A. M. 2981. A. C. 1023; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 4375. A. C. 1036. 2 SAM. xix-1 KINGS viii. because his power and interest was so great in the army (and it was the army that David in a great measure depended on) that it might have occasioned an alteration in the government, had he pretended to do it: but when Solomon came to the throne, Joab was not that mighty man he had formerly been. He was at least of an equal age with David; had commanded the armies of Israel for twenty years, and upwards; and as he was only formidable at the head of his troops, and in the times of war and public disorder; so the profound peace which bad subsisted for some time, both before and after the beginning of Solomon's reign, had impaired his power, and made him in a manner useless. Upon this account, Solomon had not the like reason to fear him that his father had; nor did he lie under the like obligations to spare him. He had done David great services indeed; and a sufficient recompense it was, that he had been indulged for so many years, with an impunity for his crimes; but whatever the father might be, the son was under no ties or obligations, especially when he found him conspiring to take away his kingdom, and translate it to another. The most common therefore, and indeed the only probable opinion is, that this act of David's proceeded from pride and ambition, and a foolish curiosity to know the number of his subjects, the strength of his forces, and the extent of his empire: as if all these had greatly contributed to his glory and renown; as if they had been of his own acquiring, and more proper to place his confidence in, than the power and assistance of him whose protection he had so long experienced; whom, upon other occasions, he was wont to call his rock, his shield, and castle of defence;' and who was able at all times, to save with a handful of men, as well as a multitude. Pride then, and an arrogant conceit of himself, which is always attended with a forgetfulness of God, was at the bottom of David's numbering the people; and indeed so visible to others, as well as to the all-seeing eye of God, that we find Joab, who was then of his privy council, thus remonstrating against it: Now the Lord thy God add unto thy people, how many soever they be, an hundred-fold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it; but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?" 8 < Wherein the formality of David's sin in numbering the people, which, at first view, seems not to be so very hei- It is a judicious observation of the apostle, Let no nous, did consist, it is not so well agreed among inter-man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for preters. When thou takest the number of the children of Israel,' says God to Moses,' after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them :' upon which passage Josephus, and some others, have founded this conjecture:-That David had quite forgot to demand of every man that was mustered, an half shekel, which was appointed by the law, and is here called 'a ransom for his soul;' and thereefore God sent among the people a pestilence; because, amidst the great plenty and abundance which they now enjoyed, it was a very impious and provoking thing not to pay him his dues. But where do we find, that upon every numbering of the people, a half shekel was ordered to be paid? It was in this case only, when the people were to contribute towards the building of the tabernacle, and God threatens those who should refuse to do it; but this has no manner of relation to what David did, who nowhere stands charged with such an omission, any more than with a design of raising a capitation tax, as others conceive, upon every poll through the kingdom. 4 God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away with his own lust, and enticed;' and therefore it may justly be reckoned a peculiar elegance in the Hebrew tongue, that it frequently leaves out the nominative noun to a verb active, which, when it happens, the accusative following supplies the place of the nominative that is wanting. This shows that our translators have made a gross mistake in rendering the passage, the Lord moved David to number Israel and Judah,' because in the original there is no such thing as the Lord;' for the nominative is omitted, as I said, and the accusative supplying its place makes the sense simply David was moved, (by what is not named, but by his pride and vanity, we may say, as well as the instigations of the devil) to number the people.' So that there is no contradiction in the Scripture account of this transaction, no appearance of a confederacy between God and Satan; nor was God any further concerned in it, than as his providence, for wise ends, thought proper to permit it. "But if David only was culpable in this affair, why did not God immediately punish him for it, instead of falling upon the people, who were confessedly innocent?" Others are of opinion, that this numbering of the people was a thing contrary to the fundamental promise which God made Abraham, namely, that his seed should The generality perhaps were innocent as to the affair 80 increase, as even to exceed the stars in multitude; of numbering the people: that might be chiefly David's and therefore since God had promised to increase them sin; but in other respects they were not. They had many beyond number, it savoured of infidelity and distrust in great and grievous sins, which justly deserved punishGod, for any one to go about to number them: but quitement, and for which probably they would have been contrary to this, the Scripture in another place tells us, that David, out of a religious regard to the promise of God, never intended to take an exact number of all, but of such only as were fit to bear arms; for so the words are He took not the number of them, from twenty years old and under, because the Lord hath said, he would increase Israel like to the stars of the heavens.' 