conjectured to be a kind of magistrates elected by them; but, from the context of the sacred historian, they rather appear to have been appointed by the Egyptians, and placed over the Israelites in order to oversee their labour.!

became motives to continuance in the true religion, instead of encouragements to idolatry.2

In the theocracy of the Hebrews, the laws were given to them by God, through the mediation of Moses, and they II. On the departure of the Israelites from the land of were to be of perpetual force and obligation so long as their their oppressors, under the guidance of Moses, Jehovah was polity subsisted. The judges by whom these laws were pleased to institute a new form of government, which has administered were represented as holy persons, and as sitting been rightly termed a THEOCRACY; the supreme legislative in the place of God (Deut. i. 17. xix. 17.): they were usually power being exclusively vested in God or in his ORACLE, who taken from the tribe of Levi; and the chief expounder of the alone could enact or repeal laws. The Hebrew government law was the high-priest. In this there was a singular proappears not only designed to subserve the common and gene-priety; for the Levites, being devoted to the study of the ral ends of all good governments;-viz. the protection of the law, were (as will be shown in a subsequent page) the literati property, liberty, safety, and peace of the several members among the Israelites. In difficult cases of law, however, of the community (in which the true happiness and prospe- relating both to government and war, God was to be conrity of states will always consist), but also to set apart the sulted by Urim and Thummim; and in matters, which conHebrews or Israelites as a holy people to Jehovah, and a king-cerned the welfare of the state, God frequently made known dom of priests. For thus Moses is directed to tell the chil- his will by prophets whose mission was duly attested, and dren of Israel, Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, the people were bound to hearken to their voice. In all these and how I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto cases, Jehovah appears as sovereign king, ruling his people myself. Now, therefore, if ye will hear my voice indeed, and by his appointed ministers.3 keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people; for all the earth is mine, and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation. (Exod. xix. 3, 4, 5, 6.) We learn what this covenant was in a further account of it. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God, your captains of your tribes, your elders and your officers, and all the men of Israel; that you should enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day; that he may establish thee to-day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and to Jacob: for ye know, adds Moses, how we have dwelt in the land of Egypt, and how we came through the nations which ye passed by; and ye have seen their abominations and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which were among them, lest there should be among you, man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the Lord our God to go and serve the gods of these nations. (Deut. xxix. 10-18.)

A subordinate design of this constitution of the Hebrew government was, the prevention of intercourse between the Israelites and foreign nations. The prevalence of the most abominable idolatry among those nations, and the facility with which the Israelites had, on more than one occasion, adopted their idolatrous rites, during their sojourning in the wilderness, rendered this seclusion necessary, in order to secure the fundamental principle of the Mosaic law above mentioned: and many of the peculiar laws will, on this principle, be found both wisely and admirably adapted to secure this design.4

