COMMENTARIES
ON
THE LAWS
OF THE
ANCIENT HtEBREWS;
WITH
AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY ON CIVIL SOCIETY AND
GOVERNMENT.
BY
E. C. WINES, D.D., LL.D.
PRESIDENT OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF ST. LOUIS.
PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION,
PHILADELPHIA.




Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1853, by
GEO. P. PUTNAM & CO.,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the
Southern District of New York.
-XI% -1 -        Ah.r\ 1    r.h "  -I'                      1/1\ "I  I -1V~ A ~~ 




PREFACE.
NETXT to the birth and mission of Jesus Christ, the exist
ence and institutions of the Hebrew people are the most
important event in universal history. The founder of Judaism and the founder of Christianity are the two persons,
whose lives and labors have most extensively and powerfully influenced the progress and destiny of the human
race. The truths which they revealed, the doctrines which
they taught, have entered as the profoundest element into
the civilization of mankind. While saving individuals, ther
have been the true power of nations, acting at once as the
most vivifying and the most conservative principle in human
affairs.
It is only with the institutions of the former of these
illustrious personages, that the present work is concerned.
The polity of Moses has a twofold importance. It is important, first, from the perfection of wisdom, in which the
work was accomplished; but still more important, secondly,
from  its consequences to the world.  These consequences
continue to this moment, and will continue through all




iv                      PREFACfE.
coming tine.  Christianity itself sprang from  the bosom
of Judaism.  Without the religion of Moses, the religion
of Christ never would have been given to the world. It
is, therefore, in a certain sense, undoubtedly true, that we
owe to the Mosaic code the greater part of the light, which
we this day enjoy. Especially are we indebted to this code
for a precious truth, which reason, left to itself, has never
yet discovered; I mean the doctrine of the unity of God.
By the possession of this truth, a large portion of the human
family have been happily rescued from the errors: and immoralities, to which the belief in  many gods invariably
leads.
The following treatise is an attempt to analyze, and to
develope systematically, the civil polity of the inspired
Hebrew  lawgiver.  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.
It was not only the first, but the only government of an-,
tiquity, to which this description is fully applicable.  To
Moses, a man of the most direct, firm, and positive spirit,belongs the honor of being the founder of this sort of
government.  His constitution was pervaded with popular
sympathies and the spirit of liberty.  The best wisdom of
modern times in the difficult science of legislation was anticipated by Moses. 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




PREFABE.                      V
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.
The true character of the Hebrew constitution is not
well understood.  Nor is the want of full and accurate
information concerning it matter of wonder.  The cause
of this ignorance has been suggested by Salvador. During
the long period, when the words people, law, equality,
national utility, intellectual superiority, independence, and
regular legislation, scarcely found a place in any living
language, how could Moses find his true place and his
just estimation? The people were too ignorant to study
him, and their tyrants would have felt their pride and
oppression rebuked by his ardent republicanism.  But
times are changed. Everywhere the need of a better and
juster political organization is felt. Everywhere there is
developed a strong tendency towards popular freedom and
power. Everywhere an irresistible impulse is urging nations to substitute for the arbitrary, capricious, and inconstant government of men, the just and stable government
of laws. The more this state of things developes itself, the
more the principles of reason, justice, equality, liberty,
and public utility, take possession of men's minds, and
assert their power over human affairs, the more will the
polity of the Hebrew commonwealth become an object of
study, of interest, of admiration, and of imitation. And
the more this constitution is studied, the more will it be




'TVi                   PREFACE.
recognised as a free constitution; a constitution embody
ing all the great principles of political wisdom; a constitution, on several points, in advance, even of the age in
which we live.
The basis of the following inquiries into the polity and
laws of the ancient Hebrews was a course of lectures, delivered in several Theological Seminaries, and in many of
the principal cities of the Union.  Ten years ago, the
author was invited to deliver one of a course of lectures
before the Mercantile Library Company of Philadelphia.
Archbishop Hughes had already given a lecture of the
same course on Pope Pius VII.  As the learned prelate
had selected, for eulogy, a dignitary of the Romish church,
that circumstance led me to choose, for the theme of my
discourse, a dignitary of the church universal.  Accordingly, I took "Moses and his Laws."  The lecture was
well received by the public, and brought a formal invitation from many of the leading citizens of Philadelphia,divines, lawyers, savans, and others,-that I would extend
the discussion, and give a series of discourses on the same
subject.  In making the necessary preparation to comply
with this invitation, I became enamored of the theme.
The investigation became a labor of love with me. The
increasing light, afforded by my researches, led me, at
different times, to rewrite and enlarge the discussion; till,
at length, it came to be embodied in a very extended
series of lectures.  The substance of these lectures, in
courses more or less comprehensive, wes given, as above




PREFACE.                       Vii
stated, in  various Theological Seminaries, by invitation
from the Trustees and Professors, and in many other places,:
at the request of citizens of the highest respectability. In;
this form, the author's illustrations of the constitution and
laws of Israel had the good fortune to meet the approbation of gentlemen, both in church and state, whose good
opinion might well be an object of pride to persons of
literary pretensions, far higher than his.
The present work is complete in itself. It has a beginning,
a middle, and an end; in other words, it is characterized by
unity of design. It is an analysis of the political constitution, the- jus publicum, of the Hebrews. It treats of a
particular department of the Hebrew institutions; but there
are other parts of those institutions, which it does not touch.
Hebrew jurisprudence, properly so called, a wide, rich, and
inviting field, it does not enter upon at all. This is reserved
for a separate work. My lectures embraced the latter class
of topics, as well as the former. Ample materials, therefore,
have been collected for the illustration of the private law of
the Hebrews; and these materials have been, to a considerable extent, arranged for publication. Should the present
work meet with favor, another, if life and health are spared,
will in due time follow. The second volume will contain a
detailed elucidation of the jurisprudence of Moses.  His
whole system  of laws will be reduced to a classification,
formed on the basis of Blackstone's division of the laws of
England.  Each individual enactment will be examined,
with reference both to its intrinsic:character and the reasons
on which it was based; whether those reasons relate to the gen



Viii                   PREFACE.
eral wants of humanity, or to the adaptation of the code to
times and circumstances. A prominent design of this work
will be to institute comparisons, all along, between the jurisprudence of Moses and the jurisprudence of other enlightened
nations, both ancient and modern. A sufficiently extended
research into the laws and constitutions of the civilized world
might make this one of the most interesting, instructive, and
useful features of the proposed treatise.
The greatest difficulty I have encountered in the preparation of these sheets for the press, is the want of books. There
are many works, of high respectability, relating to Hebrew
history and law, not found, as far as I know, in any of the
public or private libraries in the United States. The works
of this kind, which are found in our libraries, are very widely
scattered. I have sometimes had to travel hundreds of miles
to examine a single book, and have been well repaid for my
labor. My cordial thanks are due to various library associations, and not a few private gentlemen, for the loan of books.
Among the former I would name Harvard University, the
Boston Athenaeum, Columbia College, the Franklin Library
Company of Philadelphia, and the Mercantile Library Association of New York. This last named institution has been
particularly liberal, allowing me to take any number of books,
and keep them any length of time free of cost; and has
even offered to purchase such works as I might want, which
are not already in its extensive, well selected, and invaluable library. And, with respect to future researches, my
special thanks are due to David Banks, Esq., of New York,
for his generous offer of the unlimited use of his very exten



PREFACE.                      iX
sive collection of law books, ancient and modern, foreign and
domestic.
It would be easy to make here an ambitious display of
learning in an enumeration of the works examined in the
progress of these inquiries; but that would serve less the
purposes of utility, than of pedantry. The authorities relied
upon are pretty copiously referred to in the accompanying
notes; for I hold it to be a chief element of value in any
scientific or philosophical work, to point out to those who
may wish to extend their researches in reference to the topics
treated, the sources of that increased light, which they desire.
The author cannot pretend to anything like perfection, or
freedom froIn error, in his treatment of a subject so ancient,
so extensive, so difficult, and involving so laborious a search
into constitutions and laws, as the polity of the Hebrew comnonwealth. He has diligently sought for TRUTH; and, in
respect to fundamentals, he believes that he has found it.
Let the candid reader weigh the evidence adduced, and judge
for himself. At any rate, whatever estimate may be placed
upon his own individual labors, if his work shall have a tendency to awaken in any minds an interest in Biblical studies;
to remove from them sceptical doubts concerning the divine origin and authority of the Old Testament scriptures;
to impress them with a sense of the dignity and value of
those ancient compositions; and to convince them of the
world's obligation to the Bible in promoting the civil liberty
and social happiness of mankind,-he will feel, that he has
not labored in vain.
EAST HAMPTON, L. I., March, 1853.








ADVERTISEMENT BY THE PUBLISHERS.
IN his Preface, the author states, that the following treatise was originally written in the form of lectures, and
delivered to students in Theological Seminaries, and to miscellaneous audiences, in many of our cities. In this form,
his Commentaries on the Laws of the Hebrews everywhere
met with acceptance, and were applauded by competent
judges. In sending the work forth in a printed volume, the
publishers deem it proper to accompany it with a few of the
recommendations bestowed upon it, when given as lectures.
They ought to state, however, that some of the opinions appended were given, after examining the manuscript as prepared for the press.
From th lHoo. BENJAMIN F. BUTLER, of New York.
" THE lectures of Professor Wines on the polity of the Hebrew
Commonwealth are distinguished by a most thorough acquaintance
with the subject, and by the clear and strong light in which they
place the divine mission of the great Hebrew lawgiver, and the incomparable wisdom and usefulness of his institutions. They are full of
important and valuable information to all classes."




ADVERTISEMENT BY THE PUBLISHERS.
From HIRAM KETCHUM, EsQ., of New York, after examining portions
of the work, as prepared for the press.
"IT is a great work; profoundly philosophical; and clear as
crystal. I feel persuaded that it will have an extensive sale. It will
be sought after by the legal as well as the clerical profession."
From the HON. WILLIAM KENT, of New York.
"' THE lectures of Mr. Wines on the laws and polity of the
Hebrews appeared to me very learned and able. They have given
him a high character among scholars and students of history."
From GEORGE WOOD, EsQ., of New York.' DEAR SIR:-I have read with pleasure the manuscript of your
Essay on Civil Society and Government. I have been gratified with
finding that your views concur in the main with my own. I think
the publication of the work might be very useful. There is a portion of the religious class of the community, who have imbibed very
erroneous notions upon some of the subjects on which you treat, and
I think the general perusal of your production will have a tendency
to prevent the spread of those errors.
"I am, Sir, with great respect,
"Your obedient servant,
" GEORGE WOOD."
N. Y., 30th June, 1851.
The.Rv. E. C. Wines.
From the HON. MITCHELL KING, of Charleston, S. C.
"THE philosophical views which Professor Wines takes of the
Hebrew institutions, the order and connexion in which he groups
them, and the many striking analogies which he traces between them
and our own laws and customs, are in the highest degree instructive
and interesting."




ADVERTISEMENT BI THE PUBLISHERS.
From the late JUDGE WOODBURY, of N. Hampshire.' PROFESSOR WINES'S lectures on the Jewish polity are highly
interesting, and in my opinion calculated to be useful."
From the late JEREMIAH MASON, of Boston.
"I HAVE been much instructed by Mr. Wines's lectures on the
Hebrew polity and laws."
From, the REV. DR. WOODS, of Andover.
-': I HAVE: heard all Professor Wines's lectures on the Mosaic institutions, and have wished that they might be extended much
further. From the beginning to the end, they exhibit marks of extensive, patient study, and of profound, discriminating thought.
They are, I think, sound in principle, and strong and conclusive in
argument. The style in which they are written is perspicuous and
forcible, and often rises to animation and eloquence. The lectures
cannot fail to be profitable to any who love to think; but they are
specially adapted to be interesting to men engaged in the professions
of law and theology, to the different classes of students, and most of
all, to those who are seeking for a clear insight into the Mosaic
scriptures, and who wish to see the various principles involved in
them clearly stated, and triumphantly vindicated against the subtle
objections and profane sneers of infidel philosophy."
FM-om the REV. DRs. POND, SHEPARD, and SMITH, Professors in the
Theological Seminary, Bangor, Me.
" HAVING had the privilege of attending Professor Wines's full
course of lectures on the institutions of Moses, we cannot forbear
expressing how much we have been interested and instructed. Mr.
Wines discusses the subject ably, clearly, and forcibly. He tho.
roughly vindicates the Jewish lawgiver from the objections of infidels,
and shows how much the world, in all subsequent ages, has been in.
debted to his writings."




xiV         ADVERTISEMENT BY THE PUBLISHERS.
From REV. G. W. BETHUNE, D.D. of Brooklyn, N. Y.
"THE lectures of Professor SWines on the Jewish polity are conceived in a liberal and philosophical spirit, and are written with
thorough scholarship and learning. They are elaborate, comprehensive, and interesting, showing great research and aptness in the
lecturer. His plan is novel, and his inferences logically drawn, and
practically useful."
From the REV. DR. J. W. YEOMANS, of Pennsylvania.
"PROFESSOR WINES presents, in a compendious and impressive
form, a philosophical view of the Hebrew polity, which makes the
legislation of Moses appear, as it truly is, the most wonderful and
instructive system of legislation the world has ever seen."
From FRANCIS L. HAWKS, D. D., of New York.
"FROM the examination I have been able to give the work of Mr.
Wines on the laws and polity of the Hebrews, I think that it is
characterized by signal ability, and that its publication cannot but be
useful."




TABLE OF CONTENTS.
introductory Essay on Civil Society and Government.      17
BOOK   I.
P R E L I M I N A R Y.
CHAPTER I.
Introductory Observations-Nature and Plan of the WorkClaims of the Hebrew Law to our Study and Regard-The
Question whether the Mosaic Laws were binding upon other
Nations than the Hebrews considered                     101
CHAPTER II.
Moses as a Man and a Lawgiver.. 125
CHAPTER III.
Uncertainty of early Profane History..... 140
CHAPTER IV.
Credibility of Moses as an Historian.. 166
CHAPTER V.
Divine Legation of Moses.       223
CHAPTER VI.
Objections Considered and Answered.... 256
CHAPTER VII.
Influence of the Laws and Writings of Moses on the subsequent Civilization of the World...             302




xvi                      CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VIII.
Review of the leading Constitutions of Gentile Antiquity, with
special reference to the Question, how far Civil Liberty was
secured by them..                              341
CHAPTER IX.
Geographical Limits and Population of Palestine... 376
BOOK   II.
ORGANIC LAW OF THE HEBREW STATE.
CHAPTER I.
Fundamental Principles..                   393
CHAPTER II.
The Hebrew Theocracy...                           456
CHAPTER III.
General Idea of the Hebrew Constitution.     487
CHAPTER IV.
The Hebrew Chief Magistrate..                  535
CHAPTER V.
The Hebrew Senate...   s                       574
CHAPTER VI.
The Hebrew Commons...                            588
CHAPTER VII.
The Hebrew Oracle.                                   597
CHAPTER VIII.
The Hebrew Priesthood.                609
CIhAPTER IX.
The Hebrew Prophets.                          622
CHAPTER X.
Conclusiol....                           e       632




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
ON
CIVIL SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENT.
Tims design of this introductory essay is to inquire into the
origin and foundation of civil society and government; to
unfold the nature, sources, and sanctions of political power;
and to establish some general principles of polity, law, and
administration.
Next in importance to the science of religion, which
teaches our relations to the Creator, and the science of
morality, which explains our relations to our fellow men, is
the science of government, which unfolds our relations and
duties as members of civil society.  There is, indeed, a
beautiful alliance between theology, ethics, and jurisprudence. These sciences have a common origin, a common
basis, and a common end.*  The science of legislation0 in
effect, embraces our relations to God, to individual man, and
to society. It includes within itself the most important principles of religion, morality, and law. No subject can more
worthily engage the attention of a rational being; a being
who has the happiness of himself and his species at heart.
*Translator's Pref. to Burlamaqui's Principles of Natural and Politic
"w




1.8               INTRODUCTORY ESS AY.
The true origin of civil government and its ultimate
foundation, undoubtedly lie in the will of God. Government is, therefore, a divine institution. Reason, revelation,
and the best human authority, concur in enforcing this
conclusion. Let us interrogate each of these teachers in
turn.
What, in the first place, is the testimony of reason, that
faculty of the soul, whose high office it is to investigate the
mutual relations of things, to compare these relations
together, and thence to infer just principles for forming our
belief, and guiding our conduct?
The exact point we are now in search of is, whether it be
the will of God, that laws should lbe instituted among men;
the manner of their enactment will be inquired into hereafter.
1. The aptitude of our nature for government is a clear
indication of the divine origin of government.*  Man is
endowed with understanding and choice, sensible of pleasure
and pain, and adapted to be moved by the expectation of
rewards and punishments. The possession of such powers
and susceptibilities indicates a purpose, just as the structure
of the eye and the ear shows that these organs were
designed for sight and hearing. For why should the Deity
give us a nature so exactly suited to the reception of laws,
if he had intended that none should ever be made for us?
This would be creating so many useless faculties; it would
be instituting an admirable system of means to no end; and
it would, therefore, signify a waste of contrivance, inconsistent with absolute perfection.
2. An examination of human nature, in another aspect of.t, will evince, that man was made for society, and consequently for government and law; for without these society
cannot exist.t Two leading principles enter as elements into
* Burlam. Prin. Nat. Law, Part ii., Chap. 2.
f See Bishop Butler's Sermons on Human Nature.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                19
the soul of man;-self-love and benevolence. Self-love is
the affection which one has for himself. This prompts us to
take care of ourselves, our life, our health, our private
interest. Benevolence is a disposition to friendship, compassion, love, kindness. It is an affection whose aim and
end is the good of others. There can be no doubt of the
existence of such a principle in human nature. So natural
is it for man to be attracted towards man, that tile bare fact
of having trod the same soil and breathed in the same
climate becomes, not unfrequently, the occasion of contracting close intimacies and friendships; the occasion, I say;
for the real tie is not the slight relations alluded to above,
nor any others like them; but the prior, original, deeplyseated disposition and bias of our nature to love one another.
But if there is no doubt of the existence of this principle
in man, there is quite as little, that its office is to incite us
to seek the welfare and happiness of society, just as it is the
office of self-love to incite us to seek our own good.
Besides benevolence, there are other principles in human
nature, which, being adapted to promote the good of society,
are a clear indication that man was designed for society by
the Creator. Such are the desire of esteem from others, the
love of society for its own sake, and the indignation we feel
against successful vice. These affections have a direct relation to others. They incline us to a behavior beneficial to
others. Their tendency is to public good; that is to say, the
good of man in society. Why should God implant in us
principles having an immediate respect to society, why
make us social beings, if he did not intend us for the
social state? To affirm that he did, would be to charge him
foolishly.
There is still another principle in human nature, which
points the same way. I refer to that faculty by which men
distinguish between their own actions, approving of some
and disapproving of others; the faculty of conscience.




20                INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
That this faculty tends to restrain  men from doing mischief
to each other, and leads them to do good, is too manifest to
need being insisted on. Here, then, in the conscience, we
have another principle of our nature, which has quite as
close a relation to public as to private good. The existence
of this principle in the inward frame of man is a clear
proof that the Creator intended us to be instruments of good
to one another by living in society, and by instituting and
obeying such laws as are essential to the being and welfare
of civil communities.
3. The divine origin of government may be argued, analogically, from the constitution of the material universe.
Look at the harmony of the visible creation. See its beauty,
regularity, order. Every object is relative to a certain end,
and these particular ends, though endlessly diversified, are
so combined as to conspire to one general design. Notwithstanding the amazing variety, there is no confusion. The
parts of the universe are so proportioned and balanced, that
while each preserves its proper form, place, and motion,
together they make an harmonious and beautiful whole.*
Such is the order which the Supreme Wisdom  has established in the physical world. Can we contemplate this admirable constitution, and persuade ourselves, that the Deity
has abandoned the moral world to chance and disorder? A
-wise being, in all his actions, proposes a reasonable end, and
appoints the means necessary to effect it. The end which
God has in view with respect to his creatures, is their perfection and happiness; and his plan must include every
thing essential to such a design. Most evident is it to every
reflecting mind, that the only agency adequate to the end in
view, is the institution of civil society and government.
Had the constitution of man been merely physical, God
himself would have done whatever was expedient for the
perfection of his work; as, in fact, we -see he has in the: case
* Burlam. Prin. Nat. Law, Part ii., Chap. 1.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
of the bee, the beaver, and the other creatures, whose motions are governed by pure in-tinct. But man is an intelligent being.  He is capable of deliberation and choice.
The means, therefore, by which the Deity designs him to be
conducted to his end, must be adapted to his rational
nature, which, as we have before shown, eminently fit him
to become the subject of government and law.
4. These considerations acquire new force, when we attend
to the consequences of the opposite doctrine. What would
become of man, were every individual complete master of
his own actions? Caprice and passion would then be his
chief rules of conduct. In that case, most of our faculties
would become quite useless. The powers of reason, judgment, reflection, prudence, conscience, and liberty of choice,
form the true dignity of our nature. But to what purpose
should we be endowed with these noble faculties, if we were
always to yield to first impressions, and allowed ourselves to
be evermore hurried away by the impulses of instinct or
the force of blind inclinations? In the case supposed, the
most exalted powers of the soul would not only be rendered
futile, but would become hurtful by their very excellence;
since the higher any faculty is, the more does the abuse of it
become dangerous.*
To leave men wholly to themselves, is to leave an open
field to the passions. Universal license would inevitably
draw after it universal licentiousness. Injustice, violence,
and perfidy would run riot. Without government, mankind
would never emerge from the state of barbarism; nay, they
would not even rise above the condition of wild beasts; and
universal war, which Hobbes imagined to be the necessary
consequence of the bad principles of human nature, when
not held in check by despotism, would, indeed, become a
terrible reality. We must, therefore, have recourse to other
ideas. We must conclude, that God, having created man for
* Burlam. Prin. Nat. Law, Part ii., Chap. 2.




22                LNTmRODUCTORY ESSAY.
happiness, having implanted in him a desire for it, haviing
subjected him to the necessity of living in society, and having also inspired him with the love of order, intended, at
the same time, that he should be subjected to the restraints
of law.
5. This last observation contains a thought which deserves
to be expanded into a distinct argument for the divine origin
of government.
As there are, in physical science, certain axioms, which
serve as the basis of all its deductions, so likewise, in moral
and political science, there are certain elementary principles,
which constitute the foundation of ethics and jurisprudence.
These, in both cases, are termed first truths, because they
carry their own evidence along with them, and form the ultimnate basis of all reasoning. They are the dictate of pure
reason, independently'of all ratiocination. Ience, by an
original law of our nature, we yield our assent to them the
moment they are announced.
These first principles being discovered, all the consequences
flowing from them by fair deduction, are as certain as the
principles themselves. It is only necessary, that the premises
and conclusions be properly connected; the whole business
being to deduce the one from the other by a train of logical
reasoning.
That the ultimate end of man is happiness: that happiness cannot consist in things inconsistent with his nature;
that, to attain happiness, not only present good and evil
must be considered, but also their consequences; that it is
unreasonable to pursue a present good, which must issue in
a greater evil, but quite reasonable to bear a present evil,
which must issue in a greater good; that a higher good
ought ever to be preferred to a lower one; and that order is
more excellent than disorder; these are all first truths.
They are of a nature to compel our assent.* They have the
* Burlam. Prin. Nat. Law, Part ii., Chap. 2.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                23
same self-evident clearness and force, as the axioms of mathematica! and physical science; such as that the whole is
greater than any of its parts; that things which are equal
to the same things are equal to one another; that every effect
must be preceded by an adequate cause; and the like.
These principles form a body of maxims, drawn from the
nature of things. Being engraved on our heart by the Creator, whatever lessons they inculcate are a clear indication
of his will. Whither, then, do they look? Plainly, to the
establishment of civil government, as indispensable to the
attainment of man's ultimate end. That end is happiness;
for that was he formed and fashioned; and to that does he
direct all his actions.
The true happiness of every being consists in the proper
perfection of its nature. The road to a just development of
human nature and the road to happiness are one and the
same. When a particular system of means is adapted to
perfect our nature, and another is not, it is evident that we
are bound to choose the former and reject the latter. This
is the clear verdict of reason; and the language of right
reason is the voice of God. Now, nothing is more certain
than that civil government is essential to the perfection of
man's nature. It is, therefore, a necessary means to the
attainment of his proper happiness. But that, as we have
seen, in subordination, doubtless, to the divine glory, was
the final cause of his creation. When reason, then, informs
us, as she does, that the discipline of laws is an essential
condition of human happiness, it is God himself who speaks
to us in this inward oracle. Thereby he gives us clearly to
understand, that government, being adapted to our nature
and our needs, is, at the same time and for the same reason,
agreeable to his will.
6. The contemplation of human society, as an able living
divine* has well observed, leads directly to the contempla* See Rev. Dr. Lothrop's Sermon on the Death of the late Harrison Gray
Otis.




24               INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
tion and acknowledgment of God as its author. We lookl
around us, and behold a vast multitude, whom no man can
number. Their voice is like the sound of many waters,
their movement like the roll of mighty thunderings. Of
this mighty throng, we see each one thinking, contriving,
and working chiefly for himself. When we consider the
variety of human interests, the force of human passions, and
the prevalence of human depravity, we wonder that chaos
does not come back upon the social world. Yet, comparatively, it is but seldom that convulsions disturb the elements
of social order. Men for the most part take their proper
places in society with ease and contentment. This result is
not achieved wholly by man's wisdom. It is produced,
rather, by God's providence, appointing alike the good and
the evil, which befal the individual and the race. Thus
does the contemplation of society conduct our thoughts to
God as its author; the being, who, amid all the fluctuations
of human affairs, presides over mortal destinies, and reigns
with an equal supremacy, in the armies of heaven and
among the inhabitants of earth. Now, since human society
is so manifestly embraced within the comprehensive purpose
of the Creator, what ever agencies are essential to its successful working must be agreeable to his will. Of these agencies, government is clearly one; and, indeed, it holds a conspicuous place among them.
7. Consider the nature and uses of civil government; and
you shall confess its origin to be divine. A nation is a
wonderful and a fearful thing.- "A mighty moral mases,
immortal in mortality."  How much weakness to be helped!
How much ignorance to be taught  How much misery to
relieved! What vast capacities to be developed and disciplined! What complicated interests to be adjusted!
What folly, madness, and crime to be held in check!
What a sum of good to be achieved, and of evil to be prevented'" Can there be any human measure of national




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                25
responsibility?  Can there be anything, short of creation, so
pregnant in results, as the national organization?  What
hand, unequal to the one, could have been trusted with the
other? Who, that refers the first to God, will, in the other,
stop with man? Where is the wisdom, short of God's, that
shall devise a Where are the sanctions, short of God's, that
shall authenticate?  Where is the power, short of God's,
that shall sustain? "I
8. I conclude this branch of the general argument in
support of the divine origin of government with a few
beautiful reflections of a heathen philosopher, bearing upon
the subject. I' Nature," says Seneca,*"' to make amends to
man for denying him those natural arms which she has
given to wild beasts, has endowed him  with two things
which make him greatly their superior; I mean reason and
sociability.  By these he who alone could make no resistance, becomes master of the whole. Society gives him an
empire over other animals.  Society supplies him  with
remedies in his diseases, assistance in his old age, and comfort in his pains and anxieties. Society enables him, as it
were, to bid defiance to fortune. Take away society, and
you destroy the union of mankind, on which the preservation and the whole happiness of life depend." Thus it
appears, that society is among the most precious of those
blessings, for which we are indebted to the divine benevolence. And can we believe, that the wisdom  of God has
denied that which is essential to the enjoyment of a gift,
which his goodness has bestowed upon us?
Such is the voice of reason in regard to the origin and
foundation of civil government.  Let us now proceed to
inquire, secondly, what is the teaching of revelation on this
point?
* Bishop Doane's Orat. before the N. J. Society of the Cincinnati, entitled
Civil Government a Sacred Trust from God.
Cited in Barbeyrac's Int. so Puffendorf's Law of Nature and Nations.




26              TINTR DUCTORY ESSAY.
Hiere the Bible holds a language both clear and emphatic.
Its doctrine is, that God is the universal governor; that
civil government is a sacred trust from him; that he rules
in and by the civil magistrate; and that civil obedience is
a religious obligation, a tribute due to heaven, because he
ministers in the person of the ruler.  The proof-texts,
affirming these positions, are numerous, in both the Old
Testament and the New. But we must content ourselves
with a very few citations.
It is no dubious or feeble support of this theory, that the
Spirit of inspiration has dignified magistrates with the title
of " gods;" as he clearly has in Ps. 82: 1. " God standeth
in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the
gods." The import of such an appellation deserves to be
seriously weighed. It is a title which cannot imply less,
than that civil rulers are invested with a divine authority,
and are, in the exercise of their magistracies, the representatives and vicegerents of the divine majesty. Such seems to
be our Savior's interpretation: "' He called them gods, unto
whom the word of God came." What is the meaning of
the declaration, "the word of God came to themn,"if not,
that they hold their commission from him 
The wisdom  of God,-that divine being, who is elsewhere called the Word of God, and who is affirmed to be
from the beginning, to be with God, and to be God,declares, by the mouth of Solomon: "By me kings reign,
and princes decree justice: by me princes rule, and nobles,
yea, all the judges of the earth." What can be the meaning
of this, but that the authority of all civil governors, whether
in a nmonarchy or a republic,-patriarchs, kings, sultans,
presidents, judges,-is in consequence of the appointment of
God, who has been pleased to regulate and administer
human affairs in this manner?  Does it not indicate his
presence and presidency in the enactment and execution of
laws? It would be a frigid interpretation to say, that God




INTRODTUCTORY ESSAY.              27
reigns by kings and governors in the way of tolerance alone,
and by merely withholding his interference. It is rather by
the solemn institution and decree of his sovereignty.
Passing by innumerable other scripture testimonies to this
point, which it were tedious to cite, we come to the celebrated passage in Paul's letter to the Roman Christians, in
which the illustrious apostle discusses the subject of civil
government in a full and formal manner, and declares his
opinion in the most explicit terms. "s Let every soul," says
this inspired Christian philosopher and statist, " be subject
unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God;
the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God;
and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation
(condemnation, punishment). For rulers are not a terror to
good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou not be afraid of the
power. Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise
of the same; for he is the minister of God to thee for good.
But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth
not the sword in vain. For he is the minister of God, a
revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore, ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also
for conscience' sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also;
for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this
very thing. Render, therefore, to all their dues; tribute to
whom tribute; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear;
honor to whom honor."*
Here the Bible theory of civil government is set forth
with great perspicuity and power. The scriptural argument
for its divine origin and sanction might be safely rested on
this citation alone. It would be difficult to find, in the
whole compass of human literature, a more pregnant passage; or one containing views on government more solid,
rational, and conservative. It exhibits a complete theory
* Rom. 13: 1-7.




28               INTRODUC(TORY ESSAY.
of civil polity, in its fundamental principles; a theory which
commends itself to every sober understanding and enlightened judgment by the common sense excellence of its
leading maxims. The main points in the social theory of
St. Paul, as here developed, are these following:-That
government is a divine appointment, vs. 1, 2, 4, 6; that the
civil magistrate is the minister of God, his representative
and vicegerent, and that under every form of polity, vs. 4,
6; that the end of government is the good of the governed,
vs. 3, 4; that the magistracy is invested with all needful
power both of rewarding and punishing, vs. 2, 3, 4; that
obedience to the civil power is a religious duty, vs. 1, 2, 3, 4;
that conscience, more than. fear, ought to constrain us to obedience, v.. 5; that punishment is in its nature vindictive; it is a
vindication of justice, and therefore not wholly for the determent of others from the like crimes, and still less for the
mere reformation of the criminal himself, v. 4; and that
those who serve the state in the magistracy are entitled, in
return, to support and honor, from those over whom they
are placed, v. 7.
We are, next, to inquire, what is the voice of human
authority as to the divine origin and authority of government?
The theory, which traces the institution of society and
government up to the will of God, and which we have shown
to be suggested by reason and confirmed by revelation, has
united the voices of the best and wisest of men in all times
and countries. The idea was very general in ancient times,
that divine authority was indispensable to the establishment
of laws over a people. We see this very plainly in the care
taken by all the lawgivers of antiquity to impress upon
those for whom they legislated the belief that they were
under a divine inspiration. Nor was this idea confined to
rude and barbarous tribes, but appears to have been most
widely diffused in those nations where the refinements of
civilization had made the greatest advances; as among the




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                 29
Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans.  This was a
fiction, no doubt; but the universality of it, and the ready
assent which mankind yielded to it, may be received as
evidence of the truth, so clearly made known in the Scrip
tures, tha, " the powers that be are ordained of God;"* i. e.
that civil laws have their origin in his will, and their
sanction from his authority.
There is a general concurrence among moral and political
philosophers:in the doctrine, that civil government is
founded on the will of God. Bishop Horsley speaks of
" the principle of subjection" to civil power as " a conscientious submission to the will of God."t  "The reason why
we should be subject to magistrates," says Calvin, " is
because they are appointed by the ordinance of God. Since:it has pleased God so to administer the government of this
world, he who resists their power, strives against the divine
ordinance, and so fights against God. Because to disregard
his providence, who is the author of civil government, is to
go to war with him."T  "That all lawful dominion, coni
sidered in the abstract," says Archbishop Bramhall, "is
from God, no man can make any douht."~ On this subject
the profoundly philosophic Bishop  Butler speaks thus:
"Civil government is that part of God's government over
the world, which he exercises by the instrumentality of
men.  Considering that all power is of God, all authority is
properly of divine appointment; men's very living under
magistracy might naturally have led them to the contemplation of authority in its source and origin, the one supreme
authority of Almighty God."11 "All dominion over man,"
says the great Edmund Burke, " is the effect of the divine
disposition. It is bound by the eternal laws of him that
* Ron. xiii., 1.
t Sermon 44, Rivington's edition, 1824, cited by Bishop Doane.
I Commentary on Rom. xiii., 1.
$ Serpent Salve. ".Archb. Bramhall's Works," vol. iii., p. 317, cited by
Doane.          [ Sermon before the House of Lords.




30                  INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
gave it, with which no human authority can dispense;
neither he that exercises it, nor even those who are subject
to it.  * X * * *  We are all born in subjection, all born
equally, high and low, governors and governed, in subjection to one great, immutable, pre-existent law, prior to all
our devices and all our contrivances, paramount to all out
ideas and all our sensations, antecedent to our very existence, by which we are knit and connected in the eternal
frame of the universe, and out of which we cannot stir.
This great law does not arise out of our conventions or compacts; on the contrary, it gives to our compacts and conventions all the force and sanction they can have."
Besides the writers whose opinions are here adduced,
many other illustrious masters of political science, as
Plato, Hleraclitus, Aristotle, Cicero, Grotius, Puffendorf,
Burlamaqui, and Blackstone,t have represented civil government as founded in the will and purpose of the Deity.
Nor is this a slender support. For, although it were impious, as well as irrational, to attach to mere human opinions
any thing like infallibility, yet deference to the authority of
good and great minds is but the testimony of a reverent and
grateful spirit to high intellectual and moral worth. Indeed,
with the bulk of mankind, authority seems little less than a
necessity. The light which they find not in themselves,
they instinctively seek in others. The existence of oracles,
from  ancient Dodona to modern Rome, attests this fact.
* WORKS, V. iii., p. 116, Little L' Brown.
t Most of these, with others, are cited by Barbeyrac in his Introd. to Puffendorf, Plato says: "All laws came from God; no mortal man was the
founder of laws." Aristotle adopted the theory of his master, Plato.
Heraclitus, in Stobaeus, affirms, "All human laws are nourished by one
divine law." Cicero delivers the opinion that "law is nothing else but
right reason, derived from the Divinity, and government an emanation of
the divine mind." Special citations are not needful from the other writers
named in the text, as their political writings are pervaded with this sentirent.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                31
Oux earliest opinions are all formed in this way. In childhood the voice of the parent is the voice of God. Nor is
authority, at any period of life, to be looked upon as incompatible with free thinking. Doubtless, it is capable of being
abused; as what good thing is not?.Yet when rightly used
it is a law to the seeing, as well as a guide to the blind..While it forms, as it were, a safe-conduct to persons of dornant intellect, it affords, at the same time, to the awakened
but unsettled mind a centre of reference amid the multitude
of its own thoughts, a centre of rest amid the conflict of its
own volitions.*
Thus it appears, that reason, revelation, and the best
human authority bear concurrent testimony to the divine origin and foundation of civil polity and laws. But the divine
basis of government, and the divine right on the part of any
particular individuals, of instituting and administering government, are questions totally distinct in their nature;
though they have often been confounded by such advocates
of arbitrary power as Sir Robert Filmer, and by such tyrants
as King James the second. Neither is every divine institution of exactly the same sort. God has instituted a Church,
a ministry, a Sabbath, and a special public worship of himself. He has also instituted civil society and civil government; but in another manner. The former of these institutions are by positive enactment, the latter, by deduction of
right reason. To a knowledge of the former as of divine
authority, we are conducted by revelation alone; to a knowledge of the latter as originating in the divine will and enjoying the divine sanction, we are conducted by tile light
of nature, as well as by the light of revealed truth.
" The powers that be are ordained of God."t  Undoubtedly they are. But let us beware of drawing false inferences
* See Rev. Mr. Hedge's Oration before the Phi Beta IKappa Society,
Harvard University.
t Rom. xiii. 1.




32               INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
from_ the use of tihe word " ordained" in this passage. The
reference is rather to the sanction, than the source, of civil
authority. The term is not designed here to instruct us as
to the immediate origin of civil power, but rather to inform
us, that government is agreeable to the will of God, as being
an essential agency in carrying out his purpose with respect
to human happiness.
God has "ordained" certain things as the conditions of
health, reputation, and success in business, as truly as he has
"ordained the powers that be."  And we discover these
several divine ordinances in the same manner, viz., by the
use of enlightened reason. God has also " ordained" baptism, preaching, and the sacramental supper. But both the
mode of ordination and the manner of discovering it, are,
in the two classes of cases, quite different. In regard to
these last-mentioned " ordinances," and various other divine
appointments, it is revelation alone, that enables us to know
what is the will of God. But concerning many things we
have no such mode of ascertaining the purpose of Deity;
and yet may the divine will be as clearly known in these,
as in the other cases. "Not those things alone are from
God,' says Puffendorf, laying down a just principle with
great clearness and felicity of diction, " not those things
alone are from God, which he institutes and ordains by his
own immediate act, without the concurrence or interposition
of men; but those likewise, which men themselves, by the
guidance of good reason, according as the different circumstances of times and places required, have taken up, in order
to the fulfillment of some obligation laid upon them by God's
command."*
When God created man, he established certain immutable
laws, commonly called the laws of nature, by which man
was to regulate his conduct in all things. These laws were
to serve him as guides in the pursuit of happiness. That
* "Law of Nature and Natid us," L. 7. c. 3, $ 2.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.               33
man might be enabled to discover and apply the laws of nature, he was endowed by the Creator with the faculty of reason. Among the laws or principles of reason here referred
to, are these following: —That we should live honorably;
that we should hurt nobody; that we should render to all
their dues; that we should seek the good of our fellows:
and, to this end, that we should institute societies, establish
governments, and ordain laws. And all these, society, government, law, are, at the same time, truly divine and truly
human institutions. They are divine, inasmuch as they are
essential agencies in carrying out the divine purpose in the
creation of man. They are human, inasmuch as they are
instituted and administered by men, without any special and
immediate interposition of the Deity.
This view of civil government, as at the same time of divine and human appointment, is agreeable to the explicit
teaching of God's word. It harmonizes in a simple, natural,
and satisfactory manner, two passages of scripture, which,
to superficial thinkers, would seem at variance with each
other. St. Paul declares, " The powers that be are ordained
of God."'  St. Peter exhorts: " Submit yourselves to every
ordinance of man."t The former of these inspired writers
represents government as an ordinance of God; the latter,
as an ordinance of man. What have we here, then? One
divine inspiration contradicting another divine inspiration?
Not in the least. Are the two apostles inconsistent with
each other in their doctrine? No, in no wise. They look
at government from different stand-points. They exhibit it
in different relations. St. Paul would hold up to our view,
and enforce upon the conscience, the divine sanction of all
government; St. Peter, the duty of obedience to the actually
existing government. The reference of Paul is to the remote
and ultimate foundation of civil polity; the reference of
Peter to that which is more directly and immediately so
* Rom. xiii. 1.       t 1 Pet. ii. 13.
3




34                INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
The one contemplates government in the root; the other in
the bough; the one, in the fountain; the other, in the
stream. Archbishop Bramnhall and Bishop Sanderson harimonize these passages in the following manner. Says the
former of these prelates: "The essence of power is always
from  God; the existence, sometimes from God, sometimes
from man."*  The latter going mnore fully into the subject,
holds this language: "The substance of the power of every
magistrate is the ordinance of God; but the specification of
the circumstances thereto belonging, as in regard of places,
persons, titles, continuance, jurisdiction, subordination, and
the rest, is a human ordinance, introduced by custom or positive law."t
Pertinent to this point, and throwing light on the twofold
origin of government here contended for, are the following
reflections from  that eminent prelate, Bishop  Horsley:
-" The principles which I advance, ascribe no greater sanctity to monarchy, than to any other form of established government; nor do they at all involve the exploded notion,
that all or any of the sovereigns of earth hold their sovereignty by virtue of such immediate or implied nomination,
on the part of God, of themselves personally, or of the
stocks from which they are descended, as might confer an
endless, indefeasible right on their posterity.  In contending
that government was coeval with mankind, it will readily be
admitted, that all particular forms of government which
now exist are the work of human policy, under the control
of God's overruling providence; * *' * *Y but it is contended, that all government is in such sort of divine, institution, that, be the form of any particular government what it
may, the submission of the individual is a principal branch
of that religious duty which each man owes to God. In
governments, of whatever denomination, if the form of gov* WORKS, V. iii., p. 317.
t " Serm. ad Magistr." p. 110, cited by Bloomfield, on 1 Pet. ii. 13.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                  35
ernment undergo a change, or the established rule of succession be set aside by any violent or necessary revolution,
the act of the nation itself is necessary to erect a new sovereignty, cr to transfer the old right to the new possessor.
*  * *  * *  * X Of all sovereigns none reign by so fair and
just a title, as those who can derive their claim from such
public act of the nation which they govern. * 4 * 4 The
obligation to obedience proceeds, primarily, from the will of
God; secondarily, from  the act of man.""   Dr. Jortin,t
another eminent and learned divine of the Church of England, has embodied the same opinion in one short, but luminous sentence: " Government, both in Church and State, is
of God; the forms of it are of men."
Hence, although the ultimate source of civil government
is the divine will, the immediate source of it may be, and
certainly is, quite another thing. God has instituted no particular species of civil polity for all mankind, nor invested
any particular persons with authority over their fellows.
All forms of polity, not subversive of the true ends of government, the preservation, perfection, and happiness of mailn,
are agreeable to his will. All civil rulers, kings, consuls,
senators, presidents, governors, representative assemblies,
and the whole body of the people exercising the functions
of sovereignty, are equally his vicegerents, his ministers,
ruling in his place, bearing the sword for him.
It is, therefore, quite proper to inquire into the origin of
political government and the sources of political power, as
things of human contrivance and purpose, without any reference to that divine sanction, which, by the law of nature,
as well as the law of revelation, will inevitably attach itself
to political institutions, as soon as they are formed and put
into operation. Nor is such an inquiry justly open to the
charge of irreligion. For, as Puflendorf has truly observed,
* Sermon 44, Rivington's Edition.
t Cite I by "Dr. Miller on the Christian Ministry," c. 1.




36               INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
"he who affirms sovereignty to result immediately from
eompact, doth not in the least detract from the sacred character of civil government, or maintain that princes bear rule
by human right only, not by divine."*
It is proper here to distinguish between natural society
and civil society. If it be contended that no such distinction has ever existed in point of fact, this, if true, does not
hinder from making it an object of thought. When God
made man, he made him for society. He endowed him with
sociability. He subjected him to the necessity of living in
community. But he gave no man civil power over other
men. The family is, indeed, a divine institution; and the
father is, by divine right, invested with a power of command over his children. But parental authority is not civil
authority. Nor is it, perhaps, possible now to determine how
far the existence of civil laws, and consequently of' civil
society, would have been necessary, had man never fallen.
So far, at least, is certain, that the necessity of' civil laws
results, if not wholly, yet in good part, from the wickedness
of mankind. The sense of obligation to divine law is not
enough to keep men from  injustice. -Ience human law
must supervene to hold their bad passions in check. Public force must talke the place of individual conscience. Men
must be restrained in the use of that liberty, which but for
their depravity, they might, perhaps, have enjoyed without
curtailment.:Natural society, then, is a state, where, so far
as civil authority is concerned, all are equal, all independent,
all free; a state, where none possess the right to command,
and none are under the obligation to obey. Civil society
destroys this equality, abridges this independence, curtails
this freedom. It may be defined to be, the union of a multitude of people, who agree to live in subjection to government, in order to secure, through its protection and care, the
happiness for which they were created, which they natu*   "Law of Nature and Nations," L. 7, C(. 3, % 1.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                 37
rally desire, and which they cannot procure in any other
way.
The actual commencement of civil communities, as an
historical fact, is forever lost in the darkness of antiquity.
Some plausible guesses are all that the most sagacious minds
have ever been able to achieve in their search of it. Sonice
attribute the origin of civil society to parental authority;
some, to mutual distrust and dread; and some, to ambition,
supported by force of arms, or force of genius.
These are the principal conjectures of writers concerning
the origin of political unions. There is nothing in them, on
which the mind can settle, in the conviction that it has
attained to truth. It is quite probable, that, in the first institution of civil societies, mankind sought relief from violence and injustice, rather than the several advantages arising
from established laws, such as commerce, letters, sciences,
arts, and the various other social improvements, in which a
high civilization consists. It is equally probable, that paternal authority, with the many advantages flowving from the
family relation, suggested the first idea, and afforded the
earliest model of political organizations. It is still more
probable, as appears from  the history of Nimrod, that ambition had no little agency in the early establishment of
governments among men. But, however these things may
be, all the analogies of human affairs attest, that the bodies
politic first formed were not such as we see now existing.
All human institutions are imperfect in their beginnings.
Improvement is ever a work of time. The progress froml
rudeness to perfection is commonly by slow degrees. Government does not form an exception to this rule. Civil law
at first was very imperfect. Jurisprudence was not formed
into a regular system  at once. No human sagacity could
foresee everything; and new occasions would continually
demand the enactment of new  laws. The earliest states,
therefore, were, in all probability, small in extent, and simr




38                 INTRODUJCTORY ESSAY.
pile in polity.  Kings were mere chieftains, p(ssessing very
limited powers. They were often appointed to act simply as
arbiters in disputes, or leaders in war. Hence, in the most
ancient histories, we soinetimes read of several kings in the
same nation at the same time. A small city, a town, a few
leagues of territory, were honored with the name of kingdom. There were no less than thirty-one kings in the little
territory of Palestine, at the time of the Hebrew Conquest.*
But such questions afford matter rather of curious speculation, than of practical utility. The point of real importance
is: What is the tree source of political government? What
the true basis of political power?  What the true foundation
of political sovereignty?
Nor let any one imagine, that these are adjudicated questions. The fact is quite otherwise.  Not only is the original
institution of government veiled in darkness, but the legitimate.sources and limits of its authority are matters yet in
dispute.  The late Alexander Everett, a statesman and
scholar of no mean repute, in all Essay on the Life and
Writings of Rousseau, says: " The theory of a social contract, though somewhat plausible at first view, does not bear
the test of examination, and is rarely admitted at the present
day by competent judges."t  A declaration this the more
remarkable, as it is unsustained by a single word of argument,
and is in direct contradiction to the express doctrine of the
constitution of Massachusetts, of which state Mr. Everett
was a citizen. The Bishop of New Jersey, in an able, and
for the most part, admirable oration, pronounced before the
New Jersey Society of the Cincinnati, and entitled " Civil
Government, a Sacred Trust from God," declares, that " the
social compact, which men talk of, was never entered into."t
* Josh. xii. 24. Homer mentions several kings of the Pheacians, Odyss.
L. 8, vs. 40, 41. Goguet (Origin of Laws, B. 1.)
t Essays of Alexander Everett.                ~ P. 14.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAYb                39
lie, too, contents himself with the naked assertion, without
adducing a single proof or authority to support it. A distinguished divine of Boston, in a discourse before the M:assachusetts Legislature on the Religious Theory of Civil
Government, has, not obscurely, broached the doctrine, that
the Divine will is the immediate source of civil power; that
it is anti-christian to regard the people as the fountain of'
civil authority; and that the theory of civil society, known
as the social compact, is, to use his own words, " negatively
atheistic."*
There is, perhaps, a growing indisposition in the clergy
to admit the doctrine of the social compact, as the true
theory of civil government. This has arisen from an apprehension,-a mistaken apprehension certainly,-that the tendenicy of the theory is to undermine, or, at least, to weaken
the religious obligation of civil obedience. There is no
doubt, that much that is erroneous concerning both the nature and the sanctions of civil government, is taught under
the name of the social compact. Some, for instance, sup..
pose and teach, that civil society, in its associated capacity,
can possess no power, which does not, while the state of nature lasts, actually belong to men, in their personal capacity.
They suppose and teach, that individuals can give to the
community no power which they do not individually possess. From such a view of the social compact it would follow, that, as no individual has the right to take his own life,
civil society can have no such right. There has been, because there could be, no grant of such power from the persons composing the state. Thus, the fact that suicide is a
sin, becomes an argument against capital punishment.
But this, as will appear in the sequel, is an abuse of the
doctrine which we are considering. The theory as thus presented, is distorted either by ignorance or cunning. When
correctly exhibited, it inculcates no such view as this. It
*' Rev. Dr. Alexander I. Vinion's Election Sermon, 1848, passim.




