17. Open the window eastward.'-The country which the Syrians had taken from Israel lay due east of Samaria; or, as the indications of the cardinal points of the compass include intermediate directions, the point called 'east' may have been north-east, towards the proper territory of the Syrians.

'Shoot.'-This was a symbolical declaration of war against Syria, and the ensuing action of striking on the ground denoted the result of the war thus symbolically indicated. It was a custom among the Romans to declare war against a nation by deputing the chief of the feciales to go to its confines, and, after declaring in a loud voice the reasons for going to war, to throw a javelin into its territory. In later times, when they came to have wars with remote nations, this custom became inconvenient or impracticable; and then the ceremony was performed at Rome in a field, which, from this appropriation, was called ager hostilis. This custom is said to have been borrowed from the Greeks, most of whose more remarkable usages may be traced to the East. This act must have quite apprized the king of the prophet's intention, even if he had not himself explained it by calling the arrow 'the arrow of the Lord's deliverance from Syria:' and this explains why Elisha was not only sorry but angry that the king, after such preparation, smote only three times upon the ground.

20. Elisha died.'-In the history of his own times the prophet Elisha occupies nearly as conspicuous a place as Elijah did in the reign of Ahab. The wonders wrought by his hands were numerous; but they were less signal, less directed to public objects, and less attended with public and important results than those of his master. Indeed, his national acts were less considerable than those of Elijah; and although he possessed great influence, and was undoubtedly the foremost man of his age, he wanted those energies of character and that consuming zeal which his predecessor manifested; or, perhaps more correctly, the exigencies of the times were not such as to call for the exercise of such endowments as had been possessed by Elijah. But although those of his successor were different in their kind, we know not that, with regard to the differing time, they were less useful or eminent. In this and in a thousand historical examples, more especially in the history of the Hebrews, we see men raised up for, and proportioned to, the times in which they live, and the oc

casions which call for them. The most eminent of the prophets, since Moses, was given to the most corrupt time; in which only a man of his indomitable, ardent, and almost fierce spirit could have been equal to the fiery and almost single-handed struggle for God against principalities and powers. Elisha fell in milder times, and was correspondingly of a milder character, although he was not found unequal to any of the more trying circumstances which arose during the period of his prophetic administration. Indeed, his conduct on such occasions was such as to suggest that it was only the milder spirit of the time on which he fell, precluding occasion for their exercise, that prevented the manifestation in him of that grander class of endowments which his predecessor displayed. As it was, Elisha, instead of being, like his master, driven by persecution from the haunts of men to the deserts and the mountains, and reduced to a state of dependence on the. special providence of God for the bread he ate and the water he drank, enjoyed a sufficiency of all things, and lived in honour and esteem among his countrymen; and even among the purple and fine linen of kings' courts, the rough mantle of the prophet was regarded with respect.

21. They cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha.'The remains of the prophet were of course deposited in a cave, apparently in some field or garden; and the bearers, in conveying this man's corpse to his own sepulchre, being alarmed at the appearance of the predatory band of Moabites, placed their burden in Elisha's sepulchre, which seems to have been near at hand; and for this purpose they had only to remove the stone which probably closed the entrance to the cave. See the note to Gen. xxiii. 19.

Touched the bones of Elisha.'-The remains of Elisha were no doubt, as Josephus states, very honourably interred; yet it seems clear from this that he was not deposited in a coffin. We have stated in the notes to Gen. xxiii. 19, and i. 26, that it is not an eastern custom to place a dead body in a coffin; whether it is to be deposited in a sepulchre or in a grave, it is swathed only. This was also the ancient custom, with some exceptions, as stated in the notes to which we refer. It is still more clear that the man, thus miraculously delivered from the power of the grave, was not enclosed in a coffin, or even swathed in such a manner as to prevent him from getting upon his feet when life returned.

CHAPTER XIV.

1 Amaziah's good reign. 5 His justice on the murderers of his father. 7 His victory over Edom. 8 Amaziah, provoking Jehoash, is overcome and spoiled. 16 Jeroboam succeedeth Jehoash. 17 Amaziah slain by a conspiracy. 21 Azariah succeedeth him. 23 Jeroboam's wicked reign. 29 Zachariah succeedeth him.

IN the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel reigned 'Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah.

2 He was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem.

3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, yet not like Ďavid his father: he did according to all things as Joash his father did.

