A recital is here made of some of those aggravated forms of wickedness which were rife among the Canaanites, and which God had determined signally to punish. This is done not merely to illustrate the justice of the Divine proceedings in their excision, but chiefly with a view to put the peculiar people themselves on their guard against yielding to the contagion of their pernicious example, and thus becoming obnoxious to the same fearful retributions which were to be visited upon the Canaanites. The particular class of abominations more especially pointed out here, and to which the brand mark of the Divine reprobation is so conspicuously affixed, is that of incestuous connections. As this is the only passage in the compass of the whole Bible where any formal enactments are given on this subject, this and the connected chapters treating of this theme have always been deemed of peculiar importance in their relations to the question of the lawful degrees, within which the marriage connection may now be formed by those who make the Law of God the great standard of moral duty.

18 : 2. Say unto them, I am the Lord your God. These words constitute the grand authoritative sanction of all the ensuing laws, implying that they respect a matter of the utmost importance, one in which the honor and glory of the great God were most deeply involved. He was in a special and emphatic sense the God of the nation of Israel, with whom they were in covenant, whom they professed to serve, and to whom they were under the greatest obligations. The phrase occurs six times in the present chapter, and still oftener in the chapters following Bush.

3. After the doings of the land of Egypt, and of Canaan. The wilderness in which they now were was a very fit place for enjoining these laws upon the Israelites, as they were now removed from the snares and temptations of Egypt and were not yet mingled with the people of Canaan. Bp. Kidder.—The excellence of the law contained in this chapter is shown in a strong light if contrasted with the abominations and irregularities in the usages of the most cultivated nations of antiquity. The Egyptians and the Persians appear to have indulged in connections with near relations to a greater degree than any other civilized nations. In Egypt marriage with a full sister was permitted in very early times. The custom was handed down in the royal family from the Pharaohs to the Ptolemies, and seems to have been continued till the termination of the latter dynasty with Cleopatra and her brother. The prevalence of the custom is shown in the sculptures in both Lower and Upper Egypt. The Medes and Persians were in the habit of marrying their mothers from the earliest ages. Clark.—The Orientals never had any scruple in polluting themselves by incestuous marriages; while it is abundantly proved by history how great were the excesses of the Egyptians in this respect. They were so dead to shame that they trampled upon all the laws of nature. This is the reason why God here enumerates the kinds of incest of which the mention would else have been superfluous. Calv.

The necessity for laws on this point at once discriminating, wise, and stringent, will be sufficiently obvious when we consider the strength of the passion to be controlled—constitutionally common to all ages of the world; the sacredness of the marriage relation and the inestimable value of moral purity in all human society—also common to all ages of the world’s history; and (peculiar to the earlier ages) the necessity of defining the limits of consanguinity within which marriage should be prohibited, and all sexual connection sternly forbidden. Perhaps we need to remind ourselves that the race having sprung from a single pair and the world having been repopled a second time from one family, those primitive examples may have sent down for many generations a certain looseness which called for special restraint and a carefully defining law. The crimes of Sodom, their polluting influence in so good a family as that of Lot; the low morals of Egyptian life; some sad manifestations in the early history of Jacob’s family; the horrible contagion of Moab and Midian when the tribes of Israel came socially near them;—these and kindred facts will be readily recalled as in point to show the necessity of vigorous legislation in the Mosaic code to counteract these untoward influences of their antecedent life and of surrounding society. H. C.

Lev. 18:6. The Most High lays down nearness of kin as the foundation of all the following prohibitions, and then proceeds to state and determine, by his own sovereign authority, between whom that nearness of kin subsists. In the interpretation of what follows it is important to bear in mind, that although these prohibitions are principally addressed to the man, yet they are equally binding upon the woman, who stands in the same degree of relationship. Bush.—Near of kin. Literally, “no one shall approach to any flesh of his flesh.” The repeated word “flesh” are in the Hebrew two separate but synonymous expressions, which are intended to betoken the fleshly union, as Gen. 2:23. Men stand in relation to “their flesh” in the divinely appointed connection of father, brother, etc., which they may not tread under foot. The general prohibition is first given, and then is more particularly mentioned what is to be esteemed as “his flesh.” As reason for the prohibition of these marriages in a too near relationship, we find nothing assigned beyond this very degree of relationship. One cannot at the same time be daughter or sister and wife; and without the strict prohibition of such marriage the domestic life would altogether forfeit its sanctity, and be continually exposed to the greatest danger of disorder through lust. The family relationship is itself ordained by God. It is the birthplace of the children of God; the first school and generally the source of all chastity and good manners. Any injury inflicted on it would undermine the temporal and eternal welfare both of individuals and of the people. In this lies the abomination of incest. This is the reason of that natural horror of it which God has implanted in us. This is the reason that, among all nations, marriage within certain degrees was forbidden, though the laws of the most moral nations wavered in respect to the exact boundaries. This is the reason that such marriages in degrees of near relationship as cannot be called exactly forbidden, still excite in us a feeling of aversion. Gerl.

