Chapter XV: Introduction: To the Second Part (7)

Now you will understand the character of both King Saul and David from what I have just told you. David knew that he was chosen of God to govern, that he was the Lord’s anointed, consecrated and hallowed to God no less than Saul was. He also knew that God had rejected Saul. And God delivered Saul into David’s hands, so that he could have taken Saul’s life at any time, if he had wished. David showed great faithfulness and humility in this, that every time he saw Saul, he bowed before him and saluted him as any other unhallowed layman would, who had not been set apart for chieftainship. Although Saul lay in wait for his life, David continued to serve him, and worried the king’s enemies as much as he could. On the other hand, Saul had nothing against David except that he knew God had chosen him to be king; and he showed great wickedness and fierce hatred in striving to slay an innocent man, one who served him faithfully. He likewise displayed an inordinate vanity in wishing to make away with a man whom God Himself had chosen to rule after him. For these reasons God passed a severe judgment in Saul’s case; for He saw in Saul’s heart what men could not perceive, though subsequently God made this fact evident to the sight of men. But in David’s case God was more lenient, for the reason that He found him always humble and faithful in everything, as He made clear to men later on. There is further evidence of this in the fact, that as soon as David learned that Saul and his son Jonathan had fallen, he and all his host lamented in great sorrow, and David spoke these words: “Be ye cursed, ye mountains of Gilboa! May God nevermore send rain or dew or growing grass upon you, for you led King Saul and his son Jonathan along treacherous paths in their flight across your summits and refused to show them serviceable highways, whereby they could save their lives from the hands of the foeman; nor did you provide them with sheltering ramparts upon your heights. It is a bitter sorrow for all the people of Israel, that splendid chieftains like Saul and Jonathan should pass away from council and government. Great strength and power have perished this day, when such excellent princes are fallen as Saul and Jonathan were, and the many good knights with many good weapons and much good armor who have perished with them. Let the lesser men beware of God’s wrath, since He has allowed the heathen to lay hands on His anointed. Let the multitude bewail a loss like this, that such excellent rulers should fall before the heathen.”[331] Such words and many more like them David spoke that day, and thus he lamented their death rather than rejoiced in the fact that the realm had fallen to him and into his keeping. From this you will observe how upright he was, how honest and free from faults. But whenever human nature caused him to fall into sin, he forthwith showed keen repentance, imploring God’s mercy and compassion; and God gave heed at once to his honest regret.

Footnote 331:

Cf. David’s lament in _II Samuel_, i: 17-27. The author has made but
slight use of David’s own language.

Earlier in our conversation we have told how Absalom, King David’s son, raised the whole land in revolt against his father. But when David’s captains happened to meet Absalom in battle and David learned of his death, he cried out in these words: “What shall it profit me to live, an aged man who grows weaker day by day, now that you, my son Absalom, are dead in the flowertime of youth? Would to God that I could die now and that you my son might live!”[332] David was never so bitter against other men but that he would rather suffer death himself than see another’s death, except where he saw that punishment was inflicted on the demand of justice. This was shown again at one time when David’s entire kingdom incurred the wrath of God, and a pestilence came upon the realm, so violent that people perished by thousands. When the plague approached the city of Jerusalem, David beheld the angel, who was smiting the people, standing between heaven and earth with a blazing sword. And when he saw the angel with the sword lifted as if ready to strike, he placed his neck under the edge and said: “I beg thee, O Lord, that this sword be rather turned against my neck than that more of God’s people shall now be slain, and that my Lord’s wrath may fall upon me, who am guilty and worthy of punishment, and upon my family rather than that God’s people shall be rooted out on my account.” As soon as God saw David’s regret and heard his very acceptable prayer, He commanded the angel to desist from slaying the people, and forthwith the plague ceased everywhere in the kingdom.[333]

Footnote 332:

Cf. _II Samuel_, xviii, 33.

Footnote 333:

Cf. _II Samuel_, xxiv.

From these and many other similar instances you will now observe how full of grace and goodness David was toward all men. And just as God saw kindliness, mercy, and humility in his heart, He saw avarice, ferocity, and unmeasured pride in Saul’s heart; consequently every fault was graver before God in Saul’s case than in David’s; for the men were unlike. David was the meekest and the most merciful of men, and whenever he fell into any fault he implored God to spare him; but Saul grew fiercer and more envious the more sins he fell into and the nearer he saw God’s wrath approaching. Now if you think that these answers have led you to a clearer understanding of the matters that you have asked about, I believe it will not be necessary to discuss these subjects any further.

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

LXIV

ILLUSTRATIONS FROM THE JUDGMENTS OF SOLOMON

_Son._ I see clearly now from what you told in your last speech that the judgments were lenient in David’s case, because he regretted the sins into which he fell, but more severe in Saul’s case, because he was less disposed to do penance for his misdeeds. Now there are certain other matters which I am much interested in and which I shall ask about with your permission, namely those events that occurred after David’s death. Once when two women came before King Solomon, quarreling about a child, the king ordered the child to be hewn in pieces and half given to each of them:[334] now I wish to ask whether, if neither of the women had spoken up, the king would have hewn the child asunder or not.

