Chapter XIV: Introduction: To the Second Part (6)

Another and similar example is found in what I told you earlier in our conversation, when we spoke about a city in Ireland called Themar;[311] and I shall repeat that story in part, if you wish. This was the leading city in Ireland and the king had his chief residence there; and no one knew of a finer city on earth. Though the inhabitants were heathen at that time and did not know the true faith about God, they were firm in the belief that there could be no deviation from righteousness in judgment on the part of the king who dwelt in Themar; for no decision was pronounced in Ireland which they could consider just before the king at Themar had passed upon it. Now at one time it came to pass that a case was brought before the king who sat in Themar in which his friends and kinsmen were interested on the one side, while men whom the king disliked had a part on the other side; and the king shaped the verdict more according to his own will than to justice. And this soon became evident, for three days later the royal hall and all the other houses that the king occupied were overturned, so that the foundations pointed upward, while the walls and the battlements pointed down into the earth; and the inhabitants immediately began to desert the city and it was never occupied after that. Now from these accounts you are to conclude that God permits such things to be revealed to men, because He wishes them to understand that such an outcome is daily prepared in a spiritual and invisible manner for men who refuse to render just and right judgments, if they are appointed to determine the suits of men.

Footnote 311:

C. xi.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

LVIII

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED

_Son._ These examples apply very well to such men as are avaricious or obstinate or both.

_Father._ You shall know of a truth, that wherever justice is sold for money or is stricken down by arrogance, divine revenge and punishment, physical or spiritual, will surely come; and an instance of this can be cited, if it is desired. There was a prominent citizen in Athens named Stephen; he was judge in all those cases that arose within the city; he was not known as an unjust man. Now it came to pass that Stephen departed this life, and two groups of angels came to meet him, the one wishing to support his cause, the other charging him with much and heavy guilt and wishing to lead him with them to death. But whereas a dispute arose between them and neither side would yield, one of the angels proposed that they should lead Stephen before the Judge and let the dispute be settled by His judgment. When they came into court, the accusing lawyers cried out saying that they had a grave charge against Stephen, namely, that he had taken a plot of ground from the church of Saint Lawrence by an unjust decree. But the judge said that the saint should decide that case, seeing that he was the one robbed. Now just as Saint Lawrence came up to hear how the suit was going forward, one of the angels said to Stephen: “Why do you not call the holy priest Justin, whom you honored so highly as to have a chapel built for him near your hall and whom you have served in many things? He surely will be able to assist you somewhat in these your troubles.”[312] Justin came at the moment when the suit was being brought up before Saint Lawrence; and after the case had been stated, the saint asked why Stephen had plundered him and deprived his church of land. Stephen replied that he did not render that unjust decision purposely, but really thought it was a just decision. Then Saint Lawrence gripped Stephen in the side and pinched him very hard. But Justin interceded for him, begging the saint to show mercy in this cause, both because of his intercession and because Stephen did not know that he had given an unjust decision. While Saint Lawrence was pinching his side, Stephen had a feeling that even if he were to suffer torture for a similar space of time in hell, he would find it no more painful than the clutching of Saint Lawrence. But as soon as Justin interceded for Stephen, the saint released him and forgave the offence.[313]

Footnote 312:

According to the legend the priest Justin assisted at the funeral of
St. Lawrence. _Heilagra Manna Sögur_, I, 430.

Footnote 313:

A somewhat different version of this story is given in the _Legenda
Aurea_ of Jacques de Voragine, who quotes the “Miracles of the Virgin
Mary.”

When the prosecutors heard that this indictment had failed, they shouted even more loudly, saying that they had still greater charges against Stephen. So they set forth that a Roman whose name was Tarquin had come to Athens, and since he was an alien and had no kindred there, he thought that he might need help from Stephen in his important affairs, seeing that Stephen was judge and ruler over the whole city; and he gave Stephen a fine horse on condition that he was to have justice and equity. Then the Judge decreed that, if Stephen had sold justice for money, he should follow that profit to destruction. But when Stephen was questioned whether this charge was true or not, he denied the accusation and declared that he could not remember ever having taken fee or gift for justice. Now since Stephen had denied the charge, it was ordered that Tarquin himself should be called to straighten the matter. When Tarquin came, he declared that this was not a true charge against Stephen; for he asserted that Stephen had never taken fees for justice so far as he knew. “But having come there a stranger,” said Tarquin, “I thought that I might need the good will of such a man and gave him the horse on my own volition and not at his request.” When the accusers heard that they would surely fail in this indictment too, they cried even more loudly, saying that they had a new charge against Stephen, much greater than either of the others. They asserted that he had arbitrarily and illegally saved three men from the death penalty, whom both law and equity and a just sentence would have condemned. When Stephen was asked whether he was guilty of this charge, he admitted that he had saved the men from death, but declared that he had always regretted having saved them by arbitrary and illegal means. Then the Judge decreed that, if he had rescued men from death by violence whom justice had condemned to die, he must suffer death for it, unless he would do penance where the offence was committed. Then the priest Justin asked Saint Lawrence to help in Stephen’s defense, seeing that he had forgiven him the matter that he had against him and no indictment had been found true except the one that was now being considered. So Lawrence and Justin went in haste to the queen and, falling at her feet, begged her to request this favor, that the verdict be modified so that Stephen might be allowed to do penance in the place where he had offended. When the queen interceded for Stephen, her request was granted. Thereupon he was brought back to Athens, and he arose at the moment when his body was to be carried to the grave. He lived three winters after that and did penance for his guilt according to the instruction of the bishop who was in charge of that city.

