title afterwards applied to such judges. (Deut. xxi. 2, xix. 12, and several other places.) But against such a supposition it has been urged as an objection, that when Moses had brought the people out of Egypt, there were no such judges among them; he being compelled to judge all himself, to his great inconvenience. (Exod. xviii. 13, &c.) As for the Shoterim, "officers of the children of Israel," mentioned Exod. v. 14-19, which have been conjectured to be a kind of magistrates elected by them, they were more probably appointed, and set over them by the Egyptians, merely for the purpose of overseeing the work in which they were employed.

mine, and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." (Exod. xix. 3-6.) We learn what this covenant was in a further account of it. "Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God, your captains of your tribes, your elders and your officers, with all the men of Israel;-that thou shouldst enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day; that he may establish thee to-day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob:-for ye know," adds Moses, "how we have dwelt in the land of Egypt, and how we came through the nations which ye passed by: and ye have seen their abominations and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which were among

The Hebrew government appears not only designed to subserve the common and general ends of all good governments,-viz. the protection of property, liberty, safety, and peace of the several members of the community, (in which the true happiness and prosperity of states will always consist);-but also to set apart the Hebrews or Israelites as a "holy people to Jehovah, and a kingdom of priests." For thus Moses is directed to tell the children of Israel: "Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now, therefore, if ye will hear my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people; for all the earth is

* "The word Theocratia," says Dr. Jennings, "very happily expresses that peculiar government, which God exercised over the children of Israel. To them he stood in a threefold relation:

First, As their Creator, in common with the rest of mankind; and therefore, as Lord of their consciences, he required from them all the duties of the moral law.

Secondly, He was their God, as they were a visible church, separated from all the nations of the earth to be his peculiar people. In this character he prescribed the peculiar forms and distinguishing rites and ceremonies of their religious worship.

Thirdly, He was their proper King, the sovereign of their body politic; in which character he gave them judicial or political laws, relating to government and civil life: he ordered a royal palace (the tabernacle) to be built for his residence among them, in which he dwelt, or manifested his special presence, by the Shechinah, as the Jews call it; that is, by a bright cloud or glory, appearing over the mercy-seat, betwixt the two cherubim in the innermost room of that palace (Lev. xvi. 2.); on which account he is said to "dwell betwixt the cherubim," Ps. lxxx. 1; and to "sit betwixt the cherubim." Ps. xcix. 1. From thence he gave forth oracles, or signified his will concerning matters of importance to the state, which were not determined by the body of written laws."Heb. Antiquities, pp. 10, 11. 8vo. Edin. 1808.

woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the Lord our God to go and serve the gods of these nations." (Deut. xxix. 10—18.)

From these passages, it is evident that the fundamental principle of the Mosaic law was, the maintenance of one true God, and the prevention, or rather the proscription, of polytheism and idolatry. The covenant of Jehovah with the Hebrew people, and their oath, by which they were bound in allegiance to Jehovah their God and king, was, that they should obey the laws which he should appoint as their supreme Governor, with a particular engagement to keep themselves from the idolatry of the nations round about them, whether that of the land of Egypt while they dwelt there, or that which they had observed in the nations through which they passed into the promised land. In keeping this allegiance to Jehovah, as their immediate and supreme Lord, they were to expect the blessings of God's immediate and particular protection in the security of their liberty, peace, and prosperity, against all attempts of their idolatrous neighbours; but if they should break their allegiance to Jehovah, or forsake his covenant by going and serving other gods, and worshipping them, then they should forfeit these blessings of God's protection, and the anger of Jehovah should be kindled against the land, to bring upon it all the curses written in the book of Deuteronomy. (xix. 25-27.) The substance, then, of this solemn transaction between God and the Israelites, (which may be called the original contract of the Hebrew government) was this-If the Hebrews would voluntarily consent to receive Jehovah their Lord and King, to keep his covenant and laws, to honour and worship him as the one true God, in opposition to all idolatry; then, though God, as sovereign of the world, rules over all the nations of the earth, and all nations are under the general care of his providence, he would govern the Hebrew nation by peculiar laws of his particular appointment, and bless it with a more immediate and particular protection; he would secure to them the invaluable privileges of the true religion, together with liberty, peace, and prosperity, as a favoured people above all other nations. This constitution, it will be observed, is enforced chiefly by temporal sanctions, and

