Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

port the ark of the covenant (1 Chr. 13: 1), we are informed that he consulted with the princes of thousands and hundreds, and with all the leaders. Here, then, the permanent existence of those ancient institutions (Ex. 18: 25) is indirated. Those who were thus convoked for consultation, are called "the whole congregation of Israel" (1 Chr. 13: 2). The address of David is particularly interesting on this occasion; it was as follows: "If it seem good to you, and us of the Lord our God, let us send abroad to the rest of our brethren in all the land of Israel, and with them also to the priests and Levites, in the cities of their suburbs, that they may gather themselves unto us." By the "rest of our brethren," is undoubtedly meant the other leaders of the people. Solomon, also, orders "all the elders of Israel, all the heads of { their tribes and princes of families," to convene at Jerusalem, for the purpose of transferring the ark of the covenant (1 K. 8:1). The persons thus assembled are then spoken of as "every man of Israel" (v. 2); and, again, as "all the elders of Israel" (v. 3). In the 29th chapter of 1 Chron., "the princes of fathers and the princes of the tribes of Israel, of thousands and hundreds, and the princes in the service of the king" (v. 6), who brought donations for the building of the temple, are designated the "congregation" (Kahal), v. 1; in v. 9, however, "the (represented) people." The donations, therefore, were probably presented in the name of the people; the contributions of the "princes of fathers" being left to or imposed on each individual house of fathers, in proportion to their respective means.

$9. On the accession of Rehoboam to the throne "all Israel," of their own impulse as it seems, went to Shechem for the purpose of obtaining an alleviation of the burdens imposed on them by Solomon (1 K. 12: 1 seq.). The insolent answer which the king returned to "the people " (v. 13), called out the following expression (v. 16) from "all Israel:" "We have no part in David; to your tents, O Israel!" With these words every connection between the tribes of Israel and the young king was forever severed. "All Israel," however, heard that Jeroboam had returned; and they send

thither and call him to the congregation (Edah), and install him king over all Israel." Here it is clearly seen that "congregation" signifies the assembly of representatives; and that in the person of these, all Israel were present. Other instances, showing what influence on the royal succession the people had in expressing their will, through their representatives, no doubt, may be found (2 K. 21: 24, 23, 30. 2 Chr. 23: 20, 21. 26: 1, 2. 36: 1).

During the captivity, also, we find reference made to the representative system. Thus, Jeremiah addressed a message to the elders (Jer. 29: 1). Zerubabel was accompanied by the heads of families (Ezra 4: 2, 3. Comp. 6: 7).

Finally, as late even as the time of the Maccabees, mention is made of the supreme head together with the elders (1 Macc. 12: 6, 35). There is no doubt, moreover, that the Sanhedrim of subsequent times was founded on that patriarchal constitution so peculiar to the Hebrews. 1 The influence of that council was, indeed, suppressed by many a king; but it could never be wholly extinguished: we find it from time to time, especially on all important occasions (when alone it is noticed), stand out in all its potent vigor. It was this dedemocratic element, too, which acted as a mighty support to the prophets, ever favoring and protecting their freedom of speech; Comp. 1 K. 18: 19. Jer. 26: 16-19.

§ 10. Though all these data, drawn from the history of the Hebrews, do not properly come within the scope of the Mosaic Law, still our brief consideration of them here, which might be even more amplified, will not, we trust, be deemed superfluous. For the events themselves, and the expressions employed in this description of them, afford an excellent commentary to that which, judged by the light of

In regard to the circumstance that the Sanhedrim of seventy-one men formed an immediate continuation of the Senate of seventy elders instituted by Moses, as is asserted by the Rabbins, Scripture itself furnishes no definite data. In one instance alone-in a prophetic vision of Ezekiel S: 11, 12-mention is made of "seventy men of the elders of Israel;" these being represented, however, as worshipping idols. However, it is very likely that the Institution of the Sanhedrim, even as respects its external form, was founded on a more ancient one. — Comp. Talmud Sunhedr. I. 6.

ous.

the Pentateuch alone, might not perhaps be perfectly obviWe can thus clearly discern the proper signification of the phrases," Moses speaks to all the people," or, "the congregation of Israel." We thus perceive the object of the "Tabernacle of the congregation." The patriarcho-democratic constitution thus appears, not only sanctioned by the narrative and civil polity of Moses, but also really efficient, in all times, as an essential element of national life.

