of the class, and minister of state to the King JEHOVAH, to superintend all other persons in office. When there was no chief magistrate of the community, he also, with the advice of the inferior priests, decided the most difficult legal controversies, and managed all the affairs of state. In important and doubtful cases, he, at the request of the principal rulers, or of the chief magistrate, consulted the Divine KING himself, by urim and thummim * But in all these employments, the priests and Levites, equally with the other Hebrews, were strictly prohibited the use of magic oracles, necromancy, astrology, omens, soothsaying from the entrails of animals or the movements of clouds, and all those artifices † which, among the Egyptians and other ancient nations, were the usual means of managing the populace. Thus the Hebrew priests were the only priests of antiquity who were not allowed to impose upon the credulity of the multitude. The subject of the provision made for this important body has already passed under examination, and requires no further notice in this place. They had no real estates or definite salaries, like the Egyptian priests; but were, on the contrary, deprived of the real estate to which they were by birth entitled equally with the other tribes: and the compensatory provision which was made for them was, although ample, by no means exorbitant, nor more than sufficient to preserve them from the necessity of seeking a subsistence, through means and pursuits which would have left them without leisure for those acquirements which were necessary to the becoming discharge of the important functions entrusted to them. RELATION OF THE TRIBES TO EACH OTHER.—As each tribe was governed by its own rulers, and administered its own affairs, it constituted an entire civil community, independent of the other tribes. If any affair concerned the whole or many of the tribes, it was determined by them in conjunction, in the legislative assembly of the nation.§ If any one tribe found itself unequal to the execution of any proposed plan, it might connect itself with another, or with any number of the other tribes.|| But although each of the twelve tribes was, in some respects, an independent state, and as such had its separate interests; still, they were all united by certain general interests, and formed but one nation. They were descended from one ancestor, of whom they inherited Divine promises, which had already been in part fulfilled. This common bond of union, which embraced all their tribes, was strengthened and drawn more closely, by the necessity of mutual aid against their common enemies. JEHOVAH Was the God and King of the whole nation; and the sacred tabernacle, which was his temple and palace, was common to all the tribes. They had one common oracle, the urim and thummim; one common high-priest, the first minister of the king; a common learned class, who possessed cities in all the tribes; a common law of church and state. In short, the constitution was so contrived that notwithstanding the independence of all the tribes, each had a sort of superintendence over the rest, in regard to their observance of the law. Any of the tribes could be called to account by the others for the transgression of the law; and if they refused to give satisfaction they might be attacked and punished by war.¶ It is possible, as Michaelis remarks, that a political community thus constituted may exist without any proper sovereign power, to which the last appeal must be made. But there will probably be a want of promptness and energy in its movements. It may be quiet, prosperous, and happy, or fall into anarchy, confusion, and wretchedness, according to the conduct of the members. Many examples of these conditions of the Hebrew state will very soon come under our notice in the historical narrative. In such a community it was also to be expected that the more powerful tribes would be rivals and jealous of each other. Accordingly we find this rivalship existing between the tribe of Judah, to which belonged the right of primogeniture (forfeited by Reuben), and the tribe of Joseph, which had the double portion." The right of possessing a double portion, in consequence of which the tribe of Joseph was divided Deut. xvii. 9-12; Exod. xxviii. 30; Num. xxvii. 21; 1 Sam. xxiii. 10-12, xxx. 6-8. Judg. xx. 11-46; 2 Sam. ii. 4; Judg. i. 21, 27-33. § Judg. xi. 1—11; 1 Chron. v. 10, 18,19; 2 Sam. iii. 17; 1 Kings xii. 1-24. Josh. xxii. 9-34; Judg. xx. ** + Deut. xviii. 9-14. ** Gen. xlix. 8-10, xlviii. 5, 6. into those of Ephraim and Manasseh, and which was equivalent in fact to the right of primogeniture, placed these two tribes on nearly the same footing, and caused them to look upon each other with the jealous and unfriendly eyes of competitors. From rivalship of this nature finally arose the sad schism by which the nation was sundered into two monarchies.* LEGISLATIVE Assemblies.- -As all the twelve tribes had many interests in common, and formed in this respect but one political body, the magistrates of all the tribes met in general assemblies to consult for the general good of the nation. These general assemblies were convened by the actual chief magistrate of the commonwealth for the time being, or, wanting him, by the high-priest. The place of assembly was usually before the door of the tabernacle, the palace of the Invisible King,† or on some spot which had acquired a degree of sacredness from having been the scene of some great event. As long as the Hebrews dwelt together in camps, these assemblies were summoned by the sound of the sacred trumpets; but after the settlement in Palestine heralds must have been employed for the purpose. These assemblies were of two kinds. The sound of one trumpet was the signal for convoking a select assembly composed of the princes of tribes and heads of families. But the blowing of two trumpets was the signal for calling the great assembly, which included the judges and genealogists, and (at least, on important occasions) as many of the people as chose to attend.