Deuteronomy 17

Callimachus), hath shewn that they planted odoriferous trees in some groves, to make them moro inviting. Whence the grove dedicated to Pallas is called by that poctrtSw plvog SX(tdc,* though that may signify only a grove consecrated by many sacrifices. And the vulgar groves were planted with pines, fir-trees, cypress, laurel, olives, vines, and other lovely trees, especially oaks, which grew to a great height, in which both altars and temples were erected. See in Hymn, in Dianam. ver. 38. p. 156. and in Palladcm, ver. 61. p. 595. and in Cerercm, ver. 38, 39. p. 689. where he mentions the black poplar, as a tree of which her grove consisted, under the shade of which* the nymphs delighted to dance at noon. And thence these shady places, consecrated, to their gods, were called \pvKrijpze, because of their refreshing coolness, as he observes out of Athenoeus, (ad ver. 47. p. 695.) Arid indeed nothing is plainer in the Holy Scripture, than that these groves related to idolatry; for all pious princes took them away, and bad ones planted them. (1 Kings xviii. 4. 2 Kings xxiii. 14. 2 Chron. xiv. 3. xv. 16.) And they are frequently joined with statues and images, both here, and vii. 5. xii. 3. 1 Kings xiv. 23, &c. tribe or a, city, accused of idolatry, only by the highest court of all; as Maimonides and the rest of the Jewish doctors inform.us. (See Selden, lib* iii. de Synedr. cap. 4. n. 3. and cap. 5. n. 1.) * Andshcdt stone them with stones that they die.] This was the punishment of a particular person, as a city fallen to idolatry was to be killed with the sword;’ and a false prophet, who seduced others to idolatry, to be strangled. (See xiii. 5,). / chosen out of any tribe whero they could find men qualified), yet they are here first mentioned, becauso they were likely to be the most capable persons to exercise this authority, especially in the first constitution of this commonwealth, when they were newly entered into Canaan. For all other persons were then busily employed in looking after tho inheritance that was fallen to them, and settling the affairs of their several families; whereby they were rendered less able to attend unto this weighty office. But the tribe of Levi having no inheritance among them (as is often repeated in these books), and no care about husbandry, and such-like affairs, had a full leisure both to study the laws of God and to judge according to them; especially being appointed by God to teach Jacob his judgments and Israel his law, xxxiii. 10. Besides, this court being settled at the place of God’s worship, where a great many priests and Levites always necessarily attended, they were most ready, without any inconvenience to themselves, to execute this office of judges> having their maintenance from the public, which no other persons had. But otherwise, as I said, they had no more right than other men to be members of this court, which we cannot certainly say consisted of seventy judges, together with their nasi, i. e. their prince, or president; nor that they always sat at the place here appointed: for there were sometimes great troubles in the land, and they were under the power of their enemies, which extremely disturbed their government, and made it necessary for God to raise them up extraordinary judges, because the power of this court was broken in pieces. So Mr. Selden himself acknowledges, that there were great intermissions of thqir sitting in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, and of Herod the Great, (lib. ii. de Synedriis, cap. 14. n. 3.) And therefore, why not in the times when they were oppressed by the Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines, and other cruel neighbours, in the days of the judges? and thus Grotius, Hermannus Conringius (to name no more), here understand the word judge, who is joined with tho priest and Levites. And unto the judge.] The forenamed authors thus translate this verse, Thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, or unto the judge that shall be in’ those days. Whereby judge they, understand such as Othnicl, Ehud, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, Samuel, and. others, whom (rod raised up when they were oppressed by their enemies, and in great confusions, to govern his. people; which they did. with the highest authority, being equal to kings, save; only that they kept not royal stats or equipage, but are plainly called by that name, Judg. xvii. G» xix. l.xxi. 25. Now, though the priests and Levites (t. e» that court, of which they made a considerable part) were the ordinary supreme judges of controversies,. yet tjie judge, when God raised ono up, was ejfidued with anextraordinary power above theirs; to whom the. people therefore resorted for his decision. For just as all/ordinary magistrates among tho lloipans gave place to a dictator, when they had one, so all the Hebrew magistrates did to. Such a, judge, when God appointed him, who determined all manner of controversies, as, at other times, thq, other judges, whether priests or others, worfcwontto do. (See Herman. Conringius do Rcpnbl. Ebrseorum, sect. 39.> • . ’, I know but one objection against this, which is, thatthOse extraordinary judges wre not fixed, as far as we can find, in the place where the Sanctuary was; unless we may judge of all the rest by Eli and Samuel, who seem to have been settled there. But we must consider that they were not confined by their commission, which was not grounded on this law, to any one certain place, but left at liberty to live where they thought most convenient for the discharge of their trust, in the reformation of the people. And the truth of what I said concerning their supreme power, plainly appears in Samuel, who went up and down the country executing, judgment, when Shiloh was destroyed, and had no court, like that which the Jews speak of, to assist him. But when he needed assistance, he appointed his sons to be judges, (1 Sam. viii. 1.) of whom, when the elders complained, (ver. 4.) because they did not discharge their duty well, it.was to himself, and not to any other persons; and