fails not to state; and, what is of still greater importance, the opinion not only forms the unanimous belief of a great nation, but has left a most sensible impress upon the whole system of its laws, manners, and institutions.

It is first necessary to observe that three sources are intimated in Scripture from whence the name of Sheba or Seba might be derived. 1. From a son and grandson of Cush (Gen. x. 7). 2. From a son of Joktan (Gen. x. 28). 3. From a grandson of Abraham by Keturah (Gen. xxv. 3). Now it is reasonable to suppose that these denominations did not coalesce in any one people, but formed as many independent tribes: for they were of families different and remote in time. The first was of Ham, the second of Shem, the third, also of Shem, was long posterior. Arabian traditions confirm the probability that the Sabeans of South Arabia were from the second of these stocks, forming the people to whom the preceding statements refer. The third we probably find in the marauding nomade tribe mentioned in Job i. 15, and vi. 19. And the first, being from Ham, probably originated the denomination of Saba in African Ethiopia, Now we apprehend that much confusion of ideas has arisen from the hasty conclusion that in every text the name Sheba or Seba always denotes the same country, and Sabeans the same people. Omitting, from the present consideration, the Bedouin Sabeans, it is easy to show that two other Shebas are distinguished in Scripture most clearly. As this is much overlooked, we may quote Psalm lxxii. 10,-" The kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts ;" and Ezek. xxvii. 22, 23,-"The merchants of Sheba and Raamah....occupied in thy fairs with the chief of all spices, and with all precious stones and gold. Haran, and Canneh, and Eden, the merchants of Sheba, Asshur, and Chilmad were thy merchants." This last passage is of great importance. It specifies two mercantile Shebas most distinctly. If we look to either of them as that from which the queen came, it will doubtless be to the first, because the products are the, same which the queen of Sheba brought to Solomon; the excellence of the spices in particular being in both instances specified. It is not too much to suppose that one of them was the Sheba of Arabia, the other of African Ethiopia; and if so, then this very same Sheba on which we have fixed must certainly be the African one; for the names of Raamah and Sheba, which are here connected, are connected also in Gen. x. 7, as the names of a son and grandson of Cush, who gave to Ethiopia its Hebrew name. It is indeed true that South Arabia is also called Ethiopia, and that the original Cushite settlement was there; but as we have here two Shebas, of which that in Arabia claims to have taken its name from Sheba, the son of Joktan, and grandson of Shem, we are bound to find another place for that Sheba to which the grandson of Cush gave his name; and where shall this be but in African Ethiopia? To this we shall be further led by the consideration that the African Sheba or Saba, towards the south of the Red Sea, was famous for producing incense, spices, and gold, which Arabia did not and does not produce. So, upon the whole, if Scripture does anywhere acknowledge the African Sheba, we may conclude it to be here intended: and that it does acknowledge it, appears from the manner in which it is associated with Egypt in such passages as these:—“I give Egypt for thy ransom; Ethiopia and Seba for thee" (Isa. xliii. 3); and "The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans" (Isa. xlv. 14). This is the more remarkable when we consider that the geographical order corresponds with this enumeration-the African Ethiopia being to the south of Egypt, and Saba to the south, or in the most southern part, of Ethiopia. We are aware that some, unreasonably, contend that the African Ethiopia is never noticed in Scripture; but we have not the least doubt that it is so, when mentioned thus along with Egypt. How else is the following passage explained? Describing the invasion of Judah by Shishak, king of Egypt, the sacred historian says, "The people were without number that came with him out of Egypt-the Lubims, the Sukkiims, and the Ethiopians." These Ethiopians were certainly not Arabians.

