descriptive of an act of mutiny and rebellion. There remains, then, but the conclusion, that it was an exercise of rightful authority, whereby the unconscious offender was pardoned, and the sentence of death reversed, in the general court of Israel. It is thus that Lowman interprets the procedure.* Ecclesiastical affairs were, also, to some extent at least, subject to the jurisdiction and control of the Hebrew commons. When David wished to remove the ark to Jerusalem, he would not do so, without a formal vote of the congregation to that effect. On the accession of Solomon to the throne, when Abiathar was deposed from the office of high priest, and Zadok elevated to that dignity, it was "all the congregation," the great assembly of the people, that established the latter in the high-priesthood, and caused him to receive the sacerdotal unction, which constituted a chief part of the inaugural ceremony. In the brief digest of the English constitution, which Montesquieu has given in the sixth chapter of the eleventh book of his Spirit of Laws, he makes the following remark: "Whoever shall read the admirable treatise of Tacitus on the manners of the Germans, will find, that it is from them. the English have borrowed the idea of their political government. This beautiful system was invented first in the woods." On referring to the passage in Tacitus, cited by the learned jurist, it will be found, that the historian says:— 66 Ordinary affairs were treated in the council of chiefs; great affairs, in the assembly of the people; yet so that those matters, on which it belonged to the people to decide, were debated by the chiefs." On this Salvador has well observed, that Montesquieu might have traced the idea of the English constitution to a higher source, and made it rest upon bases *Civ. Gov. Heb. C. 8. † 1 Chron. xiii. 2-4. De Morib. Germ. § 15. 1 Chron. xxix. 20-22. Hist. des Insts. de Moïse, 1. 2. c. 2. more sacred in the eyes of modern nations. This beautiful system of government invented in the woods indeed! Its true source is the inspired legislation of Moses. Besides their military chiefs (the council to which Tacitus referred), the Hebrews had a senate of civilians, as well as a house of commons. They recognized three distinct crowns;-the crown of the priests, the crown of the law, and the crown of the king; in other words the sacerdotal or conservative power, the legislative power, and the executive power. Besides, how many of the English have ever read Tacitus? Whereas the bible, found in every house, has exercised the greatest influence over their manners and institutions, and has produced more than one point of resemblance between the ancient people of Israel and the first nation of modern times, which has comprehended the whole power of law, and has founded its polity on the principle, that laws ought to govern, rather than the will and pleasure of the prince. CHAPTER VII. The Hebrew Oracle. THE fact that the original sovereignty of the Hebrew state, though by the free consent and suffrage of the people, was vested in Jehovah, distinguished this government from all others, ever known among men. This circumstance would naturally lead us to look for some peculiarity of organization in the political structure. Nor does the history of the government, contained in the writings of its founder, disappoint such expectation. This organic peculiarity appears in the oracle of Jehovah, as an essential part of the civil constitution. We have already seen,* that there was a strong theocratic element in the Israelitish constitution; so strong, indeed, that the government has been commonly called a theocracy. In what manner and through what agencies, did this element. in the government make itself practically felt? The general answer to this question is:-It was by means of the oracle of Jehovah. With the view of shedding, if possible, some light on this obscure but interesting point, I propose to inquire briefly into the nature and functions of the Hebrew oracle, to institute a comparison between it and the oracles of pagan antiquity, and to vindicate the wisdom and benevolence of such an institution, against the sneers and sophistries of infidelity, by showing its admirable adaptation to the infant state of the world and the church. The oracle played a conspicuous and most important part in the establishment and administration of the Jewish theocracy. That incomparable summary of the Mosaic code, and of all moral duty, the decalogue,—was uttered, amid terrific thunderings and lightenings, from the mysterious symbol of the Divinity, in an articulate voice, which reached every ear, and penetrated every heart, and awed every understanding, of the mighty multitude, that crowded around the base of mount Sinai. So also all the rest of the political, civil, moral, and religious laws of the Hebrews were dictated by the oracle, though they were afterward, as observed by Dr. Spring, in his "Discourses on the Obligations of the World to the Bible," passed upon and adopted by the legal assemblies of the nation. The oracle, in the form of the cloudy pillar, regulated the motions of the Israelitish armies: "For when the cloud was taken up from the tabernacle, the children of Israel journeyed; and when the cloud rested, there the children of Israel pitched their tents; at the com * B. 2, C. 2. mand of Jehovah they journeyed, at the command of Jehovah they pitched."* How far the oracle directed the military affairs of the Hebrews, plainly appears in the history of the Canaanitish wars, and particularly in the story of the siege and capture of Jericho. In the earlier periods of the commonwealth, the oracle was constantly appealed to on questions of civil and ecclesiastical law, in settling principles of state policy, and generally in affairs of moment, appertaining to the public administration. "In the time of Moses," observes Michaelis, "the oracle was unquestionably very conspicuous. God himself gave laws to the Israelites; decided difficult points of justice; was constantly visible in the pillar of cloud and fire; and inflicted punishments, not according to the secret procedure of providence, but in the most manifest manner." The constitution of the Hebrew judges, both higher and lower, the election of civil rulers, the cognizance of many causes, some in the first instance, and others on appeal, were branches of the sovereignty of Jehovah, as king of Israel. The use of the oracle in deciding difficult cases in law, is the more worthy of note, as it serves to explain the constitution with respect to appeals. It was thus that the oracle decided the question, how persons defiled by a dead. body should keep the passover. Thus also the oracle determined the question of female succession, in the case of the daughters of Zelophehad.] And thus it was the oracle, again, which declared the punishment of sabbath breaking.¶ Hence it may be seen, that the last resort both in civil and criminal cases, especially when new and difficult questions were involved, was in the oracle, and not in the opinion of the high priest alone, nor of the judge alone, nor of both conjointly with the senate and congregation, unless they were fully agreed. If a difficulty arose, the last appeal was to the oracle; in whose decision, the high priest did not give his *Numb. ix. 17, 18. Numb. ix. 6-10. † Josh. vi. Numb. xxvii. 1–9. Comment. Art. 35. private judgment, but the oracle itself gave final judgment in the case.* The person charged with consulting the oracle, was the high priest. An objector may here ask: "Did not this open the door to corruption? Might not an ambitious pontiff abuse such a trust to unrighteous ends?" This difficulty may be best met by explaining to whom the consultation of the oracle was permitted; the occasions on which it might be consulted; and the probable manner of the consultation. The The oracle could not be interrogated by any mere private individual; not even by the high priest himself, in his personal capacity. This was permitted only to the chief magistrate, or other high functionary of the government. occasions, on which the advice of the oracle could be asked, must be of a public nature. The matter of consultation must relate to a question of public policy, of public morals, or of religions faith. Neither could the consultation take place in a clandestine way. The person, proposing the question to the high priest, remained with him during the ceremony. Josephus affirms, that any person who chose might be present on such occasions. This would be an effectual guard against collusion, and an ample guarantee for the fairness of the transaction. The office of the high priest, in this particular, was that of a mediator, or middle man. He was herein simply the channel of communication between the Hebrew state and its Divine head. It is remarkable, that there is not an instance on record, in the Jewish annals of a high priest, who abused this trust to unworthy objects. The opinion of learned and judicious authors, as to the manner of taking the sense of the oracle, is this: The high * See Lowm. on Civ. Gov. Heb. c. 11. Also See in confirmation of these views Numb. xxvii. 21, and Prideaux's Connex. vol. 1, p. 155 seqq. with the authorities cited by him. Josephus Antiq. 1. 3, c. 10. |