they desire not a Sanhedrin, but a king to judge them, (ver. 5.) Which petition we do not find that he com» municated to the Sanhedrin, but only unto God; nor is any mention made of them in the choice of a king, or, after ho was chosen, in the history of their kings, till Jchoshaphat’s time, no more than there is in the books of Joshua and Judges; where we read, that when there-was no king (that is, judge) in Israel, every man did what, was right in his own eyes; which is a sign that there wanted such a court to keep them in order. After the time of Jehoshaphat, who settled judges in every city^ (as I observed, xvi. 18:) they continued, it is plain, till the captivity; but what number there was of them we do not know. After the captivity, Ezra and Nchemiahseem, to have done all themselves, (sec Neh. ix. and x.) Which makes it very probable, that though there were judges appointed accordingJo the direction of this law, yet the exercise of their power was often interrupted by the great changes which. wcro.in that nation; and that there was no such Sanhedrin as the Talmudi&ts describe till the time of the Maccabees. For tho very name of Sanhedrin plainly shews its. original to have been when the Greek tongue was common among the Jews; and that was, when the kings of Syria arid Egypt (who were of the Macedonian race) had the chief power in Palestine. (See Conringius, in the forenamed book, sect. 37.) And inquire.] They were to lay the cause before this high court, and desire their opinionin it. And they shall shew the sentence of judgment.] They were bound to determine the controversy; and whatsoever sentence they gave, it was to stand good till it was reversed rby other judges of the same authority; for the Jews (who understand all this of.the great Sanhedrin, and scan every syllabic with greatnicety) will have the words, just before, [that shall be in those days] to signify that every sentence must hold in tho time when it is given: so that if this court determined a matter, which in aftertimes, by other judges of tho same court, should be judged. otherways, that second sentence was to stand, being, tho opinion Of. those days. For this sentence was, in their judgment, thp meaning of the law, by which they were all to be governed.; and, if there was no tradition in the case, they judged themselves as well as they could. adventure to oppose the supreme authority. And for this ejid the offender, was to be kept in custody, as R. Aquiba understood this, till the next great feast (either of the Passover,., or Pentecost, or tabernacles), and then executed, when the whole nation, i. e. all the males were present. This Mr. Selden.observes (in the forcnamed place, n. 7.) is the most received opinion; though It. Jehuda saith; they did. qot. make the sentence sharper by a long delay, but executed it presently: and for the farther publication of it, they sent letters to all the tribes and cities of Israel, to give notice,. that such a man was executed at such a time for this crime. (See Selden there, n. 8.). horses, is, lest he should be puffed up with pride; for a horse being a stately creature, his rider is often swollen with a high conceit of himself, as more than one of the heathen have observed. (See Bochart, in his Hietozoieon, lib. ii. cap. 9.) Nachmanides gives another good reason, lest he should confide and trust in the power of his horsenien more than in God. (See Schickard, in his Mischpat Harnmelech, cap, 3. Theor, 10.) But the chief reason is given by Moses himself in the next words, Lest they should be tempted to go to Egypt, with which country it was dangerous to have familiarity. Nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he sliould multiply horses.] Send his people thither to buy -horses for him, it being a country that abounded with them, as Judea did with asses. For when Sheshak, king of Egypt (whom the Greek w T riters call Sesostris), came against Jerusalem, there were threescore thousand horsemen in his army, (2 Chron. xii. 3.) Which shews how they abounded with horses in that country in those days, though in aftertimes they did not care to breed them. They might indeed have horses out of other countries, as well as Egypt, but not so easily, nor so good: which made Solomon send thither, and Pharaoh set a great price upon them; because he knew their value, and that they could not furnish themselves so easily with them elsewhere, (1 Kings x.,28, 29.) * Forasmuch as the Lord haih said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.] Or the first words may be rendered, forasmuch as the Lord saith unto you, &e. as t he did now by him, that they should not maintain traffic with the Egyptians, at least while they continued idolaters. We read, indeed, that many Jews went thither, and Urijah the prophet fled thither: (Jer. xxvi. 21.) of which the Jews give this account: first, some say this was but a temporary constitution, which was not tp la^t always: secondly, they distinguish about the way of returning thither; conceiving that they might not go thither out of the land of Israel, but they might out of anbther country whither they were driven. Maimonides thinks they might go thither as merchants, but not fix their dwelling there. But the true meaning is, that they might not voluntarily go thither upon any account, at least while they remained, as I said, so corrupted in their religion and manners, as they were at this present: for there is an express law, Lev. xviii. 3. /’ Ac- cording to the works of the Egyptians ye, shall not do." (See Schickardns, in the forenamed place, p. 78.) Whence those words of the prophet Isaiah, where, when he saith the land of Israel was full of horses, he adds, their land, also is full of idols, (Isa. ii. 7, 8.) For by multiplying the one, they multiplied the other. And, therefore, though David did reserve some chariots and horsemen, which Iiq took to his conquests, for his own use, yet no great number, (2Sam.yiii. 4.) But still great men rode upon mules, (2 Sam. xviii. 9. 1 Kings i. 33. 38. 41.) a? they had done in the days of the judges (Judg, v. 10. x. 4. xii. 14.)