There are many such examples that could be brought up in this talk, if it were thought necessary; and you should now conclude from what I set forth in my last speech that the judgments passed here must be carefully scrutinized, and that it is very important for those who are appointed to be judges to make sure whether the decisions are properly stated and the findings correct. For you heard how precisely the decrees were weighed before the king’s son, when the scales were held up before him but would never balance; and how he was threatened with death, if he should pronounce a different judgment from the one that would balance the scales. You also heard how God punished the king and the city of Themar, because the king had distorted a just decision. Though the people did not hold the true faith about God, He punished the deed nevertheless, because they believed that a wrong decision could never come from Themar. And in the last example you heard how Stephen was held to account for all the dooms that he had pronounced, and suffered a reprimand for having taken a gift from a friend; and he was condemned to die for having saved men from death, though many would regard that as a good rather than an evil deed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIX

WHEN JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE SEVERE AND WHEN THEY SHOULD BE MERCIFUL

_Son._ The more examples of this sort I hear, the more difficult seems the position of those who are appointed to judge. I will ask you, therefore, to indicate some test by which I can know when the judgments ought to be severe and when they should be more lenient.

_Father._ It is difficult to state that in definite terms: still, all causes that are brought before the men who have authority to judge will be decided in some way. But I believe that a purpose to judge as they think is right will do the most to keep them from falling into guilt before God. For Stephen was acquitted of the charge that he had caused the church of Saint Lawrence to forfeit land by the fact that he did not know that his decision was wrong; and yet he did not wholly escape punishment, though in some respects he was punished less than he would have been, if he had known that his verdict was wrong. Now there are four things which he who goes into the judgment hall must leave outside and never allow to come into the judgment seat with him or even inside the door. The first is avarice; the second, enmity; the third, obstinacy; the fourth, friendship. For you heard that Stephen was ordered to disclose whether he had accepted a gift from Tarquin and had promised to secure justice for him in return for the fee. And the judgment was, that if he had sold justice for money, he should follow the fee to destruction. You heard this, too, that he was condemned to die for having saved men from death by force and in defiance of law. You also heard in the earlier account how the king and the city of Themar perished because the king, being friendly to one side and very hostile to the other, had distorted a just decision. Now for such reasons those four things must be excluded, lest any one of them should cause a righteous doom to be distorted.

You have also asked when the sentence should be lenient and when severe, and that question can now be answered in a few words. Careful account should be taken of the circumstances of the man’s case who is accused. If a charge is brought against one who is anxious to keep the peace but is driven to violence by the selfishness and arrogance of another, and, regretting his guilt, is anxious to atone for it,—if such are the circumstances, there should be lenient judgment in his case. Likewise, if a man breaks the law who is ignorant and does not know that he is transgressing, and would not have done the deed had he known it to be contrary to law, his case, too, calls for a lenient sentence. Even when the ugliest cases that are known among men, such as theft and robbery, come up, one should investigate how the crime came about. If a man is so hard bestead that he can get no food either by begging or buying and cannot get work, while hunger and his physical nature drive him beyond endurance, the judge should be lenient with him, even though he be taken in guilt; and whenever necessity drives a man into crime and law-breaking, the judgment should be tempered.

