This was another department of the Hebrew government and one of the bonds of union between the tribes of Israel. The study of this part of the constitution is not without its difficulty. The persons composing the senatorial council, the powers vested in it, and the functions discharged by it are points involved in no little obscurity. All the information which I find in the sacred books, touching this subject, is embodied in the present chapter.
According to the Hebrew polity, as we have seen, every tribe, and even every city, had its senate of princes, or elders, as well as a more popular assembly. Some such institution seems to be essential in every well-balanced government. A council of sages, venerable on account of their age, wisdom, and dignity, is necessary to check the rashness and haste of popular assemblies. Accordingly, we find that free governments have always had senates of some kind to balance the power of the people, to prepare matters of public business, and to propose measures of state, in some degree of maturity, for the action of the more popular branch of the government. That the commonwealth of Israel had a council of this sort does not admit of a reasonable doubt. This is rendered certain by the frequent mention in the Hebrew history of the princes and elders of Israel, and the distinction, many times made, between the princes and the congregation. We are now to inquire when this body was instituted, what it was, and how long it continued.
Bertram has well observed that the number of seventy elders, appointed by the law of God, was not so much a new institution, as the continuation of a former usage, as God rather confirmed than newly instituted many things at Mount Sinai, which were ancient customs of the fathers. Bishop Sherlock also takes notice "that every tribe had its own princes and judges," even while they yet remained in Egypt. When Moses was first sent to the children of Israel to inform them that Jehovah had visited them and seen what was done unto them in Egypt, he was commanded to gather the elders of Israel together and deliver the message to them.1 This direction was punctually followed, for it is said, "Moses and Aaron went and gathered the elders of the children of Israel."2 It is a material observation here, that, besides the princes of tribes, explicit mention is made, in the same period of the Hebrew history, of the heads of families, or clans.3 Of these, as we learn from a subsequent part of the history,4 there were fifty-eight, who, being added to the twelve princes of the tribes, make up the number seventy.
There is little doubt that, even before the exodus of Israel out of Egypt, these chiefs of tribes and heads of clans formed a council of state, a kind of provisional senate. They were regarded and addressed as persons of chief dignity in their respective tribes. That they were clothed with some sort of authority is evident from what one of the Hebrews said to Moses: "Who made thee a prince and a judge over us?"5 It is, moreover, apparent that these dignitaries formed an organized body, in whose counsels and resolutions the tribes themselves were united into one nation, since Moses addressed them, not as princes of particular tribes, but as elders of Israel.6 It deserves, also, particular attention, that when the Israelites left Egypt, it was in hosts, or by their armies, that they did it.7 They did not go as a confused and disorderly rabble, but marched in battalions, each under its own officers and its own standard. This observation, though of little moment in itself, is, nevertheless, important for the inference which it supports. Let it be remembered that the Israelites left Egypt in great haste. Now, it would have been impossible for them to go in hosts, or squadrons, if there had not been persons previously known and recognized as commanders. They could not otherwise have known under what standard they were to march, or by what particular officers they were to be led. Obviously, it would not have been practicable to organize an army of two and a half million people, at the instant of departure. It would seem, therefore, that, while the Israelites were yet in Egypt, the princes of tribes must have been acknowledged as general officers of the tribes, and the chiefs of families as subordinate officers commanding their respective clans. It was, in all likelihood, the same seventy, who, at the giving of the law, were summoned to go up unto the Lord, with Moses and Aaron.8 What places it out of all doubt, that these officers were an organized body and acted as a council of state, or senate of sages, is a law contained in the tenth chapter of Numbers.9 Moses is there directed to make two silver trumpets. When both of them were blown, the whole congregation was to assemble; when only one of them, the princes and heads of the thousands of Israel were to come together for the dispatch of public business. But this law was given before the body, which is the principal subject of this chapter, was called into being, and, indeed, before the events occurred which were the special occasion of its institution.
The Israelites lay encamped at the base of Mount Sinai for the space of a year. At the end of that time, the trumpets sounded, the cloud was taken up from off the tabernacle of testimony, and the children of Israel took their journeys out of the wilderness of Sinai. Their first halting place was the wilderness of Paran.10 Here the people complained bitterly for want of flesh. Their murmurs displeased the Lord, and his anger was kindled greatly. Moses also was displeased and greatly afflicted at so unpromising a state and prospect of affairs. He, in his turn, complained that he found the burden of government too heavy for his individual strength. "I am not able," says he, "to bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me." By divine direction, and in order to alleviate the weight of the burden that oppressed him, Moses instituted a council of seventy elders who might share his functions, support his authority, and promote his views.11 It was a supreme senate, designed to take part with him in the government. As it consisted of persons of age, worth, experience, and respectability, it would serve materially to support his power and influence among the people in general. It would unite a number of powerful families together, from their being all associated with Moses in the government, and would materially strengthen the union of the tribes.