7-18. These precepts must be understood to prohibit marriage within the degrees of kinsmanship here mentioned. A man is not to wed his mother, father’s wife, sister by either parent, granddaughter, sister by the father who has married a second time, aunt by either side, wife of father’s brother, daughter-in-law, brother’s wife, wife’s daughter, or granddaughter. It is to be presumed that the law applies to the female as well as the male; and hence a woman is not to wed her father, and so on throughout. M.

18. The rule as it here stands would seem to bear no other meaning than that a man is not to form a connection with his wife’s sister while his wife is alive. It appears to follow that the law permitted marriage with the sister of a deceased wife. A limitation being expressly laid down in the words, “beside the other in her lifetime,” it may be inferred that, when the limitation is removed, the prohibition loses its force, and permission is implied. Clark.—It is remarkable that while there is an express interdict on the marriage of a man with his brother’s wife, there is no such prohibition against his marriage with his wife’s sister. In verse 18 the prohibition is only against marrying a wife’s sister during the life of the first wife, which of itself implies a liberty to marry the sister after her death—beside implying a connivance at polygamy. T. C.

Lev. 20:2-5. Molech, literally, the King, called also Moloch, Milcom, and Malcham, whose rites are here so severely condemned, was known in later times as “the abomination of the Ammonites,” when Chemosh was the abomination of the Moabites, and Astarte the abomination of the Sidonians. The nature of this rite, and of what others there may have been connected with the name of Molech, is very doubtful. The practices appear to have been essentially connected with magical arts, probably also with unlawful lusts. Clark.

3. The close connection between giving of his seed unto Molech and defiling my sanctuary, and profaning my holy name, is explained and illustrated by Ezekiel in the judgment on Aholah and Aholibah. “They have caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them. Moreover this they have done unto me: they have defiled my sanctuary in the same day, and have profaned my Sabbaths. For when they had slain their children to their idols, then they came the same day into my sanctuary to profane it; and, lo, thus have they done in the midst of mine house” (Ezek. 23:37-39). Not only was the combination of the worship of Molech and Jehovah an offence to him whose name is Jealous, but at the time that Molech-worship was carried on in the valley of Hinnom, idols were set up in the court of the temple itself, as we learn from Jer. 32:34, 35; 2 Kings 21:4.

4,5. There is to be no connivance with Molech worship. The penalty is death, and is to be carried out by the proper tribunals, whose business it was to see that the stoning took place. In the case of Molech-worship God declares that, if the tribunals of the nation fail to adjudge the penalty of death to the offender, He will Himself cut him off with his family and all

NOTE.—This section, treating of Idolatrous, group of ordinances classed as ceremonial, those the worship of the only living and true Jehovah.

that follow him in his sin of unfaithfulness. F. M.—Admit other religions, and the bond which held together the twelve tribes was dissolved. How long could that union have lasted if the prophets of Baal had had the freedom of the camp, and been permitted to go from tent to tent, preaching the doctrine of human sacrifices? Hence Moses did not suffer them for an hour. False prophets were to be stoned to death. Field.

Almost the whole of the religion of the ancient pagan world consisted in rites of depreciation. Fear was the leading feature of their religious impressions. Hence arose that most horrid of all religious ceremonies—the rite of human sacrifice. Of this savage custom, Archbishop Magee asserts and proves, that there is no nation mentioned in history which we cannot reproach with having, more than once, made the blood of its citizens to stream forth in holy and pious ceremonies, to appease the divinity when he appeared angry, or to move him when he appeared indolent. “Conformably with this character of their gods,” he adds, “we find the worship of many of the heathen nations to consist in suffering and mortification, in cutting their flesh with knives, and scorching their limbs with fire. The cruel austerities of the gymnosophists, both of Africa and India; the dreadful sufferings of the initiated votaries of Mithra and Eleusis; the frantic and savage rites of Bellona; and the horrid self-mutilations of the worshippers of Cybele—but too clearly evince the dreadful views entertained by the ancient heathens of the nature of their gods.” It became the wisdom, the justice, and the goodness of the one true God, to check these spreading and direful evils; to bring men back from their polytheistic follies to the belief and worship of Himself. E. C. W.

Blasphemous, and Cruel Worship, fitly closes the pertaining to the sanctuary, the ministry, and B.

CIVIL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTED BY MOSES: ITS DISTINGUISHING ELEMENTS AND INFLUENCE UPON SUBSEQUENT CIVILIZATIONS.

CIVIL government is a Divine institution, if not as directly, yet as really as is the family. The rights which society has, and which it may rightfully exercise through some form of government it has from no contract. Men may, if they choose, express the rights and duties involved in government in the form of a contract, but it is a mistake, and may lead to mischievous consequences to suppose that these rights and duties originate in any form of contract. By the constitution of God the ends of the individual can be attained only through government, and therefore the rights of government and the duties of individuals under it originate in the same way as the rights and duties of parents and of children. The individual is born in society. That is his natural state, and as thus born both society and he have reciprocal rights and duties. These he may recognize and have all the benefits of society and of government, or he may refuse to recognize them and be deprived of these benefits, but the rights and duties exist independently of his will. They exist, and in entering into society, the individual comes under no new obligation, and gives up no right. M. H.