The form of the Hebrew republic was unquestionably democratical; its head admitted of change as to the name and nature of his office, and at certain times it could even subsist without a general head. When Moses promulgated his laws, he convened the whole congregation of Israel, to whom he is repeatedly said to have spoken; but as he could not possibly be heard by six hundred thousand men, we must conclude that he only addressed a certain number of persons who were From these passages it is evident that the fundamental deputed to represent the rest of the Israelites. Accordingly principle of the Mosaic Law was the maintenance of the in Num. i. 16. these delegates or representatives are termed doctrine and worship of one true God, and the prevention, or 1^p (KеRUAY HOëdан), that is, those wont to be called rather the proscription of polytheism and idolatry. The cove- the convention; in our version called the renowned of the connant of Jehovah with the Hebrew people, and their oath by gregation; and in Num. xvi. 2. they are denominated which they bound their allegiance to Jehovah, their God and (NеSIAY EDUH KERUAY MUOED), that is, chiefs King, was, that they should receive and obey the laws which of the community, or congregation, that are called to the conhe should appoint as their supreme governor, with a particu-vention, in our version termed, famous in the congregation, lar engagement to keep themselves from the idolatry of the men of renown. By comparing Deut. xxix. 10. with Josh. nations round about them, whether the idolatry they had seen xxiii. 2. it appears that these representatives were the heads while they dwelt in the land of Egypt, or that which they of tribes or families, and judges and officers; and Michaelis is had observed in the nations by which they passed into the of opinion that, like the members of our British House of promised land. In keeping this allegiance to Jehovah, as Commons, they acted in the plenitude of their own power, their immediate and supreme Lord, they were to expect the without taking instruction from their constituents.5 blessings of God's immediate and particular protection in the security of their liberty, peace, and prosperity, against all attempts of their idolatrous neighbours; but if they should break their allegiance to Jehovah, or forsake the covenant of Jehovah, by going and serving other gods, and worshipping them, then they should forfeit these blessings of God's protection, and the anger of Jehovah should be kindled against the land, to bring upon it all the curses that are written in the book of Deuteronomy. (xxix. 25-27.) The substance, then, of this solemn transaction between God and the Israelites (which may be called the original contract of the Hebrew government) was this:-If the Hebrews would voluntarily consent to receive Jehovah as their Lord and King, to keep his covenant and laws, to honour and worship him as the one true God, in opposition to all idolatry; then, though God as sovereign of the world rules over all the nations of the earth, and all nations are under the general care of his providence, he would govern the Hebrew nation by peculiar laws of his particular appointment, and bless it with a more immediate and particular protection; he would secure them the invaluable privileges of the true religion, together with liberty, peace, and prosperity, as a favoured people above all other nations. This constitution, it will be observed, is enforced chiefly by temporal sanctions, and with singular wisdom; for temporal blessings and evils were at taat time the common and prevailing incitements to idolatry: bat by thus taking them into the Hebrew constitution, as rewards to obedience and punishments for disobedience, they

1. HEADS OR PRINCES OF TRIBES AND FAMILIES.-All the various branches of Abraham's descendants, like the ancient Germans or the Scottish clans, kept together in a body according to their tribes and families; each tribe forming a lesser commonwealth, with its own peculiar interests, and all of them at last uniting into one great republic. The same arrangement, it is well known, obtained among the Israelites, who appear to have been divided into twelve great tribes, previously to their departure from Egypt. By Moses, however, they were subdivided into certain greater families, which are called mind (MisHPаCHOTH) or families, by way of distinction, and as (BUTEY ABOTH) or houses of fathers (Num. i. 2. Josh. vii. 14.); each of whom, again, had their heads, which are sometimes called heads of houses of fathers, and sometimes simply heads. These are likewise the same persons who in Josh. xxiii. 2. and xxiv. 1. are called Elders. (Compare also Deut. xix. 12. and xxi. 1-9.) It does not

2 Lowman on the Civil Government of the Hebrews, pp. 8-10. See also masterly observations on the introduction of temporal sanctions into the Dr. Graves's Lectures on the Pentateuch, vol. ii. pp. 141-185. for some Mosaic law.

Michaelis's Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, vol. i pp. 190-196. 4 Ibid. vol. i. pp. 202-225. Bruning's Antiq. Heb. pp. 91-93. Mr. Lowman (Civil Government of the Hebrews, pp. 17-31.) has illustrated the wisdom of this second design of the Jewish theocracy by several pertinent examples. Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, vol. i. p. 231.

In this manner were the Ishmaelites governed by twelve princes according to the number of Ishmael's sons (Gen. xxv. 16.); and the Bedouins their descendants have always preserved some traces of this patriarchal govern ment. Their families continue together; and under the name of Emir, one is prince among people, who are all his kindred within a certain degree of affinity. Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. i. p. 232.

appear in what manner these heads or elders of families were chosen, when any of them died. The princes of tribes do not seem to have ceased with the commencement, at least, of the monarchy: from 1 Chron. xxvii. 16-22. it is evident that they subsisted in the time of David; and they must have proved a powerful restraint upon the power of the king.

