Judah 21, all Israel 14.

David over they happened, and many events intervened between the commission of the one and the other. Between Amnon's rape and his murder by Absalom were more than two years. From Absalom's banishment to his being restored to the king's presence were more than five years; and from this to his rebellion and death, three or four; in all eleven or twelve years. But are there no instances in history to be found of more numerous crimes, and as various dyes, committed within a much shorter period of time? Will not our own history furnish us with such an instance? From the year 1483 to 1485, i. e. in less than three years, one man, Richard duke of Gloucester, usurped the crown; actually murdered the king and his brother, both of them his nephews; poisoned his own queen, to make way for an incestuous marriage with his niece; embrued his hands in the blood of many of the English nobility; was the author of a civil war in the kingdom; and was himself slain in an engagement with the duke of Richmond, afterwards Henry VII. I refer the reader for another instance of complicated wickedness, still of a more terrible nature, in Xerxes the Persian emperor, related at large by Dr. Prideaux in his Connection, vol. I. p. 348, &c.; and it would be easy to mention several others, both in the Roman and eastern histories, to show the rashness of this observation on which I have been remarking; but men of reading and learning need them not, and therefore I shall proceed with the history.

2 Sam. xix. 24, &c.

CHAP. VI.

David's reconciliation to Mephibosheth.

SOON after David's return to Jerusalem, Mephibosheth, Jonathan's son, who had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes, from the day the king departed until the day he came again in peace, came, it is probable by the king's order, to have his audience of him; to whom David said, Wherefore wentest thou not with me, Mephibosheth? He answered him, My lord, O king, my servant deceived me: for thy servant said, I will saddle me an ass, that I may ride thereon, and go to the king, because thy servant is lame. And he hath slandered thy servant unto my lord the king; but my lord the king is as an angel of God: do therefore what is good in thine eyes. For all of my father's

Judah 21,

all Israel 14.

house were but dead men before my lord the king: yet didst David over thou set thy servant among them that did eat at thine own table. What right therefore have I yet to cry any more unto the king? David replies, Why speakest thou any more of thy matters? I have said, Thou and Ziba divide the land. Mephibosheth, glad of so favourable a declaration, and of the restoration of his estate, passes an high compliment on the king; Yea, let him take all, forasmuch as my lord the king is come again in peace to his own house.

This conduct of David to Mephibosheth is objected against as a very ungenerous and unjust action; in that, "when Ziba's accusation against Mephibosheth was found to be false, instead of equitably punishing the asperser of innocence, and reinstating Mephibosheth in his former favour, he restored him but half the forfeiture for his supposed guilt, leaving the villain Ziba in the quiet possession of the other half, as the reward of his treachery." Supposing this account true, that Mephibosheth had but half his patrimony restored to him, there might be reasons of state, reasons of great prudence and equity, that might induce David at that time to give this check to the house of Saul; especially if David had any suspicion that Mephibosheth had really behaved ill, and as Shimei, one of Saul's family, had used him with peculiar marks of indignity, and discovered that they wanted only the opportunity to revenge themselves on him, and place one of Saul's house upon the throne of Israel.

But I think there is great reason to question, whether the behaviour of Mephibosheth was so innocent as hath been asserted during the progress of the rebellion. The late ingenious and learned Mr. Hallet and others think he was guilty and deserved punishment; and after having reviewed his apology to David for not accompanying him in his flight from Jerusalem, with the utmost impartiality and care, that apology doth not seem to me sufficient wholly to exculpate him. For what is the apology he makes? Why, only this; that he said, "he would saddle him an ass, and go on it to the king, because he was lame, and could not go on foot." Why then, what hindered him from saddling his ass, and riding after his royal patron and benefactor? Surely there were more asses than one to be had at Jerusalem, and he had servants enough

all Israel 14.

David over of his own to have saddled one, had he been disposed to go Judah 21, after David. For when that prince was restored, he found means to wait on him without Ziba's assistance; and I suppose the same means might have been found, if he had pleased, to have attended David when he fled, as well as to go to meet him when he returned. He pretends indeed that Ziba deceived him; but he doth not say how, nor offer any proof of it; nor could he deceive him about the getting him an ass, because he could have got one whether Ziba would procure him one or not. So that his justification was as lame as his feet, and, as far as I can judge, is but a poor shuffling vindication of his innocence.

He seems to me to have been very well pleased to stay at Jerusalem, and wait the issue of the rebellion, as not knowing but that during the confusion of affairs some fortunate circumstances might arise, by which, as heir to Saul's house, he might be advanced to the throne in the room both of David and his rebellious son.

The only circumstance that can be alleged in his favour is, that he did not take the usual care of himself as to his cleanliness and dress, but appeared in the squalid habit of a mourner. But this might be merely political, and would equally serve to excite compassion to himself amongst the people, to see Saul's heir reduced to this forlorn condition; and to provide some excuse for himself to David, should his affairs at last take a favourable turn, and to urge as an argument and proof of his affection and concern for him during the continuance of his troubles.

This was a well known custom amongst the Romans and other nations, for those who were accused of any crimes to clothe themselves with a black garment, to let their beards and hair grow, and to appear in a negligent dirty manner, in order to raise the public pity in their behalf. And not only thus, but the friends and patrons of such unhappy persons appeared publicly in the same manner as those whose cause they espoused. Thus Cicero tells us that the whole senate and all good men did it to express their grief on his account, and the better to obtain his recall from banishmenth. Yea, this very art hath been made use of by a dethroned prince h Cic. Orat. pro Sext. c. 12.

to obtain the recovery of his crown and kingdom. Thus David over Ptolemy Philometor, king of Egypt, being driven out of his Judah 21, all Israel 14. kingdom by his brother Physcon, came attended only by a few servants to Rome, squalore obsitus, "covered over with filth," to implore the assistance of the senate. And in this wretched condition he presented himself before them. They advised him that, depositis sordibus, “laying aside his wretched habit," he should petition for an audience. So that this affectation of Mephibosheth, of appearing at Jerusalem with these external marks of grief, was really no proof of his affection to David, but might be with an artful intention to serve himself.

Ziba's charge against him was direct and positive, and the only answer is, that Ziba had slandered him. So that here are two positive assertions contrary to one another. Ziba's charge had probability to support it; because it is natural to suppose that Mephibosheth might think that he had, as heir to Saul, some claim to the crown, and would be glad of 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 hath 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

Judah 21,

all Israel 14:

David over 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 much 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

2 Sam. ix. twenty servants. To him David had said, I have given thy

9, II.

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 outed 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 afterwards 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