Footnote 334:

See _I Kings_, iii, 16-28.

_Father._ The king ordered the child to be divided because he knew of a surety that the one who was the mother would not be willing to have the child divided.

_Son._ I asked whether the king would have divided the child if the mother had kept silence.

_Father._ If the mother had been so void of mercy that she would not ask him to spare the child, the king would have divided it between them.

_Son._ Would it not look to you like plain murder, if he had slain an innocent child, seeing that it was not for punishment?

_Father._ It would indeed have been murder if he had killed the child; still, the guilt would not have been with the king but with the mother, if she had failed to beg mercy for her child, when she heard the king render a fair judgment in their case, which she realized would mean the child’s death; therefore the guilt would be hers if she withheld the motherly pity which could save the child.

_Son._ What do you think about the death of Joab and Adonijah, whom King Solomon slew? Was that a righteous judgment or not? And why did King Solomon cause Shimei to be slain for cursing his father David, seeing that David had already forgiven Shimei this offence?

_Father._ If King Solomon had done this except as lawful punishment, God would have visited him with a worthy penalty as for murder. But after he had done all this, God revealed Himself to him in a dream and bade him choose whatever gift he might wish. But Solomon asked God to give him wisdom and insight into righteous judgments. Then God answered him in this wise: “If this choice were given to the multitude, there would be many who would choose riches and power, or a long life, or peace, or success in warfare. But because thou hast chosen this thing, thou shalt receive what thou hast chosen and likewise all the other gifts that I have enumerated.” From this you will observe how well God is pleased with righteousness in judgments; for God gave Solomon all the supreme gifts, because he chose equity as his part. And you will understand that, if he had slain those others unjustly, God would not have given him such excellent gifts as He did give him.

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

LXV

SOLOMON’S DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHIMEI

_Son._ What you have just said does indeed seem reasonable. If Solomon had been led to execute these men through selfishness and injustice, he would not have received such excellent gifts from God, as were given to him after that deed was done. Still, if I may, I should like to ask you to point out how righteous dooms are worked out, in order that I may understand more clearly, and others too who may hear it, how Solomon could execute Shimei by righteous decree, when his father David had already forgiven him the offence.[335]

Footnote 335:

The story of Shimei is told in _II Samuel_, xvi, 5-8; xix, 16-23; _I
Kings_, ii, 8-9, 36-46.

_Father._ Solomon did this out of regard for justice rather than from cruelty, and for the following reasons. When Shimei cursed David, he did it out of impudence and malice, and for no just cause; but when he begged David for mercy, he asked it more because of fear than of repentance, for he was afraid that David would take his life as the sacred law demanded. But when he implored mercy David replied in these words: “I shall not slay you this time, since you implore my grace; but keep in mind that you will be punished for this deed, unless you atone in true repentance.” In these words David pointed out to Shimei that he ought to atone with loving friendship for the words that he had spoken in sheer hatred. Shimei, however, lived the rest of his days in such a manner that, while no one found him to cherish enmity toward David, it never appeared that he made returns in friendship for David’s mercy in permitting him to live when the law demanded his death. But when he came before Solomon after David’s death, the king said to him: “Remember, Shimei, that you cursed the Lord’s anointed; and it has not appeared that you have truly regretted it since. But this shall be a covenant between us as a reminder to repentance on your part, that you shall not enjoy such complete freedom as one who has never fallen into this sin. Now you have large and beautiful dwellings and many houses here in Jerusalem and you may live in peace within the city, enjoying all your possessions according to your desire; but if you ever go outside the city, the punishment of the law shall come upon your head, since you did not take thought to repent before I reminded you.” When the king had ceased speaking, Shimei expressed himself as thankful for this agreement and said that he should find but little inconvenience in being forbidden to leave the city, if he might remain secure in the king’s friendship within the city and enjoy all his possessions. Three years later, however, Shimei forgot this agreement and went outside the city to seek diversion,[336] as if proud of his audacity in violating the covenant. But as soon as these tidings were told to the king, he ordered Shimei to be seized and brought before him, and he said to him: “You have forgotten to be ashamed of having broken the agreement which we two made as a reminder that you owe repentance for having cursed the Lord’s anointed. There is, therefore, a double guilt upon your head now; and it will be better for you to suffer a brief punishment here, so that others may be warned by your misfortune, than that this crime should follow you into eternal death, and others become bolder in such evil, if you die unpunished.” Then the king ordered him to be killed and buried outside the city as a reminder and warning to others never to break a covenant.

Footnote 336:

According to the Scriptural story Shimei left Jerusalem to bring back
two runaway servants. _I Kings_, ii, 39-40.

