or statue, and had his victuals brought to him, until he found an opportunity of making his escape, or of satisfying the offended party." (Mythology,' b. iii. c. 8.) In ancient authors we, however, sometimes read of the most sacred asylums being occasionally violated. This was generally by some method thought likely to be least offensive to the presiding deity, as by cutting off the provisions of the refugee, or by walling up his place of refuge. Sometimes he was even torn from the asylum and put to death. But it will be observed that, where such instances occur, we are sure to hear of some grievous calamity being the consequence of the profanation. It rarely happened that a refugee was slain in his refuge; and we may be sure that, if the present narrative had been related in profane history, we should have read of some horrible judgment befalling Solomon and Benaiah, if not the city at large. But, in the end, even pagan superstition gave way under the pressure of the evils which this state of things produced, and notorious offenders were forced even from the altar, its protection being only allowed to minor offences. Asylums such as we have mentioned still remain in the East, being generally the mosques built over the remains of distinguished saints; and the resources of the refugees are much the same, as well as the means sometimes taken to bring them to punishment—that is, by starving them in their retreat. In Europe, the privilege of sanctuary was revived in favour of the churches, and was in time followed by the usual evils. Speaking of Funchal in Madeira, Ovington says: "Murder is here in a kind of reputation; and it is made the characteristic of any gentleman of rank or fashion to have dipt his hand in blood. chief source of this execrable crime is the protection it receives from the churches, which sort of sanctuaries are very numerous. The indulgence given to such malefactors is the greatest reproach to religion and humanity. It is enough if the criminal can lay hold on the horns of the altar; and the utmost punishment inflicted is banishment or confinement; both of which, by large presents, may be bought off." (Voyage to Surat,' 1689.) In the reign of James I. the privilege of sanctuary in England was finally abolished by statute. This subject is of great interest; and now, after this statement of the ancient and modern practices, we need only refer the reader again to Josh. xx., and remind him that the Hebrew law provided no sanctuary except for involuntary offences, and that it directed voluntary offenders to be taken by force even from the altar of God.

CHAPTER III.

1 Solomon marrieth Pharaoh's daughter. 2 High places being in use, Solomon sacrificeth at Gibeon. 5 Solomon at Gibeon, in the choice which God gave him, preferring wisdom, obtaineth wisdom, riches, and honour. 16 Solomon's judgment between the two harlots maketh him renowned.

AND 'Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh's daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had made an end of building his own house, and the house of the LORD, and the wall of Jerusalem round about.

2 Only the people sacrificed in high places, because there was no house built unto the name of the LORD, until those days.

3 And Solomon loved the LORD, walking in the statutes of David his father: only he sacrificed and burnt incense in high places.

4 And the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there; for that was the great high place: a thousand burnt offerings did Solomon offer upon that altar.

5 In Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream by night: and God said, Ask what I shall give thee.

6 And Solomon said, Thou hast shewed unto thy servant David my father great 'mercy, according as he walked before thee in truth, and in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with thee; and thou hast kept for him this great kindness, that thou hast given him a son to sit on his throne, as it is this day.

7 And now, O LORD my God, thou hast made thy servant king instead of David my

4 Heb. hearing. 8 Or, hath not been.

The

father: and I am but a little child: I know not how to go out or come in.

8 And thy servant is in the midst of thy people which thou hast chosen, a great people, that cannot be numbered nor counted for multitude.

9 Give therefore thy servant an ‘understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad for who is able to judge this thy so great a people?

10 And the speech pleased the LORD, that Solomon had asked this thing.

11 And God said unto him, Because thou hast asked this thing, and hast not asked for thyself 'long life; neither hast asked riches for thyself, nor hast asked the life of thine enemies; but hast asked for thyself understanding to discern judgment;

12 Behold, I have done according to thy words: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee.

13 And I have also 'given thee that which thou hast not asked, both riches, and honour: so that there shall not be any among the kings like unto thee all thy days.

14 And if thou wilt walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and my commandments, 'as thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days.

15 And Solomon awoke; and behold, it was a dream. And he came to Jerusalem, and stood before the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and offered up burnt offerings,

I. KINGS.

and offered peace offerings, and made a feast to all his servants.

16 Then came there two women, that were harlots, unto the king, and stood before him.

17 And the one woman said, O my lord, I and this woman dwell in one house; and I was delivered of a child with her in the house.

18 And it came to pass the third day after that I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also: and we were together; there was no stranger with us in the house, save we two in the house.

19 And this woman's child died in the night; because she overlaid it.

20 And she arose at midnight, and took my son from beside me, while thine handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my bosom.

21 And when I rose in the morning to give my child suck, behold, it was dead: but when I had considered it in the morning, behold, it was not my son, which I did bear.