§ These assemblies received different denominations according to the class of which they were composed. When the whole people were collected, they formed what was called the whole assembly, or congregation. There were also, the princes of the assembly, or congregation; those called to the assembly; those deputed to the assembly; and the elders of the assembly, or senators.|| While Moses sustained the office of ruler among the Hebrews, he announced to these public assemblies the commands of God, which were afterwards communicated by the magistrates, and especially by the shoterim (whom, for the want of a better English term, we have called genealogists) to the people, each one to the families under his immediate direction. These assemblies exercised all the rights of sovereignty. They declared war, made peace, formed alliances, and chose generals, civil rulers, and ultimately kings. They prescribed to the rulers; they elected the principles on which they were to govern; they tendered to them the oath of office, and rendered them homage. There is no evidence that the magistrates received any instructions from the people respecting the measures to be adopted in the legislative assemblies; nor does any instance occur in which the people exhibited any disposition to control or interfere with their deliberations. Still the assemblies were in the habit of proposing their decisions and resolutions for their ratification and consent.** When, however, JEHOVAH was chosen as the King of the Hebrew nation, it was not by the assembly, but by the whole body of the people, all of whom, as well as their rulers, took the oath of obedience, even the women and children.†† The people were attached to their magistrates, and generally accepted what they proposed, and rejected what they disapproved. But there were times when they raised their voices so loudly against their measures, that they were compelled to abandon them. Even in the times of the monarchy, the people refused the honours of a regal burial to those kings who had incurred their displeasure, and elevated to the throne the prince with whom they were most pleased, without regard to the order of succession.‡‡ FORM OF GOVERNMENT. 1 Kings xii. When we recollect that God was expressly chosen the KING of + Num. x. 2-4; Judg. xx. 1, 27, 28; Josh. xxiii. 1, 2; 1 Sam. x. 17. Josh. xxiv. 1; 1 Sam. xi. 14, 15; 1 Kings xii. 1. Exod. xix. 7, xxiv. 3-8, xxxiv. 31, 32, xxxv. 1-4; Lev. iv. 13, viii. 3-5, ix. 5; Num. xi, 25, 30, xvi. 2. Exod. xix. 7, xxiv. 3-8; Josh. ix. 15-21; Judg. xx. 1, 11-14, 18, 28, xxi. 13 et seq.; 1 Sam. x. 24, xi. 14; 2 Sam. iii. 17 -19, v. 1-3; 1 Kinrs xii. ** 1 Sam. xi. 14, 15; comp. Josh. viii. 33, xxiii. 2, et seq., xxiv. 1, et seq. ++ Exod. xxiv. 3-8; Deut. xxix. 9-14. ‡ Num. xvi.; Josh. ix. 18, 19; 2 Chron. xxvi. 1, 2; 1 Kings xxi. 1-4, xxiii. 30; compare 2 Chron. xxiii. 25, xxxvi. 1. VOL. I. 2 P the Hebrew nation, and that he enacted laws, and decided litigated points of importance ;* when we also remember that he solved such questions as were proposed to him; that he threatened punishments, and, in some instances, he actually inflicted them upon the hardened and impenitent; and when, finally, we take into our consideration that He promised prophets, who were to be, as it were, his ambassadors,§ and afterwards sent them according to his promise; and that, in order to preserve the true religion, he governed the whole people by a striking and peculiar providence, we must acknowledge that God was the real Monarch of the nation, and that the government was a theocracy. This form of government was altogether suited to the character and necessities of those remote ages, when the political constitutions of all nations were so much connected with their particular gods, and with their national systems of religion, as to be, at least, in appearance, theocratical. But the theocracies of the pagans admit of no comparison with that of the Hebrews. Those were impostures; this was genuine. And we must always be mindful of the essential distinction that while, in the pagan theocracies, religion was employed merely as a means of perpetuating and strengthening the civil constitution; in that of the Hebrews, on the contrary, the preservation of religion was the end, and the civil constitution the means of attaining it. There has been much inquiry into the nature of the government established by the law. But in so far as it was a theocracy,-in so far as God was the Ruler of the state-unquestionably the government was a despotism. In the very nature of things it could not be otherwise. God could not be less than an absolute king. It would have been a palpable mockery that infinite and unerring wisdom should submit its behests to the approval or control of weak and erring judgments. But the supreme and absolute power of the King, as the necessary result of his infallibility and omnipotence, being conceded, it is still open to inquire what was the character of the internal and subordinate government as administered by the magistrates. That the sovereignty of Jehovah over the Hebrews might be the more manifest, he appointed no viceroy; but he had a minister of state, if we may be allowed the expression, in the person. Nevertheless, it was neither expedient nor proper that the political affairs of the nation should all be directed by the immediate interposition of God; and it was necessary that their polity should partake, more or less, of the usual forms of human governments. Such affairs were, therefore, still, in a great