impostor were made to coincide with the reality. If this were not so, then I should not hesitate to say that Saul fell, in all probability, the victim of assassinators, with whom the female necromancer and the impostor stood in close alliance. No doubt there is some cause to presume that the aged hero and his brave sons were killed by countrymen of their own.

Whatever dark anticipations may have rested upon the mind of Saul, on the morrow, he followed the dictates of duty and of honor, and fought the valiant enemies of his country. But the numerous host of the Philistines proved irresistible. Israel fled. Three sons of Saul, and among

form, she was amazed at this sight, and exclaimed, “Art not thou king Saul?" for Samuel had informed her who he was. When he had acknowledged that he was Saul, and had asked her whence her amazement came, she answered that she saw a certain person ascend, who, in his form, was like to a god.' And when he bade her to tell him what he resembled, in what habit he appeared, and of what age he was, she told him, He was an old man already, and of a glorious personal appearance, and had on a sacerdotal mantle. By this the king understood that it was Samuel that appeared; and he fell down upon the ground, saluting him with homage of respect."-Ant. lib. vi. 14.

A close investigation of the Biblical narrative itself, and a comparison of that with the one given by Josephus, cannot but convince us that the female necromancer abode in a place which was suitable for the imposture which she was accustomed to play upon her credulous visitors, who were received in a cave or apartment, beneath which there was an excavated place, from which the dead who were to appear had to ascend. It appears also evident, from both these narratives, that Saul did not see the person who appeared, but that he took it for granted that it was Samuel, from the description which the woman gave of what she saw. Hearing Saul say that he wished to see Samuel, she had good reason to suspect who he was, as it was not likely that any one else would have dared to make such a demand; still it seems to me most probable, as Josephus has it, that she only asked "Art not thou this Saul?" The astonishment at the sight "of the gods," as she called them, “ascending out of the earth," was but a very natural artifice for imposing upon Saul the belief that she really saw the illustrious dead. Mr. Kitto, however, considers that it was Samuel in a glorified form that appeared. But had such been the case, I do not think the woman would have been able to master her terror, so much as to have had power to answer the new question of Saul: "What form is he of?" or "What is his form?" Nor do I see, if Samuel had appeared in a glorified form, that there is any reason to suppose that he would have appeared as an old man covered with a mantle. From whence Mr. Kitto obtained the idea that this mantle was that "in which was the rent that signified the rending of the kingdom from the family of Saul," if not from his own imagination, it is difficult to understand. In regard to Mr. Kitto's hint that the female necromancer might have hoped that a demoniacal spirit would return an answer to Saul, I should desire to learn how a spirit without body could utter sounds. Mr. Kitto ought to have known, that the doctrine of demoniacal spirits, or any spirits whatever, was at that period unknown to the Hebrews. It is also to be observed, that Saul wished to see Samuel, and not his spirit, as both Milman and Kitto have it.

If any doubt could exist that the woman imposed upon Saul, it would be dissipated by the very excuse which she brought forth for having caused Saul trouble; "Behold thine handmaid hath obeyed thy voice, and I have put my life in thy hand, and have hearkened unto thy words which thou speakest to me."-1 Sam. xxviii. 21. Consequently she acknowledged that she had made Samuel appear, which she unquestionably would not have done, had the real Samuel without her agency made his appearance. Besides, the narrative of what passed on this occasion is very suspicious, as there seems to be no authority for what is related but the account which the female necromancer herself might have given, after Saul's death, of his visit to her.

them the heroic Jonathan, were slain. The aged king himself was grievously wounded by the archers. Being thus exposed to fall alive into the hands of the victors, he commanded his armor-bearer to pierce him with his sword. But when that warrior refused, Saul fell upon his own weapon, and his example was followed by that faithful servant, who would not survive his beloved master. Why camest thou not, thou son of Jesse, and changed the fate of that mournful day of Israel? Then wouldst thou have been numbered with Cimon, the Athenian, as the most generous of heroes.