Civil government is a Divine institution. In support of this view we have the concurrent testimony of reason and revelation. The testimony of reason we have in the original aptitude of our nature for government; in the possession by man of conscience, benevolence, desire of esteem, and love of society, qualities clearly suited to promote the good of civil communities, and therefore a plain indication that it is the Creator’s will that such communities should exist; in the admirable order and harmony of the material universe, evincing analogically that it is not the design of the Deity to abandon the moral world to chance and confusion; in the fact that were such the Divine purpose, our highest faculties—reason, reflection, prudence, conscience, the power of suspending our judgment, and liberty of choice—would be in vain, and caprice and passion would become the governors of human conduct; in the undoubted truth that God’s end in creating man—the perfection of his nature and the happiness of his being—would be defeated by the non-existence of civil government and law; and in the actual benefits flowing from civil polity and law. The testimony of revelation we have in numerous explicit passages, affirming or implying the divinity of government; particularly Ps. 82:1; Prov. 8:15, 16; Rom. 13:1-6; Tit. 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13, 14.

But as government is a truly Divine, so is it a truly human institution. It has a twofold origin—one in the will and purpose of the Deity, the other in the act and choice of men. The Divine will is its remote source and ultimate basis; human covenants its direct spring and immediate foundation. This view harmonizes two passages of holy writ, one of which in explicit terms affirms government to be an “ordinance of God;” the other in language equally distinct affirms it to be an “ordinance of man.” The distinction, plain and solid in itself, is well stated by Bishop Sanderson and Archbishop Bramhall. Says the former: “The substance of the power of every magistrate is the ordinance of God; but the specification of the circumstances thereto relating is a human ordinance, introduced by custom or positive law.” Says the latter: “That all lawful dominion, considered in the abstract, is from God, no man can make any doubt. But the right and application of this power and interest, in the concrete, to this or that particular man, is many times from the grant and consent of the people. So God is the principal agent; man, the instrumental. God is the fountain, the root of power; man, the stream, the bough, by which it is derived. The essence of power is always from God; the existence, sometimes from God, sometimes from man.” The sum is: God ordains government to secure the rights of man—“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” He equally ordains the means necessary and fit to attain that end. He does not designate the means. He could not do so, for the plain reason that the means will vary in different ages, climates, and states of society. He leaves it to men, whom he has endowed with reason for this among other purposes, to choose such means as to their wisdom may seem suitable and sufficient. Neither forms of government nor theories of government make any difference. The magistrate, whether he be an hereditary prince of the thousandth generation, or the elected chief of a community whose members but yesterday formed themselves into a civil state by voluntary compact, is the minister and vicegerent of God. E. C. W.

The political constitution of the Jewish commonwealth was founded entirely upon a religious basis. In form, it was theocratic—a monarchy, with JERHIVAN for the only king, all magistrates and judges being his ministers: in its substance and spirit, it is a commonwealth in the strict sense, its object being the highest welfare of the whole people, who enjoy equal rights as being all the children of God and united by the bond of holiness. The formal constitution grew out of the wants of the people. When the people left Egypt, they could not be called a nation, in the political sense; but a body of tribes, united by the bonds of grace and religion, and especially by “the promise given to the fathers.” Each of these tribes had its own patriarchal government by the “princes” of the tribe, and the “heads” of the respective families, and we find their authority subsisting through the whole history of the nation. But no central government was as yet provided. God preserved it in his own hands, and committed its administration to Moses as his servant. The people were all collected in one encampment around the tabernacle of Jehovah, their ever-present King. They were commanded by his voice, whether directly or through Moses, and their movements were guided by his visible signs. If any doubtful case arose of law or policy, there was his oracle to be consulted. If any opposition was made to the authority of his minister, Jehovah summoned the rebels to his presence at the door of the tabernacle, smote them with leprosy, consumed them with pestilence, devoured them with fire, or sent them down alive into the pit. Such was the simple constitution of this period; God governing by his will, while embodying that will in the Law. P. S.

Under the Theocracy, the function of legislators was out of the question. The people did not make their own laws: these were given them—made by the Lord alone. It only remained for them to say whether they would accept the Lord their God as their Lawgiver and Supreme King. Such assent and consent on their part was appropriate; and precisely this they gave at Sinai (Ex. 19:3-8 and De. 5:27, 28). This national recognition of God as Supreme Lawgiver was renewed from time to time with subsequent generations of Israel (De. 29:10-15 and Josh. 24:15-27 and Neh. 10:28, 29). Thus it appears that the laws under which they lived were not arbitrarily imposed upon them without their consent—much less, against their will; but only with their formal and solemn consent. So far forth, their government involved an element of freedom and of self-control. They were not tyrannously coerced into subjection to laws which they repudiated. A system of law, in itself most excellent and entirely unexceptionable, was presented to them for their adoption or rejection. They adopted it—apparently with the warmest approbation. H. C.

