are commanded to "make judges and officers in their gates." In either sense, that is, as denoting in general a place of public concourse, the word is used, when it is said of the virtuous woman, "Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her own works praise her in the gates," Prov. xxxi, 31.

Each tribe had its respective prince. They are called the heads of the thousands of Israel, Numb. x, 4; and were the same, perhaps, with the twelve captains of the host mentioned in the second chapter of Numbers; and their office, therefore, related chiefly, if not entirely, to military affairs.

We read also of the princes of the congregation, who presided in judiciary matters, Numb. xxxii, 2; Josh. ix, 5; xvii, 4. These probably were the same with the Jethronian prefectures, of whom we spake before, and who are called elders, and also princes and nobles, on account of the dignity of their office, Exod. xxiv, 9, 11. They were in number seventy, as appears by the account of their institution, which we have in the book of Numbers, chap. xi, 16, 17, 24, 25; though I rather apprehend that to be an account of their being confirmed in their office, and perhaps invested with some additional authority, and endowed with some miraculous gift to qualify them for it; for we find there were seventy elders before, at the time of giving the law at mount Sinai, Exod. xxiv, 1, 9, 14.

Whether the consistory of seventy elders was a perpetual, or only a temporary institution, is a matter of dispute. The Jews, and after them Grotius, Selden, Lightfoot, and several other Christians, have affirmed, it was the same that became afterwards so famous under the name of the Sanhedrim; to which even their kings and high priests were subject. But others conceive the institution of the seventy elders was only temporary, for the assistance of Moses in the government, before the settlement in the land of Canaan; and that the Sanhedrim was first set up in the time of the Maccabees.

On the former side, the rabbies are zealous assertors of the high antiquity of the Sanhedrim; and though they allow, that its session was sometimes interrupted and discontinued for years together, especially in the times of the kings; they leave no stone unturned to prove, that the court, nevertheless, subsisted from the time of Moses.

The first argument they produce is taken from this passage

in the book of Numbers, chap. xi, 16, "The Lord said unto Moses, gather unto me seventy of the elders of Israel." Which the Talmud interprets, that "they may be a Sanhedrim to my land;" that is, a holy, standing, perpetual council, throughout all generations. For wherever we meet with the wordli, unto me, the rabbies think it signifies a thing established by God to all generations. For instance, when he says of Aaron and his sons, "They shall minister unto me in the priests' office," Exod. xxviii, 41; and of the Levites, They shall be mine," or unto me, Numb. iii, 12; and of the whole nation, " Unto me the children of Israel are servants," Lev. xxv, 55; and when the like is said of the sanctuary, the sacrifices, the altar, and many other things; in all these cases they understand the word li to import a perpetual institu

tion.

2dly, It is argued, that if Moses needed the assistance of such a council, much more was it requisite after his death; and it is by no means probable, that any one would presume to abrogate so prudent an institution of his, in any age after him.

3dly, We read of the elders and judges of Israel, not only after the death of Moses, but after the Israelites were settled in the land of Canaan, Josh. xxiv, 1; Judg. ii, 7. Now by these the rabbies understand the seventy elders, or Sanhedrim; and to the same purpose they interpret a passage of the Psalmist concerning the "thrones of judgment, that are set, or do sit, in Jerusalem," Psal. cxxii, 5. The like reference to the Sanhedrim they find in the title of the forty-fifth Psalm, where the Targum interprets shoshannim, those that sit in the Sanhedrim of Moses. And thus Dr. Lightfoot understands the expression concerning the scribes and pharisees, who are said to sit in Moses's seat, Matt. xxiii, 2; that is, in the Sanhedrim, which was instituted by Moses.

4thly, In order to prove, not only that the Sanhedrim subsisted in the days of Zedekiah; but likewise that its power and authority were superior to the king's, they allege the following passage of the prophet Jeremy: "Therefore the princes said unto the king, We beseech thee, let this man be put to death; for, &c. Then Zedekiah the king said, Behold, he is in your hand; for the king is not he that can do any thing against you," Jer. xxxviii, 4, 5. By the princes here

spoken of they understand the elders, or members of the Sanhedrim.

These are the chief arguments, which are produced to prove, that the Sanhedrim, so famous in the later ages of the Jewish polity, was instituted by Moses, and always subsisted after his time.

On the other side, several arguments are brought to show, that the court of the Sanhedrim was of no higher antiquity than the time of the Maccabees, and was then first set up. The first is,

1st, That we do not find, in scripture, one word of any such high court, either in the times of the judges, or of the kings; and it is as preposterous to suppose a Jewish historian should not mention the Sanhedrim, if such a court there were in those times, as that a Latin historian should write a history of the Roman affairs without ever mentioning the senate.

