a new revolt, if he did not do what he ordered him; and after the assassination of Amasa, he usurped, in defiance of his master's appointment, the command of all the forces. They seem to have had an affection for him as a brave and successful general; he had just now restored the quiet of the land, by entirely quelling the insurrection under Sheba, and returned to Jerusalem, with out fear of the king, and in defiance of justice, as general

children of Israel, nen they came to then 1es, and understood the fraud, murmured against the princes, because they had made a league with them. The princes, to appease them, said to them: "We have sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel, therefore we may not touch them. We will even let them live, lest wrath be upon us, because of the oath which we sware to them;" and they were accordingly spared, but condemned to servitude, and made hewers of wood, and drawers of water, for the congregation, and for the altar of the Lord perpetually, in the place which he should choose; i. e. wherever the tabernacle or ark should reside. But Saul, in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah, to ingratiate himself with them, under the specious pretence of public spirit, to enrich his servants and soldiers, and to appear warm and active for the public interest, "sought to slay them, and to destroy them from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel," and actually put many of them to death, employing those of his own house or family in the execution. This was a notorious violation of the public faith, laid the nation under the guilt of perjury and murder, and subjected them to the displeasure of God, who is the righteous avenger of these national crimes, but seems to have been regarded as an affair of no consequence, or rather acquiesced in as a useful and public-spirited measure. God, however, was pleased to make inquisition for the blood which had been thus unrighteously shed, and sent a famine upon the land, which lasted three years, in the third of which, David, moved by so extraordinary a calamity, inquired of the Lord the cause of it, and was answered by the oracle, that it was for Saul, and his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites. In consequence of this, David sent for some of the principal persons who had escaped the massacre, and said to them: What shall I do for you, and wherewithal shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord ?" What satisfaction do you require for the injuries that have been done you, that you may be induced to pray for the prosperity of my people? The Gibeonites answered him: "We will have no silver or gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel." The king then bid them ask what they would have, and promised that he would do it for them. They replied: The man that consumed us, and that devised against us, that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel; let seven of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, who was chosen of the Lord." The king immediately replied: "I will give them;" and in consequence of it, sparing Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, and all the male line of Saul, who had any claim to, or were capable of contending with him for the crown, and disturbing him in the possession of it; he delivered to them the two bastard sons of Rizpah, Saul's concubine, and the five sons of Micah, his youngest daughter, by Adriel, the son of Barzillai, the Meholathite, not one of whom was capable of succeeding Saul, especially while any of the male line, and particularly those by the eldest son, were alive. Now, at this very time, Mephibosheth, Jonathan's eldest son, dwelt in David's family at Jerusalem; and though lame in his feet, yet he was sound enough to be the father of a son, named Micah, who had a numerous posterity, the descendants of whom continued down through many generations. In this account the reader will observe, that what gave rise to this execution in the family of Saul, was a three years' famine. The famine is not denied. The cause of it, some think, was the preceding intestine commotions. But this is highly improbable; for there is no intimation or probability, that the civil war continued so long as twelve months, as it was determined by a single battle, and as that battle was certainly fought not long after the rebellion broke out. For David continued in the plain of the wilderness, where he first retreated, and which was not far distant from Jerusalem, till he was informed what measures Absalom was determined to follow. These were fixed on soon after that rebel's entrance into Jerusalem, and as soon as the affair would admit, put in execution. Nay, so soon was the plan of operations fixed, that Hushai, David's friend, who continued with Absalom at Jerusalem, sent an express to David to acquaint him, that he had defeated the counsel of Ahithophel, but withal to advise him, not to lodge a single night more in the plains, but instantly to pass over Jordan, lest he and all his people should be swal

lowed up by a strong detachinent from the rebel army. David immediately hastened to and passed the river, and could have but a few weeks or months to draw together his troops; for Absalom was soon after him, attacked bis father, and his death put an end to the unnatural rebellion. Besides, the country in general must have been free from any great commotions; for, as David retreated beyond Jordan, collected his forces, and fought the rebels in the territories of the tribes on that side the river, the principal commotions must have happened there, and could not much affect the ten tribes, and occasion a three years' famine throughout that whole country.

