given by the kings (Dan. v. 1. Matt. xxii. 1. Mark vi. 21.); but it does not appear that women were admitted to them, except in Persia, when the queen was present, until the men grew warm with wine. (Dan. v. 2, 3. 23. Esth. i. 11. v. 4. 8. vii. 1.)1

4. Numerous are the ALLUSIONS IN THE SACRED WRITINGS TO THE COURTS OF PRINCES, and to the regal state which they anciently enjoyed. "The eastern monarchs were ever distinguished for studiously keeping up the majesty of royalty, and thus inspiring their subjects with the most reverential awe. They were difficult of access, very rarely showing themselves to their people, and lived in the depth of their vast palaces, surrounded with every possible luxury, and gratifying every desire as it arose. In these kingdoms of slaves it was accounted the summit of human grandeur and felicity to be admit ed into that splendid circle which surrounded the person of their sovereign;" whence the expression of seeing God (Matt. v. 8.) is to be explained of the enjoyment of the highest possible happiness, namely, his favour and protection, especially in the life to come. And as only a select few in the oriental courts were permitted to behold the face of the monarch, it is in reference to this custom that the angel Gabriel replied to Zechariah (who hesitated to believe his annunciation of the Baptist's birth), that he was Gabriel that stood in the presence of God; thus intimating that he stood in a state of high favour and trust with Jehovah. (Luke i. 19.) To dwell, or to stand in the presence of a sovereign is an oriental idiom, importing the most eminent and dignified station at court.4

and the same practice continues to this day. Thus Jacob instructed his sons to carry a present to Joseph, when they went to buy food of him as governor of Egypt. (Gen. xliií. 11. 26.) In like manner the magi, who came from the East to adore Jesus Christ, as king of the Jews, brought him presents of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. (Matt. ii. 11.) Allusions to this practice occur in Gen. xxxii. 13. 1 Kings x. 2. 10. 25. 2 Kings v. 5.; see also 1 Sam. ix. 7. and 2 Kings viii. 8. The prostrations were made, with every demonstration of reverence, to the ground. Thus David stooped with his face to the earth, and bowed himself before Saul. (1 Sam. xxiv. 8.) The mode of doing reverence to the sovereign, among the ancient Persians, was little short of absolute idolatry; and similar prostrations are made by their descendants in the present day. On these occasions, it was usual to address them with some compliment, or with wishes for their long life. Thus the widow of Tekoah, after prostrating herself before David, addressed him with-My lord is wise according to the wisdom of an angel of God (2 Sam. xiv. 20.); and the Chaldæan magi accosted Nebuchadnezzar with-0 king, live for ever! (Dan. ii. 4.)10 The all but idolatrous homage thus rendered to their monarchs, was exacted by their chief courtiers and favourites of all who approached them; and such was their pride, that the refusal of this homage never failed to involve the refractory individual in ruin. Thus Orsinus, a descendant of Cyrus, who had refused to worship the eunuch Bagoas (who had enslaved Alexander by his abominable obsequiousness), fell a victim to the revengeful minion's wounded pride." In like manner, Mordecai's refusal to prostrate himself before Haman (Esth. iii. 2.) would have proved fatal not only to himself but also to the Jewish nation, had not the malignant design of the crafty but mortified Agagite (Esth. iii. 3-6. v. 13.) been provídentially frustrated.

