vinegar. The locusts which formed part of John the Baptist's | breadth, and twelve feet above the surface of the earth food (Mark i. 6.) were these insects, and not the fruit of the locust tree.1 travellers in the desert, when they perceive its approach, throw themselves on the ground, with their faces close to 5. The devastations caused by the locusts, together with the burning sands, and wrap their heads in their robes, or in the absence of the former and latter rains, were generally a piece of carpet, till the wind has passed over them. The followed by a scarcity of provisions, and not unfrequently by least mischief which it produces is the drying up their skins absolute FAMINE, which also often prevailed in besieged of water, and thus exposing them to perish with thirst in the cities to such a degree, that the starving inhabitants have deserts. When this destructive wind advances, which it been reduced to the necessity of devouring not only unclean does with great rapidity, its approach is indicated by a redanimals, but also human flesh. Compare Deut. xxviii. 22-ness in the air; and, when sufficiently near to admit of being 42. 56, 57. 2 Sam. xxi. 1. 2 Kings vi. 25-28. xxv. 3. Jer. observed, it appears like a haze, in colour resembling the xiv. 15. xix. 9. xlii. 17. Lam. ii. 20. iv. 10. Ezek. v. 10-purple part of the rainbow, but not so compressed or thick. 12. 16. vi. 12. vii. 15. When travellers are exposed to a second or third attack of this terrible blast it produces a desperate kind of indifference for life, and an almost total prostration of strength. Camels and other animals instinctively perceive its approach, and bury their mouths and nostrils in the ground. The effects of this blast on the bodies of those whom it destroys are peculiar. At first view, its victims appear to be asleep: but if an arm or leg be smartly shaken or lifted up, it separates from the body, which soon after becomes black.2 In Per sia, in the district of Dashtistan a sam or simoom blew during the summer months, which so totally burnt up all the corn (then near its maturity), that no animal would eat a blade of it, or touch any of its grain. The image of corn blasted before it be grown up, used by the sacred historian in 2 Kings xix. 26., was most probably taken from this or some similar cause. The Psalmist evidently alludes (Psal. ciji 15, 16.) to the desolating influence of the simoom. 6. But the greatest of all the calamities that ever visited this highly favoured country is the pestilential blast, by the Arabs termed the SAM wind, by the Persians, SAMOUN, by the Turks, SIMOOM or SAMIEL, and by the prophet Jeremiah, a dry wind of the high places in the wilderness. (Jer. iv. 11.) It blows in Persia, Arabia, and the deserts of Arabia, during the months of June, July, and August; in Nubia during March and April, and also in September, October, and November. It rarely lasts more than seven or eight minutes, but so poisonous are its effects, that it instantly suffocates those who are unfortunate enough to inhale it, particularly if it overtake them when standing upright. Thevenot mentions such a wind, which in 1658 suffocated twenty thousand men in one night; and another, which in 1655 suffocated four thousand persons. As the principal stream of this pestilential blast always moves in a line, about twenty yards in PART II. POLITICAL ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS CHAPTER I. DIFFERENT FORMS OF GOVERNMENT, AND POLITICAL STATE OF THE HEBREWS, OR JEWS, FROM THE PATRIARCHAL TIMES TO THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY. 1. Patriarchal Government.—II. Government under Moses-a Theocracy ;-its Nature and Design.-1. Notices of the Heads or Princes of Tribes and Families.-2. Of the Jethronian Prefects or Judges appointed by Moses.-3. Of the Senate or Council of Seventy Assessors.-4. Scribes.-III. Government of the Judges.-IV. Regal Government instituted;-1. The Functions and Privileges of the Kings;—2. Inauguration of the Kings ;—3. Chief Distinctions of Majesty ;—4. Scriptural Allusions to the Courts of Sovereigns and Princes explained.-V. Revenues of the Kings of Israel.-VI. Magistrates under the Monarchy.—VII. Officers of the Palace.-VIII. The royal Harem.-IX. Promulgation of Laws.-X. Schism between the twelve Tribes ;—its latent Causes ;-the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah founded;-their Duration and End. -XL Reasons why the Kingdom of Judah subsisted longer than that of Israel.—XII. State of the Hebrews during the Babylonish Captivity. 1. Or the forms of government which obtained among mankind from the earliest ages to the time of Moses, we have but little information communicated in the Scriptures. The simplicity of manners which then prevailed would render any complicated form of government unnecessary; and accordingly we find that the PATRIARCHS, that is, the Heads or Founders of Families, exercised the chief power and command over their families, children, and domestics, without being responsible to any superior authority. Such was the government of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So long as they resided in the land of Canaan, they were subject to no foreign power, but tended their flocks and herds wherever they chose to go (Gen. xiii. 6-12.), and vindicated their wrongs by arms whensoever they had sustained any injury. (Gen. xiv.) They treated with the petty kings who reigned in different parts of Palestine as their equals in dignity, and concluded treaties with them in their own right. (Gen. xiv. 13. 18-24. xxi. 22-32. xxvi. 16. 27-33. xxxi. 44-54.) The patriarchal power was a sovereign dominion: so that parents may be considered as the first kings, and children the first subjects. They had the power of disinheriting their children (Gen. xlix. 3, 4. 1 Chron. v. 1.), and also of punishing them with death (Gen. xxxviii. 