Deuteronomy 17:1

JL HOU shalt not sacrifice unto the Lord thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is any blemish. Having warned them, as lie had done often, against idolatrous practices, he hero interposes a caution against profanencss in the worship of. the true God,: for it was a great disrespect to him, to offer him any thing that was not perfect, the heathens being ashamed of such sacrifices. Whtrein is any blemish.] Of this see Lev. xxii. 20, &c- Or any evil-favouredness] In the Hebrew, any evil thing, or matter; thatis, if it had any discasa, or was sick. For that is an abomination unlo the Lord thy God.] This is more than is said in Leviticus, where the words are, for it shall not be acceptable for you. For here he expresses the greatest disdain and abhorrence of such sacrifices. j

Deuteronomy 17:2

Jf there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee. In any cities* or towns within their country. «■…,.*’ Man or woman that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God.] Now he returns to the business of idolatry; which is the wickedness here said to be wrought, as appears by the next words.. In transgressing his covenant.] For this was the principal part of the covenant, that they should have no other gods but him; (Exod. xx. 22, 23.) upon this all depended; so that the whole covenant was void, if they served other gods. Which was so foul a sin, that he would have none spared, who were guilty of it. Which is the reason, as Maimonides thinks, (More Nevochim, par. iii. cap. 37.) why he here saith, man or woman, because men are.naturally more tender towards the female sex, and inclinable to be favourable to them; against which he warns them in case of idolatry, and of profaning the sabbath; in which two cases only he uses these words. He had shewn in the thirteenth chapter, what they should do with him that seduced others to idolatry, whether he were a pretended prophet, or a private man, (ver. 1. 9, 10.) And then, what should be done with a whole city that was seduced, (ver. 12, 13, &c.) And now he shews how they should proceed against any particular person, who apostatized from God. •’ -…’.-.

Deuteronomy 17:3

And hath gone and served other gods, and wor shipped them, either the sun, or moon; or any of the host -of heaven.* The most ancient idolatry (of which Abarbinel makes account there were ten sorts) was the worship of the heavenly bodies, as I have observed before, iv. 19. and see Job xxxi. 26.. The forcnamed doctor, indeed, places first the worship of angels; about which I will not dispute; but only observe, that, by condemning those who worshipped the host of heaven, though very glorious crea+ turcs, -Moses suggests plainly enough how vile they were who worshipped images of wood and stone. Which T have not commanded.] This is a way of speaking in this language, importing, the quite contrary, which God hath forbidden, and that most strictly. (See Prov; xvii.JJl. xxiv. 23. and many other places.)

