him, nor how much those which actually are his productions have been altered and amended; still, it can scarcely be doubted that his poetical genius was of a high order. His piety has been much eulogized; but though his ardent devotion to Jehovah, as expressed in the songs attributed to him, is a strong testimonial that such praise is justly his due, still many of his acts prove, that it consisted rather in words than in a pure and righteous life. Surely the advice he gave to Solomon in regard to Joab and Shimei, was far from that of a pious man; indeed, the very reverse of the touching forgiveness of Christ. There are also many fierce and vindictive passages in the Psalms, which breathe more of the hatred of a barbarous warrior than of the generosity of a chivalrous and noble enemy. When, however, the age in which he lived, and the standard of morality which then prevailed, are taken into due consideration, he seems to have been rather a good than a bad man; but to give to him the epithet of the holy king, as some Christian writers have done, is but to pay to a very frail man a tribute which is due to God alone. Still we owe David much gratitude; for, next to Moses, he was perhaps the person who attributed most to the preservation of the worship of the Deity in Unity among the Hebrews.

His constancy in misfortune, and his submission to the decrees of an overruling Providence, and his susceptibility of ardent friendship, as exemplified in his warm attachment to Jonathan, are traits in his character which might well redeem many failings. But no doubt can

government, is almost confined to the names and offices of the several functionaries to whom he confided various departments of the public business. Most of these officers were probably introduced by him; and are, for the most part, such as were found in the ancient and existing government of the East.

During the reign of David, the Israelites experienced few of the evils from the kingly government which Samuel had predicted. The question, how the royal establishments and standing army were to be supported, does not appear to have occurred. His conquests in the neighboring countries brought him such immense spoil, as, together with the produce of the permanent tributes, imposed on the conquered nations, enabled him not only to support all his expenses, but to lay by vast wealth towards the erection of the temple to be built by his successor. For this great work, which for many years he had so much at heart, and which appears to have engaged a large portion of his thoughts, his preparations of every kind were so extensive, that he appears to us fully entitled to the chief share of whatever glory the founder of that celebrated fabric may claim. For not only did he provide a great proportion of all kinds of materials, with vast quantities of gold and silver, but he purchased and prepared the site, (the threshing-floor of Araunah,) and furnished Solomon with the plans of the building. His care extended still farther; for he re-organized the whole Levitical institution, with a view to a more splendid ritual service in the future temple, and to the equal distribution of duties among the whole Levitical tribe. All these arrangements in this matter were religiously adhered to by Solomon, in assigning the priests and the Levites their service in the new temple."-Kitto's Palestine, vol. i. book iv. ch. 2.

It ought, however, to be observed that perhaps Solomon, in order to screen himelf from blame, pretended that his father had ordered the taking of the life of those men who were obnoxious to himself.

+ Luke xxiii. 34.

exist that his virtue has been greatly overrated.

Still his brilliant military exploits, his extension of the boundaries of the Hebrew state, his able management of the public affairs, made the Israelitic people overlook the blemishes of his character, and the great crimes by which he sullied his glory. His faults were forgotten with his death, but his trophies, his splendid achievements, and his illustrious reign, were held in fond remembrance throughout all ages among the Jewish nation. Besides, being a favorite of the priests, his design of building a temple to Jehovah, and his songs breathing religious fervor, were held up as evidence of his piety. The high opinion which his countrymen entertained of him as a warrior and statesman was just; but their eulogies of his piety should be subject to many qualifications, though they have been generally accepted by the Christian world as fully merited. Thus it has happened that a man who insidiously caused the death of one of his brave warriors after having committed adultery with his wife, who subjected the conquered Ammonites to the most cruel tortures, and at the near approach of death instigated his son to kill his faithful servant Joab, is represented to us as a saint by so many of our divines.*

