neither needs he to wait for our acceptance, to render it valid. For though he enacts laws for the good only of his subjects, yet he will be the judge of what is for their good and I presume, his infinite wisdom, and his superiority over us, are sufficient to support his title. I forgot to note how the author here blundered in supposing the God of Israel to be God, (arguing from it,) whom yet at other times he blasphemes.

I SAM. XV. 2, 3.

THUS SAITH THE LORD OF HOSTS; I REMEMBER THAT WHICH AMALEK DID TO ISRAEL, HOW HE LAID WAIT FOR HIM IN THE WAY, WHEN HE CAME UP FROM EGYPT. Now GO AND SMITE AMALEK, &c.

The censure passed hereupon is as follows. "What prince can ever want a pretence of going to war, and "totally extirpating those he invades, when he sees Saul "was commanded by God to destroy the Amalekites, "men and women, infants and sucklings, ox and sheep, "camel and ass, for an injury done four hundred years "before? And how for sparing Agag, (whom Samuel "hewed to pieces before the Lord,) and preserving some "of the cattle for sacrifice, the Lord rejected him from being king, nay, ordered Samuel, lest Saul should suspect the design, to pretend a sacrifice, when he sent him "to anoint David?"

66

See how this ungodly man takes upon him to dispute against the Lord of the whole earth: Julian or Rabshakeh could not have done more. One would think, when men can run such desperate lengths, that they had many and strong demonstrations to trust to; but let the reader judge, by the specimen I have last recited. When

P Mr. Hobbes's and Spinosa's weak pretences to prove that God's sovereign dominion over men is founded in their consent, are confuted in Puffendorf, b. iii. chap. 4. sect. 4. p. 254.

any thing is reported in Scripture which this writer does not like, though reported as done by special order from God, he immediately concludes, that here is a precedent set for doing the same thing without such special order: as if men were as unthinking as brute creatures, and could not distinguish between acting with commission and acting without one; between having good authority for what they do, and having none. What is it by which any one can justify his own actions before God and the world, but this, that he had sufficient warrant for doing as he has done? And what is it by which we condemn several other actions, but this, that the actors had no warrant for them?

Now as to what was done to the Amalekites, there was God's express order for it: and what can we desire more than an order from heaven? As to God's dealings with nations in the way of vindictive justice, we are not competent judges of every case, because we have not the whole of the matter laid before us, to form a judgment by: for we fall infinitely short of that large comprehensive view of all circumstances, which the great Governor of the universe has before him. But this we may presume to say, as to the case of the Amalekites, that considering how they had all along been inveterate adversaries towards the people of God, (raised up to reform the world,) and how they had very probably been wicked also in other respects, like the Canaanites; it was a great instance of God's long-suffering, that he bore with them so long, and that he waited four hundred years for their repentance, before he destroyed them: so far is it from being any imputation upon his goodness, that he at length did

SO.

It may be noted of the Amalekites, that they were descendants of Esaus, and therefore were by pedigree allied to the Israelites, of the stock of Abraham. They seem to

• Gen. xxxvi. 12.

have broke off very early from the other Edomites, joining with the old Horitest, idolaters of mount Seir: so that the Amalekites soon apostatized from the religion of Abraham. These apostates were the first that drew sword against the Israelites, (brethren in blood,) and they did it unprovoked, barbarously taking advantage of them, by coming at the back of them, at a time when they were feeble, faint, and weary", which was great inhumanity. Besides, their impiety is particularly taken notice of in Scripture, that they "feared not God," but that their hand was lift up "against the throne of the Lordy," against the throne of the God of Abraham their father; which was an aggravating circumstance. Seeing therefore that there was such a complication of ill-nature, inhumanity, treachery, and flagrant impiety, in what the Amalekites did, it pleased God to set a brand of the highest infamy upon them, and to take the most exemplary vengeance of them, to create the utmost abhorrence of such practices in the minds of all men. Their descendants seem to have inherited the like temper and principles with their fathers, the same rancor against Israel, and the same opposition to God's great and glorious designs by Israel. It does not follow from God's assigning one reason only for destroying the Amalekites, that that was the sole reason: but that was sufficient to be mentioned to the Israelites, as they had concern in no more: the rest he might reserve to himself among the arcana imperii, which he was not obliged to divulge either to Israel his own people, or to any creature whatever.

