lar 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 to 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 peculiar protection in the security of their liberty, peace, and prosperity, against all attempts of their idolatrous neighbors; but if they should break their allegiance to Jehovah, or forsake the covenant of Jehovah by going and serving other gods and worshiping them, that they should forfeit these blessings of Divine 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 honor 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 own appointment, and bless it with a more immediate and particular protection; he would secure to it the invaluable privileges of true religion, together with liberty, peace, and prosperity, as a favored people above all other nations.

CHAPTER XII.

HISTORY OF THE JEWISH POLITY.

EVERY well-regulated government must possess a code of laws known to the people, that their conduct may be regulated accordingly. Thus it pleased God to deliver to the Jews the laws of Moses, by which they should be governed. These have been already considered. We have now to notice the ruling or administrative power. The first magis

trates were appointed, as the ministers of the Most High, upon the recommendation of Jethro, Exod. xviii, 14–26. They were very similar in degrees to the officers under the Saxon government in England. Probably King Alfred derived the idea from this portion of holy writ. But it is evident, that previously and subsequently to their appointment, there were officers of the children of Israel. Moses had his previous communications with the people through officers-their elders; these could not have been the Egyptian task-masters, and it is not said that others were appointed in their places. From comparing Deut. xxix, 10, and Josh. xxiii, 2, it is considered that these representatives were the heads of tribes or families, and judges or officers. Michaelis is of opinion that, like the members of the British House of Commons, they acted on their own responsibility, not being required to take instructions from their constituents. The heads and princes of tribes at that time in office, are mentioned by name in Num. i, and as late as the time of David (1 Chron. xxvii, 16) they are enumerated. The manner of their appointment, their succession, their peculiar powers, are all unknown to us; but it is evident that they possessed considerable authority, and that, with their assistance, public affairs might proceed without a king, or judge, or legislative body. In the absence of these, the tribes would be a confederacy of twelve states, in which the strongest would have some predominance; for instance, those of Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh. See Josh. xvii, 15-17; Judg. i. Under these the judges would act, Judg. xi, 5; 1 Sam. viii, 4. Their continuance, when the Jews should settle in the promised land, is expressly provided for, Deut. xvi, 18. The term "make," seems there to indicate, being appointed by, or in behalf of the people, and not as by Divine interposition. There was also a counsel of seventy, who appear to have been counselors or assistants to Moses, and not originally a judicial tribunal. See the history, Num. xi, 24, 25. After the captivity in Babylon, this council, called the Sanhedrim, ruled the nation; they were similar in numbers, but their character was greatly altered. The judges were usually selected from the tribe of Levi, as were also the Shoterim or scribes. That tribe was most conversant with the law; they studied it, and became interpreters of its difficulties, which led to the introduction of

interpretations making void the law, as our blessed Saviour declared, Matt. xv, 9. But in earlier times they seemed to have been useful, 2 Chron. xix, 5-11, and xxxv, 3. In addition to the high priest or ecclesiastical ruler, who was the immediate channel for intercourse with God, there was a supreme ruler for civil affairs, to whom even the former was sometimes subordinate. Moses was the first of these, then Joshua, whose appointment is recorded Num. xxvii, 18. After him, the elders, who had formed his council, carried on his government, though no individual was especially set apart as chief ruler. But the people continued to obey them, and served the Lord, "all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord that he had done for Israel."

After their decease, a state of anarchy followed; this was connected with disobedience to the Divine commands, Judg. ii, 12-15. Then individuals were appointed from time to time, who exercised the rule as judges. These appear to have been selected according to the Divine appointment; their mission and authority were usually sanctioned and confirmed by some manifestations of Divine power. In some cases they were individuals called upon by the public voice, to act under some pressing emergency, like Jephthah, and in some cases their authority was restricted to a part of Israel. They had no power to enact new laws, but to adjudge causes according to the law, and were the executive power. They had no regular funds, except their private incomes, which in some cases appear to have been considerable, for instance, fifty asses; but the people were accustomed to bring them presents or offerings. This form of government continued from the death of Joshua to the appointment of Saul as king of Israel; a space, according to Hales, of 470 years, but Samuel seems chiefly to have confined himself to the office of a prophet during the latter part of his life.

