menu_book Chapter 19

Chapter 17 continues. The reasons for applying this name are, 1. Because the royal seat of government was the temple, and in respect to it alone, as we have shown, all the tribes were fellow citizens. 2.

Because all the people owed allegiance to God, their supreme judge, to whom only they had promised implicit obedience in all things. 3. Because the general-in-chief or dictator, when there was need of such, was elected by none save God alone.

This was expressly commanded by Moses in the name of God, Deuteronomy 19, verse 15, and witnessed by the actual choice of Gideon, of Samson, and of Samuel. Wherefrom we may conclude that the other faithful leaders were chosen in the same manner, though it is not expressly told us. These preliminaries being stated, it is now time to inquire the effects of forming a dominion

on this plan, and to see whether it so effectually kept within bounds both rulers and ruled, that the former were never tyrannical, and the latter never rebellious. Those who administer or possess governing power always try to surround their high-handed actions with a cloak of legality, and to persuade the people that they act from good motives. This they are easily able to effect when they are the sole interpreters of the law, for

it is evident that they are thus able to assume a far greater freedom to carry out their wishes and desires than if the interpretation of the law is vested in someone else, or if the laws were so self-evident that no one could be in doubt as to their meaning. We thus see that the power of evil doing was greatly curtailed for the Hebrew captains by the fact that the whole interpretation of the law was vested in the Levites, Deuteronomy

21, verse 5, who on their part had no share in the government, and depended for all their support and consideration on a correct interpretation of the laws entrusted to them. Moreover, the whole people was commanded to come together at a certain place every seven years and be instructed in the law by the high priest. Further, each individual was bidden to read the book of the law through and through continually

with scrupulous care. The captains were thus for their own sakes bound to take great care to administer everything according to the laws laid down and well known to all if they wished to be held in high honor by the people who would regard them as the administrators of God's dominion and as God's vice regents.

Otherwise, they could not have escaped all the virulence of theological hatred. There was another very important check on the unbridled license of the captains in the fact that the army was formed from the whole body of the citizens between the ages of 20 and 60, without exception, and that the captains were not able to hire any foreign soldiery. This I say was very important, for it is well known that princes can oppress their peoples

with the single aid of the soldiery in their pay. While there is nothing more formidable to them than the freedom of citizen soldiers who have established the freedom and glory of their country by their valor, their toil, and their blood. Thus Alexander, when he was about to make war on Darius a second time after hearing

the advice of Parmenio, did not chide him who gave the advice, but Pauli Spurcon who was standing by. For as Curtius says, chapter 4, verse 13, he did not venture to reproach Parmenio again after having shortly before reproved him too sharply. This freedom of the Macedonians, which he so dreaded, he was not able to subdue till

after the number of captives enlisted in the army surpassed that of his own people. Then but not till then he gave rein to his anger so long checked by the independence of his chief fellow countrymen. If this independence of citizen soldiers can restrain the princes of ordinary states who are wont to usurp the whole glory of victories, it must have been still more effectual against

the Hebrew captains, whose soldiers were fighting not for the glory of a prince, but for the glory of God, and who did not go forth to battle till the divine assent had been given. We must also remember that the Hebrew captains were associated only by the bonds of religion. Therefore if any one of them had transgressed and begun to violate the divine right, he might have been treated by the rest as an enemy and lawfully subdued.

An additional check may be found in the fear of a new prophet arising. For if a man of unblemished life could show by certain signs that he was really a prophet, he ipso facto obtained the sovereign right to rule which was given to him as to Moses formerly in the name of God as revealed to himself alone, not merely through the high priest as in the case of the captains.

There is no doubt that such an one would easily be able to enlist an oppressed people in his cause, and by trifling signs persuade them of anything he wished. On the other hand, if affairs were well ordered, the captain would be able to make provision in time, that the prophet should be submitted to his approval and be examined whether he were really of unblemished life and possessed indisputable signs of his mission.

Also whether the teaching he proposed to set forth in the name of the Lord agreed with received doctrines and the general laws of the country. If his credentials were insufficient or his doctrines new, he could lawfully be put to death or else received on the captain's sole responsibility and authority. Again the captains were not superior to the others in nobility or birth, but only administer

the government in virtue of their age and personal qualities. Lastly, neither captains nor army had any reason for preferring war to peace. The army, as we have stated, consisted entirely of citizens, so that affairs were managed by the same persons both in peace and war. The man who was a soldier in the camp was a citizen in the marketplace.

