God at the national altar. He had taken, I say, a very long journey; for his country was doubtless the Ethiopia in Africa, where, about that time, queen Candace reigned; as we learn from Strabo, and from Dion Cassius,† who informs us that Petronius, the prefect of Egypt, marched an army against Candace into Ethiopia, where he ravaged the country a considerable time, till the deep sands and excessive heats obliged him to return: which event was but about ten or eleven years before the affair here related of the eunuch. And Pliny, speaking of that country, saith, "there reigns Candace," "quod nomen multis jam annis ad reginas transiit."‡ Probably this eunuch, who was treasurer of Ethiopia, had been made a proselyte by those Jews who spread themselves from Alexandria in Egypt into that country. But the present Ethiopians, or Abyssines, who are Christians of the Greek church, maintain that the Jewish religion was universally embraced in their country, from the days of Solomon. It hath been a constant tradition among them, that the queen of Sheba, who went to visit him, was their empress; that she had a son by him, named David; who, as soon as he was of a proper age to undertake such a journey, was sent by her to Jerusalem, to receive his father's blessing, and to be instructed in the law of Moses; that being made thoroughly acquainted with the Jewish religion, he was sent home, with several priests and Levites to assist him in introducing it into Ethiopia; and they were so successful in their mission, that in a few years it was embraced by the whole body of the people, and continued to be the public profession till the promulgation of the gospel in that country. It is a tradition likewise among them, that the eunuch, baptized by Philip, was steward to their empress, and that, returning home, he converted his mistress and the whole em pire to the Christian faith. Though we cannot depend upon this latter story, yet it must be owned to have a far greater air of probability than the fable of the queen of Sheba and her son, and, indeed, than * Strabo, xvii. p. 820, edit. Casaub. Paris, 1620. + Dion. lib. liv. sect. v. tom. i. p. 734, edit. Reimari. Plin. Histor. Natural. lib. vi. cap. xxix. in fin. vol. i. p. 740, edit. Harduin. Paris, 1685. most of the traditional stories of the first conversions of countries.* The last instance which Godwin produces of proselytes of the gate, is, "The devout men, out of every nation under heaven, who dwelt at Jerusalem," and are mentioned in the Acts, chap. ii. 5. But these devout men are expressly said to be Jews; that is, Jews by religion, not by nation; for they belonged to several nations. And though they are afterward distinguished into Jews and proselytes, ver. 10, that doubtless means such as were born of Jewish parents, though in a foreign country, and who had been brought up in their religion; or such as were born of Gentile parents, and had become proselytes to it. Besides, there is the same reason against acknowledging them to be proselytes of the gate, as there is against acknowledging Cornelius and the eunuch to be such; namely, that the Jews were at that time subject to the Roman power. Upon the whole, there does not appear to be sufficient evidence in the Scripture history of the existence of such proselytes of the gate as the rabbies mention; nor indeed of any who with propriety can be styled proselytes, except such as fully embraced the Jewish religion.† • Geddes's Church History of Ethiopia, p. 8. + Concerning the proselytes of the gate, vid. Maimon. de Regibus, cap. viii. sect. x. xi., et cap. ix. x., cum notis Leydecker, apud Crenii Fascicul. nonum, vel Leydeck. de Republ. Hebræor. lib. vi. cap. vii. Concerning the proselytes of righteousness, vid. Maimon. de Vetito Concubitu, apud Leydecker, de Republica Hebræor. lib. vi. cap. vi. p. 364, et seq. Amstel. 1704, et Selden. de Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. ii. supra citat. et cap. iii. CHAPTER IV. OF THEIR KINGS. THE alteration made in the form of the Hebrew constitution, which originally was a proper Theocracy, by setting up the regal government, hath been already considered. As it was plainly an act of rebellion against God to make any change in his original settlement, the Jews are therefore charged with "rejecting him, that he should not reign over them, when they desired to have a king to judge them like all the nations;" 1 Sam. viii. 5, 6, 7. Nevertheless, as he permitted divorces, "because of the hardness of their hearts," Matt. xix. 8, in like manner, foreseeing the perverse disposition they would have, after their settlement in Canaan, to such an alteration, he was pleased to give them some rules beforehand, concerning their choice of a king, and the manner of his administration; Deut. xvii. 14, to the end. Some of the rabbies, in order to exculpate their nation from the charge of rebellion on this occasion, would have this permission and regulation amount to an injunction to choose a king. Maimonides tells us,* out of the Babylonish Gemara,† that Moses gave the Israelites three express commandments, to elect a king, to destroy Amalek, and to build a temple, after they were possessed of the land of Canaan. He