It was the character of the Law itself, as affecting person and property, rights and privileges, and the management of national affairs, that formed the great bond of Israelitish society. How largely the constitution was charged with conservating elements appears conspicuously in the care with which it watched over life, liberty, and property, and whatever else concerned the well-being of society. D. M.

From the beginning of history down to the birth of Christ we find no trace of civil liberty outside of the Jewish Theocracy. Elsewhere there was no recognition of the rights of man as an individual, no caring for his individual interests. There were privileged classes, and a caring for them. But the machinery of society did not run to take care of the individual. He was the tool of the society, but his well-being was nowhere the end of its action. But in the Jewish Theocracy (which was just a preparative Christianity) a fundamental truth was the love of one’s neighbor as one’s self. The government was formed for the well-being of the individual, and he was consequently helped and protected in all his civil rights. W. H. Campbell.

The civil government of the ancient Hebrews was the government of a free people; it was a government of laws; it was a system of self-government. The Hebrew civilization was the earliest that history has recorded, in which the human faculties had free play. It was the earliest civilization which was based upon a true faith, a just science of politics, and a right philosophy of life. It was not only the first, but the only government of antiquity, to which this description is fully applicable. The best subsequent civilization has been built upon that ancient Hebrew Law. The best wisdom of modern times in the difficult science of legislation was anticipated by Moses. The great principles of public and private law, which he not only developed in theory, but reduced to practice, are so many lessons of inspired wisdom, so many lights of experience, to guide the labors of statesmen and legislators to the end of time. The moderns are not real discoverers; they have but propagated and applied truths and principles, established by the first, the wisest, the ablest of legislators. In an age of barbarism and tyranny, Moses solved the problem how a people could be self-governed, and yet well governed; how men could be kept in order, and still be free; and how the liberty of the individual could be reconciled with the welfare of the community. There were elements in the Roman, Grecian, Egyptian, and even Asiatic polities, worthy of praise and imitation. But civil liberty, founded on equal rights, and acting through the popular will, was a blessing unknown to the whole ancient Gentile world. Only in the green vales and upon the vine-clad hills of Palestine we see millions of freemen reposing in happiness and security, beneath the sheltering agis of a polity stamped in its every lineament with the signatures of its Divine original. This favored people were not more distinguished during their journeyings and encampments in the wilderness by the mysterious shechinah, symbolizing the Divine presence among them, than they afterward were by their civil constitution; a constitution containing the elemental principles of all just, wise, and equal legislation, and bearing indubitable marks of a Divine wisdom in its formation.

The public functions prescribed in the Hebrew constitution flow from the nature of things. The first want of a State, as of every organized living being, is self preservation. To meet this want the constitution institutes certain functionaries, not only to strengthen the union of the tribes, but also to preserve in its integrity both the letter and the spirit of the fundamental law, and to teach it incessantly to the people. Such are the Hebrew priests and Levites. Next, the body politic wants a supreme legislative council, to watch over its wants, to direct its general movements, to shape its policy, and to modify old laws and enact new ones, as the exigency of times and occasions demands. For this the constitution provides in the assemblies composing the states-general of Israel. The third fundamental necessity of a nation is that of having the civil relations of the citizens maintained agreeably to the rules laid down in the Law. The constitution satisfies this requirement by a judiciary system which brings the administration of justice to every man’s door, and makes it at once cheap and speedy, taking care, however, to prevent the evils of crude, hasty, and interested decisions by a system of appeal through courts of various grades, up to the supreme judicature, which holds its sessions in the capital of the republic. Again, the State requires that its force be wisely and effectively directed against its public enemies. This care the constitution devolves upon the chief magistrate of Israel. The great principle of the ancient Hebrews, in which we recognize the germ of the modern idea of the three powers, was, that there were three crowns in Israel—viz., the crown of royalty, the crown of the priesthood, and the crown of the Law. The first was bestowed upon David and his descendants; the second was given to Aaron and his sons; but the third, which was superior to both the others, was the inheritance of all Israel. The king, the priest, the judge, all the magistrates, were the creatures of the Law; and the Law was enacted by the people. The constitution, in its parts, was pervaded with the democratic spirit. E. C. W.

The form of the Hebrew republic was unquestionably democratical. Its head admitted of change as to the name and nature of his office, and it could even subsist without a head. When Moses promulgated his laws he convened the whole congregation of Israel, to whom he is repeatedly said to have spoken; but as he could not possibly be heard by six hundred thousand men, we must conclude that he only addressed a certain number of persons who were deputed to represent the rest of the Israelites. Accordingly in Nu. 1:16 these delegates or representatives are termed those wont to be called to the convention; in our version, the renowned of the congregation; and in Nu. 16:2 they are denominated chiefs of the community or congregation, that are called to the convention; in our version, “famous in the congregation, men of renown.” By comparing De. 29:10 with Josh. 23:2, it appears that these representatives were the heads of tribes and families, and judges and officers; the judges, by virtue of their office. Probably, as Michaelis conjectures, only judges of hundreds, or [more probably] even those only of thousands, had seats and voices in the public deliberative assemblies. Horne.

