xix. to 1 Kings viii. Far are we from vindicating Solomon in all his actions, any more than David in the From 2 Sam. matter of Uriah. His severity to his brother, for a seemingly small offence, looked like revenge, and as if he had taken the first opportunity to cut him off for his former at-tempt upon the kingdom: And yet we cannot but imagine, (a) from Solomon's words to his mother, "Why doest thou ask Abishag for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom also, for he is mine elder brother;" that there was some farther conspiracy against him (though not mentioned in Holy Writ), whereof he had got intelligence, and wherein Joab and Abiathar were engaged; and that he looked upon this asking Abishag in marriage as the prelude to it, and the first overt-act, as it were, of their treason. It is certain, that they thought to impose upon the king, as they had done upon his mother, and carry their point without ever discovering the malevolent intent of it. The wives of the late king (according to the customs of the east) belonged to his successor, and were never married to any under a crowned head. (b) Abishag was doubtless a beautiful woman, and, by her near relation to David, might have a powerful interest at court; Adonijah might therefore hope, by this marriage, to strengthen his pretensions to the crown, or, at least, to lay the foundation for some future attempt, upon a proper opportunity, either if Solomon should die, and leave a young son not able to contest the point with him, or if, at any time, he should happen to fall under the people's displeasure, as his father had done before him. This might be Adonijah's design, and Solomon, accordingly, might have information of it : But supposing that his brother's design was entirely innocent, yet, since his request (according to the customs then prevailing) was confessedly bold and presumptuous, and had in it all the appearance of treason, (c) it was none of Solomon's business to make any farther enquiry about it, or to interpret the thing in his brother's favour. was sufficient for him, that the action was in itself criminal, and of dangerous consequence to the state; for it is by their actions, and not intentions, that all offenders must be tried. It Adonijah, indeed, had he lived under our constitution, would have had a fair hearing before conviction: But we ought to remember, that, in the kingdoms of the East, the government was absolute, and the power of life or death entirely in the prince; so that Solomon, without the formality of any process, could pronounce his brother dead: And because he conceived, that in cases of this nature delays were dangerous, might send immediately, and have him dispatched; though we cannot but say, that it had been more to his commendation had he shewed more clemency, and spared his life. And in like manner, had he not married his Egyptian queen, there might be less objected to his character: For, whatever augmentation of power he might promise himself from that alliance, (d) he certainly ran the hazard of having his religion corrupted by this unlawful mixture. Others however have observed, that, as the Sacred Scriptures commend the beginning of Solomon's reign, in all other respects, except the (e) "people's sacrificing in high places," which might be the rather tolerated," because there the theocracy be considered. Saul and David, though called kings, and entrusted with the executive go vernment, were in fact nothing more than viceroys, God himself being still the Supreme civil Sovereign of Israel. Every sovereign has a right to appoint his own deputy or vicegerent; and it was God and not David who apppointed Solomon to be his. This is so very evident from a passage in part quoted by our author, that if he had paid due attention to it, he could not have made his objector find fault with David for changing the order of succession!—“ The Lord God of Israel (says David) chose me, before all the house of my father, to be king over Israel for eve; Ant. Chris. A. M. 2981, was no house built unto the name of the Lord in those days ;" and as they give him this &c. or 4375. character, (a) that "he loved the Lord, and walked in all the statutes of David his fa1023, &c. ther," he would never have done an act so directly contrary to the laws of God, as maror 1036. rying an idolatrous princess, had she not been first proselyted to the Jewish faith. The Scripture indeed takes notice of the gods of the Moabites, Ammonites, and Zidonians, for whom Solomon, in compliance to his strange wives, built places of worship. But as there is no mention made of any gods of the Egyptians, it seems very likely, that this princess, when she was espoused to Solomon, quitted the religion of her ancestors, to which these words in the psalm, supposed to be written upon this occasion, (b) “Hearken, O my daughter, forget thine own people, and thy father's house, so shall the king have pleasure in thy beauty, for he is the Lord," are thought