provinces, we will now more particularly inquire into their general government, by which their counsels and energies were combined for the common safety and happiness. As their government was a theocracy, in which Jehovah himself was their Supreme Lawgiver and King; so their constitution could not vest any proper legislative authority either in the individual or confederate tribes ; for the laws of both were enacted by their divine Sovereign, and were declared to be sacred and immutable. They were forbidden to add to, or diminish from them, under the penalty of forfeiting all their possessions and privileges. Yet still many subordinate regulations were needful to the due observance and execution of these laws. Such regulations were accordingly left to the wisdom and authority of the nation. But in what manner, or by what organs were the national wisdom and authority expressed? We reply, the organ of the public will was threefold, viz. a popular assembly, an advising senate, and a presiding magistrate. In these particulars the antient Hebrews, under the special direction of heaven, adopted the same general system, which the most improved wisdom of after ages has selected as the most perfect form of civil policy. The best features of the Grecian and Roman, and perhaps we may add, of the present American republics were exhibited, from remote antiquity, by the comparitively small and despised commonwealth of Israel. To verify this assertion, we will attend distinctly to each of the three branches of government just named.

First, the existence of a popular or democratic assembly under the Jewish constitution appears from those scriptural passages, which speak of all Israel, of all the congregation, of the whole congregation of the Lord, as hav

G

ing a voice in the original covenant or compact, which Jehovah made with that nation, and in every subsequent transaction of great public importance. This assembly is styled the whole congregation, because every one of the hundred thousand freeholders, who consented to the covenant, and in whom the property of Canaan was unalienably vested, had a constitutional right of suffrage in this body, and because while the whole nation was encamped together under Moses, he could and probably did propose public measures to the whole, and obtain their united consent. But after they had become spread abroad over the promised land, and were industriously engaged in cultivating the soil, then the tribes appeared by their Representatives, that is, by a certain number of their provin cial officers, who are called Elders, Heads, and Judges, and sometimes all Israel, because they were the legal representation of the whole. This delegated body bore a striking analogy to the popular assembly of antient Rome, to the house of Commons in England, or to the house of Representatives in the United States. When Moses summoned all Israel to hear and consent to the constitution and laws proposed to them by God, we are informed that all the people expressed their concurrence with the proposal-" All, that Jehovah hath spoken, we will do." By this act of concurrence the proposed covenant became a national law. How remarkably does this mode of proceeding coincide with the legal forms in the Roman commonwealth; in which the senate or magistrate proposed a measure to the people in such words as these

"Romans, is this your will? Do you resolve it ?" To which the people answered, "we will, and resolve it." This answer gave to the measure proposed the stamp of a law. The same or similar forms character

ize most of the antient governments. We are further informed that when Joshua was made successor to Mcses, and when Saul was appointed king at the request of the people, both the one and the other were presented to the whole congregation, and their election was ratified by their unanimous consent. It also appears that Solomon, though proclaimed king in the first instance by David's order, yet was afterwards proposed to and confirmed by the people. In short, the popular branch of the Hebrew government, though it could not enact new laws, was entrusted with many concerns of high national moment, such as settling internal disputes, making foreign war and peace, establishing the principal officers and magistrates, exercising jurisdiction in many civil and criminal causes, and in fine, using much the same powers, which other free constitutions have lodged in the same department. The weight of this department in the Jewish state, and the high spirit of liberty, which pervaded it, are remarkably exemplified on several occasions; one of which I will briefly recite. Saul, the first king of Israel, who was an imprudent and arbitrary despot, in the ardor of battle with the Philistines, had adjured the people, or laid them under oath, not to eat any food till the evening, that is, not to suspend the victorious conflict for the purpose of taking the least refreshment. His own son Jonathan through ignorance and necessity transgressed this order. His father, as king and general, instantly and solemnly determines his death" God do so to me, and more also, for thou shalt surely die, Jonathan."—that is, "may God inflict the heaviest vengeance upon myself, if I do not put thee to death." might seem, at first view, that this royal sentence was final and irreversible. Yet even here the popular author

It

ity interposed; the assembly of the people thus addressed their sovereign-" Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation for Israel? God forbid ! As Jehovah liveth, there shall not a hair of his head fall to the ground so the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not." It is generally agreed that this intervention of the people was not on act of military violence and sedition; it is equally evident that it has not the air of humble petition or supplication; for it speaks the language of decisive authority and resolution. It is therefore probable that the assembly (or representatives) of the people retained, and in this instance exercised, even under a monarchical, yea oppressive administration, the right of condemning or absolving criminals; a power, which confessedly belonged to the popular branch in other celebrated communities. In a word, it was a chief excellence of the Hebrew constitution, that it was peculiarly fitted to guard that people forever against kingly despotism. Jehovah condescended to be their king, for the express purpose of excluding all other monarchs, and thus perpetuating among them republican liberty. Accordingly, when they desired a king, in conformity to their surrounding nations, it was considered by God as a rejection of his mild and equal government, and a mad surrender of themselves and their children to the curse of tyranny. On this peculiar provision in favor of public liberty Dr. Priestley justly remarks" What could have led Moses to think of such a mode of government as this? He could not have seen, nor heard, nor imagined any thing like it. For at that time no such thing existed either in fact or in idea." It must therefore have been the offspring of divine wisdom.

LECTURE V.

The manner, in

Senatorial branch of the Hebrew government.

which this body was instituted. The similarity between this government and that of some of the European and American Patriotic administration of

states. Its executive branch.

Moses and Joshua.

IN

IN our last lecture we noticed several excellent provisions in the Hebrew constitution for securing the freedom, property, and happiness of its subjects. Among these provisions we especially considered the following articles; the equal division by lot of the territory of Canaan to the several members of the community; the free, independent, and unalienable manner, in which each tribe and family held their possessions; the military service required of every freeholder; the encouragement, which these and similar arrangements gave to agricultural diligence, simplicity, and contentment, to patriotic zeal and courage, to the population, vigor, and prosperity of the country; and finally the happy distribution of the national sovereignty into three departments, viz. a popular assembly, an advising senate, and a presiding magistrate. In contemplating the first of these departments we have shown, that the assembly of the people, convened either in person, or by their representatives, and styled in scripture the whole congregation, exercised much the same powers, which other free constitutions have vested in the popular branch of government. We have shown that the Jewish polity in its original form was fitted above all others to guard public liberty, because it set up a perfect monarch, viz. Jehovah himself, as its Protector, to the exclusion of all earthly kings and despots.