Without at present entering into the discussion whether the African Saba were considered a distinct state, or merely a southern part of Ethiopia, we may observe that Mr. Bruce, who finds in Abyssinia, near and bordering on the southern part of the Red Sea, and opposite the Arabian Saba, a country which native histories testify to have been anciently called Saba or Azaba, does not derive its name naturally from the son or grandson of Cush, but explains it by its meaning, "south," with a view to show why the queen of Sheba is, in the New Testament, called the queen of the south. His account is confirmed by Strabo, who mentions an Ethiopian port called Saba on the Red Sea. The Abyssinians certainly believe the Sheba, whose queen visited Solomon, to have been in their own country. We know that Solomon had the maritime commerce of the Red Sea, on the African shores of which this Saba was situated. Its shores were doubtless among those which that commerce visited, and, as Bruce observes, what the queen heard of the great king, for whom so much wealth was continually being exported from her dominions, might naturally create a desire to visit him. She might have gone by land through Egypt-a journey which is now constantly performed by the Abyssinian pilgrims to and from Jerusalem; or she may have sailed up the Red Sea, and have passed from Suez or Ezion-geber to Jerusalem on camels, in the usual manner; or, she may have crossed the Red Sea into the Arabian Sabea, and thence journeyed on camels through Arabia to Jerusalem. This last course might help to make both the theories under discussion coalesce; particularly if, as Bruce tells us, the opposite coasts formed at times but one dominion, so that "the queen of Sheba" may at this time have been the queen of both the Sabea of Ethiopia and that of Arabia.

The Abyssinian histories state that the queen remained to acquaint herself with the Hebrew religion; to comprehend the order of that government and royal establishments which the Scriptures tell us she so much admired. And here it is important to note that the consequences of that admiration, which would naturally lead to imitation, can be discovered even at this day in Abyssinia, but have left no trace in Arabia. And also that the protracted stay of the queen in Judæa is corroborated by the independent testimony of the Moslems, who tell us that Baalbec was, in the first instance, built by Solomon as a residence for the queen of Sheba. The Abyssinians further state that the queen ultimately returned with a son she had born to Solomon; and who was afterwards sent back to be educated at Jerusa lem; and finally returned home with a colony of Jews, consisting of priests and other able and learned persons, by whose aid the people were instructed in the Hebrew religion and laws, and the government modelled on the plan which that of Solomon offered. The son of Solomon succeeded "the queen of Sheba," and the line of sovereigns descended from him have ever gloried in tracing their origin to the wise and renowned Hebrew king. Such is the substance o Abyssinian history and tradition on the subject. If it had been a dry unsupported legend, we should be strongly inclined to reject it. But this we hesitate to do when we observe the permanent and otherwise unaccountable corro boration it has received from the still subsisting ideas, usages, laws, and even the religion of the Abyssinians. There is no existing nation which in these respects so much resembles the Jews: their religion itself, though called Christian, having rather more of Judaism than Christianity in it. We, of course, cannot say that we implicitly believe all the details of this account; but it is difficult not to acquiesce in it as a general statement. Do we not also find a corroboration of it in the fact that the treasurer of Candace, queen of Ethiopia, was of the Jewish religion, and had been up to Jerusalem to worship, when he was met near Gaza and converted by the preaching of Philip the deacon? (Acts viii.)

Upon the whole, we consider that there is great moral probability in the leading facts of the Abyssinian narrative; and that the geographical probability is not incompatible with it. In the New Testament it is said that the queen of

"the south came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon" (Mat. xii. 42; Luke xi. 31). We have considered that passage, and think that it rather supports than militates against the view we are inclined to prefer, as we shall be prepared to state when that text comes, in due course, under examination.

10. "A gum trees."-Where there is so little to assist conjecture, it may seem hazardous to guess, but as the Elmug tree, among other purposes, was employed in the construction of musical instruments, we are naturally led to suppose that it was a kind of pine tree. It came from Lebanon, but a much better sort was brought from Ophir; and as that place is agreed to have been either an Indian port or an emporium on the coast of Arabia for the produce of India, we may, without much violence to verisimilitude, suppose that the foreign or better kind was the Pinus deodara of India, which affords a very beautiful wood of great fragrance. All the most sacred and valuable works in that peninsula are made of this wood-and not unworthily, for such is the odour, hardness, and veiny colourations of the wood, that we, who have seen articles of furniture manufactured from it, cannot wonder at the preference. We have given a picturesque illustration of this pine, to invite the attention of the reader to it, though we are not disposed to affirm positively that the deodara was the almug of Solomon and nothing else.