by some to be no distant allusion. However this be, it is certain, that we find Solomon no where reproved in Scripture for this match; (c) nor can we think that his book of Canticles (which is supposed to be his epithalamium) would have found a place in the Sacred Canon, had the spouse, whom it all along celebrates, been at that time an idolatress; though there is reason to believe, that she afterwards relapsed into her ancient religion, and contributed, as much as any, to the king's seduction, and the many great disorders that were in the latter part of his reign. How far the high priest, Abiathar, was concerned in the plot against Solomon, the Sacred History does not particularly inform us; but such was the reverence paid to the sacerdotal character, that Solomon would have hardly dared to have deposed such an one from his office, had not the constitution of the nation authorized him so to do. The kings in the East, indeed, soon found out ways to make themselves absolute; but it looks as if, at the first establishment, the king was at the head of the Hebrew republic, and the high priest his subject, and, in all civil affairs, submitted to his correction; (d) insomuch, that when any one abused the power of his office to the prejudice of the commonweal, or endangering the king's person, the king might justly deprive him of his honours and titles, of his temporalities and emoluments, and even of life itself. And therefore, when Abiathar, by his conspiracy, had merited all this, whatever was dependant on the crown (as all the revenues of this place, as well as the liberty of officiating in it were dependant), Solomon might lawfully take from him; but the sacerdotal character, which he received from God, and to which he was anointed, this he could not alienate: And therefore we may observe, that after his deprivation, and even when Zadok was in possession of his place, he is nevertheless still mentioned (e) under the style and title of the priest. The truth is, there is a great deal of difference between depriving a man of the dignity and of the exercise of his function in such a determinate place, and between ta king from him an authority that was given him by God, and the profits and emoluments arising from it, which were originally the gift of the crown *. The former of these Solomon could not do, and the latter, it is probable, he was the rather incited to do, out of regard to the prophecy of Samuel, wherein he foretold Eli, (from whom Abiathar was descended) that he would translate the priesthood from his to another family, as he did in the person of Zadok, who was of the house of Eleazar, even as Eli was of that of Ithamar; so that by this means the priesthood reverted to its ancient channel. In the account which we have of Solomon's sumptuous manner of living, (ƒ) we read (a) 1 Kings iii. 3. (b) Psal. xlv. 10. 11. constituted by them. They were the gift of God, the (c) Calmet's Comment. on 1 Kings iii. 1. only king of Israel, whose prime minister the high (d) Ibid. ii. 27. (e) 1 Kings iv. 4. priest was ex offici; and it was as God's vicegerent [This would be nonsense, if Solomon had been that Solomon deprived Abiathar of them, when by such a king as modern monarchs, as our author seems his rebellion against God he had forfeited what right to have thought him. The emoluments of the office he had ever had to the office of high priest.] of high priest among the Israelites were not originally (f) 1 Kings iv. 26. the gift either of the people or of any government viii in the book of Kings, that he had "forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots ;" From 2 Sam. (a) but in that of Chronicles it is said, that he had no more than four; and yet in this xix. to 1 Kings some will acknowledge no disagreement at all. The author of the book of Kings, say: they, speaks of the horses, the author of the Chronicles of the stalls or stables, which, supposing every one to contain ten horses, answer the number exactly. It is observable, however, that the history makes mention (b) of chariot-cities, i. e. cities, wherein Solomon kept chariots and horsemen in several parts of his kingdom, for the security of his government, and the suppression of any disorder that might happen to arise; and therefore others have thought, that in the Chronicles the author speaks of those stalls which Solomon had at Jerusalem for his constant life-guard, and were no more than four thousand; but in Kings, of all those stalls which were dispersed up and down in the several parts of his kingdom, which might be forty thousand: because, upon the account of the conquests which his father had made on the east side of Jordan, it was necessary for Solomon to have a stronger armament of this kind, than other kings before him had, in order to keep the people, that would otherwise be apt to rebel, in due subjection. But, without any prejudice to the authority of the Scriptures, why may we not own that an error has possibly crept into