3. He had no legislative power: which a Viceroy could not possibly have. 4. He was placed and displaced by God at pleasure: of which, as Viceroy, we see the perfect fitness; but as Sovereign by the people's choice, one cannot easily account for; because God did not chuse to supersede the natural Rights of his People, as appears by his leaving it, at first, to their own option whether they would have God himself for their King. 5. The very same punishment was ordained for cursing the King as for blaspheming God, namely, stoning to death; and the reason is intimated in these words of Abishai to David, Shall not Shimei be put to death for this, because he cursed the LORD's ANOINTED? This was the coinmon title of the Kings of Israel and Judah, and plainly denoted their office of Viceroyalty: Improperly, and superstitiously transferred, in these later ages, to Christian Kings and Princes. From this further circumstance, a Viceroyalty is necessarily inferred: The throne and kingdom of Judea is all along expressly declared to be God's throne and God's kingdom. Thus, in the first book of Chronicles, it is said that Solomon sat on the THRONE OF THE LORD, as King, instead of David his father. And the queen of Sheba, who visited Solomon, to be instructed in his wisdom, and doubtless had been informed by him of the true nature of his kingdom, compliments him in these words: Blessed be the Lord thy God, which delighted in thee to set thee on HIS THRONE, TO BE KING FOR THE LORD THY GOD. In like nanner Abijah speaks to the house of Israel, on their defection from Rehoboam: And now ye think to withstand the KINGDOM OF THE LORD in the hands of the 2 Sam. xix. 21. Chap. xxix. ver. 23. 2 Chron. ix. 8. sons OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 85 cons of David. And to the same purpose, Nehemiah: Neither have our kings, our princes, our priests, nor our fathers, kept thy law, nor hearkened unto thy commandments, and thy testimonies, wherewith thou didst testify against them. For they have not served thee in THEIR KINGDOM. The sense, I think, requires that the Septuagint reading should be here preferred, which says ΕΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ ΣΟΥ, IN ΤΗΥ KINGDOM. And this the Syriac and Arabic versions follow. As Judea is always called his kingdom, so he is always called the King of the Jews. Thus the Psalmist: Thine Altars, O Lord of Hosts, my KING, and my God. And again: Let Israel rejoice in him that made him: let the children of Zion be joyful in their KINGS. And thus the Prophet Jeremiah: The KING, whose name is the Lord of Hosts | 7. The penal Laws against idolatry were still in force during their Kings, and put in execution by their best rulers, and even by men inspired. Which, alone, is a demonstration of the subsistence of the THEOCRACY; because such laws are absolutely unjust under every other form of Government. As to the title of King given to these Rulers, this will have small weight with those who reflect that Moses likewise, who was surely no more than God's deputy, is called King: Moses commanded us a Law; even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob. And he was KING in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people, and the tribes of Israel, were gathered together ¶. Let us now see what the celebrated M. Le Clerc says in defence of the contrary opinion, which supposeth the THEOCRACY to have ended with the Judges. 2 Chron. xiii. 8. + Ch. ix. 34, 35 Psalm lxxxiv. 3. ¶ Deut. xxxiii. 4 & 5. Father Father Simon of the Oratory had said, that the republic of the Hebrews never acknowledged any other CHIEF than God alone, who continued to govern in that quality even during the time in which it was subject to Kings. This was enough to make his learned adversary take the other side of the question; who being piqued at Simon's contemptuous slight of his offered assistance in the project for a new Polyglott, revenged himself upon him in those licentious † Letters, intitled, Sentimens de quelques Theologiens de Hollande, where his only business is to pick a quarrel. He therefore maintains against Simon, That the theocracy ceased on establishing the throne in the race of David. What he hath of argument to support this opinion is but little; and may be summed up in the following observation, That God did not PERSONALLY interfere with his directions, nor discharge the functions of a Magistrate after the establishment of the Kings as he had done before §. But this, instead of proving the abolition of the Theocracy, only shews that it was f * La Republique des Hebreux differe en cela de tous les autres états du monde, qu'elle n'a jamais reconnu pour chef que Dieu seul, qui a continué de la gouverner en cette qualité dans les tems mêmes, qu'elle a été soumise à des rois. Histoire Crit. de Vieux Test. p. 15. Ed. Rotterd. 