It will now be readily conceived how the Israelitish state might have subsisted not only without a king, but even occasionally without that magistrate who was called a Judge, although we read of no supreme council of the nation. Every tribe had always its own independent chief magistrate, who may not inaptly be compared to the lords-lieutenants of our British counties; subordinate to them, again, were the heads of families, who may be represented as their deputy-lieutenants: and, if there were no general ruler of the whole people, yet there were twelve smaller commonwealths, who in certain cases united together, and whose general convention would take measures for their common interest. In many cases particular tribes acted as distinct and independent republics, not only when there was neither king nor judge, but even during the times of the kings. Instances of wars being carried on by one or more particular tribes, both before and after the establishment of the regal government, may be seen in Josh. xvii. 15-17. Judg. iv. 10. and xviii-xx. 1 Chron. v. 18-23. 41-43. It appears from 1 Chron. xxiii. 11. that a certain number of persons was necessary to constitute a family, and to empower such a family to have a representative head; for it is there said that the four sons of Shimei had not a numerous progeny, and were therefore reckoned only as one family. Hence we may explain why, according to Micah v. 2., Bethlehem may have been too small to be reckoned among the families of Judah. It is impossible to ascertain, at this distance of time, what number of individuals was requisite to constitute a house or family; but probably the number was not always uniform.'

pretended that this was a permanent and supreme court of judicature; but as the sacred writers are totally silent concerning such a tribunal, we are authorized to conclude that it was only a temporary institution. After their return from the Babylonish captivity, it is well known that the Jews did appoint a sanhedrin or council of seventy at Jerusalem, in imitation of that which Moses had instituted. In the New Testament, very frequent mention is made of this supreme tribunal, of which an account will be found in a subsequent chapter of this volume.

4. Among the persons who appear in the Israelitish congregation or diet (as Michaelis terms it), in addition to those already mentioned, we find the tempe (SHOTCRIM) or Scribes. It is evident that they were different from the Jethronian prefects or judges; for Moses expressly ordained that they should not only appoint judges in every city, but also shoferim or scribes. What their functions were, it is now difficult to ascertain. Michaelis conjectures, with great probability, that they kept the genealogical tables of the Israelites, with a faithful record of births, marriages, and deaths; and that to them was assigned the duty of apportioning the public bur thens and services on the people individually. Under the regal government, these scribes were generally taken from the tribe of Levi. (1 Chron. xxiii. 4. 2 Chron. xix. 8-11. and xxxiv. 13.) In Deut. xxix. 10. xxxi. 28. Josh. viii. 33. and xxiii. 2. we find them as representatives of the people in the diets, or when they entered into covenant with God. In time of war they were charged with the duty of conveying orders to the army (Deut. xx. 5.); and in 2 Chron. xxvi. 11. we meet with a scribe, who appears to have been what is now termed the muster-master-general,6

III. On the death of Moses, the command of the children of Israel was confided to JOSHUA, who had been his minister (Exod. xxiv. 13. Josh. i. 1. ); and under whom the land of Canaan was subdued, and divided agreeably to the divine in2. The JUDGES, who were appointed by Moses, had also junctions. On the death of Joshua and of the elders of his a right, by virtue of their office, to be present in the congre- council, it appears that the people did not choose any chief gation, or convention of the state. After the departure of the magistrate or counsellors in their place. The consequence Israelites from Egypt, Moses, for some time, was their sole (as might naturally be expected) was a temporary anarchy, judge. Jethro, his father-in-law, observing that the daily in which we are told that every man did what was right in duties of this office were too heavy for him, suggested to him his own eyes. (Judg. xxi. 25.) This state of things occa (subject to the approbation of Jehovah) the institution of sioned the government of Israel to be committed to certain Judges or rulers, of tens, of fifties, of hundreds, and of thou- supreme magistrates, termed JUDGES. Their dignity was, in sands, who determined every affair of little importance among some cases, for life, but not always: and their office was not themselves, but brought the hard causes to Moses. (Exod. hereditary, neither was their succession constant. There also xviii. 14-26.) Of the judges of tens, therefore, there must were anarchies, or intervals of several years' continuance, have been sixty thousand; of the judges of fifties, twelve during which the Israelites groaned under the tyranny of thousand, of the judges of hundreds, six thousand; and of their oppressors, and had no governors. But though God the judges of thousands, six hundred. These judges, or himself did regularly appoint the judges of the Israelites, the Jethronian prefects (as they have been called), seem to have people nevertheless, on some occasions, elected him who apbeen a sort of justice of the peace in several divisions, pro-peared to them most proper to deliver them from their immebably taken from the military division of an host into thou-diate oppression: thus Jephthah was chosen by the Israelites sands, hundreds, fifties, and tens; this was a model proper beyond Jordan. As, however, it frequently happened that for them as an army marching, and not unsuitable to their settlement as tribes or families, in a sort of counties, hundreds, and tithings. Perhaps our old Saxon constitution of sheriffs in counties, hundredors or centgraves in hundreds, and deciners in decennaries, may give some light to this constitution of Moses. Some of our legal antiquaries have thought that those constitutions of the Saxons were taken from these laws of Moses, introduced by Alfred, or by his direction.2 It is not probable, that in the public deliberative assemblies the whole sixty thousand judges of tens had seats and voices. Michaelis conjectures that only those of hundreds, or even those only of thousands, are to be understood, when mention is made of judges in the Israelitish conventions.3