However, if the accused are men who have been led into crime by insolence, ambition, avarice, or selfishness, the dooms ought to be severe, though justice and the law of the land must be observed in every instance. And in cases like those to which we have just referred the sentence should be as severe as the law permits; while in the cases mentioned earlier the law should be applied with due allowance for the difficulties that were at hand. If the distress that led to the trouble is considered great, the judgment should be tempered accordingly. But if a king or any ruler who is a judge and has power to punish, takes life as a punishment, he should always do it with great reluctance, in his heart lamenting the death and ill-fortune of the offender. He must take heed, however, lest he slay out of his own cruelty or in anger and hatred for the one who is to die. Let him slay him in just punishment and out of love for those who live after; because he believes that they will live in greater security and lead better lives after having seen the death and troubles of such a one; and because he intends that the fear and terror which the misfortunes of another have brought upon him shall guide those to rectitude and good morals, whom nature is unable to guide because of their excessive ambition or stupidity. A famous man, an upright and excellent emperor, once ordained respecting the decrees of kings, that if a king should become so angry with any one that he planned his death, and if his guilt were not so evident that he could with justice be condemned at once to an immediate death, that man should be kept in the king’s garth or in custody forty days before his case should be finally determined.[314] And it would be well if every king would observe this enactment, in order that he might frame his decisions with regard for reason and justice and not in sudden anger. If a man is convicted of an offence for which law and justice impose a fine but not death, the king, or the lord who governs the land, shall seize his wealth, not because he loves and covets the money, but because a just penalty and the laws of the land demand it. If all these things which we have now set forth are carefully observed, I believe that those who are appointed to be judges will suffer no great reproaches from God.

Footnote 314:

This is probably an allusion to the edict of Theodosius II “which
interposes a salutary interval of thirty days between the sentence and
the execution.” Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, III,
176; Mommsen and Meyer (editors), _Theodosiani Libri_ XVI, I, part 2,
503 (viii, 40:13). The edict was probably a part of the penance
exacted from the Emperor after his massacre of the Thessalonians. See
_Ambrosius Saga_ in _Heilagra Manna Sögur_, I, 40.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

LX

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED

_Son._ It seems reasonable that a land, which is placed in charge of a ruler who attends carefully to these things, will be well governed; and the people ought to show proper appreciation of his government. Still with your permission I shall now ask about certain matters that interest me concerning rightful verdicts. You referred to an order given by an emperor as to punishments decreed by a king (which looks to me like good law), that a man who had incurred the king’s wrath should be given a reprieve of forty days in the king’s custody, lest a verdict be rendered too quickly in his case and in violent anger; and it seems to me that a king will need to possess much good nature, if he is to spare a man in his anger. But even so righteous and holy a man as Moses was could not control his wrath on that day, when he came in anger to the people of Israel; for I am told that his wrath rose to such violence that he dashed the two tables of stone, which he bore in his arms and upon which God Himself had written the ten commandments of His law with His own fingers, against a rock and broke them into fragments in his fury; and rushing at once to arms, he and the men who were with him slew many hundred persons that day.[315] I have also heard that David in sudden wrath ordered the man, who came from the battle in which Saul fell, bringing the tidings that Saul was dead, to be slain immediately;[316] and he did not order him to be kept for further inquiry.

Footnote 315:

_Exodus_, xxxii.

Footnote 316:

_II Samuel_, i.

_Father._ Remember what I called to your attention in an earlier remark, namely, that these laws are intended for men who do not fall into such evident transgressions that a rightful verdict can condemn them to immediate death. But when Moses came away from God, he knew God’s wrath toward all the people of Israel, and consequently did a deed of kindness and not of hatred when by this chastisement he turned them from error and evil ways; just as I have told you that a king in punishing should be moved by kindness and not by hatred. For all penalties that are inflicted because of hatred are murder; while punishment inflicted for the sake of love and justice is a holy deed and not murder.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

LXI

CONCERNING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

_Son._ Now, if you permit, I wish to ask more fully about penalties; for few men, indeed, are able to comprehend how it can be a good, holy, and loving deed to take a man’s life; wherefore I with many others on the outside should like to have you explain briefly how it can be a good and proper deed to slay men in righteous punishment; inasmuch as all gentle and peaceful persons have a great aversion to manslaughter, regarding it as evil and sinful.

