This, it must be allowed, would be a difficulty indeed, if David's information here had been only from his eyesight. But this objection immediately vanishes, when we reflect, that the Jebusites are said in the text to have told David, the blind and the lame should keep them off: for certainly David could easily conceive the men, who were placed upon the walls to insult him, were blind and lame; when he was told so by the Jebusites themselves; and told so, to render this insult of theirs the greater.

Having thus mentioned some of the present interpretations, it may be now proper to submit another to the judgment of the learned reader. And here, for the sake of clearness, I shall first give what seems to be the true interpretation of this passage; and then subjoin the several arguments in defence of it.

And the inhabitants of Jebus said to David, Thou shalt not come hither; for the blind and the lame shall keep thee off, by saying, David shall not come hither. But David took the strong hold of Zion, which is the city of David. And David said on that day, Whosoever (first) smiteth the Jebusites, and through the subterraneous passage reacheth the lame and the blind that are hated of David's soul, because the blind and the lame continued to say, he shall not come into this house, shall be chief captain.

That the connected particles ON KI AM, rendered except in Samuel, signify for in this place, is evident, because the words following are rather casual than objective; and we have several instances of this sense of the two particles given us by Noldius: thus, Prov. xxiii. 18. they are rendered for in the English translation; and so in the English, Greek, Syriac, and Arabic versions of Lam. v. 22. That the verb on ESIREK, rendered to take away, is not here the infinitive, but the preter of Hiphil, is apparent from the sense; that it has been so considered, is certain from the Massorite pointing, as De Dieu and other critics have observed; and we see it is translated as such by the LXX, in the plural number avтesnoav antestesan. From this version, then, and from the plurality of the two nouns, which are necessarily the nominatives to this verb, we may infer, that it was originally ESIRUK, to keep off, the vau having been dropped here as in many other places.

Enough having been said of the number, let us now consider the tense of this verb; which being preter, some have translated it by a word expressive of time past. But the sense necessarily requires it to be translated as future in other languages, though it be more expressive in the original, in the preter tense: it being agreeable to the genius of the Hebrew language frequently to speak of events yet future as having actually happened, when the speaker would strongly express the certainty of such event. This observation is peculiarly applicable to the case here. For this castle of mount Zion had never yet been taken by the Israel

ites, though they had dwelt in Canaan about 400 years; as we learn from the sacred history, Josh. xv. 63; Judg. i. 21; xix. 10. and from Josephus, lib. vii. cap. 3.

The Jebusites then, absolutely depending on the advantage of their high situation and the strength of their fortification, which had secured them against the Israelites so many hundred years, looked upon this of David's as a vain attempt, which therefore they might safely treat with insolence and raillery. Full of this fond notion, they placed upon the walls of the citadel the few blind and lame that could be found amongst them, and told David, He should not come thither; for the blind and the lame were sufficient to keep him off: which they, these weak defenders, should effectually do, only by their shouting David shall not come hither, &c.

That the blind and the lame were contemptuously placed upon the walls by the Jebusites, as before described, we are assured not only by the words of the sacred history before us, but also by the concurrent testimony of Josephus, lib. vii. cap. 3. Now that these blind and lame, who appear to have been placed upon the walls, were to insult, and did insult David in the manner before mentioned, seems very evident from the words, The blind and the lame shall keep thee off BY SAYING, &c. and also from the impossibility of otherwise accounting for David's indignation against these, naturally pitiable, wretches. And the not attending to this remarkable circumstance seems one principal reason of the perplexity so visible among the various interpreters of this passage.

It is very remarkable, that the sense before given to on KI AM ESIREK. For the blind and the lame shall keep thee off, is confirmed by Josephus in the place just cited. And it is further remarkable that the same sense is given to these words in the English Bible of Coverdale, printed in 1535, in which they are rendered Thou shall not come hither, but the blind and lame shal dryve the awaie. This is one great instance to prove the credit due to some parts of this very old English version; as the sense of this passage seems to have been greatly mistaken both before and since. That it has been changed for the worse since that edition, is very evident; and that it was improperly rendered before appears from Wickliffe's MS. version of 1383, where we read, Thou shalt not entre hidur: no but thou do awey blynd men and lame, &c.