24.), or of dism ssing them from home without assigning any reason. 1 Sir Win. Ouseley's Travels, vol. i. p. 197 Dodwell's Tour, vol. i. p. 215. Dr. Della Cella's Travels from Barbary to the Western Frontier of Egypt, p. 78. Jackson's Account of the Empire of Marocco, pp. 51-54. (Gen. xxi. 14.) Further, the patriarchs could pronounce a solemn blessing or curse upon their children, which at that time was regarded as a high privilege and of great consequence. Thus Noah cursed his son Canaan (Gen. ix. 25.); Isaac blessed Jacob (Gen. xxvii. 28, 29. 33.); and Jacob blessed his sons. (Gen. xlix.) On the decease of the father, the eldest son, by a natural right of succession, inherited the paternal power and dominion, which in those days was one of the rights of primogeniture. To this right the sacerdotal dignity, in the first ages, seems to have been annexed; so that the heads of families not only possessed a secular power, but also officiated as priests in the families to which they belonged. (Gen. viii. 20. xii. 7, 8. xxxv. 1—3.) Although the sons of Jacob exercised, each, the supreme power in his own family, during their father's life (Gen. xxxviii. 24.), yet the latter appears to have retained some authority over them. (Gen. xlii. 1—4. 37, 38. xliii. 1—13. 1. 15-17.) Afterwards, however, as the posterity of Jacob increased, in Egypt, it became necessary to have magistrates or governors, invested with more extensive authority; these are termed Elders (Exod. iii. 16.), being probably chosen on account of their age and wisdom. The Shoterim or "officers of the children of Israel" (Exod. v. 14, 15. 19.) have been Bruce's Travels, vol. vi. pp. 462, 463. 184. Harmer's Observations, vol i. pp. 94-96. Sir R. K. Porter's Travels in Georgia, Persia, &c. vol. ii p. 230. Morier's Second Journey, p. 43. conjectured to be a kind of magistrates elected by them; but, from the context of the sacred historian, they rather appear to have been appointed by the Egyptians, and placed over the Israelites in order to oversee their labour.! became motives to continuance in the true religion, instead of encouragements to idolatry. his will by prophets whose mission was duly attested, and the people were bound to hearken to their voice. In all these cases, Jehovah appears as sovereign king, ruling his people by his appointed ministers.3 In the theocracy of the Hebrews, the laws were given t them by God, through the mediation of Moses, and they II. On the departure of the Israelites from the land of were to be of perpetual force and obligation so long as their their oppressors, under the guidance of Moses, Jehovah was polity subsisted. The judges by whom these laws were pleased to institute a new form of government, which has administered were represented as holy persons, and as sitting been rightly termed a THEOCRACY; the supreme legislative in the place of God (Deut. i. 17. xix. 17.): they were ugually power being exclusively vested in God or in his ORACLE, who taken from the tribe of Levis and the chief expounder of the alone could enact or repeal laws. The Hebrew government law was the high-priest. In this there was a singular proappears not only designed to subserve the common and gene-priety; for the Levites, being devoted to the study of the ral ends of all good governments;-viz. the protection of the law, were (as will be shown in a subsequent page) the literati property, liberty, safety, and peace of the several members among the Israelites. In difficult cases of law, however, of the community (in which the true happiness and prospe- relating both to government and war, God was to be conrity of states will always consist), but also to set apart the sulted by Urim and Thummim; and in matters, which conHebrews or Israelites as a holy people to Jehovah, and a king-cerned the welfare of the state, God frequently made known dom of priests. For thus Moses is directed to tell the children of Israel, Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now, therefore, if ye will hear my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people; for all the earth is mine, and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation. (Exod. xix. 3, 4, 5, 6.) We learn what this covenant was in a further account of it. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God, your captains of your tribes, your elders and your officers, and all the men of Israel; that you should enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day; that he may establish thee to-day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto the God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto in athers, to Abraham, Isaac, and to Jacob: for ye know, adds Moses, how we have dwelt in the land of Egypt, and how we came through the nations which ye passed by; and ye have seen their abominations and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which were among them, lest there should be among you, man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the Lord our God to go and serve the gods of these nations. (Deut. xxix. 10-18.) A subordinate design of this constitution of the Hebrew government was, the prevention of intercourse between the Israelites and foreign nations. The prevalence of the most abominable idolatry among those nations, and the facility with which the Israelites had, on more than one occasion, adopted their idolatrous rites, during their sojourning in the wilderness, rendered this seclusion necessary, in order to secure the fundamental principle of the Mosaic law above mentioned: and many of the peculiar laws will, on this principle, be found both wisely and admirably adapted to secure this design.4 men of renown. By comparing Deut. xxix. 10. with Josh. xxiii. 