This allusive phraseology beautifully illustrates another very striking passage of Scripture. When the disciples, from their very low conceptions of the nature of Christ's kingdom, were contending among themselves who should be the greatest, our Saviour, in order to dispel these animosities, took a child; and, placing him before them, in the most solemn Those who rendered personal services to the sovereign had manner assured them that, unless they were converted, and pu- their names inscribed in the public registers (Esth. vi. 1.);12 rified their minds from all ambition and worldly thoughts, and were rewarded by distinguished marks of the royal they should not enter the kingdom of heaven, should not be favour. Thus Mordecai was arrayed with the royal vestdeemed proper subjects of the spiritual kingdom of the Mes-ments, and led in state on horseback through the streets of siah. But, continued Jesus Christ, whosoever therefore shall the city, with the royal diadem on his head. (Esth. vi. 8— humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the 11.) On such occasions the person raised to diguity was kingdom of heaven; and, after urging various cautions against invested with a new name or title expressive of his deserts. harshly treating sincere and humble Christians, he added, This was the case with Joseph (Gen. xli. 45.), Solomon Take heed that ye despise not one of these litle ones; for I say (2 Sam. xii. 25.), Daniel and his companions (Dan. i. 7.) ; unto yo, That in heaven their angels do always BEHOLD THE and to this there is an evident allusion in Rev. ii. 17. FACE OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN. (Matt. xviii. 1— The sovereigns of the East, it is well known, are very 10.); referring to the custom of oriental courts, where the fond of displaying their gorgeous splendour. The present great men, those who are highest in office or favour, are sovereign of Persia, and (after his example) his sons, genemost frequently in the prince's palace and presence. (Esth. rally appoint for the reception of ambassadors such an hour i. 14. 1 Kings x. 8. xii. 6. 2 Kings xxv. 19.) On another as, according to the season, or the intended room of audience, occasion, after our Lord had promised the apostles that they will best enable them to display the brilliancy of their jewels should sit on twelve thrones to judge the tribes of Israel, still in full sunshine. The title of bright or resplendent was added mistaking the spiritual nature of his kingdom, the mother of to the name of one sovereign, who lived upwards of eight James and John came to Jesus with her sons, and requested centuries ago; because his regal ornaments, glittering in the that he would grant that they might sit, the one on his right solar rays on a solemn festival, so dazzled the eyes of all hand, and the other on his left hand, in his kingdom. (Matt. xx. beholders that they could scarcely bear the effulgence: and 20-23.) This alludes to the custom which in those times some knew not which was the monarch, or which the great obtained in the courts of princes; where two of the noblest luminary of the day. Thus, Theophylact Simocatta (a and most dignified personages were respectively seated, one Greek historian who flourished in the seventh century of the on each side, next the sovereign himself, thus enjoying the Christian æra) relates that the Persian king, Hormisdas, most eminent places of dignity. (Compare 1 Kings ii. 19. sitting on his throne, astonished all spectators by the blazing Psal. xlv. 9. and Heb. i. 3.) In reply to the request of Salome, our Saviour stated that seats of distinguished eminence length he ran to the river Cyrus, and taking up some water in both his in his kingdom were not to be given through favour or par-reign for ever! I now pay my respects in the best manner I am able. I hands, he approached the monarch, and thus accosted him :-"O king, tiality, but to those only whom God should deem to be properly prepared for them.

The eastern monarchs were never approached but with presents of some kind or other, according to the ability of the individual, who accompanied them with expressions of the profoundest reverence, prostrating themselves to the ground;6

This is confirmed by Herodotus, lib. v. c. 18. Jahn, Archæologia Biblica, $227. Ackermann, Archæologia Biblica, § 221. Among the Persians it was death to enter the royal presence without being called for, Esth. iv. 11. Herodotus (book i. c. 99.) states Deioces the Mede to have been the first who instituted this ordinance.

* Harwood's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii. pp. 322, 323. • Ibid. p. 323.

Ibid. p. 324, 325. Among the ancient Persians, to sit next the person of the king was the highest possible honour. See 1 Esdras iii. 7. iv. 42. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xi. c.3. §2.

It was (says Elian) the law of Persia, that, whenever the king went abroad, the people should, according to their abilities and occupations, present him, as he passed along, with some gift,-as an ox, a sheep, a quantity of corn, or wine, or with some fruit. It happened one day, when Artaxerxes was taking the air, that he was met by one Sinætes. The man, being at a great distance from home, was in the greatest distress, having nothing to offer, and observing others crowding with their presents. At

present to thee some of the waters of the river Cyrus: should your imajesty ever pass by, or near, my house, I hope to vie with the best of these in my donatives." The monarch was highly pleased with the man, commanded his present to be received into a golden vial, and afterwards dsomely rewarded him. Elian, Var. Hist. lib. i. cc. 31, 32.

