To the first of these objections, I answer; Neither do the Scriptures make any reflexions upon Saul's ingratitude, in first perfecuting David after he had faved both him and his country: Neither do they make any reflexions upon his perfidy and ingratitude in giving Michal to another, after she was folemnly promifed to David. Does it follow from hence, that there was no such thing as fuch a promise, and fuch a perfecution? And yet it is full as reasonable to expect reflexions in either of thefe cafes as in the other.

THEY make no reflexions 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 firft 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 second reconciliation, and the other the third. When Saul darted his fpear a second time at David, the facred writer no-where tells

us,

:

us, to aggravate his ingratitude, that this was the second time he attempted upon the life of his best benefactor (the course of the relation fufficiently fhewed it to be the second time) nor do they make any fuch reflexion 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 reflexions must infer a deficiency of truth! And therefore I fhall difmifs this important objection with one plain, obvious obfervation; That the facred hiftorians delight not in fuch reflexions as every reader can make to himself, and naturally arise from the matter before him. They despise fuch minuteneffes; and it is one of their diftinguishing characters, that they do. They reserve themselves (as becomes their dignity) for great occafions. occafions. And to infer any thing to their disadvantage on this account, is, in truth, to infer ftrongly to the disadvantage of the human folly and fuffi ciency.

Ir is urged, in the next place, (at least, it is infinuated) That David's fpeech, 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 arifing in, the heart must be, in a great part, the fame on both. And yet, whoever reads them, will find variety enough to characterize and diftinguish

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 Da

111

up

vid's generofity, lift his voice and wept, but without any confeffion either of guilt or folly in the fecond, 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

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 confeffion 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 moft important and interefting part of the whole conference. If these are but different relations of the fame conference, it is ftrange how the most material and concerning part of the whole fhould be left out in the laft account. But the truth is, this point being fix'd by Saul in the first conference, there was no need of repeating it in the fecond.

BUT suppose our accounts of both conferences 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

R 3

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 these 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 speech? 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 fecond 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 fpirit fhould have, Mr. Bayle would have believed the truth of the facred history. Perhaps he would; but, poffibly, others would rather difbelieve it on that account. Are generofity and ingenuity any parts of Saul's character? And did any history ever lose credit by representing perfons in character! or gain any by drawing them

out