2. it appears that these representatives were the heads of tribes or families, and judges and officers; and Michaelis is of opinion that, like the members of our British House of Commons, they acted in the plenitude of their own power, without taking instruction from their constituents. The form of the Hebrew republic was unquestionably de mocratical; its head admitted of change as to the name and nature of his office, and at certain times it could even subsist without a general head. When Moses promulgated his laws, he convened the whole congregation of Israel, to whom he is repeatedly said to have spoken; but as he could not possibly be heard by six hundred thousand men, we must conclude that he only addressed a certain number of persons who were From these passages it is evident that the fundamental deputed to represent the rest of the Israelites. Accordingly principle of the Mosaic Law was the maintenance of the in Num. i. 16. these delegates or representatives are termed doctrine and worship of one true God, and the prevention, or (KеRUAY HOëDaн), that is, those wont to be called rather the proscription of polytheism and idolatry. The cove- the convention; in our version called the renowned of the connant of Jehovah with the Hebrew people, and their oath by gregation; and in Num. xvi. 2. they are denominated which they bound their allegiance to Jehovah, their God and (NESIAY EDAH KERUAY MUOED), that is, chiefs King, was, that they should receive and obey the laws which of the community, or congregation, that are called to the conhe shou appoint as their supreme governor, with a particu-vention, in our version termed, famous in the congregation, lar engagement to keep themselves from the idolatry of the nations round about them, whether the idolatry they had seen while they dwelt in the land of Egypt, or that which they had observed in the nations by which they passed into the promised land. In keeping this allegiance to Jehovah, as their immediate and supreme Lord, they were to expect the blessings of God's immediate and particular protection in the 1. HEADS OR PRINCES OF TRIBES AND FAMILIES.-All the security of their liberty, peace, and prosperity, against all various branches of Abraham's descendants, like the ancient attempts of their idolatrous neighbours; but if they should Germans or the Scottish clans, kept together in a body acbreak their allegiance to Jehovah, or forsake the covenant cording to their tribes and families; each tribe forming a of Jehovah, by going and serving other gods, and worship- lesser commonwealth, with its own peculiar interests, and ping them, then they should forfeit these blessings of God's all of them at last uniting into one great republic. The protection, and the anger of Jehovah should be kindled same arrangement, it is well known, obtained among the against the land, to bring upon it all the curses that are writ- Israelites, who appear to have been divided into twelve great ten in the book of Deuteronomy. (xxix. 25-27.) The sub-tribes, previously to their departure from Egypt. By Moses, stance, then, of this solemn transaction between God and the however, they were subdivided into certain greater families, Israelites (which may be called the original contract of the which are called noen (MiSHPаCHOTH) or families, by way Hebrew government) was this:-If the Hebrews would vo- of distinction, and mana (BaTеY ABOTH) or houses of fathers luntarily consent to receive Jehovah as their Lord and King, (Num. i. 2. Josh. vii. 14.); each of whom, again, had their to keep his covenant and laws, to honour and worship him heads, which are sometimes called heads of houses of fathers, as the one true God, in opposition to all idolatry; then, and sometimes simply heads. These are likewise the same though God as sovereign of the world rules over all the na- persons who in Josh. xxiii. 2. and xxiv. 1. are called Elders. tions of the earth, and all nations are under the general care (Compare also Deut. xix. 12. and xxi. 1-9.) It does not of his providence, he would govern the Hebrew nation by peculiar laws of his particular appointment, and bless it with a more immediate and particular protection; he would secure to them the invaluable privileges of the true religion, together with liberty, peace, and prosperity, as a favoured people Michaelis's Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, vol. i pp. 190-196. above all other nations. This constitution, it will be ob-man (Civil Government of the Hebrews, pp. 17-31.) has illustrated the wis Ibid. vol. i. pp. 202-225. Bruning's Antiq. Heb. pp. 91-93. Mr. Lowserved, is enforced chiefly by temporal sanctions, and with dom of this second design of the Jewish theocracy by several pertinent exsingular wisdom; for temporal blessings and evils were at amples. s Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, vol. i. p. 231: that time the common and prevailing incitements to idolatry: but by thus taking them into the Hebrew constitution, as rewards to obedience and punishments for disobedience, they Lowman on the Civil Government of the Hebrews, pp. 8-10. See alsc masterly observations on the introduction of temporal sanctions into the Dr. Graves's Lectures on the Pentateuch, vol. ii. pp. 141-185. for some Mosaic law. • In this manner were the Ishmaelites governed by twelve princes accord ing to the number of Ishmael's sons (Gen. xxv. 16.); and the Bedouins their descendants have always preserved some traces of this patriarchal govern nent. Their families continue together; and under the name of Emir, one is prince among people, who are all his kindred within a certain degree of affinity. Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. i. p. 232. appear in what manner these heads or elders of families were chosen, when any of them died. The princes of tribes do hot seem to have ceased with the commencement, at least, of the monarchy: from Chron. Xxvi. 16-22. it is evident that they subsisted if the time of Did and they must have proved a powerful restraint upon the power of the king. It will now be readily conceived how the Israelitish state might have subsisted not only without a king, but even occasionally without that magistrate who was called a Judge, although we read of no supreme council of the nation. Every tribe had always its own independent chief magistrate, who may not inaptly be compared to the lords-lieutenants of our British counties; subordinate to them, again, were the heads of families, who may be represented as their deputy-lieutenants: and, if there were no general ruler of the whole people, yet there were twelve smaller commonwealths, who in cerfain cases united together, and whose general convention would take measures for their common interest. In many cases particular tribes acted as distinct and independent republics, not only when there was neither king nor judge, but even during the times of the kings. Instances of wars being carried on by one or more particular tribes, both before and after the establishment of the regal government, may be seen in Josh. xvii. 15-17. Judg. iv. 10. and xviii-xx. 1 Chron. v. 18-23 41-43. It appears from 1 Chron. xxiii. 11. that a certain number of persons was necessary to constitute a family, and to empower such a family to have a representative head; for it is there said that the four sons of Shimei had not a numerous progeny, and were therefore reckoned only as one family. Hence we may explain why, according to Micah v. 2., Bethlehem may have been too small to be reckoned among the families of Judah. It is impossible to ascertain, at this distance of time, what number of individuals was requisite to constitute a house or family; but probably the number was not always uniform.1 2. The JUDGES, who were appointed by Moses, had also a right, by virtue of their office, to be present in the congregation, or convention of the state.. After the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, Moses, for some time, was their sole judge. Jethro, his father-in-law, observing that the daily duties of this office were too heavy for him, suggested to him (subject to the approbation of Jehovah) the institution of Judges or rulers, if tens, of fifties, of hundreds, and of thousands, who determined every affair of little importance among themselves, but brought the hard causes to Moses. (Exod. xviii. 14-26.) Of the judges of tens, therefore, there must have been sixty thousand; of the judges of fifties, twelve thousand; of the judges of hundreds, six thousand; and of the judges of thousands, six hundred. These judges, or Jethronian prefects (as they have been called), seem to have been a sort of justice of the peace in several divisions, probably taken from the military division of an host into thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens; this was a model proper for them as an army marching, and not unsuitable to their settlement as tribes or families, in a sort of counties, hundreds, and tithings. Perhaps our old Saxon constitution of sheriffs in counties, hundredors or centgraves in hundreds, and deciners in decennaries, may give some light to this constitution of Moses. Some of our legal antiquaries have thought that those constitutions of the Saxons were taken from these laws of Moses, introduced by Alfred, or by his direction.2 It is not probable, that in the public deliberative assemblies the whole sixty thousand judges of tens had seats and voices. Michaelis conjectures that only those of hundreds, or even those only of thousands, are to be understood, when mention is made of judges in the Israelitish conventions.3 But, after the establishment of the Hebrews in the land of Canaan, as they no longer dwelt together in round numbers, Moses ordained that judges should be appointed in every city (Deut. xvi. 18.), and it should seem that they were chosen by the people. In succeeding ages these judicial offices were filled by the Levites, most probably because they were the persons best skilled in the law of the Hebrews. (See 1 Chron. xxiii. 4. xxvi. 29-32. 2 Chron. xix. 8-11, xxxiv. 13.) 3. During the sojourning of the Israelites in the wilderness, Moses established a council or SENATE of seventy, to assist him in the government of the people. The Jewish rabbinical writers, who have exercised their ingenuity in conjecturing why the number was limited to seventy, have pretended that this was a permanent and supreme cour: of judicature; but as the sacred writers are totally silent concerning such a tribunal, we are authorized to conclude that it was only a temporary institution. After their return from the Babylonish captivity, it is well known that the Jews did appoint a sanhedrin or council of seventy at Jerusalem, in imitation of that which Moses had instituted. In the New Testament, very frequent mention is made of this supreme tribunal, of which an account will be found in a subsequen chapter of this volume. 4. Among the persons who appear in the Israelitish congregation or diet (as Michaelis terms it), in addition to those already mentioned, we find the (SHOTERIM) or Scribes. It is evident that they were different from the Jethronian prefects or judges; for Moses expressly ordained that they should not only appoint judges in every city, but also shoterim or scribes. What their functions were, it is now difficult to ascertain. Michaelis conjectures, with great probability, that they kept the genealogical tables of the Israelites, with a faithful record of births, marriages, and deaths; and that to them was assigned the duty of apportioning the public burthens and services on the people individually. Under the regal government, these scribes were generally taken from the tribe of Levi. (1 Chron. xxiii. 4. 2 Chron. xix. 8—11. and xxxiv. 13.) In Deut. xxix. 10. xxxi. 28. Josh. viii. 33. and xxiii. 