king. This was a large share, no doubt-perhaps a tenth; besides which, there were probably certain articles of spoil which were in all cases considered to belong to the crown; and the men themselves certainly devoted a portion of what they obtained to the same object. Still a large proportion of the metallic spoil must have belonged to the soldiers, and soon passed from their hands into the general circulation of the country, thereby producing the effects at which we have hinted.

David was not unmindful of the law against the multiplication of horses in the hands of the king; and his clear military judgment could not but appreciate the reasons on which this prohibition was founded. He had now a large spoil of horses and chariots; but he caused the former to be destroyed, and burned the latter. He reserved a hundred of the chariots, with a proper number of horses; but as this was for state purposes, and not for use in war, the measure seems not to have deserved any blame, nor did it incur any.

At verse 3 we read, 'David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover (or establish) his border (or his power) at the river Euphrates.' The question has been asked, Who is the subject of the last clause-David or Hadadezer? Grammatically it may be either, but the scope seems unquestionably to indicate David. Zobah was far to the west of the Euphrates. It appears to have been situated between Damascus and Hamath. In marching from Zobah to the Euphrates, Hadadezer would thus be going farther away from David's kingdom how, therefore, could David have encountered him? If, on the other hand, we regard David as the subject, then the narrative is consistent. David marched toward the Euphrates to secure to its utmost limits that wide empire given to the seed of Abraham in covenant promise (Gen. xv. 18). Zobah lay on his line of march; and Hadadezer having opposed him, was attacked and conquered.

Zobah was evidently the name of a wide region, extending from the confines of Hamath and Damascus on the west, to the Euphrates on the east. It was also apparently the name of a city, the site of which has not yet been satisfactorily identified. It seems to me highly probable that it may be identical with the classic Emesa, now called Hums. The immense artificial mound

at Hums, on which a famous temple formerly stood, shows that the site was of remote antiquity: its position, too, between Damascus and Hamath agrees with that assigned to Zobah both in the Bible and Assyrian inscriptions; while the splendid plain around the city, stretching from the banks of the Orontes in an unbroken expanse to the Euphrates, afforded the very best field in Syria for the evolutions of war-chariots.

It may be well to note that verses 13 and 14 are closely connected, containing a brief record of an expedition different from that mentioned in the preceding verses. The Hebrew word rendered Syrians in verse 13, is Aram, which, as is proved by many MSS., by the context, and by the parallel passage in 1 Chron. xviii. 12, 13, is a mistake of a copyist for Edom. The passage, therefore, will read thus: 'And David got him a name when he returned from smiting Edom in the valley of Salt,' etc. The valley of Salt was probably at or near the Salt hills of Usdum, at the southern end of the Dead Sea.

Thirty-seventh Week-Seventh Day.

HADAD. -2 SAMUEL VIII. 14; I CHRON. XVIII. 12, 13; I KINGS XI. 14-21.

THE employment of the force of Israel in the north seemed to afford to the Edomites an opportunity of encroaching upon the south of the Hebrew territory. It is indeed very likely that they acted upon an understanding with the Syrians for the purpose of making a diversion in their favour. The superscription to Psalm lx. indicates that the main army of David was still occupied in the Syrian war, when Abishai was detached to oppose the Edomites. Certainly an expedition against them would not have been spontaneously undertaken at such a time; and nothing but the most urgent necessity for resisting very alarming aggressions, could have constrained the king thus to weaken an army engaged in the most important campaign of all his wars. The Edomites were therefore the aggressors, and by that aggression brought down upon their heads the ancient doom of eventual subjection to the house of