After this additional clause of Samuel, in the speech of the Jebusites, the two histories agree in saying, David took the strong hold of Zion, which was afterward called the city of David. By this strong hold of Zion, or city of David, we are led by the words of the text to understand, not the fortress or citadel, which was not yet taken, as appears from the order of the history in both chapters, but the town of the Jebusites,

or city of David, which was spread over the wide hill of Zion and is what Josephus means when he tells us, David first took the lower town, the town which lay beneath the citadel; after which he tells us, that the citadel remained yet to be taken, lib. vii. cap. 3. The two chapters having agreed in this circumstance of David's making himself master of the town or city, they now vary as before; and here also the history in Chronicles is regular, though it takes no notice of some further circumstances relating to the blind and the lame; and indeed the latter circumstances were to be omitted of course, as the historian chose for brevity to omit the former. But as to Samuel, there is in that book a deficiency of several words, which are necessary to complete the sense; which words are preserved in the text of Chronicles. And as the difficulty here also lies entirely in the text of Samuel, let us see whether it may not be cleared up to satisfaction.

David having now possessed himself of the strong town of the Jebusites, situate upon the hill of Zion, proceeds, the same day, to attack the citadel or fortress; which was considered by the Jebusites as impregnable. And probably the Israelites would have thought it so too, and David had retired from before it, like his forefathers, if he had not possessed himself by stratagem, when he found he could not storm or take it by open force. For this seems in fact to have been the case; and the history of this success may be properly introduced by a similar case or two.

But

And, first, Dr. Prideaux, in his Connection, part i. book 2. tells us of the city of Babylon; that when it was besieged by Cyrus, the inhabitants thinking themselves secure in their walls and their stores, looked on the taking of the city by a siege as an impracticable thing: and therefore from the top of their walls scoffed at Cyrus, and derided him for every thing he did toward it. A circumstance most exactly parallel to that of the history before us. yet, that Cyrus broke down the great bank or dam of the river, both where it ran into the city, and where it came out; and as soon as the channel of the river was drained, in the middle of the night, while Belshazzar was carousing at the conclusion of an annual festival, the troops of Cyrus entered through these passages in two parties, and took the city by surprise. And there is a second remarkable case related by Polybius, which will further illustrate the present history; and was communicated to me by a learned friend. Rabatamana, says Polybius, a city of Arabia, could not be taken, till one of the prisoners showed the besiegers a subterraneous passage, through which the besieged came down for water, Ed. Casaubon, vol. i. p. 578.

Now this fortress of the Jebusites seems to have been circumstanced like Rabatamana; in having also

a subterraneous passage which is called in the original MY TZENUR, a word which occurs but once more in the Bible, and does not seem commonly understood in this place. The English version calls it the gutter; the Vulgate, fistulas; Vatablus, canales; Jun. and Trem. emissarium; Poole, tubus aquæ; and Bochart, alveus, &c. But not to multiply quotations, most interpreters agree in making the word signify something hollow, and applying it to water: just the case of the subterraneous passage, or great hollow, of Rabatamana through which men could pass and repass for water. That this way TZENUR, in the text was such an under ground passage might be strongly presumed from the text itself; but it is proved to have been so by Josephus. For, speaking of this very transaction, he calls them subterraneous cavities, putting this interpretation upon a very solid footing.

That the preposition Be, rendered in, prefixed to MY TZENUR, Sometimes signifies by is evident from Noldius; and that it signifies so in this place is certain from the nature of the context, and the testimony of Josephus, who expresses it thus: the verb IAMRU, rendered they said, in this sentence, is very properly future; as Hebrew verbs in that tense are known to be frequentative, or to express the continuance of doing any thing; and therefore that tense is with great propriety used here to express the frequent repetition of the insolent speech used by the blind and the lame upon the walls of the fortress.

It only remains here to make an observation or two on the reward proposed by David, and the person who obtained it. The text of Chronicles tells us, David said, Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites first, shall be chief and captain, or head and prince. We are to recollect, that Joab the son of Zeruiah, David's sister, had been general of his army, during the civil war, between the men of Judah under David, and the Israelites commanded by Abner in favour of Ishbosheth the son of Saul: but that the Israelites, having now submitted to David, he was king over the whole twelve tribes. David, we know, frequently endeavoured to remove Joab from his command of the army, on account of his haughtiness, and for several murders; but complained, that this son of Zeruiah was too hard for him. One of these attempts of David seems to have been made at the time Israel came in to David, by the persuasion of Abner; when it is probable the condition on Abner's side was to have been made David's captain general and perhaps Joab suspected so much, and therefore murdered him. The next attempt seems to have been made at the taking this strong citadel of the Jebusites. For David proposes the reward absolutely to every officer of his army. Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites first; i.e. whosoever will ascend first, put himself at the head of a detachment, and march up through the

subterraneous passage into the citadel, shall be head and captain.

