Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

hangings under which Ahasuerus the king of Persia entertained his court. They "were white, green, and blue, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple, to silver rings and pillars of marble."-PAXTON.

Siloam was a fountain under the walls of Jerusalem, east, between the city and the brook Kedron; it is supposed to be the same as the fountain En-rogel, or the Fuller's fountain. "The spring issues from a rock, and runs in a silent stream, according to the testimony of Jeremiah. It has a kind of ebb and flood, sometimes discharging its current like the fountain of Vaucluse; at others, retaining and scarcely suffering it to run at all. The pool, or rather the two pools of the same name, are quite close to the spring. They are still used for washing linen as formerly. The water of the spring is brackish, and has a very disagreeable taste; people still bathe their eyes with it, in memory of the miracle performed on the man born blind." (Chateaubriand.)-BURDER.

Ver. 14. Behold, while thou yet talkest there with the king, I also will come in after thee, and confirm thy words.

The Hebrew has for confirm, "fill up." "I wish you to go and inform Tamban, that I will gladly go into court and fill up all his words." "My friend, do not believe that man's words."-" Not believe them! why, his words have been filled up by many people." "Well, you say you saw Muttoo turn his cattle last night into your rice-fields, what proof have you ?"-" None, my lord, I was alone, and, therefore, have no one to fill up my words." "As Venåse was coming through the cinnamon gardens, that notorious robber Kalloway met him, took from him his ear-rings, finger-rings, and five gold mohurs; but, before he got off, several people came up, who knew him well, so that there will be plenty of witnesses to fill up his words."-ROBERTS. Ver. 16. And Bath-sheba bowed, and did obeisance unto the king. And the king said, What wouldest thou?

When a husband goes on a journey, or when he returns, his wife, on seeing him, puts her hands together, and presents them to him as an act of obeisance. When she has an important request to make, she does the same thing; and it is surprising to see the weakness of him who pretends to be the stronger vessel, for, under such circumstances, she will gain almost any thing she wants. Hence, the force of their popular proverb, "The woman who regularly makes obeisance to her husband, can make it rain whenever she pleases." When Bathsheba made her obeisance to the king, he asked, "What wouldest thou ?" but, the Hebrew has this, "What to thee ?" This accords with the idiom of the Tamul language. Thus it will be asked of a person who stands with his hands presented to a great man, ummak-enna, “To thee what?" If speaking of a third person, avanuk-enna, "To him what?" or, literally, "Him to what ?"-ROBERTS.

CHAPTER II.

Ver. 5. Moreover, thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, and what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet. 6. Do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace.

David having settled this great affair of Solomon's succession to his throne, but a little before his death sends for him, and gave him a particular charge, in reference to two state criminals, Joab and Shimei. That to Joab in these words: "Thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, and what he did to the two captains of the host of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle that was

| upon his loins, and in his shoes that were upon his feet;" i. e. treacherously, and under pretence of peace and friendship, besprinkled his girdle and wet his shoes with the blood of these two generals, as though he had slain them in battle. "But do thou according to thy wisdom, and let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace." Here are three murders David mentions to Solomon as the ground of this charge, not to let him die a natural death. The one intimated, "thou knowest what he did to me," viz. when he cruelly stabbed Absalom, contrary to my immediate orders; the two others expressly mentioned, those of Abner and Amasa; on these accounts he advises him to put him to death; and I allow David's dying advice, or rather order, in this instance, to be peremptory and absolute; and, if Í understand any thing of justice and equity, it was an order worthy of a good king, and fit to be given in the last moments of his life. The reader will remember, that the facts are these. Upon Abner's reconciliation with David, and bringing over the people to his interest, Joab out of revenge for his brother Asahel's death, whom Abner, forced to it by Asahel's rashness, had unwillingly slain, and probably envying him the glory of settling David on the throne of Israel, and afraid of his being placed at the head of the Hebrew army, as the reward of so signal a service, under the pretence of a friendly salutation, in the most base and cowardly manner, stabbed him unexpectedly to the heart. David highly resented this murder, followed Abner's corpse to the grave, and to show what part he would have acted immediately, had it been in his power, says: "I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men, the sons of Zeruiah, are too hard for me. The Lord shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness." After the rebellion under Absalom was ended, David thought this a proper opportunity to show his displeasure to Joab; and as he imagined it would be an acceptable thing to the people of Israel, who were now zealous to restore the king to his throne, he ordered it to be signified to Amasa, who had been their general in the rebellion, that he would constitute him captain-general of his armies in the room of Joab, and actually appointed him, as such, to assemble the forces of Judah, and suppress the new insurrection under Sheba. As Amasa was returning with his troops, Joab meets him, and with a compliment and a kiss, thrust his sword through his body, and laid him at a single blow dead at his feet; and immediately usurped the command of the army, quelled the insurrection, and returned to Jerusalem.