36 punished before, had it not been for God's tenderness to David, who must have been a sufferer in the common calamity; but now, when both king and people had deserved correction, God was pleased to let loose his anger upon both. David, indeed, was not smitten in person, but a king is never more sensibly punished than when the judgment of God falls upon his people and dimin A. M. 2981. A. C. 1023; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 4375. A. C. 1036. 2 SAM. xix-1 KINGS viii. ishes their number, and their strength, for the body poli- | legionary soldiers, as they are called, or those companies tic is not unlike the body natural; no sooner does the of militia which attended the king's person by turns, head suffer, but all the members suffer with it; nor can and might make the number either greater or less, the least part of the body be in pain, but the head is according as they were numbered or not numbered in immediately affected: and therefore we need not doubt the account: but this solution is purely arbitrary, and but that David, when he saw the angel stretching out such as has no foundation in Scripture. It supposes his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it,' and thereupon withal, that the real number was what is recorded in broke out into this exclamation, Let thy hand, I pray Chronicles, which, taking in the several articles that are thee, be against me, and against my father's house,' had said to be omitted, surpasses all faith. his heart as full of grief and anxiety as any one that lay languishing in the plague. 2 Since there is then no possibility of reconciling these different computations, the question is, which of the two we are to receive? And this, without all controversy, must be that in Samuel, not only because the Arabic translators in their version of the Chronicles, have inserted it, but because there is nothing excessive, or extravagant, in the supposition, that, in a fertile and well cultivated country of sixty leagues in length, and thirty in breadth, a multitude of people, to the number of six or seven millions, which taking in the other articles, will be the sum total, might very comfortably be maintained. Rather, then, than have recourse to such solutions as do but more embarrass the matter, we may adventure to say, without any diminution to the Scripture's authority, that the excessive number in the Chronicles was a mistake of the person, who, after the captivity, transcribed this part of the sacred writ; "For I do hesitate to say," says Sulpicius, in his sacred history, "that truth had been corrupted rather by the carelessness of transcribers during a course of so many ages, than that the prophet erred." Thus, in all the afflictions of his people, David was afflicted and if this sore judgment befell the nation a little while before Absalom's rebellion, as some have suspected a mislocation in this part of the history, this may suggest a reason why God might think fit to preserve David, and not cut him off, as he deserved, for his sin; that the dissension which might have arisen among his sons, about the right of succession, in case of his death, and the foreign and domestic wars that would thereupon have ensued, and a proved more fatal to the Israelites, than this destroying pestilence, might, by David's life, and interposition, be prevented. And from the sense of this, very probably, it is, that we find him commemorating Lis deliverance from this public calamity, in such exalted strains, as make it disputable, whether their piety or poetry are more remarkable. He that dwelleth in the secret places of the Most High, shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. He shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night, nor for It must be acknowledged, that in most nations where the arrow that flieth by day, nor for the pestilence that the regal power was at this time established, the right of walketh in darkness, or for the destruction that wasteth at succession was generally hereditary, and the eldest son noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thou-seldom, except in cases of incapacity, postponed. This sand at thy right hand, but it shall not come nigh thee.' It must be owned indeed, that there is a very large difference, in the Scripture accounts of the number of men, fit to bear arms, that were found in David's dominions: In Samuel it is said, that they were in Israel eight hundred thousand, and in Judah five hundred thousand; but in Chronicles, they of Israel were a thousand thousand, and a hundred thousand, and they of Judah four hundred threescore and ten thousand and various have been the attempts to adjust and settle this disagreement. Some suppose, that, as Joab undertook this office with no small reluctancy, and David, very probably, might repent of the thing, before it was fully executed, though the commissioners might make an exact review, yet they thought proper to lay before the king no more than what the sum in Samuel amounts to; but that the author of the book of Chronicles might, from some of these commissioners, receive the complete sum, which occasioned the difference. 