Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

brew mveeben jokrah, and a precious stone; which, however, the Jews interpret more literally, of one jewel only; and this, Rabbi Kimchi tells us, was a magnet, by means of which this weighty crown was so supported in the air as to be no load to the man that wore it. But the conceit, of a magnet's being attracted by the air, is a piece of philosophy worthy only of a Jewish rabbi. Josephus says this jewel was a sardonyx*: which notion, Bochart conjectures, might arise from the ancient Jews playing, in their manner, with the phrase bony, gnatereth malcam, the crown of the king. The word malcam having the same letters with □ the name of the god of the Ammonites, they made the expression to signify the crown of that god, who is otherwise called Moloch: and Moloch, it seems, or Molocas, is the Eastern name of the sardonyx; for Epiphanius+, speaking of the sardius, adds, εσι δε και αλλος (λιθος) Σαρδόνυξ, ος καλείται Μολόχας 1.

milcom,

The third ceremony at the inauguration of a king was the kiss of homage, which the Jews call the kiss of majesty. With respect to Saul we are informed, that "Samuel took a phial of oil, and poured it on his head, and kissed him," 1 Sam. x, 1. This ceremony is probably alluded to in the following passage of the Psalmist, "Kiss the son, lest he be angry, &c." Psal. ii, 12, that is, acknowledge him as your king, pay him homage, and yield him subjection.

Fourthly, The acclamations of the people attended the ceremony of inauguration. Thus in the case of Saul, we are informed, that "all the people shouted and said, God save the king," 1 Sam. x, 24. And when Zadoc anointed Solomon, they blew the trumpet and said, God save king Solomon," 1 Kings i, 39.

[ocr errors]

It may be proper also to mention under this head, the royal robes, which, probably, were put on the king at his coronation. These, no doubt, were very rich and splendid, as may be concluded from our Saviour's declaring, in order to set forth the beauty which God had imparted to the lilies of the field, that

* Antiq. lib. vii, cap. vii, in fine, edit. Haverc.

+ De duodecim Gemmis in Veste Aaronis, cap. i, apud Opera, tom. ii, p. 225, 226, edit. Petav. Colon. 1682.

† See Bochart. Hieroz. part ii, lib. v, cap. vii.

"even Solomon in all his glory, was not arrayed like one of these,” Matt. vi, 29. This allusion is the more apposite, if, as Josephus saith, Solomon was usually clothed in white*. And on this supposition, it is probable, this was the colour of the royal robes of his successors. But it being likewise the colour of the priests' garments, the difference betwixt them must be supposed to lie in the richness of the stuff they were made of. Upon this notion, that the ancient Jewish kings wore white garments, the rabbies call persons of distinguished birth and high rank chorim, albati, in opposition to those of obscure birth and mean condition, whom they call Dwn chashuchim, tenebrosi, obscuri. To this distinction St. James is supposed to allude, James ii, 2, when he saith, if there come into your assembly a man εν εσθητι λαμπρα, which some render in a white garment; and a poor man e εodyrı purapa, in a dark or dirty one. This criticism, however, wants a better support than the opinion of Josephus and the rabbies concerning the colour of the robes of the Jewish kings; it being certain that the word λarpos is applied by the Greek writers to any gay colour. Thus Plutarch saith+, that weak eyes are offended προς απαν το λαμπρον. And Xenophon applies the word to such as are clothed in purple, or who are adorned with bracelets and jewels, and splendidly dressed. In the book of the Revelation λaprpos is used to signify the brightness or splendour of the morning star, Rev. xxii, 16; and likewise, in general, such things as are pleasant and agreeable to the sight. Thus in the prophetic doom of the great city Babylon, it is said, "all things which were dainty and goodly, τα λιπαρά, και τα λαμπρα, are departed from thee,” Rev. xviii, 14; that is, the things, which St. John elsewhere expresses by "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes," 1 John ii, 16. Our author's conjecture, therefore, that the Roman soldiers putting a purple, and Herod a white garment on Christ, when in derision they clothed him as a king, was in conformity to the customs of their respective countries, is very pretty and ingenious, but not sufficiently supported; it being far from certain, that white was the royal colour amongst

* Antiq. lib. viii, cap. vii, sect. iii, tom. i, p. 440, edit. Haverc. +Citat. a Stephano.

↑ Cyropæd. lib. ii, p. 115, et 117, edit. Hutch. 1738.

the Jews. Something, however concerning the ceremonies used at the inauguration of their kings, in the latter ages of their polity, may be conjectured with probability from the mock ceremonies, which were paid to our blessed Saviour, see Matt. xxvii, 29.