that with singular wisdom: for temporal blessings and evils were at that time the common and prevailing incitements to idolatry; but, by thus taking them into the Hebrew constitution, as rewards to obedience and punishments for disobedience, they became motives to continuance in the true religion, instead of encouragements to idolatry.*

In the theocracy of the Hebrews, the laws were given to them by God, through the mediation of Moses, and they were to be of perpetual force and obligation, so long as their polity subsisted. The judges, by whom these laws were administered, were represented as holy persons, and as sitting in the place of God. (Deut. i. 17. xix. 17.) These judges were usually taken from the tribe of Levi; and the chief expounder of the law was the High Priest. In this there was a singular propriety; for the Levites, being devoted to the study of the law, were the literati among the Israelites. In difficult cases of law, however, relating both to government and war, God was to be consulted by the Urim and Thummim; and in matters, which concerned the welfare of the state, He frequently made known his will by prophets, whose mission was duly attested, and the people were bound to obey their voice. As King of the Israelites, God reserved to himself the sovereign right of proclaiming war and making peace with their neighbouring nations. And hence, perhaps, a certain history of their wars, now lost, is called "the book of the wars of the Lord." (Numb. xxi. 14.) He commanded, and even headed their armies, in their marches, and in their battles. Thus the tabernacle, or royal tent, led their marches through the wilderness; from thence, by the rising and falling of a miraculous cloud over it, was the signal given, when they should proceed, and when they should rest. (Numb. ix. 17, 18.) Jehovah in his royal capacity appointed all officers in the state. Thus he made Moses his viceroy, or prime minister; and Joshua not only the successor of Moses after his death, but an associate with him, or his deputy and lieutenant, during his life. When Jethro suggested to Moses, that, for his ease in the government, he should appoint a number of inferior officers under him, he was aware it could not lawfully be done without a special order from Jehovah.t (Exod. xviii. 23.)

In all these cases, Jehovah appears as sovereign king, ruling the people by his own appointed ministers. We have remarked that the fundamental principle in the Mosaic law

*

Horne's Introduction, vol. iii. pp. 77-78. Lowman on the Civil Government of the Hebrews, pp. 8-10. See also Dr. Grove's Lectures on the Pentateuch, vol. ii. pp. 141-185, for some masterly observations on the introduction of temporal sanctions into the Mosaic law.

Few passages in the Pentateuch have more exercised the ingenuity of biblical critics than this. Horne adopts the opinion of Dr. Lightfoot, who considers it to have been some book of remembrances and directions written by Moses for Joshua's private instruction, for the prosecution of the wars after his decease. See Introduct. vol. i. p. 135, and vol. iii. p. 20.

was, the maintenance of the true God, and the proscription of idolatry: the next was, the prevention of intercourse between the Israelites and foreign nations, in order to secure them the more effectually from the infection of this crime. To effect this object the Hebrew polity was singularly adapted. Foreigners, indeed, if they were not Canaanites, Amorites, or Moabites, might, by the law of Moses, become par takers of the rights of Israelitish citizenship; but thus to multiply the number of citizens, was by no means anxiously studied or wished: it being always the chief object of state polity to render the natural born Israelites happy, and thus powerful and formidable by their increasing numbers. But if the regulations laid down by Moses, had little tendency to draw strangers into the land, they were admirably calculated to prevent any Israelite from being lost to the state by settling in a foreign country. This he could never do without a certain loss, to submit to which, he must have been tempted with very advantageous offers abroad; for every Israelite had his hereditary land, which he could not sell, in perpetuity, and which, of course, by ceasing to be an Israelitish citizen, he absolutely forfeited. Besides, their whole plan of life was so regulated, that they could not have much intercourse with other nations; and many of their customs, which were converted into laws, (those, for example, relating to clean and unclean meats) were so contrary to the customs of foreign nations, as effectually to prevent any intimate connexion with them.

