men of God not less than the murderers and adulterers:  they are such figures as could only grow up in the open air.  Judaism, which realised the Mosaic constitution and carried it out logically, left no free scope for the individual; but in ancient Israel the divine right did not attach to the institution but was in the Creator Spirit, in individuals.  Not only did they speak like the prophets, they also acted like the judges and kings, from their own free impulse, not in accordance with an outward norm, and yet, or just because of this, in the Spirit of Jehovah.  The different view of different times is seen very characteristically in the views taken of Saul by the two versions above sifted and compared VII.II.2 .

XI.I.2.  It is a simple and yet a very important remark of Vatke, that the sacred constitution of the congregation, so circumstantially described to us in the Priestly Code, is after all very defective, and presupposes the existence of that which it was the chief task of the age of Moses to bring about, namely the state, in the absence of which the church cannot have any subsistence either.  To maintain an elaborate and expensive worship, and an immense swarm of clergy, must have required considerable rates and taxes:  and to raise these, as well as to uphold the authority of the sacred persons and institutions, and most of all to enforce the strict centralization and uniformity of the legitimate worship, all this among a people not yet very civilised, must have required an executive power which embraced and was able to control, the whole people.  But where is this central authority in the period of the judges?  Judicial competence resided at that time chiefly in the smallest circles, the families and houses.  These were but little controlled, as it appears, by the superior power of the tribe, and the very notion of the state or of the kingdom did not as yet exist.  Houses related to each other sometimes united for common undertakings, as no doubt also did neighbouring tribes; but this was not on the basis of any constitutional order, but from necessity, when it happened that a well-known man came forward to take the command and his summons to the levy was obeyed.  These transient combinations under generals were the forerunners of a permanent union under a king:  and even at the time of the Midianite war an attempt seems to have been made in this direction, which, however, was not quite successful.  In the severe and protracted struggle with the Philistines the necessity for a solid union of the tribes was cryingly manifest, and the man came forward to meet the hour.  Saul, a distinguished Benjamite of Gibeah, was overcome by anger at the scornful challenge which even the Ammonites ventured at such a time to cast in the teeth of his people:  he called his fellow-countrymen to battle, not in virtue of any office he held, but on the strength of his own impulses; his enthusiasm proved contagious, none dared to say him nay.  He began his career just like one of the earlier judges, but after he had led his people to victory they did not let him retire again.  The person sought for, the king, was found.