It was a GOVERNMENT in the proper sense of the term, and not a CONFEDERATION. Moses drew up a constitution, which applied not merely to each tribe as a distinct political body, but also to every individual in the tribe. He thus gave to each a personal interest in the national concerns, making him as much a member of the nation as he was of his own tribe. The tribes formed but one nation. Though they had separate interests, as being in some respects independent States, they had also general interests, as being united in one body politic. They had much in common to draw them together in bonds of brotherhood, and strengthen the ties of political union;—a common ancestor, the illustrious depositary of promises appertaining to all the tribes alike; a common God, who was their chosen and covenanted king; a common tabernacle and temple, which was the royal palace; a common oracle, the Urim and Thummim; a common high-priest, the prime-minister of the king; a common learned class, who possessed cities in all the tribes; a common faith and worship, which at the same time differed fundamentally from that of all other contemporaneous nations; and a common law of Church and State. Thus, while each Hebrew was strongly concerned to maintain the honor of his tribe, the constitution of the general government gave him an equal interest in the honor of his country. Thus also the constitution was so contrived, that, notwithstanding the partial independence and sovereignty of the separate tribes, each, as constituting a part of the national union, had a kind of superintendence over all the rest in regard to their observance of the organic law. The Hebrew tribes were in some respects independent sovereignties, while in other respects their individual sovereignty was merged in the broader and higher sovereignty of the commonwealth of Israel. They were independent republics, having each a local government, which was sovereign in the exercise of its reserved rights; yet they all united together and formed one great republic, with a general government, which was sovereign in the highest sense. Thus all the Israelitish tribes formed one body politic. They had one common weal. They held general diets. They were bound to take the field against a common enemy. They had at first general judges, and afterward general sovereigns. And even when they had no common head, or, as the sacred historian expresses it, when there was neither king nor judge, a tribe guilty of a breach of the fundamental law might be accused before the other tribes, who were authorized to carry on war against it as a punishment. It is evident that the tribes were sometimes without a general chief magistrate. The constitution, as explained above, makes it quite conceivable that the State might have subsisted and prospered without a common head. Every tribe had always its own chief magistrate; subordinate to whom again were the chiefs of clans, the judges, and the genealogists; and if there was no general ruler of the whole people, there were twelve lesser commonwealths, whose general convention would deliberate together and take measures for the common interest. The head might be gone but the living body remained. Its movements would be apt to be slower and feebler; yet, as the history of the Benjamite rebellion teaches us, they did not always want either promptness or energy.

The education enjoined by Moses was not merely of the children of the highborn and the rich, but of all ranks and conditions. It was a fundamental maxim of his policy that no citizen, not even the lowest and the poorest, should grow up in ignorance. In proportion as this idea enters into the constitution of a State, tyranny will hide its head, practical equality will be established, party strife will abate its ferocity, error, rashness, and folly will disappear, and an enlightened, dignified, and venerable public opinion will bear sway. Upon the whole, it may be affirmed that in no part of the Hebrew constitution does the wisdom of the Law-giver shine with a more genial lustre than in what relates to the education of the young.

The provisions of the constitution on this point cannot be regarded otherwise than as the dictate of a wise, liberal, and comprehensive statesmanship; for it is in the highest degree desirable that every citizen should be acquainted with the laws and constitution of his country. Patriotism itself is but a blind impulse if it is not founded on a knowledge of the blessings we are called upon to secure, and the privileges which we propose to defend. It is political ignorance alone that can reconcile men to the same surrender of their rights; it is political knowledge alone that can rear an effectual barrier against the encroachments of arbitrary power and lawless violence.

The Hebrew constitution, in its substance and its forms, in its letter and its spirit, was eminently republican. The power of the people was great and controlling. This point is clear even on a superficial examination of the subject. But not only so; it had also important and striking analogies with our own constitution, and with that other free constitution from which ours, in its most essential features, was taken; a constitution which Montesquieu erroneously represents as drawn from the woods of Germany, but which Salvador, and truly without doubt, regards as derived from the Hebrew fountains. Whoever attentively considers the Hebrew and British constitutions, and still more the Hebrew and American constitutions, cannot but be impressed with the resemblance between them. Their fundamental principles are identical; and many of the details of organization are the same or similar. The rights of every person in the Hebrew State, from the head of the nation to the humblest stranger, were accurately defined and carefully guarded. Even Ahab, an unprincipled tyrant, dared not invade the field of a vine-dresser, though the want of it was so keenly felt as to make him refuse his ordinary food; and his still more tyrannical and unprincipled queen, Jezebel, knew no method of compassing the same end but through the perverted forms of law and justice (1 Kings 21). Every man was in a political sense on an equality with the most exalted of the nation. The rulers were raised to the dignities which they enjoyed by the free suffrages of their fellow-citizens. The laws, though proposed by God, were approved and enacted by the people, through their representatives in the states-general of Israel. The Israelites exercised the right of meeting in primary assemblies, of discussing questions of public policy, and of petitioning their rulers for the redress of grievances. Every Hebrew citizen was eligible to the highest civil dignities, even to that of the royal purple. The whole nation constituted a republic of freemen, equal originally even in property, equal in political dignity and privilege, equal in their social standing, and equally entitled to the care and protection of the government.