Moses was likewise no less careful to guard against the danger of the Israelitish state, ever becoming dependant on any foreign nation. He had confined it within certain distinct boundaries, with a view to prevent any fortunate conqueror from having any pretext to annex it to his conquests; and he had, moreover, expressly interdicted the people from ever choosing a foreigner to be their king-See Deut. xvii. 14, 15.*

The foundation of the Mosaic polity was agriculture, taken in its most extensive sense, so as to include the culture of vineyards, olive grounds, and gardens. Every Israelite received a certain extent of land, of which the full property was vested in himself although he durst not sell it; so that it descended to his posterity for ever. Hence there could be no Israelite born, who did not inherit a piece of land from his progenitors.

The form of the Hebrew republic was unquestionably democratical; its head admitted of change as to the name and nature of his of fice; it was first a military leader, afterwards a judge, and lastly a king; and at certain times it could even subsist without a general head. When Moses promulgated his laws, he convened the whole congregation of Israel, to whom he is repeatedly said to have spoken, but as he could not possibly be heard by six hundred thousand men, we must conclude that he only addressed a certain number of persons, who were deputed to represent the rest of the Israelites. Accordingly in Numb. i. 16, these delegates or representatives are termed

chiefs of the community, or congregation, that are called to the convention, in our version termed, famous in the congregation, men of renown. By comparing Deut. xxix. 10, with Joshua xxiii. 2, and xxiv. 1, it appears that these representatives were judges, heads of families, and (skoterim,) officers or scribes Michaelis is of opinion that, like the members of the British House of Commons, they acted in the plenitude of their own power, for the general good, without taking instructions from their constituents.*

1. Heads of tribes and families.-All the various branches of Abraham's descendants, like the ancient Germans, or the Scottish clans, kept together in a body, according to their tribes and families; every tribe forming a lesser commonwealth, with its own peculiar interests, and all of them at last uniting in one great republic. In the very same way were the Ishmaelites governed by twelve princes, according to the number of Ishmael's sons, (Gen. xxv. 16.) and the Bedouins, their descendants, have always preserved some traces of this patriarchal government. According to Genesis xxxvi. the Edomites had kings; but under them, again, stood a multitude of princes, and that according to the order partly of sons and partly of grandsons, of Edom; consequently, not princes who succeeded each other, but who ruled over so many families. The same arrangement, it is well known, took place among the Israelites, who were divided into twelve great tribes, previously to their departure from Egypt, each tribe having its own chief. (Compare Exod. iv. 29, with Numb. ii.) These tribes were again subdivided into certain greater and lesser families, which are called in, that is, families; and 128, houses of fathers; (Numb. i. 2. Josh. vii 14.) these again, had their heads, which are sometimes called heads of houses of fathers: and sometimes simply heads. These are probably the same persons, who in Joshua xxiii. 2, and xxiv. 1, are called Elders, as also in Deut. xix. 12, and xxi. 1–9. Whether this word is to be understood, according to its etymology, and whether in filling the office of an elder, regard was had to age or not, it is not easy to determine; nor in what manner these heads, or elders of families, were chosen, when any of them died. The princes of tribes do not seem to have ceased with the commencement, at least, of the monarchy. We find them still subsisting in the time of David, (2 Chron. xvii.) and they must have proved a powerful restraint upon the power of the king.