He who was a leader in the camp was a judge in the law courts. He who was a general in the camp was a ruler in the state. Thus no one could desire war for its own sake, but only for the sake of preserving peace and liberty. Possibly the captains avoided change as far as possible so as not to be obliged to consult

the high priest and submit to the indignity of standing in his presence. So much for the precautions for keeping the captains within bounds. We must now look for the restraints upon the people. These however are very clearly indicated in the very groundwork of the social fabric. One who gives the subject the slightest attention will see that the state was so ordered as

to inspire the most ardent patriotism in the hearts of the citizens so that the latter would be very hard to persuade to betray their country, and be ready to endure anything rather than submit to a foreign yoke. After they had transferred their right to God, they thought that their kingdom belonged to God, and that they themselves were God's children.

Other nations they looked upon as God's enemies, and regarded with intense hatred, which they took to be piety. See Psalm 139, verses 21 and 22. Nothing would have been more abhorrent to them than swearing allegiance to a foreigner and promising him obedience, nor could they conceive any greater or more execrable crime

than the betrayal of their country, the kingdom of the God whom they adored. It was considered wicked for anyone to settle outside of the country, inasmuch as the worship by which they were bound could not be carried on elsewhere. Their own land alone was considered holy, the rest of the earth unclean and profane. David, who was forced to live in exile, complained before Saul as follows,

But if they be the children of men who have stirred thee up against me, cursed be they before the Lord. For they have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord, saying, Go serve other gods. Chapter 26, verse 19.

For the same reason no citizen, as we should especially remark, was ever sent into exile. He whose sin was liable to punishment, but not to disgrace. Thus the love of Hebrews for their country was not only patriotism, but also piety, and was cherished and nurtured by daily rites, till, like the hatred of other nations, it must have passed into their nature.

Their daily worship was not only different from that of other nations, as it might well be, considering that they were a peculiar people, and entirely apart from the rest. It was absolutely contrary. Such daily reprobation naturally gave rise to a lasting hatred, deeply implanted in the heart.

For of all hatreds none is more deep and tenacious than that which springs from extreme devoutness or piety, and is itself cherished as pious. Nor was a general cause lacking for inflaming such hatred more and more, inasmuch as it was reciprocated. The surrounding nations regarding the Jews with a hatred just as intense.

How great was the effect of all these causes, namely freedom from man's dominion, devotion to their country, absolute rights over all other men, a hatred not only permitted but pious, a contempt for their fellow men, the singularity of their customs and religious rights. The effect, I repeat, of all these causes, in strengthening the hearts of the Jews to

bear all things for their country, with extraordinary constancy and valor, will at once be discerned by reason and attested by experience. Never, so long as the city was tending, could they endure to remain under foreign dominion, and therefore they called Jerusalem a rebellious city. Ezra 4, 12.

Their state after its re-establishment, which was a mere shadow of the first, for the high priest had usurped the rights of the tribal captains, was, with great difficulty, destroyed by the Romans, as Tacitus bears witness. Histories. Chapter 2, verse 4.

Vespasian had closed the war against the Jews, abandoning the siege of Jerusalem as an enterprise difficult and arduous, rather from the character of the people and the obstinacy of their superstition than from the strength left to the besieged for meeting their necessities. But besides these characteristics, which are merely ascribed by an individual opinion, there was one feature peculiar to this state and of great importance in retaining the affections

of the citizens and checking all thoughts of desertion or abandonment of the country, namely self-interest, the strength and life of all human action. This was peculiarly engaged in the Hebrew state. For nowhere else did citizens possess their goods so securely as did the subjects of this community, for the latter possessed as large a share in the land and the fields as did

their chiefs, and were owners of their plots of ground in perpetuity. For if any man was compelled by poverty to sell his farm or his pasture, he received it back again intact at the year of Jubilee. There were other similar enactments against the possibility of alienating real property. Again, poverty was nowhere more endurable than in a country where duty towards one's

neighbor, that is one's fellow citizen, was practiced with the utmost piety as a means of gaining the favor of God the King. Thus the Hebrew citizens would nowhere be so well off as in their own country. Outside its limits they met with nothing but loss and disgrace. The following considerations were of weight, not only in keeping them at home, but also

in preventing civil war and removing causes of strife. No one was bound to serve as equal, but only to serve God, while charity and love towards fellow citizens was accounted the highest piety. This last feeling was not a little fostered by the general hatred with which they regarded foreign nations and were regarded by them.

Furthermore, the strict discipline of obedience in which they were brought up was a very important factor, for they were bound to carry on all their actions according to the set rules of the law. A man might not plow when he liked, but only at certain times, in certain years, and with one sort of beast at a time.

So too he might only sow and reap in a certain method and season. In fact, his whole life was one long school of obedience. See chapter 5 on the use of ceremonies. Such a habit was thus engendered that conformity seemed freedom instead of servitude, and men desired what was commanded rather than what was forbidden.

