most of the traditional stories of the first conversions of countries*.

The last instance which Godwin produces of proselytes of the gate, is, "The devout men, out of every nation under Heaven, who dwelt at Jerusalem," and are mentioned in the Acts, chap. ii, 5. But these devout men are expressly said to be Jews; that is, Jews by religion, not by nation; for they belonged to several nations. And though they are afterwards distinguished into Jews and proselytes, ver. 10, that doubtless means such as were born of Jewish parents, though in a foreign country, and who had been brought up in their religion; or such as were born of Gentile parents, and had become proselytes to it. Besides, there is the same reason against acknowledging them to be proselytes of the gate, as there is against acknowledging Cornelius and the eunuch to be such; namely, that the Jews were, at that time, subject to the Roman power.

Upon the whole, there does not appear to be sufficient evidence in the scripture history of the existence of such proselytes of the gate as the rabbies mention; nor indeed of any, who with propriety can be styled proselytes, except such as fully embraced the Jewish religion†.

* Geddes's Church History of Ethiopia, p. 8.

+ Concerning the proselytes of the gate, vid. Maimon. de regibus, cap. viii, sect. x, xi, et cap. ix, x, cum notis Leydecker. apud Crenii Fascicul. nonum, vel Leydeck. de Republ. Hebræor. lib. vi, cap. vii.

Concerning the proselytes of righteousness, vid. Maimon. de Vetito Concubitu, apud Leydecker, de Republicâ Hebræor. lib. vi, cap. vi, p. 364, et seq. Amstel. 1704, et Selden. de Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. ii, supra citat. et cap. iii.

CHAP. IV.

OF THEIR KINGS.

THE alteration made in the form of the Hebrew constitution, which originally was a proper Theocracy, by setting up the regal government, hath been already considered. As it was plainly an act of rebellion against God to make any change in his original settlement, the Jews are therefore charged with "rejecting him, that he should not reign over them, when they desired to have a king, to judge them like all the nations," 1 Sam. viii, 5, 6, 7. Nevertheless, as he permitted divorces "because of the hardness of their hearts, Matt. xix, 8, in like manner, foreseeing the perverse disposition they would have, after their settlement in Canaan, to such an alteration, he was pleased to give them some rules beforehand, concerning their choice of a king, and the manner of his administration, Deut. xvii, 14, to the end. Some of the rabbies, in order to exculpate their nation from the charge of rebellion on this occasion, would have this permission and regulation amount to an injunction to choose a king. Maimonides tells us*, out of the Babylonish Gemarat, that Moses gave the Israelites three express commandments, to elect a king, to destroy Amalek, and to build a temple, after they were possessed of the land of Canaan. He observes, that they accordingly chose Saul for their king, before they declared war against the Amalekites. But if this had been designed and understood as a command, they would no doubt have chosen a king presently after their settlement in Canaan, and not have delayed it for upwards of three hundred years. We cannot suppose, but

* De Regibus, cap. i, ab init.

+ Sanhedrin, cap. xxiii, in excerptis Cocceii, cap. xi, sect. vi.

↑ Si petitio regis absolutè, inquit Abarbanel, fuit legitima, et præceptum legis, et non peccatum fuit, nisi in modo petendi, vel in fine, tempore, aut intentione ejus; quare Joshua et cæteri judices Israelis, ipsum secuti, nun

Samuel would have put them upon choosing a king in obedience to the law of God, long before they desired one; and not have blamed them, as he did, when they expressed that desire, 1 Sam. x, 19. Many of the rabbies are, therefore, of a contrary opinion*; and so is Josephus, who imputes this desire of a kingly government + to the intolerable corruption which had crept into all the courts of justice through the baseness and avarice of Samuel's two sons. And he introduces his account of the regulations in Deuteronomy concerning their kings, with observing, that they ought not to have affected any other government, but to have loved the present, having the law for their master, and living according to it, for it was sufficient that God was their ruler§. That their desire of a king was displeasing to God, seems also to be intimated in the prophecy of Hosea, “I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath," Hos. xiii, 11: referring to Saul, the first king, on occasion of whose election God expressed his displeasure by terrible thunder, 1 Sam. xii, 17, 18; and to Zedekiah, the last king, whom he suffered, together with his subjects, to be carried captive to Babylon. Maimonides, indeed, pretends that the sin, for which the people were reproved by Samuel, did not consist in their desiring a king, but in their coming to him in a tumultuous and disrespectful manner, and asking a king, not in obedience to the Divine command, but because they disdained his government |This, however, is by no means agreeable to the scripture account, which evidently lays the blame on the desiring a king¶, not on the manner in which that desire was expressed: "The

quam cogitarunt de rege in Israele constituendo, cum hoc ipsis præceptum esset, quum ingrederentur terram? Quomodo omnes transgressi sunt hoc præceptum, cum essent in terrâ post ejus occupationem et divisionem ? Nullum hactenus interpretum vidi, qui de hoc egerit, et ad hoc aliquid responderit. Abarbanel. Dissert. ii, de Statu et Jure Regio, ad calcem Buxtorfii Dissertationum, p. 427, edit. Basil, 1662.

* Vid. Abarbanel, ubi supra, p. 424, et seq.

+ Agreeably to 1 Sam. viii, 5.

Antiq. lib. vi, cap. iii, sect. iii, edit. Haverc.

§ Lib. iv, cap. viii, sect. xvii.

De Regibus, cap. i, sect. ii,

¶ In redargutione Samuelis, inquit Abarbanel, semper attribuitur peccatum petitioni regis absolutè, &c. Ubi supra, p. 427.

thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people, in all that they say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them," 1 Sam. viii, 6, 7. The law, therefore, in the seventeenth chapter of Deuteronomy, must be looked upon, not as a command, nor hardly as a permission to choose a king*; for if they had supposed it to amount even to a permission, no doubt they would have alleged it to Samuel; nor is it easy to see how their wickedness would then have been so great in asking a king,” as it is represented to be. It must be considered, therefore, rather as a restraining law, that in case they would have a king, it should be under such limitations as God then prescribed, which are the eight following:

1st, That the choice of the person to be their king God would reserve to himself. They must not say, "I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are round about me, but thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God will choose," Deut. xvii, 14, 15. Accordingly, he appointed Saul, by lot, to be their first king, 1 Sam. x, 21; and David, by name, to be their second king, 1 Sam. xvi, 12. He likewise chose Solomon to be David's successor, 1 Chron. xxviii, 5; and, after him, he made the kingly government hereditary in David's family, 1 Kings ii, 4. Nevertheless, this divine choice and appointment only restrained the people from making any other person king than him whom God had nominated; but it did not actually invest him with the regal authority; that was done by an act of the people+. Thus, after God had appointed David to be king, in token of which he had been anointed by Samuel, 1 Sam. xvi, 13; yet the men of Judah anointed him king over the house of Judah, whereby they declared their concurrence, and acceptance of him for their king, 2 Sam. ii, 4. And upon the death of Solomon,

* Abarbanel makes several judicious observations, to show it was no command, in his dissertation above quoted, p. 436, et seq.

66

+ Per ponere regem," inquit Abarbanel, intelligitur ejus constitutio per populum; sed electio divina facta fuit per prophetam, mediante unctione. Abarbanel, Dissert. iii, p. 451, ad calcem Buxtorf. Dissert. Philolog. Theolog. edit. Basil, 1662.

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.