* Quintus Curtius, lib. vi. c. 6. toin. ii. p. 23. (edit. Bipont): lib. viii. c. 5. p. 118. Morier's Second Journey, p. 172.; where an engraving is given, illustrative of the oriental prostrations.

This is very similar to the hyperbolical language, which is addressed by the Hindoos to an European, when they are desirous of obtaining something from him. "Saheb, say they, can do every thing. No one can prerent the execution of Sahel's communds. Saheb is God." (Ward's View of the History, &c. of the Hindoos, vol. ii. p. 323.)

10 A similar salutation is to this day given in India. When a poor man goes into the presence of a king, to solicit a favour, he says, "O Father! thou art the support of the destitute-Mayest thou live to old age!" Ibid. p. 333.

11 Quintus Curtius, lib. x. c. 1. vol. ii. pp. 199–201. (edit. Bipont.) 12 Herodotus, lib. viii. c. 85. Thucydides, lib. i. c. 129. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xi. c. 6. The same practice continues to obtain at the Ottoman Porte (Baron de Tott's Mem, vol. n. p. 15.), and also in Abyssinia, and other parts of the East. Burder's Oriental Customs, vol. i. p. 311. 5th edit.

18 Theophylact, lib. iv. c. 3. cited by Sir Win. Ouseley, to whom we are indebted for the above remark, in his Travels in various Countries of the East, more particularly Persia, vol. ii. D. 36. (London, 1821. 4to.

glories of his jewels. Thus also king Agrippa was almost regarded as a god, so powerfully did his ornamented dress reflect the morning sunbeams; and it was probably the splendour of Solomon "in all his glory," when seated on the throne, in addition to the magnificence of his establishment, which so struck the queen of Sheba on beholding them, that "there was no more spirit in her.” (1 Kings x. 4, 5.)

Further, whenever the oriental sovereigns go abroad, they are uniformly attended by a numerous and splendid retinue: the Hebrew kings and their sons either rode on asses or mules (2 Sam. xiii. 29. 1 Kings i. 33. 38.), or in chariots (1 Kings i. 5. 2 Kings ix. 21. x. 15.), preceded or accompanied by their royal guards (who, in 2 Sam. viii. 18. and xv. 18., are termed Cherethites and Pelethites); as the oriental sovereigns do to this day. For greater state they had footmen to run before them. Thus, the rebel Absalom had fifty men to run before him. (2 Sam. xv. 1.) And in this manner, the prophet Elijah, though he detested the crimes of Ahab, was desirous of paying him all that respect which was due to his exalted station; girded up his loins, and ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel. (1 Kings xviii. 46.) In India, when a person wishes to do honour to an European, he will run before his palanquin for miles.? Further, the approach of a king was often announced by the sound of trumpets. (1 Kings i. 34. 39.) Hence the presence of God is described in the same manner (Heb. xii. 19. compared with Exod. xix. 13.), and also the final advent of the Messiah. (Matt. xxiv. 31. 1 Cor. xv. 52. 1 Thess. iv. 15.) Whenever the Asiatic monarchs entered upon an expedition, or took a journey through desert and untravelled countries, they sent harbingers before them to prepare all things for their passage, and pioneers to open the passes, level the ways, and remove all impediments. The ancient sovereigns of Hindoostan used to send persons to precede them in their journeys, and command the inhabitants to clear the roads; a very necessary step in a country, where there are scarcely any public roads. To this practice the prophet Isaiah manifestly alludes (Isa. xl. 3. compared with Mal. iii. 1. and Matt. iii. 3.); and we shall obtain a clear notion of the preparation of the way for a royal expedition, and the force and beauty of the prophetic declaration will fully appear, if we attend to the following narrative of the marches of Semiramis in Media, recorded by Diodorus Siculus. "In her march to Ecbatane, she came to the Zarcean mountain, which, extending many furlongs, and being full of craggy precipices and deep hollows, could not be passed without making a long circuit. Being desirous, therefore, of leaving | an everlasting memorial of herself, as well as to make a shorter way, she ordered the precipices to be digged down, and the hollow places to be filled up; and at a great expense she made a shorter and more expeditious road, which to this day is called the road of Semiramis. Afterwards she made a progress through Persia, and all her other dominions in Asia; and wherever she came, she commanded the mountains and craggy precipices to be cut down, and, at a vast expense, made the ways level and plain. On the other hand, in low places she raised mounds, on which she erected monuments in honour of her deceased generals, and sometimes whole cities." The writer of the apocryphal book of Barucht (v. 7.) expresses the same subject by the same images, either taking them from Isa. xl. 3. (or perhaps from Ixii. 10 -12.), or from the common notions of his countrymen "For God," says he, "hath appointed that every high hill, and banks of long continuance, should be cast down and valleys filled up, to make even the ground, that Israel may go safely in the glory of God." The "Jewish church was that desert country to which John the Baptist was sent (Matt. iii. 1-4.), to announce the coming of the Messiah. It was at that time destitute of all religious cultivation, and of the spirit and practice of piety; and John was sent to prepare the way of the Lord by preaching the doctrine of repentance. The desert is therefore to be considered as a proper emblem of the rude state of the Jewish church, which was the true wilderness meant by the prophet, and in which John was to prepare the way of the promised Messiah."

