The explanation here given of this difficult passage does not appear to me satisfactory, though it has been adopted by Luther and several others since his time. I believe the Hebrew words only require to be accurately translated in order to make the meaning plain. I would translate them thus :-And the Jebusite 'spake to David, saying, Thou shalt not come up hither, for the blind and the lame will drive you back; meaning (or saying) that David would not (that is, could not) go up thither. But David captured the stronghold of Zion, which is the city of David. Then David said on that day, Whosoever defeats the Jebusite, let him smite in the water-course the lame and the blind, hated of David's soul. Wherefore they say (it has become a proverb), The blind and the lame shall not enter the house.'

The whole passage may be thus explained :—It has always been customary in the East for the poor, the blind, and the lame to take up stations at the gates of towns and castles, so as to beg of the passers-by. A little colony of wretched lepers now occupies the Zion gate of Jerusalem, and beg most piteously of all who go in and out. The Jebusites, too confident in the fancied impregnable nature of their fortress, placed these poor blind and lame beggars upon their ramparts, and in bitter mockery said that they would be sufficient to drive back David's warriors. But David having captured the city itself, attacked the citadel with fresh vigour; and his fiery spirit being stung to madness by the taunts of the haughty and insulting Jebusites, he spake the words recorded above. The walls were scaled by Joab and his men, the blind and the lame were smitten, and the fortress taken. In memory of this remarkable incident, blind and lame persons were never afterwards permitted to enter the citadel of Zion. Hence the proverb.

Such appears to me to be a simple, natural, and satisfactory explanation of a difficult and much controverted passage. It would be out of place here to enter on those minute grammatical details by which the translation given above may be defended.

Thirty-sixth Week-Seventh Day.

THE ARK.·
.—2 SAMUEL VI.; I CHRONICLES XV.

DAVID having established himself at Jerusalem, was anxious that it should become the sacred city of all Israel, and as such

the centre of real union to all the tribes, who would have to repair thither periodically at the great yearly festivals. David knew that the Lord had of old promised to indicate a city which He should choose 'to put his name there;' and David might from circumstances infer, that this was the intended city, if, indeed, he had not already received some intimation to that effect. There can be no doubt that this was distinctly made known to him afterwards.

For the accomplishment of this object, it was necessary that the ark should be removed thither from Kirjath-jearim, where it had so long remained. David was careful to take measures that this removal should be accomplished with such high and solemn state as befitted the occasion, and as should mark his own sense of its importance. Thirty thousand men, chosen out of all Israel to represent the tribes, were present, together with numerous musicians, and David himself was there playing upon his harp. It seems surprising that, instead of the proper and ancient mode of removing the ark, by its being borne on the shoulders of the Levites,1 the same mode was adopted as that followed in a former day by the Philistines, who had not the same means of correct information. It was placed on a new cart, which was drawn by oxen. They had not proceeded far, not farther than to Nachon's threshing-floor, when the ark received a jolt that endangered its fall; on which Uzzah, in whose charge it had been, and still was during its removal, hastily put forth his hand to steady it, and immediately fell dead on the spot. This seems a hard judgment upon him for a well-meant and natural movement. David himself appears

to have felt it to be such at the moment, and till he had leisure to reflect upon it. He was, indeed, so greatly distressed and alarmed, that he for the time abandoned his intention, and caused the ark to be deposited in the nearest house, which happened to be that of Obed-edom the Gittite-that is, of

1 The Levites were not allowed to touch the ark; but after the priests had covered it up, the Levites might carry it by the staves. The priests could also, of course, carry it, and did so at times, but it was not their regular duty.

Gath; and the lately exulting thousands dispersed themselves, sad and downcast, to their homes.