40               INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
does not deny that civil government is an ordinance of God.
It does not repudiate a religious sanction as attaching to
civil authority. It does not question the doctrine, that obedience to civil laws is a religious duty. It does not in the
least detract from the dignity and sacredness of civil government as a divine institution. It does not deny the divine
right of government; but it does deny the divine right of
kings, considered as persons, and not as powers. It denies
an original divine title to civil power, in any man, or any
set of men. It denies the divine right of an absolute and
unquestionable administration of government. It hurls its
iron gauntlet against such a comprehensive charter of despotism as this doctrine would establish. It thunders its defiance against the monarchs who would thus create a saturnalia for themselves, laying the cost of it in human blood and
fireedom.
Let us inquire into these things. There can be but two
theories on this subject. The sovereign authority in a state
must be derived directly either from  God or the people.
Observe, that the question here is not concerning the remote
origin of government. It is not concerning the ultimate
foiundation of government. It is not concerning the sanction
of government. All these are, in the strictest sense, divine.
The question is concerning the proximate source of civil
power,-whether it is in God, or in the will and act of the
nation.
It must be kept in mind, that there are but two possible
sources of civil power, viz., God and the people. The question
is, from which of these does the magistrate immediately receive his authority? Not, surely, from God. God does not
designate the rulers of nations by special revelation; neither
does he set distinguishing marks of dominion upon some
men, and of subjection upon others. "He does not," as
Sidney has forcibly said, "cause some to be born with




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                 41
crowns upon their heads, and others with saddles on their
backs."@
There must, therefore, be a real and proper sense in which
it may be affirmed, that the people are the fountain of
political power;t that political sovereignty resides in them,
as its spring and source;t that the immediate original of
sovereign authority is in human covenants;~ that it is competent for the people to retain, or to transfer it; that, in
short, they are the sole judges of the forms they will give to
their commonwealths, and of the powers and limitations of
power which they will establish in them.
-My ideas on these points can be best explained by an
imaginary case. Let us suppose a hundred persons to have
taken possession of an unappropriated island. Each is, by
supposition, independent of the others. They stand upon a
footing of entire equality. The old maxim, —'par in parem
non kaTcet ienperium,"-equals have no authority over one
another,-is in full force. No one of the hundred possesses
any right of command over the others; no one of them is
subject to any obligation of obedience. This, then, is the
state of nature; wherein all are in the full enjoyment of
what is called natural liberty; that is. to say, the right of
doing each what he pleases; subject only to the restraints
imposed by the law of nature.
Manifestly, this is a state of things not long to be endured
while human passions continue what they are. The power
of acting as each one thinks fit, is inconsistent with security
in any of the enjoyments of life.~  It will soon, therefore,
be found expedient, if not imperative, to enter into some
compact, whereby individuals may be protected in those
absolute rights which are vested in them by the immutable
* Discourses on Government, Chap. 3, Sect. 33.
t Adams' Defence of American Constitutions.
I Burlamaqui's " Politic Law," Part 1, Chap. 6.
@ Ibidem.
~ Blackstone's Commentaries, Book 1, Chap. 1.




42                INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
laws of nature. In other words, it will become necessary to
institute civil society.
What, under these circumstances, will be the probable
course of things? First, these isolated individuals must agree,
each with each, to join in one firm  and lasting society,
and to concert the measures of their mutual safety and
welfare. THere will be the germ and first rudiments of a
state. The next step will be to agree upon some form of
polity. Hiere, it is quite plain, they may settle their new
commonwealth upon any basis and give it any form they
like best. They may institute a monarchy, an aristocracy,
a democracy, or a government compounded out of all three.
This labor done, the state begins to assume a definite and
fixed form. A further advance will be the choice of such
magistrates as may have been agreed upon. A covenantit matters not whether it be express or implied-between
the governors and the governed, whereby the former bind
themselves to take care of the common defence and welfare,
and the latter to yield obedience to them in the exercise of
their rightful authority, gives completeness and perfection
to the state.* This last covenant includes the subjection of
the will of each individual member of the society to the
will of the head, so far as the public good requires; whether
such head be a single person, one or more councils of sages,
or the assembled people.t And thus it is, that a regular
state and a perfect government are formed.
The state has now become, by this submission and union
of wills, a moral person; invested with personal attributes;
enjoying personal rights; subject to personal obligations;
and capable of deliberating, resolving, and acting in a personal capacity. It is no longer a mere multitude. It is not
an assemblage of individuals without any common will. It
is a body politic. It is a society animated by one soul,
* Puffendorf's " Law of Nature and Nations," Lib. 7, C. 2.
t Burlamaqui's " Politic Law," Part 1, Chap. 4.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.               43
which directs all its motions and makes all its members act
with a view to one and the same end, —the public utility
Neither is the personality of the state in the least affected,
whether this union of wills be brought about by the appointment of one man to be the sovereign, by the institution
of a council or councils of senators, or by a majority of
voices in a general assembly of the people. It is still a
unit, and not an aggregate. It is an organized product,
having an internal vitality, working its own growth and
ripeness, though dependent, all the while, in its organic
capacity on that great Being, who is the founder of nations,
no less than the Creator of man.
Now, in the case which I have supposed, the origination
ef the society, the form of polity, the choice of magistrates,
the powers confided to them, the qualifications for office, the
conditions of surrendering it, the duration of the magistracies, and, in brief, the entire constitution of the state, are the
direct result of the action of the people. Is not the popular
will, then, the immediate origin of the government a Is it
not the direct source of power in those who administer it?
WVhen a man gets from me something to which he had before no claim, and which he could not have obtained otherwise than through me, then am I, clearly, the immediate
source of that possession to him. Suppose A buys a piece
of land of B. The title being before truly in B, B is to A
the immediate source of his right to the property in question; and this, notwithstanding the general right of property
has its foundation in the will of God. So if a dozen men of
the hundred become, through the action of the hundred, invested with a right of command, which before they possessed
not, then are the hundred the immediate fountain of such
their authority, though it be admitted, as it freely is, that
the will of God is the remote source and the ultimate basis
of it.
This, now, is the social compact. Mr.. Locke is not, as




44                 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
many suppose, the author of this theory of government.
On the contrary, its essential principles have been held by
the most illustrious political philosophers of all ages.
Plato defines a law to be " a public ordinance of the body
of the state;" meaning thereby, the whole people. IIe
makes the foundation of the state to be " a tacit agreement
between each member and the whole community," and declares that "they who refuse to submit to the laws, violate
the agreement."*
Aristotle founds his politics on nearly the same principles
with those of his master.  " The civil law," he says, "is that
which takes place amongst a number of free persons, who
are members of the same community, in which they live
on a footing of equality, either pure and simple, or proportionable."t
Apuleius, from the authority of Plato himself, defining
the Platonic commonwealth as the most perfect model of
government, calls it "a union of many men, in which some
govern and some are governed, but all agree and mutually
assist each other, guiding themselves in their duty by the
same laws.":
Livy declares " the force of the supreme command to be
built upon the consent of those who obey."~
Cicero, with his usual exactness and felicity, defines a
state to be " a multitude of people, united together by common laws, a common interest, and a common consent."lj
To the same effect is the definition of Puffendorf. It is
this: "A civil state is a compound moral person, whose will
united and tied together by those covenants, which before
* De Leg. L. 1. See also " Dacier's Life of Plato," pp. 90, 91; Barbeyrac's Historical and Critical Account of the Science of Morality, ~ 21.
t Barbeyrac's Historical and Critical Account of the Science of Morality, ] 24.: Puffend. "Law of Nature and Nations," Lib. 7. c. 2.
EHist. Lib. 2, c. 59.                  De Rep. L. 3.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                45
passed among the multitude, is deemed the will of all, to
the end that it may maintain the common peace and security."*
Grotius declares his opinion concerning the original of
government thus: " Men, not influenced by the express
command of God, but of their own accord, having experienced the weak defence of separate families against the
assaults of violence, united themselves in civil society, the
effect of which was civil power, styled, on this account, by
St. Peter, the ordinance of man."t
Montesquieu, quoting Gravina with approbation, says:
"The conjunction of the particular forces of individuals
constitutes what we call a political state. The particular
forces of individuals cannot be united without a conjunction
of all their wills. The conjunction of those wills is what we
call the civil state."t
Blackstone, though he rejects the theory of an actually
existing unconnected state of nature, nevertheless admits an
C" original contract of society," concerning which he makes
the following observation; "This contract, though perhaps
in no instance has it ever been formally expressed at the first
institution of a state, yet in nature and reason must be
always understood and implied, in the very act of associating together: namely, that the whole should protect all its
parts, and that every part should pay obedience to the will
of the whole; or, in other words, that the community should
guard the rights of each individual member, and that, in return for this protection, each individual should submit to the
laws of the community."~
The elder Adams, one of the most solid and sagacious of
political writers, in his Review of " Nedham's Right Consti
* "Law of Nature and Nations," Lib. 7, Cap. 2.
t "Right of War and Peace," Lib. 4, i 7.
$ "Spirit of Laws," B. 1. c. 3.
2 Comment. Bk. 1. c. 6.




46                INTRODIJCTORY ESSAY.
tution of a Commonwealth," among many other things to the
same effect, has the following: "If ever that excellent
maxim, that the fountain of all just power and government
is in the people, was fully demonstrated and exemplified
among men, it was in the late American revolution, when
thirteen governments were taken down from  the foundation, and new ones erected wholly by the people, as an architect would pull down an old building, and erect a new
It would be tedious to proceed with these citations, though
to multiply tlhem were an easy task. For not only the
authors above-cited, but also Harrington, Milton, Bacon,
Sidney, Locke, 3Barbeyrac, Burlamaqui, Turgot, KNeckar, and
our own statesmen and publicists almost without exception,
have held to the doctrine of the social compact, as the true
theory of political organizations.
It is objected to this theory of a social compact, that it is;' historically untrue."t  That depends upon the meaning we
attach to the phrase, " historically untrue." If by this expression be meant simply, that there is no authentic account
of the first governments instituted among men, in which the
social compact can be historically traced, I assent to the proposition. But then, for the very same reason, every other
theory of civil society must be also.; historically untrue;"
for the origin of all the earliest polities is involved in the
same impenetrable darkness of antiquity.  If, on the other
hand, it sbe intended to assert, that no civil community has
ever been instituted on the basis of express compact, we will
interrogate history on that point.
But before entering on this inquiry, let it be observed, that
none of the advocates of the social compact, in presenting
their ideas concerning the first formation of governments,
* "Defence of American Constitution," v. 3. p. 365.
t Dr. Vinton's Elect. Sermon on tihe Religious Theory of Civil Governient, p. 16.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                47
are to be understood as writing, or intending to write history. They have but propounded a philosophical theory in
a lively way. Every state must have had a beginning; and
since it is impossible to conceive how any union could be
formed without covenants, we must believe, that such covenants were, tacitly, if not formally, entered into in the institution of commonwealths. To express this conviction in a
graphic manner, theoretical writers hlave imagined what
might have happened, and what substantially must' have
happened, when men first formed themselves into political
unions. "( Nor is there anything to hinder," as Puffendorf
haIs truly said, " but that the original of some things, not,
committed to the monuments of time and history, may be
traced out by the disquisitions of reason."'*  But probably
neither Locke, nor Sidney, nor any other rational writer,
supposed there was once a time when no such thing as society existed; and, that, from the impulse of reason and the
sense of their own wants, individuals met together in a large
plain, entered into an original formal contract, and chose the
tallest man present to be their governor.
Thus much by way of apology for certain writers, who
have not always, perhaps, been sufficiently careful to distinguish between actual history and what they have themselves
rationally imagined. Let us now glance at the social compact in an historical point of view. Let us inquire whether,
in point of fact, states have ever been formally established
upon this basis.
The reader is first invited to the study of a piece of history, to which he will, perhaps, hardly expect to have his
attention called; but which, on examination, will be found,
unless I am mistaken, both pertinent and instructive. It is
contained in the nineteenth chapter of Exodus, where the
historian gives an account of the origin of the Hebrew government. Unless my analysis of the transaction there re* " Law of Nature and Nations," Lib. 7, Cap. 2,. 8.




48                INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
corded be erroneous, we shall find in it the substantial elements of the social compact. Proceed we to this analysis.
Moses is solemnly summoned to:Mount Sinai.*  There he
receives a comnission to propose Jehovah to the HIebrew
people, as the civil head of their state.t  Descending from
the mount, he assembles the head men, called " elders of the
people."  In due form lie submits the proposition to the convention as from  Jehovah.: Thereupon the meeting formally gives its assent, in the name and behalf of the nation.~
Moses then re-ascends the mount, and returns "'the words of
the people to Jehovahll;" that is, carries their official reply to
him, a reply made by the people through their representatives, the " elders."11 I aving thus received formal assurance
of the willingness of the people to meet his proposal, Jehovah completes the covenant by acceding to it in a manner
equally formal. This he does by replying to Moses, as the
nation's plenipotentiary and representative.' Lo I come
unto thee in a thick cloud, tihat the people may hear when
I speak with thee."~[
Now, what have we here? To all intents and purposes,
the social compact. Iere is a multitude of people, each
covenanting with each to unite together and form  a civil
community to be governed by common laws. Here is a partial settlement of the form  of the commonwealth.  Here is
an assent by the people to the rule of a lawgiver and head,
formally proposed to their election. HIere is a covenant between tile sovereign thus chosen and each member of the society, in which the former promises protection, and the latter
submission and obedience. Hence Jahn denominates this
transaction " a great and solemn compact."" between Jehovah, as sovereign, and the Hebrew  people, as subjects.
* Verse 3.      f Verses 3-6.     1 Verse 7.
g Verse 8,       11 Verse 8.     ~ Verse 9.
** Hebrew Commonwealth, chap. 2.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                  49
Hence, Dean Graves* speaks of it as a "solemn compact,"
on which, he says, " was founded the Jewish government."
TI-ence, Lowman calls it the " original contract of the Hebrew government."t  Hence li[ichaelis: and our own Dr.
Spring, speak of the election of Jehovah to be the king of
the Hebrews, as the voluntary act of the Hebrew people.
I-ence, also, Warburton says, that " the crime of idolatry is
always represented by the sacred writers as, in a peculiar
sense, the transgression of the covenant;"11 that is, the original compact of government between God and the Hebrew
people. And hence even Bossuet~T himself, though the apologist and apostle of despotic power, says, that " the kw of
5MVoses is a true social compact," (v6ritable contrat social);
and that "all who have spoken accurately of the law, have
regarded it, in its origin, as a solemn pact and treaty," (pacte
et traite solennel).  It was thus that idolatry became, in the
Hebrew state, a civil crime; the crime, in fact, of treason;
for as God was, by the compact which we have been considering, constituted king of the Hebrews, a defection from
him was a defection from their rightful sovereign.*"
HIere I cannot but recal a conversation which I had some
years ago, with that eminent scholar and statesman, the late
John Quincy Adams.  In it, he drew, with a luminousness
and power peculiar to himself, a contrast between the Hebrew government and the other ancient oriental polities.
Point by point, did he unfold, with copious eloquence, the
differences between them.  B3ut that which he chiefly insisted on, was the fact, that all the rest were founded on
* "On the Pentateuch," Pt. 2, Sec. 3.
t " Civil Government of the Hebrews.": " Commentary on Laws of Moses," Vol. 1, Art. 34.
Q "Obligations of the World to the Bible," Lect. 3.
"Divine Legation," B. 5, S. 2.'; "Politique Sacr6e," Liv. 1, Art. 4.
** Jahn's Hebrew Commonwealth, chap. 2. Dr. Vinton himself says:
T' The Theocracy was elective." Elect. Serm., p. 18.
4




50                INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
force, this only on consent. I have regretted since, that I
did not ask him to commit those views to writing; and I
cannot but indulge the hope, that the subject will somewhere be found alluded to at least, if nlot handled at length,
in his posthumous papers.
The reader's attention is invited, in passing, to one point
of special interest in the narrative, which I have been analyzing and commenting upon.  The seventh verse of the
chapter states, that " Moses called for the elders of the
people," and laid the divine proposal before them. It is
immediately added, in the eighth verse: " And all the
people answered together, and said, all that Jehovah bath
spoken we will do." Hlow did the people answer in this
case?   No otherwise than by their representatives, the
" elders."  This is the first intimation we find in history of
the doctrine of popular representation. Does it not prove
Mlontesquieu* to be mistaken in tie supposition, that representation is an improvement in the art of government, invented by the moderns, and unknown to the ancient world?
The first act in the institution of the Hebrew state opens
upon us, with this doctrine, to all appearance, in full play.
On the practice of representation in the Israelitish governmnent I shall have more to say in a subsequent part of this
work. The error of Molontesquieu in saying, that " the ancients had no notion of a government founded on a legislative
body composed of the representatives of the people," will
then more plainly appear.
Proceeding in our research, we come down to the Roman
commonwealth. The original of the Roman government
was, clearly, in a voluntary convention among equals.
First, a number of men flock together on the banks of the
Tiber, with the design of forming themselves into a civil
society. Here, obviously, there must have been a tacit, if
not a formal covenant between them to that effect. Thell,
i " Spirit of Laws," B. I 1, C. 8.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                  51
they deliberate about the form they shall give to their new
government, and  agree upon  establishing  a monarchy.
This done, the work is completed by electing Romulus for
their king, and investing him with the sovereignty; a procedure which necessarily implies a mutual promise, viz., of
protection on the one hand, and of obedience on the other.*
Here, then, we have a state manifestly founded on voluntary
convention; and the theory of the social compact has, in the
Roman polity, a solid historical basis to rest upon.
The Venetian state had a like origin.  It began by the
union of several persons, before free and independent,
among whom, previously to compact, there was neither
superiority nor subjection.t
The same is true of the founders of Carthage.  They also
were freemen. They were wholly independent of one another.
The footing on which they stood was that of entire equality
And the government which they set up, was by their
own consent. It was the result of deliberation and compact.:
Something like this is related by Herodotus to have hap.
pened  even in  Persia, during  the  interregnum  which
preceded the elevation-of Darius to the throne.  The nobles
debate on the comparative advantages of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy; and  the monarchical principle
triumphs by the majority of voices.~
Bracton was an eminent British lawyer, who wrote under
Henry III. IIe lays it down as a principle of the British
constitution, that the king is subject to the law. Tile reason
which he assigns as the basis of this maxim  is, that " the
law maketh the king."!  From this he draws the inference,
as solid as it is liberal, that "he is not truly king, where
will and pleasure rules, and not the law."  Two centuries
* Livy, Lib. 1. Dionys. Halicarn. Lib. 2.
T- Locke on Civil Government, Chap. 7, ~ 110.: Justin. Lib. 3, Cap. 4.                 ~ Herod, 1. 4. c, 44.
U Cited by Blackstone, Commentaries, Book- 1, Chap. 6.




52                INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
later, Fortescue, having  first accurately  distinguished
between a government introduced by conquest and violence,
and a government arising from mutual consent, affirnms, that
the British  monarchy belongs to the latter of these two
species of polity. IHe then proceeds to lay down the principle, that " the king of England must rule his people
according to the decrees of the laws thereof."*  To obviate
all doubt on this question, it is expressly declared by statute
12 and 13 William III., C. 2, " that tle laws of England are
the birth-right of the people thereof; and all the kings and
queens, who shall ascend the throne of this realm, ought to
administer the government of the same according to the
said laws."  Blackstone declares, that this is not only
consonant to the principles of nature, of liberty, of reason,
and of society, but has always been esteemed an express
part of the common law of England, even when prerogative
was at its highest. The same great authority pronounces
the coronation oath, prescribed by the laws of England to
the British sovereign on ascending the throne, to be, most
indisputably, a fundanlental and original express contract.t
Such are the opinions which have been held by the
ablest British lawyers, jurists, and statesmen, concerning
the nature of the British constitution.  They agree in
representing the government of their country as a government arising from mutual consent; a government based
upon compact; a government drawing its life and energy
from the popular will.
It has always been the doctrine of the English whigs,
that the foundation of the English government was a con
tract, expressed on one side by the coronation oath, and on
the other by the oath of allegiance; that the duties of this
contract were mutual; and that a, sovereign who grossly
abused his power, might lawfully be dethroned by his
* Cited by Blackstone.
t Commentaries, Book 1, Chap. 6.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                53
people. And is this a mere partizan theory? No! It was
solemnly acted upon by the British nation, when James II.
was hurled from the throne which he had forfeited by his
tyranny, and the crown was placed upon the head of
William  of Orange.  This was not done by an act of
mutiny and violence, but by a formal vote of the estates of
the realm; the tory party joining with the whig party in
giving the doctrine a practical embodiment in the fundamental law of the land. In this very thing, and in this
alone, consisted the essence of the great revolution of 1688.
No towns were sacked, no fields were wasted, no blood was
spilt, in that revolution. All that was apparent in it, was a
slight deviation from the usual order of succession to the
crown. That was the extent of what appeared to the eye.
But in that deviation, trifling as it seemed, there is a
distinct proclamation of the doctrine, that the British sovereign is in reality elective by the British people.  It
announced that the strife between the popular element and
the despotic element in the government, which had lasted
so long, and been so prolific in seditions, rebellions, plots,
battles, sieges, impeachments, proscriptions, and judicial
murders, was at an end; and that the former, having at
length fairly triumphed over the latter, was thenceforth to
be permitted freely to develop itself, and become predomil
nant in the English polity.*
HIow stands this question as connected with the history of
government in the nations of continental Europe? The
crusades, combining with other causes, broke down the system, and destroyed the power, of feudalism. As the fierce
authority and independent jurisdiction of multitudes of baronical chiefs gave way, the people, on the one hand, and
kings, on the other, rose into importance. Power, authority,
political sovereignty, gradually centralizing themselves,
* See the first vol of Macauley's History, on this subject.




54               INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
calne at length to be settled in fewer hands indeed, but
under greater limitations and with better guaranties. It resulted, at last, that there arose real nations and real governments. The form was, without doubt, in every instance,
kingly.  But these monarchies, springing from  the wreck
of the feudal system, were at first quite different things
from  what they afterwards became.  They were originally
representative.  The great principle of popular consent was
recognized as the foundation of rightful authority.  Monarchy, as a form of polity, was the expression and embodyment of the nation's will.  The doctrine that the king held
his power, not by consent of the people, but by a divine
right personal to himself, sprang up afterwards. It did not
belong to the political creed of that age. An error of later
growth, it has filled Europe, in later times, with popular
commotions and popular revolutions; but it is now well nigh
extinguished.  Russia, it is true, is an example of absolutism,
of gigantic proportions, still remaining in Europe; but, with
this exception, the only kind of monarchy recognized as
legitimate by enlightened European opinion, is that which
makes the sovereign simply the chief magistrate of the
nation, the representative of the majesty of the state, the
embodiment of the will and wisdom of the people.*
But, leaving these ancient and foreign examples, let us
come to our own times, and, as it were, to our own hearths.
Here a clearer light shines upon the true origin and nature
of civil government.  Times and seasons are in the hands
of God. Infinite wisdom, combined with infinite power,
sustains, moves, guides, and governs all things. The affairs
of all ages, though produced immediately by the voluntary
* On the subject of the foregoing paragraph, see an able address entitled
"The Social System," by Daniel D. Barnard, L.L.D. " The limitation of the
regal authority was a first and essential principle in all the Gothic systems
of government established in Europe; though gradually driven out and
overborne by violence and chichane, in most of the kingdoms on the Conti.
nent." B1. Com. B. 1. c. 7.




INTRODUCTORY ESS AY.              55
agency of innumerable actors, nevertheless fulfil the divine
counsel, and carry forward the divine plan.  Great and
manifold were the purposes, which the divine providence
comprehended in the discovery of America and the planting of the British colonies on its shores.  Certainly, not
among the least of these purposes, were improvements in
the science and art of governing; the discovery of new
principles of civil polity, the freer and more energetic application of principles known before. Previously to the colonization of America by Englishmen, shafts of light on the
subject of government had been poured down upon some
generous and gifted souls. Such shafts of light and power
we find in the works of Bacon, IIarrington, Sidney, Milton,
Locke, Grotius, Puffendorf, and Montesquieu. But as the
sunlight is often seen amidst streams of vapor drawn from
the earth and rising into clouds, so the conceptions of the
greatest geniuses on theories of government were obscured
by folds of vaporous prejudice, gathered from existing mronarchical institutions. But when the sun of American freedomn culminated, the mists of prejudice melted away, and
the true theory of political organizations appeared like a' glorious landscape amidst clear shining after rain."y
The very first chapter of New England history opens upon
as with a bright light shining upon the subject of our inquiry. Before the pilgrim  fathers disembarked from  the
Mayflower, on the eleventh of November, 1620, off Cape
Cod, they framed and subscribed a formal social compact.
Here is an extract from that instrument: "We, whose names
are under-written, *- *'* *  do, by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one of another,
covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body
politic, * * * * and by virtue hereof, to enact, constitute
and firame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, offices from time to time, as shall be thought most
* Cheever's Journal of the Pilgrims, Pref.




E56                INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
meet and convenient for the general good of the colony
unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed  our
names."*  To this remarkable document were appended the
names.of thirty-two persons, that is, of all the male adults
on board the ship; the whole number of souls on board
being a hundred and one. Hlere the supposition made a
little while ago of a hundred persons taking possession of a
desert island, and, by compact, forming themselves, under
the necessities of the case, into a civil state, is fulfilled
almost to the letter.
The theory of the social compact forms the basis of the
civil polity established by every state in the American
union, and is fully embodied in the constitution of the
general government.
The constitution of [Massachusetts is very explicit. It
declares: " The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals. It is a social compact, by which the
whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen
with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain
laws for the common good." 
The constitution of New York, framed in 1777, declares:' No authority shall, on any pretence whatever, be exercised
over the people or members of this state, but such as shall
be derived from and granted by them."  "The style of all
laws shall be as follows; to wit:'Be it enacted by the
people of the state of New York, represented in senate and
assembly.' All writs and other proceedings shall run in the
name of the people of the state of New York.":
The constitution of New Jersey, adopted in 1776, holds
the following language: "Whereas all the constitutional
authority, ever possessed by the kings of Great Britain, over
* Idem, pp. 30, 31.
t Constitutions of the United States, Carey, Stewart and Co., 1791, p. 4.: Idem, pp. 49, 57.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                57
these colonies or their other dominions, was, by compact,
derived from the people, and held of them, for the common
interest of the whole society; —allegiance and protection
are, in the nature of things, reciprocal ties, each equally
depending upon the other, and liable to be dissolved by the
other's being refused or withdrawn."  It further affirms,
that, since the compact has been broken by the king of
Great Britain, "all civil authority under him is necessarily
at an end, and a dissolution of government in each colony
has consequently taken place.""
The constitution of Pennsylvania, ratified September 2,
1790, says: " All power is inherent in the people; and all
free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness.  For the
advancement of those ends, they have, at all times, an
inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or
abolish their government, in such manner as they may
think proper."t
The constitution of Delaware, framed and adopted in
1776, asserts: " All government, of right, originates from
the people, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely
for the good of the whole."T
The constitution of Maryland affirms the same doctrine in
the same words. It adds: "The right, in the people, to
participate in the legislature, is the best security of liberty,
and the foundation of all free government."~
To Virginia belongs the immortal honor of being the first
of the colonies, in obedience to the recommendation of the
continental congress of May 15th, 1776, to renounce the
colonial name and condition, and to form herself into a free,
sovereign, and independent commonwealth. Her constitution was adopted the day after the Declaration of Independence. The members of the convention who framed it,
* Idem, p. 61.  ~ Idem, p. 76.:  Idem, p. 82. i Idem, pp. 92, 93.




8IN TRODUCTORY ESSAY.
speak of themselves as "the delegates and representatives
of the good people of Virginia," and say that, as such, they
" do declare the future form of government of Virginia to
be," &c., &c.*
The constitution of North Carolina, adopted in 1776,
utters the sentiment of that state in the following terms:
"All political power is vested in, and derived from, the
people."  "Allegiance and protection are, in their nature,
reciprocal, and the one should of right be refused, when the
other is withdrawn."t
The constitution of South Carolina, formed in 1790, says:' All power is originally vested in the people; and all free
governments are founded on their authority, and are instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness."4
The constitutions of New Hampshire and Georgia contain
no declaration of rights, but the delegates who framed and
adopted them, speak of themselves as " empowered by the
people," and as acting by virtue of the powers vested in
them by the people in what they did.~
Here we have, from eleven of the thirteen original
colonies, explicit declarations of the doctrine of the popular
sovereignty.   Here we have  eleven old  governments
abolished by the people, and new governments instituted in
their place on the basis of express compact. Here we have
a perfect exemplification of the maxim, that the popular
will is the fountain of all just power and authority, in the
state. Connecticut and Rhode Island retained the same
constitutions which they had before. There was not the
same necessity for altering them  as existed in the other
colonies. The charters of these two colonies reserved to the
crown no control over the internal policy emanating from
the colonial legislative bodies, nor even any share in the
executive power.  The acts of their legislatures did not
* Constitutions of the United States. Carey, Stewart and Co's. ed. p. 112.
t Idem, pp. 116, 119.:t Idem, p. 135.    ~ Idem, pp. 1, 136.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                    59
require the royal sanction, and their executive officers were
chosen by the colonists themselves.  Nothing, therefore,
was wanting to their convenient action as states, but the
casting off of their dependence on Great Britain.
But not only are the constitutions of the several states
based upon the principle of the social compact,-the constitution of the United States itself, that master-piece of
political wisdom, is neither more, nor less, nor other, than
the social compact.  "We, the people of the United States,"
it declares, " in order to form a more perfect union, establish
justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common
defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and
establish this constitution for the United States of America."'*
The people ordain and establish a supreme government!
Sublime conception! Glorious truth! Now, for the first
time in the history of the world, so distinctly and broadly
announced as the only legitimate basis of civil society, the
only just foundation of political government.l
But, although the doctrine that the original of all just
government is in the people, has been more emphatically
asserted, and more comprehensively acted lupon, by the
American republics, than by any other nation, yet has the
doctrine at all times maintained a struggle, more or less
vigorous, more or less successful, against the doctrine of a
divine right to absolute power. It is the struggle between
these two principles,-the principle of the social compact
and the principle of absolutism in government, —which has
caused most of the revolutions of modern times. It is this
struggle which has made a battle-field of almost every plain
* Idem, p. 163.
t It is not, of course, meant here, that this principle was not as distinctly
asserted in the state constitutions adopted before the formation of the federal
constitution; but that it was reserved for America to proclaim it in a more
distinct and emphatic manner than any previous government had ever done.




60                INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
in Europe. It is this struggle which has brought to the
scaffold, a H.amden, a Sidney, a Russel, an Emmett, and a
whole army of political martyrs, second in dignity only to
that other illustrious throng of Christian witnesses, who
have sealed their testimony with their blood. It is this
struggle, which three years* ago lighted a train in the city
of Paris, that has exploded beneath almost every throne in
Europe, laying some of them in ruins, and so shattering
others, that, despite the eclipse which, for the moment,
obscures the prospect of the popular cause, they will never
be able to regain either their former power or their former
splendor. It is this struggle, which drove the Pope from the
Vatican in the livery of a servant; which has despoiled him
in a great measure of his temporal power, except as it is
defended by foreign bayonets; and which has made to
tremble even the foundations of his spiritual dominion.
The principle of absolutism, —that dogma of centuries,has, I believe in God, received its death-blow. Mind has
been stirred. Thought has been awakened. Inquiry has
been set on foot.  Railroads are everywhere constructed,
on which ideas travel, even more than men and merchandize. Nations are thus intermingled and interlaced in an
nnprecedented manner.  Every man has an interest in
every other man. Every man feels, that he has a relationship to the whole of humanity. It is a curious fact, that in
proportion as this sentiment of union and brotherhood
among nations extends its sway, there springs up, in each
individual mind, the sense of personal dignity and personal
responsibility. In former ages, men were like herds of
cattle. They worked in masses. They were a part of the
freehold.  They had a master, an owner.  They were
kindred to the brutes. Now, each one says, or feels:  "1
am somebody. I am not a chattel. I have a mind, a soul,
a conscience. I am a free agent. I can think. I go erect.
* This was written in the early part of 1851.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.               61
i am not prone, like the beasts. No man owns me. No
man is my master." What a power there is in this! It has
lifted crowns from the head of princes. It has wrested the
sceptre from the grasp of kings. It has made thrones topple
and fall.
The slumber of ages is broken. The masses have discovered, that political sovereignty is in them; that no man has
the right, irrespective of the assent of the governed, to rule
his fellow-men. The iron barrier, which hitherto has shut
them out from their rights, if not yet broken down, has been
terribly shattered.  The dawn of a rational freedom is
visible above the political horizon. The potentates, who
feel the ground giving way under them, and power stealing
from their grasp, chafe and roar and gnash their teeth. By
combined and extraordinary efforts, by a lavish expenditure
of blood and treasure, they have succeeded in giving a check
to the onward progress of events.  They have produced an
apparent quiet, and flatter themselves, that the spirit of
liberty is crushed. Vain toil!  Delusive confidence! The
seeming calmhn is but the stillness which precedes the earthquake or the hurricane. There is a power behind the
throne greater than the throne.  It is the power of individual man; the power of a newly awakened consciousness of
manly dignity; the power of a felt personal responsibility;
the power of a great and vital truth, long smothered beneath the abuses of ancient dynasties, but now breaking
through the pressure, and asserting its vivifying force.
Writers speculate on coming events, and wonder whether
the people of Europe are prepared for the enjoyment of
liberty and the exercise of self-government. Perhaps they
are not prepared. Probably they are not prepared. It
would be strange if they were prepared. They must be
schooled to this end.  They must be prepared for it, as the
Israelites, as our fathers, as all others in this fallen world
have been prepared for freedom, by a baptism of suffering.




62               INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
But prepared or unprepared now, both liberty aild selfgovernment will at length come. It is not in the people,
but the principle, that I confide. Principles, founded in
truth, are stronger than men. They are stronger even than
men's vices. They seem to be invested with a portion of
that omnipotence, which belongs to him who ordained them.
The great principle of popular right and popular sovereignty,
in some form or other, is predestined to a universal triumph.
It may achieve this triumph in one century, or it may not
achieve it in five; but its ultimate success is as certain as
its truth. God never made a truth, into which he did not
put a power, that sooner or later would cause it to prevail.
Despotism, therefore, will have to bow before the majesty
and supremacy of the people. Even the frozen gates of
Siberia shall yet dissolve and disappear beneath the genial
warmth of the sun of freedom. Tyranny, with its chains
and its blood, will every where come to an end. Humanity
will recover her rights. And an enfranchised world shall
yet exult in the liberty and happiness, for which it has
sighed and struggled through many a weary century of
injustice and oppression.
We are now, I think, prepared to say, whether or not the
theory of the social compact is 6 historically untrue."  WVe
have traced this compact in the Israelitish government. We
have traced it in the institution of the Roman monarchy and
the Venetian and Carthagenian republics. WVe have seen
it, in the opinion of such men as Bracton, Fortescue, and
Blackstone, entering, from the first, as a vital element into
the constitution of Great Britain; and we have seen it, as it
were, by the entire British nation formally ingrafted into
the findamental law of the realm, in the transfer of the
crown of England from the head of James II, to that of
William  of Orange.'We have found it to underlie the
monarchies of continental Europe, which sprang up after
the overthrow of the feudal system. We have beheld




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.              63
after a long eclipse, re-appearing, and successfully vindicating its truth and power in the European revolutions of these
later ages, and in the general substitution of constitutional
monarchies for the iron despotisms of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. We have followed it in its passage
over the ocean billows, in the brave hearts and strong arms,
which the immortal -Mayflower bore to this western clime.
And we have heard it distinctly proclaimed by thirteen
sovereign States and one great republic embracing them all,
as the only just foundation of political government, the only
true spring and source of political power.  "Arbitrary
power," says Burke, " is a thing which neither any man can
hold, nor any man can give. No man can lawfully govern
himself according to his own will; much less, can one person be governed by the will of another." And again:
"Law and arbitrary power are in eternal enmity. Name
me a magistrate, and I will name property. Name me
power, and I will name protection.  It is a contradiction
in terms, it is wickedness in politics, it is blasphemy in
religion, to say that any man can have arbitrary power. In
every patent of office, duty is included. For what else does
a magistrate exist?  To suppose for power, is an absurdity
in idea. Judges are guarded and governed by the eternal
laws of justice, to which we all are subject. We may bite
our chains, if we will; but we shall be made to know ourselves, and be taught that man is born to be governed by
law; and he that will substitute will in the place of it, is an
enemy to God."*
The allegation, that the theory of the social compact is
"historically untrue," seems to me so far from being a fact
of history, that there is no constitutional government in the
world, nor ever has been, which is not, or was not, based
upon such compact. Every such government, whatever its
form, is created by the act of the people, is continued by the
* Works, v. 7, pp. 118, 119, Little & Brown.




64                    INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
will of the people, and represents the august majesty of the
people. Hence, perhaps, that apparently paradoxical maxim, —" rex est populus," —the king is the people. It matters
not whether a formal convention can be traced in the inception of the government, nor whether, in point of fact, any
such formal convention ever passed. It is enough that we
find a people actually living under established laws, and
peacefully pursuing their several vocations under their protection.  The  covenants, constituting  the social compact,
must, in such case, be pre-supposed. Whether these covenants were formal or implied, express or silent, does not alter
the  essential nature of the transaction.  The doctrine.of
tacit covenants, is by no means a novelty to statesmen and
civilians.  The whole system  of the commuon law, with its
rich train of blessings, is built upon nothing else but the
doctrine of silent covenants.*
The persons who instituted the bodies politic, known as
the commonwealths of Virginia and Massachusetts, did so
by express compact.   Bubt their descendants, without such
formality, do, by silent acquiescence in the established order
of things, as really contract, as the original founders. Furthermore, since every civil community is fixed in a certain
locality, it is considered a law in all states, that whoever
* " The re-union of families, by whatever means it was brought about,
could not have taken place but by an agreement of wills on certain general
objects.  When we view society as the effect of unanimous concord, it
necessarily supposes certain covenants. These covenants imply conditions.
It is these conditions, which are to be considered as the first laws, by which
societies were governed. These [covenants] also are the origin of all the
political regulations, which have been successively established. It was not
necessary, that either the first covenants, or the conditions on which they
were founded, should be express. It was sufficient, in many cases, that they
were tacitly understood. * * * * The first laws of society were naturally
established by a tacit consent, a kind of engagement, to which men are
naturally very much inclined. Even political authority was established in
this manner, by a tacit agreement between those who submitted to it and
those who exercised it." —Goguet's Origin of Laws, B. 1.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                 65
comes within the proper limits of such a commulity to reside,
does, by this very act, surrender his natural liberty, and
silently consent to the government there established.
Hence Puffendorf lays down the principle, that they who
join themselves to a state already settled, are not less parties
to the social compact, than they who, by assembling and.
uniting themselves together, formed it at the beginning.*
Does any one say,- " Whither shall I go, if I do not consent to the social compact?"  The answer is:  "You must
go where there is no civil society." Is it replied,-" That is
impossible2?"  I admit it. But it is just such another impossibility as stealing with impunity. The necessity of
living under government, and the necessity of respecting the
rights of property, are conditions of humanity, originating
in the will of the Creator; and both conditions spring from
the same benevolent regard to the welfare and happiness of
his rational creatures.
But the objection, that the theory of the social compact
is historically untrue, is not the only one, that has been
urged against it. It is alleged, that the theory is anti-christian; that it leaves no place for the idea of an organic unity
in the state; that it is productive of injustice towards
minorities; that it makes the relation between the rulers
and the ruled a purely commercial one; that it makes revolution the rule of political life, and obedience the exception;
and that it converts capital punishment into a mere aggression upon individual right.t
Let us examine these several additional grounds of objection to the doctrine of the social compact.
It is alleged, that the theory is anti-christian and semiatheistic, leaving no place for the divine element in government, so much insisted upon by St. Paul, and other inspired
writers. It is even alleged to be infidelity's great battering
*" Law of Nature and Nations," Lib. 7, Cap. 4, { 20.
t " Religious Theory of Civ. Government." Passim.
5




66               INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
ram, with which she has beaten down the firm bulwarks of
society, as in the bloody and detestable French revolution
of the last century.*
This objection, if founded in truth, decides the question.
The old theory of Filmer, which makes the sovereignty of a
niation a personal divine right, must be revived.  King
James's dogma, that " it is presumption and sedition to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power," must
be enforced. Mankind must bow, with what grace they
may, to a doctrine which extinguishes their rights, and
makes all resistance to the powers that be rebellion against
God. For, of necessity, the sovereign authority of a state
must either be derived from the people; or it must belong
by an original divine right, to some particular person or
persons in the state; or it must be usurped, and wrongfully
held by force of arms against the consent and choice of the
nation.
But, in truth, the objection is founded in a fallacy. The
fallacy consists in a misapprehension of the mode in which
the divine will concerning government is ascertained. If
God, by an express revelation, designated the persons in
every state to whom the supreme authority should be en-.trusted, then the objection would hold.  But the divine
right of government is not so ascertained. It is originally
through the suggestion of reason, that the will of God concerning government discovers itself. Independently of revelation, we know with certainty, that it is the divine will
that government should exist, since the end for which mankind was created could not otherwise be attained. But God
permits men freely to institute such polities as they please,
and to invest whom they will with the sovereignty; and his
sanction is given to all forms of government, all systems of
law, and all modes of administration, which do not contra
vene the end, for which he made man. Therefore, since the
* "Religious Theory of Civil Government." Pp. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                67
author of our being has been graciously pleased to allow so
much freedom to his rational creation, no theory of government, which is not subversive of justice and human happiness, can be anti-christian or atheistic.
The social compact, says the objection, is anti-christian;
negatively atheistic; infidelity's battering-ram. How does
this statement tally with the fact, that since the doctrine of
the popular sovereignty has gained so general a prevalence,
society has been steadily advancing in religion, morals,
science, letters, art, jurisprudence, philanthropy, refinement,
and whatever else constitutes the true dignity and happiness
of man?  The social, moral, and religious progress of our
race, has never been so conspicuous, as during the last half
century. The world has never before been so active in doing
good. The zeal of science, the activity of commerce, the
comprehensive and far-reaching enterprises of capital, are
rivaled by the ardor, the energy, and the breadth of its benevolent undertakings. Philanthropy has sought out the
lurking places of vice, shame, want, and misery, and is intent on elevating all the most degraded members of society
in their physical, intellectual, and moral condition. And
religion, awaking as from the slumber of centuries, and
catching her inspiration from ancient prophecy, has started
upon the sublime and glorious enterprise of evangelizing the
world. Surely this does not look as if the canker of irreligion were at work in the very heart of our social systems,
in the very frame and texture of our political organizations.
Where is there less of infidelity, where more of spiritual
religion, where a higher reverence for law, than in the great
North American republic? Yet here the social compact is
the only recognized basis of civil society.
As it respects the terrible scenes of the French revolution,
it was not the theory of the social compact, it was not the
doctrine of the popular sovereignty, that produced them. It
was the depraved heart of the nation. It was the forma'




68        i       TRODUCTORY ESSAY.
abiogation of th;e Christian religion. It was the deification
of human reason. It was the writings of a Diderot and a
Voltaire, not those of a Locke or a Sidney, that wrought the
mischief. The truth is, it is in no case the government that
makes the manners, but always the manners that make the
government. The real nature of a government can never be
known from the name it bears; for, as the people are, such,
by an inevitable law, will the government be, call it by what
title you will.
Again it is said, that the theory of the social compact
leaves no place for the idea of an organic unity in the state.*,
But why not? One of the essential covenants of this compact is, that each member of the body politic submit his
individual will to the will of the recognized head of the
state; whether such head be one man, one or more councils
of sages, or the assembled people, acting in an organic capacity. And what other definition can be given of organic
unity? When each member of a civil society submits his
will to the will of a man, of a council of senators, or of an
assembly of the people, whatever this person. this council,
or this assembly resolves, in matters relating to the common
safety, is deemed the will of all in general, and of each in
particular. It is a fundamental principle, a principle universally recognized and acted upon in civil affairs, that,
when I have delegated my power to another, his act and
choice must be interpreted as mine. A society such as that
described above, and exactly such an one is formed by the
social compact, being actuated by one soul and possessing
one will, is a true moral person, concerning whom it seems
quite proper to predicate organic unity. It is not, indeed,
a unity such as the world has so often seen, in which vast
multitudes of human beings are delivered up to the arbitrary
will of one man. It is a unity, effected by the abolition of
every thing of the nature of caste; a unity, founded on the
* " Religious Theory of Civil Government," p. 30.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.               69
principle of political equality; a unity, where the same
fundamental rights are recognized as belonging to all-the
same fundamental duties as binding upon all; a unity, without either hereditary dignities or hereditary inferiority; a
unity, in short, in which the whole people forms the state,
contrary to what happens in despotic governments, where
the monarch is the state, as Louis XIV, of France, distinctly avowed himself to be.
It is further objected, that the theory of the social compact, resolving all law into the majority of wills, leaves the
minority without remedy for the wrongs, that may be inflicted upon them.*  What redress may be open to the mlinority,
or what restraint may be laid upon the power of the majority, can, in any given case, be known only from an examination of the internal structure of the state. The social
compact leaves a wide range for the details of political
organization. It will admit quite as many checks and balances as any other theory of government. The establishment of three independent branches of power-executive,
legislative, and judicial —having its foundation in nature, is
the most effectual contrivance, ever yet devised by the wit
of man, to restrain the tyranny of majorities, and protect the
rights of minorities. Accordingly, nowhere else is either the
restraint or the protection as effective as under the English
and American constitutions, where this three-fold distribution
of power obtains, and where, also, the principle of the social
compact, is most operative. But granting the truth of the
objection, has it never occurred to writers who urge it, that
the only difference between a government admitting and a
government rejecting the principle of the social compact
would be, that in the former the minority, and in the latter
the majority, would be without redress of wrong?
Another objection to the doctrine of the social compact
is, that it makes the relation between the governors and the' Idem, p. 20.