Deuteronomy 17:4

And it be told thee. Thou hast had information of such wickedness. • .,. And thou hast heard it, and inquired diligmtly.] Upon information, they were to make diligent Search, whether the report were true or not. And, behold, it be U~ue, and the thing certain.] They were not to proceed upon’ rumours, nor yet to slight them; but endeavour to be satisfied, whether or not, there was ground for them; and if upon examination they found there was no doubt of the truth of the thing, to do as is here directed. That such abomination is wrought in Israel.] So idolatry is frequently called. (See xiii. 14.)

Deuteronomy 17:5

Tlien thou shalt bring forth that man or that woman, xvhich have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates.) Set them before the court of judgment in the city to which thoy belonged, (see xvi. 18.).For particular persons were tried and sentenced in the lower courts, but a

Deuteronomy 17:6

At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death. No man could be convicted but by two witnesses, at least* and Ihose of a competent age, of good fame, and not convicted themselves of haviiig borne. false witness, &c. Many other qualifications, of lesser moment, the Jews required in a witness; which Mr. Selden reports, and the reason of them, lib. ii. de Synedr. cap. 13. n. 11; r r.■ -i ».>/. * * But at the month of one witness he shall not be put to death.] Because, though the witness w T as never so credible, it was possible he might be mistaken. But it was not likely that two or three honest men, agreeing in the same testimony, should all be deceived. Yet in pecuniary matters, the Hebrew doctors say, the testimony of one credible witness was sufficient to put a man to his oath for his purgation. And they set a mark of infamy upon him, who, in such matters as are here spoken of, had such a single witness against him, (See Maccoth, cap. 1, sect. 8. and J. Coch’s annotations, there.) t iw>'

Deuteronomy 17:7

The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him, to put him to death. This was great reason, that they might thereby still confirm the truth and certainty of their testimony, by being the first executioners of the sentence; which no men would easily, venture to be, who were not sure they had testified the truth. And afterward the hands of all the people.] From hence some infer, that he was to be put to death at a public feast. So shalt thou put away the evil from among you.] See xiii. 5. * Xf

Deuteronomy 17:8

If there arise a matter too hard for thee injudg- % ment. Now he returns to speak of the courts of judgment, which he had ordered to be erected in all their cities, when they came into the land of Canaan,. (xvi. 18.) who might find some causes to be so difficult that they could not determine them. Between blood and bloodJ] The Jews, I think, interpret this absurdly concerning menstruous women, and the tokens of virginity, (see Mr. Selden, lib. iii. de Synedr. cap. 2.) when there is a plain and obvious meaning of these words, That there might be a doubt whether a man had committed wilful murder, or only casual, and, consequently, whether he should have the benefit of the city of refuge, of be taken from it. v * <’’ Between plea and.plea.) As the former words belong to criminal causes, so these to civil; such as suits about debts, or purchases of lands or houses, &c.." Between stroke and stroke.] It dbth not seem reasonable to me, that this should be interpreted of the leprosy (which is often called a plague, or stroke), though the Jews so understand it, for. that was* to be judged solely by the priests; whereas he speaks also of other judges: therefore the meaning is, concerning any wound or hurt that was done to a man in his body. About which, if the judges could not agree, but were divided in their opinions,* either about the fact itself, or about the punishment tobc inflicted, an appeal was to be made to a higher^ court. Being matters of controversy.] Or contention and strife; that is, disputes arising about them, which could not be determined by the judges" in those courts below.. Within thy gates.] Where God commanded judges and officers to be settled, (xvi. 18.) And therefore here he speaks of the inferior courts of judgment, that were in the lesser cities of their several tribes. Then thou shalt arise, and get thee up unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose.] Where the supreme court was settled in the chief city of the kingdom. While they continued in the wilderness, the captains of thousands, and hundreds, and fifties, and lens (whom Moses constituted by the advice of Jethro), judged the causes of the people under Moses himself, to whom God joined seventy persons for his assistance; all hard causes being brought before him. But this authority of the captains lasted no longer than during their pilgrimage in the wilderness; for when they came to Canaan, the law, as I now observed, required judges and officers to be ordained in every city; who, if there fell any difference about the law, are here ordered to repair to the place where the Sanctuary was, for there the highest court sat, as the successors of Moses, and his consistory of seventy elders, (mentioned Numb. xi. 16. 24, &c.) who judged all difficult causes while he lived. / ~ < > h