observes, that they accordingly chose Saul for their king, before they declared war against the Amalekites. But if this had been designed and understood as a command, they would no doubt have chosen a king presently after their settlement in Canaan, and not have delayed it for upwards of three hundred years. We cannot suppose, but * De Regibus, cap. i. ab init. + Sanhedrin, cap. xxiii. in excerptis Cocceii, cap. xi. sect. vi. ↑ Si petitio regis absolutè, inquit Abarbanel, fuit legitima, et præceptum legis, et non peccatum fuit, nisi in modo petendi, vel in fine, tempore, aut intentione ejus; quare Joshua et cæteri judices Israelis, ipsum secuti, nun Samuel would have put them upon choosing a king in obedience to the law of God, long before they desired one; and not have blamed them, as he did, when they expressed that desire; 1 Sam. x. 19. Many of the rabbies are, therefore, of a contrary opinion;* and so is Josephus, who imputes this desire of a kingly government† to the intolerable corruption which had crept into all the courts of justice through the baseness and avarice of Samuel's two sons. And he introduces his account of the regulations in Deuteronomy concerning their kings, with observing, that they ought not to have effected any other government, but to have loved the present, having the law for their master, and living according to it, for it was sufficient that God was their ruler.§ That their desire of a king was displeasing to God, seems also to be intimated in the prophecy of Hosea, "I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath;" Hos. xiii. 11: referring to Saul, the first king, on occasion of whose election God expressed his displeasure by terrible thunder; 1 Sam. xii. 17, 18; and to Zedekiah, the last king, whom he suffered, together with his subjects, to be carried captive to Babylon. Maimonides, indeed, pretends that the sin, for which the people were reproved by Samuel, did not consist in their desiring a king, but in their coming to him in a tumultuous and disrespectful manner, and asking a king, not in obedience to the divine command, but because they disdained his government.|| This, however, is by no means agreeable to the Scripture account, which evidently lays the blame on the desiring a king,¶ not on the manner in which that desire was expressed: "The quam cogitarunt de rege in Israele constituendo, cum hoc ipsis præceptum esset, quum ingrederentur terram? Quomodo omnes transgressi sunt hoc præceptum, cum essent in terrâ post ejus occupationem et divisionem? Nullum hactenus interpretum vidi, qui de hoc egerit, et ad hoc aliquid responderit. Abarbanel, Dissert. ii. de Statu et Jure Regio, ad calcem Buxtorfii Dissertationum, p. 427, edit. Basil, 1662. * Vid. Abarbanel, ubi supra, p. 424, et seq. † Agreeably to 1 Sam. viii. 5. Antiq. lib. vi. cap. iii. sect. iii. edit. Haverc. § Lib. iv. cap. viii. sect. xvii. || De Regibus, cap. i. sect. ii. ¶ In regardutione Samuelis, inquit Abarbanel, semper attribuitur peccatum petitioni regis absolutè, &c. Ubi supra, p. 427. thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people, in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them;" 1 Sam. viii. 6, 7. The law, therefore, in the seventeenth chapter of Deuteronomy, must be looked upon, not as a com mand, nor hardly as a permission, to choose a king;* for if they had supposed it to amount even to a permission, no doubt they would have alleged it to Samuel; nor is it easy to see how "their wickedness would then have been so great in asking a king," as it is represented to be. It must be considered, therefore, rather as a restraining law, that in case they would have a king, it should be under such limitations as God then prescribed, which are the eight following:-- 1st. That the choice of the person to be their king God would reserve to himself. They must not say, "I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; but thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose;" Deut. xvii. 14, 15. Accordingly he appointed Saul, by lot, to be their first king, 1 Sam. x. 21; and David, by name, to be their second king; 1 Sam. xvi. 12. He likewise chose Solomon to be David's successor, 1 Chron. xxviii. 5; and, after him, he made the kingly government hereditary in David's family; 1 Kings ii. 4. Nevertheless, this divine choice and appointment only restrained the people from making any other person king than him whom God had nominated; but it did not actually invest him with the regal authority; that was done by an act of the people.+ Thus, after God had appointed David to be king, in token of which he had been anointed by Samuel, 1 Sam. xvi. 13; yet the men of Judah anointed him king over the house of Judah, whereby they declared their concurrence, and acceptance of him for their king; 2 Sam.ii.4. And upon the death of Solomon, • Abarbanel makes several judicious observations, to show it was no command, in his Dissertation above quoted, p. 436, et seq. t Per ، ponere regem," inquit Abarbanel, intelligitur ejus constitutio per populum; sed electio divina facta fuit per prophetam, mediante unctione. Abarbanel, Dissert. iii. p. 451, ad calcem Buxtorf. Dissert. Philolog. Theolog. edit. Basil, 1662. 1 |