the legislative assembly of the nation, and were the representatives of all the people, Judg. i. 1-11; xi. 5; xx. 12-24; Josh. xxiii. 1, 2; xxiv. 1. The priests, who were the learned class of the community, and hereditary officers in the state, being set apart for civil as well as religious purposes, had, by the divine command, a right to a sitting in this assembly, Exod. xxxii. 29; Numb. viii. 5—26. Being thus called upon to sustain very different and yet very important offices, they became the subjects of that envy which would naturally be excited by the honour and the advantages attached to their situation. In order to support them in the performance of the duties which devolved upon them, and to render as powerless as possible the mean and lurking principle just mentioned, God, after the sedition of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, sanctioned the separation of the whole tribe, which had been previously consecrated to the service of religion and the state, by a most evident and striking miracle, Numb. xvi. 1—17.

§. 217. CONNECTION OF THE TRIBES WITH EACH OTHER.

Each tribe was governed by its own rulers, and consequently, to a certain extent, constituted a civil community, independent of the other tribes, Judg. xx. 11-46; 2 Sam. ii. 4; Judg. i. 21, 27-33. 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, Judg. xi. 1--11; 1 Chron. v. 10, 18, 19; 2 Sam. iii. 17; 1 Kings, xii. 1—24. If any one tribe found itself unequal to the execution of any proposed plan, it might connect itself with another, or even a number of the other tribes, Judg. i. 1—3, 22; iv. 10; vii. 23, 24; viii. 2, 3. But although in many matters each tribe existed by itself, and acted separately, yet in others they were united; for all the tribes were bound together, so as to form one church and one civil community; not only by their common ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; not only by the common promises, which they had received from those ancestors; not only by the need in which they stood of mutual counsel and assistance; but also by the circumstance that God was their common king, that they had a common tabernacle for his palace, and a common sacerdotal and Levitical order for his ministers. Thus each tribe inspected the conduct of the others in matters relative to their observance of the law. If any

thing had been neglected, or wrong had been done, the particular tribe concerned was amenable to the others; and, in case justice could not be secured in any other way, that tribe might be punished by declaring war against it, Josh. xxii. 9-34; Judg. xx. 1, et seq. It is possible, that a community thus constituted may be prosperous and tranquil; but it will probably want promptness in securing that justice which is its due; and will also be exposed to external and internal wars. We find examples of these evils during the time of the Judges. 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, and the tribe of Joseph, which had a double portion, Gen. xlix. 8—10; xlviii. 5, 6. The right of possessing a double portion, in consequence of which the tribe of Joseph was divided 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 captious and unfriendly eye of competitors. From rivalships of this nature a sad schism finally arose, which sundered the nation, 1 Kings, xii.

§. 218. THE COMITIA OR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES.

(1.) PERSONS WHO COMPOSED THE COMITIA.

They have been mentioned in a preceding section, and were as follows: judges, i. e. those who exercised the office in the judicial sense of the word, heads of families, genealogists, elders, and the princes of the tribes.

(2.) TITLES APPLIED TO THEM IN THEIR COLLECTIVE CAPA

CITY.

, the elders of the assembly or of the people. be, TD, the whole assembly. At the conventions designated by these titles, not only the persons mentioned at the head of this section were present; but also, in some instances, the whole body of the people. The words, therefore, may mean a national legislative congress, where only the lawfully constituted members are present; or they may mean an assembly, which includes the whole mass of the people.

, the princes of the assembly or congregation.

.those called to the assembly ,קְרִיאֵי הָעֵדָה, קְרִיאֵי מוֹעֵד

, those deputed to the assembly.

Examine in reference to this point, Exod. xix. 7; xxiv. 3—8; xxxiv. 31, 32; Lev. iv. 13; viii. 3-5; ix. 5.

(3.) METHOD AND PLACE OF CONVENING THE COMITIA.

They were convened by the judge or ruler, for the time being, and in case of his absence, by the high priest, Numb. x. 2-4; Judg. xx. 1, 27, 28; Josh. xxiii. 1, 2. The place of their assembling appears to have been at the door of the tabernacle, Numb. x. 3; Judg. xx. 1, 27, 28; 1 Sam. x. 17. Sometimes some other place of celebrity was selected as the place of meeting, Josh. xxiv. 1; 1 Sam. xi. 14, 15; 1 Kings, xii. 1. As long as the Hebrews resided in camps in the Arabian wilderness, the comitia were summoned together by the blowing of the holy trumpets. It appears from Numb. x. 2-4, that the blowing of one trumpet only was the signal for a more select convention, composed merely of the heads of the clans, or associated families, and of the princes of the tribes. The blowing of two trumpets was the signal for convening the great assembly, composed not only of the heads of families, and the princes of the tribes; but of the elders, judges, and genealogists; and in some instances including, as has been already remarked, the whole body of the people. When the Hebrews had become fairly settled in Palestine, the comitia were assembled, on account of the members living in places distant from each other, not by the sound of trumpet, but by messengers sent to them, see Deut. xxix. 9, 10; Judg. xx.