Deuteronomy 17:9

And thou shalt come unto the priests the Invites, and unto the judge. Who must be supposed to be resident in this place, where the sanctuary was. And these’ words, the priests the Levites, the Jews understand as if he had said, the priests of the tribe of Levi, or the sons of Levi; for so he speaks in xxi. 5. And Mr. Selden 4 produces a great* many other instances of the like phrase, (lib. ii. de Synedr. cap. 8. n. 2, 3.) and shews they are so described (as the Jews think) to exclude all others that had been priests, before God took the sons of Aaron peculiarly to serve him in this office. But the- Levites, as’ well as priests, theyunanimously agree, were capable to be members’of this’ great Sanhedrin; which, they" all likewise say, did not consist only of priests and Levites, but of. any other persons’ of other tribes, who were fit to* be* promoted to this dignity. Nay, they say, if there was’nof one priest or Levite in the court, it was a lawful judicature; for the high-priest himself, no more than anyinan else, had a place here, merely for his birth,, unless his learning in the law was answerable: so Maimonides and others’. And those other members who were not priests; nor Levites, they’think are comprehended under the A word judge, which, though it be in the singular number, may be thought to signify more than one, as appears from xix.‘17. where" it is said expressly, they shall bring the “controversy there mentioned, before the priests and the judges. “And farther, that judge, after the manner of this language, may signify judges, Constantine L’Empereuir gathers from vert 12. where priest in the singular number is used for those who are here called priests in the plural. (Arinot in Corn; Bertram, p. 389.) But howsoever this be, it seems to me, that though the priests and Levites were not the only persons of whom this high court consisted (the members of which might be

Deuteronomy 17:10

And thou shalt do according to the sentence which they of that place. That is, the high court which rsits there, or the judge who is in those days. Which the Lord shall choose.] The Jews, who understand this only of the Sanhedrin, say, it was not lawful for them (6; CHAP. XVII.] UPON DEUTERONOMY. to judge causes, at least not those which were capital, in any other place. (See.Selden, Jib. ii. de Synedn cap. 15. n. 6, 7. 10.) Shall shew thee.’] Shall pronounce. And thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee.] Some fancy that he. speaks to the inferior judges, who brought the cause thither to have the opinion of this highest court, who were then to pronounce sentence according to it; but whoever brought the controversy before this court (when the inferior could not determine it), they gave the sentence, in which he requires the contending parties to acquiesce, and to do according to their determination; which did not concern questions of faith, as if men were to believe whatsoever they should teach them, but such controversies as are mentioned ver. 8. about civil or criminal matters, which they w r ere finally to determine; so that men should not.farther controvert the ipatter, but rest, in their decisions. For in all governments there must be an end ofsuits, somewhere. or other; and Gbd required. all his people to. submit to the sentence of this court: for so the words.run in the Hebrew, And thou shalt do according to the sentence which they shall sliew thee, from the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; that is, from the supreme court of judicature, which resided where God himself did. For if men had been permitted to disagree to their sentence, the very end and use of this court had been taken away; as Maimonides speaks, in his More Nevochim, par. iii. cap. 41.

Deuteronomy 17:11

According to the sentence of the law whichthey shall teach thee. In the Hebrew,. According to the mouth, or the word of the law, which they shall teach thee; that is, according to the interpretation which they gave of the law. And according to the judgment which they shall tell. thee.] That is, according to the order or.decree which they made thereupon… Shalt thou do.] Pay, suppose, the money, which they judged to be due to another nian: for he doth not speak of tlieir doing whatsoever they bade them (as if they could control the commands of.God), but of obeying the sentence of this court, about.those matters which were in question between one man and another, (ver. 8.) who were not to J>e judges in their p.wn case, but rest in the judgment of those whom God.hadmade the supreme interpreters of his law. Thou shalt not decline from ihe sentence which they shalt shew thee, &c] They were not to make the least alteration in tlieir sentence: for though they.might think it was wrong, and the senate perhaps did really err, and be’better informed afterward, (which the’law, supposes, <and in that case orders an expiatory sacrifice, iev. iv.l3.)yet it -was not lawful for any man to act contrary to their present decree, nor to teach the contrary, whatsoever his private opinion might be.

