him at death. What then was David's resource? "Jehovah will take me up" ("D", yaaspheni), as a child disowned by its parents, and taken up by the adoptive father from the streets. (Compare the beautiful parallels, Ezek. xvi. 4-6, and Isa. xlix. 15.) The same Hebrew is used of the elders taking into the city of refuge the man-slayer (Josh. xx. 4). In Ps. xxvi. 9, it is translated "Gather my soul;" just as the Lord Jesus would have gathered Jerusalem's children, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings" (Matt. xxiii. 37). The believer can appropriate all three meanings: When the nearest forsake me, the Lord will take me up, take me in, and finally gather me with His saints. (Compare 2 Thess. ii. 1.)

The great Antitype was similarly misunderstood by His nearest relatives. The Pharisees' slander, "He hath a demon, and is mad" (John x. 20), seems to have in some degree affected them; for "His kinsmen" (margin), on hearing that He and His disciples were so thronged by the crowds to whom they ministered, that "they could not so much as eat bread, went out to lay hold on Him; for they said, He is beside Himself" (Mark iii. 21, 31). Subsequently His mother joined them on one occasion, when He was within a house, surrounded by crowds. "The sword" of doubts, owing to His actual manifestation differing so much from the Jewish expectations, had probably "pierced her own soul" (Luke ii. 35), as it did that of John the Baptist; and she desired to have her faith strengthened, at the same time that her maternal love felt solicitous for His bodily sustenance (Matt. xii. 47). Certainly JESUS on this occasion, like David the type, set His heavenly Father as superior to the claims of all earthly relationship. "Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And He stretched forth His hand towards His disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! for whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." There is no doubt about the application of the words to Messiah in Ps. Ixix. 8, "I

am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children." (John vii. 5.)

In the time of adversity, David's kinsmen-the type-seem to have similarly stood aloof from him (Ps. xxxviii. 11). The bitter tone of Eliab, his eldest brother, towards him, on the memorable day of his conflict with Goliath, as recorded in the independent history (I Sam. xvii. 28), is in undesigned accordance with his language concerning his brethren: "I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle." His meekness forms a striking contrast to the haughty anger and uncharitableness of his brother: his gentle reply, "Is there not a cause?" accords with his spirit in the Psalm (xxxviii. 13, 14), “But I, as a deaf man, heard not; and I was as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth. Thus I was as a man that heareth not, and in whose mouth are no reproofs." David conquered himself first; then he was in the best frame for conquering Goliath.

The remarkable Moabite stone of Dhibân, the Dibon of the Old Testament, curiously confirms the truthfulness of the Bible record, which takes for granted, as we have seen above, the connection between Israel and Moab. Moab and Ammon were the incestuous offspring of Lot, according to Genesis xix. 30-38. Supposing this account true, we should expect the Israelite nation sprung from Abraham, and the Moabite and Ammonite nations sprung from his nephew, to bear traces of their common origin. Accordingly the Dibon stone reveals to us the interesting fact, that THE LANGUAGE of the stone is almost indentical with that of the historical portions of the Hebrew Bible. The phrase of MESHA, who is named on the stone as in 2 Kings iii. 4-27, “ Kemosh let me see my desire upon all my enemies," is word for word, substituting Jehovah the true for the false deity of apostate Moab, the same as David's, “GOD shall let me see my desire upon mine enemies" (Ps. lix. 10; comp. liv. 7). If the stone belongs to the reign of Ahaziah, who died 896 B.C. (as Rev. J. Kenrick suggests), and if the revolt of Moab from Israel, recorded on the stone, took place in his reign, then we must conclude that the alphabet, at so early a period as nine centuries B.C., was in such a complete

state as it appears on the stone. Or if the revolt followed the tragic issue of the confederacy of Judah, Israel (under Jehoram), and Edom, against Moab, recorded in 2 Kings iii. 26, 27, still the alphabet stands forth complete at an age little short of nine centuries, and can have been then no recent invention. It has been discovered employed as masons' marks on the foundation stones of Solomon's temple. What a confirmation against rationalistic cavils is this fact of the ancient date of the earliest sacred books! The stone records the victories of the Moabite king Mesha, not only in the same character, but in almost the same idiom, as the book of Kings relates his defeats! Nothing but the supposition of truthfulness will account for the harmony between the Bible histories and the stone, in respect to the internal fact that no diversity of language is implied in the scriptural account of the intercourse between the two nations, such as is recorded to have existed between the Hebrews and the Assyrians (2 Kings xviii. 26) in Hezekiah's time, or between the Hebrew and Syriac as far back as Jacob's time (Gen. xxxi. 47).