■ Acts xii. 21, 22. See p. 79. supra, where Josephus's account of Agrippa's gorgeous array is given in illustration of the sacred historian. 2 Statham's Indian Recollections, pp. 116, 117.

V. With regard to the REVENUES OF THE KINGS OF ISRAEL, as none were appointed by Moses, so he left no ordinances concerning them: we may, however, collect from the Sacred Writings, that they were derived from the following sources: 1. Voluntary offerings, or presents, which were made to them conformably to the oriental custom. (1 Sam. x. 27. xvi. 20.) Michaelis is of opinion that they were confined to Saul only, as no trace of them is to be found after his time.

2. The produce of the royal flocks (1 Sam. xxi. 7. 2 Sam. xiii. 23. 2 Chron. xxxii. 28, 29.); and as both king and subjects had a common of pasture in the Arabian deserts, Michaelis thinks that David kept numerous herds there (1 Chron. xxvii. 29-31.), which were partly under the care of Arabian herdsmen.

3. The produce of the royal demesnes, consisting of arable lands, vineyards, olive and sycamore grounds, &c. which had originally been unenclosed and uncultivated, or were the property of state criminals confiscated to the sovereign: these demesnes were cultivated by bondsmen, and, perhaps, also by the people of conquered countries (1 Chron. xxvii. 26–31. 2 Chron. xxvi. 10.); and it appears from 1 Sam. viii. 14. xxii. 7. and Ezek. xlvi. 17. that the kings assigned part of their domains to their servants in lieu of salary. 4. Another source of the royal revenue was the tenth part of all the produce of the fields and vineyards, the collection and management of which seem to have been confided to the officers mentioned in 1 Kings iv. 7. and 1 Chron. xxvii. 25. It is also probable from 1 Kings x. 14. that the Israelites likewise paid a tax in money. These imposts Solomon appears to have increased; and Rehoboam's refusal to lessen them is stated by the sacred historian as the cause of the rebellion of the ten tribes against him. (1 Kings xii. 14. 18.) There is an allusion in Mal. i. 8. and Neh. v. 18. to the custom of paying dues in kind to governors, which obtains to this day in Abyssinia.

5. Not only did the most precious part of the plunder of the conquered nations flow into the royal treasury (2 Sam. viii.), but the latter also had tributes imposed on them, which were termed MINCHA, or presents, and were paid partly in money, and partly in agricultural produce. (1 Kings iv. 21. Psal. lxxii. 10. compared with 1 Chron. xxvii. 25-31.) 6. Lastly, the customs paid to Solomon by the foreign merchants who passed through his dominions (1 Kings x. 15.) afforded a considerable revenue to that monarch; who, as the Mosaic laws did not encourage foreign commerce, carried on a very extensive and lucrative trade (1 Kings x. 22.), particularly in Egyptian horses and the byssus or fine linen of Egypt. (1 Kings x. 28, 29.)8

