Ant. Chris.

or 1070.

A. M. 2949, kingdom, no security to himself, or other loyal subjects, as long as Absalom lived; that, &c. or 4341. notwithstanding this unnatural rebellion, the king was still inclinable to forgive him, 1055, &c. and that there would always be some unquiet people that would be moving fresh disturbances, in order to set him on the throne. Looking upon this charge, therefore, as an order more proper for a parent than a prince, he adventured to disobey it. For he thought with himself, (a) that the king ought not to be observed in an affair wherein he shewed more regard to his private passion than to the public good; that fathers should always sacrifice their paternal tenderness to the interest of the government; and that as Absalom had forfeited his life to the laws upon several accounts, it was but justice now to take this opportunity of dispatching him, as an enemy to his king and country: But whether, in this act of disobedience to the royal command, Joab is perfectly to be vindicated, we shall not pretend to determine. It is certain that he was a person of a bold temper, high passions, and fiery resentments; that valued himself upon the services he had done the king, and seemed not to be much afraid of his authority.

The complaint which David makes to some of his courtiers, upon this general's murdering the famous Abner, declares the true reason why he could not, at that time, put the laws in execution against him: (b) " Know ye not, says he, that there is a prince, and a great man fallen this day in Israel? And I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men, the sons of Zeruiah, be too hard for me: The Lord shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness." Joab was David's sister's son, or nephew, (c) who had stuck close to him in all his adversity, an excellent soldier himself, and a man of great power and authority among the army; so that, had David immediately called him to justice for this vile act against Abner, such was his interest among the soldiery, that he soon would have caused a mutiny or revolt, and found a means to shock or unhinge the government, that was not as yet sufficiently established. It was a point of prudence therefore in David, to delay the punishment of so powerful, and so perilous a man, until a more convenient season, and only, for the present, to express his detestation of the deed, by commending the deceased, condemning the murder, and commanding the murderer (by way of penance) to attend the funeral in sackcloth and other ensigns of mourning.

So far is David from winking at Abner's murder, that we find him burying him with great solemnity, and making mournful lamentation over his grave; praising his valour, and other great qualities publicly, and cursing the author of his untimely death: (d) "I and my kingdom, says he, are guiltless before the Lord for ever from the blood of Abner, the son of Ner: Let it rest on the head of Joab, and on all his father's house, and let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff, or that falleth on the sword, or that lacketh bread."

But what apology shall we make for his treating the Ammonites so inhumanly, and putting them to such exquisite torments, only for a small indignity which a young king, at the instigation of some evil counsellors, put upon his ambassadors, since there seems to be no proportion between the affront and the revenge, between the one's having their beards and clothes cut a little shorter, and the other's being put under saws and harrows, or thrown into hot burning furnaces? Had David, indeed, been the inventor of such frightful punishments, we might have justly reckoned him a man of the same cruel and brutal spirit as was Caligula, who in after ages (as (e) Suetonius tells us) was wont to take a great delight in inflicting them: But the truth is, that these were the punishments which the Ammonites inflicted upon the Jews whenever they took them prisoners; and therefore David, when he conquered their country, and reduced their capital city, used them with the like cruelty: not every one of them indiscriminately, but such

(a) Calmet's Commentary, on 2 Sam. xviii. 14. Commentary on 2 Sam. iii. 39.

(d) 2 Sam. iii. 28, 29.

(b) 2 Sam. iii. 38.
(e) Cap. xxvii.

(c) Patrick's

only as appeared in arms against him, and had either advised or approved the advice of From 2 Sam. putting such a disgrace upon his messengers.

The Ammonites, it is certain, were early initiated into all the cruelties of the people of Canaan. When they infested Jabesh-Gilead, and the besieged made an offer to surrender, the easiest condition that they would grant them was, that they might (a) "thrust out all their right eyes, and lay it for a reproach upon Israel for ever;" which one instance, as I take it, is in the room of ten thousand proofs to demonstrate, that these Ammonites were monsters of barbarity; and that therefore king David was no more culpable for retaliating upon them the same cruelties that they used to inflict on others, than the people of Agrigentum were, for burning Phalaris in his own bull, or Theseus the hero, for stretching Procrustes beyond the dimensions of his own bed. For even Heathen casuists have determined, that no law can be more just and equitable, than that which decreed artists of cruelty to perish by their own arts.