Moreover, as the history (2 Sam. viii. 2) records the terrible subjugation of Moab by David, a subjugation which was followed by a requisition of a perpetual yearly tribute of 100,000 lambs and 100,000 rams (2 Kings iii. 4), alluded to also by the prophet Isaiah (xvi. 1) in subsequent times: "Send ye the lamb to the ruler of the land from Sela-unto the mount of the daughter of Zion;" so David incidentally, and in an unobtrusive way least like that of a forger, saith, "Moab is my washpot" (Ps. lx. 8), an expression marking ignominious subjection, as it is the office of a slave to wash the feet.

Close to Moab lay Ammon, a people with whom also David was brought into some connection. In the tenth chapter of the second of Samuel, we read that David sent an embassage to comfort Hanun for his father Nahash, who had just died; for, said he, "I will show kindness to him, as his father showed kindness to me" (2 Sam. x. 2). Scripture does not record what that kindness exactly was. But the Ammonite king, Nahash, would naturally help David in his

wanderings from before the face of his persecutor, Saul, the latter having been the conqueror who had so utterly destroyed the Ammonite host under the father of the same Nahash (1 Sam. xi.). That father and son bore the same name, leads to the inference that Nahash (meaning serpent) was a common title of the kings of Ammon, as Pharaoh was of those of Egypt. Jewish tradition records that the special kindness of the younger Nahash to David consisted in his sheltering the only one of David's brothers who escaped, when the rest of the family were massacred by the treacherous king of Moab. David's gratitude, sympathy, and kindness towards Hanun were met by suspicion, uncharitableness, and injustice. A fearful retribution avenged the wrong: Rabbah, "the city of waters," was taken, the royal crown set on David's head, and the people put under saws, harrrows, and axes of iron, and made to pass through the brick-kiln (2 Sam. xii. 32). But when we go on to ch. xvii. 27, we find that Shobi, the son of Nahash, of Rabbah, of the children of Ammon, is one of the three trans-Jordanic chieftains who rendered munificent hospitality to David in his hour of greatest need, when fleeing from Absalom. No forger would have introduced an incident so seemingly improbable at first sight.

But more careful reflection will suggest the explanation. The old kindness that subsisted between Shobi's father, Nahash, and David, and the consciousness that his brother Hanun's insolence had been the cause of the war which had ended so disastrously for Ammon, doubtless led Shobi gladly to embrace the opportunity of showing genuine sympathy towards David in his distress.

With him on this occasion was joined Machir, the son of Ammiel, of Lo-debar. What was the influencing cause that led him to feel for David and his people, saying in words that added much to the value of his gifts, "The people is hungry, weary, and thirsty in the wilderness"? Machir belonged to Manasseh, a tribe that had been faithful to Ishbosheth, the son of Saul: "Out of Machir," his forefather, came Gileadite "govenors," who had fought the Lord's battles

with Deborah and Barak against the Canaanite (Numb. xxxii. 40; Judg. v. 14). The same hereditary spirit of loyalty and generosity had led the younger Machir, when Ishbosheth was fallen, to give shelter to Mephibosheth. It was from Machir's house that David had taken his deceased friend Jonathan's son, to promote him to eat at his own table. David's kindness to Mephibosheth won the esteem of Machir, his former patron, and brought him to David's own help in his day of trouble. Surely GOD repays His people in kind, “ with the merciful showing Himself merciful, and with an upright man showing Himself upright," as David himself says (Ps. xviii. 25). How naturally, in the remembrance of that supply of his wants so graciously provided for him at Mahanaim, does David write, “Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies-my cup runneth over" (Ps. xxiii. 5).

One curious confirmation of the Scripture account of Mesha's defeat by the three confederate kings (2 Kings iii.) appears in the black obelisk from Nimrod, which is of the same age as the Moabite stone: Moab is wholly omitted in the list of Syrian independent states confederate with Benhadad of Damascus against Shalmaneser of Nineveh. The reason appears from Scripture, Moab was at that time subject to Judah. In later Assyrian lists, when Moab had recovered its independence, the names of three distinct Moabite kings appear. If the successful expedition recorded on the Moabite stone be assigned to the reign of Ahaziah, Jehoram's predecessor, the reason for the circuitous route taken by the three confederate kings, to invade the east of Moab, will appear evidently from the inscription-Mesha was carrying all before him in the west, and it would have been dangerous to have assailed him in that quarter. Truly, as the end draws nigh, and the assaults of the enemies of Revelation become faster and more furious, the Lord is multiplying the testimonies to His own truth. May both the writer and his readers be found ranged on the Lord's side in the testing times upon which our lot has fallen!