70               INTTRODUCTO0RY ESSAY.
governed a purely commercial one, and so tends to detract
from the proper sanction of civil power.*- Such an objection is more likely to lower the standard of commercial
virtue, than to raise that of political virtue. It does not
seem wise to discriminate between the sanctions annexed to
moral duties. It is a dangerous, as well as unscriptural,
distinction, which the church of RoIme has made between
mortal and venial sins.' Obey magistrates," and "' defraud
not," are laws enacted by one and the same authority. The
violation of the latter, there can be no doubt, is just as abhorrent to the supreme lawgiver, as the violation of the
former. [Blackstone expressly lays down the doctrine, that
the obligation of a contract is equal, in point of conscience,
to the obligation of a law.t  And in the suggestion made
above, viz.: that both obligations emanate from the same
source, we have the reason of this equality.
It is further objected to the theory of a social compact,
that it makes revolution the rule of political life, and obedience the exception.: Not so. God made man to be happy.
To that end he wills both the institution of government and
the permanence of government; and the latter equally with
the former. Neither one man nor a whole community of
men has any the least right herein to thwart his design.
But frequent revolutions in government would as effectually
defeat the benevolent purpose of the Creator as the want of
all government. The stability of law is quite as essential to
human happiness as the existence of law. The same light
of reason, therefore, which gives us to understand, that it is
God's will that government should be, tells us with equal
clearness, that it is his will that government should be permanent.
Besides, the Deity himself, whose work is ever perfect,
has made provision against frequent revolutions of society,
* "Religious Theory of Civil Government," p. 23.   t Commentaries.
$ Idem, p. 29.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                71
in that element of man's nature, which makes him cling to
whatever enjoys the sanction of age. The old is always
venerable in the eyes of the multitude. Ambitious leaders,
and still more those who seek to become leaders, may plot
to overturn the established order of things; but the masses
are rarely moved to revolutionary action, till the pressure of
public wrong has become insupportable. It must be a great
occasion that can induce a whole people to unite in subverting their government; especially, when it is a government of their own choice, a government instituted and
administered by themselves.
The theory of the social compact undoubtedly throws
much light on the nature and the respective provinces of
rebellion and revolution. While it as strongly condemns
the former, as any other theory of government can, it is the
only theory, which asserts the right of down-trodden humanity to resort for relief to the latter.
The very end of government,-the preservation, perfection,
and happiness of man,-imposes an obligation of obedience
to the sovereign authority, so long as it acts with moderation
and equity. It is this obligation of obedience, founded in
the will of God, because founded in the nature and fitness
of things, which constitutes the whole force of civil society,
and consequently the entire felicity of the state. Whoever,
therefore, rises up against the sovereign power to destroy it,
is guilty of the greatest crime that can be committed, since
he seeks to subvert the foundations of the public felicity, in
which that of every individual is included.
This is rebellion. But if the supreme power degenerate
into tyranny, if they who hold it are manifestly aiming to
destroy the liberties of the state, it is the doctrine of the
social compact, that the people have the right to rise in
their majesty, and to demand from their tyrants the surrender of trusts, forfeited by abuses of so flagrant a character.




72                 BINTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
This is revolution.  It is a remedy, not only justifiable
when all others fail, but demandedlby the very same reason
on which government itself is founded, a regard to the
welfare and felicity of mankind. A  strict observance of
law, on the part of rulers as well as people, is essential
to the happiness of nations. To resist a tyrant, who knows
no law but his own will, is not rebellion, but revolution. It
is not lawless violence, but lawful self-defence. It is not an
invasion of thie prerogative of one, but a vindication of the
prerogatives of millions.  It is not a right merely, but a
duty.
Finally, it is objected that, on the principle of the social
compact, capital punishment is an aggression upon individual rights, a bloody, popular revenge.*-  This objection,
like the preceding, overlooks the end for which God wills
the institution of government, —the safety, peace, and happiness of his rational creation. In ordaining this end, he
must, of necessity, have ordained the means. The necessary
agencies and appliances of government are as much an
ordinance of heaven as government itself is. As to what
instrumentalities are necessary to enable government to
answer the  end of its institution, right reason, whose
function it was, originally, to discover the congruity of law
to the divine will, is the sole judge. Hence, the members
of a civil state, who have united together, on the principle
of compact, express or implied, the more effectually to carry
out the purpose of the Deity in ordaining government, are,
by the very constitution and nature of things, clothed with
full power to institute such rewards and punishments as, in
the enlightened use of their faculties, they may deem essential to the end in view. Nay, they not only have the
power, but they are under the obligation, of annexing to
their laws such sanctions as will effectually restrain the bad
* Idem, pp. 32, 33.
t See" Social Contract," Chaps. 4th anDl 5th,




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                       73
passions of men, though these sanctions may include the
loss of property, liberty, and life itself.  The maxim, "' salus
populi sizpremqa lex," is as applicable to the punitive, as it is
to any other department of government, and as applicable
to a government which embraces, as to one which repudiates, the principle of the social compact. The use of capital
punishments, therefore, is as much within the limits of
legitimate authority in a state formed on the basis of compact, as in  a state established on the opposite principle of
absolutism.
Rousseau, indeed, assumes, that, as the waters of a spring
cannot rise above their source, so the power of the magistracy, being derived from the people, cannot rise higher
than the power of the people in their individual capacity.*
From this assumption the inference is drawn for him, (he
does not draw it himself,) that, as no man has the right to
commit suicide, civil society can have no right to take away
human life in punishment of crimes.t The principle relied
* See " Social Compact," Chaps. 4th and 5th.
t Rousseau expressly disclaims this inference. He says: "It hath been
asked, how individuals, having no right to dispose of their own life, can
transmit that right to the sovereign? The difficulty of resolving this question
arises only from its being badly expressed, Every man hath an undoubted
right to hazard his life for its preservation. Was a man ever charged with
suicide for throwing himself from the top of a house in flames, in order to
avoid being burnt? * * * * To prevent our falling by the hands of an
assassin, we consent to die on becoming such ourselves. * * * * Add to
this, that every malefactor, by breaking the laws of his country, becomes a
rebel and a traitor, ceasing fiom that time to be a member of the community,
and even declaring war against it. In this case, the preservation of the state
is incompatible with his; one of the two must perish; and thus, when a
criminal is executed, he doth not suffer in the quality of a citizen, but in
that of an enemy. His trial and sentence are the evidence and declaration
of his having broken the social compact, and that, of consequence, he is no
longer a member of the state.' —" Social Cont.," Chap. 5. These are,
certainly, false and insufficient grounds; but they show, that the author was
not prepared for the consequences of his own doctrine. He was, beyond a




74                 INTRO(nUCTORY ESSAY.
on to support this conclusion is, that the master cannot cenfer upon the servant a right which he himself has not.
They who oppose the conventional origin of government,
hold the theory of a social compact responsible for an
infidel sophism of one of its advocates. Rousseau has many
great truths and admirable reflections in his treatise on government, just as the rationalistic interpreters have, by their
deep learning, thrown a strong light on many obscure
places of Holy Writ.  But I should as soon think of taking
the latter for my guides in studying the doctrine of atonement, as the former in framing a theory of civil polity.
I have called the argument attributed to the Genevan
philosopher a sophism. It is nothing more. It overlooks
the twofold origin of government, explained in a former
part of this essay. It leaves wholly out of view the divine
elument of law, which the social compact admits as readily
as any other theory of government. In this connexion, I
cannot but refer again to the distinction, so plain and solid
in itself, and so well stated by Bishop Sanderson and Archbishop Bramhall.  Says the former of these prelates: " 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,
doubt, an enemy to capital punishment, except, perhaps, in the most
extreme cases; for he adds in the same chapter: " There is no malefactor,
who might not be made good for something, nor ought any person to be put
to death, even by way of example, unless such as could not be preserve4
without endangering the community."
*" Sermon ad Magistros."




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.               75
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.  tie 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. It is the will of God, that the
rights of property shall be guarded; but whether this shall
be effected by blows, restitution, imprisonment, servitude,
or even death, is left to the calm and conscientious judgment of men. It is the will of God, that human life should
be secure; but in what manner this security shall be attained, whether by exile, perpetual confinement, deprivation
of life, or other penalties, inflicted on those who invade it,
man's wisdom is the sole judge. Neither forms of government, nor theories of government, make any difference.
Thle 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; and his sword of power is bathed in heaven.t
From this inquiry into the true theory of civil society,
there result certain general principles of government and
law, which I propose, briefly, to unfold. Perhaps I should
express my meaning better, if I were to say, that these
principles are embodied in the foregoing discussion, and
that I desire to group them together, and present them, in a
summary way, to the reader's view
* Works, vol. 3, p. 317.
t Isaiah xxxiv. 5




6  INRODUCTORY ESSAY.
I. Human society is, originally and in itself, a state of
equality, freedom, and independence.*  In this primitive
state, which we can conceive of as an object of thought,
even though we reject it as an actuality, no man has an
original and inherent right of command over his fellows.
No man possesses any title to sovereignty. Men are free
and equal; and each is as independent of the others, as they
all are dependent on God.
2. The institution of civil society, by establishing a sovereign power having the right of command, abridges this
liberty, equality, and independence.t The change, however, does not subvert natural society, but rather perfects it.
Civil society is natural society, so modified as to have a
recognized head and established rules of intercourse. Civil
liberty replaces natural liberty. By this means, mankind
more certainly attain, and more securely hold, that happiness,
which was the final cause of their creation,-in'subordination always to the divine glory.
3. States, when formed, having each a common will, as
well as a comlmon interest, acquire certain personal attributes. They become, in effect, moral persons; and are to
be looked upon as such. Hence arise new relations among
men, viz.: the relations which exist between the several
civil societies, into which they have formed themselves.
States lhave with respect to each other the same rights and
obligations as real persons. Their intercourse is to be regulated by the same ethical principles as the intercourse of
real persons. That great moral maxim, whose transcendent
beauty and importance have given it the appellation of the
golden rulers is as applicable in the one case as in the other.
4. The question of the form of government has much engaged men's thoughts and pens. The highest efforts of genius
have been expended on the study and elucidation of it.
* "Burlam. Pol. Law," Part 1, chap 3.
t Ibidem.                             $ Matt. 7, 12.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                77
IThere are commonly reckoned -three simple forms' —monarchy, or the government of one; aristocracy, or the government of the worthiest; and democracy, or the government
of the people. But these three simple forms are capable of
indefinite combination with each other; and thence have
resulted that endless diversity of polities, which have existed
in the world.
A two-fold inquiry has arisen in regard to political organizations, viz.: 1. WVhat is the most legitimate form? 2.
What is the best form?  From principles established in this
essay it results, that all forms, founded on popular consent,
and tending to promote the general happiness, are equally
legitimate. The best form is another question. Liberty,
the source of the most precious blessings, has two enemies
in civil society,-licentiousness and tyranny.*  To guard
against these enemies is the height of both human prudence
and human felicity. To effect this, a polity must be so constituted as to banish the one, without introducing the other.
Such a temperament, excluding alike lawlessness and oppression, is the perfection of a civil constitution. But it is a
temperament which neither a pure despotism nor a pure
democracy affords. The former is too violent, and tends to
tyranny; the latter is too weak, and tends to anarchy. It
follows, that that form of polity is best, in which the principle of monarchy and the principle of democracy are so
blended as to banish both these foes to true freedom. Sucl
a combination secures that happy balance in the state, which
is most essential to the stability of the government and the
welfare of the people.
5. A spirit of moderation is the spirit which should characterize both legislators and legislation.t And the broader
the territories of a state are, and consequently the greater
the diversity of its interests, the more need there is that mo* "Burlam, Pol. Law," Pt. 2, chap. 2.
t "Montesq. Sp. Laws," Bk. 29, chap. 1.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
derate councils should prevail.  Political good commonly
lies between two extremes. This is, preeminently, the case
in our country. A spirit of compromise, of generosity,
of candor, of nobleness, of brotherhood, of mutual deference
and concession, is the proper spirit of the American Republic. It was in this spirit that our constitution and our
union were formed; and in this spirit alone can that constitution and that union, which are the spring of all our enjoyments, be maintained and made perpetual.
6. Government should be characterized by a spirit of
equity as well as of moderation. The laws ought to be equal
in their operation.  Justice requires that there should be
neither partial exemptions nor partial burdens. Taxation
should bear with equal weight on all. The path to public
trust and honor should be open to all. The same legal process should impend over all for a violation of the laws. Law
should be the buckler of the peasant, as well as the defence
of the noble; the inheritance of the poor, as well as the
patrimony of the rich; the staff of honesty, and the shield
of innocence; not the two-edged sword of craft and oppression.* These ideas have gone into the universal mind of
America.t  Thley are the vital elemnent, the soul, of our political system. They are to us, in civil science, what the
axioms of Euclid are to geometry-truths which no one
questions; the basis of our more recondite political theorems;
the starting point of higher investigations.
Not so, however, in most other countries.  The laws of all
despotic states, and even of England, afford many examples
of the violation of the great principle, that both the burdens
and the privileges of the state should be equal to all.:  It
is the policy of tie aristocracy, in the European monarchies,
* Lord Brougham's Rep. on L. Ref. to the Br. Parl.
t Park Godwin's " Review of the Last Half Cent." in N. Y. Ev. Post.
T See an able Paper on this subject, appended to Mr. Combes' " Travels
in the United States."




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                 79
to preserve great estates, and, as a consequence, the great
power and influence which attend them, in the same family.
Hence the great inequality and the great injustice of the
laws in those proud monarchies. The process of law which
would enter a poor man's hovel, and drive him out of it,
falls dead at the gate of a nobleman's palace. But this
iniquity cannot stand for ever. The towering structure of
aristocratic pride and power must give way, and the nobler
and fairer edifice of truth and justice will rise majestically
upon its ruins.
7. The administration of justice ought to be impartial,
speedy, uniform, economical, free from perplexing technicalities, according to established forms of procedure, and as
near to every man's door as circumstances will permit. All
should have it, without going far to seek it, without waiting
long to obtain it, and without paying an exorbitant price
for it.
8. The well-being of the entire body of the people is the
central doctrine, the one paramount law of political philosophy.  " Salus populi suprema lex."  To this great end,
this predominant idea, should all the laws be relative. The
fundamental principle of law is benevolence.*
9. The style in which the laws are written is not beneath
the attention of legislators. It should be concise, simple,
clear, and explicit.t It should excite in every mind the
same ideas; and this because the object is to establish
justice and teach duties-not to furnish specimens of rhetoric.
The Roman laws of the twelve tables were models of conciseness.. The boys in school were required to commit
them to memory. The Mosaic legislation is marked by a
like brevity. It consists of a " series of laconic regulations,
directly opposite in form to the endless iterations and syno* Spring's" Obl. of the World to the Bible," Lect. 3.
t Montes. "Sp. Laws," Bk. 29, Chap. 16.  1 Ibidem.




80                ITRODUCTORY ESSAY.
nymlies of modern statute books."'*  The early laws of New
England were clothed in a diction, curt, bold, clear, and
straightforward-a reflection of the men who made them.
The composition of laws should be exact, as well as brief.
Montesquieu instances a law of the emperor Honorius as
wanting in this quality.t  The imperial edict makes it
death to "molest"' a freedman. 1Nqow, the "molestation"
felt by a person, in a given case, depends upon his sensibility. Thus it would happen, that an act done to A, would
be quite innocent, which, when done to B, would be a capital crime. A rescript of Cardinal Richelieu is open to the
same objection.t The Cardinal agreed, that a minister
might be accused to the king. But the accusation must be
respecting a "matter of moment," otherwise the accuser
was to be punished. Now, a " matter of moment" is altogether relative; the phrase has no intrinsic meaning. The
permission, therefore, was, in effect, a prohibition against
uttering any truth against the ministers of the crown. That
it should have this operation, was, probably, the design of
the wily politician.
10. Laws ought to arise out of circumstances and be
relative to certain definite ends.~ By overlooking this principle, the Romans not only committed a ridiculous blunder,
but subverted justice in one of the laws of the twelve
tables. This law ordained, that, if a thief was caught with
the stolen article before he had conveyed it to a hiding
place, he should be scourged with rods and condemned to
slavery; but that, if he was not detected till some time
afterwards, he should only be condemned to a recompence of
double the value of what he had stolen. Now, the time of
detection could not possibly alter the nature of the crime.
Neither would the Roman jurisprudence ever have made so
* "Princeton Bib. Rep." for Jan. ] 848, Art. The Mos. Leg
t "Sp. Laws," Book 29, Chap. 16.  $ lbidem
4 lTidtrnt, Book 29, Chaps. 13, 14.




INT'RODUCTORY ESSAY.               81
lulnmeaning a distinction, if it had not borrowed the law
from  the Spartan legislation.  In the code to which it
originally belonged, whatever we may think of its morality,
the policy of it was unquestionable.  Lycurgus wished to
make the Spartans cunning and dexterous. To this end he
ordained, that children should be practised in thieving. If
caught in the act, they were punished; if they had the; art
to avoid detection, they were applauded. The punishment
was not for the theft, but for the want of adroitness in concealing it. No such end being proposed by the Roman
legislators, the law was, in their jurisprudence, a simple
burlesque upon justice.
The principle now under consideration is of the utmost
importance in interpreting the legislation of antiquity.
The more the manners and circumstances of the people differ
from our own, which will generally be in proportion to
their remoteness from us in time and space, the more will it
be necessary to keep this principle in view, in the study of
their institutions and laws. If, besides this, a civil polity
propose the accomplishment of certain great purposes peculiar to itself, the principle rises to a transcendent importance
as a guide in the interpretation of the laws, which are
relative to those special ends.*
11. Laws, and not men, are the rulers, in every justly
constituted- state. The difference is broad and impassable
between a government of will and a government of law.
Where the leading principle of a polity is, "' stat pro ratione
voluntas," it is of little moment what name it bears, or
under what, forms it exists and acts. Hence such an unlimited democracy as that of Athens, in which the people
ostracised illustrious citizens for acts which they had never
before declared illegal, was as absolute a despotism as that
of Nero. In practice, it always proved itself as- bloody,
* This last remark has an important bearing on the interpretation of the
Hebrew legislation, as will more fully appear as we proceed in our inquiries.
6




82                 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
cruel, and tyrannical.  In full accordance with this view is
the principle before cited from Bracton, as an element, or
doctrine, of the British Constitution, viz.: that "the law
maketh the king;" and the further principle, which the
same eminent jurist derives as an inference from the preceding one, viz.: that "he is not truly king, where will
and pleasure rules, and not the law."*
Tyranny is quite as likely to exist under an unrestrained
democracy, as under an unrestrained despotism.  Liberty,
true liberty, is encompassed with dangers, and that from
within, as well as from without. Its greatest peril is that of
running into licentiousness, just as liberality is apt to degenerate into extravagance.  Licentiousness is an excess of
liberty, and tends to its destruction.  " A particular man
may be licentious, without being less free, but a community
cannot; since the licentiousness of one will unavoidably
break in upon the liberty of another.  Civil liberty, the
liberty of a community, is a severe and restrained thing;
implies, in the notion of it, authority, settled subordinations,
subjection, and obedience; and is altogether as much hurt
by too little of this kind, as by too much of it. And the
love of liberty, when it is indeed the love of liberty, which
carries us to withstand tyranny, will as much carry us to
reverence authority and support it; for this most obvious
reason, that the one is as necessary to the very being of
liberty, as the other is destructive of it. And, therefore, the
love of liberty, which does not produce this effect, the
love of liberty, which is not a real principle of dutiful behavior towards authority, is as hypocritical as the religion,
which is not productive of a good life. Licentiousness is, in
*truth, such an excess of liberty, as is of the same nature
with tyranny. For what is the difference between them,
but that one is lawless power, exercised under pretence of
* Bracton's "Treatise on the Laws and Customs of England,' cited by
Blackstone.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                 83
authority, or Hy persons invested with it; the other, lawless
power, exercised under the pretence of liberty, or without
any pretence at all. A people, then, must be always less
fiee, in proportion as they are more licentious; licentiousness being not only different from liberty, but contrary to
it, a direct breach upon it."* "Government, as distinguished
from mere power, free government, necessarily implies reverence, in the subjects of it, for authority or power regulated
by laws, and a habit of submission to the subordinations in
civil life, throughout its several ranks; nor is a people
capable of liberty, without something of this kind. But, it
must be observed, this reverence and submission will at best
be very precarious, if it be not founded upon a sense of authority being God's ordinance, and the subordinations of
life, a providential appointment of things."t
12. Magistrates ought'to consider, and ever to bear in
mind, that they are God's representatives and vicegerents.
The tendency of this consideration will be to make them
circumspect, just, diligent, and merciful, in the exercise of
their magisterial fnnction.  Their power is a trust from
heaven, as well as from  earth; a high, holy, fearful trust.
They are God's ministers, not man's masters; his ministers
for the good, not the oppression, of the governed. The trial
of their fidelity at the bar of their constituents is sometimes
dreadful; the account to be rendered at the tribunal of the
supreme judge, from whom even more than from men their
authority comes, will be far more so.  "If they are faithful,
heaven has nothing that he will not lavish on them through
eternity. If they are faithless, there is no pit in hell too
deep and dark for their eternal exile from all peace, all rest,
all joy. Forever mindful, then, should they be of iheir sacred
trust. Forever mindful, that they hold it for God's children
upon earth. Forever mindful, that they hold it under most
* "Bishop Butler's Sermon in the House of Lords.'
t Idem.




$l4 INTRnODUCTORY ESSAY.
severe accountability to him. They are to govern by the
law. They are to seek no good but theirs who are entrusted
to their care; no other glory than his, who put them thus
in trust."*
What can more animate an, upright and conscientious
magistrate to do his duty, than the consideration, that he is
delegated of God to the work of the magistracy, and that he
must one day appear before him to give an account of his
administration? To this principle do the sacred writers constantly appeal, for the purpose of engaging magistrates to
fidelity in the execution of their trust. "Judge righteously,"
says MIloses, "between every man and his brother, and the
stranger that is with thee; for the judgment is God's."t
" Take heed," says Jehoshaphat, " what ye do; for ye judge
not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you, in the judgment. Wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you:
take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the Lord
our God.":  "God standeth in the congregation of the
mighty," says the psalmist; "he judgeth among the gods
[magistrates.]  How  long will ye judge unjustly, and
accept the persons of the wicked."~  The motives here
urged to a faithful discharge of official duty on the part of
magistrates, to the exercise of prudence, moderation, justice,
clemency, and diligence in their public relations, are, that;
their seat is the throne of God; that their decisions are the
utterances of the divinity; that their decrees are the edicts
of heaven; that, in short, they are ministers of the divine
equity and goodness, and, "if they fail in their duty, they
not only injure men by criminally distressing them, but they
even offend God by polluting his sacred judgments."1j
13. The duties of citizens to their rulers are honor and
obedience.~  They are to look upon their office as a dele* "Bishop Doane's Orat., entitled, Civ. Gov. a Sac. Trust from God."
t Deut. i. 16, 17.: 2 Chron. xix. 6. 7.
Q Psalm lxxxii. 1, 2.  B Calv. Inst. Ch. Rel. B. 4, C. 20.
F Euller's Works, V. 3, pp. 670, seqq.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.               85
gation frorn. God, and upon themselves as God's ministers.
On this account they are to esteem and reverence both
their function and their persons. As they are to feel an
attachment to government as government, irrespective of
the men who administer it; so they are to feel an attachment to magistrates as magistrates, irrespective of the party
to which they belong. If I honor the ruler of my people,
because he belongs to my party, and not because Christ
enjoins it, I may be a good partisan, but I am not a good
Christian. Without honor, reverence, esteem, attachment,
there can be no true obedience.  Constrained obedience
is no obedience. I deliver up my purse to a robber at
his command; but there is not one grain of honor or
obedience in the act; there is a simple yielding to a
power which I cannot resist. To call such an act obedience
would be as great an abuse of language, as to speak of obedience to a falling tree or stone, in reference to the motion
by which I avoided being crushed by their momentum.
There is an element in obedience, over and above mere outward compliance, whether as due to parents, masters, or
magistrates. M[oreover, the obedience rendered to magistrates must be rendered as due to God, whose representatives and delegates they are. He who resists the magistrate, resists God. Let him who adventures such an act,
tremble at his own rash daring. An unarmed minister of
the law may seem a despicable thing. But an affront offered
to him, in his ministerial capacity, is an affront offered to
God himself; who is armed with the terrors of omnipotence.*
Korah and his company thought little of the power of
Moses; but they found whom they had offended in despising him, when the rent earth closed over their miserable
remains, engulfing them  within its dark and frightful
caverns.
14. Finally: Civil government is man's best friend and
* Calv. Inst. Ch. Rel. B. 4, C. 20.




86                II'TRODUCTORY ESSAy.
benefactor. "It is equally as necessary to mankind," says
Calvin, "as bread and water, light and air, and far more
excellent. For it not only tends to secure the accommodations arising from all these things, that men may breathe,
eat, drink, and be sustained in life, * * * *; its objects
also are, that idolatry, sacrileges against the name of God,
blasphemies against his truth, and other offences against
religion, may not openly appear and be disseminated
among the people; that the public tranquillity may not be
disturbed; that every person may enjoy his property without molestation; that men may transact their business
together without fraud or injustice; that integrity and
modesty may be cultivated among them; in short, that there
may be a public form of religion among Christians, and
that humanity may be maintained among men."*
Wise laws and a due administration of them are essential
to the peace, order, and safety of every community. Law is
at once the measure and the defender of right. It prescribes
to every man a course of conduct which entitles him to the
protection of society. It is, indeed, a master; but a master
that is itself under the government of reason and benevolence. Its commands are founded on the welfare of those to
whom they are addressed. But it is also a guardian, as well
as a master. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,"t
are under its protecting care. It keeps watch and ward,
by night and by day, over our persons, our property, our
reputation, our morals, our entire well-being. Were its protection withdrawn, no man would remain for a day in his
present possessions, no man would be secure for an hour
against personal violence. Strength would take the place
of right. Lands, tenements, goods, moneys, property of
every name and kind, would lay open to a thousand invaders. The hand of every man would be against that of
* Calv. Inst. Ch. Rel. B. 4, 0. 20.. Collst. United States.




INTR ODUCTORX ESSAY.            8s
every other. The fountains of the great deep, in the moral
world, would be broken up. All things would rush to confusion and ruin; and the world itself would soon become
one vast aceldama-a field of blood. Of law, then, to borrow the sublime personification of Hooker-" Of law there
can no less be acknowledged, than that her seat is the
bosom of God, her voice the harmony of the world. All
things in heaven and earth do her homage; the very least
as feeling her care, the greatest as not exempt from her
power. Both angels and men, and creatures of what condition soever, though each in a different sort and name, yet
all, with one uniform consent, admire her as the mother of
their peace and joy."'
HIere ends the inquiry into the origin and nature of civil
society, and into the sources, sanctions, and boundaries of
political government. Let us now briefly retrace our steps,
survey the ground over which we have travelled, and gather
up and present, in one comprehensive view, the results of
this discussion. If I have not missed my aim, the following
leading positions, among others of less prominence, have
been established in the course of these inquiries.
Civil government is a divine institution. In favor of this
view we have the concurrent testimony of reason, revelation,
and the wisest human authority. The testimolly 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 indeed
* Eccl. Pol. B. L.




88               INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
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 imanthe perfection of his nature and the happiness of his being
-would be defeated by the non-existence of civil government and law; in the actual condition and history of civil
society, which is such as to lead the mind directly to the
contemplation of God as its author; and in the actual
benefits flowing, as it were, in a full and perpetual stream,
from civil polity and law. The testimony of revelation we
have in numerous explicit passages, affirming, or implying,
the divinity of government; particularly, Ps. lxxxii. 1;
Prov. viii. 15, 16; Rom. xiii. 1-6; Tit. iii. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14;
and many others. The testimony of wise and good men we
have in the recorded opinions of such writers as Calvin,
Archbishop Brainmhall, Bishops Butler and Sanderson,
Burke, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Grotius, Puffendorf, Montesquieu, Blackstone, and a host of others, dead and living,
of scarcely inferior note.
But as government is a truly divine, so is it, also, 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, which appear to be in contradiction to each other-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."
Hence, it is proper to inquire into the origin of civil
government, as a thing of human contrivance and design.
A distinction is to be made between natural society and
civil society. Nat iral society is a state wherein all are on a




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.               89
footing of equality, freedom and independence. If this state
has never, in point of fact, existed among men, still it may
be conceived of in the mind, as an object of philosophical
speculation. Civil society, on the other hand, is the union
of a multitude of people, who agree, whether expressly or
tacitly it matters not, to live in subjection to government,
for certain great and beneficial purposes, not otherwise
attainable.
The basis of this subjection to government is a social
compact, "by which the whole people covenants with each
citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall
be governed by certain laws for the common good.'.* The
substantial elements of the social compact may be distinctly
traced in the Hebrew, Roman, Venetian, Carthagenian, and
English constitutions. They may be traced in the monarchies of continental Europe, which arose on the ruins of the
feudal system. But the principle of the social compact has
received its largest development, and been permitted to
work out its results with the greatest freedom in the new
world.  This theory forms the basis of the civil polity
established by every State in the American Union, and is
fully embodied in the constitution of the general government. And it is the great and vivifying truth of popular
sovereignty, embodied in the doctrine of the social compact,
which has produced the European revolutions of our day,
and brought about the general substitution of constitutional
monarchies for the iron despotisms of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries.
Various objections have been urged against the theory of
a social compact-such as that it is anti-christian and negatively atheistic; that it is destructive of the idea of an
organic unity in the state; that it subjects minorities to the
cruelty and injustice of majorities; that it degrades into a
mere commercial relation that which exists between the
* Const. Mass.




90                INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
rulers and the ruled; that it makes revolution the law of
political life; and that it converts capital punishment illto
a bloody, popular revenge-a mere aggression upon indixvidual right. These objections will not bear examination.
They are all founded either in very fallacious or very
imperfect notions as to the true nature ahd operation of the
doctrine of a social contract.
Our inquiries into the origin, nature, power, and sanctions
of civil society and government, draw after, or include in
them, certain general principles of polity and law, of no
little importance as guides to legislators, statesmen, jurists,
and citizens. They are such as these following: —1. HIuman
society is, originally, a condition in which all are equal,
free, and independent.  2. Civil society  curtails  this
equality, liberty, and independency; and so modifies natural
society as to give to it a recognized head and established rules
of intercourse. 3. States are moral persons, enjoying, with
respect to each other, the same rights, and subject to the
same obligations as real persons. 4. That form  of polity
may be accounted best, which most effectually excludes
tyranny, without introducing anarchy. 5. The true spirit
of legislation is the spirit of moderation. 6. Government
ought to be just, granting no partial exemptions and inmposing no special burdens.'7. The administration of justice
ought to be cheap, speedy, equal, uniform, and unembarrassed by perplexing technicalities. 8. The well-being of
the people is the central doctrine of political philosophy;
benevolence the guiding and controlling principle of civil
law. 9. The style in which the laws are written, ought to
be exact, brief, and clear. 10. Laws should arise out of
circumstances, and be relative to specific ends. 11. Laws,
and not men, are the rulers in every justly constituted state.
12. Magistrates should ever bear in mind, that they are
God's ministers to the people for good; and this, not that
they may be puffed up with pride, but that they may be




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.                 91
circumspect, active, just, and merciful in the exercise of
their office, imitating and reflecting, as far as they may,
God's providence in their care of God's children. 13. Citizens must render honor, esteem, and obedience to magistrates, as the representatives and vicegerents of the supreme
and universal king. And, 14. Law is man's truest friend,
and, next to the divine providence, from which indeed it
cannot be rightfully separated, his greatest benefactor.
Having thus developed the true theory of civil society and
government, it may not be amiss to call the reader's attention,
in a few paragraphs, to the results of this theory, when applied
as a principle of practical legislation. The American
Government and Union are founded upon the principle of
the social compact, or, which is the same thing expressed
in other words, upon the doctrine of the sovereignty of the
people. This theory has had freer scope in America than
has elsewhere ever been accorded to it for working out its
legitimate results. The results, then, providentially achieved
through the agency of the American Union, will afford a
decisive test of the excellence of the theory as a basis of
civil polity. Let us glance at these results.
In eastern fable the world is a harp. Its strings are
earth, air, fire, flood, life, death, and mind. At certain
periods, an angel, flying through the heavens, strikes the
harp. Its vibrations are those mighty issues of good and
evil, which mark the destiny of our race. At one time,
tempests, earthquakes, inundations, war, famine, and pestilence follow the mystic touch. At another, all nature is
dressed in smiles and roses. The earth is covered with
waving grass and luxuriant harvests. The fields are gay with
b:loom. The air is filled with fragrance. Rich flocks and herds
crown the hill-tops, and spread themselves out over thile valleys.
And laughter rings out its merry peals on the glad ear of hope.




2  INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
This is the fable. The moral is plain. The mighty tract
of human affairs is marked by great epochs. Time is fudl
of eras.
The mystic harp was touched, when the pilgrims set foot
on Plymouth Rock. Its quivering strings discoursed their
most eloquent music. The burden of the notes was,-human
freedom; human brotherhood; human rights; the sovereignty of the people; the supremacy of law  over will;
the divine right of man to govern himself. The strain is
still prolonged, in vibrations of ever-widening circuit. That
was an era of eras. Its influence, vitalized by the American
Union, is fast becoming paramount throughout the civilized
world. Europe feels it, at this very moment, to her utmost
extremities, in every sense, in every fibre, in every pulsation
of her convulsed and struggling energies.
The great birth of that: era is practical liberty;-liberty,
based on the principles of the Gospel; liberty, fashioned
into symmetry and beauty and strength by the moulding
power of Christianity; liberty, which " places sovereignty in
the hands of the people, and then sends them to the Bible,
that they may learn how to wear the crown.">  And what
a birth! Already is the infant grown into a giant. Liberty,
as it exists among us, that is, secured by constitutional
guaranties, impregnated with Gospel principles, and freed
from alliance with royalty, has raised this country from
colonial bondage and insignificance to the rank of a leading
power among the governments of earth.
The union of these States under one government, effected
by our national Constitution, has given to America a career
unparalleled, in all the annals of time, for rapidity and
brilliancy. Her three millions of people have swelled, in
little more than half a century, to twenty-five millions. IIer
one million square miles have expanded into nearly four
millions. Her thirteen States have grown into thirty-one.
* Mathew's "Bible and Civil Government," Lec. 1.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.              93
HEer navigation and commerce rival those of the oldest and
most commercial nations. HIer keels vex all waters. Hier
maritime means and maritime power are seen on all seas
and oceans, lakes and rivers. Her inventive genius has
given to the world the two greatest achievements of human
ingenuity, in the steamboat and the electric telegraph. Two
thousand steamers ply her waters; twenty thousand miles
of magnetic wires form a net-work over her soil. The
growth of her cities is more like magic than reality. New
York has doubled its population in ten years. The man is
yet living, who felled the first tree, and reared the first logcabin, on the site of Cincinnati. Now that city contains one
hundred and fifty thousand souls. It is larger than the
ancient and venerable city of Bristol, in England.
The nniversal Christian education of our people is a
precious blessing, for which we are indebted to our civil
constitution and our union under it. Herein we enjoy an
honorable distinction over all other nations. It is not. in
depth and vastness of learning, that the peculiarity consists.
The Bacons, Hookers, Miltons, Souths, Baxters, Howes,
Taylors, and Owens, of the mother country, in former times,
have but few representatives among us at the present
day. But what is wanting in depth, is made up in breadth.
The few are less learned, but the masses are more
enlightened. Diffusion, expansion, universality, is the great
principle of American knowledge. This it is, which disi
tinguishes ours from all other lands. It is the country of
the free school and the free press, the country of the cheap
book and the cheaper magazine and newspaper.  The
million are readers here. To satisfy so vast an intellectual
craving, the press pours out its thousands of volumes daily.
Many of these are trashy and worthless. But the great
majority are not so. They embrace works of the highest
value, in all the departments of knowledge, "issued and
re-issued," as Mlr. Godwin has well said, 6" till one doubts,




94               NITRODUCTORY IESSAY.
whether the world can contain them  all. Yet is there no
cessation to the labors of the compositor and pressman; for
what books fail to hold, is uttered in the periodical and the
newspaper, which, like motes in the sunbeam, fill the
whole air."y America prints and publishes twenty-seven
hundred newspapers,-full one half of the whole number
issued on the terraqueous globe.
Under the broad aegis of the American union, life is
secure, property is secure, reputation is secure, the fruits of
industry are secure, up to the point and beyond it, that such
security is enjoyed under any other of the governments, now
existing among men.
Such has been our career; such the results of our union
under a free constitution. In resources, present and prospective; in available talent; in popular education and
intelligence; in religion and piety; in practical philanthrophy; and in indomitable energy, to which obstacles
are but incentives;-in all these attributes and possessions,
we would not, at this moment, exchange conditions with
the proudest nation on the globe. We are not afraid of
comparison with the oldest and the mightiest. Though the
splendor of courts is unknown to us, though no patrician
palaces or royal galleries adorn our soil, yet we would not
part with our republican simplicity, our republican freedom,
our republican virtue, and our republican prosperity and happiness, for all that Europe boasts of ancestral dignity and
modern magnificence. What a vivifying effect has freedom
had upon us! In every sense, we are a positive people.
Negatives have no place in our nature. Every man, every
organization, is instinct with earnest vitalities. Science is
here in order to art. Art is the handmaid of utility. Philosophical speculation itself is valued only as it leads to practical issues. Life is a great school, in which the problems
to be solved are realities, not abstractions. Thought, deci*' "Review of the Last Half Century."




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.              95
sion, actions are the grand elements of our character as a
people.  Here, then, are other excellent and admirable
results of our system of government.
Our example has been a beacon light, and a centre of
influence, to the whole American continent. When the
nineteenth century opened, the United States were the only
republic in this western world. What astonishing changes
have taken place since! How sublime has been the advance of liberty! There is but one country, —Brazil,-from
Behring's Straits to Cape Horn, in which the monarchical
form of government still prevails. All the rest, except
Canada, have, in imitation of the United States, by successive throes, cast off colonial dependence and bondage.
There are pregnant indications, that a similar destiny awaits
the only remaining monarchy; that, ere the lapse of many
years, the empire of Brazil will be blotted from the map of
America; and that the imperial crown and purple, as appertaining to this continent, will be known only as among the
things that were. Here is another splendid result of the
American union.
The influence of our institutions has not been confined to
the climes of the setting sun. Contemporaneous with these
transactions in the western world, great movements have
been going on, and great results have been effected, in other
parts of the globe.  As far back as 1787, the emperor
Joseph II, of Austria, observed, that the American revolution had given birth to reflections on freedom.* The fact,
which that intelligent and sagacious monarch discerned at
so early a day, now stands out, with the clearness of sunlight, to the observation and knowledge of the whole world.
The people of Europe have deeply felt this influence. It
has modified their sentiments, opinions, and actions. High
thoughts, high hopes, high aspirings have been kindled in
men's bosoms, and deeds of noble daring prompted, by the
* Mr. Webster's Letter to Baron Ilulsemann.




96        I       INTRlODUCTORY ESSAY.
example of American liberty. During the entire period.
which has elapsed since the adoption of our federal constitution, there has been a perpetual restlessness on the part
of the people, and a perpetual: struggle on the part of power
to retain and enforce its rule. iRevolutionary agitations
have never ceased. But they burst forth with a violence,
unknown before, in the great crisis of 1848. Then kings
fled. Tyrannical ministers fled.. The Pope fled. It seemed
as if the whole system  of aris-tocratic and arbitrary rule was
about to fall into irretrievable ruin.  Great was the tumult
of kingdoms, deep calling unto deep, with responses loud
and portentous. There is a lull in the storm at present; but
the tempest is not over. There is a suspension of the volcanic action; but the lava boils and rages, deep in the
bowels of the fiery mountain. It will burst forth in due
time. There will be an eruption of popular sentiment and
popular power, which will bury despotism deeper than the
lava and ashes of Vesuvius buried the cities of Herculaneum
and Pompeii.
A significant token of the influence of American ideas on
European affairs is the fact, that even the Emperor of
Austria, in lately giving a new constitution to his subjects,
has introduced into it, doubtless from an outward pressure
compelling him to do so, several of the great principles
of civil liberty, embodied in our polity.*  A still more
significant token we have in the present condition of the
papacy. Never before, since Luther hurled his iron gauntlet
at the door of the Vatican, has Rome tottered and reeled; as
under the heavings of the political earthquake of 1848. The
papacy, though not dead, is dying.  Like an expiring
giant, it puts forth gigantic energies, even in the deathstruggle. Its latest usurpation, the daring attempt to reestablish its ecclesiastical rule, and cast the fetters of its
worn out superstition, over gospel-enlightened England, is
* Mr. Webster's Letter to Baron Hulsemann.




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.               97
not the effect of conscious life and health, but rather a
spasm of waning vitality.
But American thought, American genius and American
freedom have extended their influence far beyond the confines of European life and society. Turkey, Egypt, Barbary,
and a long belt of the western coast of Africa, have felt
their genial power. The Sultan has established religious
liberty by law, as the fruit of American missionary zeal.
Persia owns the healthful pressure of American intelligence
and American piety. The wild Indians of our own continent, the roving hunters and herdsmen of Asia, the imbruted
savages of Africa, the cannibal barbarians of Polynesia, and
the stolid and changeless dwellers in the flowery land, have
all been breathed upon by the influences of a higher life,
emanating from this Christian republic.
H-ere, again, do we behold the noble fruits of our national
eonstitution and our national union, in shaking the thrones
of' ldespotism, in liberalizing the political systems of foreign
lands, in widening the domain of civil freedom, and in
extending the blessings of Christian knowledge and civilization to the very ends of the earth.
There is another glorious issue of our free and common
government. It has made our country the true Bethesda,a house of mercy for the suffering of all lands. It has made
of it a new land of promise, to which the oppressed and
stifled millions of Europe are rushing, like the tides of the
ocean, to breathe the air of hope and freedom. And let
them come' God forbid, that our beloved country, whose
boast it is to be free and happy herself, should ever cease to
afford to the sons and daughters of sorrow, fleeing from the
wrongs and miseries of European despotism, a hearty welcome and a happy home! Let us not drive back from our
shores one such refugee, to perish in the flood, or starve in.
the lap of an unnatural mother. Rather, let us extend to
all a Christian welcome and a Christian care. Let us freely
7




98               INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
bestow upon them  the blessings of a Christian press, a
Christian ministry, and a Christian education, teaching them
to practise the duties of citizenship here, and to aspire to
the honor of a nobler citizenship above. That we have the
ability to exercise such a ministry of love and mercy, is due
to our union in a federal government. Palsied be the hand,
that would sunder a bond, which confers so beneficent, so
godlike a power! Congealed be the fountain of life in him
who would tear from his country's brow so bright a jewel,
so resplendent a glory!
All these are results of our union, already achieved. But
the hopes which it inspires are still more sublime and
animating. It wras a saying of Archimedes, that, if he had
a place to stand on, he could move the world by the mechanical power of the lever. The dream of the ancient
philosopher is the realization of our youthful republic.
Standing upon the soil of freedom, and using the lever of
Christian civilization, she has a place whereon and a power
wherewith, not only to move the world, but to transform it
from a desolate wilderness into the garden of the Lord,
covering it with the light of truth and the beauty of goodness. There are two principles,-American principles preeminently,-which may be made to mould and sway the
destinies of this earth. They are popular constitutional
government and universal Christian education. The light
of these principles, shining upon the nations in our example,
will be like the sun in the firmament at high noon,-bright,
glowing, penetrating, and vivifying. If we are true to our
position and to the trust which it involves, these principles
will move on, with a constantly accelerated progress, till
they shall have completed the circuit of the earth; —
dropping everywhere, in their course, the inestimable
blessings of true liberty, —liberty based on the Bible, and
vivified by its living power.
Such are the results of the American inion; such the




INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.               99
hopes which it inspires; such our mission as a nation; such
the part assigned us by providence, in the great work of
improving human affairs.
Our path of duty is straight onward; and it is as clearly
defined to the view, as the milky girdle of the heavens, in a
cloudless night. We must stand by the constitution of our
country. If that perish, our happiness perishes with it; the
hopes that swell the hearts of millions perish; the sublime
enterprises of Christian philanthrophy are arrested; and the
chariot wheels of the gospel, that are now rolling on to the
conquest of a world, are stopped, turned back, and made to
recede far within the line, to which they have already
advanced. We must stand by the laws of our country,
indignantly frowning upon all sentiments and utterances of
revolutionary violence. We must stand by the rulers of our
country, honoring them as the ministers of God to us for
good. We must stand by the union of our country, regarding it as the spring of our blessings, the palladium of our
freedom, the sheet-anchor of our felicity, and the star of
hope to the oppressed and down-trodden nations. We must
stand by the schools of our country, multiplying and purifying these fountains of popular knowledge and virtue.
Above all, we must imbibe the spirit, and think the
thoughts, and pray the prayers, and live the life of Christ;
for then are we the best citizens, when we are the best
Christians. A free government, a free gospel, a fiee education, a free press, an open Bible, a reverence for authority,
a willing subservience to law, and an enlightened, earnest,
active piety, are the great and fitting elements of American
institutions and American character.
As a nation, we hold a trust of mightiest significance.
We hold it in the sight of suffering and struggling humanity.
We hold it in full view of the illustrious dead, whose spirits
are hovering over us, and whose affections are breathing
around us. Let us catch the inspiration of their sentiments




100              I-NTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
and examplle; and go forth, like men, to the fulfilment of
our trust. Let us feel that we are ONE PEOPLE; having a
common history, a common end, a common character, a
common freedom, and a common destiny. Let us cling, with
a firm grasp, to the union of these states, and to the principles
on which it is founded. Let us give to these principles,
under the stripes and stars of our common flag, a broader
development, a higher activity. Let us transmit them to
our children, as we received them from our fathers, entire,
and untainted,-to be by them, in like manner, under the
shield of the national banner, handed down to theirs, as a
precious and perpetual inheritance. Then shall the republic be preserved, united and flourishing, to the latest period
of time; and the civilization, the prosperity, the happiness,
flowing friom our glorious CoNSTITUTIONAL UINION, as from a
perennial spring, shall outstrip our fondest anticipations,
and more than realise the brightest vision of bard or
prophet.
Spirit of Washington! breathe upon our hearts, inspire our
councils, and guide our policy!