And now, reader, let me appeal to thy conscience. Were not these two execrable murders deserving of punishment? Was the cowardly base assassin worthy to live? If he was too powerful a subject for David to bring to justice, did not David do well, and act like a righteous prince, to give it in charge to his successor, to punish, as soon as ever he had power, such a villain, according to his desert? Mr. Bayle's judgment is, that David well knew that Joab deserved death, and that the suffering the assassinations, with which that man's hands were polluted, to go unpunished, was a flagrant injury done to the laws and to justice. With what truth then can it be said, that David delivered two murders in charge to his son Solomon; one of them to be executed on his old faithful general, Joab? Was it charging Solomon to murder a man, to order him to put to death a criminal, for having basely committed two most execrable murders? Or is the doing justice on murderers and assassins committing murder? Or is the representation just, that this order, viz. to murder Joab, was afterward fulfilled in the basest manner, by the administrator to this pious testament? Joab's execution, which is thus stigmatized with the epithet Judge, reader, and be thyself a witness to the manner of of basest. Solomon, in obedience to his father's directions, gives orders to Benaiah to put Joab to death in these words:

Fall on him, that thou mayest take away the innocent blood which Joab shed, from me, and from the house of my father; and the Lord shall return his blood upon his own head, who fell upon two men, more righteous and better than himself, and slew them with the sword, my father David knowing nothing thereof." Solomon was now king, firmly fixed on the throne, and had it in his power to execute justice on the greatest offenders; and remembering, I doubt not, how Saul's house was punished for the innocent blood of the Gibeonites which he spilt, he is willing to secure himself and family from a like venge nce. He

would have been in some measure chargeable with Joab's guilt, had he refused to punish it when it was in his power; and especially, as he had it in charge from his father to execute the vengeance on him that his crime deserved. But where shall we here fix the character of basest? What, on Solomon's command to take away the guilt of innocent blood from himself and his father's house; or on his ordering the execution of the man that shed it, the man that slew two men, more righteous and better than himself; or on God's returning his own blood upon his head; or, on his ordering Joab to be slain at the horns of the altar, and not permitting even the altar of God himself to be an asylum for murderers; or, on his appointing Benaiah, the captain of his host, to execute justice on this treacherous assassin? This was the manner in which Solomon performed his father's orders, in an open public manner, appealing to God for the reasons of his conduct, and by a hand too honourable for the wretch that fell by it. And is this, what it hath been termed, putting a man to death in the basest manner? Is not this condemning, as a piece of villany, a most exemplary instance of royal justice, and exhibited in such a manner as showed a regard to religion, conscience, honour, and the prosperity of his government and people?

But in order to show David's ingratitude to Joab in ordering Solomon to punish him for the murder of Abner, it hath been urged that it appears, that Joab, uniting his revenge with the dead, acted basely for David's service. Supposing it. Doth it follow, that David's ordering the

