grounded; this text being incumbered with more difficulties then are ordinarily to be met with. Some understand the lame and the blind in the ordinary sense of the words; as if the Febufites, confiding in the ftrength of their fortrefs, fhould infinuate, that the weakest of their people, the very lame and blind, were able to defend it against David. But then it is urged, on the other hand, that these lame and blind are faid to be hated of David's foul: and could a man of David's humanity deteft men for mere unblameable infirmities? Then, again, it is faid, Whosoever fmiteth the Jebufites, and the lame and the blind-Now this connecting particle feems to speak the Jebusites as different from the lame and the blind, as the lame and the blind from one another. Thefe difficulties have given rife to another opinion; that these lame and blind were the idols of the Jebusites; the ftatues of those heathen divinities, of which David hath faid in derifion, eyes have they, and fee not-feet have they, and walk not: and therefore the Jebusites thus taunted David in return for his reproaches on their religion; confiding that these their divinities, however reviled by him, were yet able to protect them against him. Now this conftruction thoroughly accounts for David's deteftation of these lame and blind, seeing he abhorred idolatry; and accounts alfo for the phrafeology of the text, in which they feem to be confidered as beings different from the Jebusites. Z 2 THE THE fuperftition alfo of an heathen_nation, not very remote from the Jebusites, feems to concur in confirming this interpretation. For why might not the Jebufites place as much confidence in the ftatues of their gods depofited in their citadel, as the Trojans did in the statue of Pallas depofited in theirs? And they, we know, perfuaded themfelves, that their city could not be taken, until that statue was removed. BUT there is one difficulty ftill remaining, which is this: If we follow the reading in the margin of the Bible, (which I take to be the true construction of the original text) then the reafon why David commands the lame and the blind to be fmitten, was, because they had said that David fhould not have admiffion into the place; now what lame and blind could say this, but men fo mutilated? To this I answer, that, in my humble opinion, thefe expreffions of lame and blind, when applied to the Jebusites, are to be figuratively understood, and not according to the letter; when David reviles the heathen idols, as being lame and blind, &c. he adds, And they that make them are like unto them, and fo are all they that put their trust in them. It is plain then, that David confidered thefe Jebusites in their idolatry, to be as ftupid and fenfelefs as the idols they adored. And therefore, the reproaches of lame and blind were equally applied by David to both *. Now, Tho', after all, poffibly there might have been some pretended oracle Now, if this be the true explication of the paffage before us, as fome of the ableft critics and commentators warrant me to believe, then, I think, we can have no more room to doubt that the cxyth pfalm was an epinicion, or triumphal fong for this victory; it being plainly an hymn of humiliation and thanksgiving to Go D, for a victory gained over an heathen people, who put their confidence in their idols, and despised the GOD of David *. AND, however this hymn be adapted to the people of the Jews, by many peculiarities; yet it is remarkable, that it hath always been used as an hymn of thanksgiving for victories, by all princes of true piety, from the earliest chriftian ages, and, very probably, from the age of David. oracle published among the people, as delivered by fome of these idols, that they would protect the citadel against David. *Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give the glory-Wherefore fhould the heathen fay, Where is now their -But our God is in heaven.—Their idols are filver and gold, the work of mens hands-They have mouths, and speak not; eyes have they, and fee not, &c. They that make them are like unto them; and fo are all they that put their truft in them. God? DAVID inlarges Jerufalem. His Alliance with Hiram. He builds a Palace, and marries more Wives. DAVID, now poffessed of the strong fort of Sion, fixed his refidence there, made it his capital, and called it after his own name, The city of David: and, in order to make it worthy of its name, he fet himself, with all diligence, to build, to adorn, and to fortify it: and David built round about (fays the text) from Millo and inward. This Millo is fuppofed to be a valley betwixt the two mountains on which Jerufalem was built, Sion to the north, and Acra to the fouth. The Hebrew word fignifies filled up, and this valley was filled up, partly by David, and partly by Solomon. The meaning of the text then feems to be, that he fetched his compass from Millo, or, as the Seventy have it, from Acra; filled all that space with a city, and joined it to the ftrong fort of Sion. THIS is the fenfe of most commentators upon this paffage. But I think it evident from the 32d chapter of the Ild book of Chronicles, that they are mistaken in this comment. For it plainly appears from this chapter, that Millo was fome tower, or fort, or place of ftrength of fome kind for when Hezekiah repaired all the breaches in the walls of Jerufalem, to strengthen the the city against Sennacherib, we read, that he repaired Millo also, in the city of David; and made darts and shields in abundance. Now there could be no reason for mentioning the repair of this place on this occafion, if it had not been a place of ftrength. And from the account of his making darts and fhields being immediately added to the account of his repairing Millo, it hath been conjectured to have been an armoury; and, that it was also a royal palace, appears from the 12th chapter of the fecond book of Kings, compared with the 24th chapter of the second book of Chronicles. And therefore it is rational to conclude, that it was at once a royal palace, and armoury, and a place of ftrength, as the tower of London was antiently. And, if I may be indulged in a conjecture upon the point, I imagine it was a ftrong fortrefs, consolidated for a confiderable height from the foundation; and for that reafon called Millo, or filled up. Nor is this conjecture without foundation; inasmuch as Jofephus affures us, this was the manner of building many towers with which Jerufalem was fortified. DAVID'S affairs were now in a flourishing condition, and every day grew better and better; he went on, and grew great (says the text). In the literal construction it is, going and growing; and the reason is annexed, for the Lord God of hofts was with him. As if David's condition had been described to us, under the image of a noble river, that fwells and inlarges in its progrefs; continually receiving new acceffions to |