The particular punishment of passing through the brick kilns, an ingenious (b) author seems fairly to account for, by making this conjecture. "It is very well known, says he, that the Jews were slaves in Egypt, and particularly employed in brick-making. Now it is natural for all people at enmity, to reproach one another with the meanness and baseness of their original. As therefore the Ammonites were a cruel and insolent enemy, and nothing could be more natural for men of their temper, when they had got any Jews in their power, than to cry out, Send the slaves to the brick-kilns, and so torture them to death;' so nothing could be more natural than for the Jews, when they got an advantage over them, to return them the same treatment." However this be, it is certain, that the siege of Rabbah began before David had any criminal commerce with Bathsheba, and if the town was not taken till after Solomon's birth (as the sequel of his history seems to imply), the siege must last for about two years; in which time, upon the supposition that David continued in an obdurate state of sin and impenitence *, and was therefore deprived of that mild and merciful spirit for which he had formerly been so remarkable; there is no wonder if, being now become cruel and hard-hearted, as well as exasperated with the length of the siege, he treated the Ammonites in the same outrageous manner that they were accustomed to treat his subjects, not only to retaliate the thing upon them, but to deter all future ages likewise from violating the right of nations, by treating the persons of public ambassadors with contempt.

That the rights of ambassadors are guarded by all laws, both Divine and human, and that therefore a violation of these rights is not only unjust, but impious, is the genera sentiments of all the most able (c) writers upon the laws and constitutions of civil government. So tender were the Romans in this particular, (d) that they appointed twenty feciales (as they called those officers) to inspect their good usage, and preserve their immunities; to make them immediate reparation, when any injury was done them; and, in case of a personal affront or indignity, to deliver up the offender, even though he were a noble or a patrician by birth, into the hands of the nation from whence the ambassador came, to be treated by them as they thought fit. And therefore, we need less wonder that king David, who in all his actions was a nice observer of every punctilio in public honour, should resent, in so high a manner, an indignity, the greatest that could be offered, put upon his ministers, and from them reflecting upon his own majesty, merely for sending a kind compliment of condolence to a foolish prince (as he proved), upon the death of a very worthy father.

A man so zealous for his own honour, as well as for the right of nations, in his pub

(b) The History of the Life of King David.

* [This supposition

(a) 1 Sam. xi. 2. cannot be admitted. Nathan had made David sensible of his sin, and truly penitent even before Bathsheba bare Solomon's elder brother.] (c) Vide Grotius, Selden, Puffendorf, &c. de Jure Belli, lib. i. cap. 18.

(d) Grotius,

i. to xix.

&c. or 4341.

or 1070.

A. M. 2949, lic capacity, can hardly be presumed to be an abettor of perfidy in his more private. We Ant. Chris, must therefore suppose, that, notwithstanding his war with Ishbosheth, wherein there 1055, &c. might happen some skirmishes, he still kept his promise with his father Saul, "not to destroy any of his family;" and therefore, in the whole compass of the war (in which, though it lasted seven years, we no where read of one battle fought), he acted in the defensive, not offensive part, and kept an army by him, not to destroy Saul's posterity, but merely to maintain himself in the possession of that regal dignity, wherewith Samuel, by God's order and appointment, had invested him.

Ishbosheth knew very well that Samuel had anointed David, and that God had appointed him to be his father's successor in the whole kingdom of Israel. And therefore his opposing him in an hostile manner, was provocation enough, one would think, had not David remembered (a) his oath made to Saul, and thereupon overlooked this ill treatment of his son, and pronounced him a (b) righteous person. The removal of an adversary, and dangerous competitor for a crown, might be thought a meritorious piece of service by some ambitious princes; but David was of another sentiment. His soul and his notions were the same as what inspired the great Alexander, when he took vengeance on Bessus for having killed his enemy Darius; (c) for he did not consider Darius so much in the capacity of an enemy, as Bessus in that of a friend, to the person whom he had basely murdered. And it is not improbable, that his reflection upon the sad fate of Saul's unhappy family, and the solemn promise he had given for their preservation, as well as the design (d) of clearing himself from the least suspicion of having any hand in this barbarous regicide, prevailed with David to inflict upon the authors of it, the exemplary punishment of hanging them upon gibbets, to be a spectacle of abhorrence; of" cutting off their right hands," (e) wherewith they had committed this execrable deed, and of " cutting off their feet," wherewith they had made their escape from justice. Abner indeed acted very basely, very treacherously, in deserting Ishbosheth (the king whom he had set up) upon a very slight provocation; but David had no concern in all this. The kingdom belonged to him by Divine donation. Abner knew this before he proclaimed Ishbosheth; and therefore all the mischiefs of the civil war are chargeable upon him nor can David be blamed for receiving his own right, even though it was tendered to him by the hand of a bad man. The truth is,―David did not delude Abner from his master, but Abner made the first overture of his service to him; and as this was no unfavourable opportunity of uniting the two contending kingdoms which Providence seemed to have thrown in his way, David had been perfidious, not only to his own interest, but to the establishment of the general peace of the nation, had he not fallen in with it. (f) He, no doubt, was privy to the cause of Abner's disgust; but without approving either of his crime or his treason, he might lawfully make use of the traitor; nay, and confer on him some tokens of his favour too, in consideration of the benefits he had received from him, and of some commendable qualities, either natural or political, that he had observed in him. The instrument is not to be regarded in all actions, and even a bad man, when he does good services, may merit a reward, and be received with some approbation.

