It seems evident, that a certain number of persons was requisite, in order to constitute them a family, and as such, to have chiefs to represent them in the diets. It is said of the four sons of Shimei that they had not a numerous family, and were, therefore, reckoned as only one family. (1 Chron. xxiii. 11.) This is decisive of the point. Hence, also, we can explain why, according to Micah v. 1. Bethlehem may have been too small to be reckoned among the families of Judah. How many individuals were requisite to constitute a tribe, or family, it is not possible to say; it is probable the number was not always uniform.*

2. The Judges who were instituted by Moses, and of whom mention is made in the two diets held under Joshua, had a right in virtue of their office, to be present in the convention of the state. The Israelites were without judges when they left Egypt. Hence, for some time, Moses was their sole judge. But this, although practicable in the infancy of the state, was soon found injurious to his own health, and to the people's interest. At the suggestion, therefore, of Jethro, his father-in-law, he instituted judges, and that upon a principle by which the people could be numbered from the number of the judges, they being appointed over tens, fifties, hundreds, and thousands. Those causes which could not be decided by the judges of tens, passed to those of hundreds, next to those of thousands, and the last resource was to Moses himself. (Exod. xviii. 14-26.) It is by no means probable, says Michaelis, that, in the public deliberative assemblies, the sixty thousand judges of tens had seats and voices. Perhaps only those of hundreds, or even those only of thousands, are to be understood, when mention is made of judges in the Israelitish diets.

After the Israelites were established in their own land this institution was in some measure changed; Moses ordaining that judges should be appointed in every city (Deut. xvi. 18.) who were chosen at the option of the people. In succeeding ages it generally happened that these judicial offices were filled by the Levites, evidently because they best understood the law of

* Michaelis, vol. i. p. 244.

the Hebrews, being bound to devote themselves to learning. (See 1 Chron. xxiii. 4. xxvi. 29--32. 2 Chron. xix. 8-11. xxxiv. 13.)

3. The shoterim or scribes, in addition to the officers already mentioned, had a place in the Israelitish congregation or diet. That they were different from the judges is evident, for Moses commanded (Deut. xvi. 18.) that in every city there should be appointed not only judges, but shoterim likewise. These officers were not originally instituted by Moses, for we have seen that they were among the people while they dwelt in Egypt.* Michaelis derives the word shoterim from the Arabic satar, which signifies to write, and its derivative, Mastir, a person whose duty it is to keep accounts, and collect debts. Hence he conceives, with great probability, that the scribes were the officers who kept the genealogical tables of the Israelites, with a faithful record of births, marriages, and deaths, and assigned the public burdens and services on the people individually. Under the government of the kings these officers were generally taken from the tribe of Levi. (1 Chron. xxiii. 4. 2 Chron. xix. 8—11. xxxiv. 13.) In this there was a singular propriety, for the Levites, devoting the whole of their time to study, were certainly the best qualified to be entrusted with the keeping of such important registers. In Deut. xxix. 10. xxxi. 28. Josh. viii. 33. xxiii. 2. we find them as representatives of the people in the diets, or when a covenant with God is entered into. In Joshua i. 10, 11. they appear as the officers who communicated to the people the general's orders respecting military affairs. In 2 Chron. xxvi. 11. we find a chief scribe, under whose command the whole army stands after the general,†

Sacred Geography.

(Continued from page 21 )

REJECTING, then, the Ctesian history of Assyria, which assigns to that empire a period of 1400 years, as altogether unworthy of credit, we are of opinion that Herodotus is not far from the truth, who assigns to it a period of only 500 years; and as we have before observed, that the foundation of the Assyrian dynasty was laid by Pul. We have no means of judging with certainty in what manner this prince acquired the sceptre, yet we are certain that it was in his hand about 771 years before Christ. Under his reign the Assyrian kingdom began to be powerful, and to extend itself. In the days of Menahem, King of Israel, Pul invaded the land and made Menahem tributary to him; " and Pul, the King of Assyria, came against the land and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand. And Menahem exacted the money of Israel, even of all the mighty men of wealth, of each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the King of Assyria. So the King of Assyria turned back, and stayed not there in the land." (2 Kings xv. 19, 20.) Some have supposed that it was in this king's reign that Jonah prophecied of the destruction of Nineveh, but of this there is no proof. It appears that Pul divided the kingdom at his death, and gave the sovereignty of Babylon to his youngest son Nabonassar, and left his Assyrian dominions to his elder son Tiglath-Pileser.