BOOK I.-PRELIMINARY.
CHIAPTER I.
Introductory Observations-Nature and Plan of the Work-Claims of the
Hebrew Law to our Study and Regard-The Question whether the
Mosaic Laws were binding upon other Nations than the Hebrews considered.
TnE present and the future, justly perhaps, challenge ouI
chief attention; yet the past is not without a claim upon it.
As wisdom will not die with us, so neither is its birth a
thing of to-day. Brave men, according to the sentence of the
Roman poet,* lived before Agamemnon. The wise preacher
expresses a similar sentiment in another form of words:
"That which has been shall be," says he, "and there is
nothing new under the sun."t
History is philosophy teaching by example. But, unless
its lessons be correctly read, they will have little value.
History is, eminently, a work of interpretation.  But the
interpretation will vary with every degree of knowledge
and skill in the interpreter. A chief function of the philosophical historian, is to trace out the great parallelisms of
opinions, lnanners, usages, and institutions in the different
periods of civilization, and to show how the records of the
past may be translated into the conceptions of the present.
Principles, substantially the same, are often disguised to us
* Horace.             t Ecclesiastes, i. 9.




102                COMHMENTARIES ON TIt
by the changing forms in which they are cloth(d. An
ancient law, custom, opinion, mode of action, or form of
speech, then becomes truly intelligible to us, when we know
what it corresponds to in the present state of society, when
we can trace it to some living experience of our daily life,
or some universal principle of our common humanity.*
The past is a dim page; and its obscurity is increased by
every increase of distance from ourselves. There are many
sources of error in our study of remote antiquity;-the loss
of not a few of its most precious records, the fragmentary
nature of its remaining annals, and the strange shapes into
which its opinions and usages were cast. But the greatest
source of misconception, and consequently of misinterpretation, lies in the transfer of modern ideas to those distant
ages. The revolutions of time and empire are accompanied
by the still more important revolutions of thought and
opinion; and each succeeding age is apt to apply its own
ideas to the interpretation of all the ages that have gone
before it. If we would grapple successfully with the study
of antiquity, this prejudice must be overcome; otherwise we
shall rush upon error, and lose ourselves in a labyrinth of
false conclusions. Yet the past must be read in the light
of the present; and, as that light increases, the past will
need to be continually re-read. In our study of it, as before
intimated, we encounter only relics and fragments. It is
only by repeated trials and by the occasional use of skilful
conjecture, that the disjointed members can be ultimately
arranged into something like the coherence of their original
structure.
The design of the present treatise is, to investigate, open,
and apply the political and moral lessons of a very interesting and instructive portion of universal history; —the
polity and laws of the Hebrew people. For the correct
understanding and explanation of this subject, the materials
* Prospective Review for February, 1848.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           103
are more ample, as well as more reliable, than for tl. e study
of any other history of as high an antiquity.
Learned men have occupied themselves in tracing, with
no little labor of research, the migrations of particular races
of men; the several seats into which nations have passed;
what were the Pelasgic, the Dorian, the Ionian colonizations; what the Phenician; by what track, and through
what stopping places, the Celts came into Europe; how the Punic race, quitting Asia, strayed to Ireland; and whence came
the Aztecs, and other aboriginal tribes of the western world.
To the elucidation of such themes has been applied, I say
not unworthily, the genius of a Balbi, a Malte-Brun, a
Bochart, a Le Clerc, a Niebuhr, a Pinkerton, and a Prescott.
But mind has its migrations not less than body.
"Mind is like a volatile essence, flitting hither and thither,
An active, versatile agent, untiring in the principle of energy."
Thoughts colonize, as well as races. Ideas, like families,
have a genealogy and a propagation.  To trace these
spiritual migrations, colonizations, genealogies; to ascertain
when and where the notions, which have most widely
affected mankind, sprang up, and how and whither they
have been propagated: to find out the birthplace of a great
idea; to follow it down in its passage front age to age, from
country to country, from race to race, from tongue to tongue,
from author to author; to trace principles in the revolutions,
to which they have given birth;-this, surely, were a work
not less worthy and instructive than the other. It is to a
labor of this kind that I now address myself.
What can afford nobler themes of study than the master
minds of our race, as seen in the thoughts created by their
genius, and the institutions established by their wisdom?
And what mind is more worthy to engage the profound
attention ot our age, than his, whose high mission it was,
under Pro —idence, to found a model government, combining




104               COM3MENTARlIES ON THE
in a remarkable degree, liberty and law, the fieedom of the
individual with the welfare of the community.?  The polity
established by:Moses will be found, on examination, as venerable for its wisdom as it is for its antiquity. The best
subsequent civilization has been built upon that ancient
law. The Hebrew lawgiver is, in many respects, the nmai
for the present. HIe belongs not solely to the past, as too
common prejudice imagines. 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. These lessons have
a special pertinence and value at the present time (1850),
when nations are in the birth-pangs of liberty.
It is proposed in the following treatise, to institute some
inquiries into the foundation and structure of the Hebrew
commonwealthl, and into the nature and operation of the
laws, which Moses, by divine command, delivered to his
countrymen. We are entering, the reader will perceive,
upon the study of a civilization which preceded the Grecian
by nearly a thousand years. 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.
Two systems of civilization,-the Asiatic and the Egyptian,-preceded the Hebrew culture.*  The former had its
foundation in the spiritual element of our nature; the latter,
in the sensitive element. The leisure afforded by the shepherd life of Arabia and India, led to the observation of
nature, and induced a contemplative habit of mind.  On
the other hand, an early devotion to agriculture directed the
* See on this subject Salvador's " Essay on Civilization before Moses,"
introductory to his "Histoire des Institutions de Moise et du Peuple
Hebreu."




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            105
Egyptian mind to things of practical utility. The study of
the seasons, the labors demanded by the cultivation of the
earth, the necessity of providing against the overflowings of
the Nile, the forethought and contrivance thus imposed
upon men, and the early discovered convenience of an interchange of superfluous commodities, opened a career to
industry, commerce, and the arts, which essentially modified the Egyptian civilization. The merchants of Egypt
imported into their country the speculations of Asia, as well
as its riches; and the sages of Memphis learned the philosophy of those Indian gymnosophists, whose wisdom they ever
held in the highest esteem. But, notwithstanding the strong
infusion of Indian into Egyptian philosophy, the latter did
not cease to be essentially physical.
The speculative opinions of these countries gave shape
and color to their political institutions. The Indian philosophers, devoted to meditation, endeavored to reduce the
practical affairs of life to the fanciful ideas, which they had
formed of the harmony of the universe. In this spirit, they
directed their social organizations. With them religion was
the mother of politics. The Egyptian philosophers reversed
this process. Receiving their first impulse from  physical
utility, they accommodated their religious faith and their
civil institutions to their grosser material necessities. Contrary to what happened in the former case, the theology of
the Egyptians flowed from their politics.
These two methods of procedure, though unlike in their
principle, encountered, in their application, the same fruitful
source of error. Physical wants are almost as difficult to
determine with exactness, as those which belong to our
mental or moral nature. The senses have their illusions
not less than the intellect and the heart; and there is almost
as much controversy about thie useful and the hurtful, as
there is about the just and the unjust. It happened, that
the contemplative philosophers made a fatal, because ground



106              COMMENTARIES ON THE
less, application of their speculative notions to the social
order; and that the physical philosophers, mistaking the
real wants of humanity, invented an incoherent and grovolling mythology, which gave an ill-advised direction to men's
minds.
At the same time the passions of individuals, as usually
happens, obtained a mastering influence over these political
organizations. The men, capable of taking the lead in
public affairs, are always but a small part of the whole.
These master spirits united together; formed themselves into
a body; and, preferring their private interests to the interests
of the public, they framed both their civil and ecclesiastical
polity with a view to the promotion of their own personal
ends. Hence resulted, both in India and Egypt, the establishment of privileged classes, called castes. These were
composed of persons, who, pretending to be of a superior
nature to the common herd, monopolized science, legislation, religion, honors, and riches. They neglected nothing
that could strengthen and extend their own power. The
ignorance and superstition of the people were reduced to a
system. Idolatry reigned in all its hideous deformity. The
multitude prostrated themselves before vile and loathsome
objects. Human victims were offered up to impure and
malignant deities. Religion was made to consist in rites the
most puerile and extravagant. In short, an unrelenting and
iron despotism, civil and ecclesiastical, held all men beneath
its crushing power.
In the midst of this deplorable superstition and tyranny,
there appeared a man, endowed with a noble genius; deeply
versed in all the wisdom and all the folly of those times;
strong in the energy of his own thought; and expressly
raised up and qualified by HIeaven to become the reformer
of his age. That man was Moses, the inspired IIebrew lawgiver. By the wisdom of his policy and the vigor of his
genius, he overthrew the whole degrading apparatus of




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.         i07
political jugglery and priestly despotism. He reduced the
speculative ideas of his own and the preceding ages to a
single sublime principle of simplicity. Ite recognized the
welfare and happiness of the people as the one supreme law
of political philosophy. He impressed a new character
upon his age and species. I-Ie gave a new impulse to man,
both in his individual and social energies. And he fixed
upon his labors the indestructible seal of a divine wisdom
and beneficence.
The code of Moses substituted, for the ecclesiastical despotism of Egypt, a moderate democracy; a government,
based upon the natural superiority of intelligence; a civil
constitution, freely accepted by the nation subjected to its
authority. The world has since traversed an immense circuit of political ideas. But it is now coming back to the
principles of government, announced by the inspired lawgiver of Judea.
To trace the labors of this man, in their progress and
results; to unfold the system of government and law, which
he instituted; to compare it with the other schemes of civil
polity and jurisprudence, which have prevailed in the
world; and to show how far the later systems have been
modified and improved by the earlier,-is the purpose of the
following work. That some method may be observed in the
prosecution of this design, I have arranged my materials
under six general divisions, each of which will form a
distinct book.
The first book will embrace a variety of topics, collateral
to the general subject of the work, and having important
relations to it.
The second book will treat of the organic law of the
Hebrew state. Herein the great principles, on which Moses
founded his civil polity, will first be pointed out; and then
it will be shown, how these principles were applied, in




1 08              COMMENTARIES ON THE
framing the constitution of the state, and in administering
the affairs of the government.
The third book will unfold the rights and duties of persons
in the Hebrew state.
The fourth book will exhibit a detail of the various regulations of the 1Mosaic code relating to property.
The fifth book will treat of the criminal jurisprudence of
Moses.
The sixth book will be devoted to an elucidation of the
Hebrew sumptuary and sanitary laws, and of such other
miscellaneous regulations, as do not appropriately fall under
any of the preceding divisions.
Throughout the entire discussion of my subject, it will be
ny endeavor, on the one hand, to clear away from the
Mhosaic institutions the misconceptions of ignorance, and,
on the other, to vindicate their wisdom and humanity from
the malignant sneers of unbelievers and the specious but
flimsy sophistries of misnamed philosophers. The whole
tribe of infidel writers have fallen upon these institutions,
and, as Warburton* strongly expresses it, have dipped their
pencils in sulphur, in order to delineate them with horns
and tails. Voltaire calls the Mosaic constitution a detestable
polity.  Bolingbroke and Spinoza brand it with names
almost equally hard. Morgan does not scruple to charac
terize it as a refinement upon the superstition of Egypt. He
unblushingly pronounces its laws unjust, cruel, tyrannical,
and barbarous.t  While the whole tribe of German rationalists, transcendentalists and pantheists affect to regard the
Mosaic history as a tissue of fables, gross in conception,
clumsy in execution, and revolting in morals.
How far these grave charges, proceeding from men, who
have assumed the office of public teachers, either spring
from ignorance of the Mosaic institutions, or are founded on
* Divine Legation, B. 5. ] 1.
t Lowman on the Civil Government of the Hebrews, C. 1.




LA WS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           109
such a predisposition to censure and condemn, as dares first
to falsify, in order afterwards to treat them as criminal and
ridiculous, will, I trust, sufficiently appear, in the progress of
these inquiries.
The intelligent reader will have noticed, that, in this
attempt to elucidate the polity and laws of the ancient
HIebrews, the classification of Sir William Blackstone has
been adopted, as far as it is applicable to the subject in
hand. In these researches, it is proposed to consider, in
succession, the several enactments, or, at least, the several
classes of enactments, in the Hebrew code. It is proposed
to inquire into the ground, or reasons, on which the laws
were based; whether those reasons have respect to the relation of the laws to the general wants of humanity, or their
relation to the times and circunmstances, in which the code
had its origin. It is proposed, further, as opportunity offers,
or occasion may seem to require, to institute comparisons
between the legislation of the Hebrews and the legislation
of other enlightened nations, both ancient and modern.
If the results, to which my investigations have conducted
me, are not fallacious, the discussion, on which we are
entering, will exhibit Moses as a man of magnanimous soul,
and a legislator of consummate ability. It will evince the
credibility and truth of his history, and vindicate his claim
to a divine legation. It will establish an immeasurable
superiority in the Mosaic institutes of government over all
other ancient polities. It will exhibit them as embodying all
the elements of the most refined and exalted statesmanship,
and as entering deeply into the subsequent legislation,
philosophy, literature, morals, and general civilization of
mankind. It will prove the error of those philosophers, who
have denounced the Jewish lawgiver as the apostle of despotism. It will, on the contrary, demonstrate the fact, that
it is to his admirable legislative policy the world is indebted
for its first ideas of constitutional republican liberty. In




110              COMMENTARIES ON THE
fine, it will show, that civil liberty, founded on eqaal rights,
guarded by written constitutions, and acting through the
popular will, was a blessing unknown to all antiquity,
beyond the single commonwealth, founded by that illustrious man, who, impelled by a lofty faith and a generous
patriotism, nobly declined the honors of a throne to lead
forth his enslaved countrymen to freedom and independence
and regulated government; among whom  he sought no
other preeminence, than preeminent toil and devotion to his
country's welfare.
The HIebrew law has special claims upon the attention of
the antiquary, the theologian, the moralist, the lawyer, the
statesman, and the firiend of popular liberty.
The mere lover of antiquarian research will here find
much to gratify a liberal curiosity. No other body of laws,
of an antiquity at all comparable to that of the Hebrew
code, has come clown to us entire.*  What a Greek would
call ancient was quite modern to a HIebrew. The Dracos,
the Solons, and the Lycurguses were many centuries posterior to the Jewish legislator. With the exception of the
Egyptian monarchy, of which we have little authentic information, reaching back to the exodus of the Israelites,
scarcely a few fragments of thle laws of the contemporaneotus
states, —as the Assyrian, Phrygian, Lydian, and Trojan,remain to the present time. Not only have those mighty
empires themselves fallen; but their institutions,-their
entire systems of government and  administration, their
municipal, civil, ecclesiastical, military and moral laws,have perished also.t  They are buried in a total darkness,
and the knowledge of them  is obliterated from the memory
of men. But the Hebrew code has descended to us entire.
It has the completeness and clearness with which it came
from the ]land of the lawgiver. It has survived the ravages
* Michaelis' Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, Art. 1.
t J. Q. Adams' Letters to his Son, p. 34.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           Ii1
of time, and i'emains as a venerable and precious relic of
the most ancient legislative wisdom. This consideration
alone renders the Mosaic law very remarkable, and invests
it with a peculiar interest and charm to the lovers of antiluarian lore.
But this law has immeasurably higher claims upon the
attention of the theologian. It is important for him to study
it, first, that he may become acquainted with its divinity.
The theological principles and purposes of the Jewish law
constitute a remarkable and important branch of it. The
primary truth of its theology, the truth which underlies the
whole system, the truth which it is the leading object of the
system to unfold and enforce, is that great doctrine, which
forms the basis of all true religion-the self-existence,
eternity, unity, perfections, and providence of Jehovah, the
creator of heaven and earth. Setting itself in opposition to
the universal religious belief and practice of mankind, at
the time of its promulgation, it rejected and denounced all
false gods; all image-worship, whether the object of adoration was intended as a representation of the true God, or of
idols; and all the absurdities, pollutions, impieties, and
abominations of idolatry, of every name and sort. Nor was
this all. The law of Moses revealed, in type and shadow,
the whole mystery of redemption, through the sacrificial
death and the intercession of Jesus Christ. It prepared the
way for the introduction and universal diffusion of that
more spiritual religion, which was promulgated in the
gospel. This is largely proved by the author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews. Still further: Not only did the Mosaic
law maintain the radical principles of true theology, not
only did it prepare, by its typical representations, for the
introduction of the gospel and the establishment of Messiah's
kingdom, but, by the spirituality, breadth, and strictness of
its moral precepts, it probed the human heart to the core,
and laid bare the depths of its depravity. Thus did it




112               COMMENTARIES ON THE
expose to man his moral weakness, his inability to obtain
eternal happiness on the ground of his own merit, and his
need of a justifying righteousness out of himself. Thus did
it shut him up to the faith of the gospel, and serve as " a
schoolmaster to bring him to Christ."*
There is a second reason why the theologian should become well versed in the Mosaic law; and that, not merely
as containing a body of divinity, but also as developing a
system of civil legislation. It is, that he may be able to
vindicate the divine original of the law. I-e ought to make
himself acquainted with the circumstances of the Jewish
people, and with the ideas and usages of those distant ages,
to the end that he may know the reasons on which the laws
were grounded, and the objects they were designed to subserve. No otherwise can he become prepared to offer a
solid and rational defence of the system, as of divine origin
and authority. Several of the statutes of the Hebrew code,
-for example, those relating to usury, to the fallow of the
seventh year, to commerce, to the periodical remission of
debts, &c. —have been assailed as destitute of the essential
elements of general legislative policy.t  Others,-as those
relating to war and penal justice,-have been held up to
execration, as breathing a cruel, vindictive, revengeful
spirit. Others,-as those relating to polygamy, divorce,
slavery, and blood-avengement, —have been denounced and
decried as contravening the principles of immutable morality. While others still,-as, for instance, the statutes
relating to meats, to the mode of cutting the hair and beard,
to the boiling of a kid in the dam's milk, to the sowing of
mixed seeds, to the combination of flax and wool in the
same garment, &c. &c.-have been profanely ridiculed, as
too trivial to proceed from the Divine Being. It is impossible to make a satisfactory defence of these and other like
* See Dean Graves's Lectures on the Pent., Pt. 1.
I Michaelis' Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, Art. 2.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           113
statutes, without a competent knowledge of the causes, relations, and objects of the Hebrew polity. Whoever, therefore, would successfully vindicate revelation against sceptical
cavils, and  ieet the learning of infidelity with a counter
learning of religion, must make himself well acquainted
with the Mosaic institutions.
The moralist, not less than the divine, will find the
Mosaic code replete with principles and maxims, which
will repay an attentive study of it. Where, in the whole
compass of human literature, can a summary of moral duty
be foand, comparable to that contained in the decalogue?
Here are the seminal principles of all virtue, piety, filial
duty, justice, truth, benevolence, and internal purity. The
law of Moses enj oined supreme love to God, love to our
neighbor equal to that which we bear ourselves, reverence
for old age, forgiveness of injuries, the rendering of good
for evil, mutual kindness, compassion towards the unfortunate, and a generous hospitality. It earnestly enforced
the conviction, that God requires of his rational creatures,
not a mere external service, but an internal worship;
desires duly regulated; and a benevolence expansive, ardent,
and active.  It taught, that ritual observances could not
obtain pardon without repentance, nor repentance without
reformation. It represented outward legal rites as designed
to symbolize and recommend inward- holiness, and the love
of God as a practical principle, stimulating to the cultivation
of purity, justice, humanity, mercy, and truth.* In a word,
the gospel itself has scarcely a single moral precept, which
had not been already promulgated in the Mosaic institution.
In its moral teachings, Christianity does little more than
give a greater breadth to principles, which Judaism had
formed into a body of practical ethics, more than a thousand
years before Socrates and Plato flourished.
A knowledge of the Mosaic laws will be useful to, the
* Graves on the Pentateuch, Pt. 1.
8




1[14              COMMENTARIES ON THE
lawyer, as well as to the theologian and the moralist. Every
motive that can prompt him to the study of the Grecian and
Rtoman jurisprudence, will, with at least an equal force,
recommend the Hebrew jurisprudence to his attention. The
mere technical lawyer may rest satisfied with a knowledge
of the laws actually in force in the courts, where his practice
lies. But he who aspires to a knowledge of the philosophy
of law, will find it necessary to extend his view to the legislation of other climes and other ages. To him who knows
nothing beyond the limits of his own country, or of the
nations nearest to it in time and situation, many things in
law will seem necessary, which yet, in other circumstances,
are not so. He will not perceive the variations of legislative
policy, which difference of climate, difference of manners,
difference of purpose, and a hundred other circumstances
must occasion. Then only will he become sensible of these
things, and begin, without much perplexity, to philosophize,
like Montesquieu, on the laws of his country, when he compares a variety of laws that are strange, and seem at first,
perhaps, almost absurd.* But what system of laws offers to
our consideration a greater number of new views, in this
respect, than that of Moses. Remounting to the highest
antiquity, framed in a distant quarter of the globe, and
adapted to a climate, a people, and a purpose, differing in
several important particulars, from any thling known among
the western nations, it offers to the legal mind of Europe
and Amnerica a study, as interesting as it is curious, as useful
as it is recondite.
But further: There are some of the Mosaic laws, which
are still in force, to a certain extent, and to which reference
is often made in actions at law. The law respecting forbidden degrees of affinity in matrimonial alliances, is the
strongest example of this.t  This law has been formally
incorporated into the jurisprudence of some Christian states;' Michaelis Com., Art. 1.  t Ibid. Art. 2.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           115
and even where this has not been done, it is generally
regarded as embodying, in reference to the points which it
embraces, the dictates of philosophical morality, as well as
the decisions of the divine sovereignty. In regard also to
the punishment of murder, iMoses is often quoted, and his
authority, at least, in the opinion of many lawyers, as well
as divines, has still, with us, the force of law. How frequently, likewise, is he appealed to, when the question is
concerning divorce, or the punishment of seduction? In
these and other cases, where his authority is acknowledged,
or his rules and maxims of law are appealed to, in our
courts, it is necessary for a lawyer to understand his laws,
in all their bearings. I may add, with Mlichaelis, that it is
generally the most important, and, at the same time, the
most difficult points of law, which give the civilian and the
advocate, who are learned in the Mosaic laws, the best opportunities of making a distinguished figure.
Statesmen and legislators, equally with theologians, moralists, and lawyers, will find the study of the Mosaic legislation
a rich source of knowledge and wisdom. I have before spoken
of the high antiquity of this code, and claimed, that, on that
account alone, it is well worthy of our study. But a consideration of this nature forms neither its only nor its highest claim  to our attention and regard. It contains, undeniably, the germ of almost everything precious in modern
civilization. It is a common fountain, from which, as will
appear in the sequel, the most enlightened nations of subsequent ages have drawn their best principles of political, civil,
and criminal law. It abounds in shining specimens of philosophical statesmanship and legislative policy. In short, it is
a system of legislation, which embodies and applies, with an
admirable skill and efficiency, most of the great principles of
just, wise, and equal government.
This leads me to the last observation, which I have to make
in submitting this detail of'he points of chief attraction in




116               COIMMENTARIES ON THE
the Mosaic polity, viz.: that it is a legislation, which addresses itself with peculiar force to the earnest scrutiny and the
grateful affection of the friends of human rights and constitutional liberty. The book, which contains the record of it,
might fitly be made the text-book of the nations now struggling for the supremacy of the popular principle in government. The early colonists of New  England proposed to
govern themselves, for a time, by the Hebrew laws. This
resolution of theirs has caused many a smile at their supposed
simplicity and rudeness. Miost unjustly! Those clear-headed and strong-hearted puritans distinctly saw and deeply
sympathized with the spirit of fieedom, which runs through
those institutions. It was this quality in the laws of Mloses,
their decided friendliness to civil liberty, which secured the
affection and imitation of our forefathers. The principle of
habeas corpus was not in the Mosaic code. But as this is a
writ, designed to secure the citizen from unjust and illegal
imprisonment, and as imprisonment was a punishment unknown to the Hebrew law, there was no occasion, and, indeed,
no place for it there. With this exception, there is not, I believe, 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




LNWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           11T
public, and conducted in accordance with estabi'shed 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.
By the governments of most ancient empires the people
were regarded as of very little importance. Every where,
even in States which boasted of their freedom, the masses
were degraded, brutalized, and  oppressed  by  arbitrary
power. To this rule the Jewish republic formed an illustrious
exception. Liberty to the masses, general competence, physical comfort, ease of mnind, repose and opportunity of reflection, moral and religious instruction to all classes, equal laws,
equal rights, equal justice,-these were the paramount objects of the Hebrew constitution, so far as its political
relations were concerned. These features mark its kindred
to our own, and set it widely apart and distinct from all other
governments, which existed with it, and for many ages after
it. It is not in Greece that liberty was cradled. This idea
is, indeed, taught to our youth in the halls of learning, and
proclaimed to our people from the halls of legislation. But
it is none the less an error. Far other and higher is the
origin of a blessing, so intimately interwoven with the welfare and progress of man. It was not the wisdom of Greece,
speaking in the halls either of philosophy or legislation, but
the wisdom of God, speaking from heaven through his servant Moses, which first taught mankind the doctrine of popular rights. Nothing can be widerof the truth than the idea,
that it is in the political forms and usages of the Grecian and
Roman commonwealths, we are to seek the origin and
elements of our own republican institutions. No; it is rather




118               COMMENTARIES ON THE
in that admirable frame of government, given by the oracle
of Jehovah, and established by the authority of the Supreme
Ruler of the World, that we find the type and model of our own
constitution. Even the Declaration of American Independence,-that terrible handwriting on the wall of despotism,
which has troubled the thoughts of many a tyrant,-that gloiious pledge of liberty to the oppressed of every clime, was
but an echo from the deep thunders of 3Mount Sinai.
There is a question of considerable importance, which it is
proper briefly to consider in this introductory chapter, viz.:
whether the civil laws of Moses are binding upon us?  The
Mosaic laws are commonly divided into moral, ceremonial,
and judicial or civil. Concerning the first two classes, no
doubt can arise in any mind. The moral laws are clearly of
perpetual obligation. The ceremonial laws were as clearly
abolished by Christ. But how is it with the civil laws?
Have they been abrogated? or are they still in force?
There have not been wanting writers of high authority,
who have held, that legislators ought to adhere closely to the
Mosaic laws, as being the wisest that can be framed. ]Nor is
this opinion without a plausible ground of support. The argument affirming it runs thus: God was the lawgiver of the
Hebrew people; but God is an infinitely wise law-giver;
therefore a body of laws emanating from him must be the
wisest that can be. This reasoning is plausible; but it is
fallacious. It overlooks a material distinction;-the distinction between laws intrinsically the wisest, and laws which
are the wisest only when viewed as relating to times and circumstances. Laws may be perfectly wise, when framed with
reference to one state of society, which would be unwise and
absurd, if framed with reference to another condition of things.
Civil laws, whatever be their source, to be adapted to the
wants of any given community, must arise out of circumstances, and be relative to certain specific ends; which ends,




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             119
under other circumstances, it might be the height of folly to
pursue.  When Solon was asked whether he had given the
best laws to the Athenians, he replied: " I have given them
the best that they were able to bear."d Sage response! Is
it not of much the same nature with that declaration of divine
wisdom to the Jews, which has so perplexed biblical inquirers,
-" I gave them also statutes that were not good,"t that is,
laws not absolutely the best, though they were relatively so.
lMontesquieu,4 with that penetration which belongs to all his
philosophical reflections, has observed, that the passage, cited
above, is the sponge that wipes out all the difficulties, which
are to be found in the law of Moses.  This view of the meaning
and force of the passage is confirmed by the words of our
Savior. He has told us, that Moses tolerated divorce among
the Jews, because of the hardness of their hearts.~  It is
reasonable to conclude that he permitted the continuance of
other social evils on the same principle. It is implied in our
Lord's declaration, that, if the Jews of Moses' time had been
less hard-hearted, that is, less prejudiced, less wedded to old
notions and usages, several of his statutes would have been
different from what they were. Is it not also involved, that
the excellence, which Moses claims, and most justly, as belonging to his laws, is, as it respects some of them at least, a
relative rather than an absolute excellence? Considerations
of political expediency were often of prevailing force with
himn in framing his laws.
A wise legislator, whether divine or human, in framing a
new code of laws for a people, will give attention to considerations of climate, of religion, of existing institutions, of settled
maxims of government, of precedent, of morals, of customs,
and of manners.1l Out of all these there arises a general
tone, or habit, of feeling, thinking, and acting, which constitutes what may be called the spirit of the nation. Now, a
* Plutarch's Life of Solon.      t Ezek. xx. 25.
$ "Spirit of Laws," B. 19. C. 21.  ~ Mat. xix. 8. Mark x. 5.
11 Mich. Com. Art. 8.




:120              COMMENTARIES ON TImE
lawgiver shows himself deficient in legislative wisdom, who
makes laws which shock the general sentiment of the people,
laws which are at war with prevalent notions and rooted customs, laws which strip men of long established and favorite
rights. Nations in general cling tenaciously to what is old.
True legislative wisdom, thlerefore, will abide by established
laws, when it can, even though satisfied, that other laws are
better in themselves, and, but for the force of custom in favor
of the old, would be more expedient. A wise lawgiver, who
desires to see ancient usages replaced by new and different
ones, will not attempt to change such customs at once, by direct legal enactments, but will seek, by the introduction of
judicious provisions into his code, to lead the people to change
them themselves.
Balbi, a citizen of the Republic of Venice, being at Pegu,
was introduced to the king. In the interview which followed,
lie informed the monarch, that they had no king in his country. The latter instantly burst into a laugh, which ended in
such a fit of coughing, that it was a long time before he was
able to resume the conversation.*  What wise man, in framning
a. code of laws for such a people, would propose the constitution of the United States as the basis of it? The establishment of a popular government would be the greatest calamity
that could happen to such a nation. The best laws cannot at
once be given to a people that has long been under bad ones.
Their mitnds must be prepared for the reception of the best
laws by the discipline of others, which are as good as they can
bear. The pleadings of the Roman advocates at the civil tribunal of Varus were so odious to the Germans, that they cut
out their tongues, crying,-"- Viper, don't hiss."t  There was
nothing with which Mithridates so much reproached the Romans, as the formalities attending their proceedings at law.:
And the Parthians could not endure the polished and easy
manners of one of their kings, who had been educated at
* iontesquieu's Sp. of Laws, B. 19. C. 2.    t Ibid.    i Ibid.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           121
Slome. The virtues of refinement and affability, because unknown to that savage nation, Tacitus says, were regarded by
them as new vices.
The principle that laws must be relative to circumstances,
that they nmust grow out of the state of society, and be adapted
to its wants, is founded in reason, and confirmed by experience. It is, therefore, a just and solid principle, and must
commend itself as such to every enlightened judgment. But
it involves this clear and certain inference, that G-od never
intended the Mlosaic laws to bind any nation but the Hebrews;
and that it would be quite foolish to detach particular parts
from the rest, and to attempt the ingrafting of them on other
systems: to which they must prove incongruous. The fundamental principle of the Hebrew polity,-the suppression of
idolatry and the maintenance of the worship of the one true
God,-so diverse from that of every other government ever
known among men, could not but enter essentially into the
frame of the laws. Besides this, the circumstances of climate,
soil, situation, political relations, character and power of the
neighboring nations, customs, mode of life, prevalent notions
as to honor and disgrace, and the nature and severity of punishments, species and sources of crime, kinds of disease, &c.
&c., would modify a divine, quite as much as they would a
human legislation; and still more, perhaps, in proportion to
its superior wisdom. If God were now, by special revelation,
to enact a code of civil laws for every nation on the globe,
it is not likely, that any two of them would agree in every
particular. It is certain, for example, that in such a code,
fiamed for the United States, there would be wanting the old
Hebrew laws respecting divorce, polygamy, blood-avengement, usury, the double portion of the first-born son, the exclusion of daughters from the inheritance, the marriage of a
deceased brother's childless widow, and the sumptuary laws
in general; for none of the reasons, on which these laws were
based, has any existence among us; and to separate a law




122              COMMENTARIES ON1T THE
from its principle, is like sundering t[he body from the head or
the heart. No part of the Mosaic legislation is more excellent or admirable than the statute respecting the distribution
and tenure of lands. Yet there is, probably, not a nation
upon earth, at the present time, into whose civil code such a
law could be introduced, without a violation of justice, and
without shaking society to its d.eepest foundations. Where is
the nation, now existing, that has its entire territory unappropriated? But where this is not the case, with what justice
could an equal partition of the land be made?.Yet this was
the first great principle of the Hebrew agrarian; and, in a
nation situated as the Hebrews were, at the formation of
their code, it was equitable and wise. The second fundamental principle, which was equally just and beneficial, was an
absolute prohibition of the sale of land in perpetuity. Yet,
wise and righteous as this principle was in the Hebrew polity,
what greater hardship could a lawgiver put upon those mnembers of the state, who, when he framed his laws, were destitute of landed property, than that to which such a.provision
would subject them?
Moses himself, it is quite evident, wa-s often compelled, by
the force of circumstances, to admit into his code, laws, which
under a different state of things, he would gladly have seen
replaced by others. The law requiring a man to marry the
widow of a brother, who had died without issue, is an instance
in point. It is plain, as we shall see hereafter, that Moses
cared very little for the execution of this law, and only gave
place to it among his statutes as a piece of ancient Israelitish
manners, and because he did not wish to shock the prejudices of his countrymen by abolishing it. Throughout his legislation there are traces of the influence of a more ancient
system of laws, —a lex non scripta, or jus consuetudinarium,
-of much the same nature and force as the common law
among us. Moses, as any wise legislator would do, (and certainly he was all the wiser for being inspired,) paid no little




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.              123
deference to this law of custom. Sometimes he confirmed it,
as it stood; sometimes he improved it by amendments; sometimes he restricted its operation; and sometimes he annulled
it altogether.*
But more than this: The purely civil laws of Moses could
be repealed or changed, as the altered state of the commonwealth required or justified, even during the continuance of
the Mosaic government.  For example, Moses's first law
against usury forbade the taking of interest from the poor Israelites only;t his second law on the subject extended the
same prohibition to the whole nation.4  Itis statute, forbidding to kill animals for food in private, and enjoining to bring
all such to the altar and offer them to Jehovah,~ remained in
force only during the abode in the wilderness. It was forreally repealed on entering the promised land.lI  The punishments originally annexed to the violation of laws, must be
increased in severity, when, as often happens in the progress
of society and of crime, they become too mild to secure obedience to the civil rule. Hence the penalty for theft, which
Moses had fixed at a fourfold or fivefold restitution,~ was
increased to a sevenfold restitution in the time of Solomon.*
The highest fine imposed by Moses in punishment for crime,
was about fifteen dollars. What would that be, when the increasing wealth of the nation had proportionably diminished
the value of gold and silver?
There is, indeed, an expression attached to many of the
Mosaic laws, which, at first blush, would-seem to make them
absolutely unalterable. The expression is,-" a statute to you
forever, throughout your generations."tt The question i3: Is
this form of words to be taken literally, or metaphorically?
* Mich. Comment. on the Laws of Moses, Art. 3.  t Exod. xxii. 25.
$ Dent. xxiii. 19.    ~ Levit. xvii. 3-7.  II Deut. xii. 20, 21.
~ Ex. xxii. 1.   ** Prov. vi. 31.
t- Ex. xxvii. 21. xxx. 21.  Lev. iii. 17.  vi. 8.  vii. 36.  x. 9.
xvii. 7. xxiii. 14, 21, 31, 41.




124               COMMENTARIES ON tIEm
Does it mean always, or only a great while? The words are
annexed to the prohibition against the killing of animals in
private, which, as we have seen, was subsequently repealed
by Moses himself.  This makes it certain that the latter is
the true meaning of the expression. It simply marks the
distinction between permanent laws and those regulations
which were made for a limited time. It signifies a law, which
was to continue in force, till regularly abrogated, or modified.
The views, above presented, warrant the conclusion, that
the Mosaic laws do not bind, and were never intended to
bind, other nations. But this does not detract from the value
of the Hebrew jurisprudence, as a philosophical and practical
study, any more than the fact, that the Roman and British
laws are not obligatory on us, detracts from the value of the
Roman and British jurisprudence. We are at liberty to borrow what is good in the laws of other nations, however remote
from us in time or space. My neighbor's lantern may be very
useful to me, though I do not follow by its light exactly the
same path which he pursued. In like manner, the laws of a
foreign state may afford a highly advantageous light, though
we do not copy everything which they contain. It is impossible to survey the legislative policy of the Hebrews without
feeling the highest admiration of its wisdom, equity, and benevolence. It was a policy, directed not to foreign conquest,
but to the culture and benefit of their own territory; a policy
founded on the arts of peace. " If we were better acquainted
with the comprehensive and far extended legislative knowledge of this people, very probably our own political system,
so far at least as connected with agriculture, and as directed
to the peaceful increase of our internal strength as a nation,
might receive material improvement."
* Levit. xvii. 7. Deut. xii. 20, 21.




.LAWS OF T HlE ANCIENT HEBREWS.       125
CHAPTER II.
Moses as a Man and a Lawgiver.
THE proofs of the divine mission of Moses will be submitted,
and objections against it examined and refited, in a subsequent part of this work. The object of the present chapter is
to study the character of Moses, and to unfold the leading qualities of his mind and heart, irrespective of that supernatural
illumination and guidance, which he enjoyed in the execution
of his office.
It appears to be a fundamental principle in the divine administration never to do in an extraordinary way that which
can be equally well accomplished in an ordinary way. But
the heavens above us do not more exceed in height the earth
on which we tread, than the methods of the supreme wisdom
transcend the utmost stretch of human policy. There is an
unseen but almighty hand behind the scenes of providence,
which brings them forward, directs, adjusts, moulds, or removes them, according as the accomplishment of his purposes
demands. By the cruel edict, which required the Hebrews
to cast all their male children into the river Nile, Pharaoh
intended to check the growing greatness of a nation, whose
numbers he began to dread. But he who sitteth in the
heavens, and laughs at the impotent malice of his enemies,
nay, who even turns it as a two-edged sword against themselves,
had far other purposes to answer through its agency. It was
designed as the occasion of the adoption of Moses by no less




16                COMMENTARI'ES ONl TIHE
a personage than the daughter of the reigning sovereign; and
this to the intent, that the future leader and lawgiver of the
Hebrew people might be educated in a manner suited to fit
him for his responsible office.
But is there no fear, that the child, breathing only the atmosphere of the court, almost from the first hour of its being,
will lose all fellow-feeling for his countrymen, and become an
Egyptian in everything but blood? N o! The supreme wisdom
is never defective, nor once inconsistent with itself. By a
contrivance, no doubt suggested by the divine mind, the
mother of Moses becomes his nurse. Thus the first words he
hears is the story of his country's wrongs; the first sentiment
he feels, sympathy for the sorrow of his brethren, mingled
with indignation against their oppressors.
Inspiration apart, Moses possessed all those endowments and
qualities, which form thle consummate statesman and chief
magistrate:-an intellect of the highest order: a perfect mastery of all the civil wisdom of the age: a penetrating, comprehensive, and sagacious judgment: great promptness and
energy in action: patriotism, which neither ingratitude, illtreatment, nor rebellion could quench, or even cool: a commanding and persuasive eloquence: a hearty love of truth: an
incorruptible virtue: an entire freedom from selfish ambition:
an invincible hatred of tyranny and injustice: a patient endurance of toil: a courageous contempt of danger: and a greatness of soul, in which he has never been surpassed by the
most admired heroes of ancient or modern times. Comprehensiveness, grasp, force, sagacity were the predominant characteristics of his mind; magnanimity, disinterestedness, an
enthusiastic devotion to liberty, and an ardent but rational
piety, the leading qualities of his heart.
The truth of this observation may be easily evinced.
Of the greatness and vigor of his intellectual endowments,
his own writings afford ample proof. Never was the art of
writing little and saying much displayed in higher perfection.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           127
A perfect idea is given of the ground that philosophical history ought to cover, including not only the causes and current of events, but also the progress of society, manners, government, art, and religion, which prevailed in those early
ages. True, most of his pictures are but sketches; but every
touch reveals the hand of a master, and rarely do we feel any
material deficiency. How vividly, and with what calm sublimity, do a few strokes of his pencil place the deluge before
us! And whenever he favors us with a finished portrait,
with what divine charms and graces does he invest it! Witness the history of the venerable patriarch, who won the exalted titles of the friend of God and father of the faithful.
What grandeur of conception! What elevation of sentiment!
What dignity of style! What simplicity and truthfulness in
the narrative! What strength and beauty of coloring! What
exquisite tenderness and pathos! Witness alsothe inimitable
story of Joseph, the most faultless character, perhaps, in human annals, he alone excepted, who was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. The strange and stirring
incidents of his life, and the high and generous qualities of
his nature, are drawn in characters, which must challenge the
praises and secure the affections of mankind, and which make
us feel, that rivalry is forever distanced, and all attempts at
imitation nugatory and hopeless.
The poetic talent of Moses, in its perfection one of the noblest gifts of God, is a striking evidence of his mental superiority. Read the noble lyric ode, in which lie celebrates the
passage of the Red Sea; or that, yet more powerful, in which
he bids a last farewell to his countrymen. Among the Psalms,
the plaintive elegy, beginning, "Lord, thou hast been our
dwelling place in all generations," is ascribed to him; and none
of all the number, exceeds it in mournful and affecting beauty.*
That Moses was master of all the civil wisdom then extant,
swe have the testimony of the proto-martyr Stephen, who says
* Christian Examiner for Sept. 1836.




128                   COMMENTARIES ON TIE
of him, that he was " learned in all the wisdom  of the Egyptians."4*  It is the acute and solid observation of Bishop Warburtont on this passage, that when the wisdom of a nation is
spoken  of, that which is characteristic of the nation  must
needs be meant; when the wisdom  of a man, that which is
peculiar to his quality and profession. On both grounds,
civil or political wisdom must be here intended. It was for
that the Egyptian  nation was principally distinguished; and
in that also must have consisted the eminence of one, who
had a royal adoption, was bred up at court, and became at
length the leader and lawgiver of a numerous people."f
* Acts vii. 27.          t Divine Legation of Moses, B. 4. { 6.: The knowledge of Moses, however, was not limited to subjects connected with government and law. He was "learned in all the wisdom of
Egypt."  He was master of her science as well as of her statesmanship. A
r:emarkable proof of this we have in the history of the golden calf. The
narrative states, that he burnt it in the fire, ground it to powder, and made
the children of Israel drink of the dust. " The manner in which this was
done is a proof of the extraordinary skill in the metallugiic arts possessed by
the Egyptians; and, through their instruction, by the Hebrews. Modern
chemistry employs tartaric acid, and reduces gold to powder. Stahl, one of
the ablest chemists, informs us that natron, which is very common in the
east, will produce the same effect; and, if the metal be previously heated,
the effect is sooner produced. Hence Moses, in the first instance, cast the
image into the fire, and then made it potable.  Now one of two conse
quences must follow; either he performed a miracle, or he possessed very
extensive scientific attainments. There is no account of any miraculous
intervention of providence in the story; it then was the result of natural
means, but such as none but a very well informed chemist could have known
or used. No alternative, then, is left us, but a positive denial of the facts,
or an admission of the knowledge of Moses.. *  *  *  *  There is another
small item of evidence here, to establish the fact of Moses's knowledge. lie
strewed the gold dust on water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.
He was perfectly acquainted witli the scientific effect of what he had done.
He meant to aggravate the punishment, and impress upon their recollections
the never to be forgotten memory of their disobedience, and to this latter
end, he made their own sense of taste to minister; for of all detestable
drinks, none is more so than that of gold thus rendered potable."-Hawks
on the 1Monuments of Egyyt, pp. 270, 271.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS:            129
An intelligent infidel writer has borne eloquent testimony
to the high intellectual qualities of the IIebrew sage.  "The
Jewish law," observes Rousseau,' is a standing proof of the
superior genius of the great man, by whom  it was dictated;
and though the vanity of philosophy and the blind prejudice
of party see notlling in his character but a fortunate iinpostor, the triue politician admires, in his institutions, that sagacious alnd comprehensive power of mind, which must ever
lay the lasting foundation of human establishments." Bossuet t
also, an authority of another order, after saying that the Jewish lawgiver was instructed in all the wisdom, human and
divine, with which a great and noble genius could be adorned,
adds the following observations: "'Inspiration only carried
to the highest point of certitude and perfection, that which
had been sketched by the usage and the knowledge of the
sagest of empires."  Moses unquestionably belonged to that
distinguished few, of whom Bolingbroke: has observed, that
it has pleased the author of nature to mingle them, fiom time
to time, at distant intervals, among the societies of men, to
maintain the moral system of the universe at a certain point,
though, doubtless, far below that of ideal perfection.
A natural explanation of the high intellectual development of MIoses is afforded by the narrative of his early life.
Adopted as her own son by the daughter of Pharaoh, the
young Hebrew grew up in the midst of the wisest spirits of
the nation. Endowed with a quick and penetrating genius,
le readily mastered whatever of science and learning constituted the civilization of Egypt. Second in rank only to the
reigning sovereign, and born to mould, direct, and govern his
fellow men, there cannot be a doubt, that he was called to
important public trusts before prudence dictated his retirement from the Egyptian court; and that, in discharging these
trusts, he gained a familiar acquaintance with  practical
* Social Contract, B. 2, c. 7. t Discours sur l'Histoire Universelle.
t Cited by Adams in his Defence of American Constitutions.
9




130              COMMENTARIES ON THE
statesmanship. Later in life, while keeping the flocks of his
father-in-law Jethro, he had ample opportunity for perfecting
his knowledge by meditation, in the valleys of IHoreb and
Sinai, and along the shores of the Red Sea. Solitude, the observation of nature, and continual communion with God and
his own thoughts, carried his enthusiasm to the highest pitch,
and impressed upon his imagination that strong poetic tincture, which was reflected in his whole life. The burning
bush of Horeb was a fit emblem  of that inner flame of
mingled patriotism and piety, which penetrated and irradiated all the faculties of his soul.
The soundness of Moses's judgment was evinced, as on various other occasions, so especially in the admirable measures
which he employed to quell the rebellion of Korah, to soothe
the agitations of the multitude, and to reconcile the people to
the elevation of Aaron to the priesthood.*
The promptness with which Moses decided, and the energy
with which he put his determinations into execution, are fearfully illustrated in the course which he pursued, when, on
descending from the Mount, he found that the people had
made a golden calf, with the design of returning to Egypt
under its conduct. Having burnt the idol in the fire, ground
it to powder, strewed it upon thewater, and caused the children of Israel to drink of it, in derision of its divinity, lie
took his station in the gate of the camp, and cried:-" Who
is on Jehovah's side? To me!" The sons of Levi promptly
answered to the challenge, and were ordered to go inl and out
from gate to gate throughout the camp, and to slay every
man his brother, and every man his companion, and evelry
man his neighbor. The order was faithfully executed, and
there fell of the people that day about three thousand souls.t
This salutary severity had the desired effect. The murmurs
of the people were thoroughly allayed, and all thought of
going back to Egypt v'as for the time laid aside. How finely
* Num. xvi.                t Ex. xxxii. 26-29.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           131
do the strength and ardor of Moses's patriotiism shine out in
the sequel of this very history! No sooner is the needful
work of punishment ended, than we find this devoted lover
of his country returning to Jehovah, and giving vent to the
deep and agonized emotions of his soul: " O, this people
have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold;
vet now, if thou wilt, forgive their sin; and if not, blot me,
I pray thee, out of thy book."'*  Most truly has it been said,t
that there is nothing in all the scriptures more calmly majestic than the divine reply: " Whosoever hath sinned against
me, him will I blot out of my book."T
In the same passage, in which St. Stephen attests the wisdom of Moses, he says, that he was " mighty in words and in
deeds."~ HI]ere we have a clear testimony to the eminence of
Moses in eloquence. When ~Moses received his commission
to become the leader of his countrymen, he did undoubtedly
excuse himself on the ground, that he was not eloquent.1
This plea might have been based upon some impediment in
his speech; but it is more probable, that it proceeded from a
modest diffidence, which is so often the attendant of true
merit. However this may have been, there is reason to believe, that the impediments, of whatever sort they were, were
gradually overcome, and that Moses became as eminent in
oratory, as he was in all the other great and commanding
qualities of a civil leader. Certainly he had the mental gifts,
which eloquence requires, for he was a poet, and dealt in the
living images and passionate sentiments, which fire the hearts
of congregated thousands.[
Along with a powerful understanding to plan, and an inflexible will to adhere to his resolves, Moses possessed a
mighty heart to bear him through an entelprize, the most difficult, perhaps, ever undertaken by man. To present in detail the proofs of his magnanimity and freedom from persona.
* Ex. xxxii. 31, 32. t Ch. Exam. for Sept. 1836. $ Ex. xxxii. 33.
Q Acts vii. 27.  11 Ex. iv. 10.  T Ch. Exam. for Sept. 1836.