10, 21. "Ophir...Tarshish."-The passages of Scripture in which Ophir and Tarshish are named, bring before us the only information we possess concerning the only maritime commerce in which the Hebrews appear to have been ever engaged. The subject is of too much interest to be passed without notice, although, with a due regard to our limits and design, we cannot undertake any very complete consideration of a subject which involves much detail and is beset with many difficulties. To lay a proper foundation for the few remarks we have to offer, it is necessary to see what the Scripture says on the subject. In the first place we find that the gold of Ophir was known to the Jews long before they had any commercial intercourse with the country which produced it. Job, who lived long anterior to this period, names the gold of Ophir (xxii. 24); and it is mentioned among the precious metals which David prepared for the temple (1 Chron. xxix. 4); and it is also noticed in the Psalms (Ps. xlv. 10). Then we find that Solomon, jointly with the Phoenicians, fitted out a mercantile fleet at Ezion-geber and Elath, in the eastern gulf of the Red Sea, which from thence proceeded to Ophir and brought back gold, algum trees, and precious stones (chap. viii. 17, 18; ix. 10). Then follows an account of the great wealth of Solomon in gold, and the objects to which it was applied, so that silver was nothing accounted of in his days; and then the cause of this is mentioned,-"For the king had at sea a navy of Tarshish, with the navy of Hiram: once in every three years came the navy of Tarshish bringing gold and silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks" (1 Kings x. 22). We are not told whether this was the same voyage as that to Ophir or not, nor are we told from what port the fleet departed. But this information appears to be supplied in 1 Kings xxii. 48, where we read that "Jehoshaphat made ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir for gold: but they went not, for the ships were broken at Ezion-geber." This text is a clear illustration of the two preceding. We learn successively that Solomon's navy went to Ophir for gold, that he was very wealthy, and that he became so because his navy 2Y 2 347

of Tarshish brought a great quantity of gold, &c. every three years:-and that these ships of Tarshish were those that went to Ophir, we learn from the fact that Jehoshaphat's ships of Tarshish were destined to Ophir for gold, from the same port in the Red Sea whence Solomon's fleet had departed for Ophir. Thus far, all seems tolerably clear, and Scripture explains itself. But before we can proceed to consider the destination of the fleet, or look to the parallel texts in the book now before us in which the name of Tarshish occurs, it is necessary to inquire were Tarshish was.

That the word is used with different applications in Scripture, we believe; but its primary and just reference, as a proper name, is, on very good grounds, believed to be Tartessus, a most important commercial settlement and emporium of the Phoenicians on the Atlantic coast of Spain, at the mouth of the Bætis or Guadalquivir, and not far from the ancient Gades, now Cadiz. The name "Tartessus" is but a different pronunciation of "Tarshish:" and that all the more definite references of Scripture agree with it in situation and other circumstances, is easily shown. Thus, its situation in the west is inferred from Gen. x. 4, where it is mentioned along with Elishab, Chittim, and Dodanim; and in Ps. lxxii. 10, it is connected with the islands of the west. Ezek. xxxviii. 13, shows it to have been an important place of trade. According to Jer. x. 9, it exported silver: according to Ezek. xxvii. 9, it sent silver, iron, lead, and tin, to the market of Tyre. In Jon. i. 4; iv. 2 Joppa is mentioned as a port of embarkation for Tarshish. In Isa. xxiii. 1. 6. 10, it is evidently mentioned as an important Phoenician colony: and in Isa. lxvi. 19, it is named among other distant states. All these circumstances apply to Tartessus, and some of them can apply to no other place.

