powerfully represented; thus acting as a counterpoise to the supreme magistrate, and, in later times, to the king.

§ 6. That this mode of patriarchal, constitutional representation continued, in part, to exist even at subsequent periods in the history of the Hebrews, is proved by the ample testimony of the historical books of Scripture. It was, indeed, at particular times, especially during the reign of certain kings, disregarded; still the elements thereof remained ever present. It was only the coöperation of these elements that were sometimes lacking; their influence, as a general thing, could not be thwarted. After Moses, we find this representative system, in the first place, still flourishing vigorously in the time of Joshua. When the deputies of the Gibeonites came craftily to effect a league with the Israelites, it is said that they came to Joshua and spoke to him and to the men of Israel; whereupon, however, it is stated that the men (literally the man, the entire body of men being regarded as a unit) of Israel spoke to them (Josh. 9: 6, 7). Then we are told (v. 15) that Joshua made a league with them, and the princes of the congregation sware unto them. When, afterwards, the deception of the Gibeonites was discovered, "all the congregation murmured against the princes;" and then "all the princes spoke to the whole congregation." Here, again, the whole congregation evidently stands for the assembly of the chiefs merely; the whole army itself being designated by the phrase "children of Israel" (v. 17, 18). Again, when the two tribes and a half, on the other side of the Jordan, erected a monument having the appearance of an altar, the rest of the tribes being offended thereat, it is said (22: 12): "The children of Israel heard it, and the whole congregation of the children of Israel gathered at Shiloh." They sent an embassy consisting of Phinehas, the son of the priest Eleazar, and ten princes of tribes. The embassy, after having visited the two tribes and a half, returned and "brought them answer" (v. 32). Here, of course, it is likewise evident that the "whole congregation," assembled at Shiloh waiting for a reply, was not the whole nation, but only the representatives. Nor, on the other

hand, was that assembly composed only of the princes of the tribes, these very princes having been chosen from among the rest to go on the embassy. Another assembly of a similar character, to which we have already alluded, was convened by Joshua for the purpose of renewing the covenant with God. There, again, all Israel was present in the person of its heads, elders, judges, and officers (23: 2. 24: 1, 2). The following expressions, occurring in that connection, are worthy of remark: "Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel at Shechem;" and immediately following: "he called the elders of Israel and their heads, their judges and their officers;" and again: "Joshua spoke to all the people " (comp. 24: 19), and then the people speak to Joshua (v. 21; comp. v. 22, 24, 25, 27). At length, Joshua dismisses the people each to his heritage. Here, then, it is perfectly clear that the convertible phrases, "all the tribes of Israel," and "all the people," are used to denote those only who are delegated by the people to represent them in the national assembly, and more particularly described in accordance with their respective dignities. As regards the latter, it is probable that by the "elders of Israel," in this instance (24:1), are meant the princes of tribes; and by the term "heads," immediately following, the heads of family only, as in Num. 36: 1.

§ 7. Michaelis has already intimated, that by reason of this division of the people into several distinct masses and bodies, each able to govern itself independently of all the rest, and all of them capable at any time, by means of the heads of tribes and families, of being united for a common enterprise, that by reason of this organization the nation, even at times when they were without a common supreme head, were never at a loss. For it was thus a very easy matter for them to assemble, adopt resolutions, and, in common, carry them into effect; just as the elders, judges, and officers, who bore the relation of patriarchs to the rest, could furnish a tolerably well regulated system of judicial administration. In fact, if the narratives in the book of the Judges be not inconsiderately pronounced to be fables, it would be impossible to account for the circumstance that a man or woman

(e. g. Deborah) could, in so short a lapse of time, rouse the people to action, collect an army and lead it against the foe, otherwise than by that system of representation. The representatives of the people could be easily convened, or else informed by message (Judg. 7: 24), and animated to work for the common cause. These, again, by means of the heads of families standing under their jurisdiction, could speedily obtain from the masses whatever was further needed to carry their measures into execution. A remarkable instance in point is related in the 20th chapter of Judges. Though the nation was without a common chief magistrate, a war against the tribe of Benjamin was undertaken and carried through by all the other tribes in common. A disgraceful deed had been perpetrated within the jurisdiction of the tribe of Benjamin. But the latter was unwilling to deliver up the perpetrators of the foul act. The news of what had happened having been transmitted to every tribe, “all Israel went out, and the congregation was gathered together as one man, from Dan to Beersheba, unto Mizpeh; and the chiefs of all the people, all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of God, 400,000 men able to bear arms." The commentators infer from the last clause. that all the 400,000 men were present in Mizpeh, at the very first assembly. But they do not take into consideration the difficulties underlying such an inference. For, as the person insulted was questioned in regard to the particulars; and as an embassy was then despatched to the tribe of Benjamin in order to effect a delivery of the criminals and peaceably to arrange the whole affair before the war was resolutely undertaken against the tribe itself (which, as a whole, had not participated in the outrage); the people would have acted devoid of all sense and prudence, in thus assembling all on a sudden, in such multitudes, at Mizpeh. As some time must have elapsed during the negotiations, it would surely have been impossible for them, even if their number had been less, to be maintained in that single city. We would hardly hesitate to assume that the statement relative to the number of warriors, refers to the body of able-bodied men