2. we find them as representatives of the people in the diets, or when they entered into covenant with God. In time of war they were charged with the duty of conveying orders to the army (Deut. xx. 5.); and in 2 Chron. xxvi. 11. we me with a scribe, who appears to have been what is now termed emuster-master-general. 6 III. On the death of Moses, the command of the children of Israel was confided to JOSHUA, who had been his minister (Exod. xxiv. 13. Josh. i. 1. ); and under whom the land of Canaan was subdued, and divided agreeably to the divine injunctions. On the death of Joshua and of the elders of his council, it appears that the people did not choose any chief magistrate or counsellors in their place. The consequence (as might naturally be expected) was a temporary anarchy, in which we are told that every man did what was right in his own eyes. (Judg. xxi. 25.) This state of things occasioned the government of Israel to be committed to certain supreme magistrates, termed JUDGES. Their dignity was, ir. some cases, for life, but not always: and their office was no hereditary, neither was their succession constant. There alsc were anarchies, or intervals of several years' continuance, during which the Israelites groaned under the tyranny of their oppressors, and had no governors. But though God himself did regularly appoint the judges of the Israelites, the people nevertheless, on some occasions, elected him who appeared to them most proper to deliver them from their immediate oppression: thus Jephthah was chosen by the Israelites beyond Jordan. As, however, it frequently happened that the oppression which rendered the assistance of judges necessary were not felt equally over all Israel, so the power of those judges, who were elected in order to procure their deliverance from such servitudes, did not extend over all the people, but only over that district which they had delivered. Thus Jephthah did not exercise his authority on this side Jordan, neither did Barak exercise his judicial power beyond that river. The authority of the judges was not inferior to that which was afterwards exercised by the kings: it extended to peace and war. They decided causes without appeal; but they had no power to enact new laws, or to impose new burthens upon the people. They were protectors of the laws, defenders of religion, and avengers of crimes, particu larly of idolatry, which was high-treason against Jehovah their Sovereign. Further, these judges were without pomp or splendour, and destitute of guards, train, or equipage: unless indeed their own wealth might enable them to make an ap pearance suitable to their dignity. Their income or revenue arose solely from presents. This form of administration subsisted from Joshua to Saul, during a period of about 339 years.7 IV. At length the Israelites, weary of having God for their sovereign, and provoked by the misconduct of the sons of the judge and prophet Samuel, who in his old age had asso ciated them with himself for the administration of affairs, de sired a KING to be set over thera, to judge them like all the nations (1 Sam. viii. 5.), thus undesignedly fulfilling the designs of the Almighty, who had ordained that in the fulness of time the Messiah should be born of a royal house. 1. Such a change in their government Moses foresaw, and accordingly, by divine command, he prescribed the following laws, both concerning their election of a king, and also for the direction of their future sovereigns, which are recorded in Deut. xvii. 14-20. (1.) The right of choice was left to the people, but with this limitation, that they must always elect a native Israelite, and not a foreigner. One from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee thou mayst not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. (2.) The Israelites were on no account to appoint any one to be their king, who was not chosen by God. Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee whom the LORD thy God shall choose. Accordingly, he appointed Saul, by lot, to be their first king; David, by name, to be their second; Solomon, his son, to be his successor; and then made the regal government hereditary in David's family. But this law did not extend to their subsequently electing every individual king: for, so long as the reigning family did not violate the fundamental laws of the theocracy, they would continue to possess the hrone; but if they tyrannized, they would forfeit it. (5.) In order to prevent or restrain that royal avarice or luxury, for which oriental monarchs have always been distinguished, the king was forbidden greatly to multiply to him self silver and gold; lest the circulation of money should be obstructed, industry discouraged, or his subjects be impove rished. (6.) In order that they might not be ignorant of true reli gion, and of the laws of the Israelites, the king was enjoined to write out, for his own use, a correct copy of the divine law; which injunction was intended to rivet this law more firmly in his memory, and to hold him in constant subjection to its authority. For the same purpose he was required t read in this copy all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law, ana these statutes, to do them. This was a wise and patriotic law, well adapted to inspire a just dread of foreign intriguers and invaders, and an united vigilance in repulsing such persons from the government. Thus the power of the Israelitish kings was circumscribed "One who is born and educated in a community, is its natu- by a code of fundamental and equal laws, provided by infi ral brother: his habits, attachments, and interests strongly nite wisdom and rectitude. With regard to actual facts, it ap link him to it; while the sentiments, feelings, and interests pears from 1 Sam. x. 25. compared with 2 Sam. v. 3. 