Jacob. On the approach of Abishai, the Edomites retired before him into the valley of Salt, at the southern extremity of the Dead Sea; or it may be that he met them there in their march upon Israel. A most bloody battle was fought between the two armies; and the desperateness with which the Edomites contested the victory, may be judged from the fact that they left twelve thousand of their number slain upon the battle-field. As soon as Joab was released from the Syrian campaign, he marched to this new scene of action, in order to settle the conquered country. He remained there six months, with the bulk of the Hebrew army. Joab's mode of settling the country was after the oriental fashion-of making a desolation, and calling it peace. Having a keener thirst for blood than his brother, and his higher command making him more exasperated at the attempt of the Edomites, which might have endangered the large operations in the north, he seems to have considered that Abishai had but half accomplished his work. He caused the male Edomites to be hunted out and put to death, wherever they were found; and established Hebrew garrisons in the strongholds and principal towns of Edom. Many Edomites escaped, and of these no doubt the greater part returned when the fierceness of the storm had blown over but the blow was so terrible that it was a hundred and fifty years before the nation recovered such strength as to be able to make any strenuous endeavour to shake off the Hebrew yoke. Thus Edom became subject to David. Hitherto Selah, called by the Greeks Petra, whose curious remains, entombed among the rocks, have been within the present century brought to light, and have engaged much attention, had been the chief seat of the Edomite power, as it seems to have been in the time of Moses; but now the population, driven from the heart of the country far a-field, concentrated in continually retiring upon the borders, and it is from this time that Teman on the east, and Bozrah on the north, of Edom's frontier, rise into importance.

In the account given in the First Book of Kings (xi. 14–21) of the enemies who disturbed the latter years of Solomon,

there occurs a most interesting and suggestive anecdote respecting this transaction, which is not to be found in the leading narrative. The king of Edom seems to have been slain in the battle. He left a son, a child, named Hadad, for whose safety no apprehension appears to have been entertained until the terrible Joab came into the country, and gave signs of the tiger-like spirit by which he was at that time animated. Some faithful servants of the royal house then carried off their young master, and being joined by other fugitives on the road, went down into Egypt. The king of that country received the young prince with truly royal hospitality and consideration. He assigned to him and his followers a suitable provision: 'He gave him a house, appointed him victuals, and gave him land;' and when Hadad grew up, he bestowed upon him the sister of his queen Tahpenes in marriage. By her he had a son, Genubath, who, as soon as he was old enough to be separated from his mother, was removed to the royal palace, where he was weaned by the queen, and brought up with the royal children. Of Genubath we hear nothing more; but Hadad himself will again come under our notice hereafter. The particulars given tantalize our curiosity, under the interest with which every historical fact respecting Egypt is now regarded. We are here brought to the very threshold of the haram of Pharaoh, but are not permitted to enter, and view the interior life of the Egyptian court. The attention with which Hadad was received, his marriage with an Egyptian princess, and the admission of his son into the royal family, remind us of facts in the histories of Joseph and Moses, and do not bear out the impression transmitted to us by the Greek writers, respecting the antipathy of the Egyptians to foreigners. The royal rank of Hadad, and the alliance which he had contracted with the court, afford special reasons for the consideration with which his child was treated. But on other grounds, it appears not to have been unusual in Egypt for strange children to be taken into the royal household, and brought up with the king's sons. It is related that the father of the great Sesostris ordered all the male children of Egypt who were born

on the same day with his son to be brought to him, and having appointed nurses and proper persons to take charge of them, he gave instructions that they should be educated and treated in every respect like the young prince; being persuaded that those who were his constant companions in childhood and youth, would prove his most faithful adherents and affectionate fellow-soldiers. They were abundantly furnished with everything needful: as they grew up they were by degrees inured to robust and manly exercises, and were even forbidden to taste any food till they had performed a course of 180 stadia, or nearly twenty-three Roman miles. By this severe training of the body, and by a corresponding cultivation of the mind, they were equally suited to execute and to command.1

It would in fact appear that the privilege of being brought up with the royal princes was by no means a privilege of royal luxury and self-indulgence, the discipline to which they were subjected being unusually strict. The duties of children have always been more severe in the East than among any European people; and to the present day a son, even when grown up to manhood, is not expected to sit in the presence of his father,