The Hebrew polity was essentially a system of self-government. It was the government of individual independence, municipal independence, and State independence—subject only to so much of central control as was necessary to constitute a true nationality, and to provide for the general defence and welfare. Centralization was foreign to its spirit. The local governments loom out under the Mosaic constitution; the central government is proportionably overshadowed. Public opinion was a powerful element in the Hebrew government. This gave shape and force both to the national and provincial administrations. Let any one read the Hebrew history with this in his mind, and he will see proofs of it in every page.

It is an admitted fact that the tendency of all the modern improvements in government is to equalize the conditions of men, and so to bring about that general social intercourse, by which many of the most important principles and habits are formed and fixed and the masses of society are elevated, humanized, and refined. To secure these great ends, many bloody wars have been waged and countless treasures expended. But all these struggles and expenditures have not yet, in the particulars just indicated, brought modern society to that point where Moses fixed his people, in an age when even the Greeks and the Romans were still savages and barbarians. Privileged classes, enjoying the benefit of milder laws and special exemptions, were unknown to the Mosaic constitution. And civil liberty, according to the notion of it presented in the excellent definitions of Blackstone, Paley, and other approved writers on public law, that it is no other than natural liberty so far restrained by human laws (and no further) as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public; that it is the not being restrained by any law but what conduces in a greater degree to the public welfare; and that it consists in a freedom from all restraints except such as established law imposes for the good of the community;—liberty, thus regulated by law, with the superadded idea that the restraining laws should be equal to all, was as fully developed and secured by the Hebrew constitution, as by any other known system of government in the world. The great natural rights of personal security, in respect to life, limb, health, and reputation; of personal liberty, in respect to locomotion, residence, education, and the choice of occupation; and of private property, in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all acquisitions, without any control or diminution save by the laws of the land—were recognized and guarded in the amplest manner by the laws and constitution of Moses. And these absolute and paramount rights were protected, and their inviolability maintained, by other subordinate rights:—the right of representation in the congregation of Israel; the right of a speedy and impartial administration of justice through the courts; and the right of petitioning the public authorities for the redress of wrongs, where other means of establishing the right were inadequate to the purpose. Such were the liberties of a Hebrew citizen; such the barriers by which they were defended; such the inestimable system of public polity and law, which spread its ample and beneficent protection over the humblest and meanest as well as the most exalted and honored member of the commonwealth of Israel.

The two greatest interests of a State, and yet the two interests most difficult to be harmonized—permanence and progress—were as wisely provided for and as effectually secured by the Mosaic system of government as by any other civil constitution in the world: the former, by its regulations respecting the distribution and tenure of landed property; the latter, by the three annual assemblages of the nation, whereby there was kept up a continual circulation of ideas between all parts of the country: and both, by the institution of the Levitical order, which was at once conservative and progressive; conservative, by its duty to teach, interpret, and maintain the laws; progressive, by its obligation to devote itself to the cultivation of science and letters. Is it not a fact well worthy to arrest attention, that in the midst of barbarism and darkness, hearing no sounds but those of violence and seeing no soil which was not drenched with blood, a legislator should have founded a government on principles of peace, justice, equality, humanity, liberty, and social order, carried out as far as in the freest governments now existing among men? This would be an inexplicable mystery, on any other theory than that of a supernatural revelation to the Lawgiver. The reality of the Divine legation of Moses might be rested on this argument alone.

The Mosaic constitution contains, undeniably, the germ of almost everything precious in modern civilization. It is a common fountain, from which the most enlightened nations of subsequent ages have drawn their best principles of political, civil, and criminal law. The unity of God, the unity of the nation, civil liberty, political equality, an elective magistracy, the sovereignty of the people, the responsibility of public officers to their constituents, a prompt, cheap, and impartial administration of justice, peace, and friendship with other nations, agriculture, universal industry, the inviolability of private property, the sacredness of the family relation, the sanctity of human life, universal education, social union, a well-adjusted balance of powers, and an enlightened, dignified, venerable public opinion, were the vital elements of the constitution of Moses.

As imprisonment was a punishment unknown to the Hebrew law, there was no place for the writ of habeas corpus there. With this exception, there is not a single fundamental principle which enters into the constitution of a free State which will not be found to have been incorporated into the polity of the Hebrew commonwealth. That government is instituted for the good of the many, and not of the few—for the happiness of the people, and not the advantage of the prince and the nobles; that the people, either directly or by representatives, should have a voice in the enactment of the laws; that the powers of the several departments of government should be cautiously balanced; that the laws should be equal in their operation, without special burdens or special exemptions; that the life, liberty, and property of no citizen should be infringed, but by process of law; that justice should hold an even balance, neither respecting the persons of the rich nor yielding to the necessities of the poor; that judicial proceedings should be public, and conducted in accordance with established rules; that every man who obeys the laws has a right to their protection; that education, embracing a knowledge of the laws, the obligations of citizenship, and the duties of morality, should be universal, and that whatever is valuable in political and social institutions rests upon the intelligence and virtue of the people:—these great and vital principles of civil liberty were as fully embodied in the Hebrew constitution as they are in the freest constitutions now existing among men. E. C. W.