execution of a base and treacherous assassin was baseness and ingratitude, because the assassination was intended for his service? I do not understand this morality. I should rather raise a panegyric upon a prince, who should order a treacherous assassin to execution, notwithstanding the pretence of the assassin's intending to serve him by the villany; than on one, who should protect a villain from the punishment of treachery and murder, because he intended to serve, or actually served him by these notorious crimes. But the supposition itself, that Joab murdered Abner for David's service is without any foundation, and contradicted by the whole history of that affair. For this asserts once and again, that Joab murdered Abner in revenge for his brother Asahel's death. And as to his expostulating with David on the imprudence of trusting Abner, saying, He came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out, and thy coming in, and all that thou dost; David had all the reason in the world to look on this charge against Abner as a mere calumny. For Abner, before ever he had waited on David, had brought the elders of Israel to a resolution to accept of David for their king, and he came to inform him of this transaction. Abner went also to speak in the ears of David all that seemed good to Israel, and that seemed good to the whole house of Benjamin; i. e. all that had been agreed on between Abner and the tribes in reference to David. So that Joab's charge of treachery against Abner was contrary to the strongest evidence of his integrity, and only a pretence to colour over that murder of him which he intended. Joab knew very well the intention of Abner's interview with David; for he was informed that he had been with the king, and that he had sent him away in peace; and he expostulated with the king for thus dismissing him, that he came only to deceive him. And therefore his murdering Abner could be with no intention to serve David, but to execute his own revenge and serve himself; for no transaction could have been at that time more directly contrary to David's interest, as the tribes would naturally resent so cruel a breach of faith, as the treacherous assassination of their own general and ambassador to David, sent by them to fix the terms on which they would receive him for their king; and it was a thousand to one, that, in their fury, they had not broke off all treaty with him, and with their united forces opposed his accession to the throne of Israel. What prevented this was, David's so solemnly and publicly clearing himself of having any hand in the murder, and showing, to the fullest satisfaction of the people, that it was wholly the contrivance of Joab, and perpetrated by him without his privity and

[blocks in formation]

of, and therefore, uniting his revenge with his ambition, he assassinated Abner, to free himself from a rival in power and his prince's favour, and secure himself in the chief command. He acted just the same infamous part afterward, when he assassinated Amasa, because Ďavid had promised him to make him general of the army in Joab's room; and this strengthens the probability, or rather renders it certain, that he murdered Abner, not only out of revenge for his brother's death, but also from the same cause of jealousy, envy, and ambition. And indeed Josephus will not so much as allow, that even the revenging Asahel's death was any thing more than a pretence for Joab's murdering Abner, but says, that the true cause was, his being afraid of losing the generalship, the favour of his master, and being succeeded by Abner in both.

It is further objected, that Joab was really ill used in the affair of Amasa. But to me it appears, that he was used no otherwise than he deserved. It is true he gained the victory over the rebels; but the merit of this victory he destroyed by a base and infamous murder, contrary to the express command of his sovereign. For David charged Joab and Abishai, and all his officers, before the engage ment: Deal gently, for my sake, with the young man, even with Absalom. Had Joab cut him off in the heat of th battle, he would have had somewhat to have alleged in his defence. But nothing could argue greater insolence and contempt of the king's order than Joab's conduct on this occasion. For when one of the army informed him he saw Absalom hanging by the hair in a tree, Joab replies: "Why didst thou not smite him there to the ground, and I would have given thee ten shekels of silver and a girdle?" The soldier answered him with a noble spirit of loyalty: "Though I should receive a thousand shekels of silver, I would not put forth my hand against the king's son: for, in our hearing, the king charged thee, and Abishai, and Ittai, saying, Beware, that none touch the young man Absalom; otherwise I should have wrought falsehood against my own life, and thou thyself would have set thyself against me." But what doth the loyal Joab do after this warning? He said: I may not tarry thus with thee. Tell me no more of the king's orders. I have something else to do; and immediately he took three darts in his hand, and thrust them through the body of Absalom, while he was hanging alive in the midst of the oak. Could there be a greater insult offered to the king than this? Or, a more treasonable violation of his orders? Or, a more deliberate and aggravated murder committed? Would any prince have endured this? Or, ought he to have pardoned even a victorious general, after such an audacious cruel instance of disobedience? But not content with this, he carries his insolence to the king further, and keeps no measures of decency with him. For, upon David's mourning over his rebel son, Joab imperiously reproaches him: "Thou hast showed this day the faces of all thy servants, which this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons, and daughters, and wives; in that thou lovest thine enemies, and hatest thy friends. For thou hast declared this day, that thou regardest neither princes nor servants; for this day I perceive, that if Absalom had lived, and all we had died this day, then it had pleased thee well;" and then, to complete his audacious insolence, threatens with an oath to dethrone him, if he did not do as he ordered him. "Now therefore arise, go forth, and speak comfortably to thy servants; for I swear by the Lord, if thou go not forth, there shall not tarry one with thee this night; I will cause the whole army to revolt from thee before morning; and that will be worse unto thee than all the evil that befell thee from thy youth until now." I will appeal to all men, that know what duty or decency means, whether Joab, after such a behaviour to his sovereign, was fit to be continued general of the forces: and, whatever might be his merits in other respects, whether any prince, who consulted his own honour and safety, would not take the first opportunity to humble and break him? The opportunity came. Amasa, the general of the rebel army, brought Jerusalem and Judah back to their allegiance, and, according to David's promise, was constituted captain-general in the room of Joab. In defiance of this appointment, Joab, to get rid of his rival, like a coward and poltron, under pretence of peace, and a friendly salutation, ripped open Amasa's belly, and shed out his bowels upon the ground. But it is said, to extenuate Joab's guilt, that he confined his resentment to his rival.