degree, left under the direction of the elders, princes, etc. It appears to them that Moses delivered the commands he received from God, determined expressly their powers, and submitted their requests to the decision of JEHOVAH || The government, as exercised by the princes and elders over their several tribes and families, was doubtless of a patriarchal kind, that is, paternally despotic. But this power was certainly limited by public opinion, as the same form of power is now, wherever it continues to exist. Whether the power of these persons, as exercised collectively in the legislative assemblies, was equal to or less than that which the individual members possessed in their respective tribes and clans, cannot be distinctly known. It is, however, with reference to the authority which they thus possessed that Josephus calls the government an aristocracy. But from the circumstance that the people possessed so much influence as to render it necessary that laws should be submitted to them for their ratification, and that they even proposed laws, or resisted those that were enacted; from the circumstance also that the legislature of the nation had no power of levying taxes, and that the civil code was regulated and enforced by God himself independently of the legislature, Lowman, Michaelis, and others, are in favour of considering the Hebrew government a democracy. In support of this opinion, such passages are adduced as those cited below. The truth seems to lie between these opinions. The government exhibited, in fact, a combination of the monarchical, the aristocratical, and the democratical * Num. xvii. 1. 11, xxvii. 1-11, xxxvi. 1-10. Num. xv. 32-41; Josh. vii. 16-22; Judg. i. 1, 2, xx. 18, 27, 23; 1 Sam. xiv. 37, xxiii. 9-12, xxx. 8; 2 Sam. ii. 1. Deut. xviii. 15-22. Num. xiv. 5, xvi. 4, et seq., xxvii. 5, xxxvi, 5, 6. Exod. xix. 7, 8, xxiv. 3—8; compare Deut. xxix. 9-14; Josh. ix. 18, 19, xxiii. 1, et seq., xxiv. 2, et seq.; 1 Sam. x. 24, xi. 14, 15; Num, xxvii. 1-8, xxxvi. 1-9. forms. Yet it was not properly a mixed government, except as regarded the aristocratical and democratical principles: for while these two principles justly counterbalanced each other, there was this marked peculiarity, that neither acted upon or controlled the monarchical principles as exhibited in the sovereignty of JEHOVAH. A human monarchy would have been much limited by the joint operation of the aristocratical and democratical principles which existed in the Hebrew constitution. It also well deserves to be noticed that the manner in which the ordinary powers of the state were divided and administered by human hands, while it might seem to give a character of weakness to the general government (apart from the theocratical monarchy), did, in the same degree, tend to prevent any individual or body from acquiring such predominant influence as might endanger the liberties of the people and tend to subvert the established system of government.* III. GENERAL LAW. We have already stated that it is not our intention to take up this branch of the subject in any detail; the rather, as it will be in our power to incorporate the more essential characteristics in the historical narrative. We shall therefore confine ourselves to a few general remarks on some principal classes of such laws as have not already passed under our notice. Locality of Judaism.—It is a singular and instructive fact that Christianity is the only religion suited to universal man. Or, in other words, no other religion originating in the east, was ever such as could be observed without alteration by the inhabitants of the north. They have all particular observances and requirements which are impracticable or difficult in climates very different from that in which they originated. It is from this cause probably that the direction which all false religions have taken in their spread has been the direction of latitude, not of longitude. Thus the religions of Zoroaster and Mohammed, by requiring daily ablutions and other similar ceremonials, rendered their religion intolerable to the people of cold countries. But what was narrowness of view in the heathen legislators, had a definite object in the law of Moses, in which there is much to confine the religious system which it established not only to a warm climate, but to the particular country of Palestine. The possession of a separate country, and of that country in particular, was essential to the system established by Moses. Hence the Hebrews could never sing the song of Jehovah in any strange land; and hence, since they have been a people without an altar or a priest, without a country or a state, their system has been altogether different to what the law intended. In fact, the system of Moses has been extinct ever since the seed of Abraham were driven from their inheritance, and was much modified even by their temporary expatriation of seventy years. That it was the Divine intention to assign this limit to the religion, appears by the single fact that there was but one altar, to which all the adult males of the nation were to repair three times every year. The frequent ablutions required by the law, however necessary and even agreeable in the warm climate of Syria, would, as already remarked, not have been prescribed in a religion intended to extend over the ice-bound soil of Iceland or Norway. The same • What Lowman says on this point will be found to deserve attentiou. In reference, generally, to the survey we have now taken of the Hebrew government, we must apprise the reader that the chief part of whatever praise it claims must be ascribed to Jahn. The view which he takes may, indeed, be found to be, in the main, little other than a very able digest and exposition of the materials offered by Lowman and Michaelis. But this digest