132               COMMENTARIES ON THE
ambition, would be to transcribe no small part of his history.
That he dwelt in a palace, that he basked in the sunshine of
royal favor, that he was surrounded with the splendors and
luxuries of a court, with perhaps a prospect of wearing the
diadem  himself, and yet that even there, in the midst of all
that was flattering to the pride and seductive to the baser
passions of human nature, his heart beat in sympathy with
his country's wrongs, and his thoughts were all engaged about
the methods of its deliverance,-these circumstances are of
themselves a sufficient proof of moral greatness. Encompassed by every species of allurement, he forgets not, for a
single moment, that his brethren are groaning beneath the
pressure of a bitter servitude.
Nor was it in a single great act of self-devotion, such as
that of renouncing his brilliant prospects of wealth and power,
that his generosity shone out. No! It was the living, guiding, inoulding principle of his whole life. And though he
met with no grateful return, though he heard not one word of
thankfulness, where he heard a million of complaint and upbraiding, his spirit of self-sacrifice endured to the last, nor
abated a particle of its vigor. His post was not one that
common ambition would have coveted. It brought with it no
superiority of comfort, or luxury, or visible splendor. Even
his dress, Josephus testifies, was that of a common man; and
in all other respects he behaved like one of the common people, nor sought to distinguish himself from the multitude.
Though his many shining qualities obtained for him an
unbounded influence in the state, yet never in a solitary instance, did he use it for his own individual advantage, or that
of his family. He provided no places of honor, trust, or
profit for his children or his kindred. In the choice of a successor, he thinks not of his family or his tribe, but of his
country. Public office he looks upon, not as a means of
wealth or personal gratification, but as a solemn trust, to be
executed for the benefit of the governed. Merit is the sole




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            133
claim to magistracy, which he recognizes as valid; all others
are, in his esteem, lighter than vanity.
Josephus* relates, that, during the childhood of MIoses,
Pharaoh, holding him in his arms, placed the crown of Egypt
upon his head.  Instantly the young hero tore it from his
temples, cast it on the ground, and trod it beneath his feet.
This fiction,-for it is probably nothing more than a fiction,
— is admirably imagined to set forth, in vivid colors, one of
the predominant qualities of his great soul,-a deep detestation of that tyranny, which but too often accompanies the
possession of kingly power.
A strong proof of this disposition in Moses we have in an
incident related in the second chapter of Exodus.t Upon a
certain occasion he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew.
With the impetuosity of a generous and impulsive nature, he
launched upon the assailant, and, in the struggle which
ensued, the latter was slain. A close inspection of the narrative renders it probable, that this man was not a simple
citizen, but an agent of the Egyptian tyranny; a circumstance, which, if it does not justify, serves at least to palliate
the conduct of Moses.:
A story of kindred significance we find narrated in the
same chapter of Exodus.~  Scarcely had Moses, in his flight
from Egypt, reached the borders of Midian, when he saw
several shepherds chasing some young women firom a well,
where they were watering their flocks. Instantly, without
a thought of their number or his own danger, he flies to the
succor of the injured and weaker party, and, single-handed,
beats back the assailants, leaving the place in the sole
occupancy of the young shepherdesses.
Such were all the instincts of his nature. The injured
ever found in him a ready helper; the injurer, an uncom* Antiquities of the Jews, L. 2. c. 5.  t Vv. 11, 12.
Salvad r's "I Histoire des Institutions de Moise," Introduction.
Q Vv. 15-17.




134              COIMMENTARIES ON THE
promising foe. Tyranny he abhorred; while the just and
the right were with him little short of a passion.
Such was Moses, the illustrious agent employed by providence to lead forth the chosen tribes from the hard bondage
of Egypt to the enjoyment of independent and constitutional
government in the land of promise. And it must be confessed, that all his great endowments were not more than
enough for the task to which he had been called. The
Israelites were a stubborn people; now first forming into
civil society; greatly licentious; and the more so because
they were just emerging from a state of slavery. Upon all
the principles of human calculation, their passage through
the wilderness would be attended with unparalleled difficulties. A country without water, without vegetation, without
any of the ordinary means of subsistence, was to be traversed. Powerful enemies were to be met and overcome.
A spirit-broken people was to be braced up to bold and
decisive action; and an ungovernable people was to be
reduced and brought under the restraints of law and order.*
But, more than all, and worse than all, the many ten
thousands whom he commanded, were madly in love with
the idolatries of Egypt. Hence, on every little distress,
"' Let us go back to Egypt," was their never-ceasing cry. It
was not merely the flesh-pots,-the fish, the cucumbers, the
melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic,t-it was the
spiritual luxury of Egypt, her superstitions, with which
the peqple were so debauched  a debauchery, which neither gentleness nor severity, neither the mild beams of
mercy nor the glittering sword of vengeance, neither the
blaze of miracle nor the terrors of prophetic denunciation,
could ever wholly overcome; a debauchery, of whose malignant virus the nation was at last purged only in the fiery
furnace of a seventy years' captivity.
Htow much did the position of Moses differ from that of
* Chr. Examiner for Sept., 1836.  f Num. xi. 5.




LAWS OF THE ANCIE1N'T HEBREWS.           135
all other legislators!-  Lycurgus, Draco, Solon, and Numa,
in the midst of men already in subjection to laws and possessed of a country, are borne, as it were, by the ordinary
current of events, to their elevated functions. Zaleucus,
Pythagoras, Zoroaster and Confucius, peacefully dictate sage
maxims to their fellow  citizens.  Even Mahomet, after
fifteen years meditation in solitude, presents a modified code
to people already living under established laws. But Moses,
after a forty years' absence, re-enters Egypt, a stranger to his
own countrymen, and without any the least physical force at
his command. The people, whom he is to form into a
nation, are without a country. Before he can propose to
them a system of laws, it will be necessary to conquer a
country. It will be necessary to conquer their oppressors.
It will be necessary to conquer themselves; to conquer the
deep depression that has seized upon their spirits; to triumph
over a frightful crowd of opposing circumstances.
Insurmountable, to human apprehension, are the difficulties
which surround the Hebrew lawgiver; and the most fearful
of them are those which he has to contend with in his own
countrymen. There is neither unioni nor confidence among
them.  There is neither courage nor self-respect.  Long
centuries of slavery and misery have extinguished such
sentiments.  From this people he can expect nothing. Yet
without this people he can do nothing. What remains to
him?  Before he gives them  freedom, he must make them
capable of fireedom. He must restore to them those elements
of humanity which they have lost. He must give back to
them the qualities'which a long barbarism has smothered.
He must rekindle in them  hope, courage, generosity, selfrespect, and enthusiasm.  With  noble bearing did our
intrepid chief meet and conquer every difficulty. Dying,
* See on the subject of this and the following paragraph a tract by
Schiller on the Mission of Moses. It is rationalistic in its tone but contains many excellent reflections.




136                COMMENTARIES ON T'HE
lie bequeathed to his countrymen a constitution of government and a body of laws, embracing most of the great principles of political wisdom, and entitled to be regarded in its
leading features as a model of fiee institutions for all after
ages.
At the advanced age of one hundred and twenty years,
while yet his eye was not dim, nor his natural strength
abated, Mloses paid the common debt of nature, and was
gathered to his fathers.  M3ore than thirty centuries have
since fulfilled their cycles, and are numbered with the years
before the flood. Yet the influence of his genius and
writings survives, as vigorous and benigon in its action at
the present moment, as when his comlpatriots felt the first
gush of grief at his irreparable loss. To whom  else of all
the illustrious dead has such a thing happened?  What
other legislator of ancient tinzes is still exerting any considerable influence in the world?  What philosopher, what
statesman, of antiquity, can boast a single disciple now?
What other voice comes down to us with equal power over
the stormny waves of tilne?  Though the daily sacrifice has
ceased, and thle distinction of the tribes is lost; though the
temple has not left one stone upon another, and tile altar
fires have been extinguished for ages, yet wherever a Jew
is foulnd,-and he is found wherever the foot of an adventurer treads,-lle is a living monumlent of the power, which
tihe great Hebrew stateslnan still has over the minds and
hearts of his countrylmmen.*
Nor this alone. The whole civilized world has felt, and
feels, and to the end of time will continue to feel, the
quicklening, power of his geius and example. WhVllo knows
not, and, kInowing, owns not, the obligations of mankind to
his inspired writings for their silent, but mighty influence,
in promnoting science, taste, and literature; in purifying the
social institutions; in destroying thle cruel and debasing
* Christian E.alaminer ftr Sept., 1836.




LAWS OF THE AICIENT HEBREWS            137
superstitions of paganism; in enlarging the domain of civil
liberty; in securing the rights of conscience; in invigorating
both public and private morals; in allaying and rooting out
abuses of government; in giving a healthful tone to legislation; and in infusing the purest, the most elevating, and the
most conservative elements into human civilization.  Of all
the great men, who have played their part on the broad
theatre of human action, Moses is the one, who has exerted
the most pregnant influence on the destinies of mankind,
and on the direction and progress of civilization. His lofty
intellect, his greatness of soul, his preeminent virtue, and
his unequalled services in the cause of true religion and of
republican constitutional liberty, place him  at the head of
those illustrious benefactors of mankind, who here and there,
though at intervals too distant from each other, embellish
the canvass of history.
It is sometimes alleged, that Moses borrowed his institutions from Egypt. This is said for the purpose of derogating
from his merit as a lawgiver, and especially from his reputation as an inspired lawgiver. But from what fountain did
Egypt herself, in all likelihood, draw her best principles of
law? There is a common fact in the history of the Hebrews
and the Egyptians, hitherto so much overlooked, that I de
not remember to have seen it adverted to by any writer,
which, nevertheless, sheds an important light on this subject. By an extraordinary concurrence of circumstances, an
Israelite, some centuries prior to the age of Moses, had been
raised to the primacy of Egypt. For eighty successive years
Joseph swayed the destinies of that empire; and an inspired
writer has told us, that he taught her senators wisdom.* It
cannot be doubted, therefore, that many of the wisest
maxims of Egyptian policy were due to the genius of that
illustrious minister, and to the special divine guidance
vouchsafed to him in his administration.
* Psalm cv. 22.




138              COMMIENTARIES ON THE
But suppose it to be true, that some, or many, of the civil
laws of Egypt were embodied in the Hebrew code, what
inference, derogatory either to the genius or the inspiration of
]Moses, would such a fact warrant? Did any body ever suppose it detracted from the merit of the Roman jurisprudence,
that the twelve tables were framed by a commission, which
had been appointed by the senate to examine the laws of
other nations? And how would such a fact militate against
the inspiration of the lawgiver? The spirit of God might as
well prompt him to take from the legislation of a foreign
state that which was valuable, and with which he and his
people were already acquainted, as to dictate laws entirely
new, and till then unknown. The former is as natural and
legitimate a province of inspiration as the latter. Besides:
Let all that is alleged be granted; it still remains true, that,
in their fundamental principles, the two constitutions were
the antipodes of each other. Egypt was a despotism; Judea
a republic. The people of the former were slaves; the
people of the latter, freemen. In Egypt the prince governed,
or the priesthood through the prince; in Palestine the
nation. The Egyptian government was founded on force;
the IHebrew government on consent. The former was a
government of will; the latter, a government of law. In
Egypt an iron system of caste crushed every opening faculty
and every generous aspiration of man's nature; on the
banner of Palestine flamed, in living letters, liberty, equality,
fraternity.
Be it that the institutions and manners of his age exacted
their tribute from the Jewish lawgiver in modifying his
system of legislation. It is what I have admitted and even
contended for in the preceding chapter. Still, the results
which he achieved, are none the less great; none the less
original; none the less stupendous. The greatness of Egypt,
far from diminishing, serves only to enhance the real glory
of his labors. Egypt has fallen; and the most learned




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.         139
Researches have hitherto shed but a feeble light on her civiiization. But M3oses lived; and his name and works are
known and honored among all nations. Though neither
brass nor marble has preserved to us the shape and stature
of his outer man, the finer elements of his soul, the form and
lineaments of his inner being, stand revealed to us, in all
their fair proportions, in the monuments which his genius
has left behind him. Though his body has long since been
mingled with its kindred dust, yet all of him, as Tacitus has
elegantly said of Agricola, all of him, which gained the love
and admiration of his cotemporaries, still subsists, and will
for ever subsist, preserved in the minds of men, the register
of ages, and the records of fame. Even the pyramids have
not availed to preserve the Pharaohs from forgetfulness.
Those proud monarchs have sunk to the common lot of
oblivion, inglorious and unremembered. But Moses, by his
worthy deeds and his immortal writings, has triumphed over
the injuries of time.




CHAPTER III.
Uncertainty of early Profane History.
THE credibility of the historical books of the Old Testament,
and those of Moses in particular, has been called in question,
on the ground, that they contain statements at variance with
the historical records of the learned heathen nations of antiquity. Thus the pretence of ancient history is made a plea
for infidelity; and by many no argument against revelation is
thought more plausible than its contrariety to some of the
averments of early profane story. How little force there is in
this argument will appear in the present chapter, the purpose
of which is to show, that there is no certain credibility in
those ancient histories, which contradict the Bible. This
chapter will be followed by another, whose aim will be to
prove that all the marks of historical truth are found in the
record of Moses. In this endeavor I must gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to the learned industry of Bishop
Stillingfleet, to whose admirable Origines Sacroe, I would refer those persons, who desire to see the argument presented in
all its breadth and strength.
It is related of Sir Walter Raleigh, who added to the graces
of a courtier and the bravery of a hero the higher accomplishments of a learned historian, that, in despair of arriving at
the truth of an event, which happened under his own window,
he committed to the flames some of his most valuable manuscripts on historical subjects. It is but a few years ago, that




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           141
an important appropriation bill was lost in the expiring throes
of an annual session of the American congress. On the reassembling of that body the following year, gentlemen of
undoubted probity and honor gave such conflicting accounts
of the causes of the failure of the bill, as were, in no small
degree, calculated to impair our confidence in the general
credibility of human testimony. The writer retains a vivid.
recollection of the painful emotions and reflections, which that
event excited in his mind. It brought forcibly to remnem
brance the observation which Addison puts into the mouth
of Sir Roger de Coverly, in the Spectator, that it is not merely that on most questions much may be said on both sides,
but that the real obscurities on many subjects of an historical
character are such as to pain and perplex every honest inquirer.
Who wrote Junius? Who discovered  the differential
calculus?  Who killed Tecumseh? Who commanded the
American forces at the battle of Bunker Hill? Who was the
hero of lake Erie?  On what day were the signatures affixed
to the declaration of American Independence?  What was
the original policy of the American cabinet in reference to
the employment of our public ships in the last war with Great
Britain?  Did Napoleon poison his sick soldiers at Jaffa?
Was the beautiful Mary, perishing on the scaffold under the
insatiate envy of her virgin rival, guilty or innocent? These,
and a thousand other questions, are still unadjudicated in the
great court of modern history.
How, then, can we hope to penetrate the abyss of time, and
bring forth to the light the mysteries, which lie concealed
within its profound recesses? We look back upon the confused traditions of the first ages of the world, as upon some
distant ocean; but shadows, clouds, and darkness brood over
its troubled surface; and if an occasional glimmer of truth
appear, it is but a rush-light, too feeble to reveal to us events
in their true relations to each other. In all that relates to the




142                COAMMENTARIES ON THE
birth and infancy of our race, its social relations, its progress
in art and learning, and the achievements and monuments of
genius, in those distant ages, profane history is either a total
blank, or so obscured in the exaggerated imagery of epic
poetry and the wild and dreamy myths of gods and demigods, as to be no better than a mere ignis fatuus in directing our steps in the search after historical truth.
There is, then, no ground of assent to any ancient histories,
which give an account of things different from that contained
in the iI3ible. The truth of this proposition will be proved by
three arguments: First, from  the obvious inability of these
histories to give an authentic account of the earliest transactions of mankind.  Secondly, fromn the confusion and ambiguity of the accounts, which they profess to give. And
thirdly, from the manifest partiality of the historians to their
respective countries, and their manifest inconsistency with
each other.*
The first general argument is drawn from the plain inability of any ancient history to afford a creditable narrative of
the first ages of the- world. If this point be established, it
will of itself demonstrate the incompetency of those records to
overthrow or invalidate the facts of sacred history. The inability or defect, here referred to, is twofold. It is both
general and special; general, in so far as it is common to all
ancient histories; special, in so far as it is peculiar to the
history of each of the several nations, whose pretensions are
highest on the score of antiquity.
The general defect, the defect common to the history of all
ancient nations,: is the want of authentic early records. If a
nation has no certain mode of preserving its traditions, if it
has no permanent and safe depository of historical truth, and
if, in addition to this deficiency, its people are subjected to
the necessity of constant bodily labor, and of frequent removals from one place to another, it is clear that lapse of time
* Stillingfieet's Origines Sacrme, Book 1, Chap. 1.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           143
will introduce many corruptions into its history. This may
happen, nay must happen, through the imperfection of men's
rmemory, through the ignorance and barbarism of rude ages,
and still more, perhaps, through the dishonesty of those, whose
interest lies in a deviation from the original tradition.
The above is undoubtedly a true description of the state of
most ancient nations in their infancy. Their poverty laid
them under the necessity of incessant physical toil; and their
ignorance of the true principles of agricultural science, and
the best modes of agricultural practice, led to the adoption of
a wandering manner of life. The conflict with want and necessity was unceasing. Men had neither the leisure nor the
opportunity to cultivate arts and sciences. But without these,
the memory of their former state must gradually fade away,
and at length be lost in mere fable. And this, in fact, was
the case with most of the earliest nations. A sufficient proof
of this is the silly fiction, not uncommon with ancient tribes,
that they sprang from the soil, on which they lived. What
credible account of the first ages can be looked for finom nations, so defective in the knowledge of their own origin?
A consideration of the several methods, employed by mankind, for conveying knowledge to one another, will still
further evince the want of permanent historical records of an
early date. These methods are chiefly three: words, symbols, and letters.
Spoken words were undoubtedly the earliest means in use
of communicating ideas. But words are of so evanescent a
nature, men's memories are so treacherous, and their minds
are so clouded by ignorance, prejudice, and interest, that nothing can be more uncertain than the reports of oral tradition.
The second method of conveying knowledge was by means
of representative symbols. Such were the Egyptian hieroglyphics, which were, partly at least, of a symbolical nature.
The defectiveness of hieroglyphics as an instrument of communicating knowledge, may be inferred from the following




144               COMMTENTARIES ON THE
circumstances: 1. The time and labor necessarily consumed
in the invention of them. 2. Their obscurity and ambiguity,
after they had been invented. 3. Their limited extent, as compared with the whole field of human thought and knowledge.
And 4. The fact that the use of thenil must have been confined
to the favored few, who had leisure and ability to master their
occult significations and refined mysteries. The variety of
interpretations, to which they were liable, and their consequent uncertainty, are aptly illustrated in the different opinions of the ancients as to the meaning of a golden hieroglyphic, consisting of two dogs, a hawk and an ibis. Some
understood the dogs to represent the two hemispheres; others,
the two tropics. By some the hawk was supposed to signify
the sun; by others the equinoctial. By the ibis some thought
the moon to be intended; others, the zodiac. And if, as modern
researches have shown, hieroglyphics were representatives
sometimes of ideas, and sometimes of sounds alone, this is a
new source of perplexity. It makes the language which they
speak still more ambiguous, and increases the confusion and
uncertainty of their reports.
From the imperfection of the foregoing methods of commu
nicating ideas, it is evident, that, before there can exist any
certain medium of conveying the knowledge of past to coming
ages, some way must be found out, whereby, as has been
aptly said,* men's voices may be seen, and their fingers made
to speak. This can be done only by means of a phonic alphabet; that is, by the invention of certain characters, which
shall represent all the articulate sounds of the human voice,
employed in spoken language. Well has Galileo called this
important discovery " admirandarum  omnium  inventionum
huinanarum signaculum," the masterpiece of all the wonder,
ful inventions of human genius. If there were no other proof
of the obscurity and deficiency of ancient history than the uncertainty as to the inventor of letters,-the only effectual mode
* Stillingfleet's Origines Sacru, B. 1, C. 1.




LAWrS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           145
of preserving and transmitting knowledge, that alone would
be a demonstration of it. There was hardly an ancient nation of any note, which did not put in its claim to this honor.
file Jews attributed the invention of letters to Adain, or
-MNses;the Egyptians, to Hermnes; the Phenicians to Taautus;
the Greeks, to Cadmus; and the Romans, to Saturn.
So much for the general deficiency of ancient histories,the want of permanent and authentic early records for the
perpetuation of historical truth. Let us proceed now to a
closer study of the particular histories of the several nations,
which enjoy the most distinguished reputation both for antiquity and learning. There are four of these,-the Phenicians, the Egyptians, the Chaldeans, and the Greeks. It is
proposed to inquire into the credibility of their early records,
as also into the ages of their most distinguished historians.
We will begin with the history of the Phenicians. The
most celebrated historian of this people was Sanchoniathon.
His history of Phenicia, in nine books, was translated into
Greek by Philo Biblius. The age of this writer is a question,
which has been much in debate among chronologists. Porphyry, the subtlest antagonist of christianity in the primitive
ages, too learned to be satisfied with the idle pretensions of the
Greek historians, laboriously sought after the most ancient
records, that he might have something wherewith to confront
the antiquity of the scriptures.  He could find no other profane author as old as the Phenician historian. Yet he acknowledges him posterior to Moses; and he even grounds an
argument for the truth of some of his statements on their
aigreement with those of the Jewish historian.*
When did this man flourish, with whom no other ancient
writer, even in the estimation of Porphyry, can vie in age 
The learned Bochartt makes Sanchoniathon cotemporary
with Gideon; that is, nearly two hundred years later than
* Euseb. Praep. Ev. L. 10. C. 8.
t Geog. Sac. in Stillingfleet, Book 1, Chap. 2.
10




146               COMMENTARIES ON THE.Moses, and only sixty-five years before the destruction of
Troy.  Scaliger* and Stillingfleet t with greater reason,
bring him still lower down, even to the time of Solomon, or
one hundred and fifty years after the destruction of Troy.
This opinion is founded mainly on the fact, that Sanchoniathon speaks of the building of Tyre as an ancient event;
but, by general consent, this event happened about the
time of Gideon.
HIaving thus, as far as we are able, cleared the age of
Sanchoniathon, let us inquire into his credibility as an historian. Ile professes to have drawn his history from three
soarces: —the records of Jeromlbaal, priest of the god Jao;
the annals of the several cities; and the sacred inscriptions
in the temples.4: Who this Jerombaal was, is a vexed
question among the learned. Bochart conjectures, that he
was the same as Gideon, both because the latter is called in
scripture Jerubbaal, and because soon after the death of
Gideon the Israelites worshipped Baal-berith, by which he
thinks is probably meant the idol of Berith, or Berytus, the
place where Sanchoniathon lived.  Porphyry commends
Sanchoniathon for his fidelity. Philo, his translator, styles
him a learned and inquisitive man. Theodoret thinks his
name signifies a lover of truth. 
Of his fidelity we have no means of judging, since the
records are lost, out of which he professes to have taken his
history. But the fragments of his writings, still extant, give
us no very exalted idea either of his love of truth, or his
diligence in seeking it. All that remains of his history of
Phenicia, is the first book, transcribed into Eusebius. This
relates to the Phenician theology. It is a confiused jumble
of incongruities, absurdities, and fables. The most valuable
thing in it, and almost the only one that is clear and con* Not. in Frag. Grmec., p. 40 in Stillingfleet.
t Origines Sacrme. Book 1, Chap. 2.
+ Tts7Dm        2 Theis...




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.               147
sistent, is a confession, that idolatry had its origin in a
deification, after death, of men, who had performed some
useful actions, while living. What can there be in such a
writer, capable of giving a moment's uneasiness to a rational
mind, whatever contrariety there may be between his statements and those of sacred story?
We proceed now to the Egyptian history.  Stillingfleet*
has quaintly, but not without truth, observed, that the
Egyptians were a people, so unreasonably given to fables,
that the wisest action they ever did, was to conceal their
religion; and the best office their gods had, was to hold
their fingers in their mouth, to command silence to their
worshippers.  This nation boasts an antiquity  extending
back to tens of thousands of years before the creation of the
world. The thirty-one dynasties of their most celebrated
historian, Manetho Sebennyta, embrace a period of more
than fifty thousand years.t  Let us a little sift this highsounding claim of antiquity. Their most famous historian,
as observed above, was iManetho. He was high priest of'
Heliopolis, in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus.   I le
flourished, therefore, less than three hundred years before
Christ.  He composed his history at the request of Philadelphus; and, in an abridged form, it is still extant.T
It is manifest, that the credibility of Manetho will depend
on the credibility of the records, which he used in compiling
his history.  He professes to have copied it from  certain
pillars, inscribed before the flood by the first Egyptian
Hermes, and afterwards found by the second Hermes, in the
land of Seriad.  Who this Hermes, Thoyth, or Mercury (for
* Orig. Sac., B. 1, c. 2.
t The exact number is 53,535.
$ " These dynasties are yet preserved, being first epitomized by Julius
Africanns, from him transcribed into Eusebius's Chronica, from Eusebius,
by Georgius Syncellus, out of whom they are produced by Joseph Scaliger,
and may be seen both in his Eusebius and his Canones Isogogici." —Sr iLINGFLEET.




148                COMMENTARIES ON ToI
he was called by these several names) was, is a question hopelessly buried up in the mists of ancient allegory. The accounts
respecting him are so strangely contradictory, that some have
doubted whether any such person ever existed.  Cotta, in
Cicero de Natura Deorum, brings forward no less than five
Mercuries, expressly for the purpose of establishing his
academical doctrine of withholding assent. The Egyptians,
according to Diodorus, represent him to have been a sacred
scribe to Osiris, and the tutor of Isis.*  How he could have
stood in such relations to these personages, and yet lived
oefore the flood, is a mystery which they do not explain, and
which, without such explanation, is quite incomprehensible.
But let us look somewhat more closely at these Mercurial
pillars. Manetho vouches the credibility of his history from
the fact, that " he took it from  some pillars in the land of
Seriad, on which they were inscribed in the sacred dialect
by the first Mercury, and after the flood were translated out
of the sacred dialect into the Greek tongue, in hieroglyphic
characters, by Agathodoemon, the  second  Mercury, the
father of Taut."t
Would it be possible for an author more effectually to
blast his own reputation for credibility, than Manetho has
done in this passage? For, in the first place, where is this
land of Seriad, in which the pillars were found? Scaliger,:
after a laborious search, acknowledges his inability to find
its locality. It is manifestly a utopian region. Secondly,
what likelihood is there, that these pillars could have withstood the rush of waters, which overthrew the most solid
edifices, and reduced whole cities to heaps of ruins? Thirdly,
how was it possible for Hermes, who lived in the beginning
of the first dynasty, to write in advance the history of so
many thousand years? Fourthly, what other writer has ever
* Stillingfleet, Orig. Sac., B. 1, c. 2.
t Euseb. Chron., in Still., B. 1, c. 2.
4 Not. in Frag. Maneth. in Euseb. cited by Stillingfleet.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.                 149
mentioned the co-existence of a sacred and common dialect
in Egypt? There was, as is well known, a difference between
sacred and common writing; but no trace, elsewhere, of a
difference between the sacred and common language.*  Finally, what shall we say to the translation of this history into
Greek so soon after the flood?  Where, and how  did the
author obtain his knowledge of Greek?   Was the Greek
language so much in request at that early period?  On the
contrary, is it not plain, both from  lHerodotus and Diodorus,t
that the Greeks were not allowed any commerce with the
Egyptians, till the time of Psalmmeticus, which was as late
as the twenty-sixth dynasty of Manetho, and more than a
hundred years after the first Olympiad?
Besides, how can a writer, of the age of Ptolemy Philadelphus, deriving his knowledge from  records manifestly
the most vague and uncertain, and writing, too, under circuinstances and for a purpose, as will presently appear, well
calculated to throw suspicion upon his statements, be reasonably confronted with Moses?t Infidelity is welcome to all
the strength it can derive from such a labor. Nothing, surely,
but a deep consciousness of the inherent weakness of its cause,
could make it catch at such straws, or induce it to regard thenm
as affording the least support to its impious assumptions.~
The Chaldean history next claims our attention.  The
Chaldeans were, without doubt, a people of high antiquity.
They were the first nation, that was formed into a regulai
* Hengstenberg's " Egypt and the Books of Moses," p. 244.
Ht Herod. L. 2. Diod. L. 1, C. 67.: "It is evident from what remains of him in Eusebius's Chronica, that he
not only flourished in the time, of Philadelphus, but writ his history at the
special command of Philadelphus, as manifestly appears by the remaining
epistle of Manetho to him, still extant in Eusebius."-STILLINGFrLIET.
Q I have spoken of Manetho, as if he were a true historical personage.
Of this, however, there is much doubt.  Hengstenberg, in his Books of
Moses, has argued strongly, and to most persons probably convincingly, in
support of the opinion, that the whole story of Manetho is a mere fable.




150                  COMMENTARIES ON THE
government after the flood.   For the knowledge  of this
fact, however, we are more indebted to scripture history,
than to any undoubted historical records of their own. Their
vanity led them  to exaggerate their antiquity to an extent,
quite equal to that of the Egyptians.*
Their historian  of highest repute was Berosus.  lie was,
as we learn from Josephus,t a priest of Belus, and a native
of Babylon.   Having become an  adept in the Chaldean
learning and philosophy, he removed to the Grecian island
of Cos. Here he opened a school of astronomy, and was the
first to bring the Chaldean astrology into repute among
the Greeks.: Dr. Anthon~ makes him contemporary with
Alexander. Herein he is certainly at fault in his chronology.
Tatian, in a fragment preserved in Eusebius, informs us, that
Berosus wrote the Chaldean history in three books, and
dedicated it to Antiochus, the third from  Seleucus.lI  This
must have been Antiochus Theos, whose reign commenced
in the twenty-second year of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Vossius, from  a passage in Pliny, proves, that the history of
* " Even among these, who enjoyed all the advantages of ease, quiet, and
a flourishing empire, we find no undoubted or credible records preserved,
but the same vanity as among the Egyptians, in arrogating antiquity to
themselves beyond all proportion of reason or satisfaction from their own
history, to fill up that vast measure of time with; which makes it most probable what Diodorus (Bibliothec. 1. 1,) observes of them, that in things pertaining to their arts they made use of lunar years of thirty days; so they
had need, when Tully (de Divin. 1. 1,) tells us, that they boasted of observations of the stars for 470,000 years. It had been impossible for them to
have been so extravagant in their accounts of themselves, had they but preserved the history of their nation in any certain records."-STILLINGFLEET.
t Contra, App., L. 1.
J The Athenians erected a statue to his memory with a gilded tongue;
"A good emblem," says Stillingfleet, " of his history, which made a fair and
specious show, but was not that within, which it pretended to be; especially
where he pretends to give an account of the most ancient times.
& Class. Diet. Art. Berosus.
II Euseb. Preep. Evang., L. 10, in Still., B. 1, c. 3.




LAWS OF THE ANCIEN T HEBREWS.           151
Berosus could not have been given to the world much, if
any, before the twenty-second year of Philadelphus.*  It
was during the reign and at the instance of the same prince,
as is well known, that AiIanetho, the Egyptian historian,
composed his history.
This is a point of no little importance to be cleared, as
will appear from the following considerations.
Ptolemy Philadelphus was a great patron  of letters.
Amlong the most princely, as well as useful instances of this
patronage, was the translation which he caused to be made
of the sacred books of the Jews into the Greek language,
commonly called the Septuagint.  This great work, as
Vossiust has shown, was executed in the early part of
Ptolemy's reign. In this opinion of Vossius the learned
Jesuit Petavius  concurs. Then it was that this authentic
history of the creation and first ages of the world was, for
the first time, produced to the view of mankind. Such a
work, containing as it does, a narrative of the peopling of
the world, the flood, the confusion of tongues, the dispersion
of mankind, the formation of civil societies, the origin of
idolatry, the selection of a particular nation to be the people
of the true God, its investiture with peculiar privileges,
its admirable system  of civil laws, and its wonderful and
miraculous history, such a work, I say, it will readily be
imagined, must have created  no small stir among  the
scholars of that age.  The desire  would  naturally  be
excited, in the nations of most distinguished repute for
learning and antiquity, to produce somewhat from their own
annals, with which they might confront these strange and
startling revelations.  Then it was, as we have seen above,
that Manetho and Berosus published their histories to the
world. It thus appears, that these two distinguished histo* Voss. de Hist. Grsec., 1. 1, c. 13. Plin. Hist. Nat. I. 7, c. 57, in Still
t De Hist. Graec., 1. 1, c. 12.
$ Notes on Epiphanius, in Stillingfleet, B. 1, c. 3.




152                  COMMENTARIES ON THE
rians flourished at a period later even than that of the translation of the Old Testament into Greek; by which, indeed,
it seems highly probable, that they were incited to put forth
their respective relations.
Thus much to show  the incompetency of the Chaldean
history  to give an  authentic  account of the first ages of
mankind.  It cannot be denied, and there is certainly no
disposition in any friend of divine revelation to deny that
the fragments of Berosus in Josephus, Tatian, and Eusebius,
are  of considerable  value  and  importance, not only  as
throwing light upon the history of the Babylonish empire,
but also as confirming the truth  of the scripture history.
All that is maintained is, that the Chaldean history is of no
such authority in respect to ancient times, as to be entitled
to credit, when it conies in conflict with the historical statements of holy writ.* I conclude with an observation of
* A caviller might object, that there is an inconsistency in the text, which
represents profane historians as confirming the truth of the scripture history, when the relations of the former accord with those of the latter, while
it affirms, that they are not entitled to credit, when their statements conflict
with those of holy writ. But there is no real inconsistency. Let us illustrate the case by facts. Diodorus says, that Babylon was not yet founded,
when Ninus conquered Mesopotamia, and that Nineveh was not built, till
after he had subdued the Babylonians. The scripture, on the other hand,
asserts, that both these cities were built centuries before the events mentioned by the Greek historian. Now all must feel, that the authority of
Diodorus on this point is as nothing, when compared to the authority of
Moses. Again: From the 47th chapter of Genesis, we learn, that Pharaoh
purchased of his subjects the right of possession to their land, with the exception of the land of the priests, which he bought not; and that the land
was parcelled out to its former possessors, who paid for the use of it a fifth
part of its yearly produce. Such is the statement of Moses. Now for the
testimony of profane historians. According to HEerodotus, (B. 2, c. 109,)
the king divided the whole land among the Egyptians, collecting from each
individual a yearly rent. According to Diodorus, (1. 73,) all the laud in
Egypt belonged to the priests, or the kings, or the military caste. A ecording to Strabo, (17, 1y. 787,) the Egyptians, who were employed in agricul



LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.                  153
Strabo,* one of the most grave, solid, and judicious of heathen
writers. Speaking of the antiquities of the Miedes, Persians,
and Syrians, he says:  "These nations have not obtained
any great credit in the world, by reason of the simplicity
and fabulousness of their historians."
Let us descend now to Greece and her historians.  That
country was the great metropolis of ancient art and learning.
The seat of letters and philosophy, when at the zenith of her
glory she attracted to herself, as to a common centre, the
gaze and admiration of the world.  She was the shrine, at
which taste and genius worshipped. Her very decay attests
her former magnificence.  Hier very ruins are models of
taste.  Her broken marbles still constitute a well-spring of
inspiration to genius.  But what is the ability and merit of
her historians, as to giving an account of the most ancient
times? Did they, by the depth and compass of their researches, arrive at greater certainty, than other nations were
ture, held their land subject to rent. Here is an important point of agreement between sacred and profane history, viz., in the statement of the fact,
that the cultivators of the soil in Egypt were not the owners of it. IDo we
not feel, instinctively, that these profane writers, deriving their knowledge
from entirely independent sources, confirm by their testimony the truth of
the scripture history? There is, indeed, a discrepancy between the two
accounts. Moses limits the ownership of the land to the kings and the
priests; Diodorus extends it to a third order in the state, the military caste.
Now, if there were no means of reconciling this apparent contradiction,
we could not hesitate as to which authority is most entitled to credit. But
Herodotus has enabled us to clear up the difficulty. According to him, the
land of the soldiers differed from the land of the peasants in being free of
rent; but otherwise it belonged to the kings. The use of the land exempt
from public burdens was instead of pay.  From  this it is plain, that
Diodorus was led into the error of supposing that the military order owned
their land, by not sifting the matter to the bottom. He observed, that the
tenure in their case was different from that of the peasants, and erroneously
concluded, that they were proprietors, when in point of fact they were but
tenants.
* Lib. 11.




154                COMMENTARIES ON THE
able to attain? No, in no wise. Stillingfleet* evinces the
defect and insufficiency of Grecian history by three arguments: First, that the earliest writers among the Greeks
were poetical and fabulous.  Secondly, that their most
ancient historians are of suspected credit and authority even
among themselves.  And thirdly, that their best authors
either candidly confess their ignorance of the early ages, or
clearly betray it.
First: Their most ancient writers were poetical, and
most manifestly fabulous.  Strabot undertalies to prove,
that prose is a mere imitation of poetry; of course it would
follow, that poetry must have been written before prose. At
first, he says, poetry only was in request; afterwards, in
imitation of that, Cadmus, Pherecydes, and Hecatetus wrote
their histories, observing all the laws of poetry, except its
measures. It is most undoubted, that poetry was first in use
among the Greeks. WVhen they began to emerge out of
barbarism, all the philosophical and moral instructions they
received, were delivered in verse. Plutarchb instances this
in Orpheus, Hesiod, Parmenides, Xenophanes, Empedocles,
and Thales. Hence Heinsius~ observes, that the poets were
anciently called teachers.  Hence also the same word in
Greek, and afterwards in Latin, denoted poems and precepts
of morality.l1 It is not certain when poetry first came into
use among the Greeks; but it is certain, that it was employed not solely for instruction. Strabo~T says, it was used
" the more gently to draw  people on' to idolatry."  IHe
adds:** " It is impossible to persuade women and the promiscuous multitude to religion by mere dry reason, or phiiosophy; but for this there is need of superstition, and this
cannot be advanced without some fables and wonders. The
* Orig. Sac. B. 1, 0. 4.                t Lib. 1.
$ De Pith. Orac. p. 403, in Stillingfleet.
@ Diss. in Hes. c. 6.                    Ibid.
~ Lib. 1.                               ** Ibid.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.              155
thluderbolts, shields, tridents, serpents, and spears, attributed to the gods, are mere fables; and so is all the ancient
theology; but the governors of the commonwealth made
use of these things the better to awe the silly multitude,
and to bring them  into better order."   Eratosthenes, a
writer of such solid parts and attainments as to have gained
the title of another Plato, condemns the ancient poetry as
old wives' tales, without real learning or truth.*
Secondly: The earliest historical writers of Greece are of
suspected authority among their own countrymen, and mutually distrust and discredit one another.  Strabot calls
them mere writers of myths. Diodorus4 condemns. as fabulous Cadmus, Hecatuous, and Hellanicus.  Strabo~ speaks
of Damastes Sigeensis as unworthy of credit. Yet he is
followed  by  Eratosthenes,  Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
Plutarch, Pliny, and other approved writers.!ll  His testimony is also taken by Aristeas Proconnesius, whom Stillingfleet~, regards as the Sir John Mandeville of Greece, and
whom  Strabo** pronounces inferior to no one in jugglery,
probably because it was commonly reported, that he had
the power to let his soul out of his body, and bring it back
again at will.tt
But further: What credit can be given to the historians,
who are perpetually criminating one another, and whose
writings are filled with mutual charges of error and deception.? JosephusT4 informs us, that IHesiod is accused of falsehood by Acusilaus; Acusilaus, by Ephorus; Ephorus, by
Timoeus; and Timrus, by those who followed him. In the
* Stillingf., Orig. Sac., B. 1, c. 4.     - Lib. 1
$ In Stiflingf., Orig. Sac., B. 1, c. 4.  g Lib. 1
VI ~oss. de Hist. Graec., 1. 4, c. 5, in Orig. Sac., B. 1, c. 4.
~ Orig. Sac., B. 1, c. 4.                 ** Lib. 13.
tt "Yet this juggler did Celsus pitch on to confront with our blessed
Savior, as Hierocles did on Apollonius: so much have those been to seek
for reason, who have sought to oppose the doctrine of faith." —SrLLINGF.
t: Con. App. L. 1.




156              COMMENTARIES ON THE
midst of such contradictions, where shall we fx our belief?
Upon all in common? That were to believe, that black is
white, and white black. Shall we believe one, and reject
the others?  What evidence does that one give, why he
should be believed more than the rest? None at all. It is,
then, clearly impossible to find any undoubted certainty
concerning the first ages in any of the Greek historians.
This will be still more apparent, when it is added, on the
authority and according to the conclasive reasoning of Vossius,  that the highest antiquity of the historical writers of
Greece does not much exceed the age of Cyrus and Cambyses. Of many even of these nothing now remains but
their bare names. A catalogue of them may be found in
Vossius De Historicis Graecis.  Such are Sisyphus Cous,
Corinnus, Eugeon Samius, DeYochus Proconnesius, Eudemus
Parius, Democles Phigaleus, Amelesagoras Chalcedonius,
Xenomedes Chius, and several others. Of all these historians, not even the subjects on which they wrote are known.
Of others, whose better fortune it was to have not only
their names, but the subjects of their histories, handed down
to posterity, nothing is extant, till the time of the Persian
war.t  Cadmus of Miletus wrote the Antiquities of Ionia.
Acusilaus treated on Genealogies. Pherecydes Syrius composed the History of the Gods. Phereeydes Lerius wrote
on the Attic Antiquities. Hecatseus published a Description of Asia; and Hellannicus, the Originals of Nations, and
Founders of Cities. There was a history of Persia, Greece,
and Egypt, written by Charon Lampsacenus; of Lydia, by
Xanthus; of Corinth, by Enmelus; of Scythia, by Anacharsis; of Phrygia, by Diagoras; of Chaldea and Persia, by
Democritus; and of Sicily and Italy, by HIippys. Where
now are all these works? Swallowed up in the all-devouring
gulf of time.
* De Hist. Graec., in Stillingf., B. 1, e. 4.
f  Stillingf., Orig. Sac., B. 1, c. 4.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.                157
Thirdly: Even the hist-orians, whose workm  lla:e come
lown to us, either candidly confess their ignorance, or palpably betray it. Thucydides,* the most solid, truth-loving,
and accurate of the Greek historical writers, not only confesses, but proves, the impossibility of an exact account of
the times preceding the Peloponesian war. He says, that
all he could find in the ancient state of Greece, was a great
deal of confusion, unquiet stations, frequent removals, continual piracies, and no settled form   of commonwealth.
Plutarch,t a later writer of distinguished learning, sagacious
judgment, and sincere love of truth, pretends not to go
farther back than the age of Theseus. Before that time, he
says, as geographers in their maps, when they have gone as
far as they can, fill up the empty spaces with impassible
mountains, or frozen seas, or devouring sands, so those who
give an account of ancient times are fain to insert some
wonderful and tragical stories, which have neither truth nor
certainty in them.
Thus we perceive, that those who were best able to judge
of the credibility of the early Grecian annals, could find in
them no sure footing to stand upon. But those writers who
have not the candor to own their ignorance, very plainly
discover it.  HIerodotusT denied, that there was an ocean
encompassing the land, and condemned the geographers for
asserting it. Aristotle thought, that the Indies were joined
to Europe near the Straits of Gibraltar.~ Alexander wrote
to his mother, that he had found the sources of the Nile in
Lib. 1. 1.                   t In Stillingfleet, L. 1, c. 4.
J Lib. 2, C. 5. " Herodotus himself hath stood in need of his compurgators, who yet have not been able to acquit him of fabulousness. * * *
Herodotus was not first suspected of falsehood in these latter ages of the
world, but even among the Greeks themselves there have been found some
that would undertake to make good that charge against him. * * * Josephus thinks he was deceived by the Egyptian priests in things relating to
the state of their affairs."-STILLINGFLEET.
{ In Stillingfleet's Orig. Sac., B. 1, c. 4.