4 Howbeit the high places were not taken away as yet the people did sacrifice and burnt incense on the high places.

5 ¶ And it came to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand, that he slew his servants 'which had slain the king his father.

6 But the children of the murderers he slew not according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own

sin.

Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, Come, let us look one another in the face.

9 And Jehoash the king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of Judah, saying, The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the thistle.

10 Thou hast indeed smitten Edom, and thine heart hath lifted thee up: glory of this, and tarry at home: for why shouldest thou meddle to thy hurt, that thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah with thee?

11 But Amaziah would not hear. Therefore Jehoash king of Israel went up; and he and Amaziah king of Judah looked one another in the face at Beth-shemesh, which belongeth to Judah.

12 And Judah was put to the worse before Israel; and they fled every man to their

tents.

13 And Jehoash king of Israel took Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Jehoash the son of Ahaziah, at Beth-shemesh, and came to Jerusalem, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim unto the corner gate, four hundred cubits.

14 And he took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king's house, and hostages, and returned to Samaria.

15 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

16 And Jehoash slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel; and Jeroboam his son reigned in his stead.

17 T And Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah lived after the death of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel fifteen years.

18 And the rest of the acts of Amaziah,

are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

19 Now they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem: and he fled to Lachish; but they sent after him to Lachish, and slew him there.

20 And they brought him on horses: and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David.

21 And all the people of Judah took Azariah, which was sixteen years old, and made him king instead of his father Amaziah.

22 He built Elath, and restored it to Judah, after that the king slept with his fathers. 23 In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel began to reign in Samaria, and reigned forty and one years.

24 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD: he departed not from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.

25 He restored the coast of Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain, according to the word of the LORD God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant 'Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet, which was of Gath-hepher.

26 For the LORD saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter: for there was not any shut up, nor any left, nor any helperfor Israel.

27 And the LORD said not that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven: but he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash.

28 Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for Israel, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

29 And Jeroboam slept with his fathers, even with the kings of Israel; and Zachariah his son reigned in his stead.

82 Chron. 26. 1, he is called Uzziah.

several occasions we have spoken of the Ghor, or valley, which extends from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Akaba. But it is to be understood that at present the valley is closed, at about twelve miles to the south of the bay in which the sea terminates, by a sandy cliff, about sixty or eighty feet high, which runs across the valley, and forms a southern margin for the basin of the sea when its waters are at their greatest height. To the south of this sand

cliff, however, the valley extends, without interruption, to the Red Sea. The depressed plain or valley enclosed between this sand-cliff and the extremity of the sea, to which we may add the broad eastern margin of the southern bay, which partakes of the same character, does, we have little doubt, form the Valley of Salt' of the present text. This plain or valley has been traversed and amply described by Captains Irby and Mangles, in their valuable Travels. Their description is the more interesting, as they entered the valley by the very road from Jerusalem and Hebron which must needs have been taken by the armies of Judah. After descending from the western hills, they say, 'We entered the great plain at the end of the Dead Sea: for about a quarter of an hour we had few bushes, and afterwards found the soil sandy and perfectly barren. On our right we had a continued hill of sandy soil, running in a south-east and north-west direction towards the middle of the plain.' In a ravine at the side of this hill they tarried for the night, and collected a quantity of wood, which the Dead Sea had thrown up at high-water mark, and endeavoured to make a fire, in order to bake bread, as we had flour. The wood was, however, so impregnated with salt, that all our efforts were unavailing.' On proceeding across the plain the next morning they had still the same sandhill on their right. We found, exclusive of the saline appearance left by the retiring of the waters, several large fragments of clear rock-salt lying on the ground; and, on examining the hill, we found it composed partly of salt and partly of hardened sand. In many instances the salt was hanging from cliffs in clear perpendicular points like icicles; and we observed numerous strata of that material, of considerable thickness, having very little sand mixed with it. Strabo mentions that, "to the southward of the Dead Sea there are towns and cities built entirely of salt;" and, although such an account seems strange, yet, when we contemplated the scene before us, it did not seem very improbable. The torrents, during the rainy season, had brought down immense masses of salt; and we observed that the strata were generally in perpendicular lines.' The reader will be careful not to confound the cliffs of which