* I cannot forbear to repeat the summing up of David's achievements, virtues, and faults, by Mr. Milman. "Having provided for the security of the succession, the maintenance of the law, and the lasting dignity of the national religion, David breathed his last, having reigned forty years over the flourishing and powerful monarchy of which he may be considered as the founder. He had succeeded to a kingdom distracted with civil dissensions, environed on every side by powerful and victorious enemies, without a capital, almost without an army, without any bond of union between the tribes. He left a compact and united state. He had crushed the power of the Philistines, subdued or curbed all the adjacent kingdoms -he had formed a lasting and important alliance with the great city of Tyre. He had organized an immense, disposable force. At the head of his army were officers of consummate experience, and what was still more highly esteemed in the warfare of the time, extraordinary personal activity, strength and valor. The Hebrew nation owed the long peace of the son's reign to the bravery and wisdom of the father. If the rapidity with which a kingdom rises to unexampled prosperity, and the permanence, as far as human wisdom can provide, of that prosperity, be a fair criterion of the abilities and character of a sovereign, few kings in history can compete with David. His personal character has been often discussed; but both by his enemies, and even by some of his learned defenders, with an ignorance of, or inattention to, his age and country, in writers of such acuteness as Bayle, as melancholy as surprising. Both parties have been content to take the expression of the man after God's [Jehovah's] own heart, in a strict and literal sense. Both have judged by modern European and Christian notions, the chieftain of an eastern, and comparatively barbarous people. If David in his exile became a freebooter he assumed a profession, like the pirate in ancient Greece, by no means dishonorable. If he employed craft or even falsehood in some of his enterprises, chivalrous or conscientious attachment to truth was probably not one of the virtues of his day. He waged war, and avenged himself on his foreign enemies with merciless cruelty, like other warriors of his age and country. He had his harem, like all other eastern kings. His one great crime violated the immutable and universal laws of morality, and therefore admits of no excuse. On the other hand, his consummate personal bravery and military talent, his generosity to his enemies (?)—his fidelity to his friends—his knowledge of and steadfast attention to the true interests of his country-his exalted piety and gratitude toward his God, justify the zealous and fervent attachment of the Jewish people to the memory of their great monarch.”—History of the Jews, vol. i. book vii.

LETTER XII.

SOLOMON'S Reign from aBOUT 1015 to 975.

SOLOMON Seems to have been about twenty years of age when he succeeded to the Hebrew kingdom, which his illustrious father had raised to the zenith of its power. From the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates, from the river of Egypt and the Elanitic Gulf to Berytus, Hamath, and Thapsacus, all belonged to the dominions which Solomon inherited, and even the very tribes that dwelt in northern Arabia, eastward of the Persian Gulf, seem to have been kept in check by awe of the mighty king of Israel. At home, the Canaanites had not, as we have seen, been either entirely expelled or extirpated; but they, or at least the greater part of them, had been rendered liable to services to which the Israelites themselves would not have patiently submitted.

Jahn calculates that their whole number may have been between four hundred thousand and five hundred thousand, since ultimately one hundred and fifty-three thousand were able to render sockage to Solomon. The warlike and heroic Philistines, the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, the Syrians of Damascus, and as it would appear, even some nomadic Arabian tribes of the desert, were tributary to him. The revenues derived from the subject-states were large, and the wealth in the royal treasure no doubt very considerable. Solomon had also the enterprise and wisdom to open new sources through which riches were poured into the country from distant lands.* But nevertheless Mr. Heeren has justly characterized the

"Peace," says Jahn, "gave to all his subjects prosperity." But it would seem on the contrary that the Israelites felt themselves not very happy under the splendid reign of Solomon, as ten tribes revolted from his son, solely on account of his resolution to continue his father's oppressions. The trade," continues Jahn, "which he introduced brought wealth into the country, and promoted the sciences and arts, which there found an active protector in the king, who was himself distinguished for his learning. The building of the temple and of several palaces introduced foreign artists, by whom the Hebrews were instructed. Many foreigners and even sovereign princes were attracted to Jerusalem, in order to see and converse with the prosperous royal sage. The regular progress of all business, the arrangements for security from foreign and domestic enemies, the army, the cavalry, the armories, the chariots, the palaces, the royal household, the good order in the administration, and in the service of the court, excited as much admiration as the wisdom and learning of the viceroy of Jehovah.”—Jahn, chap. iv. sect. 33. But we may be pretty well assured that the generation that lived in the time of Solomon would have been glad to exchange all this splendor for freedom.

reign of Solomon" as the brilliant government of an unwarlike, civilized, and pompous despot from the interior of his seraglio.†

Solomon, who was no doubt a man of genius, has generally been celebrated by Jews and Christians as if he had been the incarnation of all human wisdom.

The exaggeration, not to say the folly of such praise is too evident to deserve any refutation. He began his reign as so many other eastern despots have done by causing the death of a brother, whose ambitious designs he feared, but subsequently rendered himself illustrious by the splendid works he brought into being, while abandoning himself to the enjoyments of the harem he had peopled with a thousand beautiful women.