It will now be easy to conceive how the Israelitish state might have subsisted not only without a king, but even, occasionally, without that magistrate who was denominated a Judge, although we read of no supreme council of the nation. Every tribe had always its own chief magistrate; subordinate to whom, again, were

Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, vol. 1. p. 222-231.

the heads of families; and if there were no gelesser commonwealths, who, in certain cases, neral ruler of the people, there were yet twelve united together, and whose general convention

would take measures for their common interest. For this reason it was a matter of but inferior moment, by what title the supreme governor of the nation was distinguished; whether he were called a general, as was Joshua, or a judge, or a king; or finally, whether in default of all these high personages, the priest were obliged to take certain duties on himself during the diet. Although the head was gone, there always remained a living body; only its mo

tions were slower in the one case than in the other.

In many cases, particular tribes acted as distinct and independent republics, not only when there was neither king nor judge, but even in ing carried on by particular tribes, both before the times of the kings. Accounts of wars be

and after the establishment of the regal authority, will be found in Josh. xvii. 15-18. Judg. iv. 10, and xviii-xx. 1 Chron. iv. 41-43. But the most remarkable example, perhaps, is in 1 tribes beyond Jordan, even during the reign of Chron. v. 18-22, where the two and a half Saul, carried on a very important war entirely by themselves; in which, indeed, the rest of the people of Israel took so little share, that Samuel has not so much as noticed it in Saul's history, although it was a far more splendid event than all his achievements put together.* It seems evident, that a certain number of persons was requisite, in order to constitute them a family, and as such, to have chiefs to represent them in the diets. It is said of the four sons of Shimei that they had not a numerous family, and were, therefore, reckoned as only one family. (1 Chron. xxiii. 11.) This is decisive of the point. Hence, also, we can explain why, according to Micah v. 1, Bethlehem may have been too small to be reckoned among the families of Judah. How many individuals were requisite to constitute a tribe, or family, it is not possible to say; it is probable the number was not always uniform.f

2. The Judges who were instituted by Moses, and of whom mention is made in the two diets held under Joshua, had a right in virtue of their office, to be present in the convention of the state. The Israelites were without judges when they left Egypt. Hence, for some time, Moses was their sole judge. But this, although practicable in the infancy of the state, was soon found injurious to his own health, and to the people's interest. At the suggestion, therefore, of Jethro, his father-in-law, he instituted judges, and that upon a principle by which the people could be numbered from the number of the judges, they being appointed over tens, fifties, hundreds, and thousands. Those causes which could not be decided by the judges of iens, passed to those of hundreds, next to those of thousands, and the last resource was to Moses himself. (Exod. xviii. 14-26.) It is by no means probable, says Michaelis, that, in the public deliberative assemblies, the sixty thousand judges

* Michaelis on the Laws of Moses, vol. i pp. 229-235.

Michaelis, vol. i. p. 244.

of tens had seats and voices. Perhaps only those of hundreds, or even those only of thousands, are to be understood, when mention is made of judges in the Israelitish diets.

After the Israelites were established in their own land this institution was in some measure changed; Moses ordaining that judges should be appointed in every city (Deut. xvi. 18.) who were chosen at the option of the people. In succeeding ages it generally happened that these judicial offices were filled by the Levites, evidently because they best understood the law of the Hebrews, being bound to devote themselves to learning. (See 1 Chron. xxiii, 4. xxvi. 29-32. 2 Chron. xix. 8-11. xxxiv. 13.)

3. The shoterim or scribes, in addition to the officers already mentioned, had a place in the Israelitish congregation or diet. That they were different from the judges is evident, for Moses commanded (Deut. xvi. 18.) that in every city there should be appointed not only judges, but shoterim likewise. These officers were not originally instituted by Moses, for we have seen that they were among the people while they dwelt in Egypt. Michaelis derives the word shoterim from the Arabic satar, which signifies to write, and its derivative, Mastir, a person whose duty it is to keep accounts, and to collect debts. Hence he conceives, with great probability, that the scribes were the officers who kept the genealogical tables of the Israelites, with a faithful record of births, marriages, and deaths, and assigned the public burdens and services on the people individually. Under the government of the kings these officers were generally taken from the tribe of Levi. (1 Chron. xxiii. 4. 2 Chron. xix. 8-11. xxxiv. 13.) In this there was a singular propriety, for the Levites, devoting the whole of their time to study, were certainly the best qualified to be entrusted with the keeping of such important registers. In Deut. xxix. 10. xxxi. 28. Josh. viii. 33. xxiii. 2, we find them as representatives of the people in the diets, or when a covenant with God is entered into. In Joshua i. 10, 11, they appear as the officers who communicated to the people the general's orders respecting military affairs. In 2 Chron. xxvi. 11, we find a chief scribe, under whose command the whole army stands after the general.t