1 Kings of a stranger do often as naturally connect him with a foreign | xii. 22-24. and 2 Kings xi. 17. that the Israelitish kings country, and alienate him from that in which he resides." But were by no means possessed of unlimited power, but were this statute did not apply to the case of the nation being at restricted by a solemn stipulation; although they on some any time subjected, by force of arms, to a foreign prince; occasions evinced a disposition leaning towards despotism. though the Pharisees afterwards so explained it.1 (1 Sam. xi. 5-7. and xxii. 17, 18.) They had, however the right of making war and peace, as well as the power of life and death; and could on particular occasions put criminals to death, without the formalities of justice (2 Sam. i. 5-15. iv. 9-12.); but, in general they administered justice; sometimes in a summary way by themselves where the case appeared clear, as David did (see 2 Sam. xii. 1—5. xiv. 4—11. and 1 Kings ii. 5—9.), or by judges duly constituted to hear and determine causes in the king's name. (1 Chron. xxiii. 4. xxvi. 29-32.) Michaelis thinks it probable that there were superior courts established at Jerusalem, in which David's sons presided, and that in Psal. cxxii. 5. there is an allusion to them; but no mention is made of a supreme tribunal in that With regard to the external qualifications which the Jews city earlier than the reign of Jehoshaphat. (2 Chron. xix. 8 appear to have demanded in their kings:-comeliness of per--11.) Although the kings enjoyed the privilege of grantson and tallness of stature seem to have been the principal ing pardons to offenders at their pleasure, without consulting requisites. Thus, although Saul was constituted King of any person; and in ecclesiastical affairs exercised great power, Israel by the special appointment of God, yet it appears to sometimes deposing or condemning to death even the highhave been no inconsiderable circumstance in the eyes of the priest himself (1 Sam. xxii. 17, 18. 1 Kings ii. 26, 27.), and people that he was a choice young man and goodly, and that at other times reforming gross abuses in religion, of which there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person we have examples in the zealous conduct of Hezekiah and than he from the shoulders and upwards he was higher than Josiah; yet this power was enjoyed by them not as absolute any of the people. (1 Sam. ix. 2.) And therefore Samuel sovereigns in their own right. They were merely the vicesaid to the people, when he presented Saul to them: See ye roys of Jehovah, who was the sole legislator of Israel: and, him whom the LORD hath chosen, that there is none like him therefore, as the kings could on no occasion, either enact a among all the people. (1 Sam. x. 24.) Hence, also, David is new law or alter or repeal an old one, the government contisaid to have been ruddy, withal of a beautiful countenance, nued to be a theocracy, as well under their permanent adminand goodly to look to. (1 Sam. xvi. 12.) The people of the istration, as we have seen that it was under the occasional East seem to have had a regard to these personal qualities in administration of the judges. The only difference that can the election of their kings, in addition to those of strength, be discovered between the two species of government is, that courage, and fortitude of mind; and it was such a king as the conduct of the judges was generally directed by urim, their neighbours had, whom the Israelites desired. and that of the kings, either by the inspiration of God vouchsafed to themselves, or by prophets raised up from time to time to reclaim them when deviating from their duty, as laid down by the law. (3.) The king was not to multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to the end that he should multiply horses.2 This prohibition was intended to prevent all commercial intercourse with Egypt, and, consequently, to preserve them from being contaminated with idolatry; and also, by restraining the Jews from the use of cavalry in war, to lead them to trust implicitly in the special protection of the Almighty, from whose pure worship they might be seduced by extending their dominions among the neighbouring idolatrous nations by means of cavalry. (4.) The king was, further, prohibited from multiplying wives to himself, that his heart turn not away from the law and worship of the God of Israel, by his being seduced into idolatry in consequence of foreign alliances. How grossly this law was violated by Solomon and other monarchs the history of the Jews and Israelites abundantly records, together with the fatal consequences of such disobedience. It was on the ground of this law that the Pharisees and Herodians proposed that insidious question to Jesus Christ,-Is it lawful to give tribute to CESAR, or NO? (Matt. xxii. 17.) for, at that time, they were under the authority of a foreign power which they detested. Had Christ replied, YES, then they would have condeinned him by this law. Had he answered, No, then they would have accused him to Cæsar. (Dr. A. Clarke on Deut. xvii. 15. In his Commentary on Matt. xxii. 16-22. he has discussed this import ant subject in great detail and with equal ability.) (7.) Lastly, the monarch was charged, that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren; in other words, to govern his subjects with mildness and beneficence, not as slaves, but as brothers. So, David styled his subjects his brethren in 1 Chron. xxviii. 