Our federal government is also empowered to act directly on the people, in carrying out the powers, and securing the objects, intrusted to it. So also are the states respectively, in their several spheres, and within the limits mentioned.

The judiciary is appointed to pass upon any action of any member of the confederacy, which seems to be contrary to the laws of the union.

In short, Tocqueville reduces the principles which most powerfully conduce to mould the character of our republic, to these three. "The first is, that federal form of government which the Americans have adopted, and which enables the union to combine the power of a great empire with the security of a small. state. The second consists in those municipal institutions which limit the despotism of the majority, and at the same time impart a taste for freedom, and a knowledge of the art of being free, to the people.* The third is to be met with in the constitution of the judicial power. I have shown in what manner the courts of justice serve to repress the excesses of democracy; and how they check and direct the impulses of the majority, without stopping its activity.'

SECTION III.

The principles of republicanism found in the Jewish church. IN its complete form, as embracing the invisible as well as the visible church, the Jewish form of government was a theocracy, or divine monarchy. God, for special ends, connected with the glorious scheme of redemption, condescended to be elected king of the Hebrews, to give them a code of civil laws, to decide their more important litigations, and to solve inquiries which they proposed. But while the constitution of the Hebrew polity was, in its complete form, theocratical and monarchical; in its relation to men, and the character of its earthly administration, it was necessary that it should assume a distinct and separate character. The patriarchal form of government, which, until this time, had generally prevailed, with few exceptions, throughout the east, may be regarded as republican, the patriarch acting as perpetual president, with his officers under him, as is the case among the Arabs and the various tribes of Indians, at this very hour.§ Such also was the character of the most primitive kingdoms and the most ancient kings. 'In the most remote antiquity,' says Jahn, aristocracies and democracies were well known. The inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim,

†Vol. i. p. 327.

Ibid, vol. i. pp. 28-35, 85.

Algernon Sydney's Disc. on Govt. ch. i. § 7, Lond. 1751, 3d ed.

Hist. of Heb. Commonwealth, p. 59. See also Sydney's Disc. on Govt. ch. ii. 8, 10, 16 and 18.

had neither king nor prince. The national council and the people commissioned ambassadors and concluded alliances. The Philistines were governed by five princes. The Phenicians were not, at all times, under regal government, and when monarchy existed, the power of the king was very much limited. The Carthaginians, who emigrated from Phenicia, and probably formed their government on the model of that of the mother country, from the first introduced an aristocracy, in many respects similar to the old Venitian oligarchy. If the story of Herodotus (III. 80, 81,) be true, the great Persian monarchy, after the death of the impostor Smerdis, came very near being transformed to a democracy.' The ancient states of Gaul also, from whence the Britons were probably derived, were aristocratic republics. In these it was customary to elect a prince or chief governor annually; and a general was likewise appointed by the multitude to take command in war. Alliances between different tribes was also a very prominent feature in their mode of government. A government of the same description had, before Cæsar's time, extended itself in Britain.* Aristotle in his Politicst mentions the ancient form of government by elders, and from a passage in Genesis we infer that this form of government was of universal prevalency in the east. Herodotus and Strabo afford repeated instances of the same practice having flourished among several barbarous hordes. And that it was common among the Arabs we know from existing MSS.

The Hebrew magistrates,§ who were very jealous of their prerogatives, managed the political concerns of the nation; and their powers were so extensive, that Josephus chooses to denominate the government an artistocracy. Moses laid all the precepts and orders, which he received from Jehovah, before the magistrates, acknowledged their authority in the strongest terms, and submitted their demands to the decision of Jehovah. But these magistrates could neither enact laws on their own authority, nor levy taxes. The people possessed so much influence, that it was necessary, in all important cases, to have their approbation; and when they were not consulted, they often remonstrated so loudly, as to force the magistrates to listen to them. They also sometimes proposed laws, to be adopted by their legislatures; and they had power sufficient to rescue Jonathan, when his life was endangered in consequence of the hasty vow of their first monarch. It is evident, therefore, that the aristocracy was greatly modified and limited by the intermingling of democracy. On this account, Lowman and Michaelis are inclined to denominate the Mosaic constitution a democracy.