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

LXVI

SOLOMON’S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ADONIJAH AND HIS FOLLOWERS

_Son._ Now I wish to ask you why Solomon caused his brother Adonijah to be put to death for requesting Abishag to be his wife.

_Father._ Adonijah had earlier, as you may have heard, led an uprising against his father. When David had become an aged man and was very decrepit because of his many years, Adonijah appointed himself to be king without his father’s knowledge, and made a festive banquet as newly consecrated king. He sent heralds running through the streets with pipes and drums to proclaim throughout the city that Adonijah was now the king. The chief men who were with him in this plot were Joab, David’s chief captain and his kinsman, and Abiathar the bishop, and many other lords. But when Zadoc the bishop, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah the captain, and Bathsheba the queen came as if in deep sorrow to tell David what great undertakings were hidden from him, he remained silent for some time but sighed heavily. At last he spoke as from a heart full of grief and said: “My sons are not minded like me, for I served King Saul many days, though he sought after my life. And yet God had chosen me to be king, for He was angry with King Saul; but I awaited the judgment of God by which he would be deprived of his kingdom; but I would not condemn him, though he was mine adversary. Now my son has done that to me which I would not do to mine enemy. But because Adonijah has taken the kingship to which God Himself appointed me, even before I had renounced it or He Who had chosen me had removed me, he shall fall in disgrace from this dignity, as that one fell who in arrogant pride raised the first rebellion against his Lord.”

Then David said to Zadoc the bishop: “Take my mule and harness him with all the accoutrements with which he was arrayed when I rode him in all my glory and set my son Solomon upon him; and taking Nathan the prophet with you and Benaiah the captain and all my most loyal chiefs and knights, ride to the tabernacle of the Lord in Zion[337] and there anoint my son Solomon king. Then take my own trumpet and let it be sounded throughout the city with a festive sound to proclaim that Solomon is king by the will of God and David’s choice. After that you shall bring my son Solomon to me that I may welcome the newly appointed king to my throne.” When David had ceased speaking, Zadoc the bishop did all those things that the king had commanded. And when Solomon returned arrayed in all the tokens of royalty, David rose to receive him, bowed before him, and blessed him in these words: “Praise be to Thee, O God, that Thou wert pleased to exalt me from my low estate to such high honors as I now enjoy, and hast helped me in many perils, and now after much trouble and long toil hast brought me the consolation that mine eyes should behold the one sprung from my loins whom Thou hast Thyself chosen to sit in the seat of honor to which Thou didst formerly appoint me, according to Thy promises, O Lord. Now I pray Thee, O Lord, give this young man David’s glory and understanding in double and threefold measure, make him a perfect ruler to govern Thy holy people according to Thy will.” Then David kissed Solomon and said to him: “The God Who rules the heavens multiply peace to you above all the kings upon earth and give you blessings and the fruits of earth and perfect happiness.”[338] When he had ended this speech and benediction, David said to Solomon: “Because I find that God has given you wisdom and understanding, I charge you to govern wisely and justly, though somewhat severely, lest the kingdom should seem to be lacking in government because of your faint-heartedness. But temper the severity of punishment, lest you be thought too stern and merciless. Remember your kinsman Joab, however, who has served me long and with much labor; but it is not fitting that the sinful deeds which he has committed should follow him to hell: for he slew two excellent captains who were in my peace, Abner and Amasa, who had served King Saul with great fidelity. And there are many others whom he slew in his overweening pride, but not in lawful chastisement. And it is better to let him suffer a brief punishment here than that he should be lost eternally because of these crimes. Keep also my promise to Shimei, though he cursed me when I fled from the violence of your brother Absalom; but keep it in such a way that he will be reminded to do penance for his misdeeds, lest the curse be forever upon his head which he incurred when he cursed me an innocent man. Let kinship temper your wrath against your brother Adonijah, if you see that he regrets his treasonable uprising against his father. Remember that the bishop Abiathar lost his father and all his kinsmen, because he gave me food, when I came to Nob a fugitive from the face of King Saul. Abiathar deserves well for this, too, that he followed me and bore the ark of God before me, when I fled from the face of your brother Absalom. But do not forget to give him a reminder to repentance for joining your brother Adonijah in treasonable designs against me, lest this offence should follow him to his death. Be manly, strong, and severe, but with moderation. Do the will of God in all things, and both temporal and eternal joys shall be added to you.”[339]

Footnote 337:

Error for Gihon.

Footnote 338:

On the subject of Adonijah’s rebellion and Solomon’s triumphant
accession see _I Kings_, i. The author has used little more than the
outline of the story as given in the Bible.

Footnote 339:

Cf. _I Kings_, ii, 1-11. In the Biblical story David’s charge to
Solomon comes after the day of Solomon’s accession, and not, as the
author has it, during the day.