2.; and this amiable model was, subse quently, imitated by the first Christian emperors, particularly by Constantine the Great." Thus the regal government, though originating in the per verse impiety and folly of the Israelites, was so regulated and guarded by the divine law, as to promise the greates! public benefits. It is to be observed that the preceding enactments relate to the election of a king, not of a queen. Athaliah, indeed, reigned, but she was an usurper; and, long afterwards, Alexandra, the daughter of Jannæus, also reigned. She, however, reigned as a queen only in name, being under the influence of the Pharisees. It was customary for the Jewish kings sometimes to nomi That the Israelitish monarchs, even in the worst times, were considered not as above law, but as restrained by it, is evident from the history of Ahau, a most abandoned prince. Though he earnestly coveted the vineyard of Naboth, one of his subjects, and offered to purchase it, yet because the law prohibited the alienation of lands from one tribe or family to another, he could not obtain it, until, by bribing false witnesses, he had procured the legal condemnation and death of Naboth, as a traitor and blasphemer. (See The preceding regulations concerning the Hebrew monarchs are also fully considered and illustrated by Michaelis, Commentaries, vol. i. pp. 266–287 • Tappan's Lectures, p. 83. This law was to be a standing trial of prince and people, whether they had trust and confidence in God their deliverer. See Bp. Sherlock's Dis-1 Kings xxi. 1-14.) Tappan's Lectures on Jewish Antiquities, pp. 81, 82 courses on Prophecy, Disc. iv.; where he has excellently explained the reason and effect of the law, and the influence which the observance or aglect of it had in the affairs of the Israelites. nate their successors, and sometimes to assume them as partners with them in the government during their own lifeume. Thus David caused Solomon to be anointed (1 Kings i. 32-40.); so that Solomon reigned conjointly with his father during the short remainder of David's life, for it does not appear that the latter resigned his sceptre till he resigned his breath. In like manner Rehoboam, though a prince of no great merit, appointed his youngest son Abijah to be ruler among his brethren (2 Chron. xi. 22.), designing that he should reign after him; and accordingly Abijah succeeded him on the throne. (2 Chron. xiii. 1.) So, among the sons of Josiah, Jehoahaz, the younger, was preferred to Jehoiakim the elder. (2 Kings xxiii. 31-36.) This practice of the Jewish sovereigns serves to elucidate some supposed chronological difficulties in Sacred History. 2. The INAUGURATION OF THE KINGS was performed with various ceremonies and with great pomp. The principal of these was anointing with holy oil (Psal. lxxxix. 20.), which was sometimes privately performed by a prophet (1 Sam. x. 1. xvi. 1—13. Í Kings xix. 16. 2 Kings íx. Η6.), and was a symbolical prediction that the person so anointed would ascend the throne; but after the monarchy was established, this unction was performed by a priest (1 Kings i. 39.), at first in some public place (I Kings i. 32-34.), and afterwards in the temple, the monarch elect being surrounded by his guards. (2 Kings xi. 11, 12. 2 Chron. xxiii.) It is probable, also, that he was at the same time girded with a sword. (Psalm xlv. 3.) After the king was anointed he was proclaimed by the sound of the trumpet. In this manFer was Solomon proclaimed (1 Kings i. 34. 39.), and (it should seem) also the rebel Absalom. (2 Sam. xv. 10.) When Jehovah proclaimed his law, and himself to be the King of Israel, the sound of the trumpet preceded with great vehemence. (Exod. xix. 16.) The knowledge of this circumstance will explain the many passages in the Psalms, in which God is said to have gone up with a shout; the Lord, with the sound of a trumpet; and the Israelites are called upon, with trumpets to make a joyful noise before the Lord the King. (See Psal. xlvii. 5. xcviii. 6, &c.) From this ceremony of anointing, kings are in the Scriptures frequently termed the anointed of the Lord and of the God of Jacob. (1 Sam xxiv. 6. 10. xxvi. 9. 11. 16. 23. 2 Sam. xxiii. 1. Psal. ii. 2. lxxxix. 38. Habak. iii. 13.) A diadem or crown was also placed upon the sovereign's head and a sceptre put into his hand (Ezek. xxi. 26. Psal. xlv. 6. 2 Kings xi. 12.), after which he entered into a solemn covenant with his subjects that he would govern according to its conditions and to the law of Moses. (2 Sam. v. 3. 1 Chron. xi. 3. 2 Kings xi. 12. 2 Chron. xxiii. 11. compare Deut. xvii. 18.) The nobles in their turn promised obedience, and appear to have confirmed this pledge with a kiss, either of the knees or feet. (Psal. ii. 12.) Loud acclamations accompanied with music then followed, after which the king entered the city. (1 Kings i. 39, 40. 2 Kings xi. 12. 19. 2 Chron. xxiii. 11.) To this practice there are numerous allusions both in the Old Testament (Psal. xlvii. 1-9. xcvii. 1. xcix. 1, &c.) as well as in the New (Matt. xxi. 9, 10. Mark xi. 9, 10. Luke xix. 35-38.); in which last-cited passages the Jews, by welcoming our Saviour in the same manner as their kings were formerly inaugurated, manifestly acknowledged him to be the Messiah whom they expected. Lastly, after entering the city, the kings seated themselves upon the throne, and received the congratulations of their subjects. (1 Kings i. 1 Where the kingdom was hereditary, as that of Judah was, every king was not anointed, but only the first of the family; who being anointed for himself and all his successors of the same family, they required no other unction. If, however, any difficulty arose concerning the successi n, then the person who obtained the throne, though of the same family, was anointed in order to terminate the dispute: after which the title was not to be questioned. This was the case with Solomon, Joash, Jehoabaz, and others. The kingdom was not made hereditary in the family of Saul; and, therefore, Ishbosheth's seizing on the crown was only an usurpation. The power of nominating a successor to Saul was reserved by God to himself, whom David (who was no relation to Saul by blood, 1 Sam. xvi. 12.) was appointed king. David, therefore, had no other title but by divine appointment, first signified by the prophet Samuel's anointing him, and afterwards by the voluntary ratification of this appointment on the part of the people: so that the anointing of David was necessary for the confirmation of his title. But the kingdom being made hereditary in David's family, his being anointed served for him and all his successors, except when the right to the throne was disputed. Thus, when Solomon's right to the throne was contested by his elder brother Adonijah, it was necessary that he should be crowned, in order to quash that claim. In like manner, Joash, the seventh king of Judah, was anointed, because Athaliah had usurped and possessed the throne for six years (2 Kings xi. 12) So, Jehoahaz, the younger son of Josiah, was anointed king (2 Kings xxiii. 