have been confidered as a garrifon. You will undoubtedly. again urge the old plea of his providing only for his perfonal fafety, against his malignant perfecutor. But, Sir, his intended retention of a city to fecure that fafety, was a flagrant rebellious intention. Had he gained this one city, as his ftrength increased, he would have concluded as many more as he could have procured, neceffary for his prefervation; until he had monopolized the whole country, agreeable to the grant of Samuel, which would then have juftified the ufurpation. But baulked in the first step by the loyalty, mifcalled treachery, of the Keilites, he evacuated the town, having loft the recompenfe of his labour, and with his men went whitherfoever they could go.”

There is fome appearance of acutenefs in this reafoning, and alfo in the Letter-writer's fuggeftions concerning the adventures at Engedi and Maon. "On what account Saul entered the cave, fays our Author, is not worth much Hebrew: your expofition may stand undisturbed by the writer, if you think the difcourfe between David and his men in fo quiet a recefs, and the cutting off a piece of Saul's robe, (hardly performed with the neatnefs of a taylor's fhears) might not disturb a man with all his fenfes awake. To invalidate the motive alleged by the writer for David's not killing Saul, founded on the unlikelihood of the Jews accepting for their king a man who should embrue his hands in the blood of the Lord's anointed, you reply, but furely if this be a good reason, it will hold as strongly against his rebelling against Saul, and by force of arms difputing the crown with him; for what reasonable hopes could he entertain, that the Jews would receive for their king, a man who should dare to rise up in rebellion against the Lord's anointed, and with a company of banditti and ruffians, by difputing the crown with him, endeavour to fnatch it impioufly from his head? efpecially as a rebellion against a prince is an actual attempt upon his life, and when fuccessful, generally iffues in his destruction.' There is one confideration which will obviate this plea, which is, that though fuccefsful rebellion, which then changes its name, generally terminates in the deftruction of the vanquifhed; yet that deftruction is greatly altered in appearance, when a prince falls in the common diftreffes of open warfare, and when by private affaffination. This, Sir! you infift on, in a notable manner, in the cafe of Uriah."

There

"There may be yet another motive hinted for his not killing Saul. You will not allow the fuppofition that Saul ftrayed far from his men when he entered the cave: think then, Sir, what chance for efcape David and his small corps would have had, if Saul had been miffing! if he had been obferved to enter the cave without coming out again! and upon fearch he had been there found murdered "

if

The affair of Nabal and his beautiful wife, comes next upon the carpet; but as what has been advanced on either fide, concerning this notable adventure, is chiefly conjectural, and inconclufive, we fhall pafs from this point, to what is here faid relating to the two inftances of David's generoufly fparing the life of Saul; and which the Hiftorian had fuppofed to be only different relations of the fame fact. This notion was fmartly encountered by the Reviewer, who accurately ftated the ftriking oppofition of circumstances in the two relations. Thefe different circumftances, however, fays the Letter-writer, though not altogether reconcileable, are not altogether fo variable as you intend they fhould appear. To inftance the firft in your contraft, adds he: "you oppofe David's being in the wilderness of Engedi in one relation, to his being in the wildernefs of Ziph in the other. While we remain fatisfied with names, to be fure Ziph and Engedi are not the fame: nothing can be clearer. But it would be of advantage to your argument to give the distance of these two places; for in the maps and accounts of Judea, Ziph, Hachilah, Maon, Carmel, and Engedi, appear to have been in the neighbourhood of each other. Now in England, where any foreft or heath is common to feveral bordering towns, it will have several local names at each, respectively. It is therefore more than probable, that the wildernefs between Ziph and Engedi, might at each place obtain each name; and be generally known by either. Though David, therefore, is reprefented at this period, as making feveral movements, in the ftrong holds in the wood, &c. they appear to have been within the compafs of this wilderness of Ziph, or Engedi.

"Your third reafon, in the Engedi column, of Saul's being alone, and strayed from his men, had been previously denied by you, and termed a filly fuppofition; it therefore cannot now be very wife. The Author does not pretend to harmonize any more of them: the identity of place; the general fimilitude of the actions; differing only in relative circumstances; the fmall interval of time that must have been between them, occupied only by the ftory of Nabal; the

7

abrupt

abrupt introduction of the second relation, after this story, without proper connexion; and the total filence in it of all reference or allufion to a recent adventure fo ftrikingly fimilar! ftill feem to argue a ftrange repetition !"

The conduct of David, while he lived under the protection of Achifh king of Gath, will, we apprehend, for ever remain extremely problematical. We intimated fome doubt that our brother reviewer had not clearly vindicated his hero, in regard to this part of his hiftory; and the Letter-writer has not omitted to avail himself of the infufficiency of the Doctor's defence of David's ambiguous purpofe in accompanying the Philistines in their expedition against the Hebrews. Had it not fortunately happened, as Dr. Chandler obferves, that the jealoufy of the Philiftines prevented his proceeding with them, his prudence, gratitude, and integrity, would, indeed, have been put to a fevere and difficult trial! It appears he muft, in that cafe, have acted as an enemy to his country, or as the betrayer of his benefactor: but what his real intentions were, is impoffible for us to determine; and candor will lead our conjectures towards the moft favourable conftruction.