VI. On the introduction of the regal government among the Israelites, the princes of the tribes, heads of families, scribes or genealogists, and judges, retained the authority which they had previously exercised, and constituted a senate or legislative assembly for the cities, in or near which they respectively resided. (1 Kings xii. 1-24. 1 Chron. xxiii. 4. xxvi. 29, 30. xxviii. and xxix. 6.) The judges and scribes or genealogists were appointed by the sovereign, together with other officers, of whom the following were the principal:

1. The most important officer was the PRIME Minister, or Second to the King, as he is termed in Scripture. Such was Elkanah, who in our version of 2 Chron. xxviii. 7. is said to have been next (literally second) to the king Ahaz; Joseph was prime minister to Pharaoh, king of Egypt (Gen. xli. 40—43.); and Haman, to Ahasuerus. (Esth. iiì. 1.) Jonathan, speaking to David, says,―Thou shalt be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto thee. (1 Sam. xviii. 17.) From 1 Chron. xviii. 17., it should seem that this office was sometimes held by one or more of the king's sons.

2. The ROYAL COUNSELLORS, or Privy Council, as we perhaps should term them. (Isa. iii. 3. xix. 11, 12. Jer. xxvi. recorded by the chaplain to Sir Thomas Roe, ambassador to the Mogul court in the reigns of James I. and Charles I.; who says (p. 128.) that, making a progress with the ambassador and emperor, they came to a wilderness, where (by a very great company sent before us, to make those passages and places fit for us) a WAY WAS CUT OUT AND MADE EVEN, broad enough for our convenient passage. And in the place where we pitched our tents, a great compass of ground was rid and made plain for them by grubbing a number of trees and bushes: yet there we went as readily to our tents, as we did when they were set up in the plains." Fragments supplemental to Calmet's Dictionary, No. 171 See similar instances in Dr. Clarke's Travels, vol. viii. p. 277. 8vo. Mr. Forbes's Oriental Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 450, and Mr. Ward's View of the History, &c. of the Hindoos, vol. iii. p. 132. Bruce's Travels, vol. i. p. 353. 8vo. Jahn. Archæologia Biblica, §234.

• Robinson's Lexicon to the Greek Testament, p. 674. Ward's View of the History, &c. of the Hindoos, vol. iii. p. 339. Bibliotheca Historica, lib. ii. cc. 13, 14. (vol. ii. pp. 44-46. edit. Bipont.) Bishop Lowth on Isaiah xl. vol. ii. pp. 252-254. Dr. Clarke's ComAckermann. Archæologia Biblica, mentary on Matt. iii. 3. A practice, similar to that above described, is § 228. Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. i. pp. 299–307.

11.) Such were the old men that stood before Solomon while | summary justice on state criminals. See 1 Kings ii. 25. 34. he lived, and whom the headstrong Rehoboam consulted In the time of David the royal life-guards were called Che(1 kings xii. 6.); and such also was Jonathan, David's uncle. (1 Chron. xxvii. 32.)