This result was not a little aided by the fact that the people were bound at certain seasons of the year to give themselves up to rest and rejoicing, not for their own pleasure, but in order that they might worship God cheerfully. Three times in the year they feasted before the Lord. On the seventh day of every week they were bidden to abstain from all work and to rest.

As these, there were other occasions when innocent rejoicing and feasting were not only allowed but enjoined. I do not think any better means of influencing men's minds could be devised, for there is no more powerful attraction than joy springing from devotion, a mixture of admiration and love.

It was not easy to be wearied by constant repetition, for the rites on the various festivals were varied and recurred seldom. We may add the deep irreverence for the temple, which all most religiously foster. On account of the peculiar rites and duties that they were obliged to perform before approaching tither, even now Jews cannot read without horror of the crimes of Manasseh, who dared to place

an idol in the temple. The laws scrupulously preserved in the innermost sanctuary were objects of equal reverence to the people. Popular reports and misconceptions were, therefore, very little to be feared in this quarter, for no one dared decide on sacred matters, but all felt bound to obey, without consulting

their reason, all the commands given by the answers of God received in the temple and all the laws which God had ordained. I think I have now explained clearly, though briefly, the main feature of the Hebrew commonwealth. I must now inquire into the causes which led the people so often to fall away from the law, which brought about their frequent subjection, and finally the complete destruction of their

dominion. Perhaps I shall be told that it sprang from their hardness of heart. But this is childish, for why should this people be more hard of heart than others, was it by nature? But nature forms individuals, not peoples.

The latter are only distinguishable by the difference of their language, their customs, and their laws. While from the two last, that is, customs and laws, it may arise that they have a peculiar disposition, a peculiar manner of life, and peculiar prejudices. If then the Hebrews were harder of heart than other nations, the fault lay with their laws

or customs. This is certainly true, in the sense that, if God had wished their dominion to be more lasting, He would have given them other rights and laws, and would have instituted a different form of government. We can therefore only say that their God was angry with them, not only, as Jeremiah says,

from the building of the city, but even from the founding of their laws. This is borne witness to by Ezekiel 20, verse 25, Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire,

all that opened at the womb, that I might make them desolate to the end, and they might know that I am the Lord. In order that we may understand these words and the destruction of the Hebrew commonwealth, we must bear in mind that it had at first been intended to entrust the whole duties of the priesthood to the firstborn and not to the Levites.

See Numbers, chapter 8, verse 17. It was only when all the tribes, except the Levites, worshipped the golden calf, that the firstborn were rejected and defiled, and the Levites chosen in their stead. Deuteronomy, chapter 10, verse 8. When I reflect on this change, I feel disposed to break forth with the words of Tacitus.

God's object at that time was not the safety of the Jews, but vengeance. I am greatly astonished that the celestial mind was so inflamed with anger that it ordained laws which always are supposed to promote the honor, well-being, and security of a people, with the purpose of vengeance, for the sake of punishment, so that the laws do not seem so much laws, that is, the safeguard of the people, as pains and penalties.

The gifts which the people were obliged to bestow on the Levites and priests, the redemption of the firstborn, the poll-tax due to the Levites, the privilege possessed by the latter of the sole performance of sacred rites, all these, I say, were a continual reproach to the people, a continual reminder of their defilement and rejection. Moreover, we may be sure that the Levites were forever heaping reproaches upon them,

for among so many thousands there must have been many importunate dabblers in theology. Hence the people got into the way of watching the acts of the Levites, who were but human, of accusing the whole body of the faults of one member, and continually murmuring. Besides this, there was the obligation to keep in idleness men hateful to them, and connected by no ties of blood.

Especially would this seem grievous when provisions were dear. What wonder, then, if in times of peace, when striking miracles had seized, and no man of paramount authority were forthcoming, the irritable and greedy temper of the people began to wax cold, and at length to fall away from a worship which, though divine, was also humiliating and even hostile, and to seek after something fresh?

Or can we be surprised that the captains, who always adopt the popular course, in order to gain the sovereign power for themselves by enlisting the sympathies of the people and alienating the high priest, should have yielded to their demands and introduced a new worship? If the state had been formed according to the original intention, the rights and honor

of all the tribes would have been equal, and everything would have rested on a firm basis. Who is there who would willingly violate the religious rights of his kindred? What could a man desire more than to support his own brothers and parents, thus fulfilling the duties of religion? Who would not rejoice in being taught by them the interpretation of the laws, and receiving

through them the answers of God? The tribes would thus have been united by a far closer bond, if all alike had possessed a right to the priesthood. All danger would have been obviated if the choice of the Levites had not been dictated by anger and revenge.