Then said David to Zadoc the bishop and Nathan the prophet: “Go now and prepare a banquet and lead King Solomon into my hall and let him sit in my high-seat amid festive joys.” And they did everything as David bade them. But when Adonijah’s feast was ended, the guests heard singing and piping and all forms of merriment, as if a new joy had come into the city. When Adonijah asked what the merry-making signified, whether the rejoicing was in his honor or new tidings had come, it was told him that David had himself given Solomon his title and all the royal honors and had chosen him to be king; and that Solomon was already hallowed as king and sitting upon David’s throne in festive raiment; and that all the people rejoiced in the news as on a merry holiday. When Adonijah heard this report, great terror came upon him and all those who were with him in this conspiracy, and they fled every man to his house. But Adonijah fled to the tabernacle of the Lord and laid his hand upon the sacred altar, as if taking vows of chastity and service in God’s holy tabernacle. Thereupon he sent a man to the king, saying: “Here shall I die, unless my lord King Solomon will promise and assure me that he will not slay me, his servant, for the evil that I have done.” Then King Solomon replied: “Adonijah is my brother by kinship; therefore I will gladly spare him, if he will show true repentance for stirring up treason and rebellion against his father David; and I will bear this burden with him before God on the condition that he must always continue loyal, humble, and free from deceit. But if any treasonable ambitions be found in him, he may expect a swift revenge to come upon his head. Let him now go home to his possessions and enjoy them as long as he keeps what is now decreed.”[340]

Footnote 340:

Cf. _I Kings_, i, 41-53.

When the hour of David’s death was approaching, Solomon frequently visited his father; and when the king had departed this life, he mourned for him many days, he and all the lords in the kingdom; and he buried him with every form of royal pomp and at a vast outlay. But after David’s death, Adonijah begged Bathsheba the queen to ask King Solomon to give him Abishag to wife. The facts respecting Abishag were these: when King David grew old, chills entered into his flesh, so that clothes were not sufficient to keep him warm; Abishag was a young virgin, the fairest maid in the kingdom and of the best and noblest family; she was brought to King David’s bed to lie close to him and warm him and cherish him, in the hope that the king might draw warmth from her soft and blossoming form and from his desire for the fair virgin. David loved her highly with a perfect affection, but as a foster-mother, not as a wife. And for this reason Abishag won such great honor that she came to be regarded as the first queen and she ranked above all the other queens in the eyes of the people; and thus her dignity was sanctified by David’s embraces. But Adonijah had a purpose in seeking this marriage after David’s decease, for he hoped in this way to obtain the kingship by deceitful intrigue; inasmuch as all the people would say, if he married Abishag, that he was most worthy to sit on David’s throne who was most worthy to mount his bed and lie in the arms which David had hallowed with his very self. He also presumed, as seemed reasonable, that the brothers and all the kinsmen of Abishag would rather have him as king, if she were his, than a man who was not bound to them in this way. Queen Bathsheba undertook Adonijah’s errand and afterwards went to seek an interview with her son King Solomon. As soon as she had entered the royal hall, the king rose to meet his mother and led her to a seat at his side. Then the queen revealed her errand, speaking thus: “I have a little favor to ask of you, but I will not reveal the request before you promise to grant it.” The king replied: “You are my mother, and I cannot refuse what you wish to ask; and I surely intend that you shall have what you have come to ask for. But it surely behooves you to keep in mind that you should ask only for what I may freely grant.” Then said Bathsheba the queen to the king: “I have come to ask you to give your brother Adonijah Abishag to wife.”

Then King Solomon replied in great wrath: “What is at the bottom of this request that Abishag be given to Adonijah? If you prefer that he should have the kingship rather than I, then ask the kingdom for him; for you know that my brother Adonijah is older than I and once assumed the royal title, being chosen by the chief lords before my father had appointed me to be ruler in obedience to the will of God. Joab the most powerful of the lords and captains and Abiathar the bishop have evidently continued plotting with him even to this day. Abishag is of the noblest kinship in the city and the whole realm; furthermore, she is honored by all as the first queen because of the care that she gave my father in his old age. If she is given to Adonijah to be his wife, the people will regard him as most worthy to sit in David’s seat, since he is thought worthy to lie in the bed and in the arms in which David himself lay. Now when Adonijah had committed treason against his father, I offered to share the responsibility for his sin before God because of our kinship. But now he has repeated and trebled the treason against me, his brother, which he first committed against his father. Therefore I swear by the God Who has placed me on David’s throne that Adonijah shall suffer for his guilt, as shall every one of the others who are with him in this traitorous project.” Then King Solomon said to Benaiah the captain: “Go and slay my brother Adonijah, for I would rather have him suffer a swift penalty here, such as the rules of the holy law provide for treason against one’s lord, than to have him carry a traitor’s guilt to hell. Slay also Joab my kinsman, for twice he committed vile offences against King David, when he slew Abner and Amasa, two renowned captains, though they were in David’s peace and protection. But his third and greatest crime is this, that he was traitor to David when he gave Adonijah the royal title; surely he will be lost forever in the world to come, unless he shall do penance in this world by suffering a lawful punishment.”[341]

Footnote 341:

Cf. _I Kings_, ii, 13 ff.