No prince that has not such a Divine commission as Saul had, can make any just pretence from this instance,

y Exod. xvii. 16. So I understand the text, with our marginal translation, and several judicious interpreters, as Patrick particularly, and, in the main, Le Clerc. See also Lakemacher's Observat. Philolog. vol. ii. p. 18.

for so invading or so extirpating any nation: but vain or wicked pretences may be always made, either from any thing, or for any thing.

As to Samuel's pretending a sacrifice, it was a just pretence, and a true one: for he did offer sacrifice, as God had commanded him. And what if he had a farther intention, was he bound to declare all he knew, or to disclose to every man the whole of his errand? Secrecy is of great use in all important negociations: and the concealing one design by going upon another, (to prevent giving offence, or other worse mischief,) is as righteous and as laudable a practice, as the drawing a curtain to keep off spies. The making one good design the cover for a better, is doing two good things at once, and both in a proper way and though men have been blamed, and very justly, for using acts of religion as a cloak for iniquity, yet I have never heard that there could be any thing amiss in performing one act of obedience towards God, in order to facilitate the performing of another. If the author has no better arguments than these, he might more prudently forbear insulting the God of Israel, for fear he should prove at length to be (as indeed he is) the God of the whole universe, and a just avenger.

I SAM. XXV.

The Objector, taking occasion from what is related in this chapter, is pleased to exercise his abusive talent upon good king David; whom (as if he had a mind to outdo Doeg or Shimei) he loads most unmercifully, beyond truth and reason. He brings on the indictment thus b; "Was not David, though a prophet, and a man after "God's own heart, guilty of enormous crimes, from the "time he designed to have murdered all the males in Na"bal's family, because he would not pay contributions to "him and those men who, out of debt, discontent, and "distress, joined him?" The sting of the satire lies, I

1 Sam. xvi. 5.

b Christianity as Old, &c. p. 244.

suppose, in David's being a "man after God's own "heart" for the invective would be dull and nothing worth, if it had not a dash of blasphemy to give it a poignancy, and to help off the flatness and heaviness of the thought. And what if good men have committed some faults and great ones, they may still be dear and acceptable to God for their repenting of those faults, and for their many good qualities, while those that maliciously revile and insult them shall not be held guiltless. We are not obliged to defend David, or any other good man, in every article of conduct: but where is the justice of charging them so roughly, beyond all measures of truth or decency? David met with most provoking usage from a wicked and ungodly churl. He was at that time both a prophet and a prince of Israel. He had been anointed in order to be king, now for six years or more. He had signalized himself, not only in slaying a lion and a bear, but in conquering the Goliath of the Philistines, almost miraculously. He had married a king's daughter, and was the second man in the realm. Saul himself had publicly declared, that he was to be his successor in the kingdom, as Jonathan the king's son had before more privately donee. This so renowned a person, and presumptive heir to the crown, being reduced to distress, and hearing that Nabal, who had been much obliged to him f, had prepared a great feast, (being a very wealthy man,) he sent to him in the kindest and most courteous manner imaginable, only to beg a little present sustenance, water, and flesh, and bread, (what could best be spared,) at a time of feasting and jollity: the rude churl denied him, and returned him a most insolent provoking answer.

What man of brave spirit, at the head of his soldiers, would not have found his blood rise upon such an occasion, and almost have thought that it became him to correct a brutal man that had thus affronted his superior, nay,

e 1 Sam. xvi. 1, 12, 13.

e

1 Sam. xxiii. 17.

d 1 Sam. xxiv. 20.

f 1 Sam. xxv. 16.