158               COMMENTARIES ON TIE
the East Indies.*  Many of the learned Grecians imagined,
that the sun with a great noise descended into the ocean every
night.t  Yet when these crude ideas prevailed, learning
was at its height in Greece, and discoveries were daily made
by means of the wars, which were carried on abroad.
What credible account of the earliest ages can we expect
from men, who were so ignorant of the state of the world in
their own times? Is it easier to pierce the darkness of antiquity, and bring up the verities of history from its cavernous
recesses, than to explore the surface of the earth, and ascertain the facts of geography, which are always within our
reach?
So much for the first argument against the credibility of
profane history, when its statements are repugnant to those
contained in the Bible. The facts of sacred history are in
no danger of being discredited with candid and enlightened
minds on any such grounds as these. These facts stand
fixed and immovable as mountains of brass. Like the rock,
that defies the fury of the waves, they remain unaffected
and serene, amid the assaults of sophistry, ridicule, and
falsehood.
The second general argument is drawn from the confusion and ambiguity of ancient profane histories. Proceed
we now to a consideration of this topic.
We have seen how deficient the early profane historians
were in authentic records, out of which to construct their
several narratives. But if the case had been otherwise, if
the materials, which they used, had been full and reliable,
still, if the accounts of ancient times, given by them, were
perplexed, confused, and ambiguous, this circumstance
would be as fatal to their credibility, as the want of records.
That their accounts were of the character here supposed,
will appear evident from this consideration, that their chronology was altogether vague and uncertain. Scaliger has
* Stillingfleet's Orig. Sac., B. 1, c. 4.  t lbid.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           159
well denominated chronology the life and soul of history,
without which, it is a rude and undigested mass, having
neither life nor form. The defectiveness of the chronology
of the ancient heathen nations shows itself chiefly in two
things, —the uncertain length of their years, and the want
of fixed periods, or epochs, to which to refer the various
transactions, embraced in their annals. Let us briefly particularize under each of these heads.
First: The uncertain and variable length of their years.
A year is a system of days, and is capable of as great
variety in duration, as there are methods of joining days
together. If the years of ancient nations were of unequal
lengths, —sometimes lunar, sometimes solar, sometimes thirty
days, sometimes four months, sometimes three hundred and
sixty days, and sometimes three hundred and sixty-five days,and if the historians are accustomed to speak of years, without
distinguishing between the several kinds, and without letting
their readers know which kind were meant, it is plain, that
this must introduce inextricable confusion into their accounts
of early times, and make the credibility of those accounts
more than a matter of doubt. That there was, in point of
fact, this inequality of duration in their years, is proved by
many and unimpeachable testimonies. Plutarch, in his Life
of Numa, says: " The Egyptians had at first a year of one
month, and afterwards of four months."  Varro,* cited by
Lactantius, speaks of the Egyptian year of thirty days, as a
thing certain  and undoubted.  Diodorus, Solinus, and
Augustine,t mention the year of four months, as used in
computing time by that people. That they had also the
solar year, the year formed by the passage of the sun through
the twelve signs of the zodiac, is evident from the history of
Joseph, since the seven years of plenty and the seven years
of famine in Pharaoh's dream must have been of this kind.
PlutarchT accounts for what he calls "the infinite number
* Stillingfieet's Orig. Sac. B. 1, c. 5.   t Ibid.   J Life of Numa.




160               COMMEENTARIES ON THE
of years" in the Egyptian computation by the fact, that they
reckoned months for years. Stilliugfleet,* using this principle for a guide, has, with great labor and learning, reduced
the vast number of Egyptian years to something like reason
and probability. But which ever way we take them, the
authority of IMianetho is discredited. When Mlanetho wrote
his Dynasties, the Julian year of three hundred and sixtyfive days was in use in Egypt. Now, either by his fifty odd
thousand years he meant Julian years, and then his history
must be looked upon as fabulous; or he meant years of
months, and then he is open to the charge of intentional
deception. In either case, he is an unsafe guide in historical inquiries, and his statements are not entitled to the
least weight, when ever they happen to be repugnant to
those of IHoly Writ. And here I may observe, by the way,
that it appears to have been the policy of the Egyptian
priests to mislead and deceive the credulous Greeks, in the
accounts which they gave of their national antiquities; a
thing which, by reason of the different kinds of years in use
among them, they could the more readily do, without being
impeached of direct falsehood; since their statements, though
not true in the sense in which they were understood, were
yet true in a sense known only to themselves.
There is good reason to believe, that the Chaldeans also,
as well as the Egyptians, had years of unequal duration.
This has been conclusively shown by Bishop Stillingfleet in
the fifth chapter of the first book of his Origines Sacrse, to
which the reader, who would see the argument handled at
length, is referred.
Secondly: The defective chronology of the ancients appears from this, that they had no fixed periods, or great
epochs, of an early date, to which they could refer the
events recorded in their histories.
Such fixed periods are essential to the clearness and cer* Orig. Sac. B. 1, c. 5.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          161
tainty of historical narrations. Diodorus * takes notice of
this in speaking of the history of his own country. These
are his words: " There is no certainty in the ancient Grecian
history, because they had no certain term, from whence to
deduce their accounts."  This view of the matter is most
just and rational. For. if there be no fixed points of time
to determine the succession of ages, and to measure the
events which occur in the intervening spaces, we shall be
perpetually tossed upon an ocean of uncertainties, without
any solid foundation, whereon to ground any account of ancient times. "The ancient accounts of the world," says Stillingfleet,+ t  were merely from year to year, and that with
abundance of obscurity, uncertainty, and variety; sometimes
going by the moon, and therein they were as mutable as the
moon herself, how to conform the year regularly to her
motion; and it was yet greater difficulty to regulate it by
the course of the sun, and to make the accounts of the sun
and moon meet. There was so much perplexity and confusion about the ordering of a single year, and so long in
most nations before they could bring it into any order, that
we are not to expect any fixed periods, by which to find out
the succession of ages among them."
The Egyptians are commonly believed to have been best
skilled in the computation and adjustment of times. Yet
they were long in finding out any certain course of the year,
and reducing it to a systematic form. Even after they had
learned to regulate the year by the course of the sun, they
made it consist of only three hundred and sixty days. Such
a division of the year must, in process of time, be the occasion of very great confusion, since the months would be corT
tinually changing their places, so that a month, which was
once in the summer, would come at length to be a winter
month, and vice versa. This explains the fable told by the
Egyptian priests to Ilerodotus,t that in the times of their
*In Still., B. 1, c. 6.  i Ibid.    1 Euterpe.
11




162               COrIEN'T'ARIES ON TIIE
early kings, the sun had twice changed his rising and
setting. It was not the sun, but their months, that had
changed, by reason of the defective adjustment of their
year. Tile observation of this effect led the Egyptians, after
a great lapse of time, to add five days to their year. Yet
even  so it was still deficient by one fourth of a day.
Whether they ever intercalated a day in their civil year has
been a question much debated among the learned, and especially by Scaliger and Petavius. It seems probable, that
they never did, as Censorinus,* who lived in the third century of the Christian era, says expressly, that in his time the
civil year of the Egyptians had three hundred and sixtyfive days only, without any intercalation.  The result of
Stillingfleet's learned and able exanmination of this subject.
so far as the Egyptians are concerned, is, that " they had
anciently no certain periods to govern themselves by in
their computation of ancient times."  "Nay," he adds, " the
Egyptians have not, as appears, any certain epochas to go by,
elder than the Egyptian years of Nabonassar, and afterwards
from  the death of Alexander, and Ptolemy Philadelphus,
and Augustus's victory at Actium."
Passing from the domain of Egyptian into that of Grecian
history, we find ourselves plunged into still deeper uncertainties.  here, until the Greeks began  to  reckon by
olympiads, we have no fixed periods, no certain epochs, to
serve as a pole star to guide us in the vast ocean of Grecian
antiquities. The early accounts of Greece are most inmperfeet and fragmentary. Varro in Censorinus divides the
whole succession of Grecian history into three parts, two of
which he accounts as mythical and fabulous, and the
third only, beginning with the olympiads, as historical.
Some writers, as Scaliger, Heeren, &c. name the second
period, extending from the siege of Troy to the olympiads,
heroic, considering it historical in respect to persons, but
* De Die Nat. c. 18.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            163
fabulous in respect to actions. Some of the learned Greeks,
-as Apollodorus, Dionysius, and others, who were skilled
in astronomy-labored, with commendable zeal, as Stillingfleet* says, " to find out some certain periods to fix on in the
time before the olympiads." Supposing them, by their astronomical calculations, to have truly assigned the destruction of
Troy to 1184 B.C., what a vast tract of time there is before
the Trojan war, whose history is wholly fabulous! And as
to the series of events in the interval obetween that epoch
and the olympiads, it is all confusion and uncertainty.
Great is the ambiguity in the accounts of the foundation
and early history of the several states of Greece. MVfatters
are here so perplexed, confused, and uncertain, that their
own ablest chronologists give over the reduction of them to
any certain form. Dionysius, of Halicarnassus, considers
Argolis as the most ancient of the Grecian kingdoms.  He
places the foundation of it a thousand years before that ot
Attica. Yet he makes the Arcadians, who boasted that they
were older than the moon, younger than the Athenians by
nine generations, that is, according to the Grecian computation, nearly three hundred years. What is still more remarkable, he makes Phthiotis under Ducalion younger than
these same Arcadians by forty-two generations, or more
than a thousand years.t  Most justly has Scaliger1 pronounced these accounts inconsistent and impossible. The
greater part of historians differ from Dionysius, in considering Sycion as the oldest of the Grecian states. Varro, as
we learn from Augustine,~ commenced his history with the
foundation of this kingdom. But here, too, the accounts are
confused  and  contradictory.  Pausanias gives a list of
Sycionian kings, without any succession of times among
them. Africanus and Eusebius differ from  Pausanias in
respect to these names.ll  But what is strangest of all i&
- Orig. Sac., B. 1, c. 6.  t Ibid.  $ De Hist. Grec.
Q De Civit. Dei, 1. 16, c. 2.!1 Orig. Sac. B. 1, c. 6.




164               COMMiENTARIES ON THE
that Adrastus, who is the twenty-third king of Sycion in the
list of Africanus, is said by Itomer* to have been the first.
So perplexed and uncertain is the account of ancient times
among the Greeks, before they began to reckon by olympiads. Not without the greatest reason does Diodorus deny
all certainty to the ancient Grecian history, assigning as the
cause the fact, that they had no certain term, from whence
to deduce their accounts.  -t is true, that the succession of
times and events becomes comparatively clear and consistent
after the system  of olympiads commenced. But this was
not, as Scaliger has clearly shown, -till the year 776 B.C.t
Such was the crude state of chronological knowledge in
the early ages. There would seem to have been no branch
of learning, in which the ancients were less skilled; and yet
there is no branch more essential to the exactness and
credibility of historical relations.
Another circumstance which tended, in no slight degree,
to the confusion and ambiguity of early profane history,
was the uncertain signification of the characters in which
the records were made. i' It is well known of the Egyptian
priests," says Stillingfleet,: " that the sacred characters of
their temples were seldom made known to any but such as
were of their own number and family, or such others as by
long converse had insinuated themselves into their society,
as some of the Greek philosophers and historians had done.
That the Phenician priests had their peculiar and sacred
characters too, is evident from the words of Philo IByblius
concerning Sane1honiathlon, if we take Bochart's exposition
of them. He tells us, that his h'story was compared with
the inscriptions in the temples, written in Ammunean
letters, which are known to few. The same author tells us,
out of Diogenes Laertius, of a book of Democritus concerning the sacred characters in Babylon, by which it is evident,
* Ill. 1. 2.           t De Emend. Temp., 1. 5.; Orig. Sac., B. 1, c. 5.




LAWS OF THE ANCrENT HEBREWS.            165
that tle Babylonian priests had their sacred characters too;
and also of a testimony of Theodoret in respect to all the
Grecian temples, that they had some peculiar characters,
which were called sacred. But that learned author thinks,
that there is no necessity of understanding it peculiarly of
the Grecians, because the Greek  fathers called all the
heathens by the name of Greeks; but if so, the testimony is
larger, and amounts to an universal testimony of the heathen
temples."
The third general argument to evince the want of credibility in the history of the most ancient times, is drawn from
the manifest partiality of the historians to their respective
countries, and their inconsistency with each other.
It requires but a slight acquaintance with the historical
writers of antiquity to be convinced, that a chief object of almost every one of them was to enhance the glory of his own
country, and that too many of them were little scrupulous as
to the means by which that end should be attained.  Hence
the high-sounding claims to antiquity pat forth by the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Greeks, and various other nations. The errors, inconsistencies, contradictions, and mutual charges of
deception, of which the historians are guilty. have already
abundantly appeared in our preceding inquiries. These, if it
were necessary, might be still further evinced by a comnparison of what has been written  by AManetho, Herodotus,
Diodorus, and Eratosthenes concerning the Egyptian History;
by Herodotus, Diodorus, and Africanus concerning the Assyrian history; by Herodotus and Clesias concerning the
Persian history; and by all the Greeks concerning themselves.
The want of credibility in the ancient histories, on this par
ticular ground, is strikingly set forth by the learned British
antiquary, Bishop Richardson.*  Ite says, that, after a diligent study of the History of Persia, as written by native
Persian authors on the one hand, and by the Greek historians
* Observatioml on Ezekiel cited in Hale's Analysis of Chronology.




166                C0MSIMENI IRIES ON THE
on the other, he was scarcely able to recogni'ze any identity
between their respective accounts.
Thus much to show the uncertainty of early profane histories.  What credit can such vague, confused, and contradictory reports have with intelligent and candid readers, when
their statements conflict with those of sacred history? The
credibility of the historians on doubtful points is quite
destroyed by their evident inability to give an authentic account of the earliest times; by the confusion, inconsistency,
and ambiguity of the accounts, which they have given; and
by their manifest and blinding partiality  to themselves.
To demonstrate the credibility of the Mosaic history, as contained in the Pentateuch, will be the object of the following
chapter.
CHAPTER  IV.
Credibility of Moses as an Historian.
I PROCEED to the execution of the design announced at the
close of the last chapter, viz.: to evince the trustworthiness
of the Mosaic history.  Moses was an historian, as well as a
lawgiver; and it concerns us to settle his credibility in that
character. If his testimony cannot be relied on, if his commonwealth, like the utopian republics of Plato, Harrington,
and More, be but an ingenious romance, though the study of
it may amuse an idle hour, it becomes comparatively valueless, as a practical guide in legislation.
There is an antecedent probability, that the supreme ruler
of the world should have caused an authentic history of the
first ages to be written.* It is reasonable to suppose, that
* See on this subject Stillingf. Orig. Sac. B. 2, c. 1.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREW S.           167
events, so remarkable and important as those contained in the
Pentateuch, should not always be left to the uncertainty of
oral tradition, but should be embodied in permanent records,
to be preserved to the memory of posterity. That a firm belief as to future events, —a point of no little importance to
mankind,-be established, it must be settled in our belief, that
all past events have been managed by divine providence.
Upon what basis can such a conviction rest, other than that
of some credible record of former ages? Without something
of this kind, the mind of man will be at sea upon an ocean of
uncertainties. And, as it is antecedently probable, that God
would cause such a record to be made, it is, in like manner,
antecedently probable, that he would cause it to be made in
such form, that it might be conveyed, with equal certainty,
to the whole race of mankind. It must, therefore, be held
agreeable to reason, that God should have employed some
suitable person to write an authentic history of his dealings
with men, during the primitive ages of the world.
The question now before us is, did God, in point of fact, cause
such a record to be made?  And this question branches itself
out into two others, viz.': First, is Moses the author of the books,
which commonly go under his name? Secondly, is the history contained in these books, worthy of credit? Is it a
credible account of the events which it narrates? It is the
purpose of the present chapter to assert and prove the affirmiative of these questions.
Beyond a reasonable doubt, Moses is the author of the
history, commonly ascribed to him. Here, it is proper to observe, that we must not look for evidence of this fact, different,
either in kind or degree, from  that which the matter to be
proved admits.*  It would be unreasonable to demand mathematical demnonstration, in a matter admitting only that kind
of proof, which is called moral certainty.  Does any man
question the fact, that Euclid is the author of the geometry,
* Ibid B. 2, D. 1.




168               COMMENTARIES ON THE
going under his name, merely because a proposition, affirming such authorship, cannot be established by a demonstration, similar to those which he  employs in proving his
theorems   All the hellebore in the three Anticyrae would
not suffice to cure such a person. In point of fact, the
weightiest actions of men's lives are, for the most part, based
upon no other foundationr, than this moralcertainty.  Why do
I invest thousands of dollars in the purchase of a certain estate? Because I believe, on inoral evidence, that the title is
good. Why am I braving the perils of the deep in a firail
bark, for purposes of gain, or health, or pleasure? Because I
am morally certain, that there are such places as London,
Paris, Naples, Calcutta, and  Canton. Indeed, we must
either deny altogether, that there is any such thing as historical
verity, or we must admit, that moral certainty is a valid
ground of assent to historical relations.
We arenot now inquiring into the divine legation of Moses,
that is, whether he was commissioned and inspired of God,
in the giving of his laws, and the writing of his history. That
question will form  the subject of a future chapter in this
treatise.  In an inquiry into a written divine revelation,
there are two distinct questions to be considered, viz. first,
whether the writing be genuine and authentic, that is, whether
it was written by the person  whose name it bears, and
whether it relate matters of fact, as they actually occurred;
and, secondly, whether the matters recorded are of true divine
revelation.*  If we would avoid plunging into an inextricable labyrinth, we must carefully attend to this distinction,
when we seek, either to understand for ourselves, or to explain to others, the ground of a belief, that any particular
writing is the word of God. The first of these points,-viz.
the genuineness and authenticity of the MIosaic record, —is the
special subject of our present inquiry.
In conducting this investigation, the first proposition to be
* Stillingfleet's Orig. Sac. B. 2, c. 1.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            169
proved, is that the history contained in the Pentateuch is,
undoubtedly, the composition of Moses.
Here the reader's attention is called, at the outset, to the
nature and form of this writing. Two distinct elements are
observable in it; —one, a set of laws forming a complete
ecclesiastical and civil code; the other, an historical detail of
the principal events, connected with the promulgation of the
laws.* The two elements are combined in a manner quite
extraordiniary. The laws do not stand insulated by themselves, neither are they embodied in a systematic form, like
the institutes of Lycurgus, or the pandects of Justinian. But,
however paradoxical the assertion may seem, they are both
separated and connected by the historical narrative. " It is a
code of laws in a fiame of history."t  There are continual
transitions from  history to law, and from law  to history.
They are everywhere grafted, the one into the other; and
there is such a mutual connexion and dependence, that the
two parts seem to grow together, like the several branches
of a tree. It is material to keep this fact in memory, as important use will be made of it, in the progress of this arguinent. With this preliminary observation, I proceed to exhibit the proof of the proposition now in hand, viz.: that
Moses is the author of the books commonly attributed to him.
The argument here is similar to that which would be employed in evincing the genuineness of any other ancient writing. Letit be proposed, for example, to prove the genuineness
of Coesar's Commentaries; and let the most acute deist or rationalist frame his proofs to establish the fact, that Cesar is
the author of that writing. Every one of them, mutatis mutandis, would be pertinent in an argument to prove that
Moses is the author of the Pentateuch. Nor would this even
exhaust the proof; for, superadded to all the considerations
that could be adduced in support of the former of these prop* Edwards' W-orks, v. 9, pp. 130, seqq.
t Bib. Rep Jan. 1848.




170               COMMENTARIES ON THE
ositions, are several new and distinct topics of arguments,
of invincible force in favor of the latter.
In the general argument evincing the credibility of iMoses
as an historian, the second proposition to be proved is, that
his narrative is authentic as well as genuine, that is to say,
its statements are in accordance with fact and reality. In
other words, the history was not only written by Mioses, but
it contains a true relation of events really occurring, and set
forth as they occurred.
The attributes of genuineness and authenticity are not always found united in the same work. The history of Telenachus, by Fenelon, is a fictitious narrative, but it was written by the man whose name it bears; it is, therefore, genuine,
but not authentic. The book, entitled Travels of All Bey, is
a true account of a journey through several eastern countries,
by a European scholar, under an assumed name; it is therefore, authentic, but not genuine. The genuineness and
authenticity of the Pentateuch, however, are inseparable attributes. The former involves the latter. They  are so
interwoven and blended together, that, although they may be
separated in thought, they may be most conveniently
considered in connexion. They will, therefore, be so treated
in the following inquiries.
Let us first examine the external testimony, by which the
truth and genuineness of the Mosaic history are supported.
That the Pentateuch existed in its present form, from the
close of the Babylonish captivity to the coming of Christ, that
it was written by Mfoses, and that it contained a true record of
the transactions and occurrences, which it relates, is the voice
of all antiquity. The first question to be considered, then, is,
whether the book was compiled from vague and indistinct
traditions, on the return of the Jews out of their captivity,
and palmed upon the nation, as the genuine work of their
ancient lawgiver? Various considerations might be urged to
show the falsity of this suspicion; but I shall confine myself




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT IEBREWS.           171
to three, both for the sake of brevity, and because they are in
themselves decisive.
The first consideration, showing that the Pentateuch was
not compiled at the close of the captivity, is the fact, that the
book of the law of Moses was a thing by no means unknown
to the Jews, during the captivity. Distinct and repeated
allusions are made to it in the prophecies of Daniel. See
Dan. vi. 5; ix. 10-13; xi. 22-32. From the first of these passages it is manifest, that the law of Moses was known to the
heathen themselves; and from all, that the Jews, at least the
better informed among them, were quite familiar with it.
The publicity, nay, even the notoriety, which the book of the
law had obtained among the heathen, is still more apparent
from the letter of Artaxerxes, authorizing Ezra to go up to
Jerusalem  at the head of such of his countrymen as were
willing to accompany him, to reform the government and
beautify the temple and city of their fathers: " Artaxerxes,
king of kings, unto Ezra the priest, a scribe of the law of the
God of heaven.               A *  *  0. According to the law of thy
God, which is in thine hand. *  *  *  +. And thou, Ezra,
after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people, that are
beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and
teach ye them that know them not."  See the whole letter of
Artaxerxes to Ezra, (Ez. vii. 12-26) of which the above passages are but brief citations. From the prophecies of HIaggai (ii. 11-13,) it appears, that the priests in Jerusalem had
the book of the law, before Ezra came to them, in virtue
of his commission from the great king; even when they
first came out of the captivity. The same may be inferred
from a statement contained in Ezra iii. 2. It is also quite
clear, that, not more than a dozen or fifteen years after Ezra
first went up to Jerusalem, Nehemiah, then cup-bearer to the
great king in Shushan, or Susa, was well acquainted with the
book of the law of Moses. See Nlheh. i. 7-9. From all this,




172              COMMENTARIES ON THE
two things are plain —st, that a writing under the name of the
book of the law of Moses, existed and was widely known,
both among Jews and heathen, during the captivity; and
2ndly, that Ezra enjoyed an extensive and distinguished reputation, as " a ready scribe" in that law. Such a reputation,
it is well known, is of slow growth, and is long in coming to
that breadth and height, which the fame of Ezra had evidently reached. Either of these considerations would prove, much
more do both together evince, that the copy of the law, which
Ezra took with him to Jerusalem, and which became the basis
of his numerous and salutary governmental reforms, could not
have been a writing, forged out of his own brain, or even
compiled by him from floating and uncertain historical traditions.
The second proof, on which I rely to establish the same
conclusion, is of still greater strength. It is the fact, that the
code, which Ezra enjoined, and which the people received,
so far from containing only such provisions, as were suited
to the temper and agreeable to the wishes of the nation,
required sacrifices, of the gravest and most painful kind;
sacrifices, which no wise governor would have ventured to
impose, and no people would have consented to make, but
in obedience to a law, whose authority was beyond dispute.*
To instance only one particular of this sort. The law forbade intermarriages, on tle part of the Jews, with idolatrous nations.  This prohibition had been infringed in
~urmerous instances, during the dispersion of the Jews.t
Ezra, armed with the authority of what claimed to be the
code of Mloses, entered upon the reformation of the national
manners in this respect, with a boldness and zeal worthy of
the occasion and of himself.: The greatest alarm and consternation seized upon all classes, on discovering the vast
numbers involved in the transgression, and the high rank
* Graves on the Pent. Pt. 1, Lect.
i Ez. ix. 1, 2; x. 13.           $ Ez. ix. 3, seq.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          173
of many of the offenders; for many of the priests, Levites,
and princes of the congregation were among them.* Nevertheless, the history informs us, that Israel, with one voice,
said, "Let us make a covenant with our God, to put away
all the strange wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at
the commandment of our God, and let it be done according
to the law."t A commission was, accordingly, appointed to
investigate the matter, and the inquiry proved to be of such
extent, in consequence of the multitude of persons involved
in the guilt, that three months were consumed in the prosecution of it.: Does this seem like obedience to a code of
doubtful authority? Has it the air of submission to a newly
formed compilation of traditionary laws? Would any sane
man invent or forge such a statute, under the circumstances,
and if there had existed a degree of folly, equal to such an
attempt, could it have met with any response, other than
that of scorn and contempt? In a word, this fact seems to
me a decisive proof, that the code, received and acknowledged by the Jews, on their return out of captivity, was the
identical code, received and acknowledged by them, before
the dissolution of their government; and that it was not then
invented, modified, compiled, or recast, but was embodied in
the well known and authentic records of the state, i. e. in
the Pentateuch, as we now have it.
There is still a third argument, in support of the same
view, of greater cogency, than either of the foregoing ones.
It is well known, that a bitter enmity existed between the
Jews and the Samaritans, from the very beginning of the
captivity down through all the subsequent history of the
nation. It would be in contradiction of every principle of
human nature to suppose, that the Samaritans would receive,
as authentic, a law and a history, invented or compiled by the
JTews, so long after the commencement of the original feud.
* Ez. x. 1, 9.   t Ez. x. 3.     $ Ez. x. 16, 17.




174               COMMENTARIES ON THE
Yet, what was the code of the Samaritans? The Pentateuch,
the whole Pentateuch, and nothing but the Pentateuch.
This was always held by them to be the genuine work of
Moses; was received as true and authentic; and was reverenced as of divine original and authority. Could there
be a more certain proof, could mathematical demonstration
itself more indubitably establish the fact, that the copy of the
law, used by Ezra, was not a writing forged by him, and
foisted upon his countrymen, as tile original and genuine
production of their ancient lawgiver?
But Ezra did not go up to Jerusalem, till seventy-nine
years after the edict of Cyrus, and the first return of the Jews
to their own country. It may, therefore, be pretended, that
the Pentateuch was compiled by the Jews at Jerusalem,
during the interval, which elapsed between their first return
and the coming of Ezra. This hypothesis is encompassed
with even greater difficulties than the other; for it has all that
belonged to that in fill force, accompanied by some others,
peculiar to itself. The three considerations brought forward
above, and insisted on as overthrowing the supposition, that
Ezra forged the Pentateuch, are as decisive against the supposition, that it was compiled or invented by the Jews, previously to his coming to them. But, superadded to these
considerations are the following ones, which are pertinent
here, and of invincible force. The returned Jews in Jerusalem had a copy of the book of the law, as appears from
the prophecies of Haggai,* which were delivered thirty-six
years, before Ezra went up to that city. But Ezra, a noted
scribe in the law of Mloses in ]Babylon, went up to Jerusalem, with the express design of teaching the people there
this very law;t and the copy, which he used, he did not
receive from his brethren in the holy city, but carried it up
with him in his hand.: If the copy in possession of the
Jews had been forged or compiled by them, it would
* Hag. ii. 11-13.    t Ez. vii. 25.: Ez. vii. 14, 25.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           175
necessarily have differed from that carried up by Ezra. But
there is not the slightest token of any such difference, nor
any trace of the conflict, which must have ensued, upon the
discovery of it. On the contrary, princes, priests, Levites,
and people receive Ezra's copy of the law, as of unquestionable authority, and submit to it without opposition, though
such submission, as we have seen, involved sacrifices the
most distressing, on the part of great numbers of the people,
many of whom  were of high rank and authority.  But
again: Seventeen years subsequent to Ezra's commission
from  Artaxerxes to go up to Jerusalem, Nehemiah was
deputed by the same prince to follow him as governor of
Judea.* I-Ie also, it is quite apparent, possessed and carried
with him a copy of the law of MIoses, distinct from both the
others, and derived from neither, but from an independent
source.t Yet there was no discrepancy or conflict between
them. The three copies appear to have agreed in every
particular. Ezra, Nehemiah, and the princes of the people
went on harmoniously, as well as zealously, in the work of
civil and ecclesiastical reform;-a reform of great breadth
and thoroughness, since it embraced the following specifications: —the engagement of the people in a solemn covenant
to walk in God's law, as given by Mloses; the renunciation
and avoidance of all intermarriages with idolatrous nations;
the rigid sanctification of the Sabbath; the observance of
the sabbatical year and the non-exaction of debts therein;
the payment of a tax of a third of a shekel yearly for the
service of the temple; the bringing of the first-fruits of the
ground, of their sons, and of their cattle, to the house of the
Lord; and the giving of tithes to the priests and Levites
of all the proceeds of the land.t These details cover no
inconsiderable part of the Pentateuch, as we now have it;
and the fact, that the three independent copies of the law
under consideration concurred in them, shows both that
* Neh. ii. 8.     t Neh. i. 7-9.: Neh. x. 29-37.




176              COMMENTARIES ON THE
those copies must have had a common source, and that
neither of them could have been compiled at or subsequently
to the time of the first return of the Jews out of their captivity. Mloreover, it is certain, that, in the time of Esther,
who became queen of Persia the very year, in which Ezra
was commissioned to go up to Jerusalem, the entire people
of the Jews, dispersed throughout the vast extent of the
Persian empire, agreed, without controversy or any difference of opinion, in acknowledging one and the same law;
and this fact was notorious to the heathen themselves.*
This alone is a demonstrative proof of the existence of the
book of the law, before the dispersion, in the same form, as
it existed during the continuance and at the close of the
captivity; for, how could any one part of this widely scattered people forge a code of laws, and embody it in a fictitious or newly compiled history, and get all the rest to
acknowledge both, as genuine and authentic? But further
still: some of the persons, present at the laying of the
foundation of the second temple, had seen the first in all its
glory; and therefore must have lived before the captivity,
and must have known the laws and customs of their nation
at that time.t Now, could these persons have been imposed
upon by any attempt to fabricate, as the public code of the
national religion and government, a compilation till then
wholly unknown? If the book, now put forth as the old,
well known, and genuine law of M[oses, had been a new
made code, with all the history foisted in by some daring
hand, would they not certainly have known, and as certainly
have exposed, with scorn and indignation, the fraudulent
proceeding? There cannot be a doubt of it, in any fair and
reasonable mind.
Wherefore, I must hold it for proved, that the Pentateuch,
which we now have, is the same book and in the same form,
as the Pentateuch of the Jews, previously to the Babylonish
* Esth. iii. 8.                  t Ez. iii. 12.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          177
captivity. This brings us up to nearly six hui dred years
before the Christian era.
A train of reasoning, not unlike the foregoing, will establish the existence of the Pentateuch, in its present form, at
the time of the separation of the tribes and the formation of
the two kingdloms of Judah and Israel, through the obstinate
fatuity of the son and successor of Solomon. From that
point, the interests of these two kingdoms lay in diverging
lines; and we find it to have been the steady policy of the
kings of Israel to alienate their people, as far as possible,
from the religion and worship of Judah; a policy adopted
by the very first of these monarchs,* and pursued by him
and his successors, with unscrupulous boldness.  To the
prosecution of this policy, the Pentateuch interposed the
most formidable obstacle. It set itself, in the strongest and
most direct manner, against the design of these sovereigns.
Now, on the supposition of the truth of the hypothesis,
which assigns a date to the compilation of the Pentateuch,
subsequent to the separation of the tribes, the kings of
Israel would certainly know, that the book was not in existence at the time of the separation; they would certainly
know when and for what intent it was compiled; and they
and all their people would certainly have rejected it, as the
most barefaced, clumsy, and ridiculous attempt at imposition,
ever engendered in the teeming brain of human folly. If,
then, it appear, that the Israelitish monarchs, and the people
whom they ruled, acknowledged the Pentateuch as the common code of the whole nation, before the separation, such
acknowledgement, on their part, must be held to be the
clearest possible proof of its existence, at the time when that
event occurred, in the same form, in which it was found at
the commencement of the captivity. That they did recognize
its genuineness and authority, there is evidence sufficient to
satisfy every candid inquirer. For,
*1 Kings xii. 26-33.
12




178                COMMENTARIES ON TIHE
In the first place, if they opposed and rejected the authority of the Pentateuch, every trace of such opposition and
rejection has disippeared from  the records of history. As
such a thing is scarcely within the range of possibilities,
this must be regarded as a negative proof, of no inconsiderable force. Secondly, at the very tinme when the kings of
Israel were seeking to undermine the influence of the Pentateuch, and  to  destroy its authority, they  studiously
imitated, in their idolatrous worship, the festivals, fasts,
sacrifices, and various rites of that very code. Thus it is
said of Jeroboam, that he " ordained a feast in the eighth
month like unto the feast which is in Judah."'-   They carefully preserved the forms of the ritual, while they as carefully sought to rob them  of all. their true power and worth.
Nothing could be more natural than such a procedure, on
the part of the politic princes, who knew, that their subjects
had been long accustomed to reverence and obey the code,
as of divine original; nothing more unnatural and even
insane, on the supposition, that it was an imposition, flagrant
in itself, and injutrious to their interests. Thirdly, an incident occurred in the reign of Hezekiah, which not only
affords a full testimony to the authenticity of the Pentateuch
itself, and the acknowledged authority of the laws contained
in it, but which also incontestibly proves, that the kingdom
of Israel, not less than the kingdom of Judah, recognized it,
as containing the genuine and authoritative record of the law
of Moses, the national code of the whole Jewish race. That
monarch, in his pious zeal for the restoration of a pure worship according to the Mosaic ritual, with the minutest requirements of which he sedulously complied, appointed a solemn
passover, to which he not only invited his own subjects, but
made proclamation also "to Ephraim  and }Manasseh and all
Israel, from B1eersheba unto Dan, that they should come to the
house of the Lord at Jerusalem, to keep the passover unto the
* I Kings xii. 32.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            179
Lord God of Israel."* In this proclamation he exhorted the
ten tribes to turn again to the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, and not to trespass and be stiff-necked as their
fathers were, but to yield themselves to the Lord, and enter
into his sanctuary.t " So the posts passed from city to city,
through the country of Ephraim  and ifanasseh, even unto
Zebulun."+  WYTould any prince, not bereft of reason, have
ventured upon such a procedure, if the authority of the code,
on which it was founded, had not been acknowledged by the
persons, to whom the proclamation was made? The success of
the measure was exactly such as might have been anticipated,
on the supposition of such acknowledgement; but wholly
inexplicable, on any other. Many, through an impiety and
contempt, engendered by long neglect, mocked at the messengers of tIlezekiah; but many others of the revolted tribes
"humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem."~ Is not this
a clear proof, that the authenticity and authority of the
Pentateuch were recognized by those tribes? But, fourthly,
strong as this argument is, there is another still more
cogent. Let it be remembered, that the kingdom of Israel
existed as an independent state for 268 years, at the close of
which period it was subverted by the Assyrians, and many
of the people carried into captivity. The Samaritans succeeded'to t'-ellc ten tribes. They were a mixed race, composed
partliy of Isaelites, and partly of foreigners, whom the king
of Assyria had sent to occupy the lands of those who had
been removed. Now, upon the supposition, that the ten
tribes, during their separate existence, rejected the Pentateuch, what is the state of the case?  Why, that for 268
years the Israelites combatted, as a known forgery, and
then all at once their descendants and successors received,
and ever afterwards acknowledged, as of divine original and
authority, the code )f another nation, between whoml and
* 2 Chl. xxx. 1.             t 2 Chr. xxx. 7, 8.
$ 2 Chr. xxx. 10.? 2 Chr. xxx. 10, 11.




80               COB[MMENTARIES ON THE
themselves, b(dh before and after the reception of it, the
bitterist enmity always existed; and yet, that every trace of
their original and long continued rejection of the code has
taded fromr the memory of mankind, and been obliterated
from the records of history. He who can believe that, is
prepared to swallow  the greatest conceivable absurdities,
prov;ided only they be thought to impugn and weaken the
authority of divine revelation.
AWVherefore, I conceive it to be proved, that the Pentateuch
existed, in its present form, at the separation of the tribes and
the formation of the two independent kingdoms of Judah and
Israel, which event happened 979 years before the birth of
our Savior.
Let us advance a step higher. What reason is there to believe, that the composition of the Pentateuch is at least as
old as the establishment of kingly government among the
Hebrews? Dean Graves has suggested an argument in support of this view, which seems to carry with it an unanswerable force.*  The argument is, that the civil form of government, exhibited in the Pentateuch, is not regal. So far from
this, it notices the regal form as an innovation, which should
be introduced in an age subsequent to the establishment of
the original polity; an innovation, too, far from being pleasing to God. But further and stronger still: The code of the
Pentateuch imposed numerous restraints upon the kings,
which abridged their prerogative, curbed their power, and put
fetters upon their ambition. Moreover, it required, that the
reigning sovereign should keep always by him a copy of the
law, imposing these stern and irksome restraints; that he
should consult it daily; and that he should make it the steady
rule of his private life and his public administration.t  Now,
if the Pentateuch was forged or compiled, after the establishment of the regal form of government and during its continnance, this must have been done, either, first, by the king
* On the Pent., Pt. 1, Lect. 1.  f Deut. xvii. 16, seq.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           181
himself, or at his instigation; or, secondly, by some person,
or persons, who probably wished to weaken his authority, and
curb his ambition. It is impossible, that the latter supposition should be true, for whoever happened to be king at the
time, when the fabrication was made, would certainly know
the real character of the writing; and would, with equal certainty, reject it. And the former supposition is so improbable, that it cannot for a moment be admitted, without direct
and irrefragable proof of its truth; for what king ever did, or
would, make a fictitious code of laws, which condemned the
kingly form of government, which rebuked and denounced
all regal tyranny, and which confined the royal prerogative
within the narrowest compass compatible even with the name
of king a This is an improbability so great, that it may well
be regarded as amounting to a moral impossibility. This is
a decisive answer to the argument of those who hold, that
the Pentateuch was first compiled in the reign and by the
authority of kilng Josiah. It is equally decisive against another suspicion, entertained by some, that Samuel was the
author of it. Let it be remembered, that, when the people
asked a king of Samuel, he opposed their demand, on the
ground, that the appointment of a man to be king would be
a rejection of Jehovah as their sovereign; he painted, in
vivid colors, the oppressions, to which they would be subjected, under the regal government; he told them, that they were
rushing into a servitude, which would prove intolerably burdensome; he warned them to desist in time, for that they
would assuredly repent of their rashness; and, when he found
all his remonstrances unavailing, he labored to impose restraints upon the future sovereigns, which would at least mitigate, if they did not avert, the mischiefs, which he apprehiended from their rule.*  Is it credible, that Samuel would
have ventured upon such a course, if he had not felt himself
entrenched behind the authority of a code, revered by the
* 1 Sam. viii. 11-18.




182               COMMENTARIES ON THE
people ae the work of their ancient lawgiver?  Or, if he had
fabricated the Pentateuch, would not the imposition have
been detected by Saul, who was at bitter enmity with the
prophet during a great part of his reign, and was a man by
no means wanting in the requisite ability?  And still more,
would not Solomon, the monarch famed in every age and region of the world for his wisdom and sagacity, have penetrated and exposed the odious cheat; Solomon, who, in so many
instances, flagrantly violated the law of MIoses, and must have
felt his fame wounded by its stern and indignant rebuke?*
Wherefore, there is no reason to doubt, and every reason to
believe, that the Pentateuch existed in its present form, prior
to the establishment of kingly government among the Hebrews.
We have now reached a very high antiquity in our argument, anid are come within 400 years of the foundation of the
Hebrew state, according to the chronology of Usher, or within 500 yearn, according to that of Josephus, Jackson, and
Russel.t Throughout all this period, the peculiar polity, established by Moses, was in force. No occasion arose for the
invention or compilation of a new code. No special interest
can be conceived, likely to be promoted by such a fabrication.
And no man, or body of men, appears upon the stage, of an
influence and authority sufficient to ensure its reception
among the people. It is true, that during this period the Israelites often transgressed the law, and thereby brought upon
themselves grievous calamities; but they as often repented
of their sin, owned the justice of their punishment, and returned to their former obedience. Would a fabricated code
be likely to secure such respect and submission? It cannot
be pretended. "That prosperity should corrupt a nation, is
credible; that calamity should rouse them to repentance, is
also credible; but that they should ascribe their calamities to
the violation of a law, whose authority they had never ac* Graves on Pent. Pt. 1, Lect. 1.  t Smith's Heb. People, C. 3.




LAWS OF THE ANCIEN'T HEBREWS.          183
knon-ledged, and that, in the midst of vice and corruption,
a new code should be fabricated, condemning that vice and
corruption, and be imposed upon the nation as the known
law of their fathers, without opposition, is surely most improbable and strange."*
Thus have we traced back the Pentateuch, all along the
stream of history, to the age of Moses himself. From these
facts and reasonings, the conclusion seems fully warranted,
that such as we have it now, such it came from the hand of
that illustrious law giver, historian, and prophet.
But strong as the foregoing proofs are, they do not constitute the whole strength of even the external evidence.
The Pentateuch is not the only book belonging to the sacred
literature of the Jews. There are numerous other tracts,
some of them of no inconsiderable compass, written by a
great number of authors, embracing a great variety of subjects, and composed at different times along a tract of more
than a thousand years, reaching from Moses to Malachi.
Now all these manifold writings are crowded with allusions,
quotations, and abridged histories, taken out of the Pentateuch.t  These references and citations are thickly scattered
throughout the whole of the Old Testament. There is hardly
one important statement in the Pentateuch, there is scarcely
a chapter from the beginning of Genesis to the end of
Deuteronomy, which is not in this manner referred to or
cited. Many of the places are mentioned very often, and
the citations are of great length, and embrace a great
number of minute details.  The references are to the
creation; the first marriage; man's dominion over the
creatures; the grant of herbs and plants for meat; the
garden of Eden; the violation of the covenant; the curse
denounced against Adam and the serpent; the flood;
Noah's character; the residence of the ancestors of the
Jews beyond the Euphrates; numerous particulars in the
* Graves on Pent. Pt. 1 Lect. 1. t Edwards's Works, v. 9. pp. 132, seqq.




184                COMMENTARIES ON THE
lives of Abraham and the other patriarchs; }Melchizedek as
both a king and a priest of the true God d; the great fertility
of the land of Sodom, and the great wickedness of the inhabitants; the sudden destruction by fire of the cities of the
plain; the two wives of Jacob as building the house of Israel;
all the leading events in the life of Joseph; Tamar's bearing
Pharez to Judah; the famine that compelled Israel and his
family to seek bread in Egypt; the Israelites multiplying
there, and the Egyptians dealing subtilly with them; their
bondage in Egypt; the kind of service required of them;
the circumstances attending their egress out of Egypt, their
wanderings in the wilderness, and their settlement in the land
of Canaan, with hardly a single exception; and other particulars recorded in the Pentateuch, too numerous to specify.*
Now, upon this state of the case I argue thus: Here we
have innumerable references to the facts contained in the
Pentateuch; references made by many different writers, in
may different ages.  Hence the Israelitish nation must have
had, from  the origin of their commonwealth, a great, standing, and authoritative record of these facts; and this record
must have been the Pentateuch itself.  For, if there had
been no such history to serve as the common guide of all
these authors, it must have been morally impossible for them,
in such a vast number of allusions and quotations, and these
extending to such a multitude of minute details, to avoid innumerable inconsistencies with each other. And, even if we
may suppose the existence of the tracts independently of the
history, can we believe that the wit of man is equal to the task
of framing a fictitious history, in which all these manifold
references, citations, and rehearsals, dispersed through the
works of so many authors, writing for so many different objects,
and in so many different styles and ages, should be introduced
* See these references drawn out in full, covering many pages in the 9th
volume of President Edwards's Works, in his Notes on the Bible, pp. 133142.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          185
and harmonized without a single jar, and with such an air of
verisimilitude and originality, that all the world should mistake the fabrication as the common fountain and source of
the very books, out of which it was formed? Can there be
any absurdity equal to the absurdity of such a supposition?
Consider! "All these multiplied and various compositions
unite in presupposing the existence and the truth of the Pentateuch, and uniformly refer to and quote it as the only true and
genuine account of the ancient history and known laws of the
Jews. They recite its facts; they refer to its laws; they celebrate its author; they appeal to the people, to the kings, to
the priests; they rebuke and threaten them for neglecting the
law of Moses, as contained in the Pentateuch; and, what is
most decisive, they never once give the least hint of any rival
law, of any new compilation, of any doubt as to its authenticity."~
Such is the argument, embodying the external historical
proofs of the genuineness and authenticity of the Pentateuch.
The sum is this. The evidence for the existence of this writing, all along down from the return of the Jews out of captivity to the present time is so strong, that none dispute it. At
this point we enter upon debated territory. Yet the Pentateuch could not have been bompiled at this time, but must
have been the same writing, which the Jews received as the
law of IMoses before the captivity, because it was evidently
well known both to Jews and heathen during the captivity;
because the law enforced by Ezra required sacrifices of the
people, to which they would never have submitted but in obedience to a code of established and unquestionable authority;
because many persons, who were present at the laying of the
foundation of the second temple, had seen the first, and must
have known the law then in use, and therefore could and
would have detected and exposed a fabricated code; because
three distinct copies of the writing can be traced, manifestly
* Graves on Pent. Pt. 1, Lect. 1.




1-86             COMMENTARIES ON THE
not borrowed from each other, yet all agreeing in their state.ments; and because the Samaritans, the bitter enemies of the
Jews, as well before as after the captivity, acknowledged it
as of divine original and authority. Again, our copy of the
Pentateuch must have existed prior to the division of the
tribes into the separate kingdoms of Israel and Judah, be.
cause the monarchs and people of the former, not less than
those of the latter, owned its authority as the code of the
whole Jewish race before that event, notwithstanding it was
repugnant to their interests as an independent state, and interposed the greatest obstacle to the peculiar policy, adopted
from the first and steadily pursued to the end by the Israelitish kings. Further, the Pentateuch, as we have it, must have
preceded the establishment of monarchy among the Hebrews,
because it not only does not exhibit a regal form of government, but expressly opposes that description of polity, noticing it as an innovaton that would arise in the progress of
ages, and seeking, by various admirable enactments, to counteract its innate tendencies to despotism and tyranny. And
further still, this venerable writing must be coeval with the
origin of the Hebrew state, because, during the interval
which elapsed between the first formation of the government
and the establishment of monarchy, no change was made in
the form of polity, no occasion arose for fabricating a code,
no conceivable interest could be promoted by such a procedure, and no man or body of men appear to have possessed
an influence sufficiently commanding to give currency to the
imposition. Superadded to all these considerations, is the
still more forcible fact, that a long catalogue of Jewish writers,
stretching from the age of Moses himself down to the birth
of Christ, have acknowledged and cited the Pentateuch, in
every possible form of acknowledgement and citation, as the
true and authentic history and code of their nation; and that,
among the many disputes and differences of opinion which
the Jews have had about the Mosaic law, there never was




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           187
any such dispute or difference as this, whether Moses was the
author of the writing, or whether it contained a credible account of the foundation and early annals of their state; even
the Sadducees, learned men and free-thinkers, who rejected all
the other books held sacred by their countrymen, acknowledging the Pentateuch as genuine and divine. The world
may be challenged to produce a chain of evidence, of equal
strength, in support of the genuineness and authenticity of
any other ancient writing.
Nor let it be objected, that the Pentateuch lacks confirmation from contemporaneous profane authors. If any such existed, their writings have long since perished. There is no
contemporary literature. Can we look for such testimony
from the Greeks? Thucydides* has declared, that even respecting his own countrymen he could find no authentic
records, prior to the Peloponesian war. Can we expect it
from the Romans? They had scarcely begun to be a people,
when the empire of Jerusalem was destroyed, and the nation
reduced to captivity. Not a fragment of any contemporaneous record has floated down the stream of time. Every other
chronicle has been swallowed up and lost in the gulf of ages.
Centuries elapsed after the exodus of Israel, before Homer,
or Hesiod, or Manetho, or Berous, or even Sanchoniathon
wrote. There are, therefore, no profane histories with which
to compare the Pentateuch. Its credibility must stand or
fall, on evidence entirely independent of either favoring or
opposing testimony of this kind. Yet such profane testimony
as the nature of the case admits, we have in several pagan
authors. Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Longinus, Juvenal, Tacitus, and others, mention Moses by name, and quote from his
writings, just as we appeal to any of these authors and their
works.
There is another species of external testimony to the genuineness and authenticity of the Pentateuch, by which these
* Lib. 1.




