dinate and less material part of the transaction; but in addressing the people, it was natural to notice the part they themselves had in the selection of those judges, in order to conciliate their regard and obedience. How naturally, also, does this pious legislator, in his public address, dwell on every circumstance which could improve his hearers in piety and virtue! The multitude of the people was the cause of the appointment of the Judges. How beautifully is this increase of the nation turned to an argument of gratitude to God! How admirably does he take occasion, from mentioning the Judges, to inculcate the eternal principles of justice and piety which should control their decisions! How remote is all this from art, forgery, imposture! Surely here, if anywhere, we can trace the dictates of nature, truth, and piety."

NOTE D.—LECTure 2, p. 64.

"From various passages of the Pentateuch, we find that Moses, at making known any laws, had to convene the whole congregation of Israel (37 or 17); and, in like manner, in the Book of Joshua, we see, that when Diets were held, the whole congregation were assembled. If on such occasions every individual had to give his vote, everything would certainly have been democratic in the highest degree; but it is scarcely conceivable how, without any particular regulations made for the purpose, (which, however, we nowhere find,) order could have been preserved in an assembly of 600,000 men, their votes accurately numbered, and acts of violence prevented. If, however, we consider that, while Moses is said to have spoken to the whole congregation, he could not possibly be heard by 600,000 people, (for what human voice could be sufficiently strong to be so ?) all our fears and difficulties will vanish; for this circumstance alone must convince any one that Moses could only have addressed himself to a certain number of persons deputed to represent the rest of the Israelites. Accordingly, in Numbers, 1: 16, we find mention made of such persons. In contradiction to the common Israelites, they are there denominated Kerüe Häeda (777), that is, those wont to be called to the convention. In the 16th chapter of the same book, verse 2, they are styled Nesie Eda Kerüe Moed

that is, chiefs of the community, that (במראי עדה קרואי מועד)

are called to the convention. I notice this passage particularly, because it appears from it that 250 persons of this description, who rose up against Moses, became to him objects of extreme terror; which they could not have been, if their voices had not been, at the same time, the voices of their families and tribes. Still more explicit, and to this point, is the passage Deut. 29: 10, where Moses, in a speech to the whole people, says, 'Ye stand this day, all of you, before the Lord your God; your captains of your tribes, (that is, chiefs of tribes,) your elders and your officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water.' Now, as Moses could not possibly speak loud enough to be heard by two millions and a half of people, (for to so many did the Israelites amount, women and children included,) it must be manifest that the first-named persons represented the people, to whom they again repeated the words of Moses.

"Whether these representatives were on every occasion obliged to collect and declare the sense of their constituents, or whether, like the members of the English House of Commons, they acted in the plenitude of their own power for the general good, without taking instructions from their constituents, I find nowhere expressly determined; but methinks, from a perusal of the Bible, I can scarcely doubt that the latter was the case."

We presume few can have any doubt in the matter; and, as Jahn remarks in his Archæology, we do not find the people discovering any inclination to interfere in the deliberations of their representatives by dictating the course to be pursued. But, as he adds, important measures were often laid before the people for their consent or ratification; and this was done whenever the rulers or representatives thought it expedient to have the views of the whole nation so expressed.

NOTE E.-LECTURE 2, p. 65.

The account which I have given respecting the organization of the Courts of Justice, and the Confederation of the Tribes, is fully sustained by proofs which are stated with much detail by Michaelis in his Commentaries, and by Jahn in his Archaeology. But while I refer to these authors as valuable expositors on these subjects, I cannot but differ from them with regard to the Council of Seventy, or the Sanhedrim, as it is often called. Jahn's views are very much taken from Michaelis', and I will quote only the words of the latter :-

"Moses established in the Wilderness another institution, which has been commonly held to be of a judicial nature; and, under the name of Sanhedrim or Synedrium, much spoken of both by Jews and Christians, although it probably was not of long continuance. We have the account of its establishment in Numbers, 11; and if we read the passage impartially and without prejudice, we shall probably entertain an opinion of the Synedrium different from that generally received, which exalt it into a supreme College of Justice that was to endure for ever.