What then? Is a cowardly murder to be pardoned, because committed on a rival? Do not the laws of God and man call for an exemplary punishment of such an atrocious offender? Are not such treacherous cruelties, though practised towards a rival, offences of a public nature, a breach of that allegiance which men owe to their princes, and a capital violation of the sacred laws of government? David, it is plain, thought so; and though Joab was too powerful a subject for him to call to an immediate account, yet to show that he had never forgiven it, he orders Solomon, agreeable to all the rules of honour and justice, to punish him as he deserved for his numerous treasons and murders. But we are told that "it will avail nothing to plead the private faults of the man. We are now to consider him as relative to David in his public capacity, as his old faithful general, who powerfully assisted him on all occasions, and who adhered to him in all his extremities; in which light we must loathe the master, who died meditating black ingratitude against so faithful, so useful a servant.' I would ask: If David had had power, and had ordered the execution of Joab, immediately upon the assassination of Abner, or of Amasa, whether his master David ought to have been loathed on that account, because Joab had been an old faithful servant? If it should be said, that he ought to have been loathed for it, the doctrine advanced is this: that whatever person hath been an old faithful servant, or general, to any prince, and powerfully assisted him upon all occasions; and murders, presuming on his own power, and past services, through malice, revenge, or ambition, by a secret stab, and under the pretence of friendship, one or two of the principal officers of the kingdom; the prince, whom he serves, becomes an object of loathing and abhorrence, and is guilty of black ingratitude, if he resolves on his death, and actually executes him, as such a base and treacherous assassination deserves. No man, I believe, will coolly assert this. If it is said, that David ought not to have been loathed, but commended, if he had then ordered his execution; I think it cannot be true, that because Joab had been an old faithful general, &c., we ought to loathe David for ingratitude, for meditating Joab's punishment while he lived, and expressly ordering it just before his death; for whatever it was just for him to do, it was just for him to order to be done; inasmuch as he really did himself what Solomon did by his order; and because an act, that is just to-day, cannot become unjust merely by being deferred till to-morrow, or the most convenient opportunity of performing it. But it is said, that it will avail nothing to plead the private faults of Joab. What, were the murder of Abner, who had just brought over the eleven tribes to submit to David, and the assassination of Amasa, appointed general of the national forces, at the head of his troops, private faults? High treason, murder, and felony, private faults! What then can be public ones, and what faults can be aggravated with any more heinous circumstances than these?

the political reasons which made the law give place to utility. But when David had no further use for that general, he gave orders that he should be put to death. So that Mr. Bayle blames David, not for ordering Joab to be put to death at last, but for deferring to do it so long, through reasons of policy, and ordering it only when those reasons of policy subsisted no longer. I would here just observe, that what Mr. Bayle calls political reasons were really reasons of necessity. For Joab was too powerful a subject to bring to justice. He attempted it twice, by turning him out from being general. Bui he restored himself to his command by murder and treason, in spite of David, who seized the very first opportunity, after Joab's power was broken, of ordering his execution.