6 Others imagine, that this difference arises from the 12 Sam. xxiv. 16, 17. Le Clerc's Commentary in locum. 3 Ps. xci. 1, &c. 4 2 Sam. xxiv. 9. 51 Chron. xxi. 5. 61 Chron. xxvii. 24. See Calmet's Commentary on 2 Sam. xxiv. 9. a The character which Livy gives us of such factions and dissensions, is conceived in these words:" They ended, and brought to many people more destruction than foreign wars, famines, or pestilences, or any other calamity inflicted by the wrath of an angry Deity," b. 4. 196 is what Adonijah, urges to Bathsheba; 10 thou knowest that the kingdom was mine by right of primogeniture, and that all Israel set their faces on me, that I should reign:' but then, there was this peculiar to the Jewish constitution, that as God had been their only king from the time that they first became a nation, so when they thought fit to have that form of government altered, he still reserved to himself the right of nominating the successor, when the throne became vacant: 11 when thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are about me, thou shalt by all means make him king over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose.' So that when God had declared his pleasure concerning the person that was to succeed him, as he did by the prophet Nathan, David was not at liberty to make choice of any other. upon her the We do not dispute at all, but that Bathsheba, who was his favourite wife, had a great ascendency over her hus band; but Solomon's title was not founded upon interest and management with the king, but ordination and appointment of God. 12. Of all my sons, says David, (for the Lord hath given me many sons,) be hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel;' and therefore Adonijah himself acknowledges, 13that it was of the A. M. 2981. A. C. 1023; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 4375. A. C. 1036. 2 SAM. xix-1 KINGS viii. Lord, that the kingdom was turned about and became | mother, and carry their point without ever discovering his brother's.' the malevolent intent of it. Nathan indeed put Bathsheba upon another argument, namely, the sacredness of the king's oath, in order to prevail with him in behalf of her son: 'Didst not thou swear unto thy handmaid, saying, Surely Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne?' But at what time this promise was made, is a matter of some dispute. The generality of interpreters are of opinion, that after the death of the first child which David had by Bathsheba, he comforted her for her loss, and gave her assurance, that, if God should give him another son by her, he would not fail to make him his successor. But it is much more probable, that David did not make any declaration of a promise to Bathsheba, until God had revealed it to him, 2 that he should have. a son, distinct from what he had already, who should succeed him in the kingdom, and have the honour of building him a temple; and no sooner was Solomon born, but David was convinced that this was the child to whom the promise belonged, by Nathan's being sent to give him a name, denoting his being beloved of the Lord:' and it was at this time, most probably, that David gave his mother a promise, confirmed upon oath, that, since God had so manifestly declared in favour of the child, he, for his part, would do his utmost to facilitate his succession. But, upon the whole, he did not choose for himself, neither was his declaration to Bathsheba previous to Nathan's information, but rather the effect and consequence of it. 4 36 But even suppose there had been no divine interposition in favour of Solomon, why might not David, who had done such signal service in his reign, nominate his successor? Several great princes in most nations have claimed this privilege. Among the Romans, Aurelius named Nerva, and Nerva chose Trajan, and so did Augustus appoint his successor. And that this was a prerogative belonging to the crown of Israel, and what continued with it for some time after David, is evident from the story of his grandson Rehoboam, who though a prince of no great merit, took upon him the authority of nominating his successor, and to the prejudice of his eldest son, made one of his youngest king. 7 6 Far are we from vindicating Solomon in all his actions, any more than David in the matter of Uriah. His severity to his brother for a seemingly small offence looked like revenge, and as if he had taken the first opportunity to cut him off, for his former attempt upon the kingdom; and yet we cannot but imagine, from Solomon's words to his mother, Why dost thou ask Abishag for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom also, for he is mine elder brother,' that there was some farther conspiracy against him, though not mentioned in holy writ, whereof he had got intelligence, and wherein Joab and Abiathar were engaged; and that he looked upon this asking Abishag in marriage as the prelude to it, and the first overt act, as it were, of their treason. It is certain that they thought to impose upon the king, as they had done upon his 11 Kings i. 13. 