"A rebellion that arose among the Israelites distressed Moses exceedingly. In order to alleviate the weight of the burden that oppressed him, he chose, from the twelve tribes collectively, a council of seventy persons, to assist him. These, however, could hardly have been judges; for, of them the people already had between sixty and seventy thousand. Besides, of what use could seventy new judges, or a Supreme Court of Appeal, have been in crushing a rebellion. It seems much more likely that this selection was intended for a Supreme Senate, to take a share with Moses in the Government: and as it consisted of persons of respectability, either in point of family or merit, it would serve materially to support his power and influence among the people in general. By a mixture of aristocracy, it would moderate the monarchical appearance which the constitution must have assumed, from Moses giving his laws by command of God: and it would unite a number

of powerful families together, from their being all associated with Moses in the Government.

"It is commonly supposed that this Synedrium continued permanent; but this I doubt. For, in the whole period from the death of Moses to the Babylonish captivity, we find not the least mention of it in the Bible; and this silence, methinks, is decisive; for in the time of the judges, but particularly on those occasions when, according to the expression of the Book of Judges,' There was neither king nor judge in Israel;' and again, during those great political revolutions, when David by degree became king over all the tribes, and when the ten tribes revolted from his grandson Rehoboam; and lastly, under the tyrannical reigns of some of the subsequent kings-such a supreme council of seventy persons, if it had been in existence, must have made a conspicuous figure in the history; and yet we find not the least trace of it; so that it merely appears to have been a temporary council, instituted by Moses for his personal service and security; and as he did not fill up the vacancies occasioned in it by deaths, it must have died out altogether in the Wilderness.

"No doubt the Jews, after their return from the Babylonish captivity, did institute a Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, of which frequent mention is made, not only in the New Testament, but also in Jewish writings. But this is merely an imitation of the ancient Mosaic Synedrium, with the nature of whose constitution the latter Jews were no longer acquainted; for they had indeed become ignorant of almost all the customs of their ancestors. The detail of this second Sanhedrim established by the latter Jews, belong not to our present work, but to their history after the Babylonish captivity."

In reference to the "ignorance of all the customs of their ancestors," which is here charged upon the Jews after the Captivity in Babylon, I remark that we should be very slow to believe such a charge against Ezra, Nehemiah, and others, under whose direction the restoration of the Jews and of their ordinances is described to us as having taken place. Such men well understood the "nature of the constitution of the Mosaic Synedrium," when, as Michaelis admits, they introduced what they considered “ an imitation of it.”

As to his main argument, to show that the Council of Seventy was a mere temporary arrangement-viz. that we find no mention of it from the time of Moses until the Babylonish Captivity; I do not admit the fact to be so; and even if it was so, I would not admit the inference which he draws from the supposed silence. We do not infer that circumcision was discontinued among the Hebrews for centuries after the days of Joshua because there is no express mention of its observance; nor that a Sabbath was not observed among the Patriarchs because the Scriptures are silent respecting it.

The Council, or Senate of Seventy, seems to be mentioned on just such occasions after the death of Moses as most fitly calls for it. It is of small consequence whether we may or may not find the name, if we find the thing. Our first inquiry, then, should be: What was this Council of Seventy? what were its rank, its authority, and duties? These, we may learn from the circumstances under which it was formed, and the occasion which gave rise to it, as we find them, Numbers, 11.

It has been observed (I believe by M'Intosh) that "institutions grow, and are not made." This is generally true; and the institution of the Seventy Elders seems to have grown out of the accumulation of business which arose from the increasing number and interests of the Hebrews on their way to Canaan.

An open rebellion had broken out among the people, in which they expressly avowed their desire to return to Egypt, and put designed contempt on the mercies which God had shown to them. The occurrence afflicted and displeased Moses exceedingly, and led him to ask for death rather than the continuance of a life which was harassed and burdened