the text through the negligence of some transcriber, who has inserted Arbahim, i. e. forty, instead of Arbah, four, and so made this large disparity in the number? Four thousand stalls (supposing each stall for a single horse) are moderate enough, but forty thousand is incredible; and therefore (to proportion the horses to the chariots, (c) which were a thousand and four hundred) we may suppose, (d) with the learned author, from whom we have borrowed this conjecture, that of these chariots, some were drawn with two, some with three, and some with four horses. Now, if the chariots were each drawn with a pair only, the number of Solomon's chariot horses must be two thousand eight hundred; if by two pair, then it must be five thousand six hundred; but the medium between these two numbers is very near four thousand; and therefore it seems most likely that the horses which the king kept for this use only might be much about this number. Too many for the law to tolerate; (e) but the king perhaps might have as little regard to this clause in the law, as he had to the following one, which forbad him (ƒ) "to multiply wives and concubines to himself, or greatly to multiply silver or gold.' The only remaining difficulty (except the Divine vision vouchsafed Solomon, which has not been mentioned) is the great quantity of sacrifices, which he is said to have offered on one altar only; but, without recurring to any miracle for this, or without supposing that this fire, which originally came from heaven, was more strong and intense than any common fire, and therefore, after the return from the captivity, the altar (as some observe) was made larger, because there wanted this celestial flame; without any forced solution like this, we have no reason to think that all these sacrifices were offered in one day. The king, (we may imagine) upon one of the great festivals, went in procession with his nobles, to pay his devotion at Gibeon, where the tabernacle was, and the brazen altar which Moses had made. Each of the great festivals lasted for seven days; but Solomon might stay much longer at Gibeon, until, by the daily oblations, a thousand burnt-offerings were consumed; and, at the conclusion of this course of devotion, he might offer up his ardent prayer to God for wisdom; and God, for the confirmation of his faith, might appear to him in a dream by night, and have that converse with him which the Scripture takes notice of. (g) Sleep indeed is like a state of death to the soul, wherein the senses are locked (a) 2 Chron. ix. 25. Hieros. p. i. lib. ii. c. 9. (b) Ibid. (c) 1 Kings x. 26. (g) Calmet's Commentary on 1 Kings iii. A. M. 2981, up, and the understanding and will deprived of the free exercise of their functions; and &c. or 4375. yet this is no impediment to God in communicating himself to mankind; for (a) "God 1023, &c. speaketh once, yea twice" (says the author of the book of Job)" in a dream, in a vi Ant. Chris. or 1036. sion of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed, then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction;" for God, no doubt, has power, not only to awaken our intellectual faculties, but to advance them above their ordinary measure of perception, even while the body is asleep. (b) A very eminent father of the Greek church, speaking of the different kinds of dreams, has justly observed, that the organs of our body and our brain are not unlike the strings of a musical instrument. While the strings are screwed up to a proper pitch, they give an harmonious sound, if touched by a skilful hand; but as soon as they are relaxed they give none at all. In like manner, while we are awake, (says he) our senses, touched and directed by our understanding, make an agreeable concert; but when once we are asleep, the instrument has done sounding, unless it be, that the remembrance of what passed, when we are awake, comes and presents itself to the mind, and so forms a dream, just as the strings of an instrument will for some time continue their sound, even after the hand of the artist has left them. It is no hard matter to apply this to Solomon's dream. He had prayed the day before with great fervency, and desired of God the gift of wisdom, In the night-time God appeared to him in a dream, and bid him ask whatever he would. Solomon, having his mind still full of the desire of wisdom, asked it, and obtained it: so that the prayer or desire which he uttered in his dream, was but the consequence of the option he had made the day before when he was awake. In a word, though we should allow that the soul of man, when the body is asleep, is in a state of rest and inactivity, yet we cannot but think that God can approach it many different ways; can move and actuate it, just as he pleases; and when he is minded to make a discovery of any thing, can set such a lively representation of it before the eyes of the man's understanding, as shall make him not doubt of the reality of the vision. Solomon