The natural cause of that famine was the want of the usual rains, and the violent heat and drought of the seasons during that period; for it is observed of Rizpah, that as soon as her two sons were put to death, she spread herself a tent upon the rock where they were hung up from the beginning of harvest until water dropped on them out of heaven, i. e. till the rain came, which had been so long withheld, and it thereby appeared that the displeasure of God towards the nation was fully appeased. But though David could account for the natural cause of the famine, yet its long continuance was so unusual and extraordinary an event, as that he thought himself obliged to inquire of the Lord for the reasons of it, that he might prevent, if he could, the further continuance of it, by averting the displeasure of God, of which the famine seemed to be the immediate effect. Upon his inquiring, he was answered, that it was upon the account of "Saul, and his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites;" after which the historian immediately informs us, that "Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah;" and the Gibeonites themselves complained to David, that Saul was the man that " consumed them, and devised against them, that they should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel." And indeed the murder of these poor people was an action suitable to Saul's sanguinary temper; and if he was bloody enough to put to the sword, without any provocation, a whole city of his own subjects, what should hinder him from endeavouring to exterminate these Amorites out of the land, if he could hereby oblige his own people, by enriching them with their fields and vineyards, and thereby better establish himself and his family in the kingdom. Samuel indeed is not anywhere said to have charged Saul with any such slaughter. Probably that prophet was dead before this carnage of the Gibeonites hap. pened, and therefore it was no wonder he never charged Saul with it. He lived long enough after Samuel's death to perpetrate this crime, when it would not be in Samuel's power to reproach him with it. If Samuel was alive, it is absolutely certain that he never visited Saul, and so could not reproach him for his barbarity. But to question the fact is to deny the history, which as peremptorily fastens it on Saul, as it does any other fact whatsoever. The deed itself was a perfidious and bloody one; the destruction of many of the Gibeonites, and a determined purpose wholly to extirpate the remainder of them out of the country, in violation of the public oath and faith that had been given them for their security, without any provocation or forfeiture of life on their part. He cut them off in cold blood, defenceless and unarmed, though they were serviceable to the nation, and many of them appropriated to the service of God and of his tabernacle, merely for secular and political views, and that he might serve himself, by gratifying some of the tribes among whom they lived, and who wanted to possess themselves of their cities and lands. It is probable his death prevented the full execution of this barbarous purpose, which therefore seems to have been begun but a very little while before it, in order to support his declining inte rest, and ingratiate himself with the children of Israel and Judah; with Judah particularly, of which tribe David was, and in whose territories some of the Gibeonitish towns were, to whom he thought the expulsion of that people might be agreeable, and so might be a means of retaining that powerful tribe in his interest. The crime therefore was enormous in itself, and aggravated with the most heinous circumstances; and which all civilized nations, almost in all ages, have looked upon with horror, and as highly deserving the divine displeasure and vengeance. Antiphon, one of the principal orators of Greece, pleading for the bringing a murderer to justice, against whom the evidence was not so full as was desired, but the circuru

stances exceedingly strong, urges this as a reason why the judges should not clear him; that it would be extremely dangerous to the public, to permit such an impure polluted wretch to enter into the temple of the gods and defile them, and to sit down at the tables of those who were innocent; because this would produce barren and unfruitful seasons, and render the public affairs unfortunate. Elian also relates, that the Lacedemonians were punished with the entire ruin of Sparta by an earthquake, which left only five buildings in the city standing, for the murdering some of the Helotæ, who were slaves, and had fled into a temple for safety, after they had surrendered themselves on the promise of safety. When the noble Roman, Horatius, who, by his victory over the Curiatii, had established the supremacy of Rome over Alba, was accused by some of the principal citizens of Rome for having murdered his sister, who, upon his return from his victory had unseasonably and severely reproached him for killing her lover; they urged his being brought to justice, because he had violated the laws, and recounted several instances of the divine vengeance on cities who had suffered such atrocious crimes to go unpunished. But may it not be asked, that if God sought vengeance for a particular act of cruelty, perpetrated by Saul, when was vengeance demanded for David's massacre of the Geshurites, Gezrites, Amalekites, Moabites, Ammonites, Jebusites, and others, who at times became the objects of David's wrath? The answer is, it was never demanded, because there was no vengeance due, and the cases are by no means parallel. There was no violation of the national faith, no breach of oath, that David and his people had been guilty of in any of these instances. In most of them, the people mentioned were the aggressors; and, as to the rest of them, they were the inveterate enemies of the Jews, wandering clans, who lived upon robbery and plunder, and had been long before justly devoted to destruction. Besides, the Gibeonites were massacred in cold blood, in times of peace, unarmed, and incapable of any self-defence; and therefore every one must see the difference between these unhapppy people, whom Saul causelessly and treacherously destroyed, and those whom David cut off; who provoked their own ruin by unjustly making war on his subjects, whom he was in duty and honour bound to protect and defend, or who had been proscribed by God himself for the crimes of which they had been guilty.