It may not be improper to add a few words concerning the state and grandeur of the Jewish monarchs: which consisted, partly in the profound respect that was paid them; of which we have many instances in their history; and, partly, in their attendants and guards; particularly the Cherethites and Pelethites, of whom we have frequent mention in the histories of David and Solomon. That they were soldiers, appears from their making part of David's army, when he marched out of Jerusalem on occasion of Absalom's conspiracy, 2 Sam. xv, 18; and likewise when they were sent against the rebel Sheba, the son of Bichri, chap. xx, 7. That they were a distinct corps from the common soldiers is evident from their having a peculiar commander, and not being under Joab the general of the army, 2 Sam. viii, 16, 18. They seem, therefore, to have been the king's body-guard, like the Prætorian band among the Romans. The Cherethites were originally Philistines (see 1 Sam. xxx, 14, and 16, compared, and Zeph. ii, 5), who were skilful archers; and it is therefore supposed, that after the Israelites had suffered so much by the Philistine archers at the fatal battle of Gilboa, 1 Sam. xxxi, 3, David not only took care to have his people instructed in the use of the bow, 2 Sam. i, 18, but having made peace with the Philistines, hired a body of these archers (it may be with a view of instructing his own people), and made them his guards. With these were joined the Pelethites; who are supposed to have been native Israelites, for we find two of the name of Peleth among the Jewish families; one of the tribe of Reuben, Numb. xvi, 1, another of the tribe of Judah, 1 Chron. ii, 33. The Chaldee paraphrase everywhere calls the Cherethites and Pelethites, archers and slingers. Their number may probably be gathered from the targets and shields of gold, which Solomon made for his guards, which were five hundred; see 1 Kings x, 16, 17, compared with 2 Chron. xii,

As an article of the state and magnificence of the Jewish

kings, it may be proper to mention Solomon's royal throne, which was raised on six steps, adorned with the images of lions, and overlaid with ivory and gold, 1 Kings x, 18—20.

The last honours paid the king were at his death. It is said, the royal corpse was carried by nobles to the sepulchre, though it were at a very considerable distance*. However this be, we read of public mourning observed for good kings, 2 Chron. xxxv, 24; see also Jerem. xxii, 18; and xxxiv, 5. Yet notwithstanding this royal state and grandeur, they were only God's viceroys, bound to govern according to the statute law of the land, which they, as well as their subjects, were required to obey. The rabbies tell us, that their violation of some laws was punished with whipping by order of the Sanhe drim; an account, which is so utterly improbable, especially as not a single instance can be produced of this punishment being inflicted, that it would not deserve to be mentioned, were it not espoused by such learned men as Seldent, Schickard, and Grotius §. Besides what hath been observed against this notion by Leusden, and Carpzovius, I apprehend I have rendered it at least probable, that the Sanhedrim, to whom the rabbies ascribe such extraordinary powers, did not exist till the time of the Maccabees.

* Schickard. Jus Regium cap. vi; theor. xix, p. 415-417, edit. Carpzov. Lipsia, 1674.

+ Selden. de Synedr. lib. ii, cap. ix, sect. v, apud Opera, vol. i, tom. 2, p. 1437, though afterwards, having recited the arguments on both sides, he expresseth himself more doubtfully, lib. iii, cap. ix, sect. v, in fine.

↑ Schickard. de Jure Regio. cap. ii, theor. vii, p. 141, 142, edit. Carpzov. § Grot. de Jure Belli et Pacis, lib. i, cap. iii, sect. xx, 2, p. 79, 80, edit. Gronov. Hagæ, com. 1680. To account for this flagellation, he supposes it was not inflicted on the king by any others, as a punishment; but was a voluntary infliction of his own, as a token of his penitence. But this is not agreeable to the representation given by the Hebrew doctors.

Leusden. Philolog. Hebræo mixt. dissert. xxv, sect. x, p. 167-169, edit. secund. Ultraject. 1682.

Not. ad Schickard. loc. supra citat.

CHAP. V.

OF THE HIGH-PRIESTS, PRIESTS, LEVITES, AND

NETHINIMS.

WITH respect to the priests, we propose to inquire, 1st, What sort of officers in the Hebrew commonwealth they were: And,

2dly, To whom it appertained to execute that office.

1st, Our first inquiry is, what sort of officers the priests were, who are called in the Hebrew D cohanim. The reason of this inquiry is, because we find in scripture the title cohanim applied to the officers of state, as well as to the ministers of the sanctuary. Thus, in the second book of Samuel, David's sons are said to have been cohanim, 2 Sam. viii, 18. That they were not ministers of the sanctuary is certain, because they were of the tribe of Judah, not of Levi, to which tribe the ecclesiastical ministry was by the law expressly limited. Their being called cohanim, therefore, can mean no other than as our translators render the word, chief rulers, or principal officers of state. And so indeed this title seems to be explained in the parallel place in Chronicles, where the sons of David are said to have been on " harishonim lejadh hammelek, primi ad manum regis, "chief about the king," 1 Chron. xviii, 17. Thus also Ira, the Jairite, is called cohèn lè-David, which our translators render, "chief ruler about David," 2 Sam. xx, 26. But more commonly the title, cohanim, is given to the minister of the sanctuary, who offered sacrifices, and other ways officiated in the public worship. Hence arises that uncertainty, whether Potipherah and Jethro, the former the father-in-law of Joseph, the latter of Moses, were ecclesiastical or civil persons; which our translators have expressed by calling them priests in the text, and prince in the margin, Gen. xli, 45; Exod. ii, 16. The true reason of the different application of the word

K

« AnteriorContinua »