Графични страници
PDF файл

The Doctor's Preface, alone, might be considered as no small part of an Answer to the History: it consists of 39 pages, and contains smart Reflections on the fpirit and apparent tendency of that performance:

In his three first chapters, he, as'a necessary and important preliminary to his defence of David, considers and vindicates the character and conduct of Samuel, against whom the Hiftorian had pointed his 'ridicule, by a sily alluñon to Sydrophel, in Butler's Hudibras. He also examines and replies to the Historian's free and ludicrous Remarks on the Jewish Prophets and Priests. This is a curious part of his work, and fhews the Doctor's learning and fagacity to great advantage. In regard to learning, indeed, the Historian is by no means a match for his Answerer, whose skill in the original languages in which the Scriptures were written, enables him to correct many of the mistakes which his opponent has fallen-into, from his inability to consult the sacred writings, except through the mediun of our common English trandation.

In the fourth chapter our Author considers the Historian's Remarks on the character and conduct of King Saul; whom the Doctor fpares as little as David was spared by the anonymous Writer on the oppofite fide. And, in truth, we muft observe, that if the Historian was blame-worthy for pursuing the son of Jefse with so much acrimony, his Answerer appears to have fallen very little short of him, in the bitternefs of his Reflections on the unhappy son of Kish, who, with all his faults, seems to deserve some degree of tenderness and compassion, as a lunatic. However, his butchering the innocent priests at Nob, is an instance of tyrant-barbarity, which cannot be thought of without horror, and gives him a juster claim to be called the Nero of the Hibrews, than David had, even from the worst action of his life. But we are aware that the disorder of his mind will be pleaded in extenuation of the acts of violence committed by Saul.

In chap. V. (which comprehends the greatest part of the book) our Author enters on his Vindication of David, and fets out with an explanation of what is meant by his Character, as the Man after Gori's own Heart. He shews that the Historian has mistaken the meaning of this character; which, he asserted, implied the heighth of purity by supposition. Thus, as the Doctor observes, “ by presuming upon a meaning that doth by no meanis clearly belong to it, he hath taken for

granted, granted, what he ought to have proved, and founded his invectives upon a character he did not understand, and hath therefore ignorantly misrepresented.”

« The immediate occasion (fays our learned Author) of these words of Samuel to Saul was, the disobedience of Saul in facrificing, contrary to the express orders he had received from God by Samuel, not to offer facrifices till he should come, and give him the proper directions for his behaviour. The pretence was piety, but the real cause was impatience, pride, and contempt of the prophet; who not coming just at the time he expected, he thought it beneath him to wait any longer for him, and imagined, that as king, all the rites of religion were to be subject to his direction and pleasure But when Samuel came, notwithstanding his plea of devotion, and the force he put upon himself, in offering before the prophet's arrival, Samuel plainly tells him *, Thou haft done foelifly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God; which he commanded thee; for now would the Lord have eftablished thy kingdom upon Israel for ever. But now thy kingdom fhall not continue. The Lord hath fought him 10252 will a man after his own heart. He shall be captain over his peoplé, because thou haft not kept that which the Lord commanded thee. It is evident here, that the man after God's own heart stands in opposition to Saul, described as acting foolishly, by breaking the commandment of God by his prophet, and rejected by him on account of his disobedience and rebellion; and therefore means one, who should obey the commandments of God by his prophets, and whom therefore, God thus far would approve, and continue to favour. Thus the expression is actually

, . Vir faciens voluntatem meam, a man who doth my will; and by St. Paul to the Jews at Antioch, who says t, that when God had removed Saul, he raised them up David to be their King; to whom he gave testimony, and said, I have found David, the fon of Jese, a man after my own beart, which shall execute my will."

The Author cites a variety of other forms of expression, of like nature, in the original Hebrew, to confirm and illustrate his sense of the character ; after which he thus proceeds :« David is characterised as a man according to God's heart, not to denote the utmost height of purity as to his moral character,

.גבר עביך רעותיה ,interpreted by the Chaldee paraphrale

1 Sam. xii. 13, 14. Rey, March, 1762,

+ A&ts xiii. 22.


[ocr errors]

as our Historian supposes ; which by no means enters into the meaning of the expression, and which in no one single in stance, is intended by it; but to set him forth as a person, who was fit for the purposes for which God advanced him who should faithfully execute the commands he gave him by his prophcts, and who therefore, on this account, should be favoured and approved of God, and be establifhed on the throne of Israel. He was, I doubt not, a really virtuous and religious man; and he was a wise, a just, a munificent, and a prosperous prince: but yet he had his faults, and those faults were not inconsistent with his character of being a man according to God's heart; for if he was such a one as God intended him to be, by obeying his will, and bringing to pass those great events, which he was designed to be the instrument of accomplishing, ; he thus far acted, according to the heart, i. e. the purpose and the will of God, and thereby, in this respect, rendered himself well pleasing and acceptable to him.