The persons employed with Saul in perpetrating these murders, were those of his own house. The history here is express: "It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he," viz. by them as his instruments, "slew the Gibeonites;" for which reason they justly said to David, that they demanded satisfaction only of the man that had consumed them. He thought the destruction of the Gibeonites so popular a thing, as that he was resolved, himself and his family and relations, should have the whole credit and merit of the affair. Whether Jonathan and his brethren, who seem to have been brave men, were concerned in it, is not said. I think it probable they were not; for as they were good soldiers, they would be ashamed to massacre unarmed slaves, and of too generous a disposition to have any hand in so base and cruel an assassination. But if they every one refused to be employed in it, there were others of Saul's house, i. e. his family, who certainly were; who either in person, or by the soldiery, put many of these poor people to the sword; in which latter case they were equally guilty of the murder, as though they had killed every one of them with their own hands; just as Saul was guilty of the murder of the priests, and the massacre at Nob, though he employed Doeg in the first, and his soldiers in the latter execution. I think it probable from the choice which David made, that the very persons he gave up to the Gibeonites, were employed by Saul in his butchery, and that for this reason he delivered them up as sacrifices to public justice. These were the two bastard sons of Rizpah, Saul's concubine, and the five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul, which she bare to Adriel, the son of Barzillai, the Meholathite. It appears to me, that Michal was married to this Adriel, before she was married to David, and had five children by him, which would be all of them of age sufficient be employed in this unrighteous affair. Saul was about forty years old when he came to the crown; for his sons were all grown men, men of strength and valour, and his two daughters are spoken of as not being children at that time, but as women arrived at some maturity.

From his being made king to David's marriage with Michal, was, by the chronology of our Bible, thirty-two years, Allow her therefore to be ten years of age on her father's advancement to the kingdom, she must be above forty years of age when David married her; a space of time, in which she might have had many more children than five by a former husband, that would be of age sufficient, in the latter part of Saul's reign, to act under his commission, in the slaughter of the Gibeonites. It is not very probable that Saul's daughter should continue unmarried till she was forty years old and more, and the scripture is express, that she bare to Adriel, the son of Barzillai, the Meholath ite, five children. It is indeed said, that Saul married his eldest daughter Merab, to Adriel, the Meholathite. But this Adriel might be a very different person from Adriel the son of Barzillai, who was the husband of Michal, who seems to have been thus particularly described, to distinguish him from the other Adriel, who, though a Meholathite, is nowhere said to be the son of Barzillai. If these remarks are just, we need no critical emendation of the text, and can defend the justice of David in giving up these persons to the vengeance of the Gibeonites. But supposing these sons of Michal, or Merab, were too young to have any hand in the guilt of this transaction, I do not see that an immediate command from God to deliver them up to death is anywise inconsistent with the rectitude of his nature, or the justice and equity of his moral providence. The judgment of Grotius on this affair is worthy our regard. "God," says that great man, "threatens in the law of Moses, that he would visit the iniquity of the fathers on their posterity. But then he hath an absolute dominion and right, not only over all we have, but over life itself; so that he can take away from any one his own gift whensoever he pleases, without assigning any reason for it. And therefore when he takes away the children of Achan, Saul, Jeroboam, and Achab, by an untimely and violent death, he exercises his right of dominion, not of punishment, over them; but, at the same time, he by this means more griev ously punishes the parents of them. For whether the parents survive them, which the law principally supposes, the parents are certainly punished by seeing their children thus taken from them; or whether they do not live to see their children cut off, yet the fear that they may suffer for their crimes, is a very great punishment to the parents." He further observes, that "God does not make use of this extraordinary vengeance, except it be against crimes peculiarly dishonourable to him; such as idolatry, perjury, sacrilege, and the like."

The crime of Saul was a wilful breach of the laws of God and man, a perjurious violation of the national faith and honour, which it became God, the supreme governor of the Jewish nation, to manifest his resentment against. Suppose all who were actual perpetrators of this aggravated crime were dead, and out of the reach of vengeance. Yet some of their posterity were still remaining. But they were innocent. Allowed. Therefore. What? That God was unjust in taking away their lives? But what right had they to live longer? Does the gift of life convey an inalienable right to live for ever, or to any particular period of life? And that in bar of God's right to resume it when he pleases, and when there are valuable ends to be answered by his resuming it? The evident intention of God, in ordering the death of this part of Saul's family, was to be a public attestation of his abhorrence of Saul's perfidy and cruelty, to strike a terror into the princes his successors, and caution them against committing the like offences, as they would not have them avenged by the sufferings of their posterity, and especially to prevent all future attempts against the lives of the Gibeonites, whom God now declared to be under his protection, though they seem to have been looked on with a malignant eye by the Jewish, nation; who probably would have in time completed the extirpation which Saul began, had it not been for this remarkable manifestation of God's displeasure against it. The death of these seven persons therefore, supposing them all innocent, was, in this view, no punishment at all inflicted on them by God, but an appointment of God in virtue of his sovereign right over the lives of all men, to teach princes moderation and equity, and prevent for the future the commission of those enormous crimes, which, if permitted to go with impunity, would be inconsisteni with the peace and welfare, and even being, of civil gov