188              CCMMENTARIES ON THE
qualities, as pertaining to that writing, may be proved with
equal certainty. I refer to the argument from public monuments and actions. The strongest species of historical evidence lies in commemorative rites and festivals. No ingenuity of a false logic, no mystification of an insane philosophy,
no bitterness of malignity against unpalatable truths, no demoniac desire to overturn men's dearest hopes and aspirations, can either break or evade its force.
The nature and force of this evidence may be illustrated in
an example taken from our own history. On the 4th day of
July, 1i76, the British colonies of North America declared
themselves free and independent States. Ever since that
event, an annual festival has been observed to keep alive the
memory of it in the mind and heart of the nation. Let us
suppose the declaration of independence not to have been
made, nor a separation from Great Britain effected, nor a distinct government established, at that time. Could the festival have been instituted then?  Reason and common sense
reply: —" It is impossible."
Let it be supposed then, secondly, that these States have
continued to our day in the condition of British colonies, and
that some one starts up on the morning of the 4th of July,
1852, and summons the people to the celebration of the national jubilee, instituted, according to  his proclamation,
seventy-six years before, and ever since faithfully observed,
to commemorate an event, which by the hypothesis, never
occurred, viz.: the resolution of our forefathers to shake off
the yoke of British tyranny, and their subsequent victory
over British valor? Would any body believe him, or pay
the least attention to his summons? Such an hypothesis would,
if possible, be more absurd than the former. Let a man
make such an attempt with respect to Austria or Russia. Let
him undertake to persuade the people of those countries, that
a hundred years ago they raised the standard of revolution,
dethroned their sovereigns, and replaced their monarchical




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          189
with democratic institutions, and that ever since, they had
celebrated those vast achievements by commemorative festivals renewed from year to year. What would be the issue of
such an attempt? The author of it would either be laughed
at as a harmless fool, or pitied as a wretched maniac. No
words could set the absurdity of it in a more glaring light,
than the very terms in which the supposition itself must be
made.
It is, then, impossible, in the nature of things, that a national commemorative festival should ever arise, except upon
a basis of truth. Such an institution presupposes, involves,
and demonstrates the reality of the events, which it commemorates.
Were there, then, any public monuments among the Jews,
any national commemorative actions, coeval with the origin
of the Hebrew State, and des ned to preserve the memory
of the events recorded in the Pentateuch? Yes, such public
monuments and actions there were in great number. For
example, the passover; the pentecost; the feast of tabernacles;
the dedication of the first-born, both man and beast; the
consecration of one entire tribe to minister in holy things;
Aaron's rod that budded; the pot of manna; the brazen serpent; the pile of stones at Gilgal; the day of annual atonement;
the new moons; the sabbaths; and even the daily sacrifices.
So long, therefore, as each returning vernal equinox brings
anew into requisition the unleavened bread, so long as the
passover, the pentecost, and the day of atonement continue to
be celebrated by the scattered remnant of Jacob's sons; so
long, indeed, as there shall remain historical evidence of the
past existence of these and other Jewish festivals and monuments;-so long may we be sure of the reality of the events
which they commemorate.  So long may we be sure that
the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, and that they were delivered by the miraculous exertion of an almighty power. So
long may we be sure. that God divided the Red Sea for their




190              COMMENTARIES ON THE
accommodation; that he spake the law in thunder from Sinai; that for forty years he led the people by a cloudy and
fiery pillar, the never-failing symbol of his presence; that he
satisfied their hunger with bread that nightly fell around
their camp, the product of his creative energy; that he preserved from decay the garments that covered their nakedness;
that he parted the waters of Jordan and led them dry-shod
over its pebbly bottom; and that he finally planted them securely on the territories of their enemies and his, in the land
that he had promised to their fathers. On the national monuments and festivals of commemoration, we may plant our
faith in the truth and authority of the Pentateuch, as upon an
impregnable fortress; and the storms of an infidel philosophy
may spend their rage upon us in vain.
Having thus considered the two branches of external evidence, the testimony of history and the testimony of monuments, I pass to an examination of the internal evidence in
favor of the genuineness and authenticity of the Mosaic record.
Let it be observed here, in passing, that Moses was every way
qualified to write the history of the Pentateuch. IIe was, as
we have seen in the second chapter of this book, a man of solid
intellect, acute perceptions, calm judgment, great learning,
unparalleled disinterestedness, and much experience in public
affairs. In regard to every thing related in the last four books
of the Pentateuch, his knowledge was ample and exact, since
he was himself a chief actor in the transactions, which he records. The only doubt that can arise, as to the fullness of his
information, relates to the events of former times, contained
in the book of Genesis. Here, setting aside divine revelation,
and insisting only on what may be demanded in an uninspired historian, iMoses had sources of information more direct, copious, and reliable than were open to the most learned
of his contemporaries in other nations, not excepting the
Egyptians themselves. Lamech, the father of Noah, was fiftysix years contemporary with Adam, and Noah's son, Shem,




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           191
survived to the time of Abraham. Thus it appears, that this
patriarch received, or might receive, whatever knowledge
Adam conveyed to his posterity, through only three intermediate links. From his time, there was an unmixed lineal descent from father to son, in the Jewish nation, and consequently
an unbroken tradition of former times. The chief cause of
the confusion and uncertainty in the traditions of other nations,
was the frequent intermixture of families and races. But divine providence, as if purposely to satisfy mankind of the capacity of the Jewish nation to preserve the tradition of the
first ages entire, prohibited their mixture with the people of
other nations. From the time of Abraham, then, to that of
Moses, how easily and naturally might the general tradition
of the ancient history be preserved pure and authentic, when
the families, in which the tradition was lodged, all belonged
to the same nation, and were united by the bond of a common
religion, and for a considerable part of the time by the
scarcely less powerful tie of a common adversity.
The first internal proof of the genuineness and authenticity
of the Pentateuch is drawn from the nature of its contents.
This writing is not a mere history, but contains the entire
civil and ecclesiastical code of the Jews; it was the grand and
sacred rule, the constitution and foundlclation of theirY State.
And, so far as it is historical in its chariacter, thlie series of
events, which it records, is by no means of the common order;
neither did the events happen thousands of years before the
time of Moses; nor yet were they such, that his countrymen
would be likely to feel little or no interest in them, other than
the interest of mere curiosity. Quite the reverse of this was
the true state of the case. The facts themselves were most
extraordinary and conspicuous; they happened, for the most
part, under the immediate observation of the persons to whom
the relation was addressed; and they were of the deepest
moment, both to the nation at large and to every individual
in it. Now, if the Pentateuch is not what it purports to be,




192              COMMENTARIES ON THE
either it is a fictitious narrative and code, forged by Moses
himself, or it was compiled and palmed upon the nation as
his, in a subsequent age. Let it be considered, then, how
strange, how public, and how momentous the main facts nar.
rated in the Pentateuch wete, affecting every order in the
State, and every interest of society. And let it be considered,
further, how constantly Moses appeals for the truth of his relations, to the personal knowledge of those whom he addresses.
" Your eyes have seen all these things," is the confident tone
in which he speaks to his countrymen, and challenges a denial of his statements.
Suppose these relations to be false; could Moses, by any
possibility, have induced his countrymen to believe that they
were true?  Could he have made them believe, that they
had all been slaves in Egypt, and that a royal edict of destruction had been issued against their male infants, if they had
never experienced the bitterness of servitude, nor felt the
pangs, occasioned by the cruel mandate   Could he have
gained any credit to the statement, that they had wrought at
making bricks and building treasure-cities in Egypt, if they
had never groaned under the tyranny, which imposed these
tasks upon them? Could he have persuaded them, that the
first-born of the Egyptians had all been slain in a night, in
their very presence, as it were, if no voice of parental lamentation, consequent thereupon, had ever reached their ears?
Could he have made them believe, that the Red Sea had
opened to afford them a passage, if its waters had opposed an
invincible barrier to their progress  Could he have produced in them the conviction that the law of God had, in
their presence, been published in an audible voice, from the
summit of the burning mountain, if they had never seen the
flashes, nor heard the thunders that issued from the thick
darkness that enveloped it a Could he have induced the belief, that the violation of that law had been punished with
desolating plagues, if none of all their company had perished




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            193
by such a visitation? Could he have persuaded them, that,
during all their wanderings and encampments in the wilderness, a miraculous cloud had covered them by day, and a miraculous fire had illuminated their dwellings by night, if they
had experienced neither the cooling shelter of the one, nor
the pleasant companionship of the other? Could he have
made them believe, that for forty years they had been fed with
manna, which fell around their camp, while in reality they
had eaten nothing of the kind?
If we can suppose an effrontery, sufficient to publish such
a stupendous series of falsehoods, possible, and Moses to have
been guilty of it, could he have escaped the punishment,
which a conduct, unparalleled in guilt and folly, would have
richly deserved? WVere not the contemporaries of Moses
prone to transgress his laws? Did they not often fall into
idolatry?  HIad there been the least suspicion of imposture in
his writings, would the ringleaders in these revolts have declined so excellent a plea for their apostasies? Would not
the charge of forgery, made good against Moses, have afforded a solid ground for the rebellion of Korah and his company?
In short, is it to be imagined that, when there were so many
envious of his eminent position, and ready with the charge,
that he "took too much upon him," Moses would have adventured any thing into the public records, which was not indisputably true? Surely, the man who can digest such a mass
of absurdities, need never again open his lips to ridicule the
credulity of those who believe, with the magicians of Egypt,
that they see the finger of God in the wonders above detailed,
and hear the voice of God's messenger in the utterances of
the Hebrew prophet and lawgiver.
These considerations make it certain, that Moses himself
could not have palmed upon his countrymen a fictitious history and a forged code of laws. The fabrication, therefore,
if the Pentateuch be a fabrication, must belong to an age subsecluent to that of Moses. Let us assume this hypothesis, and
13




19&4              COnMMENTARIES ON THIE
subject it to the test of examination. Let us see whether it is
a probable supposition, or whether, on the contrary, it is not
encompassed with absurdities and impossibilities.
It is acknowledged, that forged writings have been repeatedly palmed upon the world; and, in some instances, with
temporary success. It is impossible to say, that in no case
has the design completely succeeded. But it is so difficult to
secure a perfect verisimilitude; it is so hard to avoid having
some allusion, date, or characteristic circumstance, nay, many
such, out of joint with the times, at which the forgery is
placed; it is so almost impossible to conceal all traces of the
particular design of the fabrication; and there have been so
many instances of detection, as to render it probable, that no
imposition of this kind has ultimately eluded discovery and
exposure. It is, besides, a consideration of no little force
here, that forged writings have usually been of such a nature
as not materially to affect the interests of mankind; —mere
literary productions, under the venerable name of some ancient author. But the Pentateuch, it must be remembered,
is a history of events the most extraordinary and important;
and not only so, but it exhibits also a constitution of civil government, and a complete body of ecclesiastical and municipal laws.
Now, by the hypothesis which we have assumed for the
sake of argument, this writing, with all its history, laws, constitutions, and minute and endless regulations, relating to persons, property, morals, crimes, sacrifices, public worship, and
all the diversified interests of society, is a forgery, invented
and compiled in an age posterior to that of Moses, foisted
upon the Jews as the authentic and genuine work of that
lawgiver, and so universally received, honored, and obeyed as
such, by the Jewish nation, that no record, tradition, fragment, or vestige of whatever lkind, of any other law, is now
in being; and the memory of such prior and different code,




LAWS OF THr ANCIENT HEBREWS.             195
if it ever existed, has entirely faded and disappeared from the
records of the human race.
Who, upon this hypothesis, were the persons that first published to the Jews this fictitious history and counterfeit law?
At what age did they live? When was the fabrication made,
and the cheat put upon the nation? Was it while the memory
of Moses's name and deeds was still recent, or afterwards?
Certainly not at the former period, for then all things were too
fresh in the recollection of men to admit the possibility of a
forgery of this nature. Moses himself might as readily have
played upon the credulity of his countrymen, as any of his
immediate or early successors.  Therefore, the imposition
must have been accomplished in an age long posterior to the
time of Moses. In that case, had the law exhibited in the
Pentateuch been observed before, or not? If not, then the
nation, at the time of its promulgation, would know it to be
a cheat, and would reject it as such. If it had been observed
before, had such observance been continually down fiom the
time of Mloses, or not?  If continually down, then the law
must have been of his framing, and the hypothesis falls to the
ground. If not continually down, then the nearer the forgery was to his time, the more difficult it would be of execution. For so the real institutions of Moses would be fresh in
men's memory, and they would be able to detect, and would
certainly repudiate, all counterfeits.*
Innumerable and insuperable difficulties press upon this
hypothesis. We have seen some of them; let us glance at
others.
If the Pentateuch is a fabrication, the author of it put a
key into the hands of those upon whom he sought to impose
it, which would enable them, with infallible certainty, to detect
the imposition. He makes the writing speak of itself as coin~ See the reasoning of this paragraph presented in a more extended form,
and with great power, in Still. Orig. Sac. B. 2, c. 1.




196               COMMENTARIES ON THE
posed by Moses;* he makes it say, that a copy was from the
first preserved in the ark;t and he makes it obligatcry on the
king to have a copy always by him.: Now, when the author
of this counterfeit history first brought it forward, it would be
known by all, that there was no copy in the ark; none in the
hands of the king; and none in the hands of any body else.
This shows, that the writing could not be a forgery, but must
have been the genuine work of Moses; for, if it had not been
his, its own declarations would have interposed an effectual
bar to its reception.
The Pentateuch vouches its own credibility by public actions, observed at stated times.~ It narrates various important events, and states, that, at the time when they occurred,
certain observances were instituted to preserve the memory of
them to posterity. For example, it relates the destruction of
the first-born of the Egyptians, and declares that to commemorate this event, the first-born of Israel, both of man and
beast, were forever afterwards to be consecrated to the Lord.~
Let us now recur to the hypothesis, that the Pentateuch is a
forgery. When the fabrication was first published, every
person in the nation must have known, that there was no such
rite or custom in existence among them, as the consecration
of the first-born to Jehovah. Yet this was as much a part of
the original matter of fact, as the destruction of the Egyptians.
VWould they not, then, knowing one essential part of the statement to be false, conclude the other to be false likewise, and
reject the whole as a fable, and one, too, of an extremely
clumsy construction?  If I were now to invent some strange
story about the first settlement of this country, I might perhaps gain some credit to the tale among weak-minded persons.
But if I were to add, that at the time when the alleged fact
took place, it was solemnly appointed tc be commemorated
* Deut. xxxi. 9.  t Deut. xxxi. 26.    ~ Deut. xvii. 18, 19.
i See " Leslie's Method with the Deists," on the argument from monuments.
Ex. xiii. 15.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          197
in all future time by indelibly branding a certain mark upon
the forehead of every male child, the most credulous person
in the world would laugh the story to scorn, because every
man he met would be a visible and standing confutation of it.
And if, not content with inventing a single fact, I should
fabricate a series of the most public and remarkable occurrences, vouch their credibility by an extended system of commemorative festivals and observances, and publish the whole
as an authentic history in the name of Christopher Columbus,
expecting to get it received as such by my countrymen,could any words sufficiently express the folly of such an attempt? One universal scream of ridicule would be the only
response it could meet.  Yet exactly such an attempt,absurd, incredible, impossible as it is,-a certain class of
writers would have us believe, was not only made, but succeeded, in the case of the Pentateuch.
But more and worse.  The Pentateuch is not a mere
history; it is a code of laws likewise; a code, as all admit,
acknowledged and adopted by the Jews, as the civil and
ecclesiastical constitution of their state.  By the hypothesis
under consideration, this code is a fabrication, a forgery.
Originally, therefore, the Jews were under a different law,
and this was foisted upon them by an impostor. Now, it is
as easy to impose a fabricated code on one nation as another,
and in the present age as any preceding one. Let any one,
then, ask himself, whether it would be possible now to invent
a set of acts of congress, and get them received by the whole
American people, as the established laws of the republic,
known and obeyed as such, since the origin of the government down to the present time? Does this strike the reader
as absurd and impossible?.Not less absurd and impossible is
the supposition of forgery in the present case. The impostor,
who imposed the code of the Pentateuch upon the Hebrews,
must have made them forget all the ancient constitutions of
their state, and believe, that they and their forefathers had




198                COMMENTARIES ON THE
lived under a system of laws and institutions, which, in point
of fact, had never been known or heard of, till then. Is such
a thing conceivable? Is it within the bounds of possibility i
The very polity and laws of the ancient Hebrews, as exhibited in the Pentateuch, might just as readily be imposed
upon the American people at this moment, to the exclusion
of all existing statutes, and the whole nation made to believe,
that they are the only system of ecclesiastical and civil law
ever known among them, as they could be imposed upon the
-febrew people, in any age subsequent to that of Moses, on
the hypothesis that they were a forgery.
No other instance is adduced out of all history, none is
even pretended, of a forged code of laws, purporting to be
brought to light after a long interval, palmed upon the
nation as the genuine work of their ancient legislators, and
actually adopted by them, as the rule of their civil and religious institutions. It is impossible in this way to alter the
fundamental laws of a state, after long settlement, as every
candid person must see and own, on the slightest reflection.
Such a procedure would produce endless confusion of interests and rights, overturning, as it must, all the established
relations of property, and changing all the old institutions
and usages of society. Men would not submit to the change.
A striking fact illustrative of this point occurs in Roman
history. Long after the death of Numa, a body of laws was
found in his grave. It seems to have been believed, that
these laws were of his composing. Yet, notwithstanding the
veneration in which his memory was held, the senate, judging them contrary to the existing laws, ordered them to be
burnt. They would not even allow the public to know the
nature and purport of them, lest the state should be unsettled by it.*
A writing may be forged, and gain a temporary success, if
it relates to matters not of general interest; but when it con* Stillingfleet, Orig. Sac. B. 2, c. 1.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT BEBREWS.          199
cerns the rights, privileges, and government of a nation,
there will be enough, whose interest will lead them to prevent imposture. Mlen are quicksighted in what relates to
their estates and fi'eeholds. It is certain, therefore, that, any
attempt of the kind supposed, would fail, and would be
laughed at as the last abortive folly of a crazed imagination.
Men were not simpletons in ancient times, any more than
they are now. They had their senses, as well as we. They
were as much alive to their interests, and as clear-sighted in
the discernment of them. They were as tenacious of their
rights, and as unwilling to be deceived. No man, therefore,
could forge, and no man did forge, the Pentateuch. The
very supposition of such an imposture is a libel upon the
intelligence of antiquity. It is tantamount to a charge of
idiocy against the whole Jewish race. And if nations, in
their associated capacity, could bring an action for slander,
such an action could be sustained by the house of Israel
against any man, who should charge them with being so far
" non compotes mentis," as to have allowed a forgery of the
kind in question to obtain the least credit or currency among
them.
The second internal proof of the genuineness and authenticity of the Pentateuch, is drawn fromn the minuteness and
particularity of the narrative, and from the general tone and
style of the composition, which is remarkable for its artlessness and simplicity. The entire structure of the work is
totally unlike the general detail of a remote compiler; its
whole manner the direct opposite of the labored artifice of
fiction and forgery. This argument is of greater force in
such a writing as the Pentateuch, than it would be in most
other compositions; for the author, if he were an impostor,
must have felt that he was engaged in an undertaking of the
greatest difficulty;  an undertaking requiring no ordinary
ingenuity and no common caution; an undertaking, indeed,
never before attempted, and little likely to succeed; and this




200               COMMENTARIES ON THE
consciousness must have occasioned a feeling of constraint
and anxiety, which would be sure to betray itself in the execution of his self-imposed task. But, in point of fact, irom
the beginning to the end of the five books of Moses, there is
not the slightest appearance of any such feeling in the writer.
He descends to the minutest details in describing the materials and workmanship of the tabernacle and its furniture,the altar, the lavers, the ark, the dress of the priests, the
curtains and their borders, the pillars, the sockets, the rings,
the loops, the tenons, &c., &c. There is the same minuteness of detail in laying down rules for the sacrifices, in distinguishing between clean and unclean ineats, in pointing
out the various ways of contracting and removing ceremonial
impurity, and in describing the symptoms and the cure of
leprosy, both of persons and of houses. Again, the same thing
is observable in the geographical enumerations of the Pentateuch, and in its accounts of the marches and encampments
of the Israelites. In regard to all these matters, the details
are numerous and exact in the highest degree; and many of
them  are repeated again and again. But throughout the
whole there is not the least appearance of art, or caution, or
dread of discovery.  Now, all this is most natural and
probable, on the hypothesis that the Pentateuch is what it
purports to be, and Moses the writer of it; but most unnatural and improbable, on the hypothesis that an impostor in
a distant age was the author of the writing. It is the way
of forgers and impostors to deal in vague generalities. They
studiously avoid minuteness of detail, for that greatly multiplies the chances of discovery. But the author of the Pentateuch appears perfectly careless in this matter. HIe says
what he has to say, in the most inartificial and guileless
manner imaginable, interweaving laws with history, and
piling details upon details, without the least apparent solicitude as to whether his statements should be believed or not.
Could he have d,ne this, if he had not known, that what he




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           201
wrote was true, and if he had not felt, that it would be
unhesitatingly credited by the persons, to whom it was addressed?
The third internal proof of the genuineness and authenticity of the Pentateuch, is drawn from its impartiality. When
we see a writer manifestly actuated by a design to aggrandize himself, to advance his family and posterity, or,-which
is a fault highly characteristic of the Greek historians,-to
raise the credit and fame of his own nation, we may suspect
him of leaving the beaten way of truth, to tread the devious
paths of deceit.  But there is no ground to suspect the
author of the Pentateuch of any such personal, domestic, or
national bias. On the contrary, never has any other historian
displayed the quality of impartiality in so eminent a degree
as this writer. See how he speaks of the near relatives of
the lawgiver. The faults of Aaron and Miriam, his brother
and sister, the fault of Nadab and Abihu, his nephews, and
the rebellious conduct of his own tribe, in common with that
of the other tribes, on the return of the spies, are spoken of
in terms at once plain and severe. Little is said of his wife,
except that her name was Zipporah, that she was an Ethiopian woman, and that as such she was an object of contempt
and hatred.*  IIis own sons were left in the meanest sort of
attendance upon the tabernable, no provision being made for
the civil advancement, either of them or their posterity. Quite
as little does the author of the Pentateuch flatter the nation
of the lawgiver. It could have formed no part of his design
to enhance their reputation in the world, since he describes
their frowardness, unbelief, murmurings, disobedience, and
rebellions, in such vivid colors as might almost warrant the
suspicion of an intention to vilify their national character.
lie sets forth also, with great particularity, the faults and
foibles of the patriarchs, their ancestors, without seeking in
the smallest degree to disguise or extenuate them. Several
* Num xii. 1.




202              COMMENTARIES ON THE
of these ancestors he describes as having been guilty of gross
crimes; and upon all, with the solitary exception of Joseph,
he charges weaknesses and imperfections, which a zealous
partizan would have studiously concealed. But the impartiality of this writer is most conspicuous in his manner of
speaking of the lawgiver himself. Without the least reserve
he interweaves the history of his failings with that of the
failings of his nation. I-Iad he entertained the design of
causing his memory to be held in superstitious veneration by
his countrymen, how easy had it been to leave out those
passages which mar the perfect symmetry of his character,
and obscure the brilliancy of his reputation, as in fact has
been done by the Jewish historian Josephus. But he appears perfectly indifferent in that regard, or rather, I may
say, he studiously depresses the honor of men, his own as
well as that of others, that he may magnify the power of
God, and exalt his goodness towards a disobedient and rebellious people. And all this he does, not in an affected strain
of rhetoric, but in a style natural and unadorned. The low
design of pandering to the taste of the multitude with rhetorical phrases, was manifestly beneath his ambition. Like
Paul, he held in contempt that excellency of speech, on
which the ancient rhetoricians so prided themselves.  He
displays no vanity of composition, no anxiety about the elegance of his periods. He writes withcut effort and without
art. Yet, had it been his design to produce a splendid piece
of writing, he shows plainly enough, that he might have
pursued it with no mean success. " In the triumphant hymn,
which he has inserted on the deliverance of the terrified
Israelites from the host of Pharaoh, we discover a boldness
and sublimity of composition seldom excelled. In the address to the assembled nation, supposed to be delivered by
Moses shortly before his death; in the blessings promised
for obedience, and the curses denounced against offenders;
and especially in the song he taught the people, recapitu



LAWS OF TILE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          203
lating the wonders of God's providence which they had
witnessed, and the judgments they  might expect; we
discover a judicious selection of striking circumstances,
strong imagery, pathetic appeals to the tenderest feelings,
and the authoritative language of the legislator and the
prophet combined so aptly, as prove the writer fully capable of commanding most powerfully the attention, and
interesting the heart.*" Nevertheless, though evidently so
well qualified to produce a beautiful, eloquent, and engaging
composition, and to embellish it with every artistic excellence; he has written the Pentateuch in such a way as to
show conclusively, that this was no part of his design. He
seems, indeed, to have thought that truth itself is invested
with such inborn majesty and perfection, as to command
both the submission of our understanding and the affection
of our heart.
The fourth internal proof of the genuineness and authenticity of the Pentateuch, and the only remaining one, to
which the reader's attention will be called, is drawn from
the intimate knowledge, which the writer everywhere displays of Egypt, its climate, soil, productions, manners, customs, religion, government, arts, and civilization. It is true,
indeed, that an argument of directly the opposite purport,
an argument in derogation of the claim of the Pentateuch to
be considered as a true and genuine history, has been reared
on the author's alleged ignorance of these very things, and
his consequent blunders in his Egyptian references.  But
this, like all other attacks directed against the evidences of
divine revelation, has but added strength to the bulwarks
of our faith, by calling to its aid the best powers of its adherents, who have, with pious industry, explored the whole
subject, and brought back, as the result of their learned
labors, the certainty, that the writer of the Pentateuch, so
far from being chargeable with ignorance on this score, was
* Graveson Pent. Pt. 1, Lect. 2.




201                 COMMENTARIES ON TIME
perfectly familiar with the whole circle of Egyptian manners, arts, and learning.  In this field Hengstenberg has
particularly distinguished himself.  To his admirable work,
entitled " Egypt and the Books of Moses,"* in which the subject is treated in detail, the reader is directed for full satisfaction.  All that can be attempted here is a few  brief
references to some of the more striking points.
Thie author of the Pentateuch says of the Egyptians, that
they made the lives of the Hebrews bitter with hard bondage, in mortar and in brick.t  Upon this statement, he has
been charged with ignorance of Egyptian usages, and with
transferring to the valley of the Nile what really belonged
to Babylonia. But the explorations of Egyptian monuments,
made during the present century, cause the charge to rebound upon those who have brought it.   Champollion
speaks of a tomb of brick at Sais, and a temple of the same
material at Wady Halfa. Rosellinit says, that ruins of great
brick buildings are found in all parts of Egypt, and whole
pyramids of brick at Dashoor.  Wilkinson~ also attests the
use of crude bricks, baked in the sun, to have been universal
in upper and lower Egypt, both for public and private
buildings. 11
In the enumeration, which the author of the Pentateuch
lhas made of Pharaoh's present to Abraham, asses, sheep,
and camels are included.~ On this, also, has been founded
* Translated by an eminent American scholar, Prof. Robinson, of Middlebury College.
t Ex. i. 14.
$ I Monumenti dell' Egitto e della Nubia, ii. 2, p. 249. This reference,
as also most of those which follow in the remaining part of this chapter,
except the biblical references, are taken from Hengstenberg without verification, the authorities not being at hand where the author writes.
M Ianners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, London, 1842, vol. ii.
p. 96.
It Hengstenberg's " Egypt and the Books of Moses," pp. 1, 2.
~ Gen. xii. 16.




LAWS OF THE LANCIE1 I HEBREWS.          205
che charge of ignorance and error. These animals, it is alieged, were not found in Egypt. But the monuments exhibit
numerous representations of both sheep and asses, proving
conclusively, that they were found there, and that in great
abundance. Camels, it is true, have not yet been found
delineated on the monuments. 3But the strongest inference,
which that fact will warrant, is, that they were not numerous. Even such an inference is not certain; for not only
are many objects, known to have existed among the ancient
Egyptians, as the wild boar and the wild ass, for instance,*
wanting in their paintings; but some are wanting, in which
Egypt* certainly abounded, of which class fowls and pigeons
may serve as an example.t  The reader's attention is called,
in passing, to a singular omission in Pharaoh's present, viz.
the horse. This omission affords an unclesign ed, but on that
account all the more cogent evidence of the antiquity and
genuineness of the Pentateuch. The horse was native to
Egypt, and found there in the greatest abundance.  The
reason of the omission of this animal from Pharaoh's present, therefore, could not have been in the giver, but must
have been in the receiver. Now it is certain, that, down to
the time of Joshua and the Judges, little or no use is made
of the horse by the patriarchs or their descendants. In all
the descriptions of the riches of Palestine, contained in the
Pentateuch, though camels, oxen, sheep, goats, and asses are
enumerated, no mention is made of the horse. Would not
a fabricator, who lived in the times of the kings, and after
horses had become common in Palestine, have mentioned
that animal? Beyond a doubt he would; for it is not likely,
that he would know at what time the horse was introduced;
and it is still less likely, that he would have managed his
forgery with so much circumspection for the sake of preserving historical consistency.t  To my mind, this is a very
* Wilk. vol. iii. p. 21.          t Ibid. p. 35.
$ Hengstenberg's " Egypt and Books of Moses," pp. 3-7




206               COMMEN TARIES ON THE
strong argument in support of the genuine historical character and Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch.
The dream of Pharaoh's chief butler, as narrated in the
Pentateuch,* has been supposed to show  the narrator's
ignorance of the agriculture of Egypt. The dream implies
the existence of the vine In that country. Now Herodotus
says expressly, that no vines grew in Egypt, and Plutarch
affirms, that wine was neither drunk nor offered in sacrifice,
till the time of Psammeticus, who was contemporary with
Josiah. These, it must be owned, look like formidable testimonies.  Yet even if there were no counter testimony,
wherewith to rebut them, I would still adhere to the conclusion established in the last chapter, i. e. that no such
superior credibility belongs to ancient profane history, that
it is to be believed in preference, when its statements conflict with those of sacred writ. But, fortunately, there is no
lack of proof in this case, to convict of error the heathen
historians, and to vindicate the truth of the Mosaic record.
Both I-Iellanicus and Diodorus not only attest the cultivation
of the vine in Egypt, but ascribe to that country the origin
of the vine-culture. Hlerodotus even may be confronted by
Rlerodotus;t for out of other parts of his writings, an argument of no little force, might be constructed, to prove that
the vine was cultivated in Egypt at a very early clay. But
all this, however important it might be under other circumstances, is to little purpose now, since the monuments show,
conclusively, both that the vine was cultivated and wine
made in the land of the Pharaohs. This fact is fully established, through the labors of Champollion, Rosellini, and
Wilkinson. Champolliona says, that there are found, in the
grottoes of Beni Hassan, representations of the vine, the
vintage, the putting up of the wine in bottles or jars, the
transportation into the cellar, &c., &c. Rosellini~ devotes
G* en. xl. 10. seq.          t Herod. ii. 42 and 144.: Champ. 51.                 ~ Rosell. vol. ii. pp. 365, et seq.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           207
a whole section to grape gathering and the art of making
wine. Wilkinson* gives the engraving and description of
an Egyptian vineyard, and the different kind of labor bestowed upon it.t Joseph, according to the Pentateuch, is
placed by Potiphar over all his substance, both in the house
and in the field;T and, after his exaltation, he himself has a
man over his house.~ A custom peculiarly Egyptian, as the
paintings abundantly attest. l
The shameless impudence of Potiphar's wife is related by
the author of the Pentateuch.~ This is a touch of Egyptian
manners, true to the life. Nowhere was the marriage vow
less regarded. The wife of one of the kings, according to
I[terodotus,~  was untrue to him. lie wished to take another.
lIe began the search for a woman, who had proved faithful to her husband. It was long before lie found such an
one, and when he did, he took her without hesitation for
himself. HIerodotus describes the great corruption of manners
with respect to the marriage relation. The monuments do
not give a favorable testimony to the Egyptian women.
They represent them as addicted to excessive drinking, so
as often to be unable to walk, or even to stand alone.tt
The author of the Pentateuch is charged with error in
representing Joseph as being admitted into the presence of
a lady of such rank as the wife of Potiphar,:: since, as is
alleged, none but eunuchs could enter the apartments of the
women. But the author knew better what to say than his
critics. The blunder is with them, instead of him. They
have transferred a custom of the East to the banks of the
Nile, while he has spoken of Egyptian manners just as they
were, thereby showing that intimate acquaintance with his
subject, which it is so difficult for a forger to attain. The
* Y. 2. pp. 143, etseq.   t Hengsten. pp. 12-18: Gen. xxxix. 4, 5.       ~ Gen. xliii. 16, 19. xliv. 1.
11 Hengsten. p. 25.      ~i Gen. xxxiii. 7, et seq.
C** ii. 111.  ~ftt Wilk. v. 2. p. 167. Hensten. pp. 25, 26..: Gen. xxxix. 11.




208               COMMENTARIES ON THE
m onuments, according to Wilkinson,* represent the women
of Egypt as living under far less restraint, than that to which
they were subject in more eastern countries, or even in
Greece itself.  Ladies and gentlemen  are delineated as
mingling together, in their festive entertainments, with all
the freedom of modern European intercourse.t
Joseph, when called before Pharaoh, is represented in the
Pentateuch as shaving himself.t This was a purely Egyptian custom. Herodotus~ mentions it as such; and the
sculptures confirm his representation. According to Wilkinson,l1 the Egyptians were so particular on this point, that
"to have neglected it was a subject of reproach and ridicule; and whenever they intended to convey the idea of a
man of low condition, or a slovenly person, the artists represented him with a beard."'~
The Pentateuch describes the labors of Joseph in building
store-houses, and storing up corn against the famine."*  The
paintings on the monuments give a vivid representation of
the whole scene, showing how very common the store-house
was in Egypt. It appears from the paintings, that they kept
an account of the amount of grain stored in the magazines,
for at the side of the windows of one of them there are characters indicating the quantity deposited therein."tt This
throws light on the statement, that Joseph gathered corn as
the sand of the sea, "until he leftnumbering.":#
The author of the Pentateuch speaks of famine as visiting
Egypt and the adjacent country of Palestine at the same
time.~~ This fact has been seized upon by the enemies of
revelation, and made the ground of a charge of ignorance
in the writer of the natural condition of Egypt. The fertility
* V. 2. p. 389.                t Hengsten. p. 26., Gen. xli. 14.  ~ ii. 35.    11 V. 3. p. 357.
T[ Iengsten. p. 30.          ** Gen. xli. 48, 49.
tt Rtosel. v. 2. p. 324, seq. $$ Gen. xli. 49. Hengsten pp. 34, 35.
82 Gen. xlvii. 13.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            209
of Egypt depends upon the overflowings of the Nile; the fertility of Palestine, upon rain; causes, apparently, quite diverse
the one from the other. This certainly has a suspicious look.
But it only needs a little deeper study of the subject to change
the suspicion into an opposite certainty. The author's representation is in harmony with the meteorological phenomena in
the case, and the reproach of ignorance recoils on those who
make it. That the rise and overflow of the Nile depend
upon the rains which fall upon the Abyssinian mountains,
is noticed even by HIerodotus. These rains, it is now well
ascertained, proceed from clouds formed upon the AMediterranean Sea, and have the same origin as the rains which fall
in Palestine.* Thus it appears that, contrary to what would
at first be supposed, the fertility of Egypt and the fertility
of Palestine have a common source; and the accuracy of
tile Pentateuch  is fully  vindicated. Had  the author's
knowledge of Egypt been less, had it been grounded on
mere hearsay, instead of actual observation, he would probably have represented the matter in conformity with the
demand of his calumniators, and so have proved his ignorance to be equal to theirs.t
The Pentateuch describes Joseph, his brethren, and the
Egyptians as sitting at an entertainment.: Another touch
peculiarly Egyptian. While the orientals, the Hebrews included, were accustomed to recline at their meals, the habit
of the Egyptians, according to the monuments, was to sit.~
Rosellinill describes a painting, in which each of the guests
sits upon a stool, which, he says, in accordance with their
custom, took the place of the couch.~
The Pentateuch speaks of the steward of Joseph as designating a certain cup of his master's as that out of which he
divineth.** The practice of divining by cups is mentioned
*Le Pere, Descr. v. 7. p. 576.  t Hengsten. pp. 35, 37.
$ Gen. xliii. 32.              ~ Wilk. v. 2, p. 201.
j1 Vol. 2. p. 439.  ~ IHengsten. pp. 37,38.  ** Gen. xliv. 5.
14




210                COMBIENTARIES ON THE
by Jainblicus,* as among the superstitions of Egypt; and it
appears from a passage in Norden's Travels,t that the custom has descended through all the intervening ages, down
to our own times. In a remote extremity of Egypt, a powerful Arab chief addressed one of tile party thus: "I know
what sort of people you are. I have consulted my cup," &c4.
The references of the author of the Pentateuch to the geographical relations and features of Egypt, though not numerous, are such as to evince his accurate knowledge of the
topography of the country. It is true, that they are scattered, incidental, and undesigned; but all the more certain is the proof thence afforded, that the writer's knowledge was not laboriously gathered for the occasion, nor received at second hand, but was original, derived from personal observation, and of such compass and exactness as to
free him from all apprehension of falling into errors.  On
the whole, they add no little strength to the internal evidence of his credibility as an historian. But to bring out
this argument in its just force would require more space
than can be spared for the purpose. The reader is, therefore, referred to the work of Professor Hengstenberg on
Egypt and the Books of Moses, where he will find it treated
at large on pp. 42-61.
The Pentateuch narrates, as a consequence of famine, the
sale to the sovereign of all the lands of the people of Egypt;
the reservation of the lands of the priests, because, having
food assigned them by Pharaoh, they were under no necessity of parting with them; and the parcelling out, when the
famine was over, of the same territory to its former owners
by lease, on condition of a yearly rent of one-fifth of the
produce, to be paid into the royal treasury.~  What, now,
is the testimony of profane writers? According to Herodotus,ll an ancient king had divided the whole land among
* Part 3. ~ 14. p. 68.   t V. 3. p. 68. $ Heengsten. pp. 38, 39.
i Gen. xlvii. 13, 26.       11 B. 2. c. 109.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            211
the Egyptians, giving to each a square portion of equal excellent, and receiving from each a yearly rent in return.
According to Diodorus* all the land in Egypt belonged
either to the kings, or the priests, or the military caste.
According to Strabo,t the Egyptians, who were engaged in
agriculture, held their land of the sovereign, and paid rent.
According to the monuments, as we learn from Wilkinson,
only kings, priests, and the military order were land owners.
All these profane authorities concur with holy writ in the
main fact, viz.; that the cultivators were not the owners of
the soil. On one point, indeed, there is an apparent disagreement. The Pentateuch limits the ownership of land to
the kings and the priests; Strabo extends it to the military
order as well; and herein his authority is confirmed by the
sculptures.: But Herodotus~ furnishes a key, whereby this
apparent discrepancy can be reconciled. It is in the statement made by him, that the land of the soldiers differed
from that of the peasants in being free of rent; otherwise,
he says, it belonged to the kings, and was given by them in
fee to the soldiery. But there is still another point of disagreement between the Pentateuch and these profane authors. Moses asserts an original possession of the soil of
Egypt by the cultivators, and a transfer of the title to the
king under extraordinary circumstances;~ IHerodotus knows
nothing of this, but represents the king as the original proprietor. Now this'contradiction, so far from invalidating
the credibility of the Pentateuch, serves rather to confirm
it, since it presents in a strong light the superior knowledge
of the author, which extends back to a period not even approached by the knowledge of profane writers.  Here is an
historical fact, stated by the Pentateuch, and vouched in the
most ample manner by these writers, viz.; the possession by
the king of all the land of Egypt not owned by the priests.
*1. 73.       t 17. p. 787.    $ Wilk. v. 1. p. 263.
Q B. 2. e. 141.              1] Gen. xlvii. 19, 20.




212               COMMENTARIES ON THE
HIow did this fact orignate? How came such a condition of
things to exist? Egypt was not obtained by corquest; and it
is, therefore, wholly inconceivable, as being contrary to all
the analogies of history, that the king should have been the
original proprietor. The author of the Pentateuch solves
the problem, in a manner both natural and probable; the
profiane authors leave it not only unexplained, but inexplicable. Can any ingenuous mind fail to recognize, in this
accurate acquaintance with the condition of Egypt, in the
most remote ages, a strong proof of the credibility of the
writer, bwho exhibits it?*
The author of the Pentateuch speaks of the embalming
of Jacob as occupying forty days, and the mourning for him
by the Egyptians as lasting seventy days.t The view given
by classical authors-Diodorus,: Herodotus,~ and othersof the general usage of the Egyptians, on both these points,
aggrees with this statement exactly. Again, the author
represents the funeral train, which accompanied the corpse
of Jacob to Canaan, as coming to the threshing floor of Atad,
beyond Jordan, and mourning there with a great and sore
lamentation.I[ This was, as we learn from other sources,
eminently an Egyptian custom. The classical writers show
that the Egyptians appointed for themselves a very solemn mourning for the dead, especially for those of high
ranl]k.  There is another touch in this history of the mourning for Israel, which evinces the author's intimate acquaintance with Egyptian peculiarities.  EIe represents Joseph
as speaking to the house of Pharaoh, and saying, "If now
I have found grace in your eyes, speal, I pray you, in the
ears of Pharaoh," &c.-** Why did not Joseph go directly to
the king with his request, as at other times? Doubtless, because propriety, agreeably to the Egyptian conception of it,
required the head and face to be shaven, and none were
- Hensten pp. 62 —70.   t Gen. 1. 3.   1. 91, 72.
g 2. 86.            1l Gen. 1. 10, 11.
1[ Herod. B. 2. c. 85  Diod. B. 1. e. 91.  ** Gen. 1. 4.




LA-WS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          213
permitted to appear before the king unshorn.* But, on the
other hand, the laws of mourning forbade the use of the
razor, while the mourning continued.t How natural, under
these circumstances, the application to Pharaoh through
others, which, under oth]er circumstances, would most naturally have been made in person! In the same history, the
author distinguishes between the elders of the house of
Pharaoh and the elders of the land of Egypt;t that is, between the court-officers and the state-officers. A distinction
highly characteristic of Egyptian usage, and noticed by profane authors. The court of the king was composed of the
sons of the most distinguished priests; while the state-officers were taken from other orders of society.~ Such incidental and undesigned allusions as these to peculiar customs,
may well arrest attention. They are the signature of truth.
The knowledge of an impostor, writing in a distant age and
country, would not be likely to be so minute and accurate;
neither would it manifest itself in a way so simple and natural. Such a knowledge we should expect to find in Moses,
but in no one else, by whom the Pentateuch could possibly
be composed; and the fact, that the writing does actually
on almost every page, exhibit this knowledge, is a strong
argument in support of its M3osaic origin.. 
The author of the Pentateuch describes the fear of Pharaoh
lest the Israelites should multiply, and, when war fell out,
should join the invading force, and fight against the Egyptians.T  A most reasonable apprehension; for the inhabitants
of the adjacent deserts are the natural enemies of Egypt, and
when these find allies among the Egyptians themselves, the
country is in the greatest peril. That this is not an iinaginary danger, the history of the Bedouins in Egypt abundantly
proves. These have made common cause with the foreign
* Gen xli. 14. Wilk. v. iii. pp. 357, 358.
f Herod. ii. 35.: Gen. 1. 7.    H ieeren, Ideen, S. 337,
II engsten. pp. 70-78.       ~ Exod. i. 10.




214               COMMENTARIES ON THE
invaders against all the powers that have successively held
possession of Egypt, —the Arabs, the Saracens, the Turkomans, the Memlook sultans, and the Osmanlies. The view
given by the Pentateuch of Pharaoh's dread of the Hebrews
is, therefore, in perfect accordance with the state of things in
Egypt. So also does the method which it represents him as
adopting to prevent their increase, accord with the known
severity of those proud sovereigns towards foreigners, the
objects of a boundless hatred and contempt.*
According to the Pentateuch, Pharaoh made the life of the
Israelites bitter with hard bondage in mortar and brick, and
one of the ingredients in the manufacture of the bricks was
straw.t  The recent scientific explorations in Egypt show,
that chopped straw is found in the composition of the ancient
Egyptian bricks.4 Straw was used, according to Rosellini,~
to give greater firmness and durability to the bricks, they
being for the most part not burned in the fire, but dried in
the sun. A picture has been found in a tomb at Thebes, of
which Rosellinill furnishes a drawing, and which he does
not doubt is a picture representing the Hebrews engaged in
making brick.  "Of the laborers," he says, " some are employed in transporting the clay in vessels, some in intermingling it with the straw, others are taking the bricks out
of the form  and placing them in rows, still others, with a
piece of wood upon their back and ropes on each side, carry
away the bricks already burned or dried. Their dissimilarity
to the Egyptians appears at the first view; the complexion,
physiognomy, and beard permit us not to be mistaken in
supposing them to be Hebrews. Among the Hebrews, four
Egyptians, Very distinguishable by their mein, figure, and
color, are seen," &c. &c. One of the most interesting points
in this picture is the intermixture of Egyptians with the
* Hengsten. pp. 79, 80.   j Ex. i. 14, v. 7.   + Rosel. vol. 2, p. 252.
{ Vol. 2, p. 259.    II Vol. 2, pp. 254, seq.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWSo              215
Hebrews in their servile labors. It throws light upon an extraordinary circumstance connected with the exode, the fact,
namely, that the Israelites were accompanied by a mixed multitude of Egyptians.* They were described by the author of
the Pentateuch as a rabble, a populace, hewers of wood and
drawers of water, that is, as very poor, as the lowest servants.
Just such people, native Egyptians, we should expect to find
in Egypt, as the result of the system  of caste; and just such,
both classical authors and the monuments testify existed
there in great numbers.t  Regarded as unclean, they were
debarred all intercourse with their brethren, and not permitted so much as to enter the temples. These the picture
places on a level with the hated and despised foreigners.
What more natural than that, sharing with the Hebrews a
common misery, many of them, at least, should choose to be
partakers of their pilgrimage?4
The Pentateuch represents the mothel of Moses as taking
a chest of papyrus, smearing it with bitumen and pitch,
putting the child in it, and then placing it among the reeds
on the edge of the Nile.~ The mention of these materials,papyrus, bitumen, and pitch,-shows the author's acquaint.
ance with Egypt. Pitch is found in Egyptian objects belonging to the most remote times.[l   Bitumen was a chief
ingredient in emnbalming.~f The papyrus plant was used in
Egypt, and only there, in the manufacture of various articles,
as mats, chlests, baskets, sandals, and even boats; and that at
an early day, as the sculptures testify.**  In the most ancient
of these, the papyrus is found with writing upon it.tt
According to the Pentateuch, Moses carried a rod as his
X Ex. xii. 38. t Herod. B. 2, c. 47. Wilk. v. 1, p. 285. Heeren, S. 150.
1 Hengsten. pp. 81-86.        ~ Ex. ii. 3.
11 Hengsten. p. 87.          ~[ Diod. 19, 99.
** Wilk. v. 3, pp. 62, 146. Herod. 2, 96. Plut de Is. et ()sir. p 395,
according to which Isis is borne upon a boat of papyrus. Rosel. IT. 3, p. 124.
tt Wilk. 3, 150. Hengsten pp. 86, 87.