(given in round numbers) then disposable; an army which could be raised, but was not yet present in person, it being only represented by the "chiefs of the people." If this were not the case, the special statement that all the heads were also present, would be wholly superfluous, this being a matter of course. At all events, the historian wishes to intimate that the preparatory deliberations were held by the heads of the people. In regard to the independent wars, undertaken by individual tribes, we are told at the very beginning of the book of Judges, 1: 3, 22 et al.'

§ 8. In the books of Samuel, again, we find frequent mention of the general national assembly, e. g. "all the elders of Israel gathered themselves, and came to Samuel unto Ramah," to urge him to choose a king (1 Sam. 8: 4). This assembly of the elders is called "the people," in the verses following (7, 10), in the latter of which it is said that Samuel communicated the words of the Lord " to the people that asked of him a king;" comp. v. 19, 21. It is pretty evident that the "people" here mentioned cannot refer to the multitude of the assembled elders, but to the people of Israel proper, who were there represented by their heads. That the assembly was of this character, appears from the fact that Samuel, though reluctant, at last yields to its determined and energetic resolve (v. 19). Again, Samuel called "the people" together at Mizpeh (10: 17), in order to proceed to the actual election of a king. The summons reads thus: Present yourselves before the Lord by your tribes and by your families, lit. "thousands" (v. 19); and

These are peculiarly designated by the term i (pinnōth, Judg. 20: 2), literally “corners." This term probably, which occurs also 1 Sam. 14: 38 in a similar relation, is properly applied to a military character, denoting a leader: comp. the German Flügelmann (leader of the file, lit. "wing-man"). This would go still further to support what we said above. The historian states the entire number of the force at disposal, at the same time remarking that their leaders who had undoubtedly been already at their head on other occasions, were present at the gathering. These, moreover, could give the best information in regard to the number of men ready to take up the sword.

2 According to 1 Chron. 5: 10 (comp. 18-22 and 4: 38-43) individual tribes, independently of all the others, waged wars, by means of which they enlarged their territories, even in the reign of Saul and Hezekiah.

"Samuel caused all the tribes of Israel to come near" (v. 20). No one, surely, will presume that the tribes were here gathered en masse; and yet it is perfectly manifest, from these quotations, that they were fully represented by delegates. After the first glorious exploit of Saul, Samuel convenes a great national assembly at Gilgal (11: 14 sq.), in order to exhort the people and confirm the royal dignity of Saul. Here, too, it is said: "Samuel spoke to all Israel" (12: 1); which, of course, is to be taken in the sense as restricted above.

According to 2 Sam. 2: 4, "the men of Judah" came to anoint David king.. Again (2 Sam. 3: 21), Abner says to David: "I will arise and go, and gather all Israel, that they may make a league with thee." There is no doubt that here, too, reference is had only to the representatives of a single tribe, as well as to those of the whole people. These representatives alone Abner could volunteer to assemble, knowing that, if he could persuade the chief men of Israel, he would, to a certainty, obtain the consent of all the rest. In 2 Sam. 5: 1, we are told that "all the tribes of Israel came to David unto Hebron," to pay him homage as their king; instead of which it reads (v. 3), "all the elders of Israel came to the king unto Hebron; and he made a league with them; and they anointed David king over Israel. "All the tribes," therefore, signifies no more nor less than the tribes represented by their elders. When, after the rebellion of Absalom, the representatives of the people assembled to do homage anew to David, a strife ensued between the men of Israel and the men of Judah (2 Sam. 19: 43, 44). Whereupon Sheba, a Benjamite, cries out: "Every man to his tents, O Israel (20: 1)." The disastrous results involved in this call, in so far as it was obeyed, arose from the very fact that the representatives alone of the people were here assembled. If they dispersed before the intended homage was effected, the whole people would, as a natural consequence, revolt from the king. Were we to presume that great multitudes had flocked together from all parts to this assembly, their protracted meeting would, on the contrary, have been more dangerous than their dispersion. Again, when David resolved to trans