During this period we find that God had not utterly forsaken his people, but oftentimes gave them very signal deliverances. But it is to be observed that these deliverances were not effected by their great forces, but by the interposition of God, when their condition was such that they lost all hope in their own strength, and were willing to rely on God. Thus was Hezekiah delivered at a time when he was so weak, that the Assyrians insolently offered him two thousand horses, if he on his part were able to set riders on them: 2 Kings xviii. 23. The case will generally be found the same in other in

stances.

By this short account it appears that David was the last of the rulers over Israel who observed the law against multiplying horses; and he was the last also who can be pretended to have been a deliverer of the people. This truth was seen by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who, when he reckons up the ancient worthies of his country who trusted in God, and ' by faith subdued kingdoms, who out of weakness were made strong, and waxed valiant in fight, and turned to flight the armies of the aliens,' shuts up his catalogue with David, as being the last to whom these characters could be applied, and after whom there arose none like to him to save the people of Israel.

But it may be asked perhaps, were the kings of Judah and Israel punished for having chariots and horses in their armies? Does not the Scripture charge them with idolatry and many other crimes, which brought on their ruin? No doubt there were many other crimes, and of a deeper dye, for which these kings and their people were punished; but the true question is, was it a crime at all to multiply horses and chariots ?

The shortest answer to this question will be, to examine. what account their own prophets have given of the causes of their ruin.

Isaiah lived in the reign of four kings of Judah, and prophesied of the captivity. In his second chapter he thus recounts the sins of his people: They be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers; their land also is full of

silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures; their land also is full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots.'

So again, chap. xxxi. Wo to them that go down to Egypt for help, and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong: but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the Lord.'

The prophet Hosea lived under the same kings that Isaiah did, and foresaw the miseries coming on his country; he exhorts the people to repentance, and has put a short form of confession into their mouths: the two great articles of it are these: We will not ride on horses, neither will we say any more to the work of our hands, ye are our gods :' chap. xiv. 3.

Consider now what is the guilt of having a country full of horses. Moral evil surely there is none in it; and to charge all princes with iniquity who have a strength of horses in their armies, and to transfer to them the crime charged on this account on the kings of Judah and Israel, would be intolerable abuse of the phrase and language of Scripture. But the kings of Israel were exalted to the throne on condition that they should renounce the assistance of horses and horsemen, and depend on God for success in the day of battle.

Having seen then what the law and the prophets, and the experience of many ages had taught the Jews to think of their princes and their martial preparations, let us look back to the prophecy relating to the Messias, Zech. ix. 9. The words are these: Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, thy king cometh unto thee; he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding on an ass, and on a colt the foal of an ass.

‹ And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem.'

You see here that the king foretold was to save the people. Consider then what sort of king was to be expected. Is it possible to imagine that God would send a king to save them who should be like the kings who had undone them? Is it not more reasonable to imagine he should resemble those who had indeed been deliverers of their country? kings who feared

God, and therefore feared no enemy; who, though mounted on asses, and colts the foals of asses, were able to put to flight the thousands and ten thousands of chariots and horses that came against them?

The king foretold by the prophet was moreover to be just, meek, and lowly; but how could he have deserved this character, had he appeared in the pomp and pride of war, surrounded with horses and chariots, in direct opposition to the law of God? Or, as he was to bring salvation to the people, could he make use of those means which God never had prospered, and which he had sufficiently declared he never would?

You see then how essential it was to the character of a king of Israel, who was to be just, and lowly, and to bring salvation with him, that he should come riding on an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. But if any doubt can yet remain, let the prophet himself explain it, who, immediately after his description of the promised king, adds, and I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem;' plainly showing that the character given of the Messias, that he should ride on an ass, was in opposition to the pride of their warlike kings, who by their great strength in chariots and horses had ruined themselves and their people.