This proposal, we may observe, was general; and yet, how much soever David might wish Joab safely removed, it is reasonable to think that he made Joab the first offer. And, we find, that however dangerous and dreadful this enterprise appeared, yet Joab had prudence enough to undertake it, and courage enough to execute it: and Joab went up first or at the head of a party, and was accordingly declared head, or chief captain, or, in the modern style, captain general of the united armies of Israel and Judah.

It is not unlikely that the men of Israel expected, that though Abner their general had been basely murdered by Joab, yet David's chief captain should be chosen from amongst them: or at least that they should have a chance for that first post of honour, as well as the men of Judah. And if they had declared any expectation of this kind, David seems to have taken the wisest step for determining so important a point; by declaring, that neither relation, nor fortune, nor friendship should recommend upon the occasion; but, as the bravest man and the best soldier ought to be commander in chief, so this honour should be the reward of the greatest merit; that there was now a fair opportunity of signalizing themselves in the taking this important fortress; and therefore his resolution was, that Whosoever would head a detachment up this subterraneous passage, and should first make himself master of the citadel, by that passage, or by scaling the walls, or by any other method, should be head and captain, i.e. captain general.

It is remarkable, that the text in Samuel is very

incomplete in this place: David's proposal to the army is just begun, and a circumstance or two mentioned; but the reward proposed, and the person rewarded, are totally omitted. We may presume the text could not have been thus imperfect originally, since no ellipsis can supply what is here wanting; and therefore the words of the coinciding chapter of Chronicles, which regularly fill up this omission, were doubtless at first also in Samuel, and are therefore to be restored: the necessity of thus restoring the words not found in the present copies of Samuel is appa

rent.

The English version then of these texts in Chronicles is:

And the inhabitants of Jebus said to David, Thou shalt not come hither. But David took the strong hold of Zion, which is the city of David. And David said, Whosoever first smiteth the Jebusites, shall be head and captain. So Joab the son of Zeruiah went up first, and was chief captain.

And the English version of these texts in Samuel is:

And they spoke unto David, saying, Thou shalt not come hither; for the blind and the lame shall keep thee off, by saying, David shall not come hither. But David took the strong hold of Zion, which is the city of David. And David said on that day, Whosoever, first, smiteth the Jebusites, and by the subterraneous passage reacheth the blind and the lame, which are hated of David's soul, because the blind and the lame continued to say, He shall not come into this house, shall be head and captain. So Joab the son of Zeruiah went up first, and was head, or captain general, Kennicott.

THE Egyptians and Ethiopians were the undoubted descendants of Ham; so possibly might be the Hindoos, and consequently all must be supposed to have been infected with the original idolatry of Chaldea, that primeval country, where their ancestors so long resided. This passage of Ezekiel will elucidate the superstitious rites practised in the mystic cell of Egypt, and of the sculptures portrayed on the walls, both of those cells, and the caves of India. Whoever attentively considers what, from various authors and some of such unimpeachable veracity as Niebuhr, Hunter, and Perron, has been related concerning the splendid regal ornaments that decorate the head and neck; the zones, jewelled or serpentine, that gird round the waist of the Indian statues; whoever, in India, has seen the profusion of vermilion or saffron, with which, according to his cast, the devout Hindoo marks both his own forehead and that of the deity he adores, must agree with me, that no allusion to these ornaments can be apparently more direct, and

no description of the images themselves more accurate, than this of Ezekiel.