It should be added also on this head, that whatever Joab's past services were to David, and however faithful he had formerly been to him, yet he had now been engaged in a treasonable conspiracy against him, to set aside the intended succession to the crown, and had actually proclaimed Adonijah king of Israel during his father's life; altogether without, and even contrary to his consent. And it is allowed, that David had on this account justifiable cause for chagrin. And it is certain, that Joab's treason, in endeavouring to depose the good old king, and advance an ambitious youth into his throne, was just reason for chagrin. And therefore as Joab added rebellion to murder, David did justly, in his last moments, to order his execution by his son and successor, and he would neither have been a wise or a righteous prince, had he forgotten or refused to do it. When it is said, that Joab had not appeared against him in actual hostility, and that his defection may admit of being interpreted into a patronisation of that particular plan for the succession, rather than into a rebellion against David, it is in part not true in fact. To proclaim any person king, in opposition to the reigning king, is an overt act of rebellion, and therefore of real hostility. This Joab did, and had not the design been seasonably prevented, by the loyalty and prudence of Nathan, further hostilities must have been immediately committed; David himself at least confined, and Solomon, his intended successor, actually put to death. The plan of the succession, concerted by Joab, in favour of Adonijah, was, in every view of it, a treasonable one. It was a plan formed without the consent of the nation, without the knowledge of David, and the appointment of God. David had, a considerable while before this, solemnly sworn to Bathsheba, that Solomon her son should reign after him, and sit upon his throne in his stead; and tells all the nobles and officers of his kingdom, that as the Lord God of Israel had chosen him, among the sons of his father, to be king over all Israel, so, of all his sons, God had chosen Solomon to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over all Israel. To patronise therefore any other plan of succession, and aciually to take measures to execute that plan, was breaking out into open rebellion; and the favourers, abetters, patrons, and aiders, in such a plan, were traitors to their king and country, and in all nations would have been punished as such; and should it be pleaded in excuse of such persons, that their defection to patronise such a plan of succession, was not a rebellion, it would be treated with the contempt it deserved; and as a defection from a prince is a revolt from him, and a revolt a rebellion, they would probably be told, that they should have the choice of being hanged for a defection, or rebellion, just as they pleased. I shall only take notice further, on this head, that David, in his lamentation for Abner, had declared the Lord to be the rewarder of evil-doers; by this expression referring the punishment of Joab to the Lord. And the inference that hath been made from hence is, that David having en

But it avails nothing, it seems, to plead these private faults, in vindication of David's ordering him to be put to death by his successor; because we are to consider him as relative to David in his public capacity. Very right: David in his public capacity was king of Israel, and Joab in his public capacity stood related to him as his general, and assisted him, and adhered to him in all extremities. David therefore, in his public capacity, was obliged, by the laws of God and man, to punish assassinations and murders; and Joab, in his public capacity, as general, was an assassin and murderer; and therefore David, in his public capacity, as king, was obliged to punish Joab with death, in his public capacity, as general, assassin, and murderer. If Joab had been his faithful general, and frequently assisted David in his extremities, private obli-joyed the benefit of Joab's services through his life, he

gations are in their nature inferior, and ought to give way to public ones; and the yielding up such an offender to public justice, when personal obligations might have been pleaded by the prince in his favour, was a nobler sacrifice in its nature, and renders David's merits, as a prince, the more illustrious, and himself more worthy the character of the man after God's own heart. And this Mr. Bayle thinks David ought to have done sooner, and says, that notwithstanding Joab deserved death, yet that he kept his place; he was brave, he served the king his master faithfully, and to good purpose, and dangerous discontents might be apprehended if he attempted to punish him. These were

having been his right hand all along, gratitude, after such an attachment, ought to have influenced David to have left him to the justice of God, and not have bequeathed him death, as a legacy for his long friendship. But David did not bequeath him death for his friendship, but for his repeated treasons and murders; which no just principle of gratitude will ever shelter; since no services, public or private, can be a compensation for these impious violations of the laws of God and man, and ought not to hinder the progress of justice in the execution of such notorious offenders; and were kings and princes to act according to this notion of gratitude, the peace, order, and safety of

society, could not possibly be maintained. Besides, as David declared the Lord to be the rewarder of evil-doers, so he really left it to the providence of God to reward Joab, by not punishing him himself, but by waiting for the proper opportunity to give him his reward, when it could be done consistently with his own safety, and the peace of his kingdom. Joab's defection or rebellion in favour of Adonijah, and Solomon's establishment on the throne, furnished this opportunity, and the providence of God, by these means, brought on the punishment he had long deserved. Let Solomon explain his father's meaning in the very order he gives for Joab's execution. The king said to Benaiah: Fall upon him. . . . that thou mayest take away the innocent blood which Joab shed, from me and the house of my father, and the Lord shall return his blood upon his own head, who fell upon two men more righteous and better than himself, and slew them with the sword." David therefore left Joab to the justice of God, and God executed justice on him by Solomon's order; and the hand of providence was very remarkable in this transaction; in that, had Joab's treason, in patronising Adonijah's usurpation, succeeded, Joab would have escaped with impunity; for Adonijah, no doubt, out of gratitude to Joab, would have forgiven him his murders, for the sake of his servi

ces.