is given in a form so exceedingly compact and comprehensive, that it is difficult to find any point on which he has not touched, or to obtain any information which he has not supplied. Hence after diligently examining many other authorities, it seemed the most satisfactory course to adopt his statements, in a form somewhat curtailed and modified, and with such additions as seemed likely to be of use. Jahn's 'Biblische Archæologie' is in German, as its title imports. It is in five octavo volumes, two of which are occupied by the political and historical portion. An abridgment of the whole was published by the author under the title of Archæologia Biblica,' which has been translated into English by T. C. Upham. This work contains an abridgment of the political but not of the historical portions of the third and fourth volumes. But this portion of the work has been translated and published as a separate work by Calvin Stowe, under the title of The History of the Hebrew Commonwealth.' Other works which we have had before us, and have more or less consulted, will be named at the end of the chapter, for the benefit of such of our readers as may wish to pursue such inquiries more largely. observation results from the character of the animal and vegetable products required for the service of the altar; for, although most of them are common to many other countries, there are many countries in which they are not naturally found.* Instances might be accumulated to show that the law was intended as well for a particular country as for a particular purpose, for a particular duration of time and for a peculiar people. Agriculture. It was one important object of the law to wean the Israelites from the habits of nomade shepherds, and to make them settle down as an agricultural people, without more than a proportionate attention to flocks and herds. This was effected by making agriculture the basis of the state; and by introducing many laws only applicable to an agricultural people, and which only an agricultural people could observe. Every citizen was allotted a certain quantity of land, and had the right of tilling it, and of transmitting it to his heirs. He had no power to alienate it for any longer period than till the next jubilee year; and even when thus disposed of, the vender, or his nearest relative, had the right to redeem the land whenever they chose, by paying the estimated amount of the profits to the year of jubilee. By these laws the rich were prevented from coming into possession of large tracts of land, and then leasing them out in small parcels to the poor, as is usual in many countries. For the land thus granted to them, a low produce rent, under the name of tithes, was to be paid to the Divine King, in the manner which we have already noticed. Hence all, who were not set apart for religious services, were regarded by the law as agriculturists, whether they resided in villages or in cities. And such they were in fact; for although persons of wealth and consideration did not, in the cultivation of the soil, put themselves on the same level with their servants, yet none of them disdained to put their hand to the plough.† Some of these regulations encouraged that attention to agriculture which others made necessary; while the prohibition of one Hebrew from taking interest on money from another, together with the strict injunctions which restricted their dealings and commerce with foreigners, deprived them of so many advantages in commerce as, in a measure, obliged them to seek their subsistence from the product of the earth. It was not until the basis of the Mosaical constitution had been undermined, after the captivity, that the Jews took to merchandise and mechanic crafts, and in the same degree agriculture fell into disesteem among them. It is easy to see that it was only by means of agriculture that the nation could be kept compact and apart in Palestine, which was one great object of the law. Distinctions of food.-The code of Moses is remarkable, above all others of early date, for the attention which it pays to the preservation of the public health. This has been already noticed with respect to the regulations concerning leprosy. The same appears in many other matters, and may be particularly instanced with respect to the distinctions of food as "clean or "unclean," that is, "fit" or "unfit " to be the food of man. But while the exclusive use of wholesome kinds of food was secured to the people by the law, which declared all which was in any degree unwholesome to be ceremonially unclean; the distinction also operated powerfully in one of the great leading objects of the Mosaical institutions, that of keeping them apart as a peculiar people. In fact, as Tappan well observes,-" This statute, above all others, established not only a political and sacred, but a physical separation of the Jews from other people. It made it next to impossible for the one to mix with the other, either in meals or in marriage, or in any familiar connection. Their opposite customs in the article of diet not only precluded a friendly and comfortable intimacy, but generated mutual contempt and abhorrence. The Jews religiously abhorred the society, manners, and institutions of the Gentiles, because they viewed their own abstinence from forbidden meats, as a token of peculiar sanctity, and, of course, regarded other nations who wanted this sanctity as vile and detestable. They considered themselves as secluded by God himself from the profane world Wine and olive-oil are the most restricted vegetable products. We suspect, but do not feel assured, that the command to burn the fat of the sheep upon the altar, restricts the offerings to that limited species distinguished as 'fat-tailed.' +1 Sam. xi. 7; 1 Kings xix. 19; compare 2 Chron. xxvi. 10. |