Under the character of Aholibah, an abandoned prostitute, does Jehovah thus parabolically stigmatize the idolatrous devotion of the apostate Judah. She doated upon the Assyrians, her neighbours ; captains and rulers, clothed most gorgeously, and when she saw men portrayed upon the walls, the images of the Chaldeans portrayed with vermilion, girded with girdles upon their loins, exceeding in dyed attire upon their heads, all of them princes to look to, after the manner of the Babylonians of Chaldea, the land of their nativity; then, as soon as she saw them with her eyes, she doated upon them, and sent messengers unto them unto Chaldea. And again, toward the close of the same chapter, it is said, Moreover this they have done unto me; WHEN THEY HAD SLAIN THEIR CHILDREN TO THEIR IDOLS, then they came, the same day, unto my sanctuary to profane it. And, furthermore, ye have sent for men to come from

far, unto whom a messenger was sent, and, lo! they came, for whom THOU DIDST WASH THYSELF, that is, perform ablutions, PAINTEDST THINE EYES, AND DECKEDST THYSELF WITH ORNAMENTS, and sattest upon a stately bed, with a TABLE, that is, an altar,

PREPARED BEFORE IT, WHEREUPON THOU HAST SET

MINE INCENSE AND MINE OIL. And a voice of a multitude, being at ease, was with her, and with the men of the common sort were brought Sabians from the wilderness, WHO PUT BRACELETS UPON THEIR HANDS, AND BEAUTIFUL CROWNS UPON THEIR HEADS, Maurice's Indian Antiquities.

Sisera... fled to the tent of Jael. THE Common Arabs so far observe the modes of the East, as to have a separate apartment in their tents for their wives, made by letting down a curtain. or a carpet, upon occasion, from one of their pillars; though they are not so rigid as some of the Eastern people in these matters. Dr. Pococke tells us, that "The Arabs are not so scrupulous about their women as the Turks; and though they have their harem, or woman's part of the tent, yet such as they are acquainted with, come into them. I was kept in the

harem for greater security; the wife being always with me; no stranger ever daring to come into the woman's apartment, unless introduced."

According to the custom of the present Arabs, therefore, it was not absurd in Sisera to hope he might be received into Jael's tent, the harem of Heber. It appears too that her tent was a much safer place than any other in that encampment, wherein to secrete himself, as it would have been a much greater insult to this Kenite emir for any Israelite to have searched for him there than in any other of his tents.

If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost; in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

THIS translation does not seem good English. The Gospel is hid To them. The god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, IN WHOM, &c. There is, then, at least, inaccuracy enough in the translation to induce any man to examine the original.

A learned friend some time ago suggested that this text was mistranslated. His conjecture on examination appeared well founded; and the result was the following emendation of the version.

If our Gospel be VEILED, it is VEILED AMONG THE THINGS THAT ARE ABOLISHED, BY WHICH the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, and so on.

There are two general sources of arguments in defence of this sense of the passage: the first is merely literary, the second is the scope of the writer.

Three things must be examined.

1st, The meaning of the verb awoλλvμ apollumi, rendered lost.

2dly, The gender of the participle awonλuμEVOIS apollumenois, and of the articles ois ois, and Tos tois, of the powers of which we cannot here give an adequate idea to the mere English reader.

And, 3dly, the sense of the preposition av en, rendered to in the first verse, and in at the beginning of the second.

I. We render the verb awλ apollumi, ABOLISH. 1st, The English word abolish, which generally signifies to annul, to make void, to repeal, to abrogate, comes from this very word. The Romans rendered it aboleo, and we make it abolish. No violence, therefore, is done to the verb by our translation.

2d, Awλλ apollumi, is a derivative, and the true primitive is Avo, to loose. Thus, Matth. xvi. 19. Whatsoever thou shalt loose, or repeal, on earth, shall be loosed, or annulled, in heaven. Thus, Matth. i. 19. Joseph was minded to put her away, to loose or annul the marriage contract. As, therefore, both the primitive and the derivative are used in the New Testament in our sense, the translation given above is not forced and unnatural. See Luke vi. 37; ii. 29; xiii. 12, &c.

3d, Both primitive and derivative are used in our sense in profane authors. See Sophoc. Elect. 945; Sophoc. Trachin. 184; Xenoph. Mem. ix. 8, 5, &c. We conclude, therefore, that the word may be rendered abolish, repeal, abrogate, annul, make void. II. In regard to the gender of the participle, and the articles, nothing can be determined from the terminations. In this case they may be masculine, they may be neuter. Here, then, is no argument against our translation.

III. The meaning of the preposition av en, is our last literary inquiry. Greek prepositions are in general of vague and uncertain meaning. This is remarkably so. Luke xiv. 1. As he went. Rom. viii. 29. Among many brethren. Luke iv. 32. His word was with power. Matth. xxiii. 20. Swear by the altar.