INFLUENCE OF THE MOSAIC LEGISLATION AND THE HEBREW WRITINGS UPON LITERATURE, GOVERNMENT, AND LAW IN SUCCEEDING AGES.

That the Grecian critics were acquainted with the writings of Moses is certain from the fact that we find Longinus, in his treatise on the Sublime, drawing from them in illustration of his subject. The same is true of the historians. Strabo makes honorable mention of Moses as a lawgiver; and Diodorus Siculus acknowledges him to be the first of legislators, from whom all laws had their origin. Among distinguished modern critics and divines who have held the opinion that profane literature is greatly indebted to the sacred Scriptures may be mentioned Ludovicus Vives, the Scaligers, Grotius, Bochart, Selden, Usher, Cudworth, Stillingfleet, Witsius, Magee, and a host of others, of scarcely inferior note. Grotius says: “That which the ancient philosophers drew from the theology of the Phœnicians, and the poets from them, the Phœnicians drew from the Hebrews.” That the Phœnicians were identical with the ancient Canaanites; that they were well acquainted with the Jewish doctrine and traditions; that by their commerce they spread these ideas all along the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, in Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, Spain, Africa, and numerous islands; and that the Jews themselves were known to other nations under the names of Phœnicians, Syrians, Assyrians, has been proved at large by learned men.

That the greater part of the myths which make up the ancient pagan theology were but corrupt imitations of Scripture histories, has been abundantly demonstrated by learned men, as Selden, Bochart, Vossius, the Scaligers, Maimonides, and various of the Christian fathers. These authorities will be found cited at length by Gale in the second book of his Court of the Gentiles, and by Stillingfleet in the fifth chapter of the third book of his Origines Sacrae. A strong presumptive evidence of the obligations of Grecian philosophy to the Hebrew Scriptures is found in the fact that Egypt and Phœnicia, themselves large recipients of the treasures of revelation, were, by common admission, the sources of Grecian culture and learning. Up to the period when the empire of Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, Europe had remained, to a great degree, sunk in barbarism and ignorance. At this time part of the Jewish nation was carried captive to Babylon, and another large portion took refuge in Egypt. These latter, after the restoration of their brethren by Cyrus, remained in their adopted country, where they built a temple, publicly exercised their religion, and flourished in such multitudes under Alexander and his successors as almost to equal those of Judea in number, wealth, and influence. They even lost the use of the Hebrew, and adopted the Greek tongue—a language, beyond all others, copious, expressive, and harmonious;—qualities which caused it to become the universal dialect of learned men, both in the East and the West. About the time of the Babylonish captivity Greece began to emerge from the depths of ignorance and rudeness in which her people had hitherto been sunk. A spirit of inquiry and research was awakened. Thales, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Pherecydes, Pythagoras, Plato, Herodotus, and a host of other Grecian philosophers and historians, travelled into Egypt, Chaldea, and Phoenicia, some of them residing in those countries for a long series of years. Here they became acquainted with the more cultivated and learned of the Jews. It is not improbable that some of them saw and read the sacred books of the Hebrews, either in the original tongue or the Greek translation made under Ptolemy Philadelphus. Ptolemy himself was delighted with the laws of Moses; pronounced his legislation wonderful; was astonished at the depth of his wisdom, and professed to have learned from him the true science of government.

The testimonies of Jewish, pagan, and Christian writers, and the presumptive proofs here referred to, are sufficient of themselves to warrant the belief that Greece, the parent of pagan letters and arts, Greece, the common mistress and teacher of Europe, owed the best part of her wisdom to Judea. But that which affords incontestable proofs of this fact is a comparison of the maxims of her philosophers with the teachings of Holy Scripture. Let the reader who would see this subject fully discussed, with all the authorities bearing upon it cited, consult the third book of the Aegyptiaca of Witsius and the whole of the second part of Gale’s Court of the Gentiles. It may never be fully known how far the Greeks and other heathen nations were indebted to Moses and the prophets for their purest ethical doctrines, their choicest poetic beauties, their finest rhetorical touches, their loftiest flights of eloquence, their wisest maxims of government, and their sublimest speculations concerning the Divine nature and human duty. Enough, however, is known to afford solid ground for the opinion that Judea was the birthplace of letters, that her priests were men of learning, that her Levitical cities were so many universities, that the scholars of other countries lighted their torch in Zion, and that the altars of pagan philosophy caught their first spark from the flame that glowed within the temple of Jerusalem.

Equally great was the influence of the Mosaic legislation on government and law in succeeding ages. Grotius says: “The most ancient Attic laws, whence in after times the Roman were derived, owe their origin to Moses’s laws.” He expresses the same opinion in his treatise on the Right of War and Peace: “Who may not believe, that seeing the Law of Moses had such an express image of the Divine will, the nations did well in taking their laws thence? Which that the Grecians did, especially the Attics, is credible. Whence the Attic laws and the Roman twelve tables, which sprang thence, bear so much similitude with the Hebrew laws.” The similitude between the Grecian and Mosaic laws has been noticed by Josephus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Augustin, Selden, Gale, Cunaeus, Serranus, Sir Matthew Hale, and Archbishop Potter. E. C. W.

