are punished with death, though the Moslem law directs only mutilation; and this law was formerly so much observed in Moslem countries, that, as the readers of the Thousand and One Nights will recollect, the loss of the hand was a permanent stain upon a man's character, as evincing that he had been punished for robbery or theft.

Thirty-sixth Week-Sixth Day.

THE BLIND AND THE LAME.-2 SAMUEL V. I-IO.

I

DAVID had reigned seven years and a half in Hebron, as king of Judah only, when a large concourse from all the tribes repaired thither to offer him the crown. There is a list of the numbers in 1 Chron. xii., in which the remarkable fact appears, that the remote northern tribes, and the tribes beyond the Jordan, among whom Ishbosheth had reigned, sent the largest numbers to this great assembly. The two and half tribes beyond the river sent above a third of the whole number; and the two tribes of Zebulun and Asher nearly a fourth of the whole. This was natural, as the distant tribes could only be represented by the numbers they sent; whereas the nearer tribes might be regarded as present in their stationary population. This accounts for the fact, that the number assigned to the tribe of Judah, in which the cause of David was really strongest, is but small compared with many of the other tribes. It is interesting to notice the grounds on which the elders offered him the crown.

He possessed the general but requisite qualification of being one of themselves: 'Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh.'

He had been in former times their leader, and had proved himself worthy to be their king: 'In time past, when Saul was king, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel.'

But above all, the Lord had nominated him to the kingdom: "The Lord said to thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be captain over Israel.' They knew this seven

years before, as well as they knew it at this time, and their acknowledgment was somewhat tardy. It is, however, satisfactory to find them so distinctly placing his nomination on this footing; and the acknowledgment of the constitutional validity of his claim to the throne is important.

David then made a league with them in Hebron before the Lord.' They had no intention of placing their rights at the disposal of the king. Certain conditions were agreed to on both sides, defining his rights and theirs; and where such conditions exist, the monarchy is constitutional, not absolute. The conditions were, doubtless, such as had been established by Samuel, forming something like a coronation oath-which all future kings seem to have taken at their accession, although the limitations it involved do not appear to have been very exactly observed by all of them-the tendency of all power in the East, however formally limited, being towards absolutism. David was then anointed king over all Israel—this being the third anointing he had received.

The king soon found that Hebron, although a very suitable capital for a realm confined to the tribe of Judah, was too far south to be a proper metropolis for a kingdom which embraced all the tribes. Yet he was reluctant to remove to a distance from his own tribe, on which he could most entirely rely. He therefore fixed upon Jerusalem (then called Jebus), which lay close upon the northern border of the tribe, but within the territories of Benjamin. Even this was scarcely central enough for the capital of all the tribes; but it was naturally a strong situation, and the best that could be selected with regard to the limitation in view, being far more accessible than Hebron to the northern and eastern tribes. We see something similar in Persia, where the political metropolis is of recent establishment, in a remote and unpleasant situation northward, while much finer sites, far larger towns, and old metropolitan cities, have been avoided-and this solely that the sovereign may be near his own tribe, and able to throw himself among his own people in time of peril. Considering, however, that this place was to become ere long the capital of a southern kingdom, it was no

VOL. III.

Y

doubt the providence of God which directed the choice of a site suited to this ulterior destination.