David's meaning, therefore, in declaring that the Lord would reward the evil-doers, could be no other than that in which Solomon understood it: That though Joab was too powerful for him, at that time, to punish, yet that God would not suffer him finally to escape; but that, sooner or later, in the course of his providence, he would bring the punishment on him which he so richly deserved. And this Joab experienced, since the very measures he took in the close of David's reign, to secure himself from it, fixed his doom, and proved his destruction. David's conduct therefore, in this instance, is no proof that his repentance for his sins was not sincere, nor any argument that he had not forgiven his enemies, as far as he ought to do it, and did not die in charity with all mankind, as far as that charity ought to be extended. If a prince's charity influences him, living or dying, to pardon repeated offences, inconsistent with the public safety and peace, such as assassinations and treasons, it is folly and weakness, and not virtuous charity; it is cruelty to his people, instead of real generosity and goodness. David had not this charity, and it heightens his character that he had not. His last charge to Solomon shows his inviolable regard to justice, by positively ordering the execution of a murderer, who was too powerful for himself to punish; and the order was executed by Solomon, in a manner worthy a wise, a just, and a great prince; or, worthy the son of such a father.-CHAND

LER.

Ver. 7. But show kindness unto the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and let them be of those that eat at thy table: for so they came to me when I fled because of Absalom thy brother.

At public entertainments in the courts of eastern kings, many of their nobles have a right to a seat, others are admitted occasionally by special favour. In this sense Chardin understands the dying charge of David to his successor, to show kindness to the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and to let them be of those that should eat at his table. He means not that they should eat at his table at every meal, or on every day, but only on days of public festivity. In the same light, he views the conduct of the king of Babylon to the captive monarch of Judah: "Evil-Merodach spake kindly to Jehoiakim, and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon; and changed his prison-garments, and he did eat bread continually before him all the days of his life." He received a daily allowance from the king suitable to his high station, and the value which Evil-Merodach had for him; besides this, he had a seat at all the public entertainments of the court. The eastern custom explains the reason that David was not expected at Saul's table, till the day of the new moon; he did not sit at the king's table every day, but according to established usage, he had a right, and was expected to be present in his allotted seat on the day of a public and solemn festival. In the same manner, though Mephibosheth was to sit at David's table on all public occasions,

|

yet he wanted the produce of his lands for food at other times. It was therefore very proper to mention the circumstances to Ziba, that he might understand it would be necessary for him to bring the produce of the lands to Jerusalem, and in sufficient quantity to support Mephibosheth in a style suitable to the dignity of one who had a right, by the royal grant, to appear at court, and sit at the king's table on public occasions: "Thou, therefore, and thy sons, and thy servants, shall till the land for him; and thou shalt bring in the fruits, that thy master's son may have food to eat; but Mephibosheth thy master's son shall eat bread always at my table."-PAXTON.

Ver. 8. And, behold, thou hast with thee Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite of Bahurim, which cursed me with a grievous curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim: but he came down to meet me at Jordan, and I sware to him by the LORD, saying, I will not put thee to death with the sword. 9. Now therefore hold him not guiltless; for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him; but his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood.

After the charge to Solomon, to execute the due punishment on Joab, for his numerous and aggravated crimes, David gives him another, relative to Shimei the Benjamite, who, as hath been already observed, when the king was in his flight from Jerusalem, to prevent his falling into Absalom's hands, met him, railed at, and cursed David in his journey; and as he went on, had the further insolence to pelt him with stones, and dust him with dust, crying out to the king, "Come out, come out, thou bloody man, and thou man of Belial. The Lord hath returned upon thee all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose stead thou hast reigned; and the Lord hath delivered the kingdom into the hand of Absalom thy son; and behold thou art taken in thy mischief, because thou art a bloody man." This, as Mr. Bayle says, is a small specimen of the abuses to which David was exposed among the friends of Saul; they accused him of being a man of blood, and looked on the rebellion of Absalom as a just punishment for the mischiefs which they said David had done to Saul and his whole family. But surely an abuse and insult of a more atrocious and insolent nature was never offered to a prince; an insult the viler, as it had no foundation in reality or truth to support it. He twice styles him a bloody man; and tells him, that because he had reigned in the stead of Saul, the Lord had returned on him all the blood of the house of Saul. The reader will observe, that this transaction was before the affair of the Gibeonites; and therefore this circumstance could not enter into Shimei's thoughts, nor be any reason for his charging David with being a bloody man, and having the blood of Saul's house returned on him. Now, in what other respects could David be guilty of the blood of Saul's house? Saul's three eldest sons were slain with him in a battle with the Philistines, in which David was not present. The only remaining son that Saul had was Ishbosheth, whom Abner made king in Saul's room, in opposition to David, who was raised to the throne by the house of Judah. Ishbosheth was killed by two of his captains, whom David put to death for that treason and murder; and Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the only remaining one, was restored to his patrimony, and, in all things, treated as one of David's own sons; and Saul's line by him, the eldest branch, continued down through many generations. The charge therefore that David was a bloody man, because the blood of the house of Saul was upon him, was a scandal and a lie, and uttered in the madness of the passion and malice of a man, who, being of Saul's house and family, was enraged to see that family rejected from the throne, and David advanced to it in their stead.

