Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

taking notice, as the laws of history certainly require, that the fact was thus differently reported. This is certainly the way of good writers, as may be shown from manyd instances in the best historians. Such an omission certainly proves that the historian reported what he knew or believed to be two very different stories, though there might be one principal fact in which both of them agreed.

CHAP. XV.

David's retreat to Gath and Ziglag.

BUT notwithstanding Saul's promise to David at Ziph, that he would do him no more harm, yet knowing his implacable temper, and apprehensive that the spirit of jealousy and rage would return on him, David lived in a state of perpetual anxiety, and he said within himself, I shall one day or other 1 Sam.

a The accounts of the sudden disappearance of Romulus were various, and accordingly the historian in reporting it says, Discerptum aliqui a senatu putant ob asperius ingenium: sed oborta tempestas solisque defectio consecrationis speciem præbuere. Flor. I. i. 17. See also the different reports of the death of Marius by Plutarch, Vit. Mar. p. 432, 433. So Herodotus, when giving an account of the manner how Darius was exalted to the Persian throne, and the method his equerry took to procure the neighing of his master's horse, says, Oi pèv on paσɩ Tòv Oißápea ταῦτα μηχανήσασθαι· οἱ δὲ, τοιάδε. Καὶ γὰρ ἐπ ̓ ἀμφότερα λέγεται ὑπὸ Пeporéwv. "Some say Ebares took this method, others a different one. For the Persians relate it both ways.' Thalia, cap. 87. Surely, according to this law of history, the writer ought to have taken notice that this one fact, if he knew it to be one, was thus differently related. As he hath not taken any notice of this kind, we may be sure he intended to relate two distinct parts of David's history, especially as he makes a considerable interval of time, and mentions several remarkable transactions that happened between them.

[ocr errors]

e Mr. B. positively affirms that "it is not true that Saul renewed

the persecution against David after the latter had twice forborne to do him the least harm." Rem. K. §. 2, or, as he expresses himself, §. 3, "It is very certain that Saul did not persecute him after the second reconciliation." This observation, as made by Mr. B., hath no manner of meaning in it, because he denies there was any such second reconciliation, and that the history we have of it is only that mentioned 1 Sam. xxiii. 19, &c. which happened some time before; and that Saul persecuted David after this, Mr. B. himself will not deny, as the affair of En-gedi was subsequent to it. But even upon the supposition that there was a second reconciliation, I do not know how this learned critic could be so very certain that Saul never persecuted David after it. There are several intimations in the Scripture history that weaken the credit of this assertion. It expressly says that Saul was David's enemy 'p'n bo all his days, 1 Sam. xviii. 29. Agreeably, after this second reconciliation, David saw that he could not trust Saul's promises. I shall now, says he, one day or other perish by the hands of Saul. I will escape into the land of the Philistines, and Saul shall despair of me to seek me any more in any coast of Israel. So shall

xxvii. 1.

1 Chron.

perish by the hand of Saul: there is nothing better for me, than that I should speedily escape into the land of the Philistines. Agreeably to this purpose he immediately retired with his followers to Achish king of Gath, to prevent Saul's further pursuing him, and that he might be entirely out of the reach of his power. That prince gave him, his family, and companions, a very friendly reception. David was not now, as in his former retreat to Achish, a poor solitary exile, but at the head of a brave corps of bold and resolute men, who were inured to war, and had been several of them commanders in the forces of their own country; and in this situation was a man of consequence, and worthy to be gained over to the interest of the Philistines. Achish knew his worth, and after some short stay in Gath, at David's request, gave him the town of Ziglag, in property for himself and followers.

Whilst he was here he was joined by some other great capxii. 1, &c. tains, mighty men of valour of Saul's brethren of Benjamin, who assisted him in the following expedition. For he went up with them from Ziglag, and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites, who were the ancient inhabitants of the land in the way by Shur to the land of Egypt. And David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive to bring the news of what he had done to Gath, to prevent those suspicions which the knowledge of this execution might

I
escape out of his hand. And when
it was told Saul that David was fled
to Gath, he sought no more for him
again. So that Saul never left per-
secuting David openly whilst he
continued in the coasts of Israel;
and, what is not greatly to his honour,
and looks as if he had not quite lost
his enmity to David, the reason why
he at last left off doing it, if he ever
did leave it off, was because he was
out of his reach, and under the pro-
tection of Achish king of Gath. But
even after he was in the dominions
of that prince, David, who was a
better judge of Saul's conduct than
Mr. B., did not think himself secure
from Saul's malice even in the ter-
ritories of Achish. For whilst he
was at Ziglag, the historian expressly
asserts that David kept himself close
shut up whilst he was there, because

of Saul the son of Kish, 1 Chron. xii. 1. For though he sought no more again for him in the coasts of Israel, nor pursued him to Gath or Ziglag by an armed force, yet David had too much reason to suspect that he secretly practised mischief against him there, had his spies upon him, and private emissaries to watch every opportunity to surprise and destroy him; and therefore shut himself up within the fortress that Achish had assigned him.

Nec juvenis virtus per tot spectata labores,

Nec mala mollierant, sed inexorabile
durus

Exerces odium, nec iniqua finis in ira
est.
Ov. Met. V. 243.