Deuteronomy 17:12

And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken. This they understand, not barely of a private man, that would not stand to their sentence, butof an elder, or inferior judge, who presumed tocontradict it; as Mr. Selden shews, lib. iii. de Syncdr. cap. 3. Unto the priest.] It is commonly thought, as I observed, ver. 8. that the singular number is here put for the plural; and that the meaning is, if any man would not hearken to the highest court of judgment, which consisted commonly of a great many priests, he should die for his contempt: but they have a great deal of reason on their side, who insist upon the letter of this word priest, and of that which follows, or the judge (understanding both of single persons), and take the high-priest only to be here meant; w r ho seems to be described in the next words, tlmt stands to minister there before the Lord thy God. For when God did not raise up a judge to govern his people, the. high-priest was the supreme governor under God until the days of Davi<I; and so he was after the captivity. Hence, it is, as Grotius observes, (lib. de Imperio Summarum Potestatum circa Sacra, cap. 9. sect. 4.) that cohen is a name common to priests and princes: for, among a greatmany nations anciently, he shews, the priests had the highest pow T er; particularly among the Cappadocians (Strabo, who was of that country, saith), the sacerdotal dignity was next to the regal; but howsoeverthis word be interpreted, the crime here mentioned was contumacy, in not submitting to the sentence of the highest authority, whether it were vested in one person or more, whereby the government was in danger to be broken; and therefore God orders such a person to be put to death. Or the judge.] See before, ver. 9. Even that man shall die.] The Jews, who interpret this, as I said, of a judge in inferior courts, who presumed to contradict the judgment of the supreme court, have tern-’ pered the severity of this law by several explications and exceptions; which have regard, either to the manner of passing this decree by the highest court, which an inferior disobeyed (and that was when a cause came before them upon an appeal, for it was not so criminal to disobey every sentence of the supreme court, but only such as these), or to the place where it. was made, which was to be no where else but at God’s dwelling-place, or to the things about which the decree was made; which some will have to be only weighty matters: and the act of contumacy also was considered; for he was not put to death, they say, unless in open court he declared a contrary sentence. The death he sufferedwas strangling; and he could suffer in no other place but where this high court sat. (See Selden, of all these, in -the place beforementioned, n.2 — 6.) And it may be farther observed, that the prophets themselves were subject to’the power and -jurisdiction of this high court, by whom they might be sentenced to capital punishment, if they taught contrary tothelaw of God. Butour Mr.Thorndike makes a doubt, whether the constitution which the Jewish -writers mention about a rebellious elder (as they call him who taught any thing contrary to the determination of this supreme court), was ever in force or not? For it was made, because of the differences between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, who lived not long before our Saviour’s time; when, it appears by the gospel, that nation had lost the power of life and death. (See Rites of the Church, chap. 5. p. 256.) And thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.] This mayrefer eitherto the evil person, or to the great scandal and dangerous example he gave, by resisting the highest authority, and thereby breaking the bond of unity and peace.

Deuteronomy 17:13

And all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously. This punishment was intended to strike a terror into all the people, that they should not

Deuteronomy 17:14

And when thou comest into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein. When they had conquered the -land of Canaan, and were settled in it. And shalt say, I will set a king over me.] The Jews commonly, from this and the next verse, fancy that God commanded them to make a king when they came to the land. of Canaan,, and had a quiet possession of it;, following herein the Gemara of the Sanhedrin, cap. 2. Insomuch; that they have presumed to. make this an affirmative pre-, cept, " a king of the people should be chosen;” and quote this place for it. To which some learned men among Christians have seemed to incline; particularly Petrus Cumeus, lib. ii. de Republ. Hebr;. cap. 14. apd, Guil. Schickardus, in his Jus Regium, cap. l. r Theor. 1. But Abarbinel himself contradict^ this; and so doth Josephus, who observes, that -God intended they shouldkeep their present, government;,but if they would have a king, he should be one of their brethren. For thus he interprets this place, (lib. i. Antiq r cap. 8.) that they should not affect any other government, but, love thepresent, having the law for their master, and living according to it; r uqku -yap,6 Oebgiyt^y^vmqjm tti$ r si$mzi4’,that God is yonr ruler. And then he adds, But if you desire to have a king, corw fjlv ovroc o/x6(t>v\os, let him be one of your own nation,, as it here follows in the next verse. Like as all the natiom that are about meJ] Such as the Edomites, who had been governed by kings before the days of Moses* (See Gen. xxxvi. 31.)