Matth. vi. 7. For much speaking. John v. 4. Into the pool. 1 Cor. vii. 15. God hath called us to peace. Rom. viii. 34. At the right hand of God. Matth. x. 32. Confess me before men. Rom. xi. 2. What saith the Scripture of or concerning Elias? Rom. xv. 5. One toward another, &c. It should seem, then, there is no impropriety in rendering the words in question thus: The Gospel is hid AMONG the things that are abolished, BY which things, &c.

We say the words may be rendered thus; but in this, as in all other cases of vague, indeterminate, single words, how they must and ought to be rendered can only be determined by the construction of the whole sentence, and by the scope of the place. And to this we now attend.

In the foregoing chapter the apostle treats of the two economies, the Jewish and the Christian, and gives the preference to the latter, as for other reasons, so chiefly on account of its superior clearness and perspicuity. Moses, iii. 13. who spoke to the children of Israel, put a veil upon his face, and taught his doctrine by signs; but Christ and all his apostles, verse 18. with uncovered face, and without signs, verse 12. use great plainness of speech. Moses addressed the senses of the Jews with ceremonies, verse 13. that were to be abolished; but these ceremonies are, verse 14. done away in Christianity, and the teachers of it bend all their attention to make plain simple truth manifest, iv. 2. Moses established a local economy, and addressed his ministry, iii. 7. 13. to the children of Israel only: but Christianity is an universal religion, and the propagators of it commend themselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God, iv. 2.

Is Christianity, then, it may be asked, a religion contrary to that of the Jews? The God, the media tor, the doctrine, the morality of Christians, do they differ from those of the Jews? God forbid! Judaism, says our apostle, was a glorious economy, but Chris

tianity exceeds it in glory. It is so much more excellent as it is more plain, intelligible and clear. Christians worship the same God, believe in the same mediator, hold the same doctrines, and practise the same morality as the pious Jews always did. Christianity and Judaism are not two religions; but one religion in two different degrees of perfection. The one was the gay blossom, the other is the rich fruit; the one was the design; the other the execution.

What! it would be objected further by a Jew, do you, Paul, affirm, that the birth of your Jesus, and his life, the doctrine, the miracles, the manner and the nature of his death, the dissolution of the Mosaical economy, and the incorporating of all Gentile nations into one body of divine worshippers, do you affirm that all these were foretold by our prophets, believed by our ancestors, and included in the religion of our nation? The far greater part of our nation have denied this, and have crucified your Lord of glory! To this natural objection supposed, our text seems to contain an answer. It is as if the apostle had said, Our Gospel was actually contained in your law, and, if it lay concealed from the bulk of the nation, it was owing to their want of discernment; they could not look to the end of the ceremonies which are now abolished. Their puerile minds were dazzled with the splendour of ceremonies, and never penetrated into the truths concealed under them. The passion for pomp in religion blinded their eyes by means of the very ceremonies which were intended to inform them. If our Gospel be hid from the Jews, it is hid by Jewish ceremonies, which, though formerly appointed by divine statute law, are, now Christ is come, abolished, and rendered obsolete. By these ceremonies, while they stood, the god of this world, av aion, age, period, blinded the minds of unbelievers, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, contained in prophecies, &c. should shine unto them, Robinson's Christian Doctrine of Ceremonies, a Sermon.

THE author of the following treatise lived in a day when men were fearful of investigating the Scriptures; in it he endeavours to prove that the luminous guide of the Israelites was not miraculous: if the reader wishes to know his name, if he has read any of the old English writers on the side of Christianity, he certainly remembers the name of Toland as being more than once placed at the head of its opponents by those who noticed his various writings: he had the name of deist for no other reason than thinking for himself, independently of system, and exposing the artful conduct of some teachers of religion. His words are as follow:

I have often wondered why many persons, deservedly famous for their literature and politeness, have, in a manner, expressly neglected the history of the most ancient and famous nation of the Jews; while they bestowed abundance of pains, and showed no less discernment, in their inquiries concerning the Greek, the Roman, and other antiquities. The reason, at first, I thought to have been the small extent of the Jewish territories, the sterility of their warlike exploits, in comparison of those nations I have mentioned, with their ignorance of arts and useful inventions: ungrateful subjects for pleasure or instruction. But how just soever this censure may be of the Jews