pressed men into their service), and it is still retained in the in the triumphal hymn of Deborah, in which so many others East. These proclamations were made at the gates of the are mentioned; and (what is particularly deserving of attencities, and in Jerusalem at the gate of the temple, where tion) it took no part in the exploits of Gideon, although the there was always a great concourse of people. On this ac- enemies whom he was going to fight had made incursions as count it was that the prophets frequently delivered their pre- far as Gaza (Judg. vi. 4.), whither they could not have penedictions in the temple (and also in the streets and at the gates) trated without entering on its territory. It was the men of of Jerusalem, as being the edicts of Jehovah, the supreme Judah, also, who were desirous of delivering up Samson, a King of Israel. (Jer. vii. 2, 3. xi. 6. xvii. 19, 20. xxxvi. 10.) Danite, to the Philistines. (xv. 11.) This old grudge subIn later times, both Jesus Christ and his apostles taught insisted in all its force, when the elevation of Saul, a Benjamand at the gate of the temple. (Luke ii. 46. Matt. xxvi. 55. ite, to the throne of Israel, still further chagrined the proud Mark xii. 35. Acts iii. 11. v. 12.)2 tribe of Ephraim: it is not improbable that the discontent manifested in the assembly of the Israelites at Mizpeth, which induced Samuel to renew the kingdom at Gilgal (1 Sam. x. 27. xi. 12—14.), was excited by the Ephraimites; and at the very commencement of Saul's reign we observe a census, in which the troops of Judah are reckoned separately from those of Israel. (18.) At length, the elevation of David completed the mortification of the jealous and envious tribe of Ephraim, and of the northern tribes which ordinarily followed the fortune of so powerful a neighbour; while Simeon and Benjamin, from necessity as well as choice, were more disposed in favour of Judah. Hence David, during the whole of his long-continued flight from Saul, never quitted the territory of Judah and Benjamin, but when he tock refuge in a foreign country; and he sent presents only to the cities of his own tribe. (1 Sam. xxx. 26.) On the death of Saul, two thrones arose in Israel; which gave rise to a civil war, that lasted seven years; and, had it not been for the defection of Abner, and the timidity of Ishbosheth, the tribes might never have been united under one sceptre. (2 Sam. ii. 10. iii. 1. 9-12. v. 5.) David himself felt the weakness of his power. (iii. 39.) The choice of Jerusalem for his capital and for the centre of worship, to the exclusion of Shiloh, a town of Ephraim, where the tabernacle and ark had formerly been kept (Josh. xviii. 1.), could not but displease the malecontents, whose pride was wounded by hearing that advantage celebrated in one of the sacred hymns. (Psal. lxxviii. 67, 68.) During David's reign, the dispute at the passage of the river Jordan showed how a small spark kindled a flame (2 Sam. xix. 41.), which Sheba, retiring towards the north, was at hand to excite. (xx. 1.)

X. The kingdom which had been founded by Saul, and carried to its highest pitch of grandeur and power by David and Solomon, subsisted entire for the space of 120 years; until Rehoboam, the son and successor of Selomon, refused to mitigate the burthens of his subjects, when a division of the twelve tribes took place: ten of these (of which Ephraim was the principal) adhered to Jeroboam, and formed the kingdom of Israel, while the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, | continuing faithful in their allegiance to Rehoboam, constituted the kingdom of Judah. The causes of this revolution in the commencement of Rehoboam's reign, may, as in all similar commotions, be traced to anterior events: the impolicy of that monarch was only the immediate occasion of it; and in the successive periods of the history of the Hebrews, we may discern vestiges of hereditary jealousy, which terminated only in the division of the posterity of Abraham into two distinct nations, one of whom has since disappeared. The limits necessarily assigned to this portion of our work will only allow us to attempt a rapid sketch of this long series of discord and hatred.

From the very beginning of the Israelitish nation, the two tribes of Judah and Ephraim had disputed for the pre-eminency. The former, whose glory had been predicted by the dying patriarch Jacob (Gen. xlix. 10.), flourished in the number of its families, as well as by its power and wealth; being allied to the blood of the Pharaohs during the residence of the Israelites in Egypt, where the two remarkable establishments of Er and of Jokim had been formed, which this tribe carried into Palestine. (1 Chron. v. 2. iv. 18.) Judah also marched first during the sojourning in the desert (Num. x. 14.), and reckoned upon a dominion which had been promised by so many oracles. The latter, or tribe of Ephraim, depending on the great name of Joseph, and on the right of primogeniture which it had acquired in consequence of being adopted by Jacob (1 Chron. v. 2. Gen. xlviii. 5. 19.), confided in that numerous posterity which had been predicted to it; became powerful during the residence in Egypt, as is evident from the buildings erected by Sherah (1 Chron. vii. 24.); and afterwards rapidly increased in strength and prosperity. (Josh. xvii. 14. Judg. i. 35.) One very remarkable proof, that Ephraim and Judah were the two preponderating tribes, is, that when the land of Canaan was divided (Josh. xviii. 2.), they each received their allotments before the western tribes. As the southern part of the Holy Land, which was appor-dered inevitable. tioned to Judah, proved too large for that tribe, the Simeonites were added to them. (Josh. xix. 1.9.) The Ephraimites, on the contrary, and the half tribe of Manasseh, which were sister and neighbouring tribes, pleaded that their allotment was not sufficiently extensive for them; and enlarged it by force of arms, and by cutting down the forests which abounded in the mountainous districts of the land of Canaan. (Josh. xvii. 14-18.)