§ 11. We have applied the term patriarcho-democratic to the Hebrew Constitution. On the use of this term we have a few more remarks to make. HEEREN' has clearly shown how inadequately the ordinary division of governments into monarchies, democracies, and aristocracies, determines their real essential difference. For the difference depends, not on the number of the rulers, but on the relation existing between the latter and the people. Despotic elements may enter into a democracy; just as on the other hand, a monarchy may, by means of constitutional forms, become republican. Heeren, accordingly, divides government into despotic (where the people are in a state of involuntary subjection), autocratic (where the people are indeed free, but have no share in the administration of the government), and republican (where the administration of government is subjeet to the people). WELCKER2 regards even this division as not sufficiently comprehensive and discriminating; since, in his opinion, it does not embrace a Theocracy. His division is as follows: 1st, the period of childhood (Despotism); 2nd, the period of youth (Theocracy); 3d, the period of manhood (Constitutional Government). Against this division, too, weighty objections might be raised. The result, however, at which he arrives (l. c. p. 101) is indeed worthy of remark: "The principle of a government is, after all, nothing more nor less than the voice of conscience, the sense of moral obligation common to all. This voice, however, must declare itself, first of all, in favor of objective law; thus expressing its regard for its own dignity and that of others, by

1 Ideen I. (Appendix 6).

2 Recht, Staat und Strafe, p. 11 et seq.

That

which means a firm basis is to be given to the laws." these words indicate the very element which is the most essential in the Mosaic Theocracy, will appear evident from our remarks relative to that institution (chap. 1.). That the principle above mentioned may obtain in all forms of gov ernment even in a despotism, where, as Welcker and Heeren remark, the monocrat is the wisest and noblest man - cannot admit of a doubt. Much depends accordingly on the spirit of the law, and the power which the latter exercises over the consciences of the people. It will not, however, on the other hand, be a matter of indifference, in what degree the joint national sense of right exercises, in the spirit of that law, an influence on the administration, resolutions, and undertakings of the State. Now, even if all the people do not en masse take part in the administration of govern ment, but only their proper delegates and representatives, it is of the utmost importance that the measures resolved upon by the latter, have their origin in the mind of the people. In this respect, now, the form of a patriarchal democracy, as established by Moses, vindicates its preeminent worth. The elder of the house, of the family, stands most intimately related to those whom he represents in the national assembly. His interests are essentially those of his constituents; what he has resolved and deliberated upon has binding force to them. Such was the constitution of the Hebrews — a constitution which existed in some of its elements, even before Moses, but which the latter regulated and amply developed. Through such a mechanism the prophet, who had not in those times the means which in our day are so well adapted to the diffusion of knowledge, was enabled to cause his voice to be heard among the most distant masses of the people. What the fathers, fired with enthusiasm, once resolved, became a duty sacred to the whole people. These relations are yet far from being properly appreciated. The law, according to the institutions of the lawgiver, had its broadest foundation in the body of the people; and through the peculiar organism of the constitution, whatever the latter desired, could, when the thought had been once expressed

and approved, soon became a universal reality. That the law be founded on the conscience - on which Welcker lays such stress is the very thing which Moses aims at, when he says: "What I command thee this day is not hidden from thee, nor is it far away; but it is near unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart" (Deut. 30: 11-14). How this universal conscience of the people passes over into action may be seen among other things, from an incident-worthy of note in this connection-related in the book of Judges (19: 25 sq. and 20: 1 sq.). A scandalous deed, perpetrated on the person of a concubine belonging to an obscure and insignificant individual, impels the whole nation, as one man, to bring the criminal to justice. Such, moreover, was the nature of this form of the constitution, that its essential elements could be but little affected by a change in the person of the chief magistrate of the nation. Never, even when there was no common head, did the organic movement of the whole come to a stand-still, or become a wild confusion of unbridled passions. On the contrary, the tribes, the families, ever remained well regulated, each forming a unit in itself; and through the patriarchal power of the elders. and princes these units were easily managed, and just as easily enabled to combine with one another, forming one great united whole. What MONTESQUIEU (Esprit de Loix, 1. 9, c. 1.) says in praise of federal republics, as well as his remarks (ibid. c. 2) in regard to the disunited monarchies of Canaan, whose decline and fall were occasioned by the very fact of their disunion - is thus in some measure applicable also in the case of the Hebrews.

§ 12. The circumstance that the representatives were at the same time the judges and officers of the people, must have greatly contributed to interweave the constitution, as thus far represented, with the innermost life of the nation. The representatives thus continually, even in ordinary times, occupied a sphere of activity, which, essentially dependent as it was, on the confidence and patriarchal influence they inspired, at the same time served ever to maintain the most intimate intercourse between them and the people. Yea, it

« AnteriorContinuar »