_Father._ The subjects that we are now discussing are clearly illustrated in the case of Moses. Holy man as he was and meek and right-minded in every way, had he known that his act of punishment was sinful like any other slaughter, he would not have ordered it. But if he had been so zealous in his obstinate wrath that he had done this deed in anger rather than for the sake of justice, God’s righteousness would surely have punished him with a severe chastisement and stern revenge for the great slaughter that he committed. For Moses commanded every man who took up arms with him to spare none, neither father nor brother nor other kinsmen, if they had been guilty of the deed that had called God’s anger down upon them. Moses showed a threefold righteousness in this chastisement: for those who were with him in the slaughter sanctified their hands in the blood of those whom they slew, since in their deed they rendered obedience to their leader and fulfilled the sacred laws. Those who survived regretted their sins and turned their hearts to penitence for having broken the law, while those who were slain were cleansed in their penance and in the pangs which they suffered when they died. And it was much better for them to suffer a brief pain in death than a long torture in hell. Of the same character are the penalties that kings impose; for a king cleanses himself in the blood of the unjust, if he slays them as a rightful punishment to fulfil the sacred laws. Moreover, there are many capable men who fear punishment alone, and would commit crimes if they were not in terror of the king’s revenge. But one who is to suffer punishment will confess his sins and repent of his misdeeds; though if he did not see a sudden death prepared for him, he would show no repentance. He is, therefore, saved by his repentance and the pangs which he suffers in his death. And it is better for him to suffer a brief punishment here than endless agony and torture; for God never punishes the same sin twice. Consequently the king’s punishment becomes a good and kind deed toward all those who are subject to him, for he would rather have the one who is to be punished suffer a brief pain here for his wickedness than to be lost forever, in the world to come. Through this kindness he also saves the righteous and peaceable from the avarice and the wickedness of the violent. We may, therefore, conclude that punishment is a good deed, if it is exacted according to a righteous verdict; for King Saul was deposed from his kingship because he failed to punish according to God’s orders at the time when he invaded the kingdoms of Amalek and the Amorites.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

LXII

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED

_Son._ Now I wish to ask you why David slew the man of whom we spoke earlier, him who brought the tidings that Saul had fallen, and whether he slew him justly or did it from sudden anger.

_Father._ When the man had told these tidings, David asked how he knew them. And he said that he had lifted up weapons against Saul at the king’s own request. When David heard this, he spoke thus: “A wretched creature you are, who dared to lay hands on the Lord’s anointed; and it is better for you to suffer a swift punishment here than to have this crime pursue you into everlasting hell.” Thereupon David ordered him to be slain. But when he who had hoped to receive a joyous welcome and good gifts for his tidings, saw that death was to be his reward, he repented that he had falsely imputed this crime to himself and would gladly have withdrawn his words, if he had been permitted to do so. But David spoke thus: “Your own testimony condemns you and not I; for you have charged yourself with this murder of the Lord’s anointed.” We have other and similar instances in the case of the men who slew Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, hoping thereby to win David’s friendship; and they fared to David with the news that they had slain his enemy who had planned to rise up against him and his kingship. But when David heard these tidings he answered in this wise; “Wretches you are for this deed, having slain your lord, though you were Ishbosheth’s own men; you have committed a vile and treacherous crime in laying hands upon your lord, and you have not acted as if you were my men and did this out of loyalty to me. Now it will be necessary for you to suffer a swift revenge and a prompt punishment, lest this deed draw you into everlasting torment.” Then David ordered his men to cut off their hands and feet and afterwards to hang them beside a pool in a city called Hebron.[317]

Footnote 317:

_II Samuel_, iv.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

LXIII

THE JUDGMENTS OF GOD ILLUSTRATED BY THE STORY OF DAVID AND SAUL

_Son._ I will venture to ask one more question about those cases in which it seems to me that God has passed rather strange sentences. I am asking chiefly because I find it hard to understand what reason or circumstance can have caused the difference in these decrees which I now intend to bring up. You stated earlier in your speech that God deprived Saul of his kingdom because he was too lenient in cases of homicide, though a man will think that this was no great offence, as it is easy enough to slay multitudes if that be regarded a better deed than to let them live. Still, this leniency proved such a grievous fault that God said He regretted having chosen Saul king over his people, and immediately threatened—what He later carried out—that the kingship should never be transmitted to his descendants; and immediately, though Saul was still living, He appointed another to be king after his days. But after David had become king, he committed a crime which will scarcely seem less when reflected upon; for he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah his knight, a good and faithful man, and afterwards contrived his death, not as a just penalty but because he wanted his wife. But later, when Nathan the prophet pointed out the sin to David and he confessed, he was forgiven at once; indeed, it seemed as if his kingship was more stable after that time than before. Now I do not know which is the worse crime, to kill an innocent man and violate his wife, or to let the guilty have their lives. Many a man, who is ignorant as to the reason why, may indeed imagine that God loved David more than Saul, and that David’s crime was counted less for that reason. But inasmuch as God always judges according to justice and without regard to persons, it would be sinful to hold wrong ideas about this; and it would be well if you could add a few words in explanation, unless you think that my questions are stupid. It may also be that great lords who are chosen to be judges will get a better insight into these things, if they are clearly expressed.