the above extract speaks, with those that cross the Ghor more to the south. The present are those which form the southern expansion of that narrow ravine through which the plain is approached from the west; and which, in fact, form part of the western, not the southern, boundary of the plain. It seems that the plain itself, which, properly speaking, is part of the bed of the Dead Sea, becomes in part a marsh when the water is high during the wet season, but, when that is over, is soon dried by the effects of evaporation. The plain must be dry and firm during the greater part of the year, for Irby and Mangles found it so as early as the month of May, with the exception that water still remained in some of the drains (six in all) in that part contiguous to the sea. The travellers do not speak of any saline incrustation or impregnation in the barren flats' thus formed; but this must be the case, not only from the strongly saline character of the evaporated water, and from the cliffs and rocks of salt already noticed, but from the fact that, in a subsequent visit to the part of the valley east of the southern bay, the remarkably saline character of the dried soil is particularly mentioned. None of these phenomena are singular. The salt lake of Ourmiah, in Persia, leaves, in like manner, during the dry season, an extensive plain, saturated or incrusted with saline matter, and perfectly barren. (See the general note on the Dead Sea, under Gen. xix. 25.)

He took Selah by war, and called the name of it Joktheel.'-Selah means a rock;' and as the Greek name for the chief town of the Nabathæan Edomites, Petra, has precisely the same signification, it is, not without reason, conceived by some writers that the town which the Greeks knew as Petra is here and elsewhere denoted. We rather incline to this opinion, which has also the strong support of Eusebius and Jerome, who both describe Petra as 'a city of Arabia, in the land of Edom, which is also called Jectuel.' It is true that, in the Hebrew text, the word, in this and other places, may be read as an appellative rather than as a proper name, and that it is so read by the Septuagint and Vulgate (but not the Syriac and Arabic); but as the versions, particularly the Septuagint, often turn the sig

nificant proper names of the Hebrew into appellatives, we are not disposed to lay much stress on this; and even did we allow that Selah is an appellative, it would be open to us to contend that a place so emphatically indicated as the rock was most probably the same which is allowed to have borne a proper name of the same import. In other words, a place distinguished as the rock is the most likely to be that to which the proper name of the same meaning, whether Selah or Petra, would be given. This will be allowed by any one who considers the universal process in topographical nomenclature, under which, distinguishing appellatives become, in process of time, fixed as proper names. However, as we are not willing to raise an argument on the question, whether such a word is to be understood as a proper name or an appellative, we are content with the probability, in connection with the other and stronger probability, that the chief town of Mount Seir, even if not expressly named, is at least indicated and referred to in the history and prophecy of the Old Testament. In their denunciations against a country the prophets continually refer to its chief town; and, unless there was an exception in this instance, they did so in their copious prophecies against Edom. But that there is in this case no exception is evident from topographical indications, to which we shall find a future occasion to refer. Now the chief town of Edom was Petra; and, as the prophets who foretold its doom were not long posterior to the date of the transaction before us, it becomes probable that the present history has the same principal city of Edom in view; particularly when we find it bearing a name analogous to that which the metropolis of Edom certainly bore. We are, however, more anxious to shew that the prophecies refer to Petra than that the present history does so. The former point we consider certain, and the latter sufficiently probable to afford us an opportunity of entertaining the general subject, which now turns upon the question, Where was Petra ?'

This is a point concerning which it is necessary to have a distinct understanding; for if the Idumæan town to which the Scriptures refer be not the excavated city of Wady Musa, near Mount Hor, we lose much of the force of that satisfactory and beautiful evidence to the divine authority of the sacred writers, which may be deduced from the complete correspondence of their predictions with the existing condition of Edom. This correspondence has been only lately discovered; and, as something new, it has engaged more attention than old truths, however valuable, would have been likely to obtain. With respect to Edom, we purpose here to lay the foundation for future illustration by shewing, what we think has not yet been done satisfactorily, that the city of Wady Musa was the town of Edom which Scripture history and prophecy have in view.