22 And the other woman said, Nay; but

10 Heb. were hot

[B.C. 1014. the living is my son, and the dead is thy thy son, and the living is my son. son. And this said, No; but the dead is they spake before the king. Thus

This is my son that liveth, and thy son is the 23 Then said the king, The one saith, dead: and the other saith, Nay; but thy son is the dead, and my son is the living.

And they brought a sword before the king.
24 And the king said, Bring me a sword.
child in two, and give half to the one, and
25 And the king said, Divide the living
half to the other.

living child was unto the king, for her
26 Then spake the woman whose the
O my lord, give her the living child, and in
bowels yearned upon her son, and she said,
be neither mine nor thine, but divide it.
no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it

27 Then the king answered and said,
slay it: she is the mother thereof.
Give her the living child, and in no wise

which the king had judged; and they feared
28 And all Israel heard of the judgment
God was "in him, to do judgment.
the king: for they saw that the wisdom of

11 Heb. in the midst of him.

JUDGMENT OF SOLOMON.-RUBENS.

Verse 1. "Building...the wall of Jerusalem round about."-Josephus understands by this, that he extended the walls, and made them much stronger than before. No doubt Jerusalem was a walled town before this. It would appear, from Ps. li. 18, that this was one of the objects in which David had interested himself.

7. "I am but a little child."-Josephus says he was twelve years of age. But Dr. Hales and others have clearly shown, by an analysis of the history, that he could not have been much, if anything, less than twenty years old when he ascended the throne. It is clear, that here Solomon, in calling himself a little child, does so with reference to his inexperience and his insufficiency for the onerous duties which had devolved upon him. We therefore do not quite approve of Dr. Boothroyd's rendering, which is, "I am only a very young man; I know not how to conduct affairs." We rather think we are to understand that Solomon compares his condition to that of a little child. It is a well known Hebraism to state a comparison in a positive form; supplying, therefore, the comparison, we have: "I am as a little child, who knows not how to go out or come in." The last clause, to go out or come in, is, as Houbigant says, not only a Hebraism, frequent in the sacred writings, but is also a similitude taken from a little child, as yet unable to walk firmly, and ignorant of all things. This similitude in the last clause sanctions the form of comparison which we have assigned to the first.

27. "She is the mother thereof."-In despotic governments, both of the East and West, there have been frequent instances of difficult judicial cases being decided in this manner, by an ingenious experiment upon the feelings of the litigant parties. Perhaps the fame of this decision of Solomon gave occasion, in many instances, to such experiments. Calmet mentions two illustrative examples. One is from Suetonius, who relates that the emperor Claudius discovered a woman to be the mother of a young man whom she would not own for her son, by commanding her to be married to hin; when the horror of such a connection constrained her to confess the truth. Diodorus relates that, on the same principle, Ariopharnes, king of the Thracians, being appointed to arbitrate between three men, who all claimed to be sons of the king of the Cimmerians, and demanded the succession, discovered the rightful son and heir in him who alone refused to obey the order for each of them to shoot an arrow into the dead king's body. Better than either of these, is the illustration which Mr. Roberts gives from a Hindoo book. "A woman who was going to bathe left her child to play on the banks of the tank, when a female demon who was passing that way carried it off. They both appeared before the deity, and each declared the child was her own: the command was therefore given for each claimant to seize the infant by a leg and arm, and pull with all their might in opposite directions. No sooner had they commenced than the child began to scream, when the real mother, from pity, left off pulling, and resigned her claim to the other. The judge therefore decided, that as she only had shown affection, the child must be hers." (Oriental Illustrations,' p. 196.) Mr. Roberts has another anecdote on the same subject. Some less instructed readers of the Bible are apt to wonder that no such striking anecdotes occur in the judicial proceedings of their own country. The reason is greatly in our favour. A judge must decide, not according to his own impression, founded upon the feeling exhibited by the applicants, but according to evidence derived from facts, and from nothing else. Let us suppose a case like this decided by Solomon, to have been brought before an English magistrate, and that he were to order the living child to be cut in two, and one half given to the respective claimants-what would be the effect? The women certainly would not be alarmed-but would probably be amused at so shallow an attempt to frighten them: and this would be, because they must know well that the magistrate could not and would not put the innoceat child to death. But under the Eastern despotisms the case is different; and there such a direction would be really alarming, because, where the great practical law is that the king shall do as he pleases, there can be no assurance. unless from a knowledge of his private character, that he will not do an unjust and barbarous action. Therefore the alarm of the mother, arising from her belief that the king would really kill her child, is of very great importance as an evidence of the despotic character of the authority wielded by the Hebrew kings. It is indeed of more importance than any thing we might infer from the summary executions of Adonijah and Joab in the preceding chapter. There were reasons for their execution, and their offences were known; but here the success of the experiment depended upon its being helieved by the women that the king could and would order an unoffending infant to be slain. The royal authority among the Jews had certainly many limitations; but its general tendency to despotism is every where apparent, and no where more so than in the reign of Solomon. In our view, the Hebrew government was generally not an absolute despotism on the one hand, nor a limited monarchy on the other; but what we would call a restricted despotism—that is, an authority restricted in some matters of general right, but despotic where such restrictions did not apply. It is evident that in judicial matters there was no limit to the royal power, whether for condemnation or for pardon.