Now, as it is necessary to keep our ideas quite distinct on the subject, without confounding some passages and overlooking others, let us see what information we have thus obtained from the book of Kings only on the subject. It is not that the ships which left Ezion-geber went to any place called Tarshish; but only that the ships of Tarshish went to Ophir for gold. Then, what are we to understand by the ships of Tarshish? Tartessus had been the emporium of the most distant trade of the Phoenicians westward: and the ships engaged in this trade, having to make the longest voyages then known, were probably distinguished by peculiarities in their size and make, and were called ships of Tarshish, from the distant place to which they traded: just as we call "Indiamen" the ships made for and devoted to the trade with India. Now the Phoenicians, who doubtless built the ships for the trade with Ophir, would seem to have taken as their model, for the vessels intended for this distant navigation, their Tarshish ships, which they knew to be best suited to long voyages, and with the management of which in such voyages they were best acquainted. Or there is another alternative, which would render it probable that the ships of Tarshish were really destined for or engaged in the trade with Tartessus, and that the Phoenicians, applying them to this new object, brought them down to that part of the Mediter ranean coast opposite to the Red Sea, where they took them to pieces, carried the parts across the desert on camels, and put them together again at Ezion-geber or Elath. The absolute want of any wood, near the Red Sea, suitable for ship-building, might render this necessary; and the difficulty of such an enterprise is only in appearance. Even the Crusaders surmounted it, and even now, as Laborde informs us, "the inhabitants of Suez constantly see vessels afloat in a complete condition, which a short time before they beheld passing through their streets in parts on the backs of camels." These alternatives, separately or together, will be allowed to furnish a satisfactory explanation of what may have been meant by "ships" and " navies " of Tarshish.

Thus far, therefore, the mention of Tarshish would involve the question in no difficulty, but might rather contribute to its illustration. But much difficulty arises from the different reading in 2 Chron. of the same passages which we have quoted and explained from 1 Kings. Let us compare them thus:

The remarkable difference between these texts is, that the earlier account, in both instances, only says that the voyage was made by ships of Tarshish; whereas the later account says that the ships went to Tarshish. The difference is most striking in the last quoted parallel; for in Kings it is said they were to have gone to Ophir, but in Chro nicles, to Tarshish, without any reference to Ophir. Since we are bound to take these texts not as alternatives, but as of equal authority, and as explaining each other, the inference from the comparison of these two passages is plainly, and apart from all explanation, either that "Ophir" and "Tarshish" are synonymous indications of the same destination, or that the two names denote, respectively, the principal intermediate and ulterior points of the same voyage. We do not see that this examination of all the passages that bear on the subject can have room for any interpretation which supposes that the voyage to Tarshish was altogether different from that to Ophir. A partial reference to Solomon's trade only, might afford an opening for this conclusion; for it is not there said of the fleet for Tarshish that it departed from Ezion-gaber; whence it has been concluded that it left from a Mediterranean port westward of the Atlantic coast of Spain, and perhaps of Africa; while that for Ophir proceeded down the Red Sea. But this is disproved completely, as we conceive, by 1 Kings xxii. 48, and 2 Chron. xx. 35, 36, whether taken separately or together. And moreover we conceive that the idea of such a voyage is still further disproved by the utter unlikelihood that the Phoenicians, so notorious for their extreme and even mysterious jealousy concerning their western trade, should have been willing and active parties in enabling the Hebrew king to obtain a share in it, which, without their co-operation, he could not have done. That they should be themselves extremely willing to enlarge their operations in the eastern trade, through their co-operation with Solomon, is what we can readily understand.

Now then we must attend to the consequences of the conclusion at which we have arrived-that Ophir and Tarshish were both visited in the same voyage-that voyage commencing at the head of the Red Sea.