In this case King Solomon gives clear proof that it is quite permissible to break vows and promises, if what has been asked or granted is contrary to what is right. He granted what his mother Bathsheba the queen had come to request before he knew what it was; but as soon as he was aware that the prayer was a perilous one, he slew the man who had originally made the request. Benaiah did as King Solomon commanded and slew Adonijah. But just as Joab the captain and Abiathar the bishop had shared in the plans to give Adonijah the royal title, they also had a share in his plan to ask for Abishag to wife; and when they heard of Adonijah’s death, they foresaw their own destruction. Benaiah seized Abiathar the bishop and led him before King Solomon; but Joab fled to God’s tabernacle and laid his hand upon the sacred horn of the altar, as if taking vows of chastity and service in God’s holy tabernacle. Benaiah came to God’s sanctuary and said: “Come forth, Joab, the king commands you to come forth out of God’s tabernacle.” But Joab replied: “I have come hither into God’s protection, and I will suffer death here, if I cannot remain in security.” Then Benaiah reported his answer to the king through his messenger; and when the messenger came before the king bringing the bishop Abiathar and related all these things, King Solomon said to him: “Give my command to Benaiah to slay Joab wherever he be found, for his deeds and the decrees of the sacred law slay him and not we.” Benaiah did as King Solomon commanded and slew Joab where he then stood.[342]

Footnote 342:

Cf. _I Kings_, ii, 28-34.

But the king spoke in this wise to the bishop Abiathar: “You know that you have deserved death according to the rules of the holy law; but whereas you lost your father and all your kinsmen in Nob in a single day, because your father had given my father David food, and whereas you also bore the ark of God before my father when he fled before the face of my brother Absalom, therefore it is right that for once you should profit from this and not suffer a sudden death. And for this once you shall purchase your life on the following terms, which you must keep as a constant reminder that you owe penance for the treason which you committed against David: go now to your own fields and abide there as a husbandman and enjoy all your possessions, on the condition, however, that you remain a tiller of the soil. But if you ever stretch forth your hand to perform any priestly service or office, the righteous penalty of the sacred law shall surely come upon your head.”[343] Abiathar went home and did as the king commanded and lived many days; but Shimei died three years later, because he failed to keep what had been commanded, as we have already told.

Footnote 343:

Cf. _I Kings_, ii, 26-27.

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

LXVII

WHY SOLOMON BROKE HIS PROMISE OF PEACE
AND SECURITY TO JOAB

_Son._ There are still a few points which, it seems to me, I have not examined sufficiently. How did it occur to Solomon to break peace with Joab, seeing that he had fled into God’s protection and into the house, the only one in all the world, that was dedicated to God? Churches have now been built in almost every part of the world, and it is considered an evil deed to slay a man who has sought sanctuary. But I have thought that the honor of God’s holy house would be the more zealously guarded the fewer such houses were. Another matter which I wish to ask about is this: how did it occur to Solomon to promise what his mother might request and then to break his promise? I should have thought that a wise man like Solomon would have ascertained what the request was likely to be before he gave his promise, and thus avoid recalling his promise, if the request were not to his liking.

_Father._ I stated in an earlier speech that he who makes a request should be discreet and ask such things only as are proper and may be freely granted; and all those favors that are wisely asked and granted in like manner ought to remain valid and undisturbed. But Solomon set a good and profitable example in this case, when he wisely withdrew the gift that his mother had indiscreetly requested, though he had already granted it. The following example which is evil and belongs to a much later date was set by Herod: once when he was feasting in Galilee he promised to give his step-daughter whatever she might ask; and on her mother’s advice she demanded the head of John the Baptist.[344] Herod knew that John was an innocent and holy man and deeply regretted that he had made this promise. But his repentance bore no fruit, inasmuch as he was not careful to withdraw the gift wisely which she had requested foolishly; nay more, he did the evil deed that she had suggested. Consequently all were destroyed, the women because of their request and Herod because of his gift. King Solomon, however, thought it better to face his mother’s wrathful temper for refusing wisely what he had promised hastily, than to suffer the injury that follows the great crime of allowing foolish and sinful petitions. On the other hand, you should understand clearly that it is never proper for a man to be fickle in promises, and the greater the man, the less fitting it is. But no man is allowed to grant anything that may give rise to crime and sin, even though he has already promised to do so.

Footnote 344:

Cf. _Matthew_ xiv, 1-12; _Mark_, vi, 16-29.

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

LXVIII

A DISCUSSION OF PROMISES: WHEN THEY MUST BE KEPT
AND WHEN THEY SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN

_Son._ Now I wish to ask you to tell me somewhat more clearly how far one should keep what he has pledged and how far he may refuse to carry out what he has promised.

