istration of justice in Egypt, and had learned the advantages of it. There was undoubtedly such a subordination among these judges, that the cases which the judges of tens found too difficult to decide, they referred to the judges of fifties; and in like manner the judges of fifties, to the judges of hundreds, and these last, to the judges of thousands. Very intricate controversies, which the judges of thousands did not feel themselves competent to decide, they brought before Moses himself. (Exod. xviii. 22. Deut. i. 17.) After his death, the most important and difficult controversies were brought before the chief magistrate of the nation; or if there was no such magistrate the high priest, who was the prime minister of the invisible King, decided causes of this kind, after consultation with the wisest and most learned of the priests. (Deut. xix. 17; ii. 5.) As this institution was designed to be perpetual, when judges died or went out of office, their places were supplied by new elections. After the people were settled in Palestine, as they could not dwell together in companies of ten, fifty, one hundred, and one thousand, judges, as well as genealogists, for each city and its surrounding district, were stationed in the several cities. Both offices were very frequently, if not generally held by the same person. This is evident from the manner in which they are connected with each other in the Bible; and sometimes indeed the D, as chiefs of tens, fifties, hundreds, and thousands, are expressly denominated genealogists. (Deut. xvi. 18; xxxi. 28. 1 Chron. xxiii. 4; xxvi. 20. Deut. i. 15, 16.) These judges Moses included among the rulers, and Joshua summoned them to the general assemblies; and they are mentioned in one instance before the genealogists. (Deut. xxxi. 28. Josh. viii. 33; xxiii. 2; xxiv. 1.) Unless then all the judges were at the same time heads of families or genealogists, they must (at least, those over hundreds and thousands,) have been considered as rulers in the state, and as entitled to a seat in the legislative assemblies. There are therefore in every tribe, judges, genealogists, heads of families, and a prince. Each of these classes of magistrates had its own peculiar circle of duties. The judges administered justice. The genealogists kept the genealogical tables, in which they occasionally noted the most remarkable occurrences of their times. The historical notices contained in the first Book of Chronicles, and which are not found in the books of Moses, were probably derived from these tables. (1 Chron. iv. 21-23, 39-45; v. 10, 19-22; vii. 20-24.) The heads of families, with the prince of the tribe, had charge of the general concerns of each tribe, and to them the judges and genealogists were in some sense subordinate. In Palestine these magistrates were distributed among the several cities, and those who resided in the same city composed the legislative assembly of that city and the surrounding district. When the magistrates of all the cities of any one tribe were collected, they formed the supreme court, or legislative assembly of the tribe. In like manner the magistrates of several different tribes might assemble in one body, and legislate conjointly for all those tribes which they repre sented. When the magistrates of all the tribes met together, they formed the general legislature of the whole nation. (Deut. xxv. 1-8; xix. 12; xxii. 15; xxv. 7, 9. Judg. viii. 14. 1 Sam. xvi. 4. Judg. xx. 12—14; i. 1—11.) Though there was no pecuniary emolument attached to these offices, they conferred great dignity and authority upon those who held them. XII. THE LEARNED CLASS. The Hebrews had long acknowledged as magistrates, the princes of tribes, heads of houses, and genealogists; and they admitted without difficulty the institution of judges, since their office was neither lucrative nor hereditary. When the invisible King afterwards secured for ever to the tribe of Levi the most important offices of the court, state, and church, and conferring upon the Levites great and peculiar privileges, put them in the place of the first born, to whom the priestly office had till then appertained; even this regulation was at first submitted to without opposition. (Exod. xiii. 12, 13, comp. Numb. iii. 6 -13; viii. 13-20. Deut. x. 8, 9; xxxi. 8—11. Exod. xxxii. 