In the first place it is evident that if Tarshish be in these passages Tartessus, as is usually the case, then we arrive with the utmost certainty at the conclusion, that the fleet of Solomon, in its voyage from Ezion-gaber to Tarshish, must have gone all round Africa, doubling the Cape of Good Hope, and returning by the Mediterranean. If we knew this to be the case, we should of course have no hesitation in placing Ophir on the coast of Africa, either the eastern or western coast, as probability might determine. The probability of such a voyage opens a large and important question, which we cannot here undertake to discuss. Authors, of high name, are much divided as to the question whether the Cape of Good Hope was ever doubled till the time of Vasco de Gama; and, consequently they differ in their estimate

of the authority of Herodotus, whose statement on the subject is very remarkable. He states Africa to be circumnavigable, except where it is bounded by Asia; and explains that the first who ascertained this fact were the Phonicians, acting under the orders of Necho (Pharaoh Necho), king of Egypt, who sent them on a voyage of discovery, directing them to proceed down the Red Sea and along the coast of Africa, and endeavour to return by the Pillars of Hercules (Straits of Gibraltar) and the Mediterranean. This, he says, they accomplished, returning in the third year. He subjoins, that these persons affirmed what to himself seemed incredible-namely, that as they sailed round Africa, they had the sun on their right hand. Now it so happens that this very fact which Herodotus states, serves more than anything else to authenticate the whole story. It is a truth which no mere inventor could have imagined; and even the incredulity which so well-informed a man as Herodotus expresses, serves to give but the more intensity to the conviction which it brings. It may also be asked, how but by actual observation it could be known that Africa was nearly circumnavigable? Other circumstances are striking; the voyage was performed by Phoenicians, under the patronage of a foreign king-as was the voyage of Solomon's fleet; and in both instances the voyagers did not return till the third year. Unquestionably, also, if this voyage was ever performed, the navigators did not fail to touch at their own great settlement of Tartessus, before they entered the Straits of Gibraltar. In both instances, also, the voyage began from the Red Sea and if we assume that Africa was really circumnavigated, there is sufficient reason for this preference; for even those who believe that the continent of Africa was circumnavigated in ancient times, allow that the Cape of Good Hope could not be doubled from the Atlantic till the use of the compass enabled ships to stand off to sea, and that it never was doubled from the west till the time of Vasco de Gama. Antiquity only records two attempts in this direction, and both of them failed.

But while we are disposed to contend for the abstract possibility of this voyage having been made, we certainly do not suppose that it was made by the Hebrew-Phoenician fleet. It will be observed that Herodotus describes that which he mentions, as the first which was known to have been effected; and this was 400 years later than the voyages of Solomon's fleet; and as the Phoenicians were the real navigators and mariners of that fleet, it is by no means likely that, in the time of Necho, they, who, as we learn from Josephus, preserved in their public records much less important circumstances, should have been ignorant that such a voyage had been repeatedly made by their ancestors in the time of king Hiram. Besides, even Rennel and others, who contend strongly for the Cape having been doubled, and the peninsula of Africa rounded, in ancient times, allow that no such voyages were ever regular commercial undertakings, but voyages of discovery. But the voyages of the Hebrew fleet were commercial ones, the object being to go to a certain place for certain commodities. And being such, if Tarshish were Tartessus, and Ophir on the western coast of Africa, none but madmen would have gone any other way than through the Mediterranean to the Atlantic; and if Tarshish were still Tartessus, and Ophir anywhere on the African or Asiatic shores, gulfs, or islands of the Indian Ocean, it is unimaginable that any other course would be taken than to despatch one fleet through the Mediterranean to Tarshish, and another through the Red Sea to Ophir. But there were not two voyages; and therefore the Tarshish of Chronicles could not be the Tartessus of Spain.

The reader who is acquainted with the subject will be aware that, in the above considerations, we have had a view to various theories which we consider untenable, and have endeavoured to narrow the ground to which inquiry should be directed. The effect of these considerations is to bring us to the result, that the Tarshish to which the fleet of Solomon went, and to which that of Jehoshaphat intended to go, is not the Atlantic Tartessus; and that neither it nor Ophir is to be sought anywhere in the Atlantic or Mediterranean. What now remains is to seek for Tarshish and Ophir on either the African or Asiatic shores or islands of the Indian Ocean. But here the determinate result at which we have arrived, gives an opportunity for deferring the remainder of the inquiry to a note on chap. xx.