Deuteronomy 17:15

Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee. Install, and receive him into the throne. Whom the Lord thy God shall choose.] They could not elect whom they pleased, but the first king, at least, was to be appointed by God himself, who was their supreme governor. So the people understood it, when they desiied Samuel, who was their chief ruler under God, to make them a king, (1 Sam. viii. 5.) but durst not to presume to set one up of themselves. And to confirm them in this opinion, Samuel saith to Saul, (1 Sam. x. 1.) " The Lord hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance;” and saith to all the people, (ver. 24.) " See ye him whom the Lord hath chosen.". And accordingly, when tlie lot was, to be cast, to shew who was to be their king, Samuel bids, all the tribes present themselves before the Lord, (ver. 19.) And when it fell upon Saul, and they could not find him, they inquired of the Lord, and the Lord answered where he was,’(ver. 22.) In like manner, when Saul was rejected* the Lord himself appointed David to be anointed their king, and settled that authority in his family. And to determine which of his sons should have it, God himself appointed his immediate successor, viz. Solomon. For so David declares to all the princes and the great men whom* he assembled before his death; " Of all my sons, the Lord hath chosen Solomon to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord God of Israel/’ (1 Chron. xxviih 5.) And again, (xxix. 1.) " David said unto all the congregation, Solomon my son, whom alone God hath chosen, is yet. young," &c. But though it was thus in the beginning of this kingdom, yet God intended at length to make it hereditary, as appears from ver. 20. of this chapter. One from among thy brethren shalt thou set over thee.J i.e. Saith the tradition, mentioned by the Jews out of Tosiphta, the most select and choice personthat could be found, not one of mean extraction or employment. This they fancy is meant by from among thy brethren. Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not’ thy brother.] This the Jews extend to all offices whatso-* ever, as Maimonides reports their sense. (See Selden> lib. vi. dc Jure Nat.- et Gent. cap. 20. p. G47!) And by thy brother some of them understand one that was an Israelite, both by father and mother; though others think it: sufficient, if a. king was an Israelite by the mother’s side. See -there, cap. 22. which in his book dc Succession, ad Pontificat. lib. ii. he’shews was sufficient for any dignity among the Israelites, but only the priesthood. See also, lib. iii; de Syncdr. cap. 9. n. 6* where he observes the Talmudists say, the great Sanhedrin was to see that no king but one thus qualified was set over the people; which,* when there was such a court, may be allowed to be true; though. all the power which they ascribe to their Sanhedrinover their kings, is by no means to be admitted; but is’ an apparent figment: for it. is manifest out of the Bible, that their kings had that very power which they ascribe to* the Sauhedrin; particularly> it is notorious that Soloinon, by his own power, put Abiathar out of the office of highpriest, (1 Kings ii. G. 2G.) which judgment the Talmudists say belonged only to the great Sanhedrin. In like manner other kings judged prophets; which they appropriate tothe same court,.v.’.".♦>.,<’ Ver. 1G. Bat he shall not multiply horses to himself] There is no certain number determined; but the Jews well resolve, that he was not to. keep them for mere pomp and state, but only so many as were for use and service; to draw his chariot, for instance,- and for the guard of his per-" son; but he was to take care that he did not burden his 1 people by too many, under this, or any other pretence: and therefore not to keep up a body of horse for war. For* among the Jews their armies consisted altogether of foot-* men; there being no breed of horses in that country; and their people, who were all husbandmen and shepherds, be– ing accustomed to labour, and to run as swiftly as a horse, (2 Sam. ii. 18. xviii. 19. 22, &c.) Certain it is, that in the days of David they had no horsemen in their army; for v when Absalom lost the battle and fled, it was upon a mule that he endeavoured to make his escape. And though Solomon was so prodigiously rich, that he was able to maintain forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, (1 Kings iv. 2G.) yet succeeding kings could not keep up such an expense; but wheii; they had occasion sent for succours from Egypt, which commonly consistedof horsemen. Now one of the reasons the Jews give why their king was not to multiply 1

