Twelve royal bailiffs are recited as a part of David's establishment (t Chron. xxvii. 25, 31), having the following departments under their charge The treasures of gold, silver, etc. ; 2. the magazines ; 3. the tillage (wheat, etc.?) ; 4. the vineyards ; 5. the wine-cellars ; 6. the olive and sycamore trees ; 7. the oil-cellars ; 8. the herds in Sharon ; 9. the herds in the valleys ; to. the camels ; 11. the asses ; I2. the flocks. The eminently prosperous state in which David left his kingdom to Solomon appears to prove that he was on the whole faithfully served, and that his own excellent intentions, patriotic spirit, and devout piety (measured, as it must be measured, by the standard of those ages) really made his reign bene ficial to his subjects. If it reduced them under despotism, yet it freed them from a foreign yoke, and from intestine anarchy ; if it involved them in severe wars, if it failed of uniting them permanently as a single people, in neither of these points did it make their state worse than it found them. We must not exact of David either to reign like a con stitutional monarch, to uphold civil liberty, or by any personal piety to extract from despotism its sting. Even his most reprobate offence has no small palliation in the far worse excesses of other Oriental sovereigns, and his great superiority to his successors justifies the high esteem in which his memory was held.
One of the most remarkable incidents in the later period of David's career was his causing a census to be taken of his people, and the rebuke and punishment which on that account he incurred. There is an apparent discrepancy in the terms in which the accounts of this transaction are intro duced in 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, and r Chron. xxi. r. In the former we read, The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, go, number Israel and Judah.' In the latter we find—' And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.' The difference is, however, more apparent than real ; and without availing ourselves of the re sources of verbal criticism, it suffices to observe that God is sometimes represented as doing what he permits to be done by others. So in the pre sent case, the Lord permitted Satan to tempt David. The Lord withdrew his supporting grace from the king, and the great adversary prevailed against him.
There have been various opinions as to the nature of the sin involved in this transaction. That in its mere outside aspect, or in its under stood or avowed objects, or in both, it presented as objectionable an aspect to contemporary opi nion, as it certainly did in the eyes of God, is evinced by the fact, that such a person as Joab—a man of no very apprehensive conscience—was shocked and alarmed at the proposition, and ex pressed a most decided opinion as to the sin and danger of the measure. The common impression seems to be, that the act of taking a census was in itself culpable, as indicating the sinful pride of the king in contemplating the number of his subjects ; and this notion had for a long time great weight in rendering the people in most European countries averse to enumerations of the populations when first such operations began to be contemplated by governments. The absurdity of this opinion is
shewn by a simple reference to the fact, that under Moses, two enumerations of the population were taken by the express command of the Lord him self. The truth is probably, that at this time David coveted an extension of empire, contrary to the Lord's plans for the house of Israel. Having permitted himself to cherish this evil design, he could not well look to the Lord for help, and therefore sought to know whether the thousands of Israel and Judah were equal to the conquests he meditated. His design doubtless was to force all the Israelites into military service, and engage them in the contests which his ambition had in view ; and as the people might resist this census, the soldiery were employed to make it, that they might not only put down all resistance, but sup press any disturbances which the general dislike to this proceeding might occasion.
By the results of this census, we, however, learn the interesting fact, that 'all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and a hundred thousand men that drew sword : and Tudah was four hundred thousand and ten thousand.' This is the statement in I Chron. xxi. 5 ; but the parallel text in 2 Sam. xxiv. has a considerably different account. For the sake of comparison we set these accounts side by side, together with the results of the last census taken in the time of Moses—by which we may be enabled to form an idea of the increase of popula tion since the Israelites became a settled people. As Benjamin and Levi were not numbered on this later occasion, we render the comparison more per fect by excluding and withdrawing these tribes from the earlier account : and giving also the results of the multiplication by four to arrive at the real population, as it is usually true that the men reputedly capable of bearing arms are not more than one-fourth the entire population.
The apparent discrepancy between the two esti mates admits of several explanations. It seems, however, most probable that the deficiency of 300,00o in the estimate for Israel may have been produced by the earlier of the sacred writers omit ting the standing army of 288,0oo—increased to 300,00o by the addition of a thousand men sup posed to have been with each of the princes of the tribes, that is 12,000 together—the whole of which are included by the later writer. There is still a difference of 30,00o in the account for Judah ; and this may be explained in the same manner—the writer in Samuel being presumed to exclude the army of observation posted on the Philistine fron tier, and which appears from 2 Sam. vi. r, to have been composed of 30,00o men.