*Pritchard's Researches into Nat. Hist. of Man, vol. iii. pp. 175, 177. §Jahn, ibid, pp. 59, 60, and Archæology, § 219, p. 261, &c. †Lib. i. ch. i. πασα γαρ οικια βασιλευται υπο του πςεοβυτατου. See proofs in Wait's Jewish Orient, and Talmud. Antiq. p. 7, 8.

"The truth,' says Jahn,* 'seems to be between these two opinions. The Hebrew government, putting out of view its theocratical features, was of a mixed form, in some respects approaching to a democracy, in others assuming more of an aristocratical character'—that is, it was, as we have defined it, a republic. The affairs of this national church were conducted by a regular series of gradually ascending assemblies, representing the families, the tribes, and the whole twelve tribes. These were composed of the princes, or heads of tribes, and of persons expressly denominated 'those called to the assembly, those deputed to the assembly, and the elders of the assembly.'† These are called by Jahn, 'comitia, or legislative assemblies.' These legislative assemblies exercised all the rights of sovereignty. They declared war, made peace, formed alliances, chose generals, chief judges or regents, and kings. They prescribed to the rulers, whom they elected, the principles by which they were to govern; they tendered to them the oath of office, and rendered them homage.

The number of these who were intrusted with power as judges, genealogists, heads of families, princes of tribes, and kings, or supreme judges, and who were all representatives of the people, and elected by them, was immense. There were, even at first, about sixty thousand judges of tens, twelve thousand judges of fifties, six thousand judges of hundreds, and six hundred judges of thousands.** Every tribe had, therefore, its own chief magistrate, with the subordinate rulers, and was, in itself, a distinct and independent republic, which often acted as such, not only when there was neither king nor judge, but even in the times of the kings.§ "The constitution of Israel may, in this respect,' says Michaelis, be considered, as in some measure, resembling that of Switzerland, where thirteen cantons, of which each has a government of its own, and exercises the right of war, are all united into one great republic. All the twelve tribes had, at least, one commonweal. They had general diets, of which, we find examples in the twenty-third and twentyfourth chapters of Joshua. They were bound, at least, by law and compact, to take the field against a common enemy; and the tribe of Ephraim, as mentioned above, took it as a serious injury, that, without waiting for their assistance, the tribes beyond the Jordan had gone to war with the Ammonites. They frequently had general judges, and afterwards general sovereigns. And,

*Archæology, p. 262. Algernon Sydney's Disc. on Govt. ch. ii. § 9. Locke on Govt. B. i. ch. xi. § 168, 169. See also Lamy's Apparatus Bibli

cus, B. i. ch. xi. p. 195, &c.

Jahn's Heb. Com. pp. 48 and 56. Archæology, § 218. Michaelis's Com. on Laws of Moses, art. 45, vol. i. p. 229.

**See Jahn's Heb. Com. pp. 45-47.

Michaelis's Com. on Laws of Moses, vol. i. p. 234.

#Ibid, pp. 235, 236.

even in times when they had no common head, any particular tribe that refused the administration of justice, might be accused before the other tribes, who were authorized to carry on war against it as a punishment. Of this, we find a remarkable instance in the twentieth chapter of Judges.§

SECTION IV.

The principles of republicanism fully developed in the christian church.

THIS view of the republican character of the Hebrew polity, which might be enlarged by a reference to the synagogues, already brought under review,* will prepare us for considering the republicanism of the christian church. This, like the Jewish church, is in its complete form, a theocracy, Christ being King and Head of Zion; but, unlike that, it is not of this world, having no reference to civil or political concerns, as matters of jurisdiction, but being exclusively conversant with spiritual things. Being, however, founded on earth; having for its subjects living men; and its affairs being, therefore, necessarily administered by human agents, the church, as visible, must have some visible form, constitution, and polity.