CHAPTER IV.

1 Solomon's princes. 7 His twelve officers for pro-
vision. 20, 24 The peace and largeness of his
kingdom. 22 His daily provision. 26 His sta-
bles. 29 His wisdom.

So king Solomon was king over all Israel.
2 And these were the princes which he
had; Azariah the son of Zadok 'the priest,
3 Elihoreph and Ahiah, the sons of Shi-
sha, 'scribes; Jehoshaphat the son of Ahi-
lud, the recorder.

4 And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the host: and Zadok and Abiathar were the priests:

5 And Azariah the son of Nathan was 2 Or, secretaries.

1 Or, the chief officer.

over the officers: and Zabud the son of Na

than was principal officer, and the king's friend :

6 And Ahishar was over the houshold: and Adoniram the son of Abda was over the "tribute.

7 And Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, which provided victuals for the king and his houshold: each man his month in a year made provision.

8 And these are their names: The son of Hur, in mount Ephraim:

9 "The son of Dekar, in Makaz, and in Shaalbim, and Beth-shemesh, and Elonbeth-hanan:

8 Or, remembrancer.
7 Or, Ben-dekur.

10 The son of Hesed, in Aruboth; to | harts, and roebucks, and fallow deer, and him pertained Sochol, and all the land of fatted fowl. Hepher:

11 Or, to Mahanaim. 12 Ecclus. 47. 15. 13 Heb. bread,
17 Or, mules, or swift beasts. 18 Ecclus. 47. 14, 15, 16.

15 Heb. confidently. Verse 4. "Zarok and Abiathar were the priests."-From this it seems that Abiathar continued to retain the title of high-priest, after he had ceased to exercise the functions of that distinguished office. Some, however, think that after a time he was allowed to come to Jerusalem and act as high-priest when illness or any other circumstance prevented the attendance of Zadok. It will be well to recollect that there had always been two high-priests, from the time of the slaughter of the priests by Saul till Abiathar was deposed. The two acted separately-Zadok under Saul, and Abiathar under David-till David became king, when they acted together. It had therefore been customary to mention Zadok and Abiathar as the priests; and perhaps all we are here to understand is, that this form of expression continued to be used even after the latter had been deposed.

7. "Twelve officers."-The number does not appear to have had any reference to that of the tribes, but to that of the months of the year, as we see that during the year these officers took their turns monthly to supply the royal household with provisions. It seems, from the analogy of usages that long prevailed in the East and are not yet discontinued, that the taxes due to the state were paid in the produce of the soil. Indeed, in 1 Sam. viii. 15, there is express mention

of one-tenth of the produce of the fields and vineyards, which would be payable to the future king. As we may suppose, there may have been some difficulty in the collection of this revenue and its transmission to the capital, Solomon seems to have divided his dominion into twelve governments or districts, with power in the presiding officer to collect this revenue, from which each government was charged with the maintenance of the king's household for one month. The surplus probably enabled the governor (if we may so call him) to support his own establishment; perhaps in considerable state, as the preferment would seem, from the rank of the persons employed, to have been very valuable. We have no doubt that Bishop Patrick is mistaken in supposing that these twelve officers were merely commissioned to buy up provisions in their several districts.

8. "The son of Hur."-Several of the persons in this list are named after their fathers. It would have been better to have retained the whole as a proper name, " Ben-Hur," &c. It was a custom among the Hebrews, it seems, as it is now among the Arabs, for sons sometimes to take their father's name with the prefix Ben, "son," their own name being afterwards neglected. They more commonly, however, annex their father's name to their own, and are then called indifferently by their full name, or by either of its component parts. Thus, David is generally called by his own name, but sometimes Ben-Jesse, the son of Jesse, and at other times David-ben-Jesse, David the son of Jesse. This is precisely analogous to the present usage of the Arabs.

11. "-which had Taphath the daughter of Solomon to wife."-Another of the governors was thus favoured (verse 15). We suspect that this. chapter does not occupy its chronological place. If it does, several of its statements must be anticipatory; for Solomon could not at this time have had a marriageable daughter. We may therefore suppose that, like the account at the end of the chapter, of Solomon's songs, proverbs and researches in natural history, this merely indicates what ultimately took place. It is true, however, that, according to Oriental custom, his daughter may have been betrothed long before the marriageable age.