On the next day, when the Philistines came to collect the spoils, they found the bodies of Saul and his three sons. They sullied their victory by indignantly treating the remains of these brave men. Cutting off their heads, they hung their bodies to the wall of the town of Bethshon, near Jordan. Their heads and armor they sent as trophies into their own country, by the hands of the messengers who were to publish their triumph in their temples and their towns. But the inhabitants of Jabesh cherished in grateful remembrance the salvation which Saul had brought to them, when they were about to fall into the hands of the cruel Nahash; and therefore some valiant men among them went by night, and took away the bodies of Saul and his sons, and brought them to Jabesh. In order, as it appears, to prevent any further insult to these corpses, the people of that town burnt them, and buried the collected bones and ashes in an honored place.* Then a solemn mourning for the fallen heroes was kept up for the time of seven days.

Were we acquainted with all the particulars, we should perhaps be enabled to wash out that bloody stain-the massacre of Abimelech and his fellow-priests-which rests upon the memory of Saul; but though I feel a secret voice whispering within me that the evidence at hand is not complete, the duty of an impartial historian obliges me to charge him with the inexcusable cruelty of having sacrificed so many innocent persons to his craving suspicion. But my belief in the doctrine of Christ, and the conception I entertain of God, prevents me from countenancing the opinion that Saul's life and throne were deemed forfeited, because he had shown, on other occasions. mercy to the enemies of himself and of his country. Had Samuel been allowed to return to life, as a messenger of heaven, I do not doubt that he would have upbraided Saul rather for the blood he had shed than for that he had spared. Would to God that Saul were not

Joseph. Ant. book vi. chap. xiv.

t The imposition of the female necromancer is evidently testified to by the very words which are put into the mouth of the person that played the part of Samuel; or are we to believe that there have been instances when God has punished men for not having murdered their brethren, whom he has commanded them to love, even when being their bitterest enemies?

.

guilty of any other crime than having obeyed the voice of humanity! His heroic death would then have been but the crown of a virtuous life. On the third day of his return to Ziklag, David was informed of the battle of Gilboa, by a man, who, presenting himself, with his clothes. rent and earth upon his head, fell down before him in token of homage, and laid at his feet the crown and armlet* which Saul had worn. Upon the request of David to give particuler information of what had taken place, the man told him that the Israelites had been defeated, and Saul and Jonathan slain. Being further asked how he knew that Saul and Jonathan were dead, the man replied, that he saw Saul, when, to avoid falling into the hands of the Philistines, he was about to slay himself. But the king on perceiving him asked who he was, and on being answered that he was an Amalekite, requested that he would slay him, which he accordingly did.

We are told that David, on hearing this sad intelligence, rent his clothes, as did also all the men that were with him, and that both he and they mourned, wept, and fasted until the evening. This would, indeed, cause us to admire the generous feelings that seem at this moment to have actuated David, were we not also informed that he ordered one of his young men to kill the Amalekite-who, as it appears, had done nothing criminal -under the frivolous pretence that he had destroyed the anointed of Jehovah. Such conduct cannot but awaken the suspicion that David, on this occasion, acted insincerely, and that, in ordering this inexcusable murder, he wished to convince the remaining friends of Saul that he had not sent the Amalekite to assassinate the king.t

The elegy which is said to be a composition of David's, on the death of Jonathan and Saul, breathes sentiments very different from those which were displayed by the murderer of the Amalekite-who would seem to

"We suppose that the armlet found on the person of Saul, was one of the insignia of royalty, and not, as some have imagined, a mere personal ornament of value, which the king happened to wear. This conclusion is amply supported by the ancient and still subsisting customs of the East. When worn by men, they have been, in nearly all Eastern countries, marks of dignity. If we consult the numerous figures which the sculptures and paintings of ancient Egypt offer, we find armlets very frequent as ornaments on the women; but among men they only appear on the figures of the kings. In India, the armlet was a mark of sovereignty at the court of the Grand Moguls. It still is such in Persia, where no man but the king wears armlets."-Kitto's Palestine, vol. i. book iv. chap. 2, note 1.

It must be admitted that there was much reason to anticipate that such a rumor would be spread abroad, and be believed by the friends of the deceased king and his family, on its being known that a stranger had brought the royal insignia to David, and that the very man who had brought them acknowledged his instrumentality in the death of Saul. Still, the wish to avoid such a suspicion being created, could not in the least justify David in causing the innocent Amalekite to be killed. Besides, this crime might be considered as having originated solely in the wish to conceal another, and consequently still greater.