In remarking on the Reviewer's vindication of David's flaughter of the Amalekites, who, taking advantage of his abfence, had ravaged and plundered Ziklag, our Historian seems to have loft fight of the moderation he elsewhere affumes; and defcends, in the bitterness of spirit, to the following unwarrantable perfonality; for which we think he himself deferves an equal feverity of reprehenfion. "The Author is unwilling," fays he, addreffing himself to the Doctor," to afcribe your apologies for Jewifh cruelties, to a natural barbarity of difpofition in you; it is rather deducible from another fource: you have read these annals until blood is familiar to you; and your ideas of right and wrong are abfolutely confounded." -This is fuch an afperfion of the fpirit and tendency of the Old Testamentwritings, and fuch an uncharitable imputation upon the character of the learned Reviewer, as no provocation from his antagonist can warrant. Here, we are perfuaded, even the boldest of our Historian's partizans will at least join with us in allowing, that indeed he has gone too far, to give it

the

Nor does this bitter reflection feem altogether coaftent with what the writer declares, p. 101. that notwithstanding Dr. Chan

dler

the mildest expreffion. But we leave him in good hands: if the Doctor chufes to take any farther notice of him.

In answer to the Reviewer's palliation of his hero's procedure in the unhappy affair of Uriah, which we cannot but look upon as one of the most unadvised parts of his elaborate performance, his opponent has the following obfervations.

"Adulterers, as you fay, were to be punished with death. True. Will a holy perfon then, deliberately, influence another with him to incur this penalty? Deliberation is infifted on: fince had David and Bathfheba been cafually together, a fudden guft of paffion might, as you fay it did, hurry him away without allowing him time for deliberation. But this was not the cafe. The temptation was diftant, fo that, though his paffion was fired with the fight, he had not only time for recollection, but was alfo amply provided with the means of cooling it again, at home. But neither did he make use of either of these opportunities!he fent and enquired after this woman whom he faw bathing;found he was the wife of one of his officers, butthelefs caufed her to be brought to him, as every one knows! Let any impartial perfon decide what right David has to the excufe of being hurried into a precipitate gratification of his paffion! and whether this was not a crime peculiarly aggravated by previous deliberate fteps?

-never

"Even after all that you have hitherto urged in juftification of David's character, it was thought hardly poffible, Sir, for you to extract a compliment to it, out of this greatest acknowledged crime he ever committed! Yet have you addrefs enough to perform it! You trace the neceflity of Uriah's death, as the only means to fave the other parties; and then afk, but how was Uriah to be got rid of? Poison, affaffination, or a falfe charge of treafon, or fome fecret way of deftruction, were the methods that the eaftern princes were well acquainted with. David was above them all, and had a kind of generofity even in his very crimes. He caufes him to fall in the bed of honour, gloriously fighting against

dler has dealt foarply by him, yet he retains not the leaf trace of rfstment on that account. In fhort, our Author might have spared the reflection which he has immediately fubjoined to the abovethat "he is too well acquainted with the nature of religious zeal, rot to make allowances for the violence of its operations”—for, it is pretty apparent that there are other kinds of zeal, as well as religious, which are likewife fomewhat violent in their operations.

the

the enemies of his king and country.' Generous David! incomparable apologist !

"And he wrote in the letter, faying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be fmitten and die. What an amiable quality is generofity !"

We look upon the ironical farcafms, in the close of these ftrictures, as fome of the fmarteft ftrokes in the Letterwriter's performance. His antagonist might have been lefs. effectually refuted by as many pages of argumentation as there are words in these two very expreffive notes of admiration.— The Doctor's colouring feems, indeed, a little too high in this place.

1

The Hiftorian then goes on to animadvert on what the Reviewer has offered in relation to the following points in the prefent controverfy, viz. David's giving up feven of Saul's pofterity to be hanged by the GibeonitesHis fin in numbering the people-The conduct of Nathan the prophet, in refpect to the rebellion of Adonijah-The imprecations in the pfalms-and David's dying charge to Solomon, in regard to the punishment of Shimei and Joab.

Among the Letter-writer's remarks on thefe fubjects, are fome that appear to merit his opponent's attention; while others, which breathe more of the fpirit of cavilling than of argument, deserve little notice: fuch, for instance, as the fneers in p. 89 at our common tranflation of the bible, and at the Doctor's admitting its ufe and authority in fome parts this controverfy, while he rejects it in others.-This is fo unfair, and fo inpertinent, that barely to mention the circumftance is enough, we apprehend, to fhew its impropriety.

As the Reviewer, and probably others, have drawn harfh conclufions against the Hiftorian's principles in respect to christianity, from the acrimony of his attack upon the character of king David, and of the Jewish prophets, we find fome profeffions concerning this matter toward the conclufion of the prefent performance, an extract of which may gratify the curiofity of our readers.

"You have been pleafed, Sir, fays our Author, to attribute to the writer a latent intention of fubverting the Gospel conftitution: and have indeed framed an ingenious chain of deductions for that purpofe; which however will not be employed, unlefs by yourfelf. The Lord Jefus Chrift, it is true, is frequently termed the fon of David: but with what degree of propriety yourself fhall judge. You establish,

that