two different relations of one and the fame tranfaction. And his reafons for believing fo are as follow: ift, BECAUSE the Scriptures make no reflections, in the fecond relation, upon this repeated ingratitude of Saul, in perfecuting David, after he had before given him his life. And, 2dly, BECAUSE the fpeeches on the second Occafion are pretty near the fame with those on the first. To the first of these objections, I answer; Neither do the Scriptures make any reflections upon Saul's ingratitude, in first perfecuting David, after he had faved both him and his country; neither do they make any reflections upon his perfidy and ingratitude in giving Michal to another, after fhe was folemnly promised to David. Does it follow from hence, that there was no fuch thing as fuch a promise, and fuch a perfecution? And yet it is full as reasonable to expect reflections in cither of these cafes, as in the other. THEY make no reflections upon Saul's perjury, in attempting fo often upon David's life, after he had folemnly fworn to Jonathan, that he fhould not be flain. Are we to believe therefore, that no fuch attempts were ever made ? And if he attempted upon him after the first reconciliation, ratified by an oath, why not after the fecond, and why not after the third, which were not fo ratified? And yet the facred writers no-where reflect, that one was the fe cond cond reconciliation, and the other the third. When Saul darted his spear a second time at David, the facred writer no where tells us, to aggravate his ingratitude, that this was the fecond time he attempted upon the life of his beft benefactor (the courfe of the relation fufficiently fhewed it to be the second time:) nor do they make any fuch reflection, even when he attempted him a third time. Shall we then believe the accounts of this fecond and third attempt to be mere forgeries? What wild work would fuch objections, were they of any weight, make with all the hiftories of the world, if a deficiency of reflections must infer a deficiency of truth! And therefore I fhall difmifs this important objection with one plain, obvious obfervation; That the facred historians delight not in fuch reflections as every reader can make to himself, and naturally arife from the matter before him. They despise such minuteneffes; and it is one of their diftinguishing characters, that they do. They reserve themselves (as becomes their dignity) for great occafions. And to infer any thing to their disadvantage on this account, is, in truth, to infer strongly to the dif advantage of human conceit and sufficiency. Ir is urged, in the next place, (at least, it is infinuated) That David's speech, and Saul's anfwer, are much the fame upon both occafions; and therefore the occafions are in reality but one and the fame. I ANSWER, That the danger and the generofity being the fame on both occafions, the fentiments timents arifing in the heart muft be, in a great part, the fame on both. And yet, whoever reads them, will find variety enough to characterize and distinguish them by. IN the first, David calls only to the king, because he had only to do with him in the fecond, he calls first to the people; and then to Abner, and reproaches him with neglect in guarding his prince: nor does he address himself to the king, till the king first calls to him. In the firft, Saul, ftruck with David's generofity, lift up his voice and wept, but without any confeffion either of guilt or folly in the second, he confeffes both, but without weeping.-In the first, the impreffion of David's generofity, a thing new and unheard-of, had its natural effect; there was no ftriking novelty or furprize in the fecond; Saul was prepared for it. But, at the fame time that nature had lefs to do on this occafion, reafon had more: his whole army were now a fecond time witneffes of David's generofity: there was a neceffity of faying fomething to fatisfy them; and what lefs could fatisfy them, than a general confeflion of folly and guilt and that he makes. AGAIN: In the firft, Saul, convinced that David would one day come to the crown, intercedes for his pofterity; and exacts an oath from David, that he would not cut them off. This was the most important and interesting part of the whole conference. If thefe are but dif ferent relations of the fame conference, it is ftrange how the most material and concerning part part of the whole fhould be left out in the last account. But the truth is, this point being fixed by Saul in the firft conference, there was no need of repeating it in the fecond. BUT fuppofe our accounts of both confer ences were in fubftance the fame; would it follow, that the occafions were not different? Livy tells us, that when Manlius was profecuted by the tribunes, for affecting to make himself greater than was confiftent with the freedom of the commonwealth, he defended himself by applying to the paffions of the people; pointing to the capitol, and painting the deliverance he had wrought for them there; and that he did this feveral times, and the appeal always had its effect. Suppose those speeches had been preserved, and found in fubftance the fame; would any reader of common fenfe infer, that in reality he had never made but one fpeech; and that those relations left, of his having spoken them at different times, were nothing but forgery and delufion? ; BUT fhould not Saul have owned, that this was the second inftance of David's generofity to him? that it was the fecond time that he owed him his life? And if he had done fo, Mr. Bayle had been fatisfied; that is, if Saul had had that ingenuity which a generous spirit should have, Mr. Bayle would have believed the truth of the facred hiftory. Perhaps he would: but, poffibly, others would rather disbelieve it on that account. Are generofity and ingenuity any part of Saul's character? And did any history story ever lose credit by reprefenting perfons in character, or gain any by drawing them out of character? Does not Saul do as much as could be expected from a man of his complexion? black, faturnine, ungrateful, envious, proud! I have finned (fays he): return, my fon David; for I will no more do thee harm, because my foul was precious in thine eyes this day. -Behold, I have played the fool;—I have erred exceedingly. Had Saul been a man of an ingenuous fpirit, his confeffion had, doubtlefs, been more explicit and aggravated; whereas it is now the direct contrary; the guilt gradually alleviated, and diminished almost to nothing: first, it is fin-then, it is folly ;-and, laftly, it is error.-But, however, error as it was, it was error in excefs; and that, furely, muft at least imply degrees and repetition. Were the fin, the folly, and the error, all but one act? Befides all this, though Saul had not ingenuity enough to make an explicit confeffion of David's repeated generosity to him, yet it is fully implied, where he tells him, that he fhall both do great things, and still prevail; i. e. as he had prevailed over him before, fo he fhould always. BUT, it feems, David himself does not fo much as hint, that this was the fecond time that he had given Saul his life. I own he does not: and I own, I believe Mr. Bayle thought he would, had he been in David's place. And I shall take leave to answer him, as a great poet of the last age did to a very lively objector on VOL. I. another |