1. HEADS OR PRINCES OF TRIBES AND FAMILIES.- -All the various branches of Abraham's descendants, like the antient Germans or the Scottish clans, kept together in a body according to their tribes and families; each tribe forming a lesser commonwealth, with its own peculiar interests, and all of them at last uniting into one great republic. The same arrangement, it is well known, obtained among the Israelites, who appear to have been divided into twelve great tribes, previously to their departure from Egypt. By Moses, however, they were subdivided into certain greater families, which are called (MISHPаCHOTH) or families, by way of distinction, and ' (BaTeY ABOTH) or houses of fathers (Num. i. 2. Josh. vii. 14.); each of whom, again, had their heads, which are sometimes called heads of houses of fathers, and sometimes simply heads. These are likewise the same persons, who in Josh. xxiii. 2. and xxiv. 1. are called Elders. (Compare also Deut. xix. 12. and xxi. 1-9.) It does not appear 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: from 1 Chron. xvii. 16-22. it is evident that they subsisted in the time of David; and they must have proved a powerful restraint upon the power of the king.

It will now be readily conceived how the Israelitish state might have subsisted not only without a king, but even occasionally without that magistrate who was called a Judge, although we read of no supreme council of the nation. Every tribe had always its own chief magistrate, who may not inaptly be compared to the lords lieutenants of our British counties; subordinate to them, again, were the heads of families, who may be represented as their deputy-lieutenants: and, if there were no general ruler of the whole people, yet there were twelve smaller commonwealths, who in certain cases united together, and whose general convention would take measures for their common interest. In many cases particular tribes acted as distinct and independent republics, not only when there was neither king nor judge, but even during the times of the kings. Instances of wars being carried on by one or more particular tribes, both before and after the establishment of the regal government, may be seen in Josh. xvii. 15-17. Judg. iv. 11. and xviii.-xx. 1 Chron. iv. 18-23. 41-43. It appears from 1 Chron. xxiii. 11. that a certain number of persons was necessary to constitute a family, and to empower such a family to have a representative head: for it is there said that the four sons of Shimei had not a numerous progeny, and were therefore reckoned only as one family. Hence we may explain why, according to Micah v. 1., Bethlehem may have been too small to be reckoned among the families of Judah. It is impossible to ascertain, at this distance of time, what number of individuals was

1 In this manner 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. Their families continue together; and under the name of Emir, one is prince among people, who are all his kindred within a certain degree of affinity. Ibid. p. 232.

requisite to constitute a house or family; but probably the number was not always uniform.1

2. The JUDGES, who were appointed by Moses, had also a right, by virtue of their office, to be present in the congregation, or convention of the state. After the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, Moses, for some time, was their sole judge. Jethro, his father-in-law, observing that the daily duties of this office were too heavy for him, suggested to him (subject to the approbation of Jehovah) the institution of Judges, or rulers, of tens, of fifties, of hundreds, and of thousands, who determined every affair of little importance among themselves, but brought the hard causes to Moses. (Exod. xviii. 14-26.) Of the judges of tens, therefore, there must have been sixty thousand; of the judges of fifties, twelve thousand ; of the judges of hundreds, six thousand; and of the Judges of thousands, six hundred. These Judges, or Jethronian prefects (as they have been called), seem to have been a sort of justice of the peace in several divisions, probably taken from the military division of an host into thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens; this was a model proper for them as an army marching, and not unsuitable to their settlement as tribes and families, in a sort of counties, hundreds, and tithings. Perhaps our old Saxon constitution of sheriffs in counties, hundredors or centgraves in hundreds, and deciners in decennaries, may give some light to this constitution of Moses. Some of our legal antiquaries have thought that those constitutions of the Saxons were taken from these laws of Moses, introduced by Alfred, or by his direction. It is not probable, that in the public deliberative assemblies the whole sixty thousand judges of tens had seats and voices. Michaelis conjectures that only those of hundreds, or even those only of thousands, are to be understood, when mention is made of judges in the Israelitish conventions.