In the first Book of Samuel, the appointment of Saul, the first king, is recorded, and the circumstances are minutely related. It was plainly stated that the desiring of a king was displeasing to the Lord, for it was in effect casting off the rule of Jehovah, and ending the theocracy. It had, however, been foreseen and provided for, Deut. xvii, 14–20. The first appointment showed the people the evil of their

wishes, but it was afterwards overruled for good. The royal power continued in the family of David until the captivity, and from this line of earthly monarchs our blessed Saviour, according to the flesh, descended.

Laws were provided especially for the guidance of the kings, but they were soon departed from. According to the neglect or observance of these precepts, the king and the people suffered or prospered. Though in many respects absolute, the kings could not depart from or change the law. Thus even Ahab could not compel Naboth to break the law of Jehovah, and could only put him to death by means of a false charge against him, 1 Kings xxii. The monarchs were the vicegerents of Jehovah, bound to consult him through the high priest on all occasions of emergency, and limited by the revelations and precepts of God. Nor were they permitted to take the office of ministers on themselves in affairs relating to religious worship; for doing this, Saul was found guilty of his second act of disobedience. King Uzziah also was struck with leprosy when thus engaged. Our Lord Jesus Christ alone is at once the King, the Prophet, and the Priest of his obedient people, and by his one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.

Saul's inauguration was not attended with any pomp or splendor, nor was any provision made for his administration; but when settled on the throne, he seems to have taken whatever he thought desirable. Such is the character of any government when first adopted, among a people of simple habits. Many in the present day will be aware that the natives of the South Sea Islands, before the introduction of a regular system of law and government, were often required to yield their property to those who possessed power; and that a queen among them, who had been converted to Christianity, owned that "it was not right to take a little man's tree without his permission," and sent him a present as an equivalent for the loss which had been inflicted on him by her attendants.

There is no express statement in the history of the kings of Israel, as to the amount of their revenues, but these appear to have been chiefly paid in kind, as is still the case in the court of Abyssinia. Voluntary offerings and presents were frequently made, 1 Sam. ix, 27. Lands formerly uncultivated or confiscated, became annexed to the crown, and

were given as rewards to the servants of the kings, 1 Sam. viii, 14; xxii, 7; while foreign tribute and commerce were afterwards added to their resources, 2 Sam. viii; 1 Kings X, 28, 29. It is evident, however, that the greatest monarchs took much interest in what would now be called farming, 1 Chron. xxvii, 26–31; 2 Chron. xxvi, 10; Amos vii, 1; Prov. xxvii, 23–27.

The worst feature in the conduct of Saul was his selfwill. He forgot the true character of God, the Supreme Ruler of Israel, and aimed at being an independent monarch, after the manner of the nations. He did not lay aside the worship of Jehovah, but he failed in obedience to the Divine command, and for this he was set aside, 1 Sam. xv, 22, 23. In the same spirit, he sought to slay David. His son, Jonathan, showed more submission to the will of God, to which his noble disinterested friendship for David is to be traced, and it may therefore be observed that he better understood that Israel was a theocracy,-a government under the immediate direction of the Lord. The people were left for some time to a king after their own heart, Hos. xiii, 11. Even after the death of Saul, for awhile they rebelled against the word of God, 2 Sam. v, 2. In all this David was a type of Christ the Lord, who reigns as a king over those that once rejected him. Many passages in the Psalms are spoken with this two-fold signification; for instance, Psa. xviii ; lxxxix, 20–35; cxxxii, 17, 18. Nor must the important prophecy and promise contained in 2 Sam. vii, be here unnoticed.

David's government was more agreeable to the principles of the Divine law than that of his predecessor, but in some respects it seems to have pressed upon the people. Solomon's rule was still more oppressive. The separation of Israel and Judah into two distinct kingdoms may be traced to several anterior events. As it has been observed, from the very beginning of the Israelitish nation the two tribes of Judah and Ephraim had disputed the pre-eminence. The former flourished in the number of its families, as well as in its power and wealth, being allied to the Pharaohs in Egypt, 1 Chron. iv, 19; v, 2. Judah also marched first in the sojourning in the desert, and reckoned upon a dominion which had been promised, Gen. xlix, 10. The other, Ephraim, depended on the great name of Joseph,