29.) It was scarcely to be expected that disquiets would have arisen on this account, as the Hebrews had witnessed in Egypt a similar institution which was productive of great public benefit. The Egyptian priests were a separate tribe, which was divided into three subordinate classes; and they performed not only the services of religion, but the duties of all the civil offices to which learning was necessary. They therefore devoted themselves in a peculiar manner to the cultivation of the sciences. This learned nobility, so to speak, was strictly hereditary, and no one from another tribe could be received among its members. They studied natural philosophy, natural history, medicine, mathematics, particularly astronomy and geometry, history, civil polity, and jurisprudence. They were practising physicians, inspectors of weights and measures, surveyors of land, astronomical calculators, keepers of the archives, historians, receivers of the customs, judges, and counsellors of the king, who was himself a member of their tribe. In short, they, like Raguel the priest of Midian, and Melchizedek the priest and king of Salem, (Gen. xiv. 18. Exod. iii. 16,) formed, guided, and ruled the people by establishing civil regulations, performing sacred services, and imparting religious instruction. They were liberally rewarded for the discharge of these important duties. They not only possessed large estates in land, which, if we may credit Diodorus Siculus, occupied a third part of all Egypt, but they also received from their king a stated salary for their services as civil officers.t However suspicious such an order may appear to many at the present day, it was admirably adapted to those times, and by means of it, Egypt was raised far above all the nations of antiquity, both in regard to her civil institutions and her advancement in the sciences. Hence even the Greeks in ancient times were accustomed to borrow their politics and their learning from the Egyptians. If now an institution, in many respects so useful, Diodor. Sic. i. 63. ↑ Gen. xlviii. 22. Strabo, p. 787. could be imitated by the Hebrews in such a man- year; for in such a multitude of people many ner as to retain its advantages and avoid its disad-readers would be required, and the number of vantages, as far as possible, it was evidently the wisest measure which that people could adopt. In this manner the tribe of Levi, which had greatly distinguished itself by zeal for Jehovah, (Exod. xxxii. 26-29,) the invisible King, was actually devoted to the service of the sacred tabernacle and the altar, (that is, in a political view, to be the courtiers of king Jehovah,) to all those offices of state in which learning was requisite, and thus to the cultivation of learning itself. (Numb. xviii. 2-7.) The princes of tribes and heads of houses, however, still retained their ancient honours, and the members of other tribes were permitted to hold offices and to apply themselves to the sciences. Thus on the one hand the advantages of this institution were secured, and the educated parent was able to instruct his sons in the sciences, and prepare them for public stations; while on the other hand its disadvantages were avoided, and learning did not, as in Egypt, become the mystery of the learned order, nor was civil government transformed into a domination of priests. What fruits might not such a plant have borne, if the priests and Levites had faithfully accomplished the purposes of their appointment! Moses can never be accused of introducing regulations which tended to keep the people in ignorance; for no one of whatever tribe, who had a capacity, leisure and desire to apply to any study, was forbidden to devote himself to the sciences; and besides this, more than a fiftieth part of the whole nation was expressly destined to promote literary improve ment. In order to answer their destination, the Levites, more than other Hebrews, were to study the book of the law; to preserve and disseminate it in exact copies; to perform the duties of judges and genealogists, and consequently to be theologians, jurists, and historians. Accordingly, when David re-organized the Levites, he designated six thousand for these offices. Jehoshaphat composed the supreme tribunal of his kingdom equally of priests, Levites, and heads of houses, and under Josiah the Levites are again mentioned as secretaries and genealogists. (1 Chron. xxiii. 4; xxvi. 29. 2 Chron. xix. 8; xxxiv. 13.) As the priests and Levites were to test the accuracy of measures and weights, of which there were several models preserved in the sanctuary, it was necessary that they should understand something of mathematics; and as they were to determine and announce the moveable feasts, new moons, years, and intercalary years, they had occasion for the study of astronomy. (Deut. x. 10; xxviii. 11. Lev. xxv. 8-12.) The priests were to instruct the people in religion and law, and to solve questions which might arise upon these subjects. (Deut. xvii. 9. Mal. ii. 4-7.) According to the spirit of the institution, the Levites also were instructors of the people, which office they in reality executed when they publicly sung psalms according to the arrangement of David, and to which they were expressly appointed by Jehoshaphat. (1 Chron. xxiii. 5. 