But, after the establishment of the Hebrews in the land of Canaan, as they no longer dwelt together, in round numbers, Moses ordained that judges should be appointed in every city (Deut. xvi. 18.), and it should seem that they were chosen by the people. In succeeding ages these judicial offices were filled by the Levites, most probably because they were the persons best skilled in the law of the Hebrews. (See 1 Chron. xxiii. 4. xxvi. 29-32. 2 Chron. xix. 8-11. xxxiv. 13.)

3. During the sojourning of the Israelites in the wilderness, Moses established a council or SENATE of seventy, to assist him in the government of the people. The Jewish rabbinical writers, who have exercised their ingenuity in conjecturing why the number was limited to seventy, have pretended that this was a permanent and supreme court of judicature; but as the sacred writers are totally silent concerning such a tribunal, we are authorised to conclude that it was only a temporary institution. After their return from the

1 Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. i. p. 244.

2 Bacon on English Government, part i. p. 70. Lowman's Civil Government of the Hebrews, p. 162.

Babylonish captivity, it is well known that the Jews did appoint a sanhedrim or council of seventy at Jerusalem, in imitation of that which Moses had instituted. In the New Testament, very frequent mention is made of this supreme tribunal, of which an account will be found in a subsequent chapter of this volume.

4. Among the persons who appear in the Israelitish congregation or diet (as Michaelis terms it), in addition to those already mentioned, we find the ) SHOTERIM) or scribes. It is evident that they were different from the Jethronian prefects or judges; for Moses expressly ordained that they should not only appoint judges in every city, but also shoterim or scribes. Officers of this description, we have already seen1 were among the Israelites, during their bondage in Egypt. What their functions were, it is now difficult to ascertain. Michaelis conjectures, with great probability, that they kept the genealogical tables of the Israelites, with a faithful record of births, marriages, and deaths; and that to them was assigned the duty of apportioning the public burthens and services on the people individually. Under the regal government, these scribes were generally taken from the tribe of Levi. (1 Chron. xxiii. 4. 2 Chron. xix, 8-11. and xxxiv. 13.) In Deut. xxix. 10. xxxi. 28. Josh. viii. 33. and xxiii. 2. we find them as representatives of the people in the diets, or when they entered into covenant with God. In time of war they were charged with the duty of conveying orders to the army (Deut. xx. 5.); and in 2 Chron. xxvi. 11. we meet with a chief scribe, who appears to have been what is now termed the mustermaster-general.2

III. On the death of Moses, the command of the children of Israel was confided to JOSHUA, who had been his minister (Exod. xxiv. 13. Josh. i. 1.;) and under whom the land of Canaan was subdued, and divided agreeably to the divine injunctions; but his office ceasing with his life, the government of Israel was committed to certain supreme magistrates termed JUDGES. Their dignity was for life; but their office was not hereditary, neither was their succession constant. There were also anarchies, 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 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 on this side Jordan, neither did Barak exercise his judicial power beyond that river. In many

1 See
p. 76. supra.
VOL. IM.

2 Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. i.
12

PP.

249-251.

cases, particular tribes acted as distinct and independent republics, not only when there was neither king nor judge, but even in the times of the kings. In Josh. xvii. 14-18. Judg. iv. 10. and Judgxviii. xix. xx. we read of wars which were carried on by particular tribes. But the most remarkable example perhaps is in 1 Chron. v. 18-23. where the two tribes and a half beyond Jordan,-even during the reign of Saul,-carried on a very important war 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, though it was a far more splendid event, than all his military achievements put together. In 1 Chron. iv. 41-43. we read, in like manner, of wars carried on by the single tribe of Simeon, in the reign of Hezekiah.

The authority of the judges was not inferior to that, which was afterwards exercised by the kings: it extended to peace and war. They decided causes without appeal; but they had no power to enact new laws, nor to impose new burthens 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. This form of administration subsisted from Joshua to Saul, during a period of about 339 years.