“ The particular purposes, for which God raised him to the throne, were that by his steady adherence to the one true God, and the religion that was established by Moses, he might be an illustrious example to all his posterity that should reign after him ; in which view he is often mentioned in the history of the Kings of Judah : and that as the temple was to be erected by his son and successor, he might settle all the ceremonies and forms of worship, that were to take place therein, and compofe folemn hymns and psalms, that should be sung in honour of the true God; provide the expences, and many of the costly materials, that were necessary to build and adorn the house of God; and to regulate the order that was to be obferved amongst all the various persons, that were to be employed in the daily services of the temple: an account of which is transmitted to us in the Book of Chros, nicles.' And it must not be omitted, that there was yet another end of Providence in his appointment to be King over Ifrael; and that is, that God by him might accomplish the antient promises made to Abraham, in their full extent that he would give to his feed the whole country, from the river of Egypt, unto the great river, the river Eupbrates. This was made good under the reign of David, who cleared Judea of all the remains of the nations that had dwelt in it, or made

• Gen. xv. 18.


[ocr errors]

them subjects to his crown, or profelytes to his religion ; who subdued all the neighbouring nations, rendered thein tributary, and put it out of their power to disturb his people, for many years ; leaving to his fon and fucceffor a forty years peace, and dominion over all the kingdoms, from the river Euphrates, unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt; who brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life. See here, Reader, the man after God's own heart, who fulfilled all his pleasure! If, therefore, David's moral character was worse than it will ever be proved to be, he might be a man after God's opun heart, in the proper original sense of the expression; and our Author's Treatise is an impertinent attempt, to prove David not to be, what the Sacred History never afierted him to be.”

David's first introduction to the court of Saul, and the preferment he met with there, is the subject of the next Section ; in which the Author answers several objections brought by his antagonist against the consistency of this part of David's . History, and in Section III. he clearly vindicates the hero's conduct, in regard to the dowry required of him for Saul's daughter. The Historian had here taxed him with unnecessarily manifesting a delight in blood, by doubling the number of Philistine foreskins required by the King; but the Doctor has fully obviated the charge of cruelty, as we apprehend, in a very satisfactory manner.

Sections IV. and V. are employed on the friendship be-. tween David and Jonathan, and on the charge of rebellion brought against the former. The next Section, on David's generosity to Saul, at the cave of Engedi, furnishes matter for a learned criticism on the meaning of Saul's going into the cave to cover his feet; and also for an ample display of the generosity of David in sparing Saul's life, when he had him fo completely in his power : in reply to the Historian's very different exposition of this matter.

In the next Section we come to the celebrated story of David and Abigail; a nice topic, requiring all our Author's erudition and ingenuity to remove the plaufible objections to his hero's conduct in regard to this transaction : which he has, however, discussed with the utmost candour, making. due acknowlegement of David's rathness, and at the same time clearing him of the charge of having committed adultery with Nabal's wife. This imputation is derived from the words I have accepted thy PERSON; which the Historian has


P 2

printed in capitals, says the Doctor, that the Reader might not mistake the intended application. But “the words in the

original are, 739 Xwxy, I have received thy faces; and with what face can this Romancer apply it, as a proof of David's criminal conversation with her? The meaning is, I have accepted your interposition for Nabal, and for your sake will not revenge myself upon him. Thus the angel says to Lot in the same words, tupon his pleading that he might be permitted to escape to Zoar ; See, I have accepted thy faces in this thing also. Gen. xix. 21. i. e. I have granted thy request. So, Job xlii. 9. The Lord accepted the faces of Job, i. e. was gracious and favourable to him; and to mention no more, not to accept the faces of any expiation, is not to esteem and accept it as a ransom. Prov. vi. 35."

We come now to David's second instance of generosity in sparing Saul's life, when he had him again in his power in the wilderness of Ziph. This story is considered by Mr. Bayle, and, after him, by the Author of the History of the Man, &c. as only another detail of the adventure at Engedi. Dr. Chandler is of a different opinion; and has accordingly taken great pains to state the two facts in a distinct manner, in order to evince the essential difference between the two narratives : and we apprehend he has succeeded.

In Section IX. which treats of David's conduct while he. abode with Achish, King of Gath, we doubt if our hero is fo fatisfactorily vindicated, as he is in most other instances which fall under this critical Writer's confideration. In our Review of The History, &c. we expressed some concern at the ambiguous appearance of David's conduct, in going out with the Philistines, under the coinmand of Achifh, to fight against the Hebrews; wishing, at the same time, that any of the learned might be able to clear up this point, to the honour of David's character. An abler Critic than our Author we could not have hoped for; but, nevertheless, we are sorry to think, that the removal of this stumbling-block seems to be reserved for some future and in the present instance) more fortunate 'expositor.

In the next Section, of David's conduct upon his return to Ziklag, the place allotted him by Achish for his residence, the Doctor seems again victorious over his antagonist, who had drawn a very unfavourable comparison between the moderate behaviour of a band of Amalekites that had plundered Ziklag, during our hero's absence with the Philistine army, and Lavid's fevere treatment of those fame Amalekites, whom he


« ПредишнаНапред »