LECTURES ON JEWISH ANTIQUITIES. LECTURE'I Origin and progress of civil government. first parental or patriarchal. Illustrations Political government at and proofs from sacred history before and after the flood. Crime of Ham for which he was cursed. Why this curse was denounced, not on Ham himself, but on his son Canaan. In what respects this curse was fulfilled. THE laws relating to the theological department in this Society, and the express will of the Founder of this professorship, require the Instructor to read to the two higher classes a weekly private Lecture on some topic connected with divinity. Complete arrangements for this purpose have been but recently made. The desire of the Corporation has determined me to employ a number of discourses on the subject of Jewish and Christian Antiquities. Some acquaintance with each of these is not only very necessary to those, who mean to be religious instructors, but is a useful and interesting science to all. The Antiquities of the Jews are important and venerable on many accounts. They are more antient and better authenticated, than those of any other people of so early a date. The Jews ever have been and still are a remarkable nation. Their civil and religious institutions, their character, destination, and fortunes have been B singular and wonderful. Their history has a peculiar claim to the attention of Christians, who believe them to have been the favorite people of God, the appointed trustees and propagators of the true religion in the midst of an idolatrous world, the types and progenitors of the Messiah, who were to prepare the way for, and at length introduce his person and kingdom, and who are ultimately to rise to distinguished glory and happiness under his reign. A knowledge of the antiquities of this people is the key to many parts of their inspired Scriptures, whose import or propriety cannot otherwise be distinctly and satisfactorily perceived, This knowledge will help to vindicate, yea highly to recommend many things in their laws, which at first view may seem inconsistent with the wisdom, justice, and goodness of God, and which by some have been greatly censured and even derided. In short, this acquaintance with the early Jewish history will enȧble you to repel many plausible objections to the Bible, will open to you many new beauties in the sacred volume, and will greatly confirm your belief of its heavenly original. Agreeably, it will be my aim frequently to apply the subject of our disquisitions to the elucidation and defence of Scripture. If for this purpose we should sometimes go into short digressions, it will be readily excused by every friend to religion, to every fair inquirer after truth. In treating of the antiquities of the Hebrew nation, we will begin with their CIVIL POLITY. This, likethat of almost every other people, has undergone a variety of changes in several periods of their history. At first their government was patriarchal; a word derived from IATPI, family, and APXON, chief, or ru ler. This mode of government is defined by Godwin, a learned writer of the last century, to consist " in the fathers' of families, and their first born after them, exerçising all kinds of civil and ecclesiastical authority in their respective housholds." To throw light on this subject, we will briefly investigate the origin and progress of civil government in the early ages. The natural dependence of children on their parents, and their early habits of reverence and subjection to their wisdom and authority, would of course give rise, in the first instance, to the parental government. The first man especially, who was the father of all mankind, would be naturally regarded by his descendants as their common Head, and have peculiar influence over their counsels and actions, so long as his life and understanding continued. For the same reason, when mankind had lost their common progenitor, and had branched out into several distinct families, each of these would become a little community, and would naturally look up to its immediate founder, as its sovereign ruler or prince. These distinct sovereignties would in time be greatly multiplied. In some instances those, who at first were kings of their own housholds only, would insensibly grow up into monarchs of larger societies by extending their authority over their remoter descendants. As disputes would also in time arise among small domestic communities, these contests would naturally urge them to form one common bond of union, and to elect a common and efficient sovereign. As larger societies would thus be constituted by an assemblage of smaller associations; so the frequent occasions and existence of controversies between neighbouring communities thus formed, would give rise to mutual and forcible opposition; in which case each community would naturally choose for its mili tary leader some one person distinguished for his wisdom and courage, his eloquence and virtue, his reputation and success in public or private concerns. These circumstances of preeminence, attending one man, would not only raise him to the chief command in war, but probably introduce him to permanent and perhaps supreme authority in the state. In these and similar methods we easily account for the establishment not only of civil government, but of small kingdoms or monarchies, which evidently existed in the early ages. Indeed, some kind of civil polity is so natural and even necessary to man, that many of the antients, particularly Aristotle and Plato, call him ΖΩΟΝ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΟΝ, a political anim mal. For as the wants, faculties, and affections of men would early and forcibly urge them to associate; so their imperfections and vices would compel their resort to civil government for their common protection and prosperity. Perhaps if man had not fallen from virtue, or if a society were generally and even universally honest and benevolent; some kind of political rule might be expedient; because good men, who are united in the same object, may be ignorant, erroneous, or divided respecting the means of attaining it. In this case nature and reason would direct the society to commit the regulation of its common concerns to some persons of superior penetration and more enlarged views, whose wisdom should safely guide the actions of the multitude. But the early defection of man from his primitive rectitude, and the consequent reign of selfish ambition, avarice and injustice, would oblige the human race not only to adopt political institutions, but to arm them with sufficient force to guard the innocent, and to punish the injurious. It cannot however be supposed that any society of men would subject themselves to the dominion of one or more persons, however respectable or beloved, without some equivalent protection of that liberty, property, and life, which are most dear to their hearts. To imagine therefore with some writers, that civil power, in the first instance, was forced upon mankind by violence or conquest is very incredible; because no one man could possess sufficient strength to compel considerable numbers into that servitude, which they naturally hate and resist; and because if one bold adventurer were assisted by others in this business, these latter must have been previously united with him in a political confederation; that is, civil government must have existed by express or implied compact before a subjugating force could be successfully exerted. Political authority therefore must in fact, as well as by right, have originated primarily from mutual agreement between rulers and subjects. Perhaps we may even assert, that where power has been directly obtained by artifice or by violence, there must be an ultimate and implied compact between the victor and the vanquished, to constitute a civil community; for till this take place, it is not a state of political order, but of anarchy and war. Suppose, for example, that Cromwell, the protector of England, and Bonaparte, the present chief consul of France, were in the first instance usurpers; yet if their subjects finally submitted to their authority from a belief or experience of public utility or expediency; this submission seems to be a virtual consent on their part to the existing form and administration of government. On these principles Dr. Hutcheson, though a most benevolent and able assertor of rational liberty and equality, yet declares that states may be justly formed without the previous consent of the people. He |