DAVID " A MAN AFTER GOD'S OWN HEART."

MR. EDITOR,--The only place where David is so described in terms is in Acts xiii. 22, in St. Paul's address to the Jews of Antioch. "And when He (God) had removed him (Saul), He raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also He gave testimony, and said, I have found David, the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, who shall fulfil all my will." The words "after mine own heart," are not to be found in the Old Testament. The passage referred to in the margin of the Bible is Ps. lxxxix. 20, but this passage is only "I have found David my servant: with my holy oil have I anointed him." The margin in the Psalms refers to 1 Sam. xvi. 12; in this passage all that is said is, " And the Lord said, Arise, anoint him for this is he." I do not know how the words above mentioned are accounted for as being in St. Paul's address-the notes and comments which I possess do not notice it. But the fact is, as is stated, that he was a man after God's own heart-this appears from different passages.

The first thing we read of David, as appointed to be king, is in 1 Sam. xv. 28, where Samuel said to Saul," The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine that is better than thou." In chap. xxvi. 1, the Lord said unto

Samuel, "Go, and I will send thee to Jesse, the Bethlehemite for I have provided me a king among his sons.' 3, "And thou shalt anoint unto me him whom I shall name unto you." 6, 7, When Samuel looked on Eliab, the Lord said to him, "Look not on his countenance nor on the height of his stature; for the Lord looketh not on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart."

David, therefore, was chosen to be king because his heart was right-was such as fitted him to be king in Saul's stead-he was, therefore, a man after God's own heart,"-he was the description of man God desired as king of his people. We read also in 1 Kings xv. 11, "And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father." Here David is commended as doing what was right in the eyes of God: and he who does so, must be a man after God's own heart-a man whom God approves. Again, in 1 Kings xiv. 8, it is written respecting Jeroboam, "Thou hast not been as my servant David, who kept my commandments, and who followed me with all his heart, to do that only which was right in mine eyes." Again, in 1 Kings xv. 3, respecting Abijam, " his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father:" and in ver. 5, “ David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite."

The character of David in these passages fully entitles him to the commendation in Acts xiii. "A man after God's own heart."

As to any objection respecting the matter of Uriah the Hittite, no misconception can possibly take place; for in the last quoted passage his conduct in that affair is excepted from his general conduct, and as such is censured; and in the place where it is fully related, God marked it as a sin against him-and many of David's Psalms shew how painfully he felt the remembrance of his crimes during his life. To bring forward this matter as exemplifying the character of a man after God's own heart, as has oftentimes been done, is evidently absurd and contrary to the express words of the history of the transaction-God regarded it as sin and punished it as sin; David ever repented of it as sin; it is represented as such by his historian, and noticed as a stain upon his character.

But it is not so much in reference to his private character, as to his character as king, that David is so highly extolled; this will appear from the contrasts made to him. In 1 Sam. xv. 28, when Samuel declares that David was better than Saul, we find Saul's fault was that of not destroying their and God's enemies, as God commanded him ; it was an intimation that David would not have regarded the people's wishes nor his own, but have executed the commission thoroughly on which he was sent. We find no where a reproach against David, that he disobeyed any express ordinance of God to him as king of Israel. In 1 Kings xiv. 7, 8, 9, we find Jeroboam reproved for not performing the commandment of God as prince or king of Israel, "Thou hast not been as my servant David, &c. but hast done evil above all that were before thee for thou hast gone and made thee other gods and molten images to provoke me to anger, and hast cast me behind thy back." Jeroboam is reproached for encouraging idolatry, and for not opposing it according