Two places have been made to contend for the distinction of being the ancient Petra. One is the existing town of Kerak, about eight miles due east from the southern bay of the Dead Sea, the other is the forsaken and desolated city in Wady Musa, near Mount Hor. The conditions of the question are rather peculiar. No one now denies that the city in Wady Musa was Petra. The learned editor of Burckhardt's Travels in Syria has proved this from the concurrent testimony of ancient writers; but, unfortunately, the same accomplished geographer has taken up the opinion, that, previously to the time of the Macedonian conquests, the present Kerak was Petra and the principal town of the Nabathæans, and this consideration will of course exclude the Petra of Wady Musa entirely from the cognizance of the sacred writers, the canon of Old Testament Scripture having been closed considerably anterior to the appearance of the Macedonians in Asia. But it seems to us no difficult matter to disprove this position. To do so with completeness would require a lengthened dissertation, which would scarcely interest our readers; but we may briefly state a few considerations which will, we think, reduce the probabilities which seem in favour of the conclusion to which we are opposed. We have repeatedly read with great attention the statement on the subject, which we find in the Preface to Burckhardt,

but have failed to discover that any one authority is cited in proof that Kerak ever was called Petra in ancient times. The only passage bearing an aspect of truth is the following: When the Macedonian Greeks first became acquainted with this part of Syria, by means of the expedition which Antigonus sent against the Nabatæi, under the command of his son Demetrius, we are informed by Diodorus that these Arabs placed their old men, women, and children, upon a certain rock (ènɩ Tivos Teтpas), steep, unfortified by walls, admitting only of one access to the summit, and situated 300 stades beyond the lake Asphaltitis. As this interval agrees with that of Kerak from the southern extremity of the Dead Sea, and is not above half the distance of Wady Musa from the same point; and as the other parts of the description are well adapted to Kerak, while they are inapplicable to Wady Musa, we can hardly doubt that Kerak was at that time the fortress of the Nabatæi; and that, during the first ages of the intercourse of that people with the Greeks, it was known to the latter by the name of Petra, so often applied by them to barbarian hillposts.' After this, Col. Leake goes on to infer (for no proof is adduced) that subsequently, when the effects of commerce required a situation better adapted than Kerak to the collected population and the increased opulence of the Nabatæi, the appellative of Petra was transferred to the new city at Wady Musa. But ultimately, when the stream of commerce had partly reverted to its old Egyptian channel and had partly taken the new course by Palmyra, the city at Wady Musa became gradually depopulated; and, in the end, Kerak came again to be considered by travellers as Petra, because the existence of the ruined city in Wady Musa has only lately been brought to light, and because Kerak was the principal place, and the only place with a Christian community, remaining in the diocese of the Greek church which retains the old title of the bishopric of Petra, originally derived from the Petra of Wady Musa. The last sentence affords an explanation, in which we gladly acquiesce, of how Kerak came to be identified with Petra; and we only demur at the almost contradictory opinion, that, in remote antiquity, Kerak was 'the crowning city' of the Nabateans, which was distinguished by this name.

The following are among the considerations which leave us satisfied to rest in a contrary conclusion to that which we have here stated with all the force that can be given to it. We must state them in the form of a bare abstract, without that full exposition from collateral considerations by which they would be very materially strengthened. 'In the first place, the passage in Diodorus does not say that the place in question was the city called Petra, but that there was a rock to which the inhabitants retreated, and which served them as a natural fortress. Now, if, because Petra means a rock, this rock is to be regarded as Petra, there is no reason why Petra should not be sought wherever a rock happens to be historically mentioned in the rocky country of the Edomites. Thus, then, if the rock' were nt the Kerak east of the Dead Sea, we do not see that this Kerak was therefore necessarily Petra. But, on the other hand, allowing that Diodorus had Petra in view, we think it might be shewn that it was more probably Wady Musa than Kerak. He does not say that the rock was east of the Dead Sea, nor that it was 300 stades from that sea; but that, after the affair at the rock, the Greeks marched 300 stades to the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea. It may therefore have been south of the Sea, and the loose indication of distance would allow it without violence to have been as far south as Wady Musa. In fact, Major Rennell, who in his determination of the site could of course take no cognizance of the recent discoveries in Wady Musa, cites this very passage of Diodorus among his ancient authorities for placing Petra at another Kerak (Kerak eshShobek), south of the Dead Sea, and in the immediate vicinity of Wady Musa; which, taken as a conclusion independent of recent discoveries, is a most remarkable and valuable corroboration. Again, if the more northern Kerak had been Petra at the time to which Diodorus refers, this would prove it to have been not the more

