I will not be positive that this species of Divines is intirely of his own invention, and that this their apology for Moses is altogether as imaginary as their famous CONFEDERACY* against God; because I know by experience that there are of these Divines, who, in support of their passions and prejudices, are always ready (as I have amply experienced) to admit what Scripture opposes, and to oppose what it admits, in almost every page. But the best Apologies of such men are never worth a defence, and indeed are rarely capable of any. To conclude: Such as these here exposed, are all the reasonings of his Lordship's bulky volumes: And no wonder; when a writer, however able in other matters, will needs dictate in a Science of which he did not possess so much as the first principles. SECTION III. HAVING thus shewn the nature of this THEOCRACY, and the attendant circumstances of its erection; our next enquiry will be concerning its DURATION. Most writers suppose it to have ended with the JUDGES; but scarce any bring it lower than the CAPTIVITY. On the contrary, I hold that, in strict truth and propriety, it ended not 'till the coming of CHRIST. I. That it ended not with the Judges, appears evident for these reasons: 1. Though indeed the People's purpose, in their clamours for a King, was to live under a Gentile Monarchy like their idolatrous neighbours (for so it is represented by God himself, in his reproof of their impiety); † yet in compassion to their blindness, he, in this instance, as in many others, indulged their prejudices, without exposing them to the fatal consequence of their project: which, if complied with, in the sense they formed it, had been the withdrawing of his extraordinary protection from them, at a time when they could not support themselves without it. He therefore gave them a King; but such an one as was only his VICEROY or Deputy; and who, on that account, was not left to the People's election, as he left his own Regality; but was chosen by himself: the only difference between God's appointment of the Judges and of Saul being this, that They were chosen by internal impulse; He, by Lots, or external designation. 2. This king had an unlimited executive power; as God's Viceroy must needs have. 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 ⚫ Vol. v. pp. 305-307, 393. † 1 Sam. viii. 7. 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 common 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 expresly 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 manner 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 sons 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 THY 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 KING.** And thus the Prophet Jeremiah: The KING, whose name is the Lord of Hosts.tt 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. • 2 Sam. xix. 21. xiii. 8. t1 Chron. xxix. 23. Neh. ix. 35. Psalm lxxxiv. 3. 12 Chron. ix. 8. § 2 Chron. Psalm cxlix. 2. 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. 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 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. says our Critic, the cession was in consequence of his own declaration to Samuel: For they have not rejected thee, but they have REJECTED • Deut. xxxiii. 4, 5. No, "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 soûmise 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, et peut-être au commencement que les 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, et que le royaume fut attaché à la famille de David, les rois furent maîtres absolus, et Dieu cessa de faire leurs fonctions."-Pp. 78, 79. "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."- Defense des Sentimens, p. 121. 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 which Le Clerc thus insults him: As much as to say, that in order to prove God was no longer Chief of the Hebrews after the election of a King, it is beside the purpose to shew, he never afterwards discharged the functions of a Chief of the republic. It is thus this great Genius happily unravels matters, and discovers, in an instant, what is, and what is not to the purpose. Whether Simon indeed knew why Le Clerc's objection was nothing to the purpose, is to be left to God and his own conscience, for he gives us no reasons for the censure he passes on it: but that it was indeed nothing to the purpose, is most evident, if this proposition be true, "That a King does not cease to be King, when he puts in a Viceroy, who executes the regal office by deputation." Le Clerc returns to the charge in his Defense of the 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 understand absolutely the words of God, in Samuel, that I should not reign over them."§ It is indeed strange, that, after writing two books, he should still insist on so foolish a paralogism,|| That God's • "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 Israelites 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 prouver, qu'apres ces temps-la Dieu n'a plus été leur chef: et 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, et découvre d'abord ce qui est hors de propos, de ce qui ne l'est pas."-Defense des Sentimens, p. 120. "Les Israël ites ne rejetterent pas Dieu comme protecteur, mais comme chef politique, ainsi que je l'ai marqué. Ils voulurent un roi qui les jugeât souverainement, et qui commandat leurs armées, au lieu qu'auparavant Dieu lui-même le faisoit, par le ministere des juges, qu'il suscitoit. de temps en temps au milieu d'Israël.-En ce sens il faut entendre absolument les paroles de Dieu dans Samuel, afin que je ne regne point sur eux.”—P. 121. However, foolish as it is, the Reader hath seen, how a late Sermonizer has borrowed it, and how little force he has added to it. giving up his office of civil Chief, was a necessary consequence of the People's demanding it. For, that they did demand it, I acknowledge. Let us consider then this whole matter a little more attentively. Samuel (and I desire the Deists would take notice of it) had now, by a wise and painful direction of affairs, restored the purity of Religion, and rescued his Nation from the power of the Philistines, and their other hostile neighbours; against whom they were utterly unable to make head when he entered upon the public Administration. At this very time, the People, debauched, as usual, by power and prosperity, took the pretence of the corrupt conduct of the Prophet's two sons,* to go in a tumultuary manner, and demand a King. But the secret spring of their rebellion was the ambition of their leaders; who could live no longer without the splendour of a regal Court and Houshold; GIVE ME (say they, as the Prophet Hosea interprets their insolent demand) A KING AND PRINCES ;† where every one of them might shine a distinguished Officer of State. They could get nothing when their affairs led them to their Judges' poor residence, in the Schools of the Prophets, but the GIFT of the Holy Spirit ; which a Courtier, I presume, would not prize even at the rate Simon Magus held it, of a paultry piece of money.―This it was, and this only, that made their demand criminal. For the chusing Regal rather than Aristocratic Viceroys was a thing plainly indulged to them by the Law of Moses, in the following admonition : When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a KING over me, like as the nations that are about me: Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee, whom the LORD THY GOD SHALL CHUSE: one from amongst thy Brethren shalt thou set King over thee : Thou mayest not set a Stranger over thee which is not thy brother.§ The plain meaning of which caution is, that they should take care, when they demanded a King, that they thought of none other than such a King who was to be GOD'S DEPUTY. As therefore Courtambition only was in the wicked view of the Ringleaders of these malecontents, and no foolish fears for the State, or hopes of bettering the public Administration; it is evident to all acquainted with the genius of this Time and People, that compliance with their demand must have ended in the utter destruction of the Mosaic RELIGION as well as Law. But it was God's purpose to keep them SEPARATE, in order to preserve the memory of himself amidst an idolatrous World. And this not being to be done but by the preservation of their Religion and Law, we must needs conclude that he would not give way to their rebellious demand. ⚫ 1 Sam. viii. 5; xii. 12. Deut. xvii. 14, 15. Hosea xiii. 10. 1 Sam. x. 10; xix. |