To the same purpose speaks the prophet Hosea : I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen :' i. 7. Thus also the prophet Micah promised deliverance to the remnant of Jacob, and then adds, and it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord, that I will cut off thy horses out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy chariots; and I will cut off the cities of thy land, and throw down all thy strong holds :' ver. 10. 11. Some commentators have labored to reconcile these things, imagining that there is a great contradiction in promising to save the people, and at the same time to cut off their forces and throw down their strongholds: but the true sense is, that the salvation should be so perfect and complete, that they should want neither these forces nor their strongholds, for God would be to them instead of armies and fortified towns.

These passages mutually support and enlighten each other, and show undeniably what the prophet had in view when he foretold that the Messias should ride on an ass.

And what is there in all this to make sport for unbelievers? Has it appeared to be a mere trifling circumstance in the character of a king of Israel, whether he had chariots and horses of war or no? Or was it any reproach to Christ to ride into Jerusalem on the foal of an ass, when David, the greatest of his ancestors, and Solomon the wisest, as long as he was wise, rode in the same manner? Can the Jews object to this circumstance, and yet talk of the glories of David and the magnificence of Solomon, who in the midst of all their glory and magnificence did the very same thing? Or can they stumble at this character of the Messias, without forgetting by what princes their ancestors were saved, and by what undone ?

From this general account of the affairs of the kings of Israel, and the particular circumstances they were under in regard to their own law, there arise some reflexions which may be properly here mentioned. As first: the law given to the kings of Israel, considered together with the history of that nation, forms a very strong presumption for the divine original of the law of Moses. For supposing Moses to be a mere human legislator, like Solon or Lycurgus, what could tempt him to forbid the princes of his country the use of horses and chariots for their defence? Should such a law be proposed for France or Germany at this day, what would the world think of it? Or supposing this law to be his own contrivance, how comes it to pass that the event and success of things through many ages does so exactly correspond to the law? that the princes prospered, and extended their dominion over great countries, when they had neither chariots nor horses; and were ruined and undone when they were strong in these forces? Can it be supposed that the history of many ages, and which relates the affairs not only of the princes of Israel, but of other contemporary kings, is all forged, and merely to show an agreement between the history and this particular law? Or how shall we account for the conduct of the prophets who saw the people ruined, and instead of reproaching them with cowardice and a neglect of their necessary defence, things which usually usher

in such misfortunes, reproach them with having been too strong, too powerful in horses and horsemen ?

These appearances can never be accounted for by any human contrivance, and they plainly show that the hand of God was in this thing from the beginning to the end.

Secondly, we may from hence collect the nature of David's crime in numbering the people of Israel. Had he acted in the true spirit of a king of Israel, he would have been less solicitous about the number of his forces, and would have trusted God with the work which God had undertaken, and which he had constantly, and in David's case in a very particular manner, discharged with fidelity. Read the promise in the law'When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them; for the Lord thy God is with thee.' And consider what but distrust in God could tempt David to number his forces? Happy had it been for him and the people, had he then reflected that God 'taketh no pleasure in the strength of a horse, neither delighteth he in any man's legs.' He ought to have remembered what his own experience had taught him, that God wanted not the assistance of horse or foot to execute the designs of his providence.

Thirdly, it may be a doubt whether king Josiah was not guilty of the same fault in his warlike preparations against the king of Egypt. Josiah has so good a character in Scripture, that both Jews and Christians have been at a loss to account for the unfortunate end he came to, being slain in battle against the king of Egypt. The learned Dr. Prideaux has justified this conduct in opposing the passage of the king of Egypt, because it was a service due to the king of Assyria, to whom Josiah was a vassal. Be it so; yet his duty to the king of Assyria could not dissolve his dependence on a higher master: he went to war as vassal of the king of Assyria, but did he ask counsel of God as king of Judah? Or was he attended to the war with such forces only as the king of Judah might lawfully use? That he had chariots and horsemen appears plainly from the account of his death, 2 Chron. xxxv. 24. for he was wounded in one chariot, removed into another to be carried off, and it is very probable that there were chariots and horsemen many in his