2 Sam. xii. 24. 1 Chron. xxii. 9, 10. The name was Jedidiah, 2 Sam. xii. 25. * Patrick's Commentary on 1 Kings i. 20. 62 Chron. xi. 21, 22. The wives of the late king, according to the customs of the east, belonged to his successor, and were never married to any under a crowned head. Abishag was doubtless a beautiful woman, and, by her near relation to David might have a powerful interest at court; Adonijah might therefore hope, by this marriage, to strengthen his pretensions to the crown, or, at least, to lay the foundation for some future attempt, upon a proper opportunity, either if Solomon should die, and leave a young son, not able to contest the point with him, or if at any time he should happen to fall under the people's displeasure, as his father had done before him. This might be Adonijah's design, and Solomon accordingly might have information of it: but supposing that his brother's design was entirely innocent, yet since his request, according to the customs then prevailing, was confessedly bold and presumptuous, and had in it all the appearance of treason, it was none of Solomon's business to make any farther inquiry about it, or to interpret the thing in his brother's favour. It was sufficient for him that the action was in itself criminal, and of dangerous consequence to the state; for it is by their actions, and not intentions, that all offenders must be tried. Adonijah indeed, had he lived under our constitution, would have had a fair hearing before conviction; but we ought to remember, that, in the kingdoms of the east, the government was absolute, and the power of life or death entirely in the prince; so that Solomon, without the formality of any process, could pronounce his brother dead: and, because he conceived, that, in cases of this nature, delays were dangerous, might send immediately, and have him despatched; though we cannot but say, that it had been more to his commendation, had he showed more clemency, and spared his life. And in like manner, had he not married his Egyptian queen, there might be less objection to his character; for, whatever augmentation of power he might promise himself from that alliance, 10 he certainly ran the hazard of having his religion corrupted by this unlawful mixture. Others, however, have observed that as the sacred Scriptures commend the beginning of Solomon's reign, in all other respects, except the "people's sacrificing in high places,' which might be the rather tolerated, because there was no house built unto the name of the Lord in those days;' and as they give him this character, 12 that 'he loved the Lord, and walked in all the statutes of David his father,' he would never have done an act so directly contrary to the laws of God, as marrying an idolatrous princess, had she not been first proselyted to the Jewish faith. The Scripture indeed takes notice of the gods of the Moabites, Ammonites, and Sidonians, for whom Solomon, in compliance to his strange wives, built places of worship: but as there is no mention made of any gods of the Egyptians, it seems very likely that this princess, when she was espoused to Solomon, quitted the religion of her ancestors, to which these words in the psalm, supposed to have been written upon this 8 Poole's Annotations on 1 Kings ii. 22. 9 Calmet's Commentary in locum. 10 See 1 Kings xi. "11 Kings iii. 2. 12 1 Kings iii. 3. A. M. 2981. A. C. 1023; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 4375. A. C. 1136. 2 SAM. xix-1 KINGS viii. occasion, 'Hearken, O my daughter, forget thine own people, and thy father's house, so shall the king have pleasure in thy beauty, for he is the Lord,' are thought by some to be no distant allusion. However this be, it is certain, that we find Solomon nowhere reproved in Scripture for this match; nor can we think, that his book of Canticles, which is supposed to be his epithalamium, would have found a place in the sacred canon, had the spouse, whom it all along celebrates, been at that time an idolatress ; though there is reason to believe that she afterwards relapsed into her ancient religion, and contributed, as much as any, to the king's seduction, and the many great disorders that were in the latter part of his reign. How far the high priest, Abiathar, was concerned in the plot against Solomon, the sacred history does not particularly inform us; but such was the reverence paid to the sacerdotal character, that Solomon would have hardly dared to have deposed such an one from his office, had not the constitution of the nation authorized him so to do. The kings in the east, indeed, soon found out ways to make themselves absolute; but it looks as if, at the first establishment, the king was at the head of the Hebrew republic, and the high priest his subject, and in all civil affairs submitted to his correction; insomuch, that when any one abused the power of his office to the prejudice of the commonweal, or endangering the king's person, the king might justly deprive him of his honours and titles, of his temporalities and emoluments, and even of life itself. And therefore, when Abiathar, by his conspiracy, had merited all this, whatever was dependent on the crown, as all the revenues of this place, as well as the liberty of officiating