(4.) POWERS, ETC. OF THE COMITIA.

Moses, while he sustained the office of ruler among the Hebrews, announced to these public assemblies the commands of God, which were afterwards repeated to the people by the Shoterim,

, [whom, for want of a better term in English, we have denominated genealogists.] In the comitia (those, which met where the people were not present) the rights of sovereignty were exercised, wars were declared, peace was concluded, treaties were ratified, civil rulers and generals, and, eventually, kings were chosen. The oath of office was administered to its mem

bers by the judge, or the king of the state; and the latter in turn received their oath from the comitia, acting in the name of the people, Exod. xix. 7; xxiv. 2-8; Josh. ix. 15-21; Judg. xx. 1, 11-14; xxi. 13-20; 1 Sam. x. 24; xi. 14; 2 Sam. ii. 4; iii. 17-19; v. 1-3; 1 Kings, xii.

The comitia acted without instructions from the people, on their own authority, and according to their own views. Nor does a single instance occur in which the people exhibited any disposition to interfere in their deliberations by way of dictating what they ought, or what they ought not to do. Still the comitia were in the habit of proposing to the people their decisions and resolutions for their ratification and consent, 1 Sam. xi. 14, 15: comp. Josh. viii. 33; xxiii. 2, et seq. ; xxiv. 1, et seq. When God was chosen as the special king of the Hebrews, it was not done by the comitia, but by the people themselves, all of whom, as well as their rulers, took the oath of obedience, even the women and children, Exod. xxiv. 3-8; Deut. xxix. 9-14. The people generally approved of what was done by the senate; sometimes, however, they objected to their decisions.

§. 219. FORM Of Government A MIXED ONE.

When we recollect that God was expressly chosen the king of the people; and that He enacted laws and decided litigated points of importance, Numb. xvii. 1-11; xxvii. 1—11; xxxvi. 1-10; when we remember also, that He solved questions proposed, Numb. xv. 32-41; Josh. vii. 16-22; Judg. i. 1, 2; xx. 18, 27, 28; 1 Sam. xiv. 37; xxiii. 9—12; xxx. 8; 2 Sam. ii. 1 ; that He threatened punishment, and that, in some instances, He actually inflicted it upon the hardened and impenitent, Numb. xi. 33-35; xii. 1-15; xvi. 1-50; Lev, xxvi. 3-46; Deut. xxvi. xxx; when, finally, we take into our consideration, that He promised prophets, who were to be, as it were, his ambassadors, Deut. xviii., 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 in fact the monarch of the people, and that the government was a theocracy. And indeed it is worthy of remark, that a form of government, in some degree theocratical in its nature, was well suited to the character of that early age. The countries that bordered on Palestine, had their tutelar dei

ties; and there existed among them a connection between reli gion and the civil government, similar to that which existed among the Hebrews. There was this difference, however, in the two cases. The protection which the false deities were supposed to afford to the nations in the vicinity of Palestine, was altogether a deception; while the protection, which the true God granted to the children of Israel, was a reality. There was likewise this further point of difference; that among the former, religion was supposed to be the prop of the state; and among the Hebrews the state was designed to be the supporter and preserver of religion. But although the government of the Jews was a theocracy, yet it was not destitute of the usual forms which exist in civil governments. God, it is true, was the king, and the high priest was his minister; but still political affairs were in a great measure under the direction of the elders, princes, etc. It was to them that Moses gave the divine commands; determined expressly their powers; and submitted their requests to the decision of God, Numb. xiv. 5; xvi. 4, et seq.; xxvii. 5; xxxvi, 5, 6. It was in reference to the great power possessed by these men, who formed the legislative assembly of the nation, that Josephus pronounced the government to be aristocratical. But from the circumstance that the people possessed so much influence as to render it necessary to submit laws to them for their ratification; and that they even sometimes proposed laws, or resisted those which were enacted; from the circumstance also that the legislature of the nation had not the power of levying taxes, and that the civil code was regulated and enforced by God himself, independently of the legislature, Lowman and Michaelis are in favour of considering the Hebrew government a Democracy. In support of their opinion such passages are referred to as the following; Exod. xix. 7, 8; xxiv. 3-8: comp. Deut. xxix. 9—14; Josh. ix. 18, 19; xxiii. 1, et seq.; xxiv. 2, et seq.; 1 Sam. x. 24; xi. 14, 15; Numb, xxvii. 1-8; xxxvi. 1-9. The truth seems to lie between these two opinions. The Hebrew government, laying aside its theocratical features, was of a mixed form; in some respects approaching to a democracy, in others assuming more of an aristocratical character.