in profane history (thus the Armenians lost at Tigranocerta 150, 000 out of 260,000).

Among the slain were Maaseiah, a royal prince, Azrikam, "prince of the palace" - probably its

chief official, or major-domo -and Elkanah, "the second to the king" probably the chief of the

royal council (comp. Esther 10:3). It is not easy to arrange the succession of events. But we

conjecture that after the losses inflicted by Rezin in the south, and the bloody victory gained by

Pekah in the north, the two armies marched upon Jerusalem, (2 Kings 16:5), with the object of

deposing Ahaz. But from the strength of its late fortifications the undertaking failed of success. It

was when Ahaz was thus pressed to the uttermost, and the Edomites and Philistines had actively

joined the hostile alliance (2 Chronicles 28:17, 18), that two events of the gravest political and

theocratic importance occurred. The first of these was the resolve of the king to appeal to Assyria

for help, with abject submission to its ruler. The second was the appearance, the message, and the

warnings of the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 7; 8). As we understand it, their inability to take Jerusalem,

and the knowledge that Ahaz had resolved to appeal to Tiglath-pileser, induced the kings of Syria

and Israel to return to their capitals. Rezin carried probably at that time his captives to Damascus;

while the Israelitish army laid the country waste, and took not only much spoil, but no less than

200,000 captives, mostly women and children ("sons and daughters") - as the sacred text

significantly marks, to show the unprecedented enormity of the crime' "of their brethren" (2

Chronicles 28:8). Their ultimate fate will be told in the sequel.

We pass now to the second event referred to. While the fate of Judah was trembling in the balance,

the prophet Isaiah was commissioned to go with his son, Shear Yashub* to meet the king "at the

end of the conduit of the upper pool, at the highway of the fuller's field" (Isaiah 7:3).

* The symbolic import of the name is explained in the sequel.

If this "upper pool" was (as seems most likely) the pre sent Birket-e l-Mamilla, the "dragon well" of

Nehemiah 2:13, and "serpent's pool" of Josephus (War; V. 3, 2), it lay in the north-west of the city.

The "pool," which is only a reservoir for rain -water, is partly hewn in the rock and lined with

stone. From its eastern side an outlet channel or "conduit" opened, winding somewhat to the south

of the Jaffa gate, eastwards into the city, where at present it debauches into "the Pool of the

Patriarch" (the Hammam-e l-Batrak), the Amygdalon [Tower] Pool of Josephus.*

* It is also called the Pool of Hezekiah, as supposed to have been made by that king. Professor

Socin (Badeker, Palaest. p. 121) throws some doubt on the identification of the upper pool with

El-Mamilla; but it is unhesitatingly adopted by Muhlan, in h is excellent article on Jerusalem

(Rheim, Hand-W. i. p. 691a).

From the manner in which the locality is mentioned, we infer that the king was wont to pass that

way, possibly on an inspection of the north-western fortifications.* The prophet's commission to

Ahaz was threefold. He was to admonish him to courage (Isaiah 7:4), and to announce that, so far

from the purpose of the allies succeeding, Ephraim itself should, within a given time, cease to be

"a people."**

* It could scarcely have been to stop the waters of the fountains without the city, since there are

not any fountains there, and "the pool" was one for rain -water.

** In our view the fulfillment of this prophecy was in the transplanting to Samaria of a foreign

population in the days of Esar-haddon (Ezra 4:2); and not, as has lately been suggested, in the

appointment of an Assyrian prefect of Samaria, which would scarcely fulfill: "Ephraim shall be

broken, that it be not a people" (Isaiah 7:8).

Lastly, he was to give "a sign" of what had been s aid, especially of the continuance of the house of

David. This was, in contrast to the king's unbelief, to point from the present to the future, and to