Deuteronomy 17:17

Neither shall he multiply wives to himself^. This is not a prohibition to take more wives than one, but not to have an excessive, number, after the manner of the eastern kings, whom §oIomon seems to h^ve imitated: I see no ground for what the Jews say, that he might have eighteen. (See Schickard, in the book abovenamed, cap. 3. Theor. 9. Selden’s Uxor; Hcbr. lib. i. cap. 8. Buxtorf. dc Sponsal. par. i. sect. 40.) For the proof which R. Solovol. I, mon and Bechin give of it’ is very weak; which is, that David having already six wives, (2 Sam. v. 13.) the pro* phet tells him, if he had not offended God, he would more* over have given him such and such things, L e. say they, twice as many wives, (2 Sam. xii. 8.) Much less is there any ground for what they say, that if he took more than his number, he was to be scourged by the authority of the Saobedrin, as be was, they pretend, for the breach of any of these precepts here mentioned. (See Selden, lib. ii. de^, Synedr. cap. 9. n.5.) Which Grotius, indeed, endeavours t* soften, by afiirming that these lashes were no disgrace to him, because he received them voluntarily, in token of his repents ance; and therefore was not scourged by the common executioner, but by such a person as he himself chose to give this correction; and he received also such a number of stripes as he himself pleased, and no more, (lib. i. de Jure Belli et Pacis, cap. 3. sect. 20.) But this is directly against, Maimonides, who saith, in downright words, that the Sanhedrin appointed this chastisement; as Selden observes in another place, (lib. iii. de Synedr. cap. 9. n. 5.) And there is no example in the whole book of God of any such jurisdiction which the Sanhedrin had over their kings; but all this may well be looked upon as a mere invention of. the Jewish doctors, to magnify the power of their great council. That his heart turnnot away.]* From all serious business and employment, whilst he was caressing and studying to please a multitude qf women: some understand it, lest they turned his heart away from God, and the duties of piety, of which there was great danger, if he married worshippers of strange gods, as Solomon did. Otherwise, I should think it might be interpreted, of turning his thoughts from mind-* ing his people, and their good and welfare; which must needs suffer much, when they were burdened with a great company of wives, who were to be richly maintained and. provided for. Neither shall he greatly multiply to, himself silver and gold.] No more, saith the Sanhedrin, (cap. 2.). than would pay stipends to his servants, &c.. Others of them scan the words more nicely; and observe, that, first, he is forbidden to multiply gold and silver greatly, that is, to content himself with moderate riches, and not set himself to heap up treasure, which could not be. done; commonly without great oppression of his subjects. And, secondly, he is forbidden to multiply them to himself: but for the public benefit he might lay up money in the treasury at the temple, though in his own coffers, for his private interest, he might not.. See Schickard in his Mischpat Harnmelech,. cap. 3. Theor. \X. t where he produces their answer to this question,—* How should the king be able to manage a war, or do any other great thing, if he. did not furnish himself with good store of gold, and silver? He might, say they, fill the public exchequer^ though not his own. private bags: and that for two reasons; first, lest he should wax proud and. haughty,, when his purse swelled: and: secondly, le.st he should be tempted to squeeze his subjects, and exact more from them than they were able to b^ar; as Solomon, seems to have done, whose treasurer the people stoned, (X Kings xii. 18.)

Deuteronomy 17:18

And it shall be, when he sitteth on the throne of the kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book. Not only of this book of Deuteronomy, but of the whole law, and that with his own hand, as a means to fix it* more in his mind: insomuch, that though a copy was left 4Z

Neither shalt thou set thee up’ an image. The Hebrew word matzebah is commonly translated by the LXX. <m/Xjfv, a pillar; and so we translate it in, the margin. For as it was unlawful to set up the statue of a man, ot any other-creature, so it was as contrary to religion to set up a pillar, or an altar, or any such-like structure, for public assemblies to be held about them, though they worshipped-there the true God. So Maimonides reports the sense of -their doctors; " A statue or pillar signifies any work raised up, that religious assemblies may be made there, though they be for the worship of the Divine Majesty; for this is a practice among idolaters." And so Pausanias confesses (in Achaicis), that in the most ancient times/among all the Grecians, njiac Scwv avrl aya- fiaruv tlx ov vpyol XiOoiytude stones had Divine honours given them, instead of statues or images. -(See Selden, lib. ii. de Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. 6- in the beginning; and Maimonides, of the “Worship of the Planets, chap. 6. sect. 8 — 10. and Dionys. Vossius’s annotations there.) Wlrich the Lord thy God Jiateth.] Hence it sufficiently appears, that this was an idolatrous practice; which is more odious to God than any thing else. And thus the Israelites we see understood it, being ready to take arms against.their brethren on the other side Jordan, when they heard they had erected an altar there (taking it to be such a structure as is here forbidden); but were appeased when they understood, that it was not, intended for worship, (Josh.xxii. 18.) •<..