_Father._ When a lord is asked to grant a favor and the meaning of the request is made clear to him, he ought to ponder carefully what it is that he is asked to do and whether it will bring him injury or honor. If he sees that he can grant it without damage to himself, he ought next to consider the person to whom he is to give what has been asked, and how much may be given in each case, lest he should have an experience like that of Herod, which has already been related. For Herod did not consider fully the merits of the one who made the request, or the occasion, or how much he ought to give. There was this difficulty, too, in Herod’s case, that he was drunk when he made the promise; he had made a great banquet for all his lords, and he failed to consider the occasion; for it was not proper for him to make gifts while drunk, since one who is drunk will rarely be moderate in making gifts. He also failed to observe moderation in this, that he gave such an unusual gift to his step-daughter, a woman who was not of his kin, for he spoke in these terms: “Whatsoever you ask I will give you, though you ask half of my kingdom.” You will observe from this that he was half-mad from drink when he spoke, for his step-daughter had honored him merely by beating the drum before him, and her music was entitled to a much smaller reward than the one promised. Nor was it fitting for him to leave the form of the request as well as of the gift to the tongues of others, as he did when he spoke as follows: “Whatsoever you ask you shall have, though you ask half of my kingdom.” But if he had spoken in this wise: “Whatever you ask with discretion and in moderation you shall receive, if I can give it,” then he would have spoken wisely and well, and it would have remained with him whether to grant or to refuse.

It now remains to point out what sort of gifts a ruler may properly give, when he is asked to do so. Any request may be granted which will bring honor and help to him who asks and will bring no damage to the lord who gives or to any one else. Thus if a lord is asked to give assistance or money, he may well give it, unless his honor should be discredited by the gift; and he may properly give both the labor and the money so long as he gives them to such as are worthy of great honors. But when one is asked to grant a request that would debase or dishonor him, he must refuse it; and even though he should make a promise thoughtlessly, it is to be wisely withdrawn. And if a man bestows a generous gift on one who shows little appreciation of it and is in no wise worthy to have a long and continued possession of an important gift, inasmuch as he does not show proper appreciation, this gift, too, should be withdrawn; for in this case the man’s own thoughtlessness and lack of discernment take the gift from him and not the fickleness of him who gave. And if one who desired a gift has obtained it through falsehood and deceitful pretence, that gift is also to be withdrawn, even though it has been granted; and in this case the man’s own fraud and deceit take the gift from him and not the fickleness of him who promised and gave it. But a prince who means to be cautious in making gifts must consider carefully what is requested, and what sort of man has made the request. And since all do not deserve equally great gifts, one must consider how great a gift each one deserves and on what occasion a gift may be given. Then it shall be said but very seldom that he who gave has withdrawn his gift or that he has been found to be fickle-minded.

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

LXIX

CONCERNING THE KINGSHIP AND THE CHURCH AND
THE KING’S RESPONSIBILITY TO GOD

_Son._ Now I wish to ask what good reasons there are which would justify King Solomon’s act in causing Joab to be slain in God’s holy tabernacle while he was clinging to God’s sacred altar. Why did he not order him to be brought away first and slain afterwards?

_Father._ The matter about which you have now inquired cannot be made clear without a lengthy explanation, which will seem more like a comment than a proper continuation of the conversation in which we are now engaged. When Solomon concluded that it was better to slay Joab where he then was than to bring him away, he was not without good grounds for his decision; for he did not wish to fall into such a sin as King Saul fell into when he brought sacrifices to God’s holy altar. Now Solomon did not wish to make this a pretext that he intended to bring gifts or sacrifices to God’s holy altar, as if he were carrying out episcopal functions; nor did he wish to take away by force or violence anything that had come so near God’s holy altar as Joab then was, inasmuch as he was clinging to the sacred altar. But Solomon pondered the whole matter in his own mind: “It is my duty to carry out the provisions of the sacred law, no matter where the man happens to be whose case is to be determined; but it is not my duty to remove a man by force or violence who has fled to the holy place; for all just decisions are in truth God’s decisions and not mine. And I know of a surety that God’s holy altar will not be defiled or desecrated by Joab’s blood, for it will be shed in righteous punishment and as a penance for him, but not in hatred as in the case of an unjust verdict.” In this decision King Solomon illustrated the division of duties that God made between Moses and Aaron; and he did not wish to disturb this arrangement, lest he should fall into disfavor with God. For God had marked out their duties in such a way that Moses was to watch over the rules of the holy law, while Aaron was to care for the sacrifices that might come to the sacred altar.[345] And you shall know of a truth that this arrangement ought by right to stand even at this day; and you may be able to see this more clearly, if I add a few words in explanation. For the reason is this, that God has established two houses upon earth, each chosen for a definite service. The one is the church; in fact we may give this name to both, if we like, for the word church means the same as judgment hall, because there the people meet and assemble. These two houses are the halls of God, and He has appointed two men to keep watch over them. In one of these halls He has placed His table, and this is called the house of bread; for there God’s people gather to receive spiritual food. But in the other hall He has placed His holy judgment seat; and there the people assemble to hear the interpretation of God’s holy verdicts. And God has appointed two keepers to guard these houses: the one is the king, the other the bishop.