2 Chron. xvii. 7-9.) It was also undoubtedly a part of their duty to read the law to the assembled Hebrews every seventh priests, at least in early times, was very small. (Deut. xxxi. 11, 12.) As the priests by their exhortations were to inspire the soldiers with courage when about to engage in battle, they probably gave some attention to the cultivation of eloquence: and as they were to perform the duty of police physicians, it was necessary that they should know something of the art of medicine. (Deut. xx. 2. Lev. xiii. xiv.) It was the duty of the high priest, as head of the learned class and minister of state to 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, foreign and domestic. In important and doubtful cases he, at the request of the principal rulers or of the chief magistrate, consulted the invisible king by Urim and Thummin. (Deut. xviii. 9, 12. Exod. xxviii. 30. Numb. xxvii. 21. 1 Sam. xxiii. 10— 12; xxx. 6-8.) 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 sacrifices or the movement of clouds, and all those artifices (Deut. xviii. 9—14) which, among the Egyptians and other ancient nations, were the usual means of managing the populace. Thus the Hebrew priests, who are so little esteemed by many at the present day, were the only priests of antiquity who were not allowed to impose upon the credulity of the multitude. The Hebrew priests and Levites were therefore even more important and useful in church and state, than the three orders of Egyptian priests. Still they obtained of all the promised land only forty-eight cities with small suburbs for their cattle; neither had they, like the Egyptian priests, real estate or a definite salary for their services. But it was requisite that they should be liberally provided for in some other way, lest being compelled to engage in business for their own subsistence, they should neglect the cultivation of learning, grow up in ignorance, and fail to discharge the duties of their office; or, by the pressure of want, should be tempted to dishonesty, injustice, and extortion. This was so much the more necessary, because it was important that they, as the officers of king Jehovah, should make some show of grandeur, or be despised by the common people, who can be moved by nothing but external splendour. Accordingly Jehovah assigned for their maintenance the tithes, which the Hebrews were bound to offer him as rent for the land which he had granted them. (Lev. xxvii. 21-23; xxx. 32. Numb. xviii. 21 ff. Deut. xiv. 23.) Abraham had before given a tithe of all his spoils to Melchizedek, priest of the Most High; many other nations afforded a like tribute to their gods, and it was only half what the Egyptians paid to their king." In addition to this, Moses assigned to the priests alone the firstlings of animals and the first fruits Gen. xiv. 20; xlvii. 13-26. Diodor. Sic. iv. 21; x. 62; xiv. 93. unexpected and lasting memorial of the will of XIII. RELATION OF THE TRIBES TO EACH of the soil, which amounted to about the sixtieth part of the annual income of a Hebrew; the ransom of the first-born male; the trespass offerings; most of the sin-offerings; the skins of the burntofferings and sin-offerings; that which was devoted; the breast and shoulder of every peaceoffering; a shoulder, both cheeks and maw of all the sacrificed animals. This is what is meant by the expression, "the portion of the priests and Levites is Jehovah," that is, what is offered to Jehovah. (Lev. ii. 12. Numb. xv. 18-21; xviii. 8-21. Deut. xviii. 1-8. Exod. xxxiv. 20. Numb. xviii. 15, 16. Lev. vi. 10; xxvi. 29. Numb. xviii. 9. Lev. vii. 8. Numb. xviii. 14. As each tribe had its own magistrates and Deut. xviii. 3, 4. Numb. xviii. 20, 21.) representatives, and administered their own afHad Morgan taken into view the important ser- fairs, each composed an entire political commuvices which this learned class rendered to the nity in some respects independent of the other Hebrew state, and the necessity of a rich pro- tribes. We often find single tribes acting like vision for such officers, he would have applauded independent nations, and as might be expected, rather than censured Moses for his assignment of sometimes justly and sometimes unjustly. Thus the tithes of more than six hundred thousand the tribe of Benjamin undertook the protection Hebrews, to about twelve thousand adult Le- of the licentious criminals of Gibeah, and susvites. This made the income of a Levite about tained a war against all the other tribes. The five times the income of an ordinary Hebrew, tribe of Judah alone chose David for its king. but the tithes did not amount to any thing like It is imputed as a fault to several individual those enormous sums at which Morgan has ar- tribes, that they did not, each on their own acrived by his erroneous calculations. The priests count, prosecute the war against the weakened who, besides the perquisites above mentioned, Canaanites, but made some of them tributary and received from the Levites a tenth of the tithes, formed alliances with others. (Judg. xix .xx. ; i. (Numb. xvii. 25-31,) were indeed liberally en- 21, 27-35. 