in one tribe should become the property of any person belonging to another tribe, even by the marriage of an heiress. (See the case of the daughters of Zelophehad, in Numb. xxxvi. | 6-9.)

In order to preserve as nearly as possible the same balance, not only between the tribes, but between the heads of families and the families of the same tribes, it was further provided as we have before remarked, that every man's possession should be unalienable.

The wisdom of this constitution had provided for a release of all debts and servitudes every seventh year (Deut. xv. 1, 2, 12.) that the Hebrew nation might not moulder away from so great a number of free subjects, and be lost to the public in the condition of slaves. It was moreover provided, by the law of Jubilee, which was every fiftieth year, that then all lands should be restored, and the estate of every family, being discharged from all incumbrances, should return to the family again. For this there was an express law. (Lev. xxv. 10.) Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family. It is further enacted, and the land shall not be sold for ever; or, as in the margin, to be cut quite off, or alienated from the family, for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me. (ver. 23.)

By this agrarian law of the Hebrews, all estates were to be kept in the same families as well as the same tribes to which they originally belonged at the first division of the land by Joshua; so that how often soever a man's estate had been sold or alienated from one Jubilee to another, or through how many hands soever it had passed, yet in fifty years every estate must return to the heirs of the persons who were first possessed of it.

It was at first an excellent constitution, considering the design of this government, to make so equal a division of the land among the whole Hebrew nation, according to the poll; it made provision for settling and maintaining a numerous and brave militia of six hundred thousand men, which, if their force was rightly directed and used, would be a sufficient defence not only against any attempts of their less powerful neighbours, to deprive them of their liberty and religion; but considering moreover the natural

could be made but through very difficult passes, it was a force sufficient to defend them against the more powerful empires of Egypt, Assyria, or Babylon.

The wisdom of this consitution is yet further observable, as it provided against all ambitious designs of private persons, or persons in authority, against the public liberty; for no person in any of the tribes, or throughout the whole Hebrew nation, had such estates and possessions, or were allowed by the constitution to procure them, that could give any hopes of success in oppressing their brethren and fellowsubjects. They had no riches to bribe indigent persons to assist them, nor could there at any time be any considerable number of indigent persons to be corrupted. They could have

no power to force their fellow-subjects into a tame submission to any of their ambitious views. The power in the hands of so many freeholders in each tribe, was so unspeakably superior to any power in the hands of one or of a few men, that it is impossible to conceive how any such ambitious designs should succeed, if any person should have been found so weak as to attempt them. Besides, this equal and moderate provision for every person, wisely cut off the means of luxury, with the temptations to it from example. It almost necessarily induced the whole Hebrew nation to be both industrious and frugal, and yet gave to every one such a property, with such an easy state of liberty, that they had sufficient reason to esteem and value them, and endeavour to preserve and maintain them.*