in it, were dependent, Solomon might lawfully take from him; but the sacerdotal character, which he received from God, and to which he was anointed, this he could not alienate and therefore we may observe, that after his deprivation, and even when Zadok was in possession of his place, he is nevertheless still mentioned under the style and title of the priest. The truth is, there is a great deal of difference between depriving a man of the dignity, and of the exercise of his function in such a determinate place; and between taking from him an authority that was given him by God, and the profits and emoluments arising from it, which | were originally the gift of the crown. The former of these Solomon could not do, and the latter it is probable he was the rather incited to do, out of regard to the prophecy of Samuel, wherein he foretold Eli, from whom Abiathar was descended, that he would translate the priesthood from his to another family, as he did in the person of Zadok, who was of the house of Eleazar, even as Eli was of that of Ithamar; so that, by this means, the priesthood reverted to its ancient channel. disagreement at all. The author of Samuel, say they speaks of the horses; the author of the Chronicles of the stalls or stables, which, supposing every one to contain ten horses, answer the number exactly. It is observable, however, that the history makes mention of chariot cities, that is, cities, wherein Solomon kept chariots and horsemen in several parts of his kingdom, for the security of his government, and the suppression of any disorder that might happen to arise; and therefore others have thought, that in the Chronicles the author speaks of those stalls which Solomon had at Jerusalem for his constant lifeguard, and were no more than four thousand; but in Kings, of all those stalls which were dispersed up and down in the several parts of his kingdom, which might be forty thousand: because, upon the account of the conquests, which his father had made on the east side of Jordan, it was necessary for Solomon to have a stronger armament of this kind than other kings before him had, in order to keep the people, that would otherwise be apt to rebel, in due subjection. 9 But without any prejudice to the authority of the Scriptures, why may we not own, that an error has possibly crept into the text through the negligence of some transcriber, who has inserted arbahim, that is, forty, instead of arbah, four, and so made this large disparity in the number? Four thousand stalls, supposing each stall for a single horse, are moderate enough; but forty thousand is incredible: and therefore, to proportion the horses to the chariots, which were a thousand and four hundred, we may suppose, with the learned author, from whom we have borrowed this conjecture, that of these chariots some were drawn with two, some with three, and some with four horses. Now if the chariots were drawn with a pair only, the number of Solomon's chariot horses must be two thousand eight hundred; if by two pair, then it must be five thousand six hundred; but the medium between these two numbers is very near four thousand; and therefore it seems most likely, that the horses which the king kept for this use only, might be much about this number. Too many for the law to tolerate; but the king perhaps might have as little regard to this clause in the law, as he had to the following one, which forbade him to multiply wives and concubines to himself, or greatly to multiply silver or gold.' The only remaining difficulty, except the divine vision vouchsafed Solomon, which has not been mentioned, is the great quantity of sacrifices which he is said to have offered on one altar only; but without recurring to any miracle for this, or without supposing that this fire, which originally came from heaven, was more strong and intense than any common fire; and therefore, after the return from the captivity the altar, as some observe, was made larger, because there wanted this celestial flame: without any forced solution like this, we have no reason to think, that all these sacrifices were offered in one day. fesThe king, we may imagine, upon one of the great his tivals, went in procession with his nobles, to pay devotion at Gibeon, where the tabernacle was, and the brazen altar which Moses had made. Each of the great A. M. 2981. A. C. 1023; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 4375. A. C. 1036. 2 SAM. xix-1 KINGS viii. festivals lasted for seven days; but Solomon might stay thing we hope for, should be constantly attended with much longer at Gibeon, until, by the daily oblations, a the homage and adoration, with the praises and acknowthousand burnt-offerings were consumed; and at the con- ledgments of his creatures, his own dependant creatures, clusion of this course of devotion, he might offer up his is a position that will admit of no controversy; and that ardent prayer to God, for wisdom, and God, for the con- there should be some places appointed for this purpose, firmation of his faith, might appear to him in a dream that all the offices of religion may be performed with by night, and have that converse with him which the more decency, and more solemnity, is another position, Scripture takes notice of. that seems to arise from the nature of the thing. These buildings we style, the houses of God ;' but it is not to