[blocks in formation]

raise in the mind of Achish and the Philistines to the disadvantage of himself and followers, and that none who escaped alive might insinuate, that as David had done in this incursion, so he would continue to do, whilst he was suffered to reside in the territories of the Philistines. The plunder, the sheep and the oxen, the asses and the camels, together with the apparel, he reserved for himself and his people.

Mr. Bayle's account of this affair is extremely partial, and his censures on David's conduct very severe. He says that David, whilst at Ziglag," often led his men out in parties, and killed without mercy men and women, and saved only the cattle, which was all the booty he returned with. He was afraid lest the prisoners should discover the whole mystery to Achish; for which reason he carried none with him, but put both sexes to the sword." This he calls very unjustifiable, and great cruelty; adding, "If David had been asked, By what authority doest thou these things? what could he have answered? Has a private man, as he was, a fugitive, who finds shelter in the territories of a neighbouring prince, a right to commit hostilities for his own account, and without a commission from the sovereign of the country? Had David any such commission? On the contrary, did he not act in opposition to the intention and interests of the king of Gath?"

Any one who reads this account would imagine that David had led out his men on several of these expeditions, and that it was what he accustomed his men to at Ziglag, always slaying both sexes, to prevent Achish from coming to the knowledge of what he had done. And this he more strongly affirms elsewhere: for he saysh that David, "with his little flying camp, was exterminating all the infidel countries wherever he could penetrate." Should any one have asked Mr. B., By what authority provest thou these things? what could he have answered? In reality, this charge hath no foundation in the history; which only relates this one single instance of his destroying the Amalekites, Geshurites, and Gezrites, to prevent their giving any intelligence to Achish.

As to this execution, which Mr. B. censures as exceedingly bad and prodigiously cruel, the circumstances must determine the nature of it. As to the Amalekites, they were the ancient h Note E.

g Fit cent courses.

48.

18.

Ver. 3.

enemics of the Jewish nation, doomed, many ages before this, to destruction by the God of Israel; and they are frequently mentioned in the books of the Old Testament as the common 1 Sam. xiv. enemies of the Hebrews, engaged in many expeditions to plunder their country and destroy the inhabitants. In Saul's reign they brought an army into the field against him, and spoiled his people. On this provocation God commanded Saul by I Sam. xv. Samuel, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them till they be consumed. Spare them not, but slay both men and women, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. And he accordingly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword, Agag excepted, and brought his booty home, "which consisted of all which those miserable victims possessedi." If therefore Saul did right in cutting off the Amalekites, David could not do wrong in finishSam. xv. ing the execution Saul begun. For the Amalekites cut off by David plainly appear to have been the remains of those destroyed by Saul, being both described as the inhabitants of the land as they travelled through Shur even to Egypt. Both therefore, or neither of them, are to be blamed for excessive cruelty for the same reasons subsisted, and equally justified the one as the other.

[ocr errors]

7; xxvii. 8.

14-16.

But if David had been asked, By what authority doest thou these things? what could he have answered? He might have answered, I act under the standing command of God, utterly to extirpate them, and maintain an eternal war against them, Exod. xvii. till they were utterly destroyed. The Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book: .... I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; .... Because the Lord hath sworn that he will have war with Amalek from generation to generation. He might also have further said, I act agreeable to the command of God to Saul, and for the benefit of my country, in exterminating the restless and inveterate enemies of it. David was therefore justified by as real and positive an order from God as Saul himself, and by reasons that fully clear him from the charge of cruelty.

But Mr. B. asks, Was not David a private man? I answer, No: he was anointed king of Israel, and as such had at least

i Hist. p. 35, 36.

an equal right with Saul himself to defend his people against the inroads and plunders of their enemies.

He asks further, " Has a private man, as David was, a fugitive, who finds shelter in the territories of a neighbouring prince, a right to commit hostilities for his own account, without a commission from the sovereign of the country? Had David any such commission?" It doth not appear that he had; but then there is no proof that David, in this execution, acted contrary to the circumstances of those times, and the constant practices of nations one to another, and especially the constant practice of the neighbouring nations towards the Hebrews, who, as appears from the whole tenour of the history, made perpetual incursions on them, and ravaged their territories, whenever they found themselves in a condition to do it. And though David was a fugitive, yet it is plain that Achish did. not consider him as a mere private man, or contemptible fugitive, nor think that he acted in this very incursion, made without any commission from him, inconsistent with any obligations he was under to him for the protection he had given him.

Nay, more than this, Achish approved of and was pleased with this expedition of David, as he imagined that David, by invading his own people, had rendered his return to and reconciliation with them absolutely and for ever impossible. Now if the circumstances of David's being a private man and a fugitive, and acting without any commission from Achish, were what rendered the incursion upon these hordes inconsistent with right and justice, David had no more right to invade his own country without a commission from Achish than the country of the Amalekites, &c. But Achish approved this invasion without his commission, and therefore did not think any such commission from himself was necessary.

Nor had David any apprehension of offending Achish merely by an incursion upon some neighbouring clans, because he took no care to conceal it from him, the very booty which he brought home being a sufficient discovery of what he had been doing; part of which he reserved for the support of his own men, who had scarce any other way of subsistence in the country of the Philistines but by such kind of incursions, and part of which he unquestionably presented to that Philistine

« AnteriorContinuar »