_Father._ This question is of such a character that it will demand an extended answer, if it is to be fully understood. But since it has been brought up, I shall be glad to answer it as far as I can and as briefly as I can. First it is necessary to recall what I said in an earlier speech when we talked about dooms,—when they should be severe and when lenient: I then brought out the fact that if a good and peace-loving man should fall into sin and his deed should seem evil to him and he were anxious to do penance, then the judgment ought to be merciful in his case on account of human nature; for human nature is so frail that no one can be so careful as never to fall into sin. But some add to their offence by taking pride in it, and they are not careful to avoid falling into another sin. Now David was of all men the most adroit in the use of weapons in warfare and he was by nature quite severe in righteous chastisement; but he was a kind-hearted man, friendly toward everyone, and sympathetic toward all who suffered misfortunes. He was also trustworthy in every respect, honest and faithful in friendship and in all his promises, and so virtuous that he would allow nothing vicious about his person,—indeed his like was not found among all the people of Israel; for when God chose David to be king, He testified in these words, saying that He had found a man after His own heart. But human frailty caused him to fall in the matter that we mentioned earlier: he violated Uriah’s wife. But after he had fallen into this transgression and when he was once more alone, he repented deeply, sighing and weeping. Inasmuch as the rules of the law would condemn this crime as a shameful reproach, if it were rumored among the people, David planned to keep the matter quiet, letting God see his repentance but keeping the people in ignorance of his offence, lest they should take his misdeed as an example and regard it as less serious to fall into sin and transgression if they knew of his guilt. So David sought to hide his guilt by a crafty design: for as soon as he learned that Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife, was pregnant, he sent for Uriah, and hoping to avoid taking his life, he ordered him to lie with his wife so that the offspring might be known as his, while David would atone in secret for the sin of his whoredom and never afterward come near Uriah’s wife. But when he found that Uriah happened to be unwilling to lie with his wife, he contrived to conceal his sin from men, though he increased it in the sight of God. Later, when Nathan the prophet charged David with all this guilt, he answered as if condemning himself, speaking these words: “So heavy and evil is my transgression that I am worthy of death because of this thing; a wretch am I to have set such an example before God’s people, over whom He has appointed me ruler and judge; rather would I now suffer a speedy death than have this misdeed pursue me to hell. Now since I have set an evil example before the people of God by my sin, I am ready to suffer punishment according to the Lord’s will as a warning to the people not to fall into such transgression.” But when Truth and Justice saw David’s penitence, they permitted Mercy to pass the judgment; for the prophet Nathan replied in this wise: “God sees your repentance, and He does not desire you to suffer death for your sin, but He will punish you with an endurable chastisement for this deed before you die.” Now you must know that God did not forgive David’s crime so completely as to excuse him from just punishment; for this was the first penalty that the king suffered from God: the child which he had begotten with Bathsheba was a man child and very lovely, wherefore David much desired that it might live; but it did not please God to let him enjoy the child which he had begotten in such a sinful way. Nevertheless, David lay seven days upon the earth in the raiment of mourning, fasting and imploring God to let the child live. But God would not hear his prayer, and the child expired on the seventh day.[318] And this was the second punishment, that God refused to let David build him a temple;[319] God even called him a murderer, because he had deprived Uriah of life. But for the adultery which he had committed with Uriah’s wife, he had to suffer this disgrace, that his son Absalom, in the sight of all the people, went in unto David’s concubines and thus dishonored his father before all the people.[320]

Footnote 318:

The story of David’s great sin concerning Bathsheba and Uriah and its
consequences is told in _II Samuel_, xi-xii, but it is probable that
the author’s source is some Biblical paraphrase rather than the
Vulgate itself.

Footnote 319:

_I Chronicles_, xxii, 8.

Footnote 320:

_II Samuel_, xvi, 21-22.

