would need some equivocation to excuse him in his dying charge to Solomon; you limit the extent of the obligation he laid himself under, to the day in which he made it from which you establish that David violated no oath, if he actually ordered Solomon to put him to death. But, Sir, probity is greatly wounded by such excuses. Tantum religio potest suadere! To justify David still more in this instance, you paraphrase his order to Solomon, making him saytclear him not, therefore, as I did, if thou findest him guilty of any male practices; but his hoar head bring down unto the grave with blood'-But there appears no conditional clause in David's speech, the injunction is positive. However, as you love amplifying, the author will supply a far more suitable paraphrase of that part of his speech, as follows:- It is true, I promised not to put him to death, but thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do: thou knowest thyself not to be bound by that obligation; therefore his hoar head, &c.'-which is far more explanatory of his right meaning. You confirm your paraphase, from Solomon's different treatment of Joab and Shimei. You allow the injunction to be positive respecting Joab, because he immediately put him to death; whereas he only confined Shimei to Jerusalem, under the penalty of death‡. But this was owing to a different cause. Joab, by joining the party of Adonijah, had furnished that pretence, which Shimei does not appear to have done §; notwithstanding you have asserted his readiness to join any measures to disturb David's government ||. Joab, therefore, was assassinated, and Shimei watched. writer has the satisfaction to find his opinion not discountenanced by the learned Houbigant, in the passage you have quoted¶T. EXPECTAVIT Solomon do * Page 272. † Page 268. Page 270. The § 1 Kings i. 8. | Page 268. You here indeed suppose him to have been in Absalom's rebelliou, but this is unsupported by any authority excepting your own. Page 269, note. nec Semei reus esset, ut eum morte plecteret: and he took care not to lose the first specious pretence to effect it. Were it possible to establish the doctrine of temporal judgments from those instances, wherein the chance medley of human occurrences has fulfilled the ler talionis; the case of Joab might certainly be produced as evidence: that assassination, by which he cut of Abner and Amasa, being at length his own lot! You sayt, I allow David's dying order in this instance to be peremptory and absolute.' From what premises do you allow it? your allowance can only be drawn, without due consideration, from Solomon's conduct in obedience to this notable testament. It is, however, a condescension not to be overlooked; since, in granting one to be absolute, you grant the other also; the terms dictating each, being equally strong; nay, almost in the very same words. After mentioning Joab's crimes, David proceeds: "Do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace." After his accusation of Shimei, and giving his son the reason why he had not put him to death himself, he adds: "Now therefore hold him not guiltless; for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him; but his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood." Joab, however, though far from being a good man, yet on the whole deserved a better legacy from David. His services had been long and important; and though concerning his killing the false Abner, you not only charge him with revenge for his brother's death, but allege his probably envying him the glory of settling David on the throne of Israel: yet this admits of a doubt. For he was apprehensive of a different consequence; and hearing that Abner had been with Davil, expostulates § with him on the imprudence of † Page 273. *Matthew v. 45. Luke xiii. 4. § 2 Sam. iii. 24, 25. trusting such a man among them: saying," he came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou dost." Probably Joab did not know the story of the concubine. He therefore appears (uniting his revenge with the deed) to have acted basely for David's service. Joab was really ill used in the affair of Amasa: which yet is not said to exculpate him. Even here, however, he confined his resentment to his rival: and though he must be justly provoked at David's ingratitude, yet he still continued faithful to his king. His defection at last may perhaps admit of being interpreted into a patronization of that particular plan for the succession, rather than into a rebellion against the superannuated monarch. David in his lamentation for Abner, had declared the Lord to be the rewarder of the evil doer*: by this expression referring the punishment of Joab to the Lord. Having, therefore, enjoyed the benefit of Joab's services through his life, he having been his right hand all along; gratitude, after such a long attachment, ought to have influenced him to have then left him to that justice of God; and not have bequeathed him death as a legacy for his long friendship! The panegyric at the close of your Review, on the piety of David, is little worth, after the discussion of the foregoing points. That part of it insisting on his always adhering to the religion of his country †, is still less so; a bad man not being an honour to any religion. No convulsive argument for his goodness can be drawn from his poetic compositions, experience proving the best poets to be frequently very far from being the best men. You, Sir, and the world, now see the authorities and principles from which the History of the Man after God's own Heart was deduced; which in a second edition, may possibly appear still less liable to objec * 2 Sam. iii. 39. + Page 282. ↑ Page 283. tion in particular places and an appeal is hazarded to the candid, even of all persuasions, whether it merits the verbose abusive character* you have given it: as putting forced constructions on particular passages; invidious insinuations, where there is nothing in the history to support them: improbable suggestions to eke out facts, or supply the place of them; false assertions contrary to the truth of history, to furnish matter for calumny and reviling; in a word, all methods contrary to truth and honour, and inconsistent with the rules of humanity, candour and justice.' What may be your latent motive for throwing out such inflammatory expressions is left to yourself to brood on; but unless they had been better supported in point of verity, they are not very indicative of the gentleman, not to mention you by any other character. It has been urged, that this writer has but revived old objections long since refuted. It is true, that such of them as have appeared before, have been often replied to; but a reply does not necessarily imply a refutation. Objections of this nature have been replied to from the beginning, and are likely so to be to the end and what is worthy noting, many dogmas are now exploded, the objections to which have heretofore been thought to be entirely refuted! You have been pleased, Sir, to attribute to the writer a latent intention of subverting the Gospel constitution and have indeed framed an ingenious chain of deductions for that purpose; which however will not be employed, unless by yourself. The Lord Jesus Christ, it is true, is frequently termed the son of David: but with what degree of propriety yourself shall judge. You establish‡, that the seed is always reckoned by the males, and not the females of a family, and (that) the name in a father's house could only be preserved by the male decendants.'--in Review, page 227. * Page 295. + Preface, page 29. which respect Jesus Christ was not a son of David * : therefore this connection is destroyed. The doctrines of Christianity, especially the preceptive ones, taken from his own mouth, cannot to all appearance be affected by insisting on the character of David, whether good or bad; right sorry would this author be if they rested on any such dependance. The tendency of these doctrines is so manifest; and many of them are so refined in their own nature, that they will ever claim the most exalted reverence from mankind, to them and to their publisher, independent on all foreign contingencies, on all former narrow tenets, and superstitious rites: which he has so totally superseded among his professors: and that they ever may, is the sincere prayer of this abused writer. He therefore hopes an acquittal from this part of his indictment. Who this writer is †, does not concern the dispute; he does not remain concealed from any consciousness of deserving the reproaches you have scattered in the dark; but because it is rather inconvenient for objectors and enquirers to declare themselves, while any are liable to be inflated with that holy zeal (not according to knowledge) with which orthodox writers labour to puff them up. He never before was so inadvertent as to run his head into a wasp's nest, and does not perceive the least inclination ever again to repeat the * Matthew i. 18, &c. The author, through misinformation from persons whom he had all reason to credit, was induced to publish an advertisement reflecting on a gentleman in Worcestershire, falsely accused of industriously claiming the production of the History. This report, like all other reports grew, from the circumstance of that gentleman being known to have a manuscript by him, on the same subject, and of the same nature. The writer having received full satisfaction as to this point, takes the present opportunity to acknowledge it and to ask that gentleman's pardon for being misled by reports which certain persons are ever ready to propagate, to the prejudice of the proscribed. |