But as we have said, the Hebrews had offended their God, who, as Ezekiel says, polluted them in their own gifts by rejecting all that opened at the womb, so that he might destroy This passage is also confirmed by their history. As soon as the people in the wilderness began to live in ease and plenty, certain men of no mean birth began to rebel against the choice of the Levites, and to make it a cause for

believing that Moses had not acted by the commands of God, but for his own good pleasure, inasmuch as he had chosen his own tribe before all the rest, and had bestowed the high priesthood in perpetuity of his own brother. They therefore stirred up a tumult, and came to him, crying out that all men were equally sacred, and that he had exalted himself above his fellows wrongfully.

Moses was not able to pacify them with reasons, but with the intervention of a miracle, in proof of the faith they all perished. A fresh sedition then arose among the whole people, who believed that their champions had not been put to death by the judgment of God, but by the devise of Moses. After a great slaughter or pestilence, the rising subsided from ininition, but in such

a manner that all preferred death to life under such conditions. We should rather say that sedition ceased than that harmony was reestablished. This is witnessed by scripture, Deuteronomy chapter 31 verse 21, where God, after predicting to Moses that the people after his death will fall away from the divine worship, speaks thus, For I know their imagination which they go about, even now before I have brought them

into the land which I swear. And a little while after, chapter 31 verse 27, Moses says, For I know thy rebellion and thy stiff neck. Behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the Lord, and how much more after my death.

Indeed, it happened according to his words, as we all know. Great changes, extreme license, luxury, and hardness of heart grew up. Things went from bad to worse, till at last the people, after being frequently conquered, came to an open rupture with the divine right and wished for a mortal king, so that the seat of government might be the court instead of the temple, and that the tribes might remain

fellow citizens in respect to their king, instead of in respect to divine right and the high priesthood. The vast material for new seditions was thus produced, eventually resulting in the ruin of the entire state. Kings are above all things jealous of a precarious rule, and can in no wise brook a dominion

within their own. The first monarchs, being chosen from the ranks of private citizens, were content with the amount of dignity to which they had risen. But their sons, who obtained the throne by right of inheritance, began gradually to introduce changes, so as to get all the sovereign rights into their own hands.

This they were generally unable to accomplish, so long as the right of legislation did not rest with them, but with the high priest, who kept the laws in the sanctuary, and interpreted them to the people. The kings were thus bound to obey the laws as much as were the subjects, and were unable to abrogate them, or to ordain new laws of equal authority.

Moreover, they were prevented by the Levites from administering the affairs of religion, and the king and subject being alike unclean. Lastly, the whole safety of their dominion depended on the will of one man, if that man appeared to be a prophet, and of this they had seen an example, namely, how completely Samuel had been able to command Saul, and how easily, because of a single disobedience,

he had been able to transfer the right of sovereignty to David. Thus the kings found dominion within their own, and wielded a precarious sovereignty. In order to surmount these difficulties, they allowed other temples to be dedicated to the gods, so that there might be no further need of consulting the Levites. They also sought out many who prophesied in the name of God, so that they might have creatures

of their own to oppose the true prophets. However, in spite of all their attempts, they never attained their end. For the prophets, prepared against every emergency, waited for a favorable opportunity, such as the beginning of a new reign, which is always precarious, while the memory of the previous reign remains green.

At these times they could easily pronounce by divine authority that the king was tyrannical, and could produce a champion of distinguished virtue to vindicate the divine right, and lawfully to claim dominion or a share in it. Still, not even so could the prophets affect much. They could indeed remove a tyrant, but there were reasons which prevented them from doing

more than setting up, at a great cost of civil bloodshed, another tyrant in its stead. Of discords and civil wars there was no end, for the causes for the violation of divine right remained always the same, and could only be removed by a complete remodeling of the state. We have now seen how religion was introduced into the Hebrew commonwealth, and how the

dominion might have lasted forever, if the just wrath of the lawgiver had allowed it. As this was impossible, it was bound in time to perish. I am now speaking only of the first commonwealth, for the second was a mere shadow of the first, inasmuch as the people were bound by the rights of the Persians to whom they were subject. After the restoration of freedom, the high priest usurped the rights of the secular chiefs,

and thus obtained absolute dominion. The priest were inflamed with an intense desire to wield the powers of the sovereignty and the high priesthood at the same time. I have therefore no need to speak further of the second commonwealth. Whether the first, in so far as we deem it to have been durable, is capable of imitation,

and whether it would be pious to copy it as far as possible will appear from what follows. I wish only to draw attention as a crowning conclusion to the principle indicated already, namely that it is evident from what we have stated in this chapter, that the divine right or the right of religion originates in a compact. Without such compact, none but natural rights exist.

The Hebrews were not bound by their religion to evince any pious care for other nations, not included in the compact, but only for their fellow citizens.