Mr. Bayle himself acknowledges, that the friends of Saul carried things too far in these reproaches against David. And yet, as though he had made too large a concession in his favour, he doth, in a manner, retract it, by adding: “It is true, that, by the testimony of God himself, David was a man of blood, for which reason God would not permit him

to build the temple." But, by Mr. Bayle's good leave, David | was not a man of blood, by any testimony of God himself; nor doth either of the places he cites in proof of it, prove any such thing. The expression which Shimei made use of to revile David was, □, Thou art a man of blood; an expression always used, I think, in a bad sense, to denote a cruel bloody man. But God never gave this character to David. What God said of him was that he had been a man of wars, and hast shed blood; or, as it is elsewhere expressed: Thou hast shed much blood, and hast made great wars. Now the shedding of blood implies nothing criminal, except it be shed in sine causa, without reason or cause; innocent blood, as our version renders; and this very expression is used, in the same verse, in the criminal and in the good sense, to denote murder, and the justly putting the murderer to death. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." If then David's wars were just and necessary, the blood he shed in them was not his crime; and it is evident, that when David told his son, and afterward all the princes and officers of his kingdom, that the reason why God would not permit him to build his house, was because he had shed much blood in his wars; he did not mention it to them as a reproach, or any crime imputed to him by God. Indeed this could not be the case, because, immediately after God had assigned this reason why he would not permit him to do it, yet, without in the least blaming him, he graciously gave him a proof of his peculiar favour, by assuring him, that his son should build his house, should long enjoy prosperity and peace, and that the throne of his kingdom over Israel should be established for ever. Mr. Bayle urges it as a further reason of David's being a bloody man, or else he introduces it for no purpose at all, that, to appease the Gibeonites, he delivered up to them two sons, and five grandsons of Saul, who were all seven hanged. Had Mr. Bayle told, as he ought to have done, the reason of David's delivering them up, it would have been no proof of his delighting in blood. He did it not by choice, but by necessity, and a divine order. As therefore God never charged David with being a man of blood, this charge, as thrown on him by Shimei, was false and injurious; and the observation, that "here an opportunity may be taken to introduce a circumstance, which is so far material, as it serves to show, that the sanctity of David was not quite so universally assented to, as may be imagined, while he was living, and his actions not only fresh in memory, but more perfectly known, than was prudent to transmit to these distant ages," is quite groundless and injudicious. For how doth the being reviled and cursed by one interested and disappointed person, and charged with crimes for which there is no foundation, but many strong concurring circumstances to show the falsehood of the charge; how doth this, I say, serve to prove, that David's sanctity was not so universally assented to, as may be imagined? It is no proof that Shimei himself believed the truth of his own reproaches; nothing being more common than for men, in the extravagance and fury of passion, to vent many things, which they well know they have not any foundation for affirming: much less doth it serve to show that David deserved these reproaches; and, least of all, that others believed them just, and had as bad an opinion of him, as Shimei who reviled him. If this be argument, then I will, to the fullest conviction, demonstrate, that David's sanctity was, while he lived, thought as great as any body imagines. For, in the first place, Jonathan tells Saul; "He hath not sinned against thee, his works have been to thee ward very good." In the next place, Saul, his professed enemy, acknowledges David's innocence, and that he was a more righteous man than himself, and that in persecuting him, "he had played the fool, and erred exceedingly." Nay, Shimei himself, upon whose railing against David this notable observation I am remarking upon is grounded, retracts all he had said, owns himself a slanderer and a liar, and begs pardon for his abusive impudence, "Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, nor remember what his servant did perversely; for thy servant doth know that I have sinned." From hence I argue: If Shimei's reproaching David shows his sanctity was not quite so universally assented to, as may he imagined, while he was living, therefore, a fortiori, Jonathan's, and Saul's, and Shimei's testimony, to David's innocence and righteousness, serves to show, that the sanctity of David was really as universally assented to, as hath