30), and reigned three months; after which, he was succeeded by his elder brother Jehoiakin, who ought first to have ascended the throne of Judah. Thus it appears, that in all cases of disputed succession, anointing was deemed to rve a Ureference. Iloine's Scripture History of the Jews, vol. i. p. 343. 35. 47, 48. 2 Kings xi. 19, 20.) On the inauguration of Saul, however, when there was neither sceptre, diadem, nor throne, these ceremonies were not observed. After the establishment of royalty among the Jews, it appears to have been a maxim in their law, that the king's person was inviolable, even though he might be tyrannical and unjust (1 Sam. xxiv. 5-8.); a maxim which is necessary not only to the security of the king, but also to the welfare of the subject. On this principle, the Amalekite, who told David the improbable and untrue story of his having put the mortally wounded Saul to death, that he might not fall into the hands of the Philistines, was merely on this his own statement ordered by David to be instantly despatched, because he had laid his hand on the Lord's Anointed. (2 Sam. i. 14.) 3. The CHIEF DISTINCTIONS OF MAJESTY mentioned in Scripture, were the royal apparel, the crown, the throne, and the sceptre. The royal apparel was splendid (Matt. vi. 29.), and the retinue of the sovereigns was both numerous and magnificent. (1 Kings iv. 1-24.) That the apparel of the Jewish monarchs was different from that of all other persons, is evident from Ahab's changing his apparel before he engaged in battle, and from Jehoshaphat's retaining his. (1 Kings xxii. 30.) It is most probable, after the example of other oriental sovereigns, that their garments were made of purple and fine white linen (Esth. viii. 15.); in after-times, it ap pears from Luke xvi. 19. that the rich and great were clad in purple and fine linen: and this circumstance may accoun for Pilate's soldiers clothing Christ with purple (Mark xv. 17.), and for Herod the tetrarch, with his men of war, arraying him in a gorgeous, most probably a white robe (Luke xxiii. 11.), thereby in derision clothing him as a king. Further, their Crowns or diadems glittered with gold, silver, and precious stones. (2 Sam. xii. 30. Zech. vi. 11.) Their arms were decorated with bracelets (2 Sam. i. 10.) as those of the Persian sovereigns are to this day;2 and their thrones were equally magnificent. The throne of Solomon is particularly described in 1 Kings x. 18-20. Similar to this was the throne on which the sovereign of Persia was seated to receive his late Majesty's ambassador, Sir Gore Ouseley, Bart. It was ascended by steps, on which were painted dragons (that of Solomon was decorated with carved lions; and was also overlaid with fine gold). The royal Sceptre seems to have been various at different times. That of Saul was a javelin or spear (1 Sam. xviii. 10. xxii. 6.), as Justin informs us was anciently the practice among the early Greek sovereigns. Sometimes the sceptre was a walking-stick, cut from the branches of trees, decorated with gold or studded with golden nails. Such sceptres were carried by judges, and by such a sceptre Homer introduces Achilles as swearing, and to a sceptre of this description the prophet Ezekie! unquestionably alludes. (xix. 11.) The sceptres of the ancient Persian monarchs were of solid gold. (Esth. v. 2.)6 In time of peace, as well as of war, it was customary to have watchmen set on high places, wherever the king was, in order to prevent him from being surprised. Thus David, at Jerusalem, was informed by the watchmen of the approach of the messengers, who brought him tidings of Absalom's defeat. (2 Sam. xviii. 24—27.) And Jehoram king of Israel, who had an army lying before Ramoth-Gilead, kept a watchman on the tower of Jezreel where he was, who spied the company of Jehu as he came, and accordingly announced it to the king. (2 Kings ix. 17. 20.)7 3 It is well known that the tables of the modern oriental Sovereigns are characterized by luxurious profusion; and vast numbers are fed from the royal kitchen. This fact provisions stated in 1 Kings iv. 22, 23. 28. to have been serves to account for the apparently immense quantity of consumed by the household of Solomon, whose vessels were for the most part of massive gold (1 Kings x. 21), and which were furnished throughout the year from the twelve provinces into which he divided his dominions. A similar cus tom obtains in Persia to this day.9 Splendid banquets were 2 Morier's Second Journey, p. 173. 4 Hist. lib. xliii. c. 3. a Ibid p. 174. Iliad. lib. i. v. 234-239. Schulzii Archæologia Pareau, Antiquitas Hebraica, pp. 277-279. Hebraica, pp. 45, 46. Jahn. Archæologia Biblica, §§ 223-227. Ackermann, Archæ 'ogia Biblica, §§ 217-220. Hon's Scripture History, vol. i. p. 352. Not fewer than two thousand are said to be employed about the palace of the reigning Emir of the Druses. "We saw," says Mr. Jowett, "many professions and trades going on in it,-soldiers, horse-breakers, carpen ters, blacksmiths, scribes, cooks, tobaccousts, &c. There was, in the air of this mingled assemblage, something which forcibly brought to my recollection the description of an eastern rayal household, as given to the Israelites by Samuel. 1 Sam. viii. 11-17" Jowett's Christian Researches in Syria, p. 84. Morier's Second Journey, p. 274. |