(b) 2 Sam. iv. 11.

No man indeed should engage another in a base or wicked action; (g) because, whether he commits the thing itself, or employs another to do it, the crime is the same; but it is not so (says (h) Grotius) if a person freely offers himself without any solicitation or persuasion to it. In this case it is not unlawful to use him as an instrument, (a) 1 Sam. xxiv. 21. (c) Interea unus ex Darii amicis Bessus, vinctus producitur, qui regem non solum prodiderat, verum et interfecerat. Quem in ultionem perfidiæ excruciandum fratri Darii tradidit; reputans non tam hostem suum suisse Darium, quam amicum ejus, à quo esset occisus. Justin, lib. xii. c. 5. (d) Le Clerc's Comment. (e) Patrick's Commentary. (f) Calmet's Commentary on 2 Sam. iii. 12. (g) Nihil interest, utrum ipse scelus admittas, an alium propter te admittere velis. August. in Moribus Manichæ. (h) De Jure Belli, lib. iii. cap. I. Transfugam jure Belli recipimus. Grotius,

in order to execute what is confessedly lawful for us to do: and as it is not contrary to From 2 Samı. the laws of arms to receive a deserter who quits the enemy's party and embraces ours; i. to xix. so we cannot perceive how David could become culpable in taking the advantage of Abner's quarrel with Ishbosheth, when, without any application of his, he voluntarily sent to him and offered him his service; and when the good Providence of God seems to have employed the passion and angry resentment of that haughty general, in order to bring about his wise designs, and by the union of the two kingdoms prevent the effusion of much blood.

But what shall we say in excuse for his perfidy, when we find him putting his friend Hushai upon acting such a part as but badly became a man of honour, upon going and offering his service to his son Absalom, on purpose to betray him or give him bad counsel? The words of David are these:-(a)" If thou return to the city, and say unto Absalom, I will be thy servant, O king; as I have been thy father's servant hitherto, so will I now also be thy servant; then mayest thou for me defeat the counsels of Ahitophel." But David, by these words, (say some interpreters) did not advise Hushai to betray Absalom, or, for his sake, to violate the laws of friendship, but purely to go and adjoin himself to Absalom, (who by this time had assumed the title of king, and could not properly be addressed without calling him so) in order to destroy the counsels of Ahitophel, just as a general sends his spies into the enemy's camp, to know what passes there; or as a king keeps in foreign courts his envoys to gain intelligence of the designs that may be formed against him, and to defeat the resolutions that may be taken to his prejudice. But (whether these comparisons may come up to the case before us or no) it was certain, at this juncture, Absalom's business was to be upon his guard. The unjust war which he had declared against his father, gave his father a right to treat him as an open enemy, and to employ either force or artifice against him; nor can this conduct of his be blamed, unless we should say that when kings are engaged in war, they are forbidden to disguise their true designs, even though it be a thing notorious, that upon this disguise the practice of stratagems in war (which were never yet accounted unlawful) is entirely founded.

The truth is, (b) Absalom, as a traitor, a murderer, a rebel, and, as far as in him lay, a parricide, had forfeited all the rights of society, but more especially as a rebel; for a rebel, who sets himself to overturn the established government, order, and peace of any community, does by that hostile attempt actually divest himself of all social rights in that community. And consequently David could be no more guilty of perfidy in forming a design to supplant Absalom, nor Hushai guilty of villany, in undertaking to put it in execution, than that man can be said to be guilty of sin who deceives a madman, and turns him away from murdering his best friends.