A detailed account of the origin of this body is given in the eleventh chapter of Numbers. The general mode of organizations related in these words:12 "And the Lord said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them: and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee. And I will come down and talk with thee there; and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them: and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone. And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the Lord, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle. And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spake onto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease. But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp."
"Three things," says Salvador, "are here worthy of note. The candidate for the senatorial office must be a man of the people; he must be an elder of the people; and he must have been previously elevated by the voice of the people to some public trust." That is to say, he must be a tried man, a man in whom the people put confidence after trial, and a man of experience in public affairs.
The seventy senators, chosen from among the elders and officers, were to be brought to the tabernacle of the congregation, that they might stand there with Moses. In other words, they were to be solemnly inaugurated, and consecrated to this service, that they might be a permanent council, to assist Moses in the government of the people. To give the greater weight to their decisions, God promises that he would talk with Moses, to declare, suggests Bishop Patrick, that he appointed them to be assistants to Moses in the government. The further promise was added that the Lord would take of the spirit, which was upon Moses, and would put it upon them; that is, as again suggested by Bishop Patrick, he would confer upon these men wisdom, judgment, courage, and other needful gifts of government, with which Moses was endowed. To give assurance of the fulfillment of this promise, it came to pass that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied. The spirit of prophecy was a manifest token that they were chosen by God to be coadjutors of Moses, that they were approved by him, and that they had received from him a spirit of government.
Yet these men were not chosen by God alone. The people concurred in the election. This is very evident from the history cited above. The names of the candidates are there said to have been written, or inscribed--a very important statement. In what manner were they inscribed? The text does not inform us, and the field is left open to conjecture. Let it be premised here that, as the senators were to bear the common burden of government with Moses, which concerned all the tribes, and that they were specially intended to prevent mutiny and sedition, it would be highly suitable that there should be an equal number from each tribe, and that they should be persons whom the tribes themselves approved. On this point, Hebrew and Christian writers are unanimous. I now return to the question, How were the names of the candidates inscribed? Did Moses himself write the names of the persons, whom he judged competent and qualified for the senatorial office, and submit them to the approval of the tribes? This would have been to deprive the tribes of one of their fundamental rights, that of designating their own magistrates. Besides, Moses was not charged with appointing the senate, but with assembling it. It is not probable, therefore, that this is what is meant by their names being written. Did the citizens, then, of the respective tribes, themselves elect, by ballot, the persons whom they believed most worthy of the dignity, and best fitted to discharge its functions usefully? This supposition seems the most reasonable. In the selection and appointment of magistrates, Moses demanded, not simply wise men, but such as were known among the tribes. How could this demand be answered, otherwise than by a manifestation of individual opinion? The history of the Acts of the apostles sheds light upon this point, and lends confirmation to this conjecture. The apostles incorporated the principles of the Mosaic constitution into their spiritual society. Needing certain functionaries, they convene the whole body of the disciples, and after the example of their ancient lawgiver, they say to them, "Look ye out seven men, of honest deport, and full of wisdom."13 The proposition pleased the assembly. Thereupon they themselves selected the functionaries, as suggested; and the apostles, in accordance with a long established national usage, inducted them into office by the solemn imposition of hands. Here, again, I observe by the way, we see the concurrence of the oracle and the people in the election of civil rulers.
Such, then, was the general spirit of the law. Without insisting on the correctness of this or that particular mode of selection, the fundamental principle, which is well worthy to arrest our attention, is plain and obvious. The law institutes a great national council, or senate, composed, not of priests, but of civilians; not of men belonging to privileged classes, or possessing vast estates, but of men wise, prudent, able, of good repute, fearing God, and already skilled in affairs of state; not politicians merely, but statesmen, sages, patriots. The name of seniors, or senators, belonged to the members of the great council. It is probable that men of advanced age were commonly chosen into it, yet young men of superior endowments sometimes gained admission. This we learn from the speech of such a one in the Wisdom of Solomon, who boasts that, in spite of his youth, he had obtained an honorable distinction for wisdom among the senators.
