In every tribe there was a chief called the Prince of the Tribe, or the Head of Thousands; and under him were the Princes of Families, or Commanders of Hundreds. For example, we find that at the muster which was made of the Hebrews in the Wilderness of Sinai, Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, was Prince of the Tribe of Judah. This tribe, again, like all the others, was divided into several families; the term being used here not in its ordinary acceptation, to signify a mere household, but rather in the heraldic sense, to denote a lineage or kindred descended from a common ancestor, and constituting the main branches of an original stock. In this respect the Israelites were guided by the same principle which regulates precedency among the Arabs, as well as among our own countrymen in the Highlands of Scotland.
It appears, moreover, that a record of these families, of the households in each, and even of the individuals belonging to every household, was placed in the hands of the chief ruler; for it is related that, on the suspicion excited with regard to the spoils of Jericho and the discomfiture at Ai, "Joshua brought Israel by their tribes, and the tribe of Judah was taken; and he brought the family of Judah, and he took the family of the Zarhites; and he brought the family of the Zarhites man by man, and Zabdi was taken; and he brought his household man by man, and Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, was taken."[18]
We may collect from the twenty-sixth chapter of the book of Numbers, that the Heads of Families, at the time the children of Israel encamped on the eastern bank of the Jordan, were in number fifty-seven. If to these we add the thirteen Princes, the Heads of tribes, the sum of the two numbers will be seventy; whence there is some ground for the conjectures of those who allege, that the council which Moses formed in the Wilderness consisted of the patriarchal chiefs, who in right of birth were recognized as bearing an hereditary rule over the several sections of the people.
It is probable that the first-born of the senior family of each tribe was usually received as the prince of that tribe, and that the eldest son of every subordinate family succeeded his father in the honours and duties which belonged to the rank of a patriarch. But the sacred narrative presents too few details to permit us to form with confidence any general conclusions in regard to this point. The case of Nahshon, besides, has been viewed as an instance quite irreconcilable with such an opinion; and it certainly seems to prove, that if the Prince of the Tribe was not elective, he was not always, at least, the direct descendant of the original chief. Nahshon, as has just been stated, was the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, who was a younger son of Hezron the son of Pharez who was a younger son of Judah.[19]
From the particulars now stated, we find that every tribe had a head who presided over its affairs, administered justice in all ordinary cases, and led the troops in time of war. He was assisted in these important duties by the subordinate officers, the Chiefs of Families, who formed his council in such matters of policy as affected their particular district, supported his decisions in civil or criminal inquiries, and finally commanded under him in the field of battle.
But the polity established by the Jewish lawgiver was not confined to the constitution and government of the separate tribes. It likewise extended its regulations to the common welfare of the whole, as one kingdom under the special direction of Jehovah; and provided that on all great occasions they should have the means of readily uniting their counsels and their strength. Even during the less orderly period which immediately followed the settlement of the Hebrews in the land of their inheritance, we find traces of such a general government; a national senate, whose deliberations guided the administration of affairs in all cases of difficulty or hazard; a judge, who was invested with a high degree of executive authority as the first magistrate of the commonwealth; and lastly, the controlling voice of the congregation of Israel, whose concurrence appears to have been at all times necessary to give vigour and effect to the resolutions of their leaders. To these constituent parts of the Hebrew government we may add the Oracle or voice of Jehovah, without whose sanction, as revealed by Urim and Thummim, no measure of importance could be adopted either by the council or by the judge.
It has been justly remarked, at the same time, that however extensive the power might be which was committed to the supreme court of the nation, and how much soever the authority of a military judge among the Israelites resembled that of a Roman dictator, the privilege of making laws was at no period intrusted to any order of the Jewish state. As long as the Hebrews were governed by a theocracy, this essential prerogative was retained by the Divine Head of the nation. "Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes, and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."[20]
It is the opinion of learned men, that the Council of Seventy, established by Moses in the Wilderness, was only a temporary appointment, and did not continue after the Hebrews were settled in the Land of Canaan. The only national assembly of which we can discover any trace subsequently to that event, is the occasional meeting of the Princes of Tribes and Chiefs of Families to transact business of great public importance. Thus, in the case of the war against Benjamin, of which we have a full account in the book of Judges, we are informed that the heads "of all the tribes, even of all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God." On that memorable occasion, the interests and character of the whole Hebrew commonwealth were at stake; for which reason the natural leaders of the tribes gathered themselves together at the head of their kinsmen and followers,—even four hundred thousand men that drew the sword,—in order to consult with one another, and to adopt such measures as might be deemed most suitable for punishing the atrocities which had been committed at Gibeah.
During the period to which this part of our narrative refers, the supreme power among the Hebrews was occasionally exercised by judges,—an order of magistrates to which nothing similar is to be found in any other country. The Carthaginians, indeed, had a description of rulers, whose names, being derived from the same oriental term, appear to establish some resemblance in their office to that of the successors of Joshua. But it will be found upon a comparison of their authority, both in its origin and the purposes to which it was meant to be subservient, that the Hebrew judges and the suffites of Carthage had very little in common. Nor do we find any closer analogy in the duties of a Grecian archon or of a Roman consul. These were ordinary magistrates, and periodically elected; whereas the judge was never invested with power except when the exigencies of public affairs required the aid of extraordinary talents or the weight of a supernatural appointment. On this account the Hebrew commander has been likened to the Roman dictator, who, when the commonwealth was in danger, was intrusted with an authority almost unlimited; and with a jurisdiction which extended to the lives and fortunes of nearly all his countrymen. But in one important particular this similarity fails. The dictator laid down his office as soon as the crisis which called for its exercise had passed away; and in no circumstances was he entitled to retain such unwonted supremacy beyond a limited time. The judge, on the other hand, remained invested with his high authority during the full period of his life, and is therefore usually described by the sacred historian as presiding to the end of his days over the tribes of Israel, amid the peace and security which his military skill, aided by the blessing of Heaven, had restored to their land.[21]
The Hebrew judges, says Dupin, were not ordinary magistrates, but men raised up by God, on whom the Israelites bestowed the chief government, either because they had delivered them from the oppressions under which they groaned, or because of their prudence and equity. They ruled according to the law of Jehovah, commanded their armies, made treaties with the neighbouring princes, declared war and peace, and administered justice. They were different from kings,—