IV. At length the Israelites, weary of having God for their king, and provoked by the misconduct of the sons of the judge and prophet Samuel, who in his old age had associated them with himself for the administration of affairs, desired a king to be set over them, to judge them like all the nations (1 Sam. viii. 5.), thus undesignedly fulfilling the designs of the Almighty, who had ordained that in the fulness of time the Messiah should be born of a royal house. Such a change in their government Moses foresaw, and accordingly prescribed certain laws for the direction of their future sovereigns. (Deut. xvii. 14-20.) The right of choice was left to the people, but with this limitation, that they must never elect a foreigner. This was a patriotic law, but it did not apply to the case of the nation being at any time subjected, by force of arms, to a foreign prince; though the Pharisees afterwards so explained it. Further, the Israelites were on no account to appoint any one as their king, who was not chosen by God; but this did not extend to their electing every individual king: for, so long as the reigning family did not violate the fundamental laws of the theocracy, they would continue to possess the throne, but if they tyrannised, they would forfeit it. With regard to the external qualifications which the Jews seem to have demanded in their kings; comeliness of person, and tallness of stature seem to have been the principal requisites. Thus, although Saul was constituted King of Israel by the special appointment of God, yet

it appears to have been no inconsiderable circumstance in the eyes of the people, that he was a choice young man and goodly, and that there was not, among the children of Israel, a goodlier person than he: from the shoulders and upwards he was higher than any of the people. (1 Sam. ix. 2.) And therefore Samuel said to the people, when he presented Saul to them: See ye him whom the LORD hath chosen that there is none like him among all the people. (1 Sam. x. 24.) Hence, also, David is said to have been ruddy, withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. (1 Sam. xvi. 12.) The people of the East seem to have had a regard to these personal qualities in the election of their kings, in addition to those of strength, courage, and fortitude of mind; and it was such a king as their neighbours had, whom the Israelites desired.

The kings were prohibited from multiplying horses;1 nor were they allowed to take many wives. No law of Moses, however, was less observed than this. They were likewise forbidden to collect great quantities of gold and silver; lest they should have in their hands the means of making themselves rich. In order that they might not be ignorant of religion and of the laws of the Israelites, they were enjoined to have by them a copy of the law, carefully taken from the Levitical exemplars, and to read in it daily. From 1 Sam. x. 25. compared with 2 Sam. v. 3. 1 Kings xii. 22-24. and 2 Kings xi. 17. it appears that the Israelitish kings were by no means possessed of unlimited power, but were restricted by a solemn stipulation; although they on some occasions evinced a disposition leaning towards despotism. (1 Sam. xi. 5-7. and xxii. 17, 18.) They had, however, the right of making war and peace, as well as the power of life and death; and could on particular occasions put eriminals to death, without the formalities of justice (2 Sam. i. 5-15. iv. 9-12.): but, in general they administered justice; sometimes in a summary way by themselves where the case appeared clear, as David did (see 2 Sam. xii. 1-5, xiv. 4—11. and 1 Kings ii. 5—9.), or by judges duly constituted to hear and determine causes in the king's name. (1 Chron. xxiii. 4. xxvi. 29-32.) Michaelis thinks it probable that there were superior courts established at Jerusalem, in which David's sons presided, and that Psal. cxxii. 5. is an allusion to them; but no mention is made of a supreme tribunal in that city earlier than the reign of Jehoshaphat. (2 Chron. xix. 8-11.) Although the kings enjoyed the privilege of granting pardons to offenders at their pleasure without consulting any person; and in ecclesiastical affairs exercised great power, sometimes deposing or condemning to death even the high priest himself (1 Sam. xxii. 17, 18. 1 Kings ii. 26, 27.), and at other times reforming gross abuses in religion, of

1 This law was to be a standing trial of prince and people, whether they had trust and confidence in God their deliverer. See Bp. Sherlock's Discourses on Prophecy, Disc. iv.; where he has excellently explained the reason and effect of the law, and the influence which the observance or neglect of it had in the affairs of the Israelites.

2 The above regulations concerning the Jewish monarchs are fully considere and illustrated by Michaelis. Commentaries, vol. i. pp. 266-283.