ancient but a more modern Petra. We allow the station may have belonged then to the Edomites, because they encroached northward, after the captivity, into what had formed the dominion of Judah on the one side of the Dead Sea, and of Moab and Ammon on the other. But that it could not have been a principal town or any town of the Edomites, in the time of the inspired writers of the Old Testament, is clear from the fact that its site was then in the territory of Moab, on the borders of Ammon. If any proof of this were wanting, it is found in the fact mentioned by Burckhardt's editor himself, that Kerak was called Charax by the Greeks, to which the Romans added Omanorum (Kerak of Ammon) to distinguish it from the more southern Kerak; and the Greeks themselves, for the same purpose, referred it to Moab, in the name of Charagmoba. We think these considerations demonstrate that Kerak could not have been a town of the Idumæans before the Captivity; nor could it therefore be mentioned or alluded to as such by the sacred writers. And if the prior claims of Kerak be dismissed, no one will dispute those of the town in Wady Musa. We might rest here: but we will add that the Edomites were a great people, established between the Dead Sea and the Red Sea (the sea of Edom), when the Israelites were about to enter the Promised Land, and the history of the transactions between the two nations appear to demonstrate that the capital of Edom was even then to the south of the Dead Sea. They were also obviously a great commercial people before the

time of Solomon; and the very reasons of commercial advantage which are thought to have dictated the ultimate removal to Wady Musa, must have equally operated at an earlier period-Kerak being most disadvantageously situated as the capital of a people possessing the commerce of the Red Sea. Furthermore, we have seen that Jerome says that Joktheel was Petra; and he, of all men, was likely to have known if Kerak was or ever had been the ancient Petra; but he says that Petra was near Mount Hor, and Burckhardt and his learned editor were the first to receive and confirm the local traditions which determine Mount Hor to have been one of the mountains near Wady Musa. In conclusion, we may add that the prophetic intimations concerning Edom receive no illustration from Kerak, but correspond with astonishing precision to the present appearances presented by the remains of the wonderful city in Wady Musa: and, although the consideration has been generally overlooked, we shall ever be disposed to contend that the prophetic intimations concerning the (then future but now present) condition of towns, furnish the very best and most authoritative data by which the sites of such places may be determined. At present we have given a cut from Laborde, shewing one of the aspects in which this wonderful city, with its sculptured and excavated cliffs, appears; reserving the descriptive details to be given in connection with these prophecies, which they will contribute to illustrate. (See the historical note on the Edomites, under Gen. xxxvi. 2.)

CHAPTER XV.

1 Azariah's good reign. 5 He dying a leper, Jotham succeedeth. 8 Zachariah, the last of Jehu's generation, reigning ill, is slain by Shallum. 13 Shallum, reigning a month, is slain by Menahem. 16 Menahem strengtheneth himself by Pul. 21 Pekahiah succeedeth him. 23 Pekahiah is slain by Pekah. 27 Pekah is oppressed by Tiglath-pileser, and slain by Hoshea. 32 Jotham's good reign. 36 Ahaz succeedeth him.

In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel began Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah to reign.

2 Sixteen years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned two and fifty years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Jecholiah of Jerusalem.

3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father Amaziah had done;

4 Save that the high places were not removed: the people sacrificed and burnt incense still on the high places.

5 And the LORD smote the king, so that 5¶ he was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house. And Jotham the king's son was over the house, judging the people of the land.

6 And the rest of the acts of Azariah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? 7 So Azariah slept with his fathers; and

1 Chap. 10. 30.

they buried him with his fathers in the city of David and Jotham his son reigned in his stead.

8 In the thirty and eighth year of Azariah king of Judah did Zachariah the son of Jeroboam reign over Israel in Samaria six months.

9 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, as his fathers had done: he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.

10 And Shallum the son of Jabesh conspired against him, and smote him before the people, and slew him, and reigned in his

stead.

11 And the rest of the acts of Zachariah, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel.

12 This was 'the word of the LORD which he spake unto Jehu, saying, Thy sons shall sit on the throne of Israel unto the fourth generation. And so it came to pass.

13 Shallum the son of Jabesh began to reign in the nine and thirtieth year of 'Uzziah king of Judah; and he reigned a full month in Samaria.

14 For Menahem the son of Gadi went up from Tirzah, and came to Samaria, and smote Shallum the son of Jabesh in Samaria, and slew him, and reigned in his stead.

15 And the rest of the acts of Shallum, and his conspiracy which he made, behold, they