You have also asked which crime was the worse, that David caused Uriah to be slain without guilt and seduced his wife, or that Saul refused to kill so many people of Amalek; and you shall know of a truth that Saul’s crime was the greater; for no offence is graver than to be disobedient toward one’s superiors, as Saul was. And you may observe even at this day among cloister folk, that if a monk is disobedient toward his abbot, where an abbot rules the cloister, or toward the prior, where such a one controls, he is forthwith expelled from the holy order and from the monastery and is thenceforth regarded as a layman. Likewise, if a priest refuses to obey his superior the bishop, he is at once deprived of clerical honors, and the right to say mass is taken from him as well as all other official duties. In the same way, if a bishop, be he humble or powerful, refuses to obey his superior, he is immediately shorn of his dignity and all his office; and after that he is regarded among learned men as any other layman unworthy of any distinction. And it ought to be even more evident that it could not prosper Saul to be disobedient to such a lord as God Himself, when he was ordered to invade Amalek and the land of the Amorites and to slay all that was living. God took His rod of punishment and placed it in Saul’s hands, bidding him execute His wrath and spare nothing that was living; to burn fortified cities, farmsteads, clothing, and whatever else there was; to lay the entire land in ruins and thus cleanse it with sword and ax and fire. Saul, however, carried out the vengeance that he was charged with in another way, by destroying everything that was lacking in beauty or value; but whatever seemed to him to be beautiful, valuable, and worth possessing he spared, brought home to his country, and distributed among his men. But when Samuel came to Saul and showed him the wrath of God, Saul spoke as if excusing himself: “Praise be to God, for I have fulfilled His command: I invaded Amalek and visited the entire kingdom with fire and sword; but King Agag I have brought with me, wishing to honor God’s command by slaying him here, if He wills that he die. Fat oxen and fine sheep I have brought hither to sacrifice such to God as are acceptable to Him; and the children of the chief men I have brought hither to be kept in bondage and distress, doing fitting service for ourselves.”

Then Samuel replied: “How can God now accept that as a sacrifice which He has Himself cursed in His anger? For God demands a blessed and not an accursed sacrifice; and you shall know of a surety that obedience is more pleasing to God than any sacrifice.” Truth stood by and said: “What need is there to conceal the motive that induced Saul to neglect doing as God commanded him? Saul imagined himself so firmly established in his kingship that he could order these things more according to his own liking than to God’s command; he showed excessive pride in failing to remember who had given him the power. And this is the reason why he took good horses, oxen, sheep, and much else of value, that he might satisfy the greed of his knights and the rapacity of his other warriors rather than carry out the commands of God. And he spoke falsely when he said that he had brought horses and sheep and other things of value into his kingdom to sacrifice them to God; for he knew that a cursed sacrifice was not acceptable to God.” Then the decision was left to Justice and she decreed in this wise: “Whereas God took His rod of punishment, and placing it in Saul’s hands bade him execute the divine wrath upon a cursed people, let that punishment now come upon Saul and his family which he failed to visit upon those whom God had commanded him to carry it out upon. But the same rod of punishment that was given to Saul to shake over others, another shall now hold and shake over Saul and all his kin. And because he wished in his avarice to possess the riches that were forbidden him, let him now forfeit those riches that were given to him before.”[321] But the reason why Justice passed such a severe judgment upon Saul was that God knew his disposition thoroughly. For it was in Saul’s nature to be proud and stubborn in the face of God; and as soon as he thought himself firmly established in his kingdom, he became greedy and avaricious, as is evident from this account.

Footnote 321:

On this episode see _I Samuel_, xv.

Now there was this difference between the tempers of David and Saul: when Nathan the prophet charged David with sin, he spoke reproachfully of his fault, almost as if condemning himself, and implored mercy, though willing to suffer punishment, as if prepared to accept with gratitude any terms which God might impose for his misdeed; therefore he won favor through the lenient judgment of Mercy. Yet, his son died because of Uriah’s death, though David himself did not die; and for violating Uriah’s wife he suffered a great disgrace in that his son dishonored him in the sight of all the people.

But when Samuel accused Saul of his crime, he replied as if defending his cause and praised himself for having done so well and spoke in this wise: “Praise be to God, for I have done what He commanded;” though he knew in his own mind that anything else was nearer the truth. Therefore he was stricken by the sentence of Justice, God seeing his arrogant boasting and lying excuses. But his arrogance and envy became even more evident after he discovered that God was angry with him; for Saul fell ill; and now and then madness came upon him, so that he had to be watched when the malady troubled him. Then it was learned that if a man could be found who could play the harp well before him, he would find relief and the illness would afflict him less. So they found a lovely youth whose name was David, the son of Jesse in Bethlehem, who knew how to strike the harp skilfully; he came to the king, and whenever the malady came upon Saul, David, standing before him, struck the harp and the illness departed immediately. But when Saul discovered that the malady was less severe, he loved David highly and made him his shield bearer.[322] Samuel, however, had already anointed him king in secret, no one knowing it but his father and his brothers. David remained with Saul many days and served him faithfully; and all men perceived that God was with him in all his doings. Saul, too, was well disposed toward him at first: he gave him his daughter and assigned him a troop to command.[323] But after Saul had won his great victory over the Philistines and David had slain the giant Goliath and they were returning from the warfare, women came forth from cities and fortresses, dancing toward them and singing praises to them for their victory. And the burden of their song was this, that Saul had conquered a thousand but David ten thousand.[324] When Saul heard this he was seized with wrath and envy toward David and said in his own thoughts: “Now I perceive that God has chosen this man to take the kingdom after me instead of my sons; but I shall try to upset this plan if I can, though so cleverly that no one shall perceive that I kill him intentionally.” A few days later Saul’s habitual illness came upon him; but David took his harp and, standing before him, played as was his wont to relieve the king’s illness. Saul had a javelin in his hand which he threw at David, aiming to drive it through him and pin him to the wall of the room. Thus he had planned to avoid responsibility for the murder by leading the people to think he had done it in frenzy and not with evil intent. David escaped and found security from that peril. But when Saul saw that David had escaped and he had not caught him, he sent him on frequent forays among heathen people in the hope that he would be slain in warfare. But the more frequently David went out into battle, the more frequent victories and the greater honors did he win; and God magnified him before the eyes of all the people. And the more Saul saw him prosper, the more he envied him.[325]