But, after the establishment of the Hebrews in the land of Canaan, as they no longer dwelt together in round numbers, Moses ordained that judges should be appointed in every city (Deut. xvi. 18.), and it should seem that they were chosen by the people. In succeeding ages these judicial offices were filled by the Levites, most probably because they were the persons best skilled in the law of the Hebrews. (See 1 Chron. xxiii. 4. xxvi. 29-32. 2 Chron. xix. 8-11. xxxiv. 13.)1 3. During the sojourning of the Israelites in the wilderness, Moses established a council or SENATE of seventy, to assist him in the government of the people. The Jewish rabbinical writers, who have exercised their ingenuity in conjecturing why the number was limited to seventy, have

the oppression which rendered the assistance of judges necessary were not felt equally over all Israel, so the power of those judges, who were elected in order to procure their deliverance from such servitudes, did not extend over all the people, but only over that district which they had delivered. Thus Jephthah did not exercise his authority on this side Jordan, neither did Barak exercise his judicial power beyond that river. The authority of the judges was not inferior to that which was afterwards exercised by the kings: it extended to peace and war. They decided causes without appeal; but they had no power to enact new laws, or to impose new burthens upon the people. They were protectors of the laws, defenders of religion, and avengers of crimes, particu larly of idolatry, which was high-treason against Jehovah their Sovereign. Further, these judges were without pomp or splendour, and destitute of guards, train, or equipage: unless indeed their own wealth might enable them to make an ap pearance suitable to their dignity. Their income or revenue arose solely from presents. This form of administration subsisted from Joshua to Saul, during a period of about 339 years.7

IV. At length the Israelites, weary of having God for their sovereign, and provoked by the misconduct of the sons of the judge and prophet Samuel, who in his old age had associated them with himself for the administration of affairs, desired a KING to be set over them, to judge them like all the

nations (1 Sam. viii. 5.), thus undesignedly fulfilling the de-
signs of the Almighty, who had ordained that in the fulness
of time the Messiah should be born of a royal house.
1. Such a change in their government Moses foresaw, and
accordingly, by divine command, he prescribed the following
laws, both concerning their election of a king, and also for
the direction of their future sovereigns, which are recorded in
Deut. xvii. 14-20.

(1.) The right of choice was left to the people, but with this limitation, that they must always elect a native Israelite, and not a foreigner. One from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayst not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

This was a wise and patriotic law, well adapted to inspire a just dread of foreign intriguers and invaders, and an united vigilance in repulsing such persons from the government. "One who is born and educated in a community, is its natural brother: his habits, attachments, and interests strongly link him to it; while the sentiments, feelings, and interests of a stranger do often as naturally connect him with a foreign country, and alienate him from that in which he resides." But this statute did not apply to the case of the nation being at any time subjected, by force of arms, to a foreign prince; though the Pharisees afterwards so explained it.'

choose.

(2.) The Israelites were on no account to appoint any one to be their king, who was not chosen by God. Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee whom the LORD thy God shall Accordingly, he appointed Saul, by lot, to be their first king; David, by name, to be their second; Solomon, his son, to be his successor; and then made the regal government hereditary in David's family. But this law did not extend to their subsequently electing every individual king for, so long as the reigning family did not violate the fundamental | laws of the theocracy, they would continue to possess the hrone; but if they tyrannized, they would forfeit it.

