Let me add one authority more, from a commentator at least as good as our author, and who, nevertheless, flatly contradicts him—I mean the celebrated Grotius. He tells us that Samuel, in this passage, does not speak of what our author calls the “general manner of Kings,” or the just and honest right of a King to do such things; because his right is otherwise described elsewhere, as shall be shown. The prophet only speaks of such a right as the Kings round about Israel had acquired, which was not a true right; for such is not the signification of the original word Mishpat; but such an action as (being founded in might and violence) hath the effectum juris, or comes in the place of right.

Grotius, I fear, is too learned for us inferior writers (Scriptores minorum gentium) to follow him in this place. But Sidney (that great martyr to liberty) adopts the same explanation. “Samuel’s words (says he) are acknowledged by all interpreters who were not malicious or mad, to be a dissuasion of the Jews from their wicked purpose; not a description of what a King might justly do, by virtue of his office, but what those, who should be set up against God and his law, would do when they should have the power in their hands.”

Both Grotius and Sidney are well warranted in this interpretation, not only by the Hebrew text, but other clear passages of Scripture, and particularly the seventeenth chapter of Deuteronomy, where, with the approbation of Heaven, the duty of a good King is described and limited. The Jews commonly understood this chapter as containing an absolute promise from Heaven of a Royal Government, and a sufficient authority for the request made to Samuel more than three hundred years afterwards. Others understood it conditionally,—that if they did reject the Divine Government, and set up one of their own appointment, God would permit them; but their King should be chosen in the manner, and with the qualifications in that chapter described. All this, however, they disregarded when they asked an arbitrary King, like those of their neighbouring nations; and therefore, it is demonstratively certain that Samuel, in entering his protest against such Kings, did not protest against Kings or Monarchical Governments generally. Either this remark is true, or one part of Scripture is a direct contradiction to the other. But let the passage to which I refer speak for itself:

“When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shall say, I will set a King over me, like as all the nations that are about me; thou shalt in anywise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose, one from among thy brethren, not a stranger,” &c. It is further directed, that he shall not be given to covetousness, nor multiply horses, nor wives to himself, nor greatly multiply to himself gold and silver. That when he shall sit upon the throne of his Kingdom he shall write a copy of the law in his book; (which it was understood he was to do with his own hand.) That this book shall be with him, (or always carried about him,) and he shall read therein all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep the words of the law, and make it the rule of his Government, as well as private life. If he does this, God promises a blessing on his Government, to prolong his days in his Kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel. Does not this smell strongly of Monarchy, and even of hereditary Monarchy? Is not some sort of approbation, yea and a blessing, promised to both, when religiously administered, notwithstanding all that this writer has said to the contrary?

But he has not the candour to compare Scripture with Scripture; nor does he give a single passage complete, and connected with the parts necessary to explain it,—a clear proof that other craft may be employed as well as Kingcraft and Priest-craft, in “withholding the Scripture from the people,” even in Protestant countries. Had our author proceeded a little farther, or given the passages complete as he went along, it would have appeared that, notwithstanding the just displeasure of the Almighty, and his protest against the Jews for throwing off his righteous Government, yet as mercy and forgiveness are his chief delight, and he knows that there is no perfection in man, the matter was pretty amicably settled at last, and the Divine countenance was given to the establishment of Monarchy, even in the person of Saul. God himself directed his election and appointment; and to prepare him for his office, gave him another heart, and also the spirit of prophecy.

As to the thunder-storm, in which our author exults, as an absolute disapprobation of all Monarchical Government, it was no more than a sign called for by Samuel, to convince the people that he spoke in the name of the Lord. But what did he speak in the verses immediately preceding? Not, surely, that God had a particular quarrel with Monarchical Government, as such, and that “blood would attend it;” but rather the contrary—that since the Jews would still insist upon a Government of their own appointment, the Almighty would yet give them a blessing under that very form, upon condition of their obedience to his law. “If ye will fear the Lord and serve him, and obey his voice, &c., then shall both ye, and also the King that reigneth over you, continue following the Lord;” to which duty of following the Lord a blessing is always promised in Scripture. “But if you will not obey, &c., the hand of the Lord shall be against you.” So it would have been for disobedience had they not asked a King! And, immediately after the thunder-storm, Samuel confirms this doctrine, and comforts the people: “Fear not, (said he,) although you have thus sinned, the Lord will not forsake his people. As for me, God forbid that I should sin against the Lord, and cease to pray for you. But I will instruct you in the good and right way.” Thus, it seems, a good and right way was yet to be found under Monarchical Government. From all which it is plain, that the Almighty had now pardoned the Jews; and the Prophet follows the example, promising still to proceed in the discharge of his duty among them, as a people yet in covenant with God. But, as I hinted before, it did not suit our author’s purpose to take notice of such passages as these; and he has been guilty of still as great a perversion of Scripture concerning David, whom God undeniably approved of, and appointed to monarchal rule,

“The high encomium given to David, takes no notice of him officially as a King, but only as a man after God’s own heart.” I know the poor equivocation which the author has here in reserve to offer, for his saying that this character was not given to David officially as a King, but as a man. It is true, that when Samuel first applied the character to David, he had not yet entered on his office; but when it was predicted that the Kingdom should not be continued in the family of Saul, because he had violated the law, and intruded himself into the Priest’s duty, which did not belong to him, the Prophet tells him that “the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart,” with the express design of making him the successor of Saul, on account of his excellent and God-like disposition. “The Lord hath commanded him (this man after his own heart) to be Captain over his people, because thou (Saul) hath not kept that which the Lord commanded thee.” That one man is here rejected from being a King, because of his disobedience to God, and another chosen as his successor, because of his goodness of heart and regard to religion, “is true, or Scripture is false.” But one greater than Samuel, even St. Paul, puts this beyond all doubt, and appropriates the encomium to David, not merely as a King elect, but one actually exercising the office. “When he had removed him, (says the Apostle, meaning Saul,) he raised up unto them David to be their King, to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David, the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfill all my will,” namely, in his character of a King.

Numerous are the passages of Scripture which might be brought to show that the Almighty approved of David officially as a King, on account of his publick virtues, and that a Divine blessing was given to the Jewish Monarchy, under his direction. The reader may consult 2 Samuel, v. 10, 12, viii, 16; Psalm lxxviii, 70, 71, 72; Psalm lxxxix, 20, 28.

I have now done with our author on this head, and can return one of his polite expressions—“I despise him,” equally as a perverter of Scripture, and of the fundamental principles of mixed Government. I am threatened with being “hunted from every lane and lurking hole.” Hunt on. I skulk in no such places, but keep the open streets. “Wait a little,” say others, “Cato will soon be found tripping, and stumbling upon Tory doctrine, the divine right of Kings, non-resistance, and the like.” Well, gentlemen, wait patiently till it so happens; but let me, in the mean time, have fair play. I claim it of the publick, as being