216                COMMENTARIES ON, THE
inseparable colnpanion,* and each of the magicians did the
same.t  The monumentst show that persons of rank, both
priests and nobles, were accustomed to carry a staff, when
they went abroad.~
The name of the Israelitish officers, whom  the task-masters
of Pharaoh placed over them, was, according to Iiengstenberg, "the writers."['  And this designation he pronounces
highly characteristic of the state of things in Egypt. There
was a time, when the argument against the authenticity of the
Pentateuch, derived from  the supposed non-existence of the
art of writing in the age when it purports to have been written, was deemed very cogent. But the time is gone by, when
any weight can be attached to such reasoning. The monuments prove conclusively, that in no country of the ancient
world was facility in writing so great, in none were the materials for writing so perfect, and in none was the passion for
writing so incorporated into the habits and business of the
people, as in Egypt; and that, too, at a period anterior to the
time of Moses, and even of Joseph.  In this opinion scholars
best qualified to judge upon the subject, concur,-as TWilkinson,~ Rosellini,-*  Salvolini,tt Gesenius,:T Ewald,~~ and
others. " We must shut our eyes against the clearest light,"
says Rosellini,l II " if we would deny that the art of reading and
writing was generally studied and practised in ancient Egypt,
to as great a degree at least as it now is among us."  So
that it turns out, that the many passages in the Pentateuch,
implying a great extension of the art of writing among the
Hebrews in the time of Moses, are founded in truth, and just
* Ex. iv. 2.           t Ex. vii. 12.    $ Wilk. v. 3, p. 386.
Q Hengsten. p. 88.     1[ P. 89.    f[ Wilk. 3, 152.
** V. II. 3, p. 272, seq.   tt Campagne de Rhamses, p. 123.
1: Appendix to his Hebrew Gram. published a short time before his
death.
~] His latest work, Goschiehte des Volkes Israel, V. 1, pp. 68-71.
I [1  V. II. 3. p. 239.




LAWS OF THIE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             217
make known what could not have been otherwise.  Thus,
instead of invalidating, they confirm  the narrative.  They
witness not against, but for its Mosaic origin, and its entire
trustworthiness. *
The Israelites were directed, when they came into the
promised land, to erect great stones, and write upon them all
the words of the law. The stones were to be prepared for
receiving the inscriptions by " plastering them with plaster."t
In this mode of preparation there is a clear Egyptian reference.  It appears from  the testimony of Wilkinson,4 that
sandstone and even granite were often covered with a kind
of stucco, before the inscriptions or paintings were made
upon them.~
According to the Mosaic law, when stripes were inflicted,
the guilty person was to " lie down and be beaten."[I This
was precisely the Egyptian mode. WilkinsonT describes a
picture of an Egyptian bastinado, in which the culprits, men
and boys, were laid flat on the ground, while the punishment
was administered.**
The insolent pride and insane obstinacy, which the Pentateuch ascribes to Pharaoh, representing him as saying, "' Who
is Jehovah, that I should hear his voice?" and as preferring
to go to destruction, with his land and people, rather than
yield to the divine command,tt are, as fully shown by the
nmonumentsf4 in various ways, in accordance with the genuine spirit of the Egyptian sovereigns.  These sovereigns
were accustomed to style themselves "kings of the whole
world,"'~ and they even carried their arrogance to such a
pitch as to claim divine honors.Iil
The author of the Pentateuch represents Jehovah as threat* Hengsten. pp. 89-91.   t Deut. xvii. 2.   $ V. 3, p. 300.
Q Hengsten. p. 91.       11 Deut. xxv. 2.   T[ V. 2, p. 41.
** Hengsten. p. 92.     tt Ex. v. et seq.
$: Champollion, p. 227.  ~] Ibid. p. 231.!11 b:d. 257. Rosel. v. I. 1, p. 115. Wilk v 1. p. 43. HenDgsten. pp. 94, 95.




218                COMMENTARIES ON rmE
ening, that blood should be in all Egypt, both in wood and
in stone,* that is, as our translators have rightly supplied,
vessels of these materials.  A remarkable expression, containing a wholly unpremeditated and most important Egyptian reference, viz. to the custom of filtering the turbid water
of the Nile in vessels of wood and of stone, chiefly the
latter.t  The knowledge, exhibited by the author, of the
common method of purifying water in Egypt, is not so important as the manner of the exhibition.  IHe does not, as
I.engstenberg aptly expresses it, obtrude his knowledge.
He supposes that a mere hint is enough for his immediate
readers, who were themselves acquainted with the peculiarities of Egypt.: These two little words "wood and stone,"
thus inartificially introduced in this connexion, certainly
afford both a striking and a strong proof, that Mioses is the
author of the Pentateuch.
The same verse~ contains a direction to hMoses to take his
rod and stretch out his hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon
its streams, upon its canals, upon its pools, and upon all its
collections of waters. Here is a classification of the waters
of Egypt, accurate to a tittle. The streams are the arms of
the Nile. The canals are the artificial ditches which abounded in Egypt. The pools are the stagnant ponds formed by
the Nile, of which there are many.  And the collections of
water are all the other standing water, the lakes and puddles
at a distance from the Nile.[l
According to the Pentateuch, Moses was directed to go to
Pharaoh in the morning when he went out to the water, and
to meet him on the banks of the Nile.~  This is an entirely
artless and undesigned allusion to a prominent superstition of
Egypt,-that of worshipping the Nile as a divinity. In the
most ancient times divine honors were paid to this river by
* Ex. vii. 19.
t Mavr, Reise, Th. 2, S. 19, Le Bruyn, v. 2, p. 103. Thevenot, v. 1, p. 245.
$ Hengsten. pp. 110, 111.       FEx. vii. 19.
I1 Hengsten. p. 111.    [       Ex. vii. 15, viii. 20.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.              219
the Egyptians. Herodotus* speaks of the priests of the Nile.
Plutarcht makes it identical with Osiris.  Luciant calls it a
common divinity of all the Egyptians. HIeliodorus~ names it
the Egyptian Jupiter.  The monumentsll corroborate this
testimony of the classical writers.  One of the paintings represents Remeses II. as offering wine to the god of the Nile,
who, in the hieroglyphic inscription, is called " the life-giving
father of all existences.Y[
The Hebrews dwelt in that part of Lower Egypt which
borders on the Red Sea. According to the representations
of the Pentateuch, Pharaoh was able, on the instant, to bring
into the field almost the entire martial power of his kingdom.**  This seems incredible to a person unacquainted with
the disposition of the military forces of Egypt; but to one
who knows the state of things on this point, nothing can be
more natural and probable. It was precisely on this border,
the most exposed of all the parts of Egypt, that, according to
the accounts of profane authors, almost the entire military
power of Egypt was concentrated. Herodotus states, that
sixteen districts were allotted to the military order within the
Delta, while, in all Middle and Upper Egypt, only two districts were in possession of the soldiers.tt
From an industrious and learned survey of all that appears
in the Pentateuch on the subject, IHIengstenberg$$ arrives at
the conclusion, apparently a just and solid one, that the only
force, with which Pharaoh pursued the fleeing Israelites,
consisted of chariots and chariot-warriors.  Cavalry, in the
modern acceptation of the term, there was none; and infantry, under the circumstances, could not have taken part in
the pursuit.  Now, how does this representation, made by
B*. 2, c. 90.                   t De Is. et Osir. p. 363.
$ Jupiter Tragoed. Opp. v. 2, 699.  ~ Aeth. 9, 435. 5. 203.
II Champollion, In den Briefer aus Egypten, S. 121.
[ Hengsten. pp. 112-114.      ** Exod. xiv.
tt Heeren. S. 37.             f$ P. 134, seq.




220                COMMENTARIES ON THE
the author of the Pentateuch, agree with the information
derived from ancient profane writers, and from the recently
discovered monuments of Egypt?  In the most exact and
remarkable manner.  Homer* represents chariots as constituting the principal strength of the Egyptian army.  Champollion, drawing his inference from the monuments, says of
the war chariots:t " This was the cavalry of the age; cavalry
properly speaking did not exist then in Egypt."  Rosellini4
informs us, that, whenever the armies are represented on the
great monuments of Egypt, they are composed of troops of
infantry and ranks of chariots.  Wilkinson,~ though not admitting that the Egyptians had no horsemen at all, yet agrees
with Rosellini in the main point, viz. that their principal
military force consisted in chariots.]l
The author of the PentateuchT represents Miriam, after the
triumphal hymn on the passage of the Red Sea had been sung
by Moses and the children of Israel, as taking a timbrel, and
all the women as following her, and the whole train as answering the men in responsive notes, " Sing ye to Jehovah,"
&c. The monuments** reproduce this scene in all its parts.
Separate choirs of men and women are represented on them,
singing in alternate responses; the timbrel, or tambourine,
is represented as the instrument of the women, as the flute is
that of the men;  and the playing of the tambourine, unaccompanied, as here, by other instruments, is represented in
connexion with singing and the dance.  Further, it appears
from  the monuments, that music had eminently a religious
destination in Egypt;tt that the timbrel was specially devoted
* 11. 9, 383.           t P. 442 of German Transl. of his Letters.
j V. II. 3, p. 232.     ~ V. 1, pp. 288, 335.
Hengsten. pp. 132-136.   [ Ex. xv. 20, 21.'* Champ. S. 53, der Briefe., Wilk. v. 2, pp. 253, 254, 314. Rosel. II.
3, p. 37 seq.
tt Rosel. II. 3, p. 78.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBtEWS.             221
to sacred uses;* and that religious dances were performed in
the worship of Osiris.t
The author of the Pentateuch, in Numb. 10, speaks of two
silver trumpets, used for calling the congregation together,
for giving the signal to break up the camp, for use in war,
and for festal occasions; and in Lev. 25, of another kind of
trumpet, by whose blast the year of jubilee was proclaimed.
From Josh. 6: 4, it appears that this last was of a crooked
form, since it is there called interchangeably a trumpet and a
horn. The other sort, therefore, was the straight trumpet.
The monuments show, that trumpets were used in Egypt
for military purposes as far back as the earliest times of the
Pharaohs.4 The crooked trumpet, indeed, is not found on
them; but Eustathius~ mentions an instrument of this sort,
whose invention he ascribes to Osiris, and which he says was
used for assembling the people to sacrifice. It is very observable, that the straight trumpet only was in general use
in both nations, and especially that in both it alone was employed in war.1
B3ut I have already exceeded the space proper to be devoted to this branch of my subject, and, tempting as the field
is, must withdraw the hand. The Egyptian references detailed above are but a portion, and that by no means the
larger portion, of such references contained in the Pentateuch.
Indeed, these allusions are incomparably more numerous and
direct than any one had supposed, till they were brought to
light by the learned industry of HIengstenberg.  Both the
Egyptian references here given, and those which are omitted,
everywhere exhibit a writer possessed of the most ample and
exact knowledge of Egypt in its topography, climate, soil,
tillage, productions, animals, resources, arts, superstitions,
laws, manners, customs, and civilization. Iluch light has
Wf VWilk. V. 2, p. 316.  tj Rosel. 11. 3, p. 96. Hengsten. pp. 136, 137.
$ Wilk. v. 1, p. 297.    ~ On the Iliad, v. 4, p. 65.
Wilk. v. 2; 260, 262. Hengsten. pp. 137, 138.




222               COMMENTARIES ON THE
been thrown upon all these points by the late researches of
English, French, Italian, and German archaeologists; but not
one of their innumerable discoveries comes into conflict with
any of the setatements contained in the books of Moses. One
of the most enlightened, discriminating, and cautious of these
scholars,-Sir Gardner Wilkinson, —bears this distinct and
imnportant testimony: " Wherever any fact is mentioned in
the bible history, we do not discover any thing on the monurments, which tends to contradict it.'*  No; in all the references to Egypt contained in the Pentateuch, though so many
and so various, though scattered through every part of the
writing, and mixed up with almost every topic which it embraces, there cannot be detected a single element, which is
not clearly and decisively Egyptian.  Could a fictitious narrative, fabricated in a remote country and a distant age, accomplish such a result?  "C redat Judaeus Apella!"  But
even this statement does not bring out the argument in its
strongest light. It is not so much the extent or the accuracy
of the writer's knowledge of Egypt, as it is the manner in
which he brings it out, that seals the trustworthiness of the
narrative. This is always so incidental, so unpremeditated,
so undesigned, so perfectly inartificial, and so destitute of
all explanatory remarks as not necessary for his immediate
readers, as to constitute an indubitable signature of truth.
Such a manner would be quite natural in Mloses, but most
unnatural, and indeed impossible, in a mythic historian. It
is a manner which cannot be assumed by an impostor. We
have here, then, both in the Egyptian knowledge of the
author and in the manner of its exhibition, a strong internal
proof of the credibility of the Pentateuch, of its composition
in the age of Moses, and consequently of its Mosaic origin.
I-Ie who is not convinced by it of the genuineness and authenticity of the work, is certainly very far removed from credulity; but then he stands at an equal distance from that intel
ligent candor, which feels and owns the force of truth.
* Anc. Eg. 1. 34.




LAWS OF THE MANCIENT HEBREWS.             223
CHAPTER V.
Divine Legation of Moses.
TEHE divine legation of Moses is a legitimate inference from
the argument contained in the last chapter. If the credibility
of the Pentateuch be once admitted, then it follows, as a matter of course, that, in establishing the Hebrew constitution,
Moses was the  accredited  minister of Jehovah; since,
throughout the entire writing, he constantly claims to have
acted in that capacity.  Here I might rest the proof of the
divinity of Moses's mission; but, that nothing may be wanting to the foundation of our faith, I propose, in the present
chapter, to adduce three additional topics of argument to
establish the point in hand, to wit, the theology, the morality,
and the miracles of the Pentateuch.
The theology of the Mosaic code attests its divine original.
This is the first proposition to be illustrated.  Here, as the
basis of the following argument,* the principle is assumed,
that a religious element belongs to the original constitution of
man. It is instinctive with him to fear the power, to reverence the authority, to propitiate the favor, to lean upon the
help, and to imitate the conduct, of some superior being.  He
is thus impelled, by a law of his nature, to worship a divinity.
* For many of the thoughts, and some of the expressions, contained in
this argument, the writer acknowledges himself indebted to the ingenious
anonymous author of the Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation, to which
work the reader is referred.




224               COIMMENTA.RIES ON THE
Accordingly, we find no nation, either of ancient or modern
times, sunk so low in the scale of rational existence, as to be
without some notion of a god, some rites of worship, and some
sentiments of religion.
Now, it belongs to the essential nature of religious worship
to assimilate the moral attributes of the worshippers to those
of the object of worship. The heathen themselves recognize
this principle. "The sum of religion," said Pythagoras, " is
to be like him whom thou worshippest.": Think of Buddah,"
say the priests of that pretended deity, " and you will be
transformed into Buddah." This is consonant to the highest
reason. The heart seeks to be in favor with its god; and
what more natural means to that end, than the imitation of
his qualities and actions,-the assimilation of our character to
his? The god, whom we worship, must constitute our ideal
of perfection; and the nearer we approach our ideal, the
higher, in our own estimation, will be the degree of excellence which we have reached. Every act of worship, therefore, every prayer, every devout aspiration, every serious
thought of the divine nature, must tend to make us one with
our god, and to transfer to ourselves the impress of his character.
The history of idolatry confirms this reasoning. The gods
of Egypt were unwarlike; as a natural consequence, the ordinary policy of Egypt was peaceful. Odin and Thor, those
sanguinary deities of the north, turned their worshippers into
bloodhounds, to whom war was their native element, and the
scent of carnage more grateful than incense. One of the herogods of the Northmnen is represented, in their wild mythology,
as having committed suicide; and his followers, who had
failed to die in battle, imitated the horrid deed, lest a natural
death should abridge their pleasures in the halls of Valhalla.
Venus, that impersonation of sensual pleasure, was the chief
divinity of the Cyprians and the Corinthians. What followed?
The persons highest in honor in those places were prostitutes,




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT UHEBREWS.           542 
who exercised their vocations within the very temples of the
goddess; and lust and sensuality held an undivided empire
over all hearts.
Idolatry had overspread the earth, and was the universal
religion of mankind, when the law was proclaimed from Sinai.
Would the reader learn its influence? Let hinr listen to the
testimony of two of the most distinguished moralists among
the ancients. PIlato says: "The histories of the gods ought
not to be rehearsed in public, lest they should influence the
youth to the commission of crines."  Seneca says: " How
great is the madness of men! They lisp the most abominable
prayers; and if a man is found listening, they are silent.
What a man ought not to hear, they do not blush to relate to
the gods. If any one considers what things they do, instead
of decency, he will find indecency; instead of the honorable,
the unworthy; instead of the rational, the.insane."
The labor of unfolding, in detail, the nature, extent, tendencies, and results of the ancient idolatry, is reserved for a
subsequent part of this work.*  But it may be observed, in
passing, that all history abounds with testimonies, similar to
those cited above. There was scarcely an object, element, or
living creature in nature, good or bad, which did not receive
a heart-debasing and life-corrupting worship. Dead men,
celestial luminaries, light, air, wind, fire, hills, streams, groves,
beasts, birds, reptiles, plants, darkness, storm, pestilence, the
fates, the furies, and other like objects, were deified, and
adored by terrified and trembling votaries. By a system  of
worship, so blind and degrading, reason, truth, and virtue
were well nigh obliterated from the human heart; and, in
their place, folly, falsehood, and vice reigned with almost undisputed sway. Not only in the ruder and more uncivilized,
but even in the most enlightened and polished nations of gentile antiquity, immoralities the most revolting, and crimes the
rmost unnatural, weie sanctioned by the example, and conse* See the Chapter on tile Hebrew Theocracy in the Second Book.
1.




226                COMMENTARIES ON THE
crated in the worship of the gods.  Lewdness was practised in
the temples, and hllnan victims bled upon the altars of these
impure and sangnuiary deities.
An imnportant inquiry arises here; an inquiry of such magnitude, that its solution involved the moral destinies of the
human race  ~ It is, whether man, by his own unaided efforts,
was able to overthrow so vast a systemn of error and corruption, and to replace it with the reign of truth and purity a A
candid survey of the difficulties to be overcome, talken in connexion with the condition and powers of human nature, must
induce the sad conviction, that no such ability inhered in
man, that no such means were within his grasp.
What would be the very first step in' such a labor? The
production of a perfect God; -the creation of an object of
worship, pure, holy, just, wise, good, —in short, possessing all
the proper attributes of divinity in an infinite degree.  And
by what agent must this idea of a perfect being be originated
and developed?  By imperfect man, —a being of high native
endowments, undoubtedly; but with a blight resting upon
all his powers,-the reason, the understanding, the will, the
affections.  IIere is a plain impossibility.  The stream  cannot rise higher than the fountain; much less can the finite
originate the infinite, the impure the pure, the creature of
an hour, the uncreated and eternal one.  Man could not
invest his deities with a holier character than belonged to
himself. He could transfer his own imperfect attributes to
them, and that was the limit of his power in respect of
making gods.  A  sagacious and philosophic heathen has
perceived and expressed, in one brief but pregnant sentence,
the whole truth in reference to this matter. 6" Instead of the
* See on the subject of ancient idolatry Maimon. de Idol. Euseb. Praep.
Evang. L. 1. C. 9. Leland's Adv. of Rev. Pt. 1. Bryant's Analysis of
Mythology. Cic. de Nat. Deor. Voss. de Idol. Selden de Diis Syriis.
Graves on the Pent. Pt. 2. Lect. 1. Josephus con. Apion. And the classical writers passim.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           227
transfer to men of that which is divine," says Cicero, " they
transferred human sins to the gods, and then experienced again
the necessary reaction."
tBut suppose this first obstacle overcome, and a suitable
object of worship imagined and unfolded. Another difficulty,
of scarcely inferior magnitude, would instantly start up in
the path of him, who should undertake the more than Herculean task of uprooting idolatry, and replacing it with a
holier worship. How to persuade men to forsake their follies,
and embrace the truth?  "'Hic labor-, hoc opus est."  The
mere revelation of a proper object of worship is not enough.
Such revelation must be accompanied with a power sufficientlv great to arrest men's attention, to convince them of
the impotence of their idols, to induce them to forsake those
lying vanities, and to worship the holy being, made known
to them. But such a power as this belongs to God alone,
and can be wielded by none but those whom he employs and
commissions.
Of all this, the following is the sum. Man's nature is
religious. He instinctively worships some being, whom he
regards as God. It is the nature of religious worship to assimilate the character of the worshipper to that of the being
worshipped. The objects of worship, everywhere throughout
the ancient world, were corrupt and corrupting. In order to
man's moral improvement, he must have a holy object of
worship. It is obviously impossible for an imperfect and
sinful man to originate the idea of a perfect and sinless god.
And even if this impossibility could be overcome, man does
not possess the power necessary to eradicate idolatry, and
replace it with a better worship. Men must, therefore, have
forever remained wicked idolaters, unless God had interposed
for their deliverance. But God did interpose. This is evident
from the fact, that there is a large portion of mankind who
have renounced idolatry, and now profess and practise a
purer faith. This reformed worship is coeval with the Ilebrew




228               COMIENTARIIES ON THE
polity. The gods, whom men invented and set up, were as
imnperfect and wicked as themselves; and from the nature of
the case, they could not be otherwise. MIoses. on the contrary, revealed a holy and a perfect God. I-ow pure, how
amiable, how sublime, how transcendently glorious the character, with which this God is invested by the Hebrew lawgiver! " I am. that f am"* is the mysterious and awful title,
under which he declares to the children of men his self-existence and eternity.  His unity is announced, with majestic
brevity, in the sentence, "Jehovah, our God, is one Jehovah:" t  His creative power, in the sublime record, In the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth:S   His
sole and supreme dominion, in the declaration, " Jehovah, he
is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath; there is
none else:" ~ And his moral perfections of wisdom, justice,
holiness, truth, goodness, and mercy, in such noble and
glowing  expressions  as these following:-" Ascribe  ye
greatness to our God; he is the Rock; his work is perfect;
for all his ways are judgment; a God of truth, and without
iniquity, just and right is he;11 glorious in holiness, fearful
in praises, doing wonders;  merciful and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in goodness, keeping mercy for
thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin."*  To
this self-existent, eternal, only, omnipotent, supreme, wise,
just, holy, true, and merciful God, Moses everywhere ascribes
a providence, both sovereign and universal, which he represents, not only as directing the government of the universe by general laws, but also as superintending the conduct
and determining the fortune of every nation, of every family,
and of every individual of the human species. How striking
is the contrast, which this sublime delineation of Jehovah as
the maker, proprietor, and sovereign of the universe, in* Ex. iii. 14.    t Deut. iv. 39.         t Gen. i. 1.
D Deut. iv. 39,  11 Ibid. xxxii. 3, 4.    [ Ex. xv. 11.
at Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           229
vested with every conceivable excellence, presents to the
grovelling mythology of the most enlightened portions of
the ancient world, in which the objects of religious worship
were pictured with the passions and vices of the fierce and
licentious chieftains of the primitive ages. And iMoses not
only revealed a perfect God, and published a true true theology,
but he also accompanied the revelation and the publication
with such an exhibition of supernatural power, as to enable
hin to overthrow the system of idolatry, and establish the
better faith upon its ruins.
From all this it follows, as I conceive, by direct and
inevitable inference, that Moses held a divine commission,
and that in founding his constitution of government, and
proclaiming its laws, he acted as the legate and minister of
Heaven. The Pentateuch, so diverse from all the productions of philosophic genius, and so superior to them, presents
a remarkable phenomenon in the intellectual and moral history of our race. If we admit the inspiration of its author,
the phenomenon is at once explained; if we deny his inspiration, no rational solution of it can be offered. The publication of such a theology, in such an age,-a theology, which
put to flight the darkness and the error of polytheisnl, when
polytheism had covered the earth with the temples and the
altars of its monster gods,-cannot be satisfactorily accounted
for without allowing, and is satisfactorily accounted for by
allowing, the truth of the Mosaic history, and the establishment of the Mosaic constitution by divine authority.
The morality, not less than the theology, of the Hiebrew
code, proves the divine mission of the lawgiver. This is the
second point to be opened in the present argument. The
first thing, which attracts our attention here, is the decalogue,
or ten commandments.  These constitute a summary of
moral duty, of unequalled excellence and breadth; a summary,
containing the seminal principles of all human virtue; a
suammary, so comprehensive and perfect, that it cannot be




230               COMMENTARIES ON THE
improved by any conceivable addition or subtraction. The
precepts of the decalogue alone, it has been well and truly
said by Goguet,j disclose more sublime truths, more maxinlS essentially suited to the happiness of man, than all the
writings of profane antiquity together can furnish. The more
o1ne meditates upon them, the brighter and more striking
does their wisdom appear. Vain would be the search among
the writings of profane antiquity, not merely of the remote
antiquity when the law was published from Sinai, but of the
most refined and philosophic ages of Greece and Rome, to
find so broad, so complete, and so solid a basis of morality
as the decalogue exhibits. t
It is related of a distinguished lawyer,: who had been
sceptical on the subject of divine revelation, that he undertook the study of the Old Testament, with a view of satisfying himself as to the validity of its claim to be an inspired
writing. When he came to the decalogue, and had given it
an attentive perusal, lost in admiration of its superhuman
perfection, he exclaimed, "Where did Moses get that law?"
To the resolution of that question, he applied the powers of
an acute and discriminating mind, vigorous by original endowment, and disciplined to exactness by the study of the
law and the practice of the legal profession. The result was
the removal of every sceptical doubt, and the attainment,
of a clear and earnest conviction of the divine original of the
ilaw.
And low, indeed, could an enlightened and candid examination of the decalogue have a different issue? The first
four commandments inculcate that profound and penetrating
sentiment of piety, which forms the only immovable foundation of human virtue. This part of the decalogue enjoins
" the adoration of the one true God, who made heaven and
earth, the sea, and all that in them is; who must, therefore,
3 Orig. of Laws.       t J. Q. Adams's Letters to his Son.: Tract 321 of Am. Tr. Soc.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            231
be infinite in power, and wisdom, and goodness; the object
of exclusive adoration; of gratitude for every blessing we
enjoy; of fear, for he is a jealous God; and of hope, for he
is Inerciful. It prohibits every species of idolatry; whether
by associating false gods with the true, or worshipping the
true by symbols or images. Commanding not to take the
name of God in vain, it enjoins the observance of all outward
respect for the divine authority, as well as the cultivation of
inward sentiments and feelings, suited to this outward reverence; and it establishes the obligations of oaths, and, by
consequence, of all compacts and deliberate promises; a
principle, without which the administration of laws would be
impracticable, and the bonds of society must be dissolved.
By commanding to keep holy the Sabbath, as the memorial
of the creation, it establishes the necessity of public worship,
and of a stated and outward profession of the truths of religion, as well as of the cultivation of suitable feelings: and it
enforces this by a motive, which is equally applicable to all
mankind; and which should have taught the Jew, that he
ought to consider all nations as equally creatures of that Jehovah whom  he himself adored; equally subject to his
government, and if sincerely obedient, equally entitled to all
the privileges his favor could bestow."*
The fifth cornmmandment enjoins, as next in importance to
the duty of worshipping the creator, that of honoring our
earthly parents, as those to whom we owe the greatest of
earthly obligations, and are bound by the strongest of earthly
ties. And while the obligation of honoring father and
mother is alone specifically named, there can be no doubt,
that the principle of the law was meant to be extended to all
the duties arising out of our domestic relations, and indeed
to all " the duties belonginog to every one in their several
places and relations, as superiors, inferiors, or equals."t  So
Philo Judclaeus: interprets.  "In the precept,'honor your
* Graves on the Pent. Pt. 2. Leet. 2.
t Sh. Cat. Ans. to Ques. 64.    I Opp. p. 590.




232                COMMENTARIES ON TtHE
parents;' (he says) are many laws, prescribing the duties of
the young to the old, of subjects to magistrates, of servants
to masters, and of those who have received benefits to their
benefactors."
After this there follow four preceptst designed to restrain
us from injuring our neighbor in his person, his property, his
conjugal rights, and his good name.  Here, the reader will
observe, injuries to our neighbor are classified by the decalogue. The classification is into offences against life, chastity,
property, and character. In each of these classes, the greatest offence is made the object of an express prohibition.
Thus murder is forbidden as the greatest injury to life;
adultery, as the greatest injury to chastity; theft, as the
greatest injury to property; and false witness, or perjury, as
the greatest injury to character.  But the greater must be
understood to include the less; and on this principle both
Jewish doctors and Christian divines have, with one voice.
interpreted these laws.  Agreeably to this view, the commanad, " Thou shalt not kill," forbids, not simply the act of
taking away life, but all injury of every kind to life or limb,
all violence, all hatred, all resentful passion, and every thing
which tends to beget and foster that malignant and revengeful
temper, which constitutes so material a part of the guilt of
murder.  Anger and railing are expressly affirmned by our
Savior to be violations of the fifth commnandment.*  In like
manner the command, " Thou shalt not commit adultery," for.
bids not merely the specific act named, but also, as Philot ex
plains, " all irregular desire and licentious indulgence," and,
as a far greater than he has said, even an impure " look." 5
So of all the rest. The principle is,-and every intelligent
aind candid reasoner will admit its sonndness,-that each of
the commandments must be understood to prohibit, not only
the extreme injury nlamed, but every inferior degree of it as
well, every injury kindred to it in nature, every thing, in
* Matt. v. 22.    t Qpp. p. 592.     + Mat. v. 28.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.               233
short, calculated to prompt and lead to the commission of it;
anld at the same time to inculcate the practice of the contrary virtues, and the cultivation of counteracting dispositions.
This view of the spirituality and comprehensiveness of the
decalogue is confirmed by the nature and form of its closing
precept. All the great interests of piety being provided for
in the first four commandments, all the domestic duties being
secured in the fifth, and all the essential enjoyments of life
being guarded from voluntary injury in the four succeeding
ones, the tenth goes to the very source of human actions-the
heart-and positively forbids all those desires, those inward
motions of the soul, which are the spring of every violation
of the rights of our fellow-creatures.
Where, in all the writings of antiquity, whether in the
codes of its legislators or the ethics of its philosophers,
can a system of human duty be found, comparable to this?
In  different countries,-andc those, too, esteemed civilized
anWs refined —Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Phoenicia, Carthage,
Greece,  and  Rome, —theft,*  piracy,t  adultery,$ crimes
against nature,~ exposure of infants,ll and human sacrifice,f
either separate or combined, have been familiarized by custom, and authorized by law.  Look at the real institutions of
Lycurgus, the most renowned of heathen lawgivers,** and the
imaginary institutions of Plato, the most enlightened of heathen philosophers.tt Impurity the most brutalizing sanctioned, and cruelty the most unnatural enforced, by legal
enactments!  Behold  the mild Trajan and  the  amiable
Cicero,:: one of them exhibiting, and the other defending,
* Plut. in Lye.       t Thucyd. L. 1. c. 5.: Plut. in Lye.
Q Virg. Ec. 2. Plut. in Lye.   Leland's Adv. of Rev. Pt. 1. c. 7. Pt. 2
c. 3.
11 Plut. in Lyc. Ter. Self-Tormentor. Plat. de Rep. L. 5. Arist. Pol.
L. 7. c. 16. Cic. de Leg. L. 3. c. 8. From the authority last cited it aml
pears, that the practice was enjoined by a law of the twelve tables.
~ Magee on Aton. & Sac. vol. 1. pp. 88, seq.
** Plut. in Lye.'t Plat. de Rep. L. 5.  Jt De Fin. L. 3.




231               COMMENTARIES ON THE
the murderous combats of the gladiators   Hear even the
virtuous Cato,-for so he was styled by the ancients, —coolly
applauding public houses of prostitution, * and heartlessly
declaring, that an old plough and a worn-out slave ought to
be treated in the same manner! " The Greeks (we are told
by an inspired writer) sought after wisdom." t  But did they
find it?  Let the leading dogmas of their various schools of
philosophy answer. The epicureans made pleasure the chief
good, and virtue that by which it could be most successfully
attained. The academicians knew not whether virtue is preferable to vice, or vice to virtue; nor did they suppose that,
amid the endless varieties and conflicts of human opinion,
anything could be decided with absolute certainty; that is,
they held that truth, in the strict sense, is unattainable. The
stoics taught, that man is bound to act conformably to his
nature; that the great object of human pursuit is conformity
to nature; and that this is the origin and foundation of all
-moral obligation.:
Such was the legislation, and such the philosophy, of profane antiquity. The question of the sceptical lawyer returns
upon us, "1 Where did Moses get his law?"-a law, as we see,
incomparably superior to all that was produced by the civil
and philosophic wisdom of the most enlightened ages and
nations of the ancient world. Moses lived at a very remote
period in the history of mankind, a period comparatively
barbarous and unenlightened; yet has he given to the world
a law, in vwhich all the learning and sagacity of subsequent
ages have not been able to detect a single flaw. Where did
he get this law?  Could he, by his own independent and unaided powers, soar so far above all his cotemporaries and
compeers, as to devise it himself?  This cannot, with any
show of reason or probability, be pretended. The source,
then, whence it emanated, is open as the day. It came direct
* Hor. Sat. L. 1. S. 2.     1 Cor. i. 22.
-+ Spring's Obl. of the World to the Bib. pp. 159, 160.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           23i
from the infinite intelligence, and is an undoubted seal of the
divine mission of him, through whose agency it was enacted,
and by whose pen it was published to the world.
Here I rest the argument for the supernatural illumination
and guidance of Moses in the enactment of his code, so far as
it depends upon the consideration of the moral principles
embodied therein. It does not seem to me needful, for the
purpose I have in view, to urge it beyond this point. The
reader who would see it fully elucidated, may consult the
second lecture of the second part of dean Graves's admirable
work on the Pentateuch. There he will find the following
positions firmly established, viz. that the law of Moses'" enjoined love to God with the most unceasing solicitude, and
love to our neighbor as extensively and forcibly as the peculiar design of the Jewish economy and the peculiar character of the Jewish people would permit; that it impressed the
deepest conviction of God's requiring, not mere external
observances, but heartfelt piety, well regulated desires, and
active benevolence; that it taught sacrifice could not obtain
pardon without repentance, or repentance without reformation and restitution; that it described circumcision itself,
and by consequence every other legal rite, as designed to
typify and inculcate internal holiness, which alone could
render men acceptable to God; and that it represented the
love of God as designed to act as a practical principle stimullating to the constant and sincere cultivation of purity, mercy,
and truth." Certainly it is not a forced conclusion, which
the learned author draws from these premises, that a moral
system so perfect, and promulgated at so early a period,
strongly bespeaks a divine original.
I observe again, that the divine legation of Moses reposes
with a firmness and stability that nothing can shake, on the
miracles which he performed by the command of God.
Every ancient lawgiver, of any eminence, claimed to have
received his ordinances from some divinity, -a Jupiter, a




236               COMMENTARIES ON THE
Minerva, an Apollo, a Miercury, a Vesta, or an Egeria.
Moses, also, with a greater distinctness and emphasis than
any of them, asserted his inspiration by Jehovah, the true
God, in the laws which he ordained and published to his
countrymen. And, that which none of the others could do,
Moses proved the authenticity of his claim by a succession
of the most stupendous miracles; —miracles done in open
day, palpable to the senses, repeatedly involving one nation
in unparalleled perplexity and distress, and supplying the
necessities of another, in a manner quite beyond and above
all the ordinary methods and resources of nature;-miracles,
which could neither be forged, counterfeited, nor gainsayed;miracles, whose reality is at this day attested by proofs a
thousandfold clearer and stronger than any that make us
believe, that Coesar crossed the Rubicon, and seized upon the
liberties of his country,-that Hannibal traversed the Alps,that Scipio conquered Carthage, —or, indeed, that any other
unquestioned and unquestionable fact of ancient story was,
as it has come down to us in the record that contains it.
The human mind, apparently by an original law of its
constitution, demands the evidence of miracles, that is, the
doing of things above the reach of nature, in proof of a
divine commission to establish a new religion. These are
the necessary credentials of a messenger of IHeaven, without
which his claim to such a character is instinctively rejected,
and with which it is as instinctively acknowledged with
reverence and submission. Through miracles, the authority
of such a claim entrenches itself in the deepest convictions of
men; and nothing can dislodge it, but the production of a
contrary conviction, that the miracles themselves are the
effect of imposture and illusion. Miracles believed constitute the ultimate basis of every received system of religion in
the world; miracles disproved would be the inevitable destruction of every such system.
Accordingly, we find that the first and main endeavor of




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            237
the enemies of revealed religion has always been to discredit
the evidence and authority of its miracles, either by establishing the falsity of the record, or by showing the miracles\
themselves to have been mere scientific devices, invented to
impose on the credulity of ignorance and the wea:kness of
enthusiasm. But every such attempt has only recoiled upon
its authors, evincing at the same time their impotence,
and the impregnable strength of the citadel, which they had
nndertaken to demolish.
The miracles of Moses differ fiom the pretended miracles
of false religions in three particulars,-their authenticity,
their nature, and their end.
They differ in their authenticity. The credibility of the
history, in which the miracles are related, was proved in
the last chapter; and this, of course, involves the truth, as
well of the miraculous, as of the common events of the record.
The inquirer will probably be satisfied with the proof, which
has been exhibited; the caviller, by none that can be exhibited. Still, let the two following considerations be added,
as confirmatory of the reality and truth of the miracles recorded in the Pentateuch. The one of them is largely and forcibly opened by dean Graves in his Lectures on the Pentatench,* and the other, with no less ability, by the acute and
philosophical Leslie, in his Short Method with Deists. f
Superadded to the important fact, that the miraculous
events of the Pentateuch are interwoven in one detail with
the common ones, witlh the same marks of candor, artlessness,
and truth, is the further and more important consideration,
that the common events, sundered from the miracles, are
disconnected, unnatural, inexplicable, improbable, and even
wholly incredible; but combined with them, the entire series
becomes natural, consistent, and every way probable. Let
a single illustration of this position suffice; and for this purpose, take the exodus itself, with the circumstances attending
* Part 1, Lect. 5.   t Passim.




238               COOMMENTARIES ON TRHE
it. The common facts here, as contradistinguished from the
miraculous events by which they were accompanied, —facts
admitted by all, unbelievers as well as believersa-are such
as these following: A numerous nation is held in the most
abject political slavery, by the proudest and mightiest monarchy of earth. For entire centuries, they have worn their
chains, nor made one effort to, burst them asunder, and
assert their freedom. The vindication of their liberty by
force is an enterprise so utterly hopeless, that no thought of
it has ever been entertained.  The Israelites are without
arms, without spirit, without military knowledge and discipline, without martial resources of any sort; while their
masters and oppressors abound in all. At length, however,
headed by a stranger,-for Moses has been forty years away
from  Egypt,-and he armed only with a simple staff, they
demand leave of the haughty and powerful sovereign to
emigrate in a body, from his territories, with their wives,
their little ones, their flocks, their herds, and all their possessions. The loss of this people will be to him the loss of
the greatest instrument of his power, luxury, and pride.
Will lie let them go?  Will he, in this easy manner, part
with their invaluable service?  We shall see.  The request
for permission to depart is made in the name of Jehovah,
who is not only the sovcreign. of the universe, but also the
tutelary God of the   Uibrews,,.  To this request, with the
swelling insolence of conscious power, the monarch replies,
" Who is Jehovah, that I should obey his voice to let Israel
go? I know not Jehovah, neither will I let Israel go."*
Thereupon, he endeavors still further to break the spirit of
the people by increasing their burdens.t  A  short time
elapses, and what happens? No sword is lifted, no spear is
poised, no bow is bent, no arrow is sped, no dart is aimed,
no human force of any kind is exerted. Yet the proud
monarch is humbled.: Ile yields to the demand, which
* Ex. v. 2.    t Ex. v. 5-9.        1 Ex. xii. 31.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          239
before he rejected with scorn. Nay, more; he not only lets
Israel go, but both he and his people, terrified and panicstruck, unite in urging them  to hasten their departure.*
And they go, loaded with treasures bestowed upon them
by their mercenary lords. In the act of departing, the
Israelites demand (not " borrow") of the Egyptians gold and
silver and jewels and raiment.t This treasure the divine
providence awards to them, in recompence for the service
rendered in their long and bitter bondage. The Egyptians
grant everything that is asked;  and the Israelites begin
their emigration, six hundred thousand men on foot, besides
women and children, and a mixed multitude of Egyptians,
as well as flocks and herds and much cattle. ~
Can any thing be more unnatural, improbable, and incredible, on the supposition, that there were no supernatural
causes in operation to work out these results?  Can any
thing be more natural, probable, and even certain, if we admit
the reality of the miraculous plagues recorded in the Pentateuch? An analysis of the relation of almost every miracle
to the common events connected with it, would afford a similar result. Does not such a fact furnish strong presumptive
evidence of the truth of the miracles 
The second additional consideration to prove the authenticity of the Mosaic miracles, referred to above, is that which
Dr. Leslie has handled, with such masterly ability and such
unanswerable force, in his Short M ethod with the Deists.
This ingenious author proves the truth of the miraculous
events of the Pentateuch by applying to them four rules,
which, whenever they can be truly applied to any matters of
fact, exclude every rational doubt of their reality. The first
rule is, that the facts be such, that men's senses can judge of
them. The second is, that they be performed publicly, in
the presence of witnesses. The third,' that public monuments
be set up, and public actions be appointed te be performed,
* Ex. xii. 33.   I Ex. xii. 35.   $ Ex. xii. 36.   ~ Ex. xii. 37, 38.




240               COMMENTARZES ON THE
in memory of them. And the fourth, that these monuments
and actions be established and instituted at the time of the
facts, and thenceforward continued without interruption.
The first two rules make it impossible to impose a false fact
upon men at the time when the alleged fact is said to happen, because every body's senses would contradict it. Thus,
for example, if I were to publish to the people of New York,
that I yesterday divided the HIudson river in the presence of
the whole city, and that they all passed over dry-shod, I
could not get a single individual to credit the statement, for
the simple reason, that every man, woman, and child, would
know that they had neither seen the stream parted, nor had
themselves crossed over its bed, in the manner alleged. The
last two rules render it equally impossible to impose a false
fact upon the credulity of any subsequent age, when the generation in which it was said to occur, has passed away;
because, whenever the alleged fact is related, since the statement of the fact is accompanied with the declaration, that
public monuments of it still remain, and public actions have
ever been, and still are, statedly performe.d to commemorate
it, the forger puts it in the power of every one to detect and
discredit his fabrication, there being no such public monuments existing, and no such public actions done, as he alleges. To recur, in illustration, to the former example.
Suppose I were to pretend, that the miracle of dividing the,
lHudson was performed on new year's day by the first Dutch
governor of New York, and were to add to the story tle
allegation, that a vast hall had been erected, at the time
when it occurred, of stones obtained from the channel of the
river; that a festival of a very peculiar kind, instituted to
commemorate the miracle, had ever since, even down to the
present time, been celebrated in the hall the first day of every
year; and that the door of the hall is never, on any pre.
text, opened at any other time. or for any other purpose.
Is there a person living credulous enough to believe the




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           241
story?  Would not every child even, on hearing it, say,
-" I never saw the hall, of which you speak; I never witnessed, nor saw the person that has witnessed, the festival,
which you describe; and I never heard of any building in
N~"ew York, which is opened but once a year."
1Now, how do these four marks of authenticity apply to the
miraculou-s events of the Pentateuch? In the most exact and
wonderful manner. Consider!  Could any thing be more
public, or more within the cognizance of men's senses, than
the miracles ascribed to Moses?-as tohe plagues of Egypt,
the passage of the Red Sea, the pillar of cloud and fire, the
giving of the law, the healing of the waters of Marah, the
manna, the quails, the preservation of their garments, the
cures effected by the brazen serpent, the destruction of
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, the bringing the water out of
the flinty rock, &c. &c. If these things had not happened,
as they are recorded, could Moses have obtained credit for
them among the men of that generation? Not a whit more
than I could obtain credit from the people of New York in
asserting, that I had parted the waters of the Hudson in their
presence, and led them all dry-shod over the river to Jersey
City. Thus the reader perceives the entire applicability of
Leslie's first two rules to the Mosaic miracles.
But are the other two rules equally pertinent? We may
answer, without the least hesitation, yes; they have both an
equal applicability in themselves, and an equal force and conclusiveness, when actually applied.  There is scarcely a
miracle in the record, which was not attested by public
monuments set up, or public actions performed, or both
combined, to commemorate it.  For example: The two
tables of stone, preserved in the ark, were a monument of
the miraculous giving of the law at Sinai.* The pot of
manna kept in the same, was a monument of the miraculous
food in the wilderness.t Aaron's rod that budded, also preo.
* Deut. x. 5.       t Ex. xvi. 33.
16




242               COMMENTARIES ON THE
served ill the ark, and the censers of Korah and his party,
formed into plates for overlaying the altar, were monuments
of the miraculous destruction of the rebels.*  The brazen
serpent, kept, till it was destroyed by Uezekiah, as having
become an object of idolatrous veneration, was a mIon-ulnent
of the miraculous cures wrought upon the people, when
bitten by the fiery serpents in the wilderness.t  The heap of
stones at Gilgal, taken from the dry bed of the Jordan, was
a monument of the miraculous passage of that river by the
chosen tribes.: The reasoning of Leslie~ on this last monument,-and it is equally applicable to all the others, —has an
irresistible force, and is quite unanswerable.  "To form our
argument," he says, "let us suppose that there never was
any such thing as that passage over Jordan; that these
stones at Gilgal were set up on some other occasion, in some
after age; and then, that some designing men invented this
book of Joshua, and said it had been written at that time,
and gave this stonage at Gilgal for a testimony of its truth.
Would not every body say,'We know of this stonage at
Gilgal, but we never before heard of this reason, nor of this
book of Joshua. Where has it been all this time? And
when and how  came you, after so many ages, to find it?
Besides, this book tells us, that, after this passage over Jordan, it was ordained to be taught to our children from age to
age, and therefore, that they were always to be instructed in
the meaning of this monument. But we were never taught
it, nor did we ever teach our children any such event.'
Thus impossible would it be to gain credit for a fact thus
circumstanced, after the period when it was supposed to take
place."
But the proof of the reality of the 1MVosaic miracles is still
stronger; for the public commemorative actions of the Jewish nation were far more numerous than the public monu* Num. xvi. 39, 40, xvii. 10.   t Comp. Num. xxi. and 2 Kings xviii.
$ Josh. iv. 20-23.       i Short Method with the Dcists, p. