the young men in pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children." In time of peace, or when not engaged with the enemy, the oriental warriors carried their bow in a case, sometimes of cloth, but more commonly of leather, hung to their girdles. When it was taken from the case, it was said, in the language of Habakkuk, to be “made quite naked."-PAXTON. Ver. 41. Thou hast also given me the necks of mine enemies, that I might destroy them that hate me. The neck is often used for the whole body, and in threatenings, it is the part mentioned. A proprietor of slaves is said to have their necks. To a person going among wicked or cruel people it is said, "Go not there, your puddara, i. e. neck, or nape, will be given to them." Depend upon it, government will have it out of the necks of those smugglers." "Have you paid Chinnan the money?" "No, nor will I pay him." "Why?" "Because he has had it out of my neck." When two men have been ing, the conqueror may be seen to seize the vanquished by the neck, and thrust him to the ground.-ROBERTS. CHAPTER XXIII. ned, and, in cold blood, perpetrated, two murders, merely to rid himself of rivals. And when David gave him the hint to place Uriah in the post of danger, he was by no means squeamish, but immediately planned and commenced an attack, in which, besides Uriah, a great number of his bravest soldiers were slain. His conscience, therefore, could not be incommoded by a mandate relative to a matter in itself lawful, and where the sin, in whatever it consisted, lay altogether hid in the king's ambitious heart. If we think so, we must look upon him in the light of a court-chaplain, and a semi-pietist; and he certainly was neither. What he hesitated, therefore, about doing, must have appeared in his own eyes, something more serious than bare murder. Josephus, however, has hit upon an idea, which may, by some, be thought to account somewhat more probably, than the opinion now mentioned, for the guilt which David is said to have incurred on this occasion. "David," says he, "made the people be numbered, without exacting for the sanctuary, the half-shekel of polltax enjoined by the Mosaic law." But this idea loses all its fight-weight, if I am right in my opinion, that Moses enjoined the exaction of the half-shekel, not upon every occasion of a census, but merely on the first; and even allowing me to be wrong in this, and the common exposition of the statute, in the time of Josephus, to be the more correct one, still neither in Samuel nor Chronicles do we find the least menthe notion of Josephus is certainly inadmissible here. For tion of the half-shekel; nor does David forbid the payment of it, but only orders the people to be numbered; so that every conscientious person had it in his power to pay it of himself, and the high-priest to demand it in virtue of his office. At any rate, David's census appears, in this respect, altogether as blameless as Moses' second one, in the account of which (Numb. xxvi.) not a word is said concerning the poll-tax. Nor do Joab and the other generals here represent to the king, that he ought to order the payment of the half-shekel, but only intreat him to desist from the census itself. And finally, David, who had amassed so many millions of shekels, (1 Chron. xxix.) and, to the manifest prejudice of his own family, destined so much for building a temple, must actually have been in the delirium of a hot fever, if, contrary to all his other views, he had not had a desire to grant for the future erection of that edifice, projected by himself, the half-shekel payable on the census, which was a mere trifle compared to his own donations, and came not out of his own purse. Ver. 16. And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Beth-lehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the LORD. There is an account very similiar to this in Arrian's Life of Alexander. Tunc poculo pleno, sicut oblatum est reddito non solus, inquit bibere sustineo, nec tam exiguum devidere omnibus possum. "When his army was greatly oppressed with heat and thirst, a soldier brought him a cup of water; he ordered it to be carried back, saying, I cannot bear to drink alone, while so many are in want: and this cup is too small to be divided among the whole. Give it to the children for whom you brought it." --Burder. CHAPTER XXIV. Ver. 1. And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. Here arises the question, If Moses presupposed the lawfulness of this measure, and did actually twice number the people, wherein consisted David's sin when he did the same? Yet the Bible says that he actually did sin in this matter, and was punished for it by God, with a pestilence, which lessened the sum of the people numbered, by 70,000. The history of this event is given in 2 Sam. xxiv. and 1 Chron. xxi.; and these passages I must beg the reader to peruse, if he wishes to understand what follows. The common opinion is, that David offended God by his pride, and his desire to gratify it, by knowing over how many subjects he was king. This is, perhaps, the worst explanation that can be given of the unlawfulness of his order. Were God to punish by pestilence every ambitious motion in the hearts of kings, and every sin they commit in thought, pestilences would never cease. It must, besides, appear very strange indeed, how such a man as Joab should have expressed so great an abhorrence at a sin that consisted merely in pride of heart, and have so earnestly dissuaded David from it. Yet he thus remonstrates with him, saying, "May God multiply the people a hundred-fold, that the king may see it; but wherefore will the king urge this measure?" Or, as we read in Chronicles, "May God multiply the people a hundred-fold! They are entirely devoted to the king's service. But why seeketh the king to do this? and why should guilt be brought upon Israel?" Notwithstanding this remonstrance, however, the king, we are told by both historians, repeated his command with so much rigour, that Joab found it necessary to carry it into execution. Now Joab was not, on other occasions, a man of narrow conscience. He had already deliberately plan But as far as I can understand the story, David caused the people to be numbered, neither out of that prudent solicitude which will always actuate a good king, nor yet out of mere curiosity, but that by means of such a census they might be enrolled for permanent military service, and to form a standing army; the many successful wars he had already carried on, having filled his mind with the spirit of conquest. We find at least, that the enumeration was ordered to be carried on, not as had before been usual, by the priests, but by Joab and the other generals; and the very term here used, Safar, (D) numeravit, scripsit, includes also in itself the idea of numbering for military service, and is, without any addition, equivalent to our German military term, enrolliren, to enrol, or muster. This, indeed, is so much the case, that Hassofer, (1007) the scribe, is that general who keeps the muster-rolls, and marks those called on to serve. In like manner, the officers are termed (0) scribes. David's sin, therefore, or rather (not to speak so theologically, but more in the language of politics) his injustice and tyranny towards a people who had subjected themselves to him on very dif ferent terms, and with the reservation of many liberties consisted in this. Hitherto, the ancient and natural rule of nations, Quot cives, tot milites, had certainly been so far valid, as that, in cases of necessity, every citizen was obliged to bear arms in defence of the state. Such emergences, however, occurred but very rarely; and at other times every Israelite was not obliged to become a soldier, and in peace, for instance, or even during a war not very urgent, subject himself to military discipline. David had made a regulation, that, exclusive of his lifeguards, called in the Bible, Creti and Pleti, 24,000 men should be on duty every month by turns; so that there were always 288,000 trained to arms within the year; which was certainly sufficient for the defence of the country, and for commanding respect from the neighbouring nations, especially consid ering the state of the times, and the advantages in point of situation, which David's dominions enjoyed. It would appear, however, that he did not think this enough. Agitated, in all probability, by the desire of conquest, he aspired at the establishment of a military government, such as was that of Rome in after-times, and at subjecting, with that view, the whole people to martial regulations; that so every man might be duly enrolled to serve under such and such generals and officers, and be obliged to perform military duty at stated periods, in order to acquire the use of arms. Whether such a measure, if not absolutely necessary to the preservation of the state, be a hardship on the people, every man may judge from his own feelings, or even from the most recent history of certain nations. For even in a country where the government is purely monarchical, and the people extremely martial, and the frontiers of which, from the uncompactness of its territories, are not, like those of the Israelitish empire, surrounded and secured by mountains or deserts, the enrolment of every individual for military service, introduced 40 years ago, has been of late spontaneously abolished by a very warlike sovereign, because he found that it was too oppressive, and furnished a pretext for a multitude of extortions. Now if this was David's object, it is easy to conceive, that Joab, although in private life a very bad character, and twice guilty of murder, might yet have as much patriotism, or rather political sagacity, as to deprecate, in the most energetic terms, the execution of a royal mandate, the effect of which would have been to bring a free people under the worst military despotism. Very bad consequences were to be apprehended, if the subjects should not prove sufficiently patient to submit to such an innovation. The army, however, devoted as it was to David, and approved as was its valour in many campaigns, may, perhaps, have effected their patient submission; and, in fact, the expression, (2 Sam. xxiv. 5,) And they, viz. Joab, and the other generals to whom the task was committed, encamped rear Aroer, appears to insinuate, that this enumeration, or rather this enrolment of the people, required the support of a military force. What David intended, Uzziah, his successor, in the eighth generation, may perhaps have accomplished. The martial measures of that prince (2 Chron. xxvi. 11-14) are not commended; the prophet Isaiah (chap. ii. 5—8) seems rather to describe them in the language of censure. It is to be observed, however, that the enrolment of the whole people by David, and by Uzziah, is by no means one and the same thing. The former ruled over a powerful nation, wherein there were nearly a million and a half of people able to bear arms, and which had a compact and secure frontier, from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean so that, for the safety of the state, no such oppressive measure was requisite. But Uzziah had under him only two tribes, consisting probably of about 300,000 men, and his territories were not rounded, nor the frontiers distinct and strong. Here, therefore, that measure might be necessary for self-defence, or, at any rate, admit of a sufficient apology, which, in David's time, was quite needless, and if strictly enforced, must have proved absolutely tyrannical. -MICHAELIS. : From several passages in the Old Testament, compared with each other, it appears that this census, or numbering of the people, was a sacred action; as the money was to be applied to the service of the temple. It was not like that in other nations, to know the strength of the government; for God was their king in a peculiar manner, and promised to protect them from all their enemies, and to multiply them as the stars of the sky, while they obeyed his laws.-David's crime, therefore, seems to have lain in converting a sacred action to a civil purpose. He was culpable both in the thing itself, and in the manner of doing it. For whereas by the rule given to Moses, in the passages referred to above, they were to number the males from twenty years old and upward; David gave orders, that all should be numbered, who were fit for war, though under that age. This must have been highly criminal in David, now in his old age, after so many instances of the Divine favour expressed towards him. And as to the people, their offence seems to have consisted in their compliance with that order. He was culpable in giving the order, and they in obeying it. And therefore Joab, who was sensible of this, and unwilling to execute the command, asks David, "Why he would be the cause of trespass in Israel?" For by that means, he reduced them to the difficulty of disobeying God, or himself, as their prince. It was doubtless their duty to have obeyed God; but we find, as it generally happens in such cases, that the majority, at least, chose to obey the king. However, it appears that Joab was weary of the office, and did not go through it. Probably he might find many of the people uneasy, and averse to submit to the order. Besides, it was expressly enjoined, that when the people were to be numbered from twenty years old and upward, the Levites should be excepted, as being appointed for the service of the tabernacle. And as they were not called out to war, so they had no share in the land of Canaan allotted to them, when it was conquered by the other tribes; who were therefore ordered to give them a number of cities, each tribe out of their portion, which was accordingly done. And Josephus assigns that reason for it, when he says:"Moses, because the tribe of Levi were exempted from war and expeditions, being devoted to the service of God, lest being needy and destitute of the necessaries of life, they should neglect the care of their sacred function; ordered the Hebrews, that when by the will of God they possessed the land of Canaan, they should give to the Levites fortyeight large and handsome cities, with two thousand cubits of land round the walls." But David seems to have ordered them likewise to be mustered, with a military view; which, perhaps, was an aggravation. For, it is said, that when Joab, by his command, numbered the people, "they were eleven hundred thousand men that drew sword." And it is added: "But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them, for the king's word was abominable to Joab." So that it looks as if his orders were to count them with the rest. Indeed, we find them once armed upon an extraordinary occasion, which was to guard the temple at the cornation of Joash, king of Judah. For, at that time, they were ordered "to encompass the king round about, every man with his weapons in his hand." But that was in the temple, where the rest of the people were not permitted to And besides their religious function, they were sometimes employed in other civil offices. So David, when he was making preparations for building the temple, appointed six thousand of them for officers and judges. Grotius, indeed, observes, with regard to this fact of David, that he declared the people innocent: which he seems to have concluded from what David says, 1 Chron. xxi. 17. But it does not appear, from what has been said above, that they were altogether blameless, though not equally criminal with himself. And in such a case, the equity of a national punishment is acknowledged both by Philo and Josephus, in the passages cited from them by Grotius.— enter. CRITICA BIBLICA. These wars being thus happily ended, David enjoyed for some time a settled peace and prosperity, without any foreign invasions to call him into the field, or domestic troubles to interrupt him in the affairs of government; but being at length persuaded and prevailed on to number the people, he became the cause of trespass to Israel, and brought on them the severe punishment of a pestilence. The author of the books of Samuel, in relating this affair, says: "That the anger of the Lord was kindled agains Israel," and he moved David against them to say, "Go number Israel and Judah." The author of the Chronicles differently expresses it. "And Satan stood up against Is rael, and provoked David to number Israel;" and this is objected against as an absurd thing, that David should be said to be moved both by God and Satan to number the people. But I apprehend this difficulty may be easily removed, by observing, that these two places are capable of a more favourable turn, so as to render them perfectly reconcileable with each other, according to the genius of the language, and the common forms of expression in it. The text in Samuel may be thus rendered: "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel; for he moved David," or "David was moved against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah;" active verbs in the third person, being frequently to be rendered as impersonals, and not i be referred to the nouns immediately foregoing; and thus the text will be fully reconcileable with that in Chronicles, which says, that "Satan moved him to number the people." Or, it may reasonably be supposed, as the original words we render, "He moved David against them," are the same in Samuel and the Chronicles, that the word Satan hath . been omitted by some careless transcriber in the text in Samuel, which is expressly mentioned in, and to be supplied from that of Chronicles; and then the version will be, that "The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, for Satan moved David to number the people:" and very probably, had we more ancient MSS., this omission in Samuel, if such, would be rectified by them. A candid critic will make some allowances, both for defects and redundancies in books of that great antiquity, which the Old Testament books confessedly are; and where several of those books treat of the same affairs, will have the good sense, as far as he can, to supply what is defective in one, by what appears complete in the other. If there needs a supplement in Kings it is actually found in Chronicles, and therefore should be inserted from thence. This would certainly be, in like instances, the case in other books, and it is injustice not to apply the same fair rules of criticism, to remove the difficulties that may occur in the writings of the Old Testament. But there is another way of rendering and understanding this passage, viz. "For he moved David," or, "David was moved against them," not, as in our version, To say, but, dicendo, by saying, "Go number Israel and Judah;" which last words will then be, not David's to his officers, which follow in the next verse, but his, who counselled David to this action. And thus David's numbering the people will be, neither by the instigation of God, or Satan, as that word means the Devil. It is certain, that God never instigated and said to David, "Go, number the people." For if God had commanded this, David's heart would never have smote him for it, nor would he have acknowledged to God, "I have sinned greatly in that I have done."* Nor would Joab have remonstrated against it, nor have represented it to the king, as what would be a cause of trespass to Israel, if he had known that David had received such an order from God. Every circumstance in this account proves, that there was no hand or direction of God in this affair. And if the Devil had bid him do it, I suppose he might have seen the cloven foot, and would scarce have followed the measure for the sake of the adviser. And yet somebody actually said to him: "Go, number the people;" and this person seems to have been one of his courtiers, or attendants; who, to give David a higher notion of his grandeur, and of the number and strength of his forces, put it into his head, and persuaded him to take the account of them; who, in Chronicles, is therefore called Satan, or an adversary, either designedly or consequentially, both to David and his people. And this will exactly agree with what the author of the book of Chronicles says: แ An adversary stood up against Israel, and provoked," or, as the word is rendered in Samuel, "moved him against them." Thus Mr. Le Clerc understands this passage, and I think the expressions made use of seem to countenance and warrant the explication. But it is said, that David's numbering the people is oddly enough imputed to him as a great sin in him to require; for he was but a passive instrument in the affair. But who doth not know, that a man may be hanged for a crime, to which his indictment says, "He was moved by the Devil;" and because the Devil moved him, is he therefore a passive instrument, and free from guilt? Or doth the being persuaded or moved by another to do a bad action, render the person so moved a passive instrument, or would it excuse him, in a court of justice, from the punishment due to his crimes? It is further objected, that David was but the instrument of a purpose, confessedly overruled to the execution of that purpose by supernatural influence, and that to punish one in such circumstances, would be just as if we should convict a knife or pistol, and discharge the criminal. If David was the mere instrument of a purpose, and overruled by supernatural influence to execute it, the similitude may be allowed. But who ever confessed that David was overruled to do it by supernatural power? David himself did not, but confesses directly the contrary. David's heart smote him, and he said unto God, "Is it not I that commanded the people to be numbered? Am not I the person who alone is accountable for it? Even I it is that have inned greatly, and done evil indeed, and very foolishly." David knew it was his own act, and that, whoever advised or instigated him to it, the blame was his own, and his punishment deserved. A confession that would have been absurd and faise, if he knew that the influence he acted under, was really supernatura, or such as he could not resist, or overrule. But as David did not know this, it is impossible any one else should know it. There is nothing in the history to support the assertion. If it was really Satan that moved him, he moved him no otherwise than as he doth all other men to that which is wrong; not by influences which he could not resist, but by those undue passions and affections which he might and ought to have resisted. But if the measure was suggested by one of his own counsellors, as really seems to be the case, it was his duty to have overruled it, and hearkened to the better advice of Joab, who told him of the danger of it, and would fain have dissuaded him from executing it. The truth is, as I apprehend, that David's prosperity had too much elated him, and that being advised by some rash imprudent courtiers to take the number of his people, that he might better know his strength, and be fully acquainted with the power and grandeur of his kingdom, his vanity, in this respect, got the better of his duty; on which, God was pleased to check the rising presumption of his heart, by letting him see how vain his dependance on his forces was, and to punish him and them for their violation of a law, which he had ordered to be observed under the severest penalty. For, among other commands that were given by God to Moses, this was one: "When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel, after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his life, unto the Lord, when thou numberest them, that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them. This shall they give; every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel shall be the offering of the Lord; every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old, and above, shall give this offering to the Lord." David, either not thinking of this command, or thinking himself, as king of Israel, exempt from it, ordered the people to be numbered, without exacting the ransom from each of them. This was one of the highest stretches of authority, and claiming a despotic arbitrary power over the people, as seems plain from Joab's words to him: "Are they not all my lord's servants?" Why then this badge of slavery, to subject them to a census contrary to the law of Moses? It was indeed assuming a prerogative that God reserved to himself, and a violation of one of the standing laws of the kingdom, for the capitation tax that God had appointed to be taken, whenever they were numbered, was ordered to be paid for the service of the tabernacle, as a memorial, that God was their supreme governor and king. But God, to support the dignity of his own constitution, and to put David in mind, that though king, he was still to limit the exercise of his power by the precepts of the law, gives him by the prophet the option of three punishments, of which David chose the plague; recollecting probably, at last, that this was the very punishment threatened by God to the violation of this statute, concerning the numbering the people; as well as for the reason he himself alleges: "Let us fall now into the hands of the Lord, for his mercies are great." It is evident from the history, that this action of David was looked upon as a very wrong step, even by Joab, who remonstrated against it, as apprehensive of the bad consequences that might attend it; for he says, "The Lord make his people a hundred times so many more as they be. But, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? Why then doth my lord require this thing? Why will be be a cause of trespass to Israel?" And therefore Joab counted not Levi and Benjamin, because the king's word was a bominable to him. Probably we do not understand all the circumstances of this affair; but Joab's censure of it, who was no scrupulous man, shows that David's conduct in i was extremely imprudent, and might subject his people to very great inconveniences. But is it not strange, that because David sinned in numbering the people, therefore the people should be punished; since of the three punishments propounded to David for his choice, one of them must necessarily fall upon his subjects? Possibly this dif ficulty may be eased, when I put my reader in mind, that kings are no otherwise to be punished in their regal capacities, nor oftentimes to be brought to correct the errors of their administration, but by public calamities; by famine, pestilence, foreign wars, domestic convulsions, or son.e other like distresses that affect their people. This David | thought a punishment; and if it be right at all for Goa to animadvert on the conduct of princes, or to show his displeasure against them for the public errors of their administration, it must be right and fit for him to afflict their people; and indeed this is what continually happens in the common course of providence, and the observation that, Quicquid delirant reges plectuntur Achivi, is an old and a true one. And if this be a difficulty, it affects natural religion as well as revealed, and the same considerations that will obviate the difficulty in one case, will solve it also in the other. As to the thing itself, that kings are no otherwise to be punished in their regal capacities, but by public calamities which affect their people, it is, I apprehend, so self-evident and certain, as that it can need no proof. Whether princes profit more or less, or nothing, by the misfortunes of their subjects, is nothing to this argument. Some bad kings may not profit by it. All good kings will. The people's welfare, however, is necessary to the prince's prosperity, and secures the principal blessings of his reign, which can never be enjoyed without it. On the other hand, kings must be affected with, and deeply share in the misfortunes of their people; because a plague or a famine, or a hostile invasion, or any national calamity, tends to destroy the peace of government, or to subvert the foundations of it, lessens the revenues of princes, the number of their subjects, the profits of labour and industry, and interrupts the enjoyment of those advantages and pleasures, which regal power and plenty can otherwise secure to the possessors of them. David was most sensibly affected with his people's sufferings under that pestilence which his imprudence and their neglect had brought upon them. How tenderly, how affectionately doth he plead with God in their behalf! "Even I it is that have sinned. But as for these sheep, what have they done!" What a noble instance of public spirit, and generous concern for the safety of his people, doth that moving and pathetic expostulation manifest, which he made when he saw the angel of the Lord standing between heaven and earth, with a drawn sword in his hand, stretched out over Jerusalem, and fell down with his elders, all clothed in sackcloth, upon their faces, and thus affectionately interceded for them: "Let thy hand, I pray thee, O Lord my God, be or me and on my father's house, but not on thy people, that they should be plagued." Here is the real language and spirit of a genuine on day, a true shepherd of the people, devoting himself and family as a sacrifice to God for the salvation of his subjects. of David's sin. God, by virtue of his supreme authority over mankind, may resume life whenever he pleases. If there be no sin, the resumption of life will be no punishment; if there be, the resumption of it will not be unjust, though the immediate reason of that resumption may be for the punishment of another; especially, as all such instançes have a real tendency to promote the public good, and to preserve alive, in the minds both of princes and people, that reverence for Deity, without which neither. public nor private virtue can subsist, nor the prosperity of kingdoms ever be secured and established upon solid and lasting foundations. Upon this solemn humiliation of David, and intercession with God for his people, the prophet Gad was sent to him the same day, with an order that he should rear up an altar unto the Lord, in the thrashing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, the hill where Solomon's temple was afterward built. David accordingly purchased the ground, built an altar unto the Lord, offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, whereby the Lord was entreated for the land, and the plague, which had raged from Dan to Beersheba, was stayed from Israel, the city of Jerusalem being mercifully spared, and exempted from this dreadful calamity. After this, David, encouraged by the gracious token God had given him of his acceptance at this thrashing-floor of Araunah, by the fire from heaven that consumed his burnt-offering, continued to offer upon the altar he had erected in this place; and publicly declared, "This is the house of the Lord God, this is the altar of the burnt-offering for Israel;" hereby consecrating this place for the erection of the temple, and to be the seat and centre of the public worship for all the tribes of Israel. On the whole, if they who object, credit the history of the Old Testament in this part of it, and think it true, that one of these three plagues was offered to David, as the punishment of his offence; that he chose the pestilence, that it came accordingly, and was removed upon David's intercession; they are as much concerned to account for the difficulties of the affair, as I or any other person can be. If they do not believe this part of the history, as the sacred writings represent it, let them give us the account of it as it stands in their own imagination; and tell us, whether there was any plague at all, how, and why it came, and how it went and disappeared so all of a sudden. In their account, whatever it be, David will stand certainly clear of every imputation; and, according to the scripture narration, he will be an offender, but only against the statute law of the kingdom, as usurping an authority and dispensing power that did not belong to him, but not against any law of God, of original, intrinsic, and immutable obligation, as far as we can judge by the short and imperfect account that is left us of this transaction; and so may still be the "man after God's own heart."-CHANDLER. Ver. 18. And Gad came that day to David, and Besides, in this case, the people were themselves very culpable; for the command was absolute: "When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul." And therefore, as they knew or might have known, that, upon being numbered, they were to pay the prescribed ransom, which yet they neglected or refused to do; as partners in the offence, they justly shared in the penalty inflicted. It is allowed, that the tax was not at this time demanded by David; and this was his sin, in setting aside a positive command of God, to gratify his own vanity and pride. The demanding this tax by his own authority might have created a national disturbance, and therefore should have prevented him from numbering his people. But they submitted to be numbered, and they were therefore bound to pay the tax, whether David demanded it of them or not, for the law did not exempt them from the payment, if he who numbered them did not demand it. They were to pay it as a ransom for their lives, and to exempt themselves from the plague; and were therefore punished with a plague for their neglect and dis-fering sacrifice. In Hosea xiii. 3, we read of the chaff which obedience. David indeed takes the guilt upon himself, and declares his people innocent of it: "As for these sheep, what have they done?" And it is true, that the order to number the people was David's, of which his people were wholly innocent. But they should have remonstrated against the thing, or voluntarily paid the capitation tax required of them; and as they did neither, David was, as Joab foretold him, a cause of trespass to Israel, and they could not plead innocence, as a reason for their exemption from punishment. And even supposing they were entirely free from all blame in this affair, were they so far entirely free from all other transgressions, as that it was injustice in God to visit them by a pestilence? If not, God did them no injustice by sending that pestilence; and therefore not by sending it at that time, and as an immediate punishment Thrashing-floors, among the ancient Jews, were only, as they are to this day in the East, round level plots of ground in the open air, where the corn was trodden out by oxen, the Libyca area of Horace, ode i. 1. 10. Thus Gideon's floor (Judges vi. 37) appears to have been in the open air; as was likewise that of Araunah the Jebusite; else it would not have been a proper place for erecting an altar and of is driven by the whirlwind from the floor. This circumstance of the thrashing-floor's being exposed to the agitation of the wind. seems to be the principal reason of its Hebrew name; which may be further illustrated by the direction which Hesiod gives his husbandman, to thrash his corn in a place well exposed to the wind. From the above account it appears that a thrashing-floor (rendered in our textual translation a void place) might well be near the entrance of the gate of Samaria, and that it might afford no improper place for the kings of Israel and Judah to hear the prophets in.-BURder. CHAPTER XXV. Ver. 23. And when David inquired of the LORD he said, Thou shalt not go up; but fech a com pass behind them, and come upon them over against the mulberry-trees. 24. And let it be, when thou hearest the sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry-trees, that then thou shalt bestir thyself: for then shall the LORD go out before thee, to smite the host of the Philistines. It is doubtful whether the mulberry-tree is once mentioned in the scriptures. If Hasselquist may be credited, it scarcely ever grows in Judea, very little in Galilee, but abounds in Syria and mount Lebanon. Our translators have rendered the original term Baca, by mulberry, in two different passages: "And when David inquired of the Lord, he said, Thou shalt not go up, but fetch a compass behind them, and come upon them over against the mulberry-trees (Becaim;) and let it be, when thou hearest the sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry-trees, that then thou shalt bestir thyself." And the words, Who passing through the valley of Baca, make it a pool; the rain also filleth the pools, are in the margin, Who passing through the valley of mulberry-trees. The Seventy, in Chronicles, render it pear-trees; in which they are followed by Aquila and the Vulgate. Some think Baca, in the eighty-fourth Psalm, is the name of a rivulet, which burst out of the earth, at the foot of a mountain, with a plaintive murmur, from which it derived its name. But it is more probable, that Baca is the name of some shrub or tree. Those who translate it the mulberry-tree, to illustrate the passage in the psalm, pretend it grows best in the dry ground; but this seems to be unfounded. Marinus imagines, that Baca signifies the mulberry-tree, because the fruit of the mulberry exudes a juice resembling tears. Parkhurst rather thinks that Baca means a kind of large shrub, which the Arabs likewise call Baca, and which probably was so named from its distilling an odoriferous gum. For Baca with an aleph, seems to be related to Baca with a hay, which signifies to ooze, to distil in small quantities, to weep or shed tears. This idea perfectly corresponds with the description which Celsius has given of this valley. It is not, according to him, a place abounding with fountains and pools of water, but rugged and embarrassed with bushes and stones, which could not be passed through without labour and suffering; a striking emblem of that vale of thorns and tears, through which all believers must pass to the heavenly Jerusalem. The great uncertainty among interpreters concerning the real meaning of the term Becaim, has induced Mr. Harmer to hazard a conjecture, that the tree meant in this passage is the weeping-willow. But this plant is not found in a dry sandy vale, where the thirsty traveller is compelled to dig for water, and to form cisterns in the earth, to receive the rain of heaven. In such a situation, we expect to find the pungent aromatic shrub distilling its fragrant gum; not the weeping-willow, the favourite situation of which is the watery plain, or the margin of the brook.-Paxton. CHAPTER 1. Ver. 2. Wherefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin; and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat. This is by no means so uncommon a thing as people in England suppose. Men of seventy years of age and up- wards often take a young virgin for the same purpose as David did, and no other. It is believed to be exceedingly healthful for an aged person thus to sleep. "In the hot season, he is kept cool, and in the cold season, warm, by sleeping with a young person; his withered body derives nourishment from the other." Thus, decrepit men may be seen having a young female in the house, (to whom, generally, they are not married,) and to whom they bequeath a considerable portion of their property.-ROBERTS. Ver. 9. And Adonijah slew sheep, and oxen, and fat cattle, by the stone of Zoheleth, which is by En-rogel, and called all his brethren the king's sons, and all the men of Judah the king's servants. The oriental banquet, in consequence of the intense heat, is often spread upon the verdant turf, beneath the shade of a tree, where the streaming rivulet supplies the company with wholesome water, and excites a gentle breeze to cool their burning temples. The vine and the fig, it appears from the faithful page of inspiration, are preferred on such joyous occasions: "In that day, saith the Lord of Hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig-tree." To fountains, or rivers, says Dr. Chandler, the Turks and the Greeks frequently repair for refreshment, especially the latter on their festivals, when whole families are seen sitting on the grass, and enjoying their early or evening repast, beneath the trees by the side of a rill. And we are assured by the same author, that in such grateful retreats they often give public entertainments. He visited an assembly of Greeks, who, after celebrating a religious festival, were sitting under half tents, with store of melons and grapes, besides lambs and sheep to be killed, wine in gourds and skins, and other necessary provisions. Such appears to have been the feast which Adonijah gave his friends at En-rogel. It was held near a well or fountain of water, and there "he slew sheep, and oxen, and fat cattle, and invited his brethren" and the principal people of the kingdom. En-rogel was not chosen for secrecy, for it was in the vicinity of the royal city, but for the beauty of the surrounding scenery. It was not a mag nificent cold collation; the animals on which they feasted were, on the contrary, killed and dressed on the spot for this princely repast. In Hindostan feasts are "given in the open halls and gardens, where a variety of strangers are admitted, and much familiarity is allowed. This easily accounts for a circumstance in the history of Christ, which is attended with considerable difficulty; the peniten Mary coming into the apartment and anointing his feet with the ointment, and wiping them with the hair of her head. This familiarity is not only common, but far from being deemed either disrespectful or displeasing." More effectually to screen the company from the burning sunbeams, a large canopy was spread upon lofty pillars, and attached by cords of various colours: "Some of these awnings," says Forbes, "belonging to the Indian emperors, were very costly, and distinguished by various names. That which belonged to the emperor Akber was of such magnitude as to contain ten thousand persons; and the erecting of it employed one thousand men for a week, with the help of machines; one of these awnings, without any ornaments, cost ten thousand rupees." Similar to these were the splendid |