We have already explained our impression1 as to the necessity there was that, for his own honour, for the welfare of his people, and for the integrity of the institutions He had committed to them, the Lord should rigidly exact a proper and ordained reverence for the sacred symbols. If at all necessary, there was never an occasion in which it could be more so than on this great public solemnity; and at a time, moreover, when the due ordinances of divine worship were about to be reestablished and enforced with greater state and honour than had been known since the twelve tribes, and their innumerable hosts, encamped around the tabernacle in the wilderness. Now Uzzah, being a Levite, ought to have known that it was altogether irregular, and against the ritual law, to remove the ark in this manner, which the entire absence of carriage roads rendered peculiarly unbecoming. It is very likely that the responsibility of this matter had been left by the king to him n; as, having been so long in charge of the ark, he might naturally be supposed to have made himself particularly acquainted with the observances connected with it. The priests and Levites had been long separated from the ark, and not having had charge of it for two generations, might be supposed to have less carefully acquainted themselves with what belonged to the occasion. It is also probable that they were not consulted, and did not know of the arrangements made by Uzzah, until they came with David to take part in the procession. There might then be a natural hesitation in objecting, even on the part of the few who knew or suspected the irregularity of the proceeding. We may, therefore, regard this irregularity as part of the error for which this man was punished—a very essential part of it too; for, had not this informality been allowed, the accident which followed could not have taken place.

There is reason to suspect that Uzzah had allowed his mind to regard the ark with undue familiarity during the years it had 1 See Twenty-ninth Week-Fourth Day.

been in his charge in a private house, and was not suitably impressed with the reverence exacted by a symbol, with which the divine presence was so closely connected. From the example of one who had been so long in charge of it, this familiarity would gather strength, if it were not at once and decisively checked, and if becoming reverence to the ark of the Lord were not enforced. Such familiarity he indicated by laying his hand upon the ark to steady it when the oxen stumbled. By the ritual ordinances, it was forbidden to the simple Levite to touch the ark under pain of death; and Uzzah was only a Levite. He either knew this, or he did not know it. If he did not know it, he was punishable for his ignorance of a restriction so important, and which belonged so directly to his official duties: if he did know it, he was punishable for his irreverent disobedience to so stringent an injunction.

But it may be urged, that the ark might have fallen if he had not steadied it. We think not so. He thought so; and it was another of his errors, to suppose that God was not able to protect and ensure from falling his own ark, before which Dagon had fallen. But supposing that it had been overturned, would not Uzzah have been as liable to punishment for suffering that, as for taking forbidden means to prevent it? Surely not. He might have been punishable for adopting a mode of conveyance which exposed the ark to such an accident, but not for omitting what he was forbidden to do, in order to prevent that accident.

This is not all that might be said to show that there was a painful necessity that this judgment should be inflicted. When the act, light as it seems, is considered in all its consequences, and when we reflect what an encouragement the impunity of this offence might have been to the introduction of other innovations, it is not to be wondered at that the Lord should manifest his displeasure at this offence, by inflicting the punishment He had denounced against it, thus discouraging any future attempts to make alterations in the theocratical institutions which He had established.

In time David came, to view this matter in its proper light,

and having, three months after, heard that the household of Obed-edom had been greatly blessed since the ark had been deposited with him, he was encouraged to resume his design. On this occasion everything was conducted in a proper manner -'None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites,' said David; 'for them hath the Lord chosen to carry the ark of God, and to minister unto Him for ever.' And so again, in directing the chief Levites to prepare themselves for this service, he said: 'Because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought Him not after the due order.' The marred solemnity of the former ceremonial was magnificently exceeded by this. The concourse was greater, the musicians in greater and better organized force, and the king himself, divested of his royal raiment, and wearing a linen ephod, such as the Levites wore, headed with his harp the sacred choir, accompanied by those movements of the body which are called 'dancing' in the East.

The ark was placed in a tent which David had prepared to receive it, and burnt-offerings and peace-offerings were then largely offered, for the first time in Jerusalem. When these religious solemnities were performed, the king 'blessed the people in the name of the Lord;' and then he himself superintended the distribution to the assembled thousands of the bountiful fare he had provided for them. Every one, man and woman, received 'a loaf of bread, a good piece of flesh, and a flagon of wine.' He then went home to bless his own house also.' But there a discordant element had found entrance. Saul's daughter Michal had witnessed the proceedings from a window; and when she saw that David had laid aside his royal state altogether, that he might take an active part in the proceedings, 'she despised him in her heart.'

In the East, women have not much the gift of concealing their sentiments; and Michal hid not hers. David kindled at her sarcasms; he detected the affected superiority of the 'king's daughter,' and the artificial exaltations of royalty in the words she uttered; and with grave and solemn warmth he said, 'It was before the Lord, who chose me before thy