2dly, We find, in perusing their history, that the people generally followed the king, whether in the practice of idolatry, or in the worship of Jehovah; which it is hard to account for, if such a court had then subsisted, with an authority superior to that of the king.

3dly, It plainly appears, that both the judges and the kings exercised a despotic power, and did all things according to their own will, without consulting the Sanhedrim; as doubtless they would and must have done, if such a court of superior authority had then existed: "And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you, he will take your sons, and appoint them for himself," &c., 1 Sam. viii, 11. See also 2 Sam. x, 2, and 1 Kings iii, 16-ult.

4thly, It is said in the book of Judges, that “in those days there was no king in Israel; therefore every man did that which was right in his own eyes," Judg. xvii, 6; xxi, 25. But if there had been such a national court as is pretended, of superior authority to a king, or a judge, there being "no king" could not have been assigned as the reason of the people's living without any government.

5thly, The story of the Levite, who was so vilely abused at Gibeah, sending an account of his wrongs to the twelve tribes, Judg. xix, 29, 30, evidently shows there was then no

such national court as the Sanhedrim; for if there had been so, to that he would naturally have applied.

Upon the whole, then, it appears most probable, that the institution of the seventy elders was only temporary, to assist Moses during the abode of the Israelites in the wilderness; and perhaps also to assist Joshua, till they were settled in Canaan; but that afterwards they assembled no more, and that the Sanhedrim, so famous in later ages, was set up in the time of the Maccabees.

As for the judges, which we read of after the death of Joshua, they seem to be raised up, and appointed, only on particular occasions; but were not præfecti ordinarii, like Moses and Joshua; nor were they continued in their office during life, but only as long as there was occasion; for instance, to deliver Israel from the power of some oppressor. Only it is said, that "Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life;" which seems to be mentioned as a particular case, 1 Sam. vii, 15. As for the other judges, Godwin compares them to the Roman dictators, who were appointed only on extraordinary emergencies, as in case of war abroad, or conspiracies at home, and whose power, while they continued in office, was great, and even absolute. Thus the Hebrew judges seem to have been appointed only in cases of national trouble and danger. Othniel, the first judge, was raised up to deliver Israel from the oppression of Chusan-rishathaim, Judg. iii, 8-10. Ehud, the second, to deliver them from the power of Moab, who had oppressed them eighteen years, Judg. iii, 14, 15; and Gideon, on occasion of their oppression by the Midianites, Judg. vi, 33, 34.

The power of the judges, while in their office, was very great; as appears from Gideon's punishing the elders of Succoth, Judg. viii, 16. Though their power does not seem to have been limited to a certain time, as that of the Roman dictators, which continued for half a year; yet it is reasonable to suppose, that when they had performed the business, for which they were appointed, they retired to a private life. This Godwin infers from Gideon's refusing to take upon him the perpetual government of Israel, as being inconsistent with the Theocracy, Judg. viii, 23.

That the judges were not properly successors to Joshua in his office, as not being præfecti ordinarii, is argued,

1st, From there being no mention of the appointment of a successor to Joshua, as there was to Moses; nor any one actually made judge till some years after his death; when Othniel was raised to that office on a particular occasion.

2dly, From its being represented as so criminal a thing for the people to desire a king, and even to amount to a "rejecting God, that he should not reign over them," 1 Sam. viii, 5-7. Now the difference betwixt judges and kings was but very little. They seem to have had the same authority and power; only the judges were never crowned, nor attended with such pomp, nor invested with such regalia as kings were: if therefore the judges had been perpetual dictators, succeeding one another regularly and without intermission, why should the people desire a king? Or where was the great evil of it when they did? Was it the sole purport of their request, that their judges might have the title of kings? They had this before; for when there was no judge, it is said "there was no king in Israel.” Or was it only, that their judges might be crowned, and have the regalia? This was a matter of very little moment, and hardly worth disputing about. Their desire, then, plainly was, that they might have a judge, or king, in perpetuum, as the stated supreme officer in the government, like other nations; and not merely on extraordinary occasions. Now this was altering the constitution and form of government which God had established; and on this account their motion was so displeasing to Samuel, and to God himself.

However, on the other hand, in order to prove the judges were perpetual dictators, and in their office quite different from kings, it is objected and argued,

1st, That Samuel had made his sons judges, 1 Sam. viii, 1; and it was nothing but the ill government of these new judges that made the people desire a king, ver. 3-5. Therefore the kingly office was different from that of the judges; consequently the judges might have been perpetual dictators, notwithstanding the people now desired a king.

But to this it may be answered, that the title judge was usually applied, not only to the one supreme officer under