LECTURE VII. Cor The commencement and operation of the Hebrew constitution. rupt and degenerate state of the Jewish people after the death of Moses and Joshua. A temporary state of anarchy. Introduc tion of judges and kings; their duties prescribed and their power limited by the express commands and prohibitions of Jehovah. HAVING LAVING surveyed the great features of the Hebrew government according to its original model, we will close this branch of Jewish Antiquities with a brief history of the several modifications and revolutions of this government, from its first establishment to its final dissolution. This constitution commenced its being and operation in the wilderness of Arabia, during the migration of the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan. During this period Jehovah, as their political Sovereign, conducted them in their various marches and battles, by the symbol of a pillar or cloud of glory. From this circumstance the heathen poets probably derived the fabulous stories of their deities appearing in a cloud, illumined with extraordinary brightness. As God thus condescended to appear and act as the king of the Hebrews, so he constituted Moses his viceroy, or lieutenant, in whom the supreme power, under himself, was vested. On this ac count Moses is called king in Jeshurun or Israel. For though the government by kings was not yet erected in that nation, yet the title was in ancient times given to persons of high rank and authority, though they never wore a crown, or appeared in royal state. Agreeably, in after times the Roman dictators are sometimes styled kings both by the Latin and Greek historians. While Moses thus exercised the supreme magistracy under God, the king of Israel; the priests and levites, who statedly attended on the royal presence in the tabernacle or temple, and who were intrusted in many cases, not only with the explanation, but with the execution of the laws, were properly ministers of state, as well as of religion. Indeed the worship of the true God was so interwoven with the civil polity, as its grand basis and end, that the public functions of both would in many cases properly and even necessarily meet in the same offices. Hence, by the way, the sacrifices, which the priests offered, and a part of which fell to their share, as a perquisite of their office, were intended not only for a religious use, but for the support of the civil list, or the necessary officers of government. On this ground we may, I think, fairly justify an action of St. Paul recorded in the twenty first chapter of the Acts; I mean his consenting to offer sacrifice in the temple, in order to conciliate the supersti tious Jews, though he knew and taught that their peculiar rites were superseded and abolished by the death of Christ. But if we reflect that the Jewish sacrifices were a part of their civil as well as religious establishment, and that their civil polity continued forty years after our Saviour's death, that is, until their temple and city were destroyed by Titus; we may justly infer both the right and duty of good citizens to support the government while it lasted, by paying the legal and customary tribute. Of this kind I conceive was the offering presented by Paul. This peculiar complexion of the Hebrew government also points out in what sense the levitical sacrifices could make atonement for sin. They might be a proper fine, or an equitable compensation for political offences, or for certain trespasses against the state or the authority of its great Sovereign; but they had no power to expiate moral guilt, especially presumptuous sins against God, considered as the moral Governor and Judge of men's hearts. Such were the outlines of the Jewish administration during the life of Moses, and of his successor Joshua. After the death of these excellent rulers, the people became corrupt, and the government degenerated both in its form and execution. It was administered first by occasional judges, then by a long race of kings, and at These polength ended in a tributary commonwealth. litical changes, however great, were by no means equal to those, which the most celebrated governments of Greece and Rome underwent in a far less space of time. The Roman people, so famous for their wisdom, their ardent and jealous zeal for liberty, effected or permitted greater and more pernicious alterations in their polity in one century, than the whole Jewish history can furnish. It is a preeminent trait of the Hebrew constitution, that it made the best provisions against frequent and dangerous innovations. It precluded the usual incitements and engines of selfish ambition, by securing a perpetual equality of landed property, by forbidding usury, by barring all the citizens against great wealth, or extreme poverty, by rendering departments of power burdensome rather than lucrative, by appropriating every station of eminence to heads of houses and leaders of tribes, by duly balancing the several parts both of the local and general governments, and thus rendering it impracticable for any person or order of men to seize the property or freedom of their country. To what source then shall we ascribe the political calamities, which that people experienced? I answer, we must trace them to their own neg lect or abuse of their original constitution. When Joshua and the elders of his council died, it appears that the people chose no chief magistrate or counsellors in their place. The consequence was a temporary anarchy, in which, we are told, every man did what was right in his own eyes. This state of things gave rise to occasional judges, of whom we read in the next book to that of Joshua. These officers were appointed only on particular occasions; to deliver the people, for instance, from the power of some oppressor. They resemble therefore the Roman dictators, who were created on some extraordinary emergencies, and whose power, while in office, was very great. The history of these judges proves that their office was temporary, and their authority in some respects absolute. Though the duration of their power was not precisely limited, like that of the dictators; yet we may rationally conclude that when they had accomplished the end of their appointment, they retired to a private station. This is naturally inferred from the answer of Gideon, when the people offered to invest him and his family with perpetual sovereignty-" I will not rule over you; nor shall my son rule over you; the Lord shall rule over you." This noble declaration proves, that in the view of this pious patriot permanent and hereditary dominion in one person and family was inconsistent with the Hebrew theocracy. As one main object of these lectures is the elucidation and defence of scripture, we will stop a few moments to explain a remarkable circumstance related of one of these judges, which has created much dispute among serious readers and learned critics, both Jewish and Christian. The circumstance, towhich I refer, is the singular vow, and the corresponding action of Jepthah. This judge and captain of Is [LECT. VII. rael, when going out to war against an invading foe,solemn ly vowed, that if Jehovah. would crown him with victory, he would, on his return, offer up for a burnt offering whatever should come forth from his house to meet him. Having gained a complete victory, and returning in triumph to his house, he was met by his daughter, an only child, who came out to congratulate him on the glorious event. Though he was overwhelmed with sorrow at meeting such an object after making such a vow, yet the history informs us that he did with his daughter according to his engagement. Several infidel writers have eagerly laid hold of this story, as an indelible blot upon the Jewish religion, which allowed a Hebrew judge to sacrifice his own child; while many Jewish commentators, zealous to prevent or to repel such a charge, have denied the fact in this instance, and have insisted that Jepthah devoted his daughter not to death, but only to perpetual celibacy, or the life of a religious recluse; and many learned Christians have embraced the same hypothesis, not only from pious tenderness for the honor of the Jewish scriptures and law, but from their inability to reconcile such an unnatural murder with the good character given of Jepthah in the epistle to the Hebrews. No one would rejoice more than myself in vindicating this renowned captain from so barbarous a deed. learned criticism, which his advocates have employed But all the on the Hebrew text, have not, I think, fairly rescued it. from the common interpretation. Nor can I see that the honor either of the Jewish or Christian revelation is much interested in this question. It will not follow that the law of Moses allowed the practice of human sacrifices, because one of the Hebrew magistrates was once chargeable with it, or because his conduct in this instance was |