19. "Geber...in the country of Gilead."-This region seems to have been already appropriated, in verse 13, to "the son of Geber." Was that officer the son of this Geber? He is described as "the only officer which was in the land," and Josephus says he had all the country beyond Jordan. We cannot reconcile the statements of either the text or of Josephus, but by supposing that he exercised a general superintending power over this region, including that part under Ben-geber, probably his own son.

Josephus adds, that besides these, Solomon had other rulers, who were over the lands of the Syrians and Philistines, from the river Euphrates to Egypt, and who collected the tribute of the nations subject to this great king.

22. "Thirty measures of fine flour, and threescore measures of meal."-The meal is common flour as distinguished from fine flour. The quantity is about 480 bushels of meal, and 240 of fine flour.

23. "Ten fat oxen," &c.-The statement of the daily provision for Solomon's household may well excite surprise in the European reader. It is less astonishing, although still very great, to one who is acquainted with the extent and arrangement of Oriental courts, and the vast number of persons, male and female, which the royal establishments support. We have touched on this subject in a note to 1 Sam. viii. We may now add one or two other illustrations of another kind. One is the account of the daily consumption of provisions in the royal establishment of Cyrus, the particulars of which were found by Alexander inscribed on a brazen pillar at Persepolis. The whole account is long, and some of the items obscure, and we shall only give the more conspicuous details. Upwards of 1000 bushels of various qualities of wheat; the same of barley-meal; 400 sheep; 300 lambs; 100 oxen; 30 horses; 30 deer; 400 fat geese; 100 goslings; 300 doves; 600 small birds (various); 3750 gallons of wine (half being palm-wine when the court was at Babylon or Susa, and the rest grape-wine); 75 gallons of new milk; the same of sour milk (which was and is an article much consumed in the East). Besides this, there is a supplementary account of a vast quantity of corn, &c. dealt out in gifts and allowed for the food of cattle. We cannot of course vouch for the authenticity of this document (which may be found in Polyænus, 1. iii. c. 3); but, upon the whole, it is rather confirmed by the account of the number of cooks, confectioners, wine-servers, &c. attending Darius in the camp, and captured, with the royal baggage, by Parmenio at Damascus (see Athenæus, 1. xiii.); as well as by the present text, and the existing state of things in the East. Still more remarkable is the account which Tavernier gives of the imperial kitchens, in his excellent account of the grand seignior's seraglio, as it was in his time. There were seven kitchens distinct from each other, each having its own officer, but all being under the control of one chief director, who had, altogether, not less than four hundred cooks under his superintendence. The kitchens were distinguished according to the person, or class of persons, for whom food was prepared in it. Thus there was one for the sultan, another for the sultanesses, a third for the other women, and others for the officers and attendants in the different departments respectively, exclusive of the gardeners who dressed their own meat. Besides these there were various offices or laboratories in which conserves, sweetmeats, sherbets, &c., were in continual preparation, affording employment to four hundred persons. The consumption of food may be inferred from all this. On this point Tavernier himself observes, "there enters no beef into the kitchens of the seraglio; but the ordinary consumption of every day, including all, as well those who eat within as without, may amount to five hundred sheep, in which number must be comprehended lambs and kids. According to the proportion of mutton may be computed the quantity of pullets, chickens, and young pigeons, the number of which is limited according to the seasons; as also what may be consumed in rice and butter, for the pilau, which is accounted the best dish in Turkey and all over the East." After this we shall wonder the less at the consumption of Solomon's household.

24. "From Tiphsah even to Azzah."-We reserve some remarks on the general extent of Solomon's dominion for the note on 2 Chron. ix. 26. We may here observe, however, that these two places were evidently the extreme eastern and western towns of Solomon's dominion. The river is the Euphrates. Tiphsah is unquestionably the Thapsacus of the heathen authors. It was on the western bank of that river, at a point where its stream bends sharply eastward which course it maintains for about twenty-five miles, when it receives the Chaboras, and then inclines to the south again. The Hebrew name of the place ( from D, to pass over) signifies a passage or ford, and at this place was a celebrated ford, the lowest on the Euphrates; it was therefore a point of great trading intercourse between the nations east and west of the river; and this circumstance rendered the possession of Thapsacus a matter of great importance in the eyes of the neighbouring sovereigns, and this explains the contests, in later times, between the kings of Egypt and Syria for the possession of Carchemish, a strong place lower down the river, at the junction of the Chaboras. Azzah is Gaza.

25. "Every man under his vine and under his fig tree."-Though this be no more than a beautiful figurative expression, it implies that the Israelites were in the habit of planting trees and training vines near their houses. The interior open