> (7) some, perhaps, may think that these princes and dukes of families were but some petty lords under some greater kings, because the number of them are so many that their particular territories could be but small, and not worthy the title of kingdoms. but they must consider that at first kings had no such large dominions as they have nowadays. we find in the time of abraham, which was about 300 years after the flood, that in the little corner of asia nine kings at once met in battle, most of which were but kings of cities apiece, with the adjacent territories, as of sodom, gomorrha, shinar, etc. in the same chapter is mention of melchisedek king of salem, which was but the city of jerusalem. and in the catalogue of the kings of edom, the name of each king's city is recorded as the only mark to distinguish their dominions. in the land of canaan, which was but of a small circuit, joshua destroyed thirty one kings, and about the same time, adonibezeck had seventy kings whose fingers and toes he had cut off, and made them feed under his table. a few ages after this, thirty-two kings came to benhadad king of syria, and about seventy kings of greece went to the wars of troy. caesar found more kings in france than there be now provinces there, and at his sailing over into the island he found four kings in our county of kent. these heaps of kings in each nation are an argument that their territories were but small, and strongly confirms our assertion that erection of kingdoms came at first only by distinction of families.
United States