2 Sam. ii. 4.) Hence it is evident dowed; but they bore the expense of the daily that the Hebrew constitution authorized each sacrifices, and of those which were offered at tribe to provide for its own interests; or if the particular festivals. It must also be taken into strength of any one of them was insufficient for the account, that the whole tribe of Levi received this purpose, to unite with some of the other only forty-eight cities of the promised land, and tribes, and make common cause with them. We consequently the portions of the other tribes frequently find several tribes thus acting in conwere much greater than they would otherwise have cert. Judah and Simeon were united in their war been. Moreover the tithes, especially at certain against the Canaanites; as were also Ephraim periods, were not regularly paid, and sometimes and Manasseh. The tribes of Zebulon and Naphthey were almost entirely withheld. (Mal. iii. 10. tali united with Barak to oppose the army of Nehem. xiii. 10.) When the kingdom was divided Jabin; Manasseh, Asher, Zebulon and Naphtali after the death of Solomon, the priests and Le- chose Gideon for their leader against the Midianvites, who all attached themselves to the king-ites. The tribes east of the Jordan made choice dom of Judah, received the revenues of only two tribes. It must not be forgotten that this bountiful provision for the priests and Levites was nothing peculiar; but it was the usual, and not at all oppressive tax, which the Hebrews paid to their king, and which he himself devoted to the support of his officers. (Numb. xviii. 8-24.) An abundant revenue it certainly was, but one that was necessary for the performance of the duties which devolved upon this order; and after all, it fell far short of that which the Egyptians awarded to their priests. Had Moses designed merely to enrich and exalt his own tribe, he would have had a more particular regard for his own family, and confined the priesthood to that; or at least he would have provided for his descendants so much property, that it would scarcely be necessary for one of them soon after to withdraw from his native city for want of subsistence. (Judg. xvii. 7-13.) Korah, of the tribe of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, of the tribe of Reuben, whom Jacob had deprived of the rights of primogeniture and of the priesthood, (Gen. xlix. 4,) with two hundred and fifty more of the principal rulers, endeavoured to usurp the priestly office; but their insurrection only gave occasion for an of Jephthah for their general to carry on a war against the Ammonites. In later times and during the reign of Saul, the same tribes made war upon the Arabs of Hejr (Hagarites), the Itureans (Jetur), the Nodabites, and Naphishites. After the death of Saul, eleven tribes remained faithful in their allegiance to his family, and seven years intervened before they submitted to David. After the death of Solomon, ten tribes revolted from the house of David, and elected Jeroboam for their king. In short any tribe, or any number of the tribes united, exercised the power of convening legislative assemblies, passing resolves, waging wars, making treaties, and electing for themselves chiefs, generals, regents and kings. (Judg. i. 1-3, 22; vii. 23, 24; viii. 1-3; xi. 1-11. 1 Chron. v. 10, 18, 19. 2 Sam. iii. 17. 1 Kings xii. 1-24.) But though each of the twelve tribes was in some respects an independent state, and as such had its separate interests; still they were all united together by certain general interests, and formed but one nation. They were all descended from one ancestor, from whom they had inherited • Lowman, Government of the Israelites, p. 125, 205228. divine promises, which had already in part been fulfilled. This common bond of union which embraced all the 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 prime 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 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 a transgression of the law; and if they refused to give satisfaction, they might be attacked and punished by war. (Josh. xxii. 9-34. Judg. xx.) It is possible, as Michaelis has justly remarked, 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 its members. Many examples of both these conditions of the Hebrew state are found in the Book of Judges. In a community composed of states so nearly independent, jealousies would naturally arise between the more powerful tribes, which might terminate in the dismembering of the commonwealth. Such jealousies and rivalry actually existed between the tribes of Judah and Joseph, the two most powerful in the Hebrew nation. The latter inherited a double portion, and was divided into two, Ephraim and Manasseh. They valued themselves upon their descent from such an ancestor as Joseph, who had been so honourably distinguished from his brethren in the blessings pronounced by Jacob and Moses. The tribe of Judah had the right of primogeniture, they had received the most splendid promises, and the expected Messiah was to spring from them. These two tribes were perpetually struggling for the preponderance, and at last, after the death of Solomon, the descendants of Joseph having brought over to their party eight of the other tribes, forcibly separated themselves from Judah. These jealousies and dissensions were the first causes of the weakening of all the tribes, and of the final destruction of the whole commonwealth.