:

(5.) In order to prevent or restrain that royal avarice or luxury, for which oriental monarchs have always been distinguished, the king was forbidden greatly to multiply to himself silver and gold; lest the circulation of money should be obstructed, industry discouraged, or his subjects be impoverished. (6.) In order that they might not be ignorant of true religion, and of the laws of the Israelites, the king was enjoined to write out, for his own use, a correct copy of the divine law; which injunction was intended to rivet this law more firmly in his memory, and to hold him in constant subjection to its authority. For the same purpose he was required to read in this copy all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law, ana these statutes, to do them.

Thus the power of the Israelitish kings was circumscribed by a code of fundamental and equal laws, provided by infinite wisdom and rectitude. With regard to actual facts, it appears from 1 Sam. x. 25. compared with 2 Sam. v. 3. 1 Kings xii. 22-24. and 2 Kings xi. 17. that the Israelitish kings were by no means possessed of unlimited power, but were restricted by a solemn stipulation; although they on some occasions evinced a disposition leaning towards despotism. (1 Sam. xi. 5-7. and xxii. 17, 18.) They had, however, the right of making war and peace, as well as the power of life and death; and could on particular occasions put criminals to death, without the formalities of justice (2 Sam. i. 5-15. iv. 9-12.); but, in general they administered justice; sometimes in a summary way by themselves where the case appeared clear, as David did (see 2 Sam. xii. 1–5. xiv. 4-11. and 1 Kings ii. 5—9.), or by judges duly constituted to hear and determine causes in the king's name. (1 Chron. xxiii. 4. xxvi. 29-32.) Michaelis thinks it probable that there were superior courts established at Jerusalem, in which David's sons presided, and that in Psal. exxii. 5. there is an allusion to them; but no mention is made of a supreme tribunal in that With regard to the external qualifications which the Jews city earlier than the reign of Jehoshaphat. (2 Chron. xix. 8 appear to have demanded in their kings:-comeliness of per--11.) Although the kings enjoyed the privilege of grantson and tallness of stature seem to have been the principal ing pardons to offenders at their pleasure, without consulting requisites. Thus, although Saul was constituted King of any person; and in ecclesiastical affairs exercised great power, Israel by the special appointment of God, yet it appears to sometimes deposing or condemning to death even the highhave been no inconsiderable circumstance in the eyes of the priest himself (1 Sam. xxii. 17, 18. 1 Kings ii. 26, 27.), and people that he was a choice young man and goodly, and that at other times reforming gross abuses in religion, of which there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person we have examples in the zealous conduct of Hezekiah and than he from the shoulders and upwards he was higher than Josiah; yet this power was enjoyed by them not as absolute any of the people. (1 Sam. ix. 2.) And therefore Samuel sovereigns in their own right. They were merely the vicesaid to the people, when he presented Saul to them: See ye roys of Jehovah, who was the sole legislator of Israel: and, him whom the LORD hath chosen, that there is none like him therefore, as the kings could on no occasion, either enact a mong all the people. (1 Sam. x. 24.) Hence, also, David is new law or alter or repeal an old one, the government contisaid to have been ruddy, withal of a beautiful countenance, nued to be a theocracy, as well under their permanent adminand goodly to look to. (1 Sam. xvi. 12.) The people of the istration, as we have seen that it was under the occasional East seem to have had a regard to these personal qualities in administration of the judges. The only difference that can the election of their kings, in addition to those of strength, be discovered between the two species of government is, that courage, and fortitude of mind; and it was such a king as the conduct of the judges was generally directed by urim, their neighbours had, whom the Israelites desired. and that of the kings, either by the inspiration of God vouchsafed to themselves, or by prophets raised up from time to time to reclaim them when deviating from their duty, as laid down by the law.