The design and functions of this institution are points of chief importance in this inquiry. The law declares, in general terms, that the senators where to bear the burden of the people with Moses, that he might not bear it alone. By this can hardly be meant the ordinary administration of justice, for provision had been made for that in the institution of the Jethronian judges. So far, therefore, as the senate was to assist Moses in judiciary matters, it could only be in those greater and more important causes, which were to be brought before him on appeal, or those difficult questions which the judges of the inferior courts themselves referred to him. But this was not the principal end of its institution. The occasion of its appointment is a proof of this. It was instituted to crush a rebellion. But for such an end, of what use would a mere court of judicature be? On the other hand, a council of sages, a supreme senate, composed of men venerable for their age, and of approved wisdom and integrity, would be of the greatest efficacy. There can be no doubt, therefore, that these seventy were to be permanent assistants of Moses in his councils. They were to aid him with their advice on all occasions, to preserve peace and good order among the people, to strengthen the sentiment of loyalty to the constitution, and to prevent those mutinies and seditions, which, if permitted to break out and rage, would in the end prove fatal to the government and the nation. "In this view," observes Lowman, "the seventy elders will appear to be designed, not only as a standing court of law and equity, to assist Moses as judge in causes of greater consequence, and in appeals, but to assist the judge with their advice on every occasion. This was properly to bear the burthen of the people together with Moses, that he might not bear it himself alone. For now the judge would not bear all the envy or ill will of the people, when dissatisfied or uneasy with any part of the administration; for the common people, though they know very little of the reasonings of any administration, are yet apt to think every thing wrong, that does not please them, or which is attended with difficulties to themselves or the public. Now, a council of seventy persons, of the most approved wisdom and integrity, would at least share this burthen among them all, instead of throwing the whole on one man. And it would be, moreover, an ease to the judge's own mind, and make him more resolved in any counsel to be taken or executed, when it should be with the advice and approbation of a multitude of counsellors, in which there is wisdom and safety. And, finally, it was proper to give authority and respect to such orders as should be made by advice of persons, whom the people themselves had approved and chosen, as eminent for their wisdom and integrity. Consider, then, this court as a standing senate, always at hand, or as a constant privy council to the judge, and we have a most wise provision for the easier and better government of the whole nation; and this will make a considerable part of the states-general of the united tribes."
Still, it must be borne in mind that the senate was not the government; it was only a constituent part of the government. It was but the council of the nation, the head, as it were, of the general diet. In all important questions, its decisions were to be submitted to the congregation, which, by its approbation, enacted them into laws. Of this we have a clear proof in the twentieth chapter of Judges, where the ancients are recorded to have called upon the general assembly of the people to deliberate upon a matter and give their decision. Even when the Hebrews demanded a king, they were far from wishing to change this part of the constitution. Hence it has been observed by the abbe Guenee that "it was always the duty of the king to govern the nation according to the laws. Their authority was neither despotic nor arbitrary. The senate, composed of the most distinguished members of all the tribes, served him as a council. He took their advice in all important affairs; and if any thing occurred, in which the interest of the whole nation was concerned, the congregation, that is to say, the assembly of the people, was convoked. The senate proposed, the congregation decided, and the king executed." A memorable example of this we have in 1 Chronicles 13:1-8. David, after consulting with his counsellors of state, in regard to the removal of the ark, refers the final decision of the question to the congregation of Israel. They, upon deliberation, approve and enact. Immediately thereupon, David proceeds to execute the decree. But it must not be inferred from hence, that the general assembly never took the initiative, much less that it had not the right of so doing. Moses tells the Hebrews, that on a certain occasion he made a proposition to them, which they approved and accepted, whereas on another occasion they proposed a certain measure to him, which, meeting his cordial approbation, he accepted and executed.14
Such, then, were the leading powers of the Hebrew senate. Let us inquire by what limitations they were confined within their just bounds. The Jewish law opposed itself invincibly to the existence of great landed proprietors, and thus prevented the members of the senate from uniting the influence of vast territorial estates to that which they derived from their office. The senator received no salary for his services. His age and the conditions of eligibility to the senatorial dignity served as a guarantee of his integrity. The decrees to which he contributed, extended to his children, his friends, and himself. Out of the senatorial seat, he was but a simple Israelite. The office was not hereditary, and the son of a senator was no more, in the eye of the law, than the son of the humblest citizen. These, however, were rather moral than legal restraints. But the sacerdotal magistracy, engaged by its very nature to the guardianship of the law; the prophets, those stern state censors and moralists, who launched the most unsparing denunciations against all who in any way abused the trusts confided to them; the decisions of the oracle; and the necessity of the intervention of the congregation of Israel in important questions, furnished guaranties of a positive and effective character, against the usurpation and tyranny of the Hebrew senate. Here is a system of moral and legal restrictions upon power, to which it would be difficult to find a parallel in other governments. the remark of Blackstone respecting the English constitution is equally applicable to the Hebrew polity, viz. that every branch of it supports and is supported, regulates and is regulated, by the rest. The senate, the congregation, the chief magistrate, the oracle, the Levitical order, and the prophetical office constituted many checks upon each other's power, so many dikes and embankments to restrain the exercise of tyranny, so many combined forces to give the machine of government a safe direction, and cause it to move in the line of the public liberty and happiness.
