though the crown was then hereditary, "all Israel came to Shechem to make his son Rehoboam king;" 1 Kings xii. 1.

2dly. The king must be a native Israelite, not a Heathen, nor a Proselyte. "One from among thy brethren shalt thou set over thee; thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, who is not thy brother;" Deut. xvii. 14, 15. It may naturally be inquired, what occasion was there for this limitation, when God had reserved the choice of the person to himself. I answer, more effectually to unite the people against any foreign invader, and any one who might attempt to seize the crown. The Mishna relates,* that when king Agrippa, an Idumean proselyte, met with this text, as he was reading in public, he burst into tears, because he was not of the seed of Israel. The people, however, encouraged him, crying out, "Fear not, Agrippa, thou art our brother;" probably because the children of Esau, from whom the Idumeans are descended, are called in Deuteronomy the brethren of the Jews; Deut. ii. 4.

3dly. The king was not to multiply horses; and is particularly forbid, therefore, sending to Egypt for them, Deut. xvii. 16, where was the chief breed of those animals in that part of the world. The Egyptian cavalry, which invaded Judea in the reign of Rehoboam, consisted of twelve hundred chariots, and sixty thousand horsemen; 2 Chron. xii. 2, 3. The reason of the king's being prohibited to multiply horses hath been commonly thought to be, to restrain him from affecting unnecessary pomp, expensive to himself, and burdensome to his people. If so, Solomon was egregiously guilty of transgressing this law, who had horses brought out of Egypt, 1 Kings x. 28; and, according to the account in the First Book of Kings, had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, 1 Kings iv. 26; or, according to the lower account in Chronicles, four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, 2 Chron. ix. 25. Perhaps these two accounts are best reconciled, by allowing ten horses to each stall, mentioned in Chronicles. Or, the word signifying either stable or stall, in Chronicles it may mean the former, in Kings, the latter.+

Mish. in Sota, sive de uxore adulterii suspecta, cap. vii. sect. viii. edit. Surenhusii, tom. iii. p. 268.

+ Stockii Clavis in verb.

Dr. Warburton, in his Divine Legation of Moses, supposes it was the true and sole design of this law to forbid the Jews the use of cavalry in their armies, which, he says, God did on purpose to make it manifest that he protected that nation by a special providence.* If so, Solomon does not seem to have violated this law so grossly as hath been commonly imagined; for though he kept such a multitude of chariots for state, and had twelve thousand horsemen for his life-guard, yet it does not appear that he had any cavalry designed for war.

4thly. The king is forbidden "multiplying wives to himself, that his heart turn not away," Deut. xvii. 17; the most natural exposition of which law is, that it prohibits polygamy, or having more wives than one. For it is not here said, "He shall not greatly multiply," as it is in the next clause concerning silver and gold, but simply, " he shall not multiply." The rabbies, indeed, enlarge the number of wives allowed the king to eighteen, and understand the law as only forbidding his having more,† which they attempt to ground on David's having six wives, a list of whom we have in the Second Book of Samuel, chap. iii. 2-5, compared with what the prophet afterward tells him, that if he had not offended God, he "would moreover have given him such and such things," chap. xii. 8, which they interpret of twice as many wives more, in all eighteen. And, in their opinion, no king should have a greater number than God would have allowed David. Solomon, without doubt, heinously transgressed this law, who had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines; 1 Kings xi. 3. And the sad effect was, what this law was intended to prevent, that they "turned away his heart from God."

5thly. The king is also forbid "greatly to multiply to himself silver and gold;" Deut. xvii. 17. This Solomon did in a remarkable manner; for it is said, that "the weight of gold

Sensus est, inquit Abarbanel, regem sibi non debere multiplicare equos ex terra vel sua vel aliorum; neque confidere suæ multitudini et potentiæ, non equis et equitibus numerosis, sed unicam suam fiduciam debere esse Deum. Ubi supra, p. 440.

+ Mish. Sanhedrin, cap. ii. sect. iv. tom. iv. p. 217, edit. Surenhus, et Gemar. in excerptis Cocceii, cap. ii. sect. viii.

R. Ob. de Bartenora in Mish. capite supra citato, p. 118.

that came to him in one year was six hundred, threescore, and six talents, besides what he received from the merchantmen, and in particular from the traffic of the spice merchants, and from the kings of Arabia, and from the governors of the country; and that, besides a vast quantity of targets and shields, all of beaten gold, and a throne overlaid with gold, all his drinking vessels, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon, were of this precious metal; silver being in Jerusalem, in a manner, as plenty as stones, and little esteemed in his days;" 1 Kings x. 14-27. Notwithstanding no particular reason is given for this prohibition of multiplying silver and gold, we may easily conceive the design of it was, partly to prevent the king's oppressing the people with taxes, in order to enrich himself, as seems to have been done by Rehoboam, whose treasurer the people, therefore, stoned, 1 Kings xii. 18, and partly to restrain him from luxury, the common effect of riches; lest the king's example should debauch and enfeeble the nation, and prove its ruin, as the wealth, and consequent luxury of the Persians, proved the destruction of their empire. The rabbies, indeed, observe, that this law forbids only the king's multiplying gold and silver to himself, or to his own private coffers, but not to the public treasury, or for national exigencies. *