(3.) The king was not to multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to the end that he should multiply horses.2 This prohibition was intended to prevent all commercial (7.) Lastly, the monarch was charged, that his heart be not intercourse with Egypt, and, consequently, to preserve them lifted up above his brethren; in other words, to govern his from being contaminated with idolatry; and also, by restrain-subjects with mildness and beneficence, not as slaves, but as ing the Jews from the use of cavalry in war, to lead them to brothers. So, David styled his subjects his brethren in trust implicitly in the special protection of the Almighty, 1 Chron. xxviii. 2.; and this amiable model was, subse from whose pure worship they might be seduced by extending quently, imitated by the first Christian emperors, particularly their dominions among the neighbouring idolatrous nations by Constantine the Great. by means of cavalry.

(4.) The king was, further, prohibited from multiplying wives to himself, that his heart turn not away from the law and Worship of the God of Israel, by his being seduced into idolatry in consequence of foreign alliances. How grossly this law was violated by Solomon and other monarchs the history of the Jews and Israelites abundantly records, together with the fatal consequences of such disobedience.

Thus the regal government, though originating in the per verse impiety and folly of the Israelites, was so regulated and guarded by the divine law, as to promise the greatest public benefits. It is to be observed that the preceding enactments relate to the election of a king, not of a queen. Athaliah, indeed, reigned, but she was an usurper; and, long afterwards, Alexandra, the daughter of Jannæus, also reigned. She, however, reigned as a queen only in name, being under the influence of the Pharisees.

It was customary for the Jewish kings sometimes to nomi

1 It was on the ground of this law that the Pharisees and Herodians prosed that insidious question to Jesus Christ,-Is it lawful to give tribute CESAR, OF NO? (Matt. xxii. 17.) for, at that time, they were under the thority of a foreign power which they detested. Had Christ replied, YES, hes they would have condemned him by this law. Had he answered, No, then they would have accused him to Cesar. (Dr. A. Clarke on Deut. xvii. In his Commentary on Matt. xxii. 16-22. he has discussed this import-prohibited the alienation of lands from one tribe or family to another, he nat subject in great detail and with equal ability.)

This law was to be a standing trial of prince and people, whether they bad trust and confidence in God their deliverer. See Bp. Sherlock's Dis. courses on Prophecy, Disc. iv.; where he has excellently explained the reason and effect of the law, and the influence which the observance or neglect of it had in the affairs of the Israelites.

That the Israelitish monarchs, even in the worst times, were considered not as above law, but as restrained by it, is evident from the history of Ahab, a most abandoned prince. Though he earnestly coveted the vineyard of Naboth, one of his subjects, and offered to purchase it, yet because the law could not obtain it, until, by bribing false witnesses, he had procured the legal condemnation and death of Naboth, as a traitor and blasphemer. (See 1 Kings xxi. 1-14.) Tappan's Lectures on Jewish Antiquities, pp. 81, 82. The preceding regulations concerning the Hebrew monarchs are also fully considered and illustrated by Michaelis, Commentaries, vol. i. pp. 206-283. Tappan's Lectures, p. 83.

given by the kings (Dan. v. 1. Matt. xxii. 1. Mark vi. 21.); But it does not appear that women were admitted to them, except in Persia, when the queen was present, until the men grew warm with wine. (Dan. v. 2, 3. 23. Esth. i. 11. v. 4. 8. vii. 1.)