[ocr errors]

been imagined, while he was living, and all his actions fresh in memory. I must beg leave also to add, that as Shimei owned himself to be a lying, slanderous, iniquitous varlet, and that the charge of David's being "a man of blood, and guilty of the blood of Saul's house," was an iniquitous, perverse calumny; that charge destroys its own credit and truth; and instead of serving to show that David's sanctity was not quite so universally assented to, as may be imagined, while he was yet living, rather serves to show that it was. For, as there are several unquestionable evidences to his integrity and virtue, of persons that knew him well, and were his contemporaries; as friends and enemies have given their united testimony in his favour, and there is but one evidence to the contrary, and that a lying one, upon record, who retracted his own charge publicly, and begged pardon for the falsehood of it; the sanctity of David's character in the opinion of the public, while he lived, stands unimpeached; and Shimei's infamous calumny against him, refuted and falsified by himself, can never, with justice, be pressed into the service against David to defame his reputation. As to the suspicion here thrown in, that David's "actions, when fresh in memory, and perfectly known, were worse than have been represented, or was prudent to transmit to these distant ages;" surely this must have been a very unreasonable one, if the actions that have been transmitted to these ages are such, as justify the charges brought against David, and the splendid character given him, of usurper, ungrateful, perfidious, perjured, whose conscience was his slave and his drudge, a tyrant, a NERO; in a word, a monster and a devil. Can he be painted in worse colours than these? Or do the enemies of David suspect the representations they have made of the actions recorded, as injurious and false, and want further materials to bespatter one of the greatest and best of princes? But they needed no further memoirs to assist them. For, in spite of Shimei, and though he had retracted all his curses and calumnies, yet the world is told, after reciting Shimei's blasphemies: "This is pathetic, and truly characteristic of the tyrant," to whom the speech was addressed. But David's real character was quite the reverse of a tyrant. He never oppressed his subjects; but when he reigned over Israel, executed justice and judg ment among all his people; and, perhaps, there never was a prince of greater humanity and clemency, or that gave more shining and disinterested proofs of it, than David, though he hath been characterized as the vilest of men, and the worst of tyrants.

Shimei himself was one illustrious proof of this. For when David's officers would have effectually silenced his reproaches, by putting the brawler to death, as he really deserved, what saith this Nero of the Hebrews? See, reader, the lineaments of his blood-thirsty disposition, in his reply to Abishai: "Let him curse. For if the Lord hath said unto him, curse David, who shall then say, wherefore hast thou done so? Behold, my son, which came forth of my bowels, seeketh my life. How much more now may this Benjamite do it? Let him alone, and let him curse, if the Lord hath bidden him. It may be that the Lord will look on my affliction, and that the Lord will requite me good for his cursing this day." In this grievous calamity, David could not but see the hand of God, it was now falling heavy on him for his great sin in the aflair of Uriah, and therefore ascribes the curses of Shimei to his immediate permission, and, in some measure, even to his appointment; as he was now reduced to that low condition, through the effect of his displeasure, as that this wretch dared to pour out these undeserved calumnies against him. This shows the moderation and great command of his temper, who would deny himself the vengeance due to such an outrageous insult on his person and character. Oh! how perfect a picture doth this exhibit to us of a Nero, and who can help discerning and admiring the happy resemblance! But it was not, it seems, piety, or humanity and goodness of heart in David, but policy and prudence, that prompted him to preserve Shimei's life. For so we are told: "Some of his retinue were at the point of silencing this brawler with the ultima ratio regum; but David prevented it; wisely considering this was not a season for proceeding to extremities." Why, what was there in the season to prevent David from punishing a treasonable reviler and brawler as he deserved? What would David's cause and interest have suffered by permitting a single person to be put to

« AnteriorContinuar »