Footnote 345:

See _Exodus_, xxviii.

Now the king is appointed to keep watch over the sacred house in which the holy seat is placed and to keep the holy verdicts of God. In temporal matters he is to judge between men and in such a way that the reward of eternal salvation may be given to him and to all others who after his day uphold the decisions that have been justly rendered. Into his hands God has also committed the sword of punishment with which to strike when the need arises, just as King Solomon did when he laid Joab under the sword of chastisement, with many others whom he subjected to righteous penalties, as we have already told. The king, then, must always strike, not in hatred but for righteous punishment. But if he slay any one out of hatred, it is murder, and he will have to answer for it as murder before God. You shall also know of a truth that no one is allowed to pluck away any of those things that God from the beginning has assigned to His hall and high-seat; for that would be to rob God Himself and His holy judgment seat and to disturb arrogantly the arrangement which God has made. And every one who is assigned to this seat should ponder in deep thought what plea he shall have to present when he comes before his own Judge; for every man who comes in his turn before the Highest Judge, having been steward in His hall, may confidently expect Him to employ some mode of address like the following: “Thou bearest Mine own name, for thou art both king and judge as I am; therefore I demand that thou render account for thy stewardship, inasmuch as thou art the appointed judge and leader of My people.” Wherefore each one will need to prepare after long reflection and with great care what he is to reply when he comes before the Judge. If the archangel, in whom there is no sign of weakness, gives his answer with fear and trembling, when he is called upon to render account for his services to our Lord and King, one can imagine what fear and trembling will come upon a frail and sinful man, when he is asked to render account for his stewardship in the presence of God. But he who has had this hall in his keeping will first of all be asked how he has dealt out justice among men; and if he is unable to give a satisfactory account, he may expect to hear this sentence: “Thou wicked thrall, since thou hast not observed justice in thy verdicts, thou shalt fare thither where all verdicts are evil; for thine own mouth has assigned thee to this place, inasmuch as it was not ashamed to deliver dishonest judgments.” But if he can defend the justice of his decisions with good reasons, he shall find joy in his stewardship and hear these words: “Inasmuch as thou hast always observed equity as a judge, it is fitting that thou shouldst enjoy a righteous verdict on every count.” He will then be asked further on what some of his actions were based; and after that he will have to show how discreetly and carefully he has kept all those things which God in the beginning committed to this judgment seat. But if he has not kept all those things which God in the beginning assigned to the holy seat of judgment, he will be brought face to face with those who have done their duty well, such as Melchisedek or Moses or David or others who have observed these things as faithfully as those named. Then he will hear these words spoken: “If thou hadst been as thoughtful and solicitous as these were in maintaining the honors which I joined in the beginning to My holy judgment seat, thou wouldst have received the same rewards as these enjoy. But now thou shalt be deprived of an honor here as great as the honor which thou didst take without right from My judgment seat; and to that degree shalt thou be regarded less in worth and merit than those who have kept these honors unimpaired which I entrusted to them. When thou wert given charge of My judgment seat, it was not intended that thou shouldst have power to dispose of services, honors, and holy dignities in a manner different from the one that I established in the beginning. For this office was not given thee as an everlasting inheritance, but it was committed to thee for a time only, that thou mightest obtain an eternal reward, if thou didst guard it faithfully. Thou wert given power to distribute worldly riches, gold and silver, though with discretion, but not to dispose of the honors and glories of My holy judgment seat.”

But if it is found that he has been discreet in his charge, he shall have cause to rejoice in his stewardship; he will, however, be examined in various lines. He will be asked how he has used the rod of punishment which was given into his hands; and it is very important that justice shall have been strictly observed in penalties, lest it go so ill with him as with King Saul, who failed to inflict a just penalty which God had commanded him to execute on the people who dwelt in Amalek, but slew unjustly the bishop Ahimelech and all the priests in Nob. But if it should go so ill with him who is thus called to account for penalties inflicted, that he is found to have stumbled in matters like those just mentioned and in which King Saul fell, he will soon hear these words: “Lead him yonder where King Saul and Herod and Nero and others like them abide, and let him dwell there with them, seeing that he wished to be like them in cruelty.” Still, if in some cases he has been merciful in sentence and punishment and if there is good reason why he should escape the reproaches that we have just mentioned, those facts will not be forgotten. For then he shall find happiness in all his stewardship and very soon shall hear this greeting: “Thou art welcome, thou faithful servant and good friend, for thou hast loyally kept a slight temporal dignity; now thou shalt come into joyful possession of a great honor, constant and everlasting, wholly free from sorrow and danger.” Happy is he who is permitted to hear these words; but wretched is he who shall hear those words of wrath which we quoted earlier. But no one needs to doubt that everyone who shall be called to account for his office and stewardship will be addressed in one of these two ways.