Upon the death of Joshua the government of Israel was committed to certain supreme magistrates, termed JUDGES. Mr. Horne is of opinion that their dignity was for life, although their office was not hereditary, nor their succession constant. This opinion, however, is without proof; they appear to have been raised up and appointed only on particular occasions, and were continued in their office only so long as there was occasion; for instance, to deliver Israel from the power of some oppressor. It is said, (1 Sam. vii. 15.) that, Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life; which seems to be mentioned as a particular case, and Gideon refused to take upon him the perpetual government of Israel, as being inconsistent with the theocracy. (Jud. viii. 23.) As for the other judges, Godwyn compares them to the Roman dictators; who were appointed only on extraordinary emergencies; as in case of war abroad, or conspiracies at home; and whose power, while they continued in office, was great: it extended to peace and war. They decided causes without appeal; but they had no power to enact new laws, nor to impose new burdens upon the people. They were protectors of the laws, defenders of religion, and avengers of crimes, particularly of idolatry, which was high | treason against Jehovah their sovereign. Further, these judges were without pomp or splendour, and destitute of guards, train, or equipage; unless indeed their own wealth might enable them to make an appearance suitable to their dignity. Their income or revenue arose solely from presents. There were anarchics or intervals of several years continuance, during which the Israelites groaned under the tyranny of their oppressors, and had no governors. But though God himself did regularly appoint the judges of the Israelites, the people, nevertheless, on some occasions, elected him who appeared to them most proper to deliver them from their immediate oppression: thus Jephthah was chosen by the Israelites beyond Jordan. As, however, it frequently happened that the oppressions which rendered the assistance of judges necessary, were not felt equally over all Israel, so the power of those judges, who

Lowman on the Civil Government of the Hebrews, pp. 46-49.

+ Horne's Introduction, vol. iii. part ii. ch. i. sect. 3.

Moses and Aaron, p. 2, and Jenning's JewAsh Antiquities, pp. 23-25.

were elected in order to procure their deliverance from such servitudes, did not extend over all the people, but only over that district which they had delivered. Thus Jephthah did not exercise his authority over this side Jordan, neither did Barak exercise his judicial power beyond that river."

These Hebrew judges were in all fifteen, from Othniel, the first, to Samuel, the last. This form of administration subsisted from Joshua to Saul, during a period of about 339 years.

Notwithstanding the desire that Moses expressed and the precautions which he took that the Israelitish nation should always preserve the constitution of a free republic, the people at length became weary of having God for their king, and desired one to be set over them, to judge them like all the nations, (1 Sam. viii. 5.) and to go out before them and fight their battles. (v. 20.) Such a change in the constitution was foreseen and permitted by Moses. He gave them permission to choose a king, when they should find a monarchical government more suited to their circumstances, and laid down rules for the regulation of his conduct, and specified the limitations of his power. (Deut. xvii. 14-20.) He left to the people the right of choice, but with this limitation, that they must never elect a foreigner. This patriotic law, however, did not, according to the Pharisaical exposition of it, apply to the case of the nation being at any time subjected by force of arms to a foreign prince. Moses only speaks of the kings whom the Israelites should themselves appoint of their own free choice: and their prophets, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, expressly enjoin them, when now a conquered people, to be true and loyal subjects to the Babylonish government. The Israelites were further required, on no account to appoint any one as their king who was not chosen of God. This law admits of a twofold meaning; either, that the right of choice was absolutely taken from the people, and that God would either by a prophet, or by the lot, determine their king: or else, that in the choice, God retained for himself an excluding vote, which he would in all cases declare by a prophet. That the latter was the case, appears evident from many parts of the history. Although Saul was chosen king at the appointment of God, and anointed as such by the prophet, yet the people paid little deference to his authority until, by a victory over the Ammonites, he attracted their attention; when he was anointed at their desire, amidst great and universal rejoicings. (1 Sam. x. 27. xi. 14, 15.) Notwithstanding David had been anointed, by Samuel, as king over Israel, he was so far from considering this as giving him a sufficient title to the throne, that after avenging the death of Saul on the Amalekite, who, in hopes of a reward, had declared himself the instrument thereof, he returned as a private person into his native place, where he remained, until by the choice of his fellowcitizens, he became king of the tribe of Judah. When he was anointed anew, king over the house of Judah, (2 Sam. ii. 4.) and when, upon the death of Ishbosheth, all the other tribes

* Horne, vol. iii. part ii. ch. i. sect. 3.