Footnote 322:

_I Samuel_, xvi, 14-23.

Footnote 323:

_Ibid._, xviii, 12-21.

Footnote 324:

_Ibid._, xviii, 6-9.

Footnote 325:

Cf. _I Samuel_, xix, 8-11.

Now you can imagine the state of King Saul’s mind: he could say nothing against David, only what was good. But since he perceived that God loved David much because of his humility and loyalty, he envied him as Cain envied his brother Abel because God loved him. Indeed, Saul’s enmity toward David became so evident that he could not conceal his intentions to kill him. Then Jonathan, Saul’s son, reminded the king that it would be a sin to slay an innocent man, speaking in this wise: “My lord, why are you angry with your servant David? If there is any guilt on his part that may be injurious to your kingdom or dignity, every man who is with you here will seek his life; and we can seize him whenever we like, for he is not on his guard against us, knowing himself to be guiltless. He has served you long and has been faithful in all things; he fought against great odds when he slew Goliath, and God rescued your entire kingdom through David’s wonderful victory, which he won fighting unarmed against a giant. He has waited upon you in your distressing illness; and wherever you have placed him at the head of the host, he has brought a vigorous defense to your kingdom, and no one knows that he has been anything but loyal. Therefore conquer your wrath, sire, and do not fall into such an evident sin of murder before God as to slay an innocent man.”[326] Saul, however, became only the more wrathful and charged with treason his son and everyone else who spoke a good word for David.

Footnote 326:

Cf. _I Samuel_, xix, 4-7.

David fled from King Saul’s wrath with a few men, but provided with neither clothes nor weapons. He came to the city called Nob, the bishop of which was Ahimelech, a son of Ahitub the bishop; but Ahitub was the son of Ichabod, the son of Phineas, the son of Eli the bishop. When David came to the bishop Ahimelech, he pretended to be traveling on an important mission for King Saul, and asked him to give him and his men something to eat and to furnish him with weapons. The bishop Ahimelech gave him such victuals as he had, but weapons he had none to give him except the sword that had belonged to Goliath; and this he gave him, for he did not know that he was a fugitive, but believed he was traveling on the king’s errand, as he had said. But so fierce was Saul’s hatred toward David, that as soon as he learned that the bishop Ahimelech had given him food, he seized the bishop and all his kinsmen and charged them with treason. The bishop replied to the charge in this wise: “My lord, I confess that I gave David what food I had and the weapon that I had, for he said he was traveling on an important errand on your behalf. Why should I not give hospitality to a man like David, who is the best and the most highly esteemed of all the men that you have about you except your sons, and who is furthermore your own son-in-law and has been faithful to you in all things? Never have I had any design against you or your honor. Do not think, my lord, that I, your servant, have plotted with David against your will; I could not know why David traveled in such distress, for he told me that you had sent him with important errands; nor did I know that he had fallen into any guilt against you.” Then Saul replied in fierce anger: “This I swear that you shall perish to-day, you and all your kin.” Thereupon he caused the bishop to be slain along with eighty-five other men, all of whom were robed in the priestly dignity. After that he ordered all who dwelt in the city of Nob to be slain, even women and children, and had the city burned.[327]

Footnote 327:

On the fate of Ahimelech and the inhabitants of Nob, cf. _I Samuel_,
xxi, 1-9; xxii, 9-19.