16. "The house of the forest of Lebanon."-This structure is particularly described in 1 Kings vii. We take this opportunity of introducing the ground-plan of Lamy, which we had occasion to mention with approbation in the note to that chapter.

GROUND-PLAN OF THE KING'S HOUSE. AFTER Lamy.

21. "Gold, and silver, wory, and apes, and peacocks.”—None of these products furnish any strong evidence as to the direction of the voyage, since there is not one of them which might not have been equally found on the coasts of Africa and India. We may touch on this point again under chap. xx. Meanwhile we may observe, with respect to the "apes,' that there is no means of determining the species, the original word (p, koph) being as indefinite as that by which it is rendered. And with respect to the "peacocks," the question is not about the species, but the genus, for many doubt whether the word ", thukijim, ought not rather to be rendered "parrots." Some, indeed, give other interpretations, as pheasants, sun-birds, &c., while others conceive no birds at all, but a species of monkey, to be intended. The majority, however, are for either peacocks or parrots, and these are found both in India and Africa. The more general opinion in favour of the peacock is probably correct, and is sanctioned by the ancient versions and the Hebrew interpreters. The apes and peacocks were doubtless not the only curious animals collected for Solomon, but are mentioned as

being the most remarkable. The indication is altogether very interesting. Of other kings we might suppose that foreign quadrupeds and birds were collected merely as objects of curiosity and wonder-to enliven a park or decorate a garden. But as we know that Solomon was attached to the study of natural history and that "he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of creeping things, and of fishes"-we can understand that he commissioned his navigators to bring home living specimens of the more remarkable foreign animals, that he might be enabled to acquaint himself with their peculiar habits and characteristics by actual study and observation. Thus we find, that although trade was the primary object of this navigation, the wise Hebrew king was not insensible to the advantages which it offered him in acquiring a larger knowledge of God's creation; and as every one would be anxious to gratify the king in his favourite pursuit, we may readily imagine that he must have formed a noble collection of animals, many of which probably had never before been seen in Western Asia. The writings in which his observations are recorded would have been of great interest at the present day; but now the only evidence we possess of his peculiar taste for such studies, beyond the bare historical statement of the fact, is contained in the circumstance, that his existing writings contain more numerous and striking allusions to the characteristics of animals and plants than are to be found in any other sacred writer.

CHAPTER X.

1 The Israelites, assembled at Shechem to crown

Rehoboam, by Jeroboam make a suit of relaxation unto him. 6 Rehoboam, refusing the old men's counsel, by the advice of young men answereth them roughly. 16 Ten tribes revolting kill Hadoram, and make Rehoboam to flee.

AND 'Rehoboam went to Shechem: for to Shechem were all Israel come to make him king.

2 And it came to pass, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who was in Egypt, whither he had fled from the presence of Solomon the king, heard it, that Jeroboam returned out of Egypt.

3 And they sent and called him. So Jeroboam and all Israel came and spake to Rehoboam, saying,

4 Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore ease thou somewhat the grievous servitude of thy father, and his heavy yoke that he put upon us, and we will serve thee.

5 And he said unto them, Come again unto me after three days. And the people departed.

6 And king Rehoboam took counsel with the old men that had stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, saying, What counsel give ye me to return answer to this people?

7 And they spake unto him, saying, If thou be kind to this people, and please them, and speak good words to them, they will be thy servants for ever.

8 But he forsook the counsel which the old men gave him, and took counsel with the young men that were brought up with him, that stood before him.

9 And he said unto them, What advice give ye that we may return answer to this people, which have spoken to me, saying, Ease somewhat the yoke that thy father did put upon us?

1 Kings 12, 1 &c.