indeed, at the consecration of the temple, owns, that (c) " the heaven of heavens could not contain God, and much less then the house that he had built him;" but it will not therefore follow that there is no necessity for places appropriated to Divine worship, nor any occasion for making them so magnificent and sumptuous. That God, who is the author and giver of our being, and to whom we are indebted for every thing we have, and every thing we hope for, should be constantly attended with the homage and adoration, with the praises and acknowledgments of his creatures, (his own dependent creatures) is a position that will admit of no controversy; and that there should be some places appointed for this purpose, that all the offices of religion may be performed with more decency and more solemnity, is another position that seems to arise from the nature of the thing. These buildings we style the houses of God; but it is not to defend him (as Arnobius (d) speaks) from heat or cold, from wind, or rain, or tempests, that we raise such structures, but to put ourselves in a capacity of paying our duty to him, and of nourishing in our hearts such sentiments of respect and reve rence, of love and gratitude, as are due from creatures to their great Creator. In these places God is said to be more immediately present, to hear our supplications, receive our praises, and relieve our wants; and therefore, to make his habitation commodious, David exhorts his subjects to a liberal contribution, and "Because I have a joy, says he, in the house of my God, I have, of mine own gold and silver, given three thousand talents of gold, even the gold of Ophir, and seven thousand talents of fine (a) Job xxxiii. 14, &c. (d) Contra Gent. lib. vi. (b) Gregory, de Opificio Hominis, c. 13. (c) Kings viii. 27. xix. to 1 Kings viii. silver." "He indeed makes mention (the learned (a) Hooker, with whose words I From 2 Sam. conclude this argument, has observed) of the natural conveniency, that such kind of bounteous expences have, since thereby we not only testify our cheerful affection to. God, which thinks nothing too dear to be bestowed about the furniture of his service; but give testimony to the world likewise of his Almightiness, whom we outwardly honour with the chiefest of outward things, as being, of all things, himself incomparably the greatest. To set forth the majesty of kings, his vicegerents here below, the most gorgeous and rare treasures that the world can afford are procured; and can we suppose that God will be pleased to accept what the meanest of these would disdain? În a word, though the true worship of God, says he, be to God in itself acceptable, who respects not so much in what place, as with what affection he is served; yet manifest it is, that the very majesty and holiness of the place where God is worshipped, hath, in regard of us, great virtue, force and efficacy, as it is a sensible help to stir up devotion, and, in that respect, bettereth no doubt our holiest and best actions of that kind.” DISSERTATION V. OF THE ANCIENT JERUSALEM AND ITS TEMPLE. It is an opinion vulgarly received, and not without much probability, that Jerusalem is the same city which (b) elsewhere is called Salem, and whereof Melchisedek is said. to have been king. Not that Salem, or the city of Melchisedek, was of equal extent with Jerusalem in after-times; but Jerusalem was no other than the city of Salem enlarged and beautified by the kings of all Israel, at first by David and Solomon, and after that by the succeeding kings of Judah, when the monarchy came to be divided into two distinct kingdoms. The word Salem, in the Hebrew language, (c) signifies peace: And as the city of Melchisedek, called Salem, is probably thought to be the same with Jerusalem; so it is certain, that Jerusalem was (d) otherwise called Jebus, and therefore, as it preserves the name of Salem in the latter, so it is thought to preserve the name of Jebus in the former part of it, and to be nothing else but a compound of Jebus and Salem, which, for the better sound's sake, by the change of one letter and the omission of another, is softened into Jerusalem. Whether this city stood in the centre of the world or no, we shall not pretend to determine, though some † very zealously contend for it; since it is a matter of more ma (a) Eccles. Polity, lib. v. § 15, 16. (b) Gen xiv. 18. (c) Heb. vii. 2. (d) Compare Josh. xv. 8. with 1 Chron. xi. 4. To this purpose they observe, that the sacred writers are very well acquainted with this, as appears by that passage of Ezekiel, chap. v. 5. "Thus saith the Lord God, this is Jerusalem; I have set it in the midst of the nations and countries round about her.” For what purpose he did this the Psalmist has not been wanting to inform us, "Out of Sion, says he, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined," Psal. 1. 2. Here the Almighty kept his court, and from hence VOL. II. he sent out his ambassadors, the prophets, to publish 2 I |