The original constitution of the christian church was, it has been said, a supreme theocracy, with a subordinate democracy, modified by an elective aristocracy. The head of the whole body was the Lord Jesus Christ. The democracy was found in the chistian laity, the members of the church; and the aristocracy in those officers who were elected by them to rule over them in the Lord, and to administer His ordinances and statutes. 'But in process of time the theocracy was greatly neglected, the democracy oppressed and almost annihilated by the aristocracy; and the aristocracy itself converted, first into an ambitious oligarchy, and lastly into a tyrannical despotism.'‡

That the christian church was originally republican, in contrast with monarchy on the one hand, and democracy on the

See also, on this subject, Dr. Spring's Obligations of the World to the Bible, p. 109, &c. N. Y. 1839.

*See the Author's work, 'Presbytery and not Prelacy the Scriptural and Primitive Polity.' B. i. ch. xiii. § 3.

† See Eccl. Chron. by Rev. J. Riddle, p. 13.

Ibid, p. 14.

other, has been generally acknowledged.* This republican character continued till the time of Constantine, and is thus described by a philosophical Romanist, in a work issued as a prize essay, by the National Institute of France. 'While the apostles lived, they were naturally the heads of the communities or churches of which they were the institutors. After their death, the last pastor was replaced by his principal disciple. Several of these churches sometimes agreed with each other, and formed a sort of confederation, which appointed a common head, a visiter, episcopus, or bishop; afterwards they separated to subsist alone, or to unite with others. In general, they kept voluntarily within the limits of a province, præfecture, or diocese of the Roman empire. Each christian, however, was a disciple, an active member of the church or confederation to which he belonged. The pastors were the spiritual magistrates of them, republican magistrates, whose decision, in matters of belief, was only valid, because they were believed to be wiser or better informed.‡

From the time of Constantine, A. D. 325, to Mahomet, A. D. 604, the church was governod by an oligarchy. And yet even, of this period, the same writer says, 'the bishops and patriarchs still compose an oligarchy, in which none submits legally to the authority of a single one. Laymen and priests still preserve their rights, and patriarchs bow to the authority of a council, diet, or parliament of this church republic.***

From the period last named, until the time of Hildebrand, A. D. 1073, the authority of the Roman See became predominant in the west, both in spiritual and temporal matters, and the government of the church monarchical.§ From that time until the

*See Father Paul's History of Benefices, p. 52, &c. Neander's Hist. of the First Planting of Christianity, vol. i. p. 165, N. and p. 42. Waddington's Church Hist. pp. 23, 24, Eng. Ed. Baxter's Disput. on Ch. Govt. p. 267. Allsop's Melius Inquirendum, p. 235. Lord Brooke on Episcopacy, pp. 80-83. That it has been generally treated of under this name, appears from the names of some among many works. Palmer on the Ch. vol. i. p. 329. Bishop White's Mem. of Prot. Ep. Ch. p. 76. Dominis Mark Antony De Archbishop of Spalato in Dalmatia. De Rep. Ecclesiast. libri x. Lond. 1617, 3 vols. Andreas John Valentine, a Lutheran, Reipubl. Christiano-politanæ Descriptio. Sancta Maria Juan de Repub. Polit. Church Par. 1631, 4to. Fixlanilmer Placidus, a German, Reipub. Sacræ Origines Divinæ, 1760. Milman's Hist. of Christ. vol. ii. p. 65. Hoppus on Schism, p. 219.

Villers on the Reformation, p. 308.

The situation of the churches,' says Neander, (Hist. of the Chr. Ch. vol. i. p. 195. See also 196, 197, and 198,) 'during the persecutions, and the numerous oppressions, in which the energetic conduct of one man at the head of affairs might prove of great use, furthered the formation of the monarchical government in the church. And yet, even in the third century, the presbyters were at the side of the bishops, as a college of councillors, and the bishops undertook nothing weighty without gathering together this council.'

**Villers on the Reformation, p. 315.

Ibid, p. 323, &c.

3-VOL. III.