defend him, as Arnobius speaks, from heat or cold, from wind or rain, or tempests, that we raise such structures, but to put ourselves in a capacity of paying our duty to him, and of nourishing in our hearts such sentìments of respect and reverence, of love and gratitude, as are due from creatures to their great Creator. Sleep indeed is like a state of death to the soul, wherein the senses are locked up, and the understanding and will deprived of the free exercise of their functions; and yet this is no impediment to God in communicating himself to mankind: for God speaketh once, yea twice,' says the author of the book of Job, in a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed, then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction:' for God, no doubt, has power, not only to awaken our intellectual faculties, but to advance them above their ordinary measure of perception, even while the body is asleep. 5 In these places, God is said to be more immediately present to hear our supplications, receive our praises, and relieve our wants; and therefore, to make his habitation commodious, David exhorts his subjects to a liberal contribution, and because I have a joy,' says he, in the house of my God, I have of mine own gold and silver, given three thousand talents of gold, even the gold of Ophir, and seven thousand talents of fine silver.' "He indeed makes mention," as the learned 6 Hooker, with whose words I conclude this argument, has observed, "of the natural conveniency that such kind of bounteous expenses have, since thereby we not only testify our cheerful affection to God, which thinks nothing too dear to be bestowed about the furniture of his service, but give testimony to the world likewise of his almightiness, whom we outwardly honour with the chiefest of outward things, as being, of all things, himself incomparably the greatest. To set forth the majesty of kings, his vicegerents here below, the most gorgeous and rare treasures that the world can afford are procured; and can we suppose, that God will be pleased to accept In a word, what the meanest of these would disdain? though the true worship of God," says he, "be to God 3 A very eminent father of the Greek church, speaking of the different kinds of dreams, has justly observed | that the organs of our body, and our brain, are not unlike the strings of a musical instrument. While the strings are screwed up to a proper pitch, they give a harmonious sound, if touched by a skilful hand; but as soon as they are relaxed, they give none at all. In like manner, while we are awake, says he, our senses, touched and directed by our understanding, make an agreeable concert; but when once we are asleep, the instrument has done sounding, unless it be, that the remembrance of what passed when we are awake, comes and presents itself to the mind, and so forms a dream, just as the strings of an instrument will for some time continue their sound, even after the hand of the artist has left them. It is no hard matter to apply this to Solomon's dream. He had prayed the day before with great fervency, and desired of God the gift of wisdom. In the night-time God appeared to him in a dream, and bid him ask what-in itself acceptable, who respects not so much in what ever he would. Solomon, having his mind still full of the desire of wisdom, asked it, and obtained it: so that the prayer or desire which he uttered in his dream, was but the consequence of the option he had made the day before, when he was awake. In a word, though we should allow that the soul of man, when the body is asleep, is in a state of rest and inactivity; yet we cannot but think, that God can approach it in many different ways; can move and actuate it just as he pleases; and when he is minded to make a discovery of any thing, can set such a lively representation of it before the eyes of the man's understanding, as shall make him not doubt of the reality of the vision. Solomon indeed, at the consecration of the temple, owns, that the heaven of heavens could not contain God, and much less then the house that he had built him :'but it will not therefore follow, that there is no necessity for places appropriated to divine worship, nor any occasion for making them so magnificent and sumptuous. That God, who is the author and giver of our being, and to whom we are indebted, for every thing we have, and every 'Calmet's Commentary on 1 Kings iii. 3 Gregory de Opificio Hominis, c. 13. place, as with what affection he is served; yet manifest it is, that the very majesty and holiness of the place where God is worshipped, hath, in regard of us, great virtue, force, and efficacy, as it is a sensible help to stir up devotion, and, in that respect, bettereth, no doubt, our holiest and best actions of that kind." CHAP. III.-Of the ancient Jerusalem, and its Temple. It is an opinion vulgarly received, and not without much probability, that Jerusalem is the same city which elsewhere is called Salem, and whereof Melchizedek is said to have been king. Not that Salem, or the city of Melchizedek, was of equal extent with Jerusalem in after times; but Jerusalem was no other than the city of Salem, enlarged and beautified by the kings of all Israel at first- David and Solomon, and after that, by the succeeding kings of Judah, when the monarchy came to be divided into two distinct kingdoms. |