B. C. 740.-Tiglath-Pileser not only succeeded to his throne, but to his designs. He invaded the kingdom of Israel under the reign of Pekah, over-ran its northern provinces, and carried captive to Assyria, the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulon, with part of the descendants of Manassah, Reuben, and Gad, whom he placed in Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and at the river

Gozan, places lying on the western borders of Media, between Assyria and the Caspian sea, (2 Kings xv. 29. 1 Chron. v. 26.) Shortly after this, Pekah joined in alliance with Rezin, King of Syria, and at the head of the confederate army, invaded the territories of Ahaz, King of Judah. Ahaz, whose incorrigible impiety could not be reclaimed, either by the divine favours or chastisements, finding himself attacked at once by the Kings of Syria and Israel, robbed the temple of part of its gold and silver, and sent it to Tiglath-pileser, to purchase his friendship and assistance; promising, in addition, to become his vassal, and to pay him tribute, (2 Kings xvi. 7, 8. 2 Chron. xxviii. 21.) Induced by these presents and the submission of Ahaz, as well as the desire of embracing so favourable an opportunity to add Syria and Palestine to his empire, the Assyrian King readily accepted the proposal. Advancing, therefore, with a numerous army, he invaded the dominions of Rezin, captured Damascus, carried the inhabitants to Kir, in Media, as Amos had prophecied, (Amos i. 5.) slew the vanquished monarch, and put an end to the ancient kingdom erected by the Syrians, agreeably to the prediction of Isaiah, (viii. 4.)

From thence he marched against Phacæa, and took all that belonged to the kingdom of Israel, beyond Jordan, or in Galilee. Ahaz, however, had to pay dear for his assistance and protection; for Tiglath-Pileser exacted from him such exhorbitant sums of money, that for the payment of them he was obliged not only to exhaust his own treasures, but to take all the gold and silver out of the temple. This unhallowed alliance, therefore, served only to drain the kingdom of Judah, and to bring into its neighbourhood the powerful Kings of Nineveh, who became so many instruments afterwards in the hand of God for the chastisement of his people, and at length ruined and subverted the kingdom. In the midst of his victorious career Tiglath-Pileser died, and was succeeded by Shalmanezer, his

son.

B. C. 728.-Shalmanezer prosecuted the war which his father had begun. Marching into Syria, he desolated the country of

the Moabites, according to the prophecy of Isaiah, (xv. 1.) delivered three years before. He then attacked Samaria, reduced that kingdom, and imposed upon it an annual tribute, (2 Kings xvii. 3. margin.) Hoshea, however, soon aspired at his former independence, and for this purpose, entered into an alliance with Sabacus, an Ethiopian, who in scripture is called So, and who had made himself master of Egypt, and refused to pay Shalmanezer any further tribute, or make him the usual presents. This was looked upon by the Assyrian King, as a declaration of war. Shalmanezer, with a powerful army, advanced to punish his presumption, and, having conquered all the country, besieged the King in Samaria. The valour of its inhabitants defended the city for three years; but the power and perseverance of the Assyrians at last prevailed. Samaria was taken: Hoshea was thrown into chains and into prison, the inhabitants were transported beyond the Euphrates, and placed in Halah and Habor, cities of the Medes, (2 Kings xvii. 6.) and the kingdom of Israel, or of the ten tribes, which had existed about 250 years after its separation from Judah, was destroyed, as God had often threatened by his prophets. (2 Kings xviii. 9-12.) The fate of Hoshea did not intimidate Hezekiah, King of Judah. No sooner did he ascend the throne, than he refused to pay the tribute which his father Ahaz had paid, and set at defiance the Assyrian power," he rebelled against the king of Assyria, and served him not," (2 Kings xviii. 7.)* The time for asserting the independence of his country was chosen with the most consummate wisdom. Shalmanezer was then engaged in war with Elulæus king of Tyre. Most of the maritime cities that were subject to the Tyrians revolted against them, and submitted to the Assyrians. Shalmanezer advanced to their assistance. These cities furnished him with a fleet of sixty or seventy vessels, manned by eight hundred

This portion of the history of Assyria, and the captivity of the tribes of Israel, is strikingly illustrated by an ancient piece of sculpture, on some almost inaccessible rocks near Salmos, first discovered by Sir R. Porter; supposed to have been cut to commemorate the event. See Travels in Georgia, Persia, &c. vol. ii. pp. 154-159.