ページの画像
PDF
ePub

PART II.

POLITICAL ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS.

CHAPTER I.

DIFFERENT FORMS OF GOVERNMENT, AND POLITICAL STATE OF THE HEBREWS, OR JEWS, FROM THE PATRIARCHAL TIMES TO THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY.

I. Or the forms of Government which obtained among mankind from the earliest ages to the time of Moses, we have but little information communicated in the Scriptures. The simplicity of manners which then prevailed would render any complicated form of government unnecessary; and accordingly we find that the PATRIARCHS, that is, the Heads or Founders of Families, exercised the chief power and command over their families, children, and domestics, without being responsible to any superior authority. Such was the government of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So long as they resided in the land of Canaan, they were subject to no foreign power, but tended their flocks and herds wherever they chose to go (Gen. xiii. 6-12.), and vindicated their wrongs by arms whensoever they had sustained any injury. (Gen. xiv.) They treated with the petty kings who reigned in different parts of Palestine as their equals in dignity, and concluded treaties with them in their own right. (Gen. xiv. 13. 1824., xxi. 22-33., xxvi. 16. 27-33., xxxi. 44-54.

The patriarchal power was a sovereign dominion: so that parents may be considered as the first kings, and children the first subjects. They had the power of disinheriting their children (Gen. xlix. 3, 4. ; 1 Chron. v. 1.), and also of punishing them with death (Gen. xxxviii. 24.), or of dismissing them from home without assigning any reason. (Gen. xxi. 14.) Further, the patriarchs could pronounce a solemn blessing or curse upon their children, which at that time was regarded as a high privilege and of great consequence. Thus Noah cursed his

son Canaan (Gen. ix. 25.); Isaac blessed Jacob (Gen. xxvii. 28, 29. 33.); and Jacob blessed his sons. (Gen. xlix.) On the decease of the father, the eldest son, by a natural right of succession, inherited the paternal power and dominion, which in those days was one of the rights of primogeniture. To this right the sacerdotal dignity, in the first ages, seems to have been annexed; so that the heads of families not only possessed a secular power, but also officiated as priests in the families to which they belonged. (Gen. viii. 20., xii. 7, 8., xxxv.

Although the sons of Jacob exercised, each, the supreme power in his own family, during their father's life (Gen. xxxviii. 24.), yet the latter appears to have retained some authority over them. (Gen. xlii. 1-4. 37, 38., xliii. 1—13., 1. 15-17.) Afterwards, however, as the posterity of Jacob increased, in Egypt, it became necessary to have magistrates or governors, invested with more extensive authority; these are termed Elders (Exod. iii. 16.), being probably chosen on account of their age and wisdom. The Shoterim or "officers of the children of Israel" (Exod. v. 14, 15. 19.) have been conjectured to be a kind of magistrates elected by them; but, from the context of the sacred historian, they rather appear to have been appointed by the Egyptians, and placed over the Israelites in order to oversee their labour.'

II. On the departure of the Israelites from the land of their oppressors, under the guidance of Moses, Jehovah was pleased to institute a new form of government, which has been rightly termed a THEOCRACY; the supreme legislative power being exclusively vested in God or in his ORACLE, who alone could enact or repeal laws. The Hebrew government appears not only designed to subserve the common and general ends of all good governments;-viz. the protection of the 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 bore 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 mine, and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation. (Exod. xix. 3, 4, 5, 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, and all the men of Israel; that you should 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, 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 them, lest there should be among you, man, or 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 the doctrine and worship of one true God, and the prevention, or rather the proscription, of polytheism and idolatry. The covenant of Jehovah with the Hebrew

1 Pareau Antiquitas Hebraica, pp. 231–233.

people, and their oath by which they bound their allegiance to Jehovah, their God and King, was, that they should receive and 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 the idolatry they had seen while they dwelt in the land of Egypt, or that which they had observed in the nations by 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 that are written in the book of Deuteronomy. (xxix. 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 as 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 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.1

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.): they 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 (as will be shown in a subsequent page) the literati among the Israelites. In difficult cases of law, however, relating both to government and war, God was to be consulted by Urim and Thummim; and in matters which concern the welfare of the state, God fre

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

quently made known his will by prophets whose mission was duly attested, and the people were bound to hearken to their voice. In all these cases, Jehovah appears as sovereign king, ruling his people by his appointed ministers.1

A subordinate design of this constitution of the Hebrew government was, the prevention of intercourse between the Israelites and foreign nations. The prevalence of the most abominable idolatry among those nations, and the facility with which the Israelites had, on more than one occasion, adopted their idolatrous rites, during their sojourning in the wilderness, rendered this seclusion necessary, in order to secure the fundamental principle of the Mosaic law above mentioned: and many of the peculiar laws will, on this principle, be found both wisely and admirably adapted to secure this design.2

The form of the Hebrew republic was unquestionably democratical. Its head admitted of change as to the name and nature of his office, 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 those wont to be called to the convention, in our version called the renowned of the congregation; and in Numb. xvi. 2. they are denominated 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 Josh. xxiii. 2. it appears that these representatives were the heads of tribes or families, and judges and officers; and Michaelis is of opinion that, like the independent members of our British House of Commons, they acted in the plentitude of their own power, without taking instructions from their constituents.3

1. HEADS OR PRINCES 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; 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,

Michaelis's Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, vol. i. pp. 190-196.

2 Ibid. vol. i. pp. 202-225. Brunings, Antiq. Heb. pp. 91-93. Mr. Lowman (Civil Government of the Hebrews, pp. 17-31.) has illustrated the wisdom of this second design of the Jewish theocracy by several pertinent examples.

• Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, vol. i. p. 231.

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. Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. i. p. 232.

however, they were subdivided into certain greater portions, which are called families, by way of distinction (Numb. 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. xxvii. 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 independent 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. 10. and xviii-xxv., 1 Chron. v. 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. 2., 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 requisite to constitute a house or family; but probably the number was not always uniform.'

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-inlaw, observing that the daily duties of his 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

Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. i. pp. 231–234. 244.

« 前へ次へ »