Now I have revealed to you the ferocity which God found in Saul’s heart when he removed him from the kingship, and which later became evident in what you have now heard and in much else of like import, though I have told this only. The displeasure which the king incurred from God fell so heavily upon him, for the reason that God saw in his heart the fierce avarice which later began to appear. Now he wanted to kill David, though innocent, because he found that God loved him; and he slew the bishop, though guiltless, and so fierce was he that he slew everything in the city that had life and afterward burned the city. But where God had commanded him to use severity of this sort, there he had spared; here, however, he slew God’s servants in defiance of God’s command. But in David’s case God passed a more lenient judgment for the reason that, just as he perceived the ferocity in Saul’s heart, he found true repentance and clemency in David’s heart, as I shall now show you.

There was a son of the bishop Ahimelech, Abiathar by name, who was hid in a cave when all those were slain of whom I have just spoken. Abiathar fled to David and told him all these happenings. But when David heard these tidings, he sighed and spoke thus in deep sorrow: “May God in His mercy forgive me for this slaughter, for I have too great a share in it, having eaten your father’s bread. And now since you have come hither, abide with me; and if God permits me to live, He will also protect you with me, and let whatever God wishes happen to us both.” Thereupon David elevated him to the bishop’s office which his father had held. But when David’s kinsmen learned that he was abiding in the forest, they joined him with a large force counting not fewer than four hundred men; and from that time on David grew in strength as God willed.[328] He camped among the hills with this force and made repeated attacks on Saul’s enemies, but never on the king himself or his men. But whenever Saul learned where David lay concealed, he marched out to seek him, intending to slay him.

Footnote 328:

_I Samuel_, xxii, 1-2, 20-23.

Then it happened once, when David and his men were hiding in a large cave, that Saul entered this alone on a necessary errand. Then said David’s companions: “Now God has fulfilled what He has promised you and has delivered your enemy into your hands; be sure to secure this quarry.” David stole up and cut a piece off Saul’s mantle, though the king was not aware of it, and returned to his comrades. Then David’s companions said to him: “If you are unwilling to lay your own hand upon him, let us kill him.” David replied: “My crime would be as great before God, whether I do it myself or bid others do it. God keep me and all our companions from such a sin as to lay hands upon the Lord’s anointed. He is my master and I served him long; he is also the Lord’s anointed and it would be a great crime, if I were to lay hands upon him, for I have no revenge to take either for father or brother or any other kinsman; nor is it as if he had taken the throne which he sits upon from my kinsmen with violence or deceit; but God chose him to it and sanctified him to His service, honoring him with His own name. Wherefore it is right that He Who appointed him to the kingship should deprive him of it according to His will, but not I in vengeful audacity. And I swear this day that God alone shall call him, whether by demanding his soul or by causing him to fall in battle before his enemies; but as for my hands, they shall let him live many days. But I regret deeply that I injured his garment if he shall feel hurt or dishonored because of it.”

When Saul had departed and returned to his host, David ran up on a hill and cried: “My lord, King Saul! can you hear?” But when Saul turned to hear what this man said, David bent both knees to the earth and bowing before the king said to him: “Those men do ill who tell you, my lord, that I mean to be your enemy; for now I have evidence here in my hand that your life was in my power to-day, when you left all your host and entered the cave alone; and it was no less in my power to injure your life than your clothes, for here I have in my hand a large piece of the skirt of your mantle. Now let God judge between us. You see how they have told lying tales, who say that I have striven after your life.” Saul appreciated these facts fully, for David spoke the truth; and he promised that he would nevermore hate David.[329] But not many days passed before Saul went out again to seek David, as he did constantly after that. Now it came to pass another time, when Saul had made a wearisome journey in search of David, that sleep came upon the king and all his host. And David went into the camp where Saul lay, but none was aware of it. The man who accompanied him was named Abishai and he said to David: “Now you can see that God surely intends to deliver your enemy into your hands, and it is not advisable to refuse what God Himself offers you. I will thrust my spear through him, if you will permit me, and then we shall return to our men.” David answered: “God has done this to tempt me and to see whether I would lay my hands on His anointed. Now I must answer as before, that God shall tear the kingship from him, either by demanding his soul or by causing him to fall before his enemies; but as for my hands, they shall let him live many days; for I have no revenge to cherish against him, either for plunder or for the loss of kinsmen, except such as was incurred while he was cleansing the land with righteous punishment; and it is neither my proper business nor that of anyone else to take revenge for such; for it is a more serious matter than even a wise man can conceive to lay hands on the Lord’s anointed, who is dedicated and hallowed to God. Let us take his saddle-cup and his spear for a proof, and then let us return to our forces.”[330]

Footnote 329:

The story of David and Saul at En-gedi is told in _I Samuel_, xxiv.

Footnote 330:

Cf. _I Samuel_, xxvi.