* XIV. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES. As the twelve tribes had many interests in common, and in some respects formed but one political body, the magistrates of all the tribes met in general assemblies to consult for the ge Gen. xlix. 8-12, 22-26. Deut. xxxiii. 7 13-17. Verschuir, Dissert. Philol. Exeg. Leovardiæ et Franequeræ 1773. iv. p. 66-84, de Emulatione Israelitorum mutua tanquam vera caussa scissæ ac debilitate Judæorum Reipublicæ. Michaelis, Mos. Recht. th. i. 47. Alt. Or. Bibliothek, th. vi. s. 50. ff. neral good of the nation. These general assemblies were convened by the chief magistrate of the commonwealth, by the commander of the army, or by the regent; and when the nation had no such supreme head, by the high priest, in his capacity of prime minister to the invisible king. The great assembly mentioned in the twentieth chapter of Judges, was undoubtedly convoked by the high priest Phineas, who was so zealous for the honour of Jehovah. (Numb. x. 2-4. Josh. xxiii. 2; xxiv. 1. 1 Sam. xi. 14, 15. Judg. xx. 27, 28.) The place of assembling was usually before the door of the holy tabernacle, the palace of the invisible King, or on some spot which had acquired a degree of sacredness from its having been the theatre of some great event. While the Hebrews dwelt together in their encampments in Arabia, the assemblies were summoned together by the sound of the sacred trumpets; but after they were settled in Palestine, heralds must have been employed for this purpose. (Numb. x. 3. Judg. xx. 1, 27, 28. 1 Sam. x. 17. xxiv. 1. 1 Sam. xi. 14, 15. 1 Kings xii. 1. Numb. x. 2-4.) Josh. The legislative assemblies were of two kinds. The sound of one trumpet was the signal for the convoking of a select assembly, composed of the princes of the tribes, and the heads of thousands, or associated families. The sound of two trumpets was the signal for collecting the whole congregation, T, including the genealogists, judges, and (at least upon very important occasions,) as many of the common people as chose to attend. In speaking of these assemblies, "the rulers of the congregation" are sometimes mentioned first, then "the children of Israel;" and in some cases the women and children are referred to as being present. (Exod. xxxiv. 31, 32. Deut. xxix. 9-11. Judg. xx.) The legislative assemblies received different denominations, according to the classes of persons of whom they were composed. When the whole people, p, were collected, they formed what was styled, TD, or, the whole assembly or congregation. There were also, y, the princes of the assembly; -those called to the as קריאי העדה or קריאי מועד sembly; p, those deputed to the assembly; and ypt, the elders of the assembly, or senators. (Exod. xix. 7; xxiv. 3-8; xxxiv. 31, 32; xxxv. 1—4. Lev. iv. 13; viii. 3-5. Numb. xi. 25, 30; xvi. 2.) It was to these assemblies that Moses immediately addressed himself, and to them he delivered the precepts which he received from Jehovah. He could not have held direct communication with the whole body of the people, unless his voice had been strong enough to be heard by a multitude of more than six hundred thousand men, exclusive of women, children, and aged persons. (Exod. xix. 7; xxiv. 3-8; xxxiv. 31, 32; xxxv. 1, 4. Numb. xi. 25, 3.) The magistrates, particularly the genealogists, then communicated to the people the precepts and orders of Moses, each one informing those families which were under his immediate direction. like manner the commands of the general and the resolves of the assemblies, were made known In adopt; and he led the nation on to the accom to the people, who were sometimes already assembled, waiting to receive these communica-plishment of their great design (the preservation tions; or if not, they were called together by the proper officers. The legislative assemblies exercised all the rights of sovereignty. They declared war, made peace, formed alliances, chose generals, chief judges, or regents, and kings. They prescribed to the rulers whom they elected, the principles by which they were to govern: they tendered to them the oath of office, and rendered them homage. (Exod. xix. 7; xxiv. 3-8. Josh. ix 15— 21. Judg. xx. 1, 11-14, 18, 28; xxi. 13 ff. 1 Sam. x. 24; xi. 14. 2 Sam. iii. 17—19; v. 1-3. 