In this state of things, with such recollections and mutual pretensions, it was impossible that a spirit of rivalry and jealousy should not break forth. The tribe of Ephraim was distinguished for its proud, turbulent, and warlike spirit, as is evident not only from the remonstrances addressed by them to Joshua, but also by their discontented murmuring against Gideon, notwithstanding he was of the tribe of Manasseh (Judg. viii. 1.), and in the civil war with Jephthah, in which their envy and hatred were so severely punished. (xii. 1—4.) The tribe of Judah, on the contrary, more pacific in its temper and more sedentary in its pursuits, appears always to have cherished a coolness towards the northern tribes. It never assisted them in their wars; its name does not occur 1 Xenoph. Cyr. lib. viii. 6. 17. Herod. viii. 98. Bloomfield's Annotations on the New Testament, vol. i. p. 66. Robinson's Lexicon, voce Ayyapivo. Among the Turks, these Angari or couriers are called Tatars; and in Persia, Chappars. "When a chappar sets out, the master of the horse furnishes him with a single horse: and when that is weary, he dismounts the first man he meets, and takes his horse. There is no pardon for a traveller that should refuse to let a chappar have his horse, nor for any other who should deny him the best horse in his stable." Chardin's Travels, vol. i. p. 257.

Jalin, Archæologia Biblica, § 233. Ackermann, Archæologia Biblica, § 227.

Finally, the erection of the temple, the immoveable sanctuary, which secured the supremacy of the tribe of Judah, the taxes levied and personal services required by Solomon, who employed them for the most part in the embellishment of Jerusalem, the little commercial advantage which Ephraim could derive during his reign, in comparison of Judah, which tribe was more commodiously situated for profiting by the transit of commodities between Egypt, Idumæa, and Arabia, the intrigues of Jeroboam, who had been im prudently nominated to the command of the house of Joseph (2 Kings xi. 26. 28.) ;—all these circumstances contributed secretly to mature that revolution, which only awaited his death to break forth, and which the folly of Rehoboam ren

The KINGDOM OF ISRAEL subsisted under various sovereigns during a period of 254 years, according to some chronologers; its metropolis Samaria being captured by Shalmaneser king of Assyria, B. c. 721, after a siege of three years. Of the Israelites, whose numbers had been reduced by immense and repeated slaughters, some of the lower sort were suffered to remain in their native country; but the nobles and all the more opulent persons were carried into captivity beyond the Euphrates.3

The KINGDOM OF JUDAH continued 388 years; Jerusalem its capital being taken, the temple burnt, and its sovereign Zedekiah being carried captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar; the rest of his subjects (with the exception of the poorer classes who were left in Judæa) were likewise carried into captivity beyond the Euphrates, where they and their pos

It was the belief of some of the ancient fathers of the Christian church, that the descendants of the ten tribes did afterwards return into their own neither of these opinions is supported by history. In the New Testament, country and the same notion has obtained anong some modern Jews, but indeed, we find mention of the twelve tribes (Matt. xix. 28. Luke xxii. 30. Acts xxvi. 7.); and St. James (i. L.) directs his epistle to them; but it cannot be concluded from these passages, that they were at that time gathered together; all that can be inferred from them is, that they were still in being. Perhaps the whole body of the Jewish nation retained the name of the twelve tribes according to the ancient division; as we find the disciples called the twelve after the death of Judas, and before the election of Matthias. This conjecture becomes the more probable, as it is certain from the testimony of the sacred writers and of Josephus, that there were considerable numbers of Israelites mingled with the Jews, sufficient indeed to authorize the former to speak of the twelve tribes as constituting but one body with the Jewish nation. Beausobre's Introd. to the New Test. (Bishop Watson's Tracts, vol. iii. pp. 114-116.)