1685. + See note [G] at the end of this Book. Il paroît au contraire par l'Ecriture, que Dieu n'a gouverné la republique des Hebreux, en qualité de chef politique, que pendant qu'ils n'avoient point des rois, & peut-être au commencement que le rois furent etablis, avant que la famille de David fut affermie sur le trône de Israel. Sentimens, &c. p. 78. § Pendant tout ce temps-la, Dieu fit les fonctions de roi, Il jugeoit des affaires-il repondoit par l'oracle-il regloit la marche de l'armée-il envoyoit même quelquefois un ange-On n'étoit obligé d'obeïr aveuglement, qu'aux seuls ordres de Dieu. Mais lors qu'il y eut des rois en Israël, & que le royaume fut attaché à la famille de David, les rois furent maîtres absolus, & Dieu cessa de faire leurs fonctions. pp. 78, 79. 6 administered · administered by a Viceroy. For in what consists the office of a Viceroy but to discharge the functions of his Principal? He had been a cipher, had God still governed immediately, as before. Mr. Le Clerc could see that God acted by the ministry of the Judges. If then the Theocratic function could be discharged by deputation, why might it not be done by Kings as well as Judges? The difference, if any, is only from less to more, and from occasional to constant. No, says our Critic, the cession was in consequence of his own declaration to Samuel: For they have not rejected thee, but they have REJECTED ME, that I should not reign over them. This only declares the sense God had of their mutinous request; but does not at all imply that he gave way to it. For who, from the like words (which express so natural a resentment of an open defection) would infer in the case of any other monarch, that he thereupon stepped down from his throne, and suffered an usurper to seize his place? This, we see, was poor reasoning. But, luckily for his reputation, he had an Adversary who reasoned worse. However, Simon saw thus much into Le Clerc's cavil, as to reply, That all he had said was quite beside the purpose, for that the thing to be proved was, that, after the establishment of the Kings, God was no longer the civil Chief On -au lieu qu'auparavant Dieu lui-même la faisoit, par le ministere des Juges, qu'il suscitoit de temps en temps au milieu d'Israël. Def. des Sent. p. 121. C'est pour cela que Dieu dit à Samuel, lors qu' Israël voulut avoir un roi pour le juger à la manière de toutes les nations : ce n'est pas toi qu'ils ont rejetté, mais moi, afin que je ne regne point sur eux. 1 Sam. viii. 7. Je passe sous silence le long discours de Mr. le Clerc touchant le pouvoir de Dieu sur les Israëlites avant l'etablissement des rois, d'où il pretend prouver que Dieu pendant tout ce temps-la fit la fonction de roi. Tout cela est hors de propos, puis qu'il s'agit de On which Le Clerc thus insults him: As much as to Le Clerc returns to the charge in his Defence of thei Sentiments:-"The Israelites did not reject God as "Protector, but as civil Chief, as I observed before. They would have a King who should determine. sovereignly, and command their armies. Which, "before this, God himself did by the ministry of the Judges, whom he raised up, from time to time, from the midst of Israel. In this sense we must under"stand absolutely the words of God, in Samuel, that "I should not reign over them." It is indeed strange, that, prouver, qu'apres ces temps la Dieu n'a plus été leur chef: & c'est ce qu'on ne prouvera jamais, Reponse aux Sentimens de quelques Theol, de Hol. p. 55. * ---C'est à dire, que pour prouver que Dieu n'a pas été chef des Hebreux, après l'election des rois, il est hors de propos de prouver qu'il n'a plus fait les fonctions de chef de la republique, C'est ainsi que ce grand genie debrouille heureusement les matieres, & découvre d'abord ce qui est hors de propos, de ce qui ne l'est pas, 'Defens. des Sentimens, p. 120. Les Israëlites ne rejetterent pas Dieu comme protecteur, mais comme chef politique, ainsi que je l'ai marqué. Ils voulurent + 1 |