It has been a question with some, whether the senate of seventy, constituted by Moses on the occasion of the rebellion in Paran, continued permanent. Calmet endeavored to discredit the continued existence of this council. In this opinion he is followed by Michaelis. But the common and more probable opinion is that it was a permanent body. Bossuet says, "To maintain the law in its vigor, Moses formed an assembly of seventy counsellors, which may be termed the senate of Israel, and the perpetual council of the nation." The abbe de Fleury observes, "As often as mention is made in the scripture of assemblies and public affairs, the elders (or senators) are put in the first place, and sometimes named alone. Thence comes the expression in the Psalms, exhorting to praise God in the congregation of the people, and in the seat of the elders, that is, the public council." There is, indeed, a strong antecedent probability against the abolition of this council on the death of Moses; for, as Basnage well suggests, "If that great legislator needed such a council, during his life, it must have been still more necessary to those who succeeded him in the administration of he republic." Salvador has an able, if not a convincing argument, to prove that the senate is often designated in the sacred books by the lame of its president, or of the general judge, in the same manner as he senate of Venice was called "most serene prince." Thus, when the Hebrews say that a man judged Israel, he thinks the expression signifies that he governed in concurrence with the senate. The argument by which he supports this view is not without force, but the reader who would judge of it is referred to the original work. Undoubtedly, the senate underwent many changes in the progress of time. It would be interesting, but it does not belong to my present work, to trace these evolutions. I therefore dismiss the subject with the remark that, whatever vicissitudes it experienced, it appears always to have maintained its existence.
A difficulty will have occurred to the reflecting reader, as he has followed me through the above detail. The chapter professes to treat of the Hebrew senate, but, in reality, it has exhibited two distinct councils, one instituted in Egypt, and the other in the wilderness, without attempting to adjust or explain their relation to each other. This is a difficulty, not a little formidable in appearance. Which of these was the senate of Israel? Did the latter supersede the former? Or did they coexist, and in that case, was there any union between them? I have little doubt that Lowman has hit upon the true solution of the difficulty, and I shall here condense the view which he has taken of this part of the Hebrew constitution. His idea is that the original senate, composed of the princes of tribes and heads of families, continued to exist after the institution of the Sanhedrim. The grounds of this opinion are as follows: When the children of Reuben and Gad came with a petition to have their settlement assigned them on the East of Jordan, they came and spake unto Moses and Eleazar the priest, and unto the princes of the congregation.15 Though this was long after the institution of the Sanhedrim, yet the princes of the congregation are assembled to consider the proposal, as they had been before in the case of female succession,16 and as they were afterwards upon the regulation of the marriage of heiresses.17 When Joshua made a league with the Gibeonites, it was confirmed by the princes of the congregation.18 Other instances of the like nature might be cited, but let these suffice. Now, as these persons are described by the titles of princes and chief fathers of the children of Israel, it is plain that the same persons must be meant, who were princes of tribes and heads of families before the institution of the Sanhedrim, and whose rank and authority were not taken away by the formation of that court. They were still the great council or senate of the nation. But what, then, becomes of the Sanhedrim, instituted by Moses? Both classes of officers are spoken of in such a way as to show that they were employed in the great affairs of he nation. Why, then, may we not conceive of the Sanhedrim as a select senate, a sort of privy council, while all the princes of Israel still had session and vote in the great and general council of the nation, which when assembled, was called by the ancient style, the princes of the congregation? This may be the reason why the elders of the Sanhedrim have so little apparent notice taken of them, for, when the general national senate was assembled, they were considered only as particular members of it.
Lowman conceives that the constitution of the old parliament of Paris may give a pretty accurate idea of the senate of Israel. The kings assembled the great men of the kingdom, and these assemblies were called the king's court or parliament. The great men who attended these assemblies were styled barons of the kingdom, and afterwards peers of France. They were the bishops, dukes, earls, and all the great tenants, who held immediately of the crown; but as it was not easy to examine fully many of the affairs which came before them, the kings gave commission to men of abilities, to assist with their care and counsels; and these counsellors were called masters of parliament. In the parliament of Paris, then, all the peers of France had session and vote, but the ordinary business was transacted by a select number of counsellors. Somewhat after this manner, it is most likely, the senate of Israel was constituted. The elders of the Sanhedrim formed a select council to assist the chief magistrate on ordinary occasions; but on occasions of greater moment, and especially when the states-general were convened, the national senate of Israel consisted of princes of the tribes, heads of families, and elders of the Sanhedrim. But however this might be, and whoever the persons were who composed the great council of the Hebrew nation, it is clear and undoubted that, under the style of princes, chief fathers, or elders, there was a senate of the whole republic, who assisted the judge with their advice in affairs of moment. And this was second bond of political union between the tribes.