|

and the same practice continues to this day. Thus Jacob instructed his sons to carry a present to Joseph, when they went to buy food of him as governor of Egypt. (Gen. xliii. 11. 26.) In like manner the magi, who came from the East to adore Jesus Christ, as king of the Jews, brought him pre4. Numerous are the ALLUSIONS IN THE SACRED WRITINGS Sents of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. (Matt. ii. 11.) AlluTO THE COURTS OF PRINCES, and to the regal state which they sions to this practice occur in Gen. xxxii. 13. 1 Kings x. 2. anciently enjoyed. "The eastern monarchs were ever dis-10. 25. 2 Kings v. 5.; see also 1 Sam. ix. 7. and 2 Kings tinguished for studiously keeping up the majesty of royalty, viii. 8. The prostrations were made, with every demonstraand thus inspiring their subjects with the most reverential tion of reverence, to the ground. Thus David stooped with awe. They were difficult of access, very rarely showing his face to the earth, and bowed himself before Saul. (1 Sam. themselves to their people, and lived in the depth of their xxiv. 8.) The mode of doing reverence to the sovereign, vast palaces, surrounded with every possible luxury, and among the ancient Persians, was little short of absolute idolgratifying every desire as it arose. In these kingdoms atry; and similar prostrations are made by their descendants of slaves it was accounted the summit of human grandeur in the present day. On these occasions, it was usual to adand felicity to be admitted into that splendid circle which dress them with some compliment, or with wishes for their surrounded the person of their sovereign;" whence the long life. Thus the widow of Tekoah, after prostrating herexpression of seeing God (Matt. v. 8.) is to be explained self before David, addressed him with-My lord is wise acof the enjoyment of the highest possible happiness, namely, cording to the wisdom of an angel of God (2 Sam. xiv. 20.); his favour and protection, especially in the life to come. and the Chaldæan magi accosted Nebuchadnezzar with-0 And as only a select few in the oriental courts were per-king, live for ever! (Dan. ii. 4.)10 The all but idolatrous homitted to behold the face of the monarch, it is in reference mage thus rendered to their monarchs, was exacted by their to this custom that the angel Gabriel replied to Zechariah chief courtiers and favourites of all who approached them; (who hesitated to believe his annunciation of the Baptist's and such was their pride, that the refusal of this homage birth), that he was Gabriel that stood in the presence of never failed to involve the refractory individual in ruin. God; thus intimating that he stood in a state of high favour Thus Orsinus, a descendant of Cyrus, who had refused to and trust with Jehovah. (Luke i. 19.) To dwell, or to stand worship the eunuch Bagoas (who had enslaved Alexander by in the presence of a sovereign is an oriental idiom, importing his abominable obsequiousness), fell a victim to the revengethe most eminent and dignified station at court. ful minion's wounded pride." In like manner, Mordecai's refusal to prostrate himself before Haman (Esth. iii. 2.) would have proved fatal not only to himself but also to the Jewish nation, had not the malignant design of the crafty but mortified Agagite (Esth. iii. 3-6. v. 13.) been provídentially frustrated.

the city, with the royal diadem on his head. (Esth. vi. 811.) On such occasions the person raised to dignity was invested with a new name or title expressive of his deserts. This was the case with Joseph (Gen. xli. 45.), Solomon (2 Sam. xii. 25.), Daniel and his companions (Dan. i. 7.) ; and to this there is an evident allusion in Rev. iì. 17.

This allusive phraseology beautifully illustrates another very striking passage of Scripture. When the disciples, from their very low conceptions of the nature of Christ's kingdom, were contending among themselves who should be the greatest, our Saviour, in order to dispel these animosities, took a child; and, placing him before them, in the most solemn Those who rendered personal services to the sovereign had manner assured them that, unless they were converted, and pu- their names inscribed in the public registers (Esth. vi. 1.);12 rified their minds from all ambition and worldly thoughts, and were rewarded by distinguished marks of the royal they should not enter the kingdom of heaven, should not be favour. Thus Mordecai was arrayed with the royal vestdeemed proper subjects of the spiritual kingdom of the Mes-ments, and led in state on horseback through the streets of siah. But, continued Jesus Christ, whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven; and, after urging various cautions against harshly treating sincere and humble Christians, he added, Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always BEHOLD THE FACE OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN. (Matt. xviii. 1— The sovereigns of the East, it is well known, are very 10.); referring to the custom of oriental courts, where the fond of displaying their gorgeous splendour. The present great men, those who are highest in office or favour, are sovereign of Persia, and (after his example) his sons, genemost frequently in the prince's palace and presence. (Esth. rally appoint for the reception of ambassadors such an hour 1. 14. 1 Kings x. 8. xii. 6. 2 Kings xxv. 19.) On another as, according to the season, or the intended room of audience, occasion, after our Lord had promised the apostles that they will best enable them to display the brilliancy of their jewels should sit on twelve thrones to judge the tribes of Israel, still in full sunshine. The title of bright or resplendent was added mistaking the spiritual nature of his kingdom, the mother of to the name of one sovereign, who lived upwards of eight James and John came to Jesus with her sons, and requested centuries ago; because his regal ornaments, glittering in the that he would grant that they might sit, the one on his right solar rays on a solemn festival, so dazzled the eyes of all hand, and the other on his left hand, in his kingdom. (Matt. xx. beholders that they could scarcely bear the effulgence: and 20-23.) This alludes to the custom which in those times some knew not which was the monarch, or which the great obtained in the courts of princes; where two of the noblest luminary of the day. Thus, Theophylact Simocatta13 (a and most dignified personages were respectively seated, one Greek historian who flourished in the seventh century of the on each side, next the sovereign himself, thus enjoying the Christian æra) relates that the Persian king, Hormisdas, most eminent places of dignity. (Compare 1 Kings ii. 19. sitting on his throne, astonished all spectators by the blazing Psal. xlv. 9. and Heb. i. 3.) In reply to the request of Salome, our Saviour stated that seats of distinguished eminence length he ran to the river Cyrus, and taking up some water in both his in his kingdom were not to be given through favour or par-hands, he approached the monarch, and thus accosted him:-"O king, tiality, but to those only whom God should deem to be pro- present to thee some of the waters of the river Cyrus: should your reign for ever! I now pay my respects in the best manner I am able. I perly prepared for them. majesty ever pass by, or near, my house, I hope to vie with the best of these in my donatives." The monarch was highly pleased with the man, commanded his present to be received into a golden vial, and afterwards handsomely rewarded him. Elian, Var. Hist. lib. i. cc. 31, 32.