The last-named in his Grecian Antiquities has adduced many points of Grecian law which seem to have been taken from Moses—viz., the laws of divorce; the purgation oath compared with “the oath of jealousy” among the Hebrews; the harvest and vintage festival; the law of first-fruits; the law requiring the best offerings for God; the portion for the priests; protection to the man-slayer at their altars; requiring priests to be unblemished; the agrarian law; laws regulating descent of property, and prohibiting marriage within certain degrees of consanguinity. Plato in his ideal “Republic” is thought to have drawn largely from Moses. Clement of Alexandria accosts him (by Apostrophe): “But as for laws, whatever are true were conveyed to thee from the Hebrews.” These historic facts seem to indicate the definite channel through which the laws of Moses reached the Grecian mind in its earliest stages of culture and thus wrought themselves into the great fountains of Grecian and Roman civilization and jurisprudence.

There seem to be strong grounds for the general statement that the greatest reformers of all known history have acted upon the ideas of Moses, and have probably drawn their doctrines more or less directly from that fountain. I will venture to place in this category Zoroaster, Plato, Confucius, Buddha, and Mahomet. These men were in their time reformers of society, of morals, and of jurisprudence. Their influence led toward if not fully unto the doctrine of one God, and by natural consequence, to a purer morality and juster views of law and equity; of love to one’s neighbor and purity of life. The historic evidence that Zoroaster, Plato, and Mahomet drew from Moses is very strong. Of the great Indian reformer and of the Chinese comparatively little is known.

Of Roman law as finally embodied in the great code of Justinian, it has been justly suggested that its best things came from Moses and the Septuagint through Greece and the Egypt of the Ptolemies. In the age of Justinian (first half of the sixth Christian century) primitive Christianity had quite fully leavened the public sentiment and thus the jurisprudence of the then civilized world. When Justinian created a commission of learned jurists to “collect the scattered monuments of ancient jurisprudence,” he recommended them in settling any point to regard neither the number nor the reputation of the jurisconsults who had given opinions on the subject, but to be guided solely by reason and equity.

Of Alfred the Great (reigned A.D. 871-901) the central testimony of history is that he was severely just. Despite of surroundings almost barbarous, he rose by dint of his irrepressible manliness to become the greatest legislator and scholar of his age, and so was able to lay the foundations for the best and truest glory of the English name. The common law of England and of the English-speaking world began its development under his hand. The spirit of her law from the days of Alfred was justice and righteousness between a man and his neighbor. The laws of Moses were in Alfred’s eye; the spirit of those laws filled and fired his noble soul. It is currently said that the telling words which describe the needy as “God’s poor” are original (for our mother Saxon tongue) with him. Moses had reiterated the sentiment long ages before. Sir Matthew Hale has traced the influence of the Bible generally on the laws of England. Sismondi testifies that Alfred, in causing a republication of the Saxon laws, inserted several statutes taken from the code of Moses, to give new strength and cogency to the principles of morality. H. C.

The civil institutions of [England and] the United States are pervaded with the spirit of the Mosaic legislation. Equality, liberty, general education, social order, peace, industry, union, and the reign of law are the sources of our prosperity and happiness. But these principles are the very heart of the Mosaic constitution. In conclusion, it appears that through various channels, as well as more directly from the original fountain, the principles of the Mosaic code have found their way, to a less or greater extent, into the jurisprudence of all civilized nations.

My faith in our [American] institutions has been strengthened by my study of the Hebrew constitution. I have seen with surprise and delight that the essential principles of our constitution are identical with those of a political system which emanated from a superhuman wisdom, and was established by the authority of the Supreme Ruler of the world. I accept this knowledge as a pledge that these principles are destined, in the good providence of God, to a universal triumph. Men are capable of governing themselves; such is the decision of the infinite intelligence. Tyranny will everywhere come to an end; humanity will recover its rights; and the entire race of mankind will exult in the enjoyment of freedom and happiness. Futurity is big with events of momentous import; events compared with which the grandest and the sublimest, hitherto inscribed upon the rolls of fame, are but as insignificant trifles. But this better future, for which our nature sighs and to which it is evidently tending, “is not a tree transplanted from paradise, with all its branches in full fruitage. It was not in vernal breezes and gentle rains that its roots were fixed, and its growth and strength insured. With blood was it planted. It is rocked in tempests. Deep scars are on its trunk, and the path of the lightning may be traced among its branches.” But through storm and darkness, amid blood and carnage, the political redemption of our race holds on its course. Liberty and law, Christianity and science, religion and learning, are yet to enjoy a universal triumph, to sway a universal sceptre. Thanks be to God for that rainbow of promise, with which the civil polity of Moses has spanned the political heavens! E. C. Wines. (Laws of the Ancient Hebrews.)