6thly. The king is enjoined to write for himself a copy of the law in a book, out of that which is before the priests and Levites, Deut. xvii. 18; that is, from the authentic copy kept in the sanctuary. Interpreters differ about the meaning of the word en mishne, which we render a copy. The Seventy translate it To Seurepovoulov, and the Vulgate deuteronomium, that translation generally following the version of the Seventy; from whence some have imagined that the king was obliged to transcribe only the book of Deuteronomy.+ Montanus renders it duplum, which version agrees with Maimonides's interpretation of this law, that "the king was to write the book of the law for himself, besides the book that was left him by his father; and if his father had left him none, or if that were lost, he was to write him two books of the * Maimon. de Regibus, cap. iii. sect. iv.; Mishn. Sanhedrin, cap. ii. sect. iv.; et Maimon. in loc. tom. iv. p. 218, edit. Surenhus.

+ Vid. Abarbanel, Comment. in loc. sive Dissert. ubi supra, p. 441.

law ;* the one he was to keep in his archives, the other was not to depart from him, unless when he went to his throne, or to the bath, or to a place where reading would be inconvenient. If he went to war, it accompanied him; if he sat in judgment, it was to be by him."+ But the word does not import any more than a single exemplar or copy. Joshua is said to have engraved on the stones, which he erected on Mount Ebal, a copy of the law, w mishne, a second, of which the autograph was the first.§ The design of the precept was, undoubtedly, to rivet the divine laws more firmly in the memory of the kings, of which, and of their obligations to observe them, they became, through the neglect of this precept, so ignorant in the days of good king Josiah, that he was strangely surprised at what he heard read out of this book of the law, when it was found in the temple, after he had reigned about eighteen years; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 18, et seq.

7thly. The king was bound to govern by law: for it is enjoined him, that he read in this copy of the law all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them; Deut. xvii. 19. Instead of making his own will his law, as the absolute monarchs of the East generally did, he was to rule according to the law which God had given by Moses. When Samuel, therefore, told the people the manner, D

This was likewise the opinion of many other Jewish doctors. Vid. Carpzov. Annot. ad Schickard. Jus. Reg. p. 82.

+ De Regibus, lib. iii. sect. i.

And so the Mishna understands it, Sanhedrin, cap. ii. sect. iv.

§ Vid. Leidecker. Not. ad Maimon. de Regibus, lib. ii. sect. i.

It is the opinion of Abarbanel, that this book was the autograph of Moses, which no doubt was a discovery that would occasion equal pleasure and surprise. To confirm this opinion, Leusden observes that thorah, having the He emphatic prefixed in 2 Kings xxii. 11, signifieth that very book of the law which was wrote bejadh Moseh, by the hand of Moses, as it is expressed in the parallel place in Chronicles, which Dr. Kennicott observes, is a phrase which only occurs there, and naturally means one particular MS., namely, the original. Leusd. Philolog. Hebræo. mixt. Dissert. xxvi. sect. xv. p. 175, edit. 2; Kennicott's Second Dissert. on the Heb. Text, p. 299, 300. See also Leland's Answer to Christianity as Old as the Creation, vol. ii. chap. iv. p. 123---126, Dublin edit. 1733.

*

mishpat, of the king that should reign over them, 1 Sam. viii. 11, describing a most arbitrary and tyrannical one, who would take their sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, &c., we must not understand him here, as some do, to lay down the rightful authority of the king of Israel, but only the practice of the arbitrary monarchs around them (for they had desired to have a king like the neighbouring nations, ver. 5), in order to divert them from so injudicious and ill-advised a project. Accordingly, Down mishpat is better rendered manner in our English version, than jus in the Vulgate and Sukaupa in the Septuagint. In some other places the word signifies merely a manner or custom, without implying any legal right. Thus Joseph interprets the dream of Pharaoh's butler, that he should again deliver the cup into his sovereign's hand, after the " former manner," when he was in office; Gen. xl. 13. Again, David is said to have destroyed all the inhabitants of the places on which he made inroads, while he was with Achish king of Gath, lest any of them should report, So did David, and so will be " his manner," all the time that he dwelleth in the country of the Philistines; 1 Sam. xxvii. 11. Nay, the word is used even for a very corrupt and illegal custom and "the priests' custom with the people was," as the expression is in relation to a very unjustifiable practice of Eli's sons; 1 Sam. ii. 13.

That the king was bound by law, appears from the story of Ahab, who desired to purchase Naboth's vineyard; yet because the law forbad the alienation of lands from one tribe or family to another, he could not obtain it, till he had got Naboth condemned and executed for blasphemy and treason, whereupon his estate became forfeited to the crown; or the king, however, seized it; 1 Kings xxi. 1-16. From hence it appears, that the Hebrew monarch was only God's viceroy, or lieutenant, governing in all respects by his laws, which he could not alter, under pretext of amending or improving, nor abrogate or repeal on account of any pretended or apprehended inconvenience arising from them; and in matters of importance, when the law was not clear and certain, he was

This is the opinion of Abarbanel, who quotes with approbation the following decision of Rabbi Jehuda: "Ista (de jure et judicio regis) non fuerunt dicta, nisi ad eos perterrefaciendos." Ubi supra, p. 446.