1 Kings xii.) There is no evidence that the magistrates received any instructions from the people, respecting the measures to be adopted in the legislative assemblies. Such a proceeding would have been contrary to the spirit of the patriarchal government, which was to a considerable extent preserved in the Mosaic institutions. The assemblies acted independently. On very important occasions however, of great public interest, they sometimes submitted their resolves to the people for their approbation; as was the case when Saul was raised to the throne. Moses permitted the people to elect their own judges; and it appears that Jehovah was made King of the Hebrews, by the voluntary choice of the whole nation. At least, all swore fealty to him, without the exception of even the women and children. (1 Sam. xi. 14, 15, comp. Josh. xxiii. 2 ff; xxiv. 1 ff. Exod. xix. 7, 8; xxiv. 3-8, comp. Deut. xxix. 9-14.) The people were attached to their magistrates, and generally accepted what they proposed, and rejected what they disapproved. Hence the revolt of the two hundred and fifty rulers, who were leagued with Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and who must have had numerous adherents among the people, was sufficiently dangerous to require a supernatural punishment. There were times, however, when the people raised their voices so loudly against the measures adopted by the magistrates, that they were compelled to abandon them. Even in the times of 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. (Numb. xvi. Josh. ix. 18, 19. 2 Chron. xxvi. 1, 2. 1 Kings xxi. 24; xxiii. 30, comp. 2 Chron. xxiii. 25; xxxvi. 1.) XV. FORM OF GOVERNMENT. God condescended to be elected King of the Hebrews, to give them a code of civil laws; to decide their more important litigations; and to solve inquiries which they proposed. The obstinate and disobedient Hebrews he punished as rebellious subjects of his government. (Numb. xvii. 1 -11; xxvii. 1-11; xxxvi. 1–10; 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. Numb. xi. 33-35; xii. 1—15; xvi. 1—50. Deut. xviii. 18.) According to his promise, he sent them prophets, by whom he made known the measures which the civil rulers were to of the true religion), by a particular providence, such as no other people had ever been the subjects of. God thus reigning as King of the Hebrews, their form of government was in fact a theocracy. This species of government was altogether suited to the character and necessities of those remote ages, when the political constitutions of all nations were so connected with the tutelar gods of those nations and with the national systems of religion, as to be, at least in appearance, theocratical. But the theocracies of the pagans can bear no comparison with the theocracy of the Hebrews. Those were impostures; this was a reality. In pagan theocracies, religion was employed merely as a means of strengthening and perpetuating the civil constitution; in the Hebrew theocracy, on the contrary, the preservation of religion was the end, the civil constitution, the means of attaining it. But though the constitution of the Hebrews was in reality theocratical, yet it was neither expedient nor proper that their political affairs 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. In the East, at the present day, all governments are despotic or patriarchal. This is so universally true, that the orientalists, as all travellers testify, can scarcely form an idea of a different form of government. The same appears to have been the case in the time of the Maccabees. (1 Macc. viii. 14-16.) In the most remote antiquity, however, aristocracies and democracies were well known. The inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim, had neither king nor prince. The national council and the people commissioned ambassadors and concluded alliances. The Philistines were governed by five princes. The Phenicians were not at all times under regal government, and, when monarchy existed, the power of the king was very much limited. The Carthaginians, who emigrated from Phenicia, and probably formed their government on the model of that of the mother country, from the first introduced an aristocracy, in many respects similar to the old Venetian oligarchy.* If the story of Herodotus (iii. 80, 81,) be true, the great Persian monarchy, after the death of the impostor Smerdis, came very near being transformed to a democracy. It is still true, however, that monarchy in ancient times was the most usual form of government among the orientals. There were many subordinate and dependent kings. That the sovereignty of Jehovah over the Hebrews might be the more visible, he employed no viceroy, but he had a minister of state, so to speak, in the person of the high priest. The Hebrew magistrates, who were very jealous of their prerogatives, managed the political concerns of the nation, and their powers were so extensive that Josephus chooses to denominate the government an aristocracy. Moses laid all the precepts and Josh. ix. 11; xiii. 3. Judg. iii. 3. 1 Sam. vi. 4. Heeren, Ideen uber die Politik, den Verkehr, und den Handel u. s. w. th. i. s. 194. |