Soon after the death of his father, Adonijah either from love, or to acquire a new claim to the throne, as is supposed by some, endeavored to procure permission to espouse Abishag, the concubine or wife, whom his father had last taken. Adonijah, in order to obtain the consent of Solomon to take Abishag for his wife, addressed himself to Bathsheba, the queen-mother,

It has been with good reason observed that although Solomon was not the first-born, nor even the eldest living son of David, there was, however, one circumstance which from the usual notions of the Orientals, could not but be highly favorable to him, even had all his elder brothers been alive. "Amnon had been born before his father became king, and Absalom and Adonijah while he was king of Judah only; while Solomon was born when his father was king over all Israel, and lord over many neighboring states. Now in the East there is a strong prejudice in favor of him who is the son of the king and of the kingdom, that is, who is born while his father actually reigns over the states which he leaves at his death. Thus, therefore, if at the death of David, Amnon and Absalom had been alive, as well as Adonijah and Solomon, there might have been a contest among them on these grounds. Amnon would have claimed as the eldest son of David, Absalom would probably have disputed this claim on the ground, first, that he was first-born after David became a king ; and secondly, on the ground that his mother was of a royal house; this claim could not have been disputed by Adonijah; but he would have considered his own claims good as against Amnon on the one hand, and as against Solomon on the other. But Solomon might have claimed on the same ground as the others against Amuon; and against Absalom and Adonijah, on the ground that their father was only king of Judah when they were born, but king of all Israel at the time of his own birth. And this claim would in fact have been but a carrying out of the principle on which Absalom and Adonijah are supposed to oppose Amnon; and in this claim there would have seemed so much reason to an Oriental, that, apart from all other circumstances, we doubt not it would have found many adherents in Israel; and we have no doubt that it did operate in producing a more cheerful acquiescence in the preference given to Solomon !"-Kitto's Palestine, vol. i. b. iv. ch. 3. These remarks of Mr. Kitto's seem indeed confirmed even by the circumstance that Zadok, who had been high-priest in Israel, while Ishbosheth was king, now adhered to Solomon-born after the two kingdoms had been united-while Abiathar, the high-priest in Judah, during the time of separation, embraced the cause of Adonijah, then born.

Heeren's Manual of Ancient History, book i.

+1 Kings i. 23.

$ "In eastern countries where polygamy is allowed, or not forbidden by the law, and where the kings have numerous wives and concubines, there is no dignity analogous to that which the sole wife of a sovereign occupies in western countries. But the mother of the king, (and next to her, or instead of her, the mother of the heir apparent,) is the woman of the greatest influence and highest station in the state, and the one whose condition is the

and had address enough to so interest her in his behalf, as to induce her to plead his cause before the king, his brother.

Solomon appears to have been seated on the throne when Bathsheba came before him to urge the suit of Adonijah. The king rose and bowed when he beheld his mother, and caused a seat to be brought and placed at his right hand for her. "Then she said, I desire one small petition of thee; I pray thee, say not nay." And the king said unto her, "Ask on, my mother, for I will not say nay to thec."* Bathsheba then communicated to him the wish of his brother. But Solomon, who either really thought that he discovered in this "small petition" a traitorous design of his brother, or artfully feigned such a suspicion in order to have a cause for getting rid of a dreaded rival, answered vehemently, " And why dost thou ask Abishag, the Shunamite, for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom also; for he is mine elder brother, even for him, and for Abiathar, the priest, and for Joab, the son of Zerruiah." Then in violation of his promise, and, moreover, in violation of the voice of nature, the despot swore by Jehovah that Adonijah should be put to death the very same day. This solemn promise he faithfully kept.

On learning what had been done to Adonijah, Joab at once inferred that even his life was also sought, and therefore fled for refuge to the sanctuary of the altar. When this was told to Solomon, he commanded Benajah to go and put him to death. Benajah went and ordered Joab in the king's name to come forth. But he refused, saying, "Nay, but I will die here!" Benajah in consideration of the sacredness of the place, was unwilling to act on his own responsibility; but returned to report Joab's answer to the king, who however, did not change his purpose, but said, "Do as he hath said, and slay him there and bury him, that thou mayest take away the innocent blood which Joab shed, from me and from the house of my father." Seemingly a fair pretence for the bloody reward that was brought home to the man who had been the chief pillar of David's throne. Joab on being slain at the altar was buried in the garden of his own house in the wilderness. His executioner succeeded him in the command of the Hebrew host.t

Abiathar, another old friend of David's, would, as it appears, have shared the fate of Adonijah and Joab, had Solomon not been mindful of his early

most queenly of any which the East affords. According to this view, Bathsheba, during the latter part of David's reign, as mother of the heir apparent, and during, at the least, the early portions of Solomon's reign, as mother of the king, was in fact the queen of Israel; whence in both periods we find her taking a part in public affairs, which, however slight, is such as none but a woman so placed could have taken."-Kitto's Palestine, vol. i. b. iv. ch. 3. * 1 Kings ii. 19, 20.

"It appears," says Mr. Kitto, "with some reason, that in the Hebrew kingdom, as in some other ancient and some modern states, it was the duty of the king's chief officer to execute his sentence upon high offenders."