But first, Jerusalem was to be won. It was still in the hands of the Jebusites—at least the upper and fortified part, comprising Mount Zion. In the lower part, or the town as distinguished from the citadel, the Jebusites and Israelites (chiefly of Benjamin) seem to have lived intermingled. The fortress was so strong, and had been so long retained in their possession, that the Jebusites regarded it as impregnable, and derided all attempts to take it. This view of the case is conveyed in two verses, which have engaged much curious speculation. "The inhabitants of the land spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither . . . And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, which are hated of David's soul, the same shall be chief and captain; wherefore they said, The lame and the blind shall not come into the house.' The question is, What is meant by 'the blind and the lame?' A very common interpretation is, that these were actually blind and lame persons to whom, in derision, the Jebusites gave the defence of the walls, as quite sufficient to protect them from the impotent assaults of David. This seems to us to leave much unexplained. Supposing the case so, why should David express such hatred and abhorrence of the poor creatures who were forced into this service? How does the act of taking away apply to such persons, or any persons ? To kill them would have had a more obvious meaning. And again, citadels are not usually encumbered with useless hands; how, then, came there to be such blind and lame persons in the stronghold of the Jebusites? Upon the whole, in the presence of these objections to the other interpretation, we incline to accept that of the best Jewish commentators, who hold that idols were intended-idols of brass, they say. This explains all-David's abhorrence, the taking of them away, and their presence in the fortress. But why called 'the blind and the lame?' It is a fact that the sacred writers do, in derision, apply these terms to idols,

because they had eyes, but saw not; and feet, but walked not.'

The meaning then will be, that the Jebusites relied so strongly upon the protection of their consecrated images, that they defied David to take the town until these should be removed —that is, never. They probably brought them forth, and placed them on the walls, for greater confidence, declaring they should not again be brought into the house' of idols, so long as the enemy remained before the walls.

But it may be asked, What were the images in which so much faith was reposed by the Jebusites? It may be possible to answer this question.

The founders of ancient cities and fortresses were wont to cause the astrologers to find out a fortunate position of the heavens under which the first stone might be laid. "The part

of Fortune,' fixed by this first figure, was made the 'ascendant' of another. The first had respect to the continuance or duration of the place, and the second regarded its outward fortune and glory. Under the influence of the latter configuration, an image of brass was erected, into which this fortune and genius of the city was to be drawn and fixed by the powers of alleged occult arts. When imbued with this secret power, the image was set up in some eminent or retired place in the city, and was looked upon by the inhabitants as embodying the special power and protecting influence, on which the destiny and welfare of the place and its inhabitants depended.

Such ceremonies (observed for such objects) are known to have taken place at the foundation of Alexandria by Alexander the Great, at the foundation of Antioch by Antiochus, of Apamea by Seleucus, as well as at the foundation of Rome, and of Byzantium, afterwards Constantinople.

It would seem that these solemnities were not completed without bloody rites. In the instance of Antioch, and this was probably the case elsewhere, a virgin was offered in sacrifice. A statue of this virgin was then set up, upon which the new and secret name of the city was imposed, and then sacrifice was offered to this image.

The substance of this practice was retained in the East by both Moslems and Christians. The foundation of the city was still laid under astrological calculations-its horoscope, however, was not embodied in an idol, but in a talisman; and the human sacrifices were discontinued. When old Byzantium was revived under the name of Constantinople, the statue of the Emperor was set up, holding in his right hand the fortune of the city.' A sacrifice was also offered, but not one of blood, nor to the fortune of the city, but to God himself.'

These facts will remind the reader of the Palladium of Troy. It is also related by Olympiodorus, that while Valerius was governor of Thrace, under the Emperor Constantius, certain silver images were buried under the border line, between Thracia and Illyria, talismanically consecrated against the incursions of the barbarians.

Some curious examples of analogous practices of comparatively modern date, occur in quarters where we should least expect to find them. Thus, at the instauration of Rome, in the time of Pope Paul the Third, Gauricus drew the figure of the heavens, while Vincentius Campanatius observed the time by his astrolabe, and at the proper moment cried out, 'Ecce, adest hora, præcisa decima sexta fere completa '— whereupon the Cardinal Ennius Verulannus immediately laid the first stone.

The exploit proposed by David was accomplished by Joab, who seems to have found his way into the fortress through an aqueduct. Thus, the stronghold which had been so long coveted by the Israelites fell into the hands of Joab, and the latter became chief commander of the armies of all Israel, as he had previously been of Judah alone. The conquest was fortunate for him, as, but for it, it is by no means certain that in his present frame of mind David would have given this large command to Joab; on the contrary, it is very likely that he hoped to supersede the claim of that brave and devoted, but rude and unscrupulous, man.