The short of the matter is-Hushai's instructions were to negociate David's interest among the rebels as well as he could. This he could not do without seeming to act in a contrary character; and in order to effect this, there was a necessity for his concealing himself; and conceal himself he could not without some degree of dissimulation ; and therefore the end which he proposed in what he did, viz. the prevention of that long train of mischiefs which always attends a civil war, was sufficient to justify the means which he took to accomplish it. For though it is to be wished with (c) Cicero, that all lying and dissimulation were utterly banished from human life;" yet, as others have maintained, that a "beneficial falsehood is better than a destructive truth," a case may be so circumstantiated as to make dissimulation, which (as (d) Lord Bacon says)" is nothing else but a necessary dependant upon silence, highly necessary; and a lie, which otherwise would be blameable in a slave, will deserve commendation (says

(a) 2 Sam. xv. 34.

(d) Serm. Fidel. lib. vi,

(b) The History of the Life of King David, vol. iii. (c) Offic. lib. iii. c. 15.

&c. or 4341.

A. M. 2949, (a) Quintilian) when a wise man makes use of it, to save his country by deceiving his Ant. Chris. enemy." Now, as Hushai's whole design was to deceive an open and declared enemy, 1055, &c. or who can doubt but that he was at full liberty, by his address and subtility, to disconcert

1070.

the measures of those, whom all agree that, had he been so minded, he had licence to attack with open violence? (b) To overcome an enemy indeed by valour rather than art, sounds more gallant, and by some has been thought a more † reputable way of conquest; but, since the laws of nature and arms have made no difference, and those of humanity and mercy seem to incline to that side wherein there is likely to be the least blood-shed, Hushai may be said to have acted the worthy patriot, as well as the faithful subject, in breaking the force of an unnatural rebellion, and in putting it into his royal master's mouth to say, (c) "the Lord is known to execute judgment; the ungodly are trapped in the work of their own hands. They are sunk down in the pit that they made; in the same net which they hid privily are their feet taken."

Thus, though we are not obliged to vindicate David in every passage of his life, and think some of the crying sins he was guilty of utterly inexcusable; yet (if we except these) we cannot but think, that although he was a very tender and indulgent parent, yet he was no encourager of vice in his own family, or a tame conniver at it in others, had he not been restrained, by reasons of state, sometimes from punishing it; that he was true to his promises, just in his distributions, and prudent, though not crafty, in his military transactions; " of a singular presence of mind, (as (d) Josephus speaks of him) to make the best of what was before him; and of as sharp a foresight for improving all advantages, and obviating all difficulties that were like to happen;" tender to all persons in distress, kind to his friends, forgiving to his enemies; and, when at any time he was forced to use severity, it was only in retaliation of what other people had done to him.

Happy were it for us, if we could account for the operations of God with the same facility that we can for the actions of his saints; but his counsels are a great deep, and his judgments (just though they be) are sometimes obscure, and past finding out. For what shall we say to the fate of Uzzah? or what tolerable cause can we assign for his sudden and untimely end? It was now near seventy years since the Israelites carried the ark from place to place, and so long a disuse had made them forget the manner of doing it. In conformity to what they had heard of the Philistines, they put it into a new cart, or waggon; but this was against the express direction of the law, (e) which ordered it to be borne upon mens shoulders. It is commonly supposed, that Uzzah was a Levite, though there is no proof of it in Scripture; but supposing he was, he had no right to attend upon the ark; that province, by the same law, (ƒ) was restrained to those Levites only who were of the house of Kohath: Nay, put the case he had been a Kohathite by birth, yet he had violated another command, which prohibited even these Levites, (though they carried it by staves upon their shoulders) (g) upon pain of death to touch it with their hands so that here was a three-fold, transgression of the Divine will in this method of proceeding. The ark, (as some say) by Uzzah's

victory. Plutarch de Alex. and Q. Curtius, lib. iv. c. 13.

(c) Psal. ix. 15, 16.

(d) Jewish Antiquities, lib. vii. c. 12.

[I cannot say that I perceive how such knowledge could add to our happiness. It would in a great measure destroy the possibility of faith or implicit trust in God's goodness, wisdom and power; and such trust would be ill exchanged for any knowledge that could be bestowed on creatures so imperfect as the inhabitants of this earth must be.] (e) Numb. vii. 9. (ƒ) Ibid. (g) Ibid. ix 15.