The eastern monarchs were never approached but with presents of some kind or other, according to the ability of the individual, who accompanied them with expressions of the profoundest reverence, prostrating themselves to the ground;

This is confirmed by Herodotus, lib. v. c. 18. Jahn, Archæologia
Belica. $20. Ackermann, Archæologia Biblica, § 221.
Among the Persians it was death to enter the royal presence without
ng called for, Esth. iv. 11. Herodotus (book i. c. 99) states Deioces
The Mede to have been the first who instituted this ordinance.

* Harwood's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii. pp. 322, 323.
• Ibid. p. 323.

Ihad. p. 324, 325. Among the ancient Persians, to sit nert the person the king was the highest possible honour. See 1 Esdras iii. 7. iv. 42. Josephas, Ant. Jud. lib. xi. c. 3. $2. It was (says Elian) the law of Persia, that, whenever the king went ad, the people should, according to their abilities and occupations, Prest him, as he passed along, with some gift-as an ox, a sheep, a ty of corn, or wine, or with some fruit. It happened one day, when Arteries was taking the air, that he was met by one Sinætes. The man, * at a great distance from home, was in the greatest distress, having g to offer, and observing others crowding with their presents. At

Quintus Curtius, lib. vi. c. 6. tom. ii. p. 23. (edit. Bipont): lib. viii. c. 5.

p. 118.
Morier's Second Journey, p. 172.; where an engraving is given, illus.
trative of the oriental prostrations.

This is very similar to the hyperbolical language, which is addressed by the Hindoos to an European, when they are desirous of obtaining some. thing from him. "Saheb, say they, can do every thing. No one can prevent the execution of Saheb's commands. Saheb is God." (Ward's View of the History, &c. of the Hindoos, vol. ii. p. 323.)

10 A similar salutation is to this day given in India. When a poor man goes into the presence of a king, to solicit a favour, he says, "O Father! thou art the support of the destitute-Mayest thou live to old age!" Ibid. p. 333. 11 Quintus Curtius, lib. x. c. 1. vol. ii. pp. 199-201. (edit. Bipont.)

12 Herodotus, lib. viii. c. 85. Thucydides, lib. i. c. 129. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xi. c. 6. The same practice continues to obtain at the Ottoinan Porte (Baron de Tott's Mem. vol. u. p. 15.), and also in Abyssinia, and other parts of the East. Burder's Oriental Customs, vol. i. p. 311. 5th edit.

13 Theophylact, lib. iv. c. 3. cited by Sir Wm. Ouseley, to whom we are indebted for the above remark, in his Travels in various Countries of the East, more particularly Persia, vol. ii. v. 36. (London, 1821. 4to.