to the commandment of God as David did. Again, in 1 Kings xv. 3, where Abijam is opposed to David, Abijam is reproved for the sin of idolatry in following after Jeroboam his father. Again, in the same chapter, ver. 11, where Asa is commended as doing what was right in the of the Lord as David did, the instances mentioned are, He eyes took away the Sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols his father had made;"- and in like manner, in the following verse, his putting down idolatry is spoken of to his praise. In ver. 14, it is remarkable that Asa's heart is said to have been perfect with the Lord all his days, notwithstanding the high places were not removed. In the next verse it is mentioned that he brought all the things which his father had dedicated, and himself had dedicated, into the house of the Lord. It is plain that the perfectness of Asa's heart, here referred to, is spoken of in reference to his perfectness in maintaining the worshipping of the Lord and banishing idolatry. Again, in 1 Kings ix. 4, "If thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, to do according to all that I commanded him," &c. " then will I establish thy throne," &c. 6, "But if thou shalt at all turn from following me, you or your children, and will not keep my commandments, and my statutes, which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel," &c. Here it is evident the commendation of David has respect mainly to his opposition of idolatry and maintenance of the true worship. Again, in 1 Kings xi. 4, It came to pass when Solomon was old that his wives turned away his heart after other gods and his heart was not perfect as was the heart of David his father." It is plain here, also, that the perfectness of David had reference chiefly to his maintenance of the true worship, and not following after idols-and so in the seven following verses it may be seen. As also in 1 Kings xi. 37, 38, compared with 1 Kings xiv. 7-10, where we find the prophet speaking, in the name of God, to Jeroboam, "I will take thee, and thou shalt reign and shalt be king over Israel—and it shall be if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee, and wilt walk in my ways, and do that which is right in my sight, to keep my statutes and commandments as David my servant did; that I will be with thee," &c. In chap. xiv. where the prophet denounces his fall, he says, "But thou hast not been as my servant David, but hast done evil above all that were before thee: for thou hast gone and made thee other gods and molten images," &c. It is plain that David is referred to in respect of maintaining the true worship of the Lord, and as opposing and putting down idolatry.

From all which places it is plain that God's commendations of David have reference, chiefly at least, not to say directly and solely, to his observance of the true worship, and the opposing of idolatry. And when one recollects that the great object of God's government of the Jews was to establish the true worship of himself, the highest praise that any king under him could be deserving of, with reference to the immediate object of God, making them a peculiar people, and under his immediate rule, was to be strict in the maintenance of that object- the maintenance of the worship of the Lord, the true Godand the abolishing of idolatry by whatever ways God commanded.

However, it must be confessed, that the commendation of the writer

of the first book of Kings is general, " that he (David) turned not aside from any thing God commanded him, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite;" and indeed his history entitles him to general commendation. The only matters recorded against him, as incurring God's displeasure, are, this matter of Uriah, and the numbering of the people mentioned in 2 Sam. xxiv. Why it is said "save only in the matter of Uriah," we have not any thing to guide us, because that of numbering the people was an act recorded against him as a sin which was punished by God. And his conduct in respect of Nabal he himself acknowledges as sinful; but he was here prevented from carrying his purposes into effect, and he returns thanks to God that he was so prevented. As this was not carried into effect, the mention of it might well be omitted; but it may appear strange that the remarkable case of numbering the people should not have been mentioned; however, we may have no means of knowing why it was not. The case of Uriah was a very glaring case. In respect of numbering the people, there was no law against it. It has been supposed that the offence in this case lay in his numbering the people without taking the ransom commanded by God in Exodus, but it is not said he did not do so. The ransom commanded in Exodus xxx. had reference to the numbering God then commanded to be made; and from Joab's expostulation it was understood among them, in all probability, that no numbering of the people ought to take place without the commandment of God, though there was no law expressly prohibiting it. It arose, doubtless, from vanity, and perhaps from a temporary forgetfulness that, "by strength shall no man prevail," and that "there is no king saved by the multitude of an host;" and it seems that God in his providence allowed him to be led to it, as an occasion of punishing him and his people together; for it is said, "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them," (or, David was moved against them-or Satan moved him against them; for all these renderings are adopted :) so that this act and the punishment of the people for their sins are connected together; and David being thus led, being a judgment on the people, might always be considered in this light, more than as a personal offence in David, and as such might be passed by.

But, indeed, such exceptions as that made in Kings, in summing up a character, are not to be taken too strictly; for it is not the object of the writer, even in such cases, to mention every failure in duty, but he is led naturally to mention only such as were considered remarkable blots in the character of the individual, and as such remembered against him. Acts, which his countrymen or posterity looked upon with a less unfavourable judgment, or perhaps buried in oblivion, as not to be mentioned against him, the historian may well pass by. This was probably the case of David in respect of numbering the people; it being in point of fact a judgment upon the people. Though a personal failure in David, his defect might be forgotten in the consideration of the just judgment on his offending people; and in the act itself, no personal injury was done to any one, or meditated against any one; neither was it, as far as appears, a breach of any express commandment forbidding such a thing to be done. X.

MONTHLY REGISTER.

SOCIETIES FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE, AND THE PROPAGATION OF THE GOSPEL IN FOREIGN PARTS.