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

LXX

THE AUTHORITY OF KINGS AND BISHOPS.
END OF THE SECOND PART

_Son._ I see clearly that one who is to watch over the rules of the sacred law and deal out justice in all cases is surely assigned a very difficult task. It is also evident that King Solomon could not be called to account for having Joab slain in God’s tabernacle, inasmuch as he slew him for a just punishment, not out of enmity or in hatred, as Cain slew his brother Abel. God’s tabernacle was not defiled by Joab’s blood, seeing that it was not shed in hatred; but the earth was defiled by Abel’s blood, because it was shed in hatred. And I understand fully that the sin and the desecration are caused by the hatred and not by the punishment. But now you have spoken of two halls which God has dedicated to His service upon earth, and there are certain things that concern these about which I wish to inquire. You have stated that in one of them God has placed His judgment seat; you have discussed that and also the office of him who is in charge of it. You have also said that in the other hall is God’s table, from which all God’s people shall take spiritual food; and you added that the bishop has been appointed keeper of this hall. Now I wish to ask you why King Solomon removed Abiathar the bishop from the office that had been assigned to him, namely that of keeper of the hall to which I have just referred, and removed him so completely that he was never afterwards allowed to put forth his hand to the episcopal office, but was to live from that time on as a churl or a plowboy. But I have thought that neither of these two keepers can have authority to remove the other from the office which has been committed to him. Therefore I should like to have you point out a few considerations which will make clear how King Solomon could remove the bishop Abiathar from his office without incurring reproof from God.

_Father._ I called your attention to these facts to remind you that both these halls are God’s houses and both king and bishop the servants of God and keepers of these houses; but they do not own them in the sense that they can take anything away from them that was assigned to them in the beginning. Therefore the king must not pluck anything away from the house which the bishop has in his keeping, for neither should rob the other. And there should be no plundering of one by the other, but each ought to support the other for the same One owns both houses, namely God. I have also told you that God has given the rod of punishment into the hands of both the king and the bishop. The rod of punishment that has been committed to the king is a two-edged sword: with this sword it is his duty to smite to the death everyone who tries to take anything away from the sacred hall of which he is the guardian. But the king’s sword is two-edged for the reason that it is also his duty to guard the house which is in the bishop’s keeping, if the bishop is unable to defend it with his own rod of punishment. The bishop shall have his rod of punishment in his mouth, and he shall smite with words but not with hands like the king. And the bishop shall strike his blow in the following manner: if any one attempt to dishonor the sacred hall that is in his care, he shall refuse him the table which is placed in this holy house and the holy sustenance which is taken from this table. But when King Solomon deprived Abiathar the bishop of the episcopal office and dignity, he said that Abiathar’s own guilt deprived him and not he. Since he had decreed that David should forfeit his throne before God had ordered it, and had chosen another king to replace David, while he was still living, it was right to deprive him of the episcopal office, seeing that he wanted to rob David of the royal office. Saul’s guilt, on the other hand, when he had slain the bishop Ahimelech and all the priests in the city of Nob, was a grievous burden, because he had done this without just cause. But even if King Solomon should have killed the bishop Abiathar, he would have been without guilt; for the bishop had deprived the house of God of the lord whom God Himself had appointed keeper of the holy judgment seat. The bishop Abiathar had no right either to appoint or to remove any one, as was later made evident; for David chose the one whom he wished to be king in his stead, and the choice which Abiathar had made was of no effect. Abiathar the bishop obtained the episcopal office through the will of David who appointed him to it. Now you are to understand that there is this difference between the business of a king and the duties of a bishop: the bishop is appointed to be the king’s teacher, counsellor, and guide, while the king is appointed to be a judge and a man of severity in matters of punishment, to the great terror of all who are subject to him. Nevertheless, the bishop wields a rod of punishment as well as the king. There is this difference, however, between the king’s sword and that of the bishop, that the king’s sword always bites when one strikes with it, and bites to great injury when it is used without right, while it serves him well whom it may strike when it is rightfully used. But the bishop’s sword bites only when it is used rightfully; when it is wrongfully used, it injures him who smites with it, not him who is stricken. When the bishop strikes rightfully, however, his sword wounds even more deeply than the king’s. But this subject we shall discuss more fully at some other time, if it is thought advisable.

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADAM OF BREMEN: _Gesta Hammenburgensis Ecclesias Pontificum_, ed. J. M.
Lappenberg (Mon. Ger. Hist. Scriptures, VII), Hanover, 1846.

_Adventures of Suibhne Geilt_, translated by J. G. O’Keefe (Irish Text
Society, XII), London, 1913.

ALEXANDER NECKAM: _De Naturis Rerum Libri Duo_, ed. Thomas Wright (Rolls
Series, No. 34), London, 1863.