The Amalekite's veracity in saying that he killed Saul on his own request, is generally doubted, but on no convincing evidence.

have been altogether innocent-and whom, even if guilty, David had no right to punish. The elegy alluded to, and which I give below, is a convincing evidence that David, on this occasion, expressed the sorrow worthy of a generons heart, far better than he had acted out the dictates of humanity and generosity

The very lamentation of David seems to me a proof that Saul was greatly esteemed by the Israelites in general, and that his reign, on the whole, was prosperous. It would indeed have been ridiculous to extol so highly a man of no worth, whose general conduct had been deemed censurable. The praise of David cannot well be taken solely as an expression of his individual sentiments, but rather as the embodiment of those of the people. Let it be remembered, too, that no degrading debaucheries, no perfidious acts, and no oppressions of those who made him their king, are recorded of Saul; and that tears of sincere gratitude were shed at his funeral pile.

• The version now given is that of Boothroyd, but altered-as I find it Kitto's Palestinein some of the lines:

"O antelope of Israel! pierced on thy high place!

How are the mighty fallen!

Tell it not in Gath;

Publish it not in the streets of Askalon;

Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice,

Lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.
Ye mountains of Gilboa, on you be no dew,
Nor rain, nor fields of first-fruits;

Since these hath been vilely cast away

The shield of the mighty, the shield of Saul,
The armor of him anointed with oil.

From the blood of the slain,

From the fat of the mighty,

The bow of Jonathan was not held back,
Nor did the sword of Saul return in vain.
Saul and Jonathan!

In mutual love were they in life united,

And in death they were not separated.

Swifter than eagles, stronger than lions were they!
Ye daughters of Israel weep over Saul,

Who clothed you pleasantly in scarlet,

And put golden ornaments upon your robes.

How are the mighty fallen in the midst of battle!

O Jonathan, slain on thy own mountains!

I am grieved for thee, O Jonathan, my brother!

Very dear to me wast thou!

Wonderful was thy love to me

Surpassing the love of woman.

How are the mighty fallen!

And the weapons of war perished."

LETTER X.

THE REIGN OF DAVID OVER THE TRIBE OF JUDAH, AND OF ISHBOSHETH OVER THE OTHER TRIBES, ABOUT 1055 B.C.

DAVID seems now to have speedily removed with his followers to Hebron, where he was well received, and immediately invested by the tribe of Judah with the royal dignity. But the other tribes, on the contrary, declared in favor of the house of Saul, and acknowledged as his successor his only surviving son, Esh-baal, as he was originally named,* but nicknamed Ishbosheth,† from his imbecility. The causes which led to this division are very evident. The tribe of Judah seems to have already, under the lifetime of Saul, sympathized with David, the glory of whose valiant deeds-he being a clansman of theirs-they would naturally be inclined to consider as reflecting lustre upon themselves. Besides which, David had lately, as we have observed, sent presents to the elders and his particular friends among that tribe, who consequently were the more ready to promote his elevation, which, from the liberality he had already shown, they had good reason to hope would be advantageous to themselves. On the other hand, the services of Saul, the eminent talents of Abner, the interest of the steadfast adherents of the fallen monarch, and the natural readiness in men to view the son as the heir of the father, induced the other tribes, who had no hopes of particular advantages from the elevation of David, to acknowledge Esh-baal as their king. The mutual jealousy of the leading tribes of Judah and Ephraim, have also been with some reason counted among the causes which created the first general separation of the house of Israel into two hostile camps.

David, on hearing of the solemn funeral which the inhabitants of JabeshGilead had given to the mortal remains of Saul, sent to them messengers charged with the commission to express his thanks, and his wish that Jehovah would reward them. He added also that it was his intention to bestow some token of gratitude on them for the honor they had shown to the fallen monarch, and reminded them, that as Saul was dead, it was necessary they should strengthen themselves; by which, as it appears, was meant, that they should join with the tribe of Judah, in acknowledging him as the successor of Saul. But though an indication of the tact with which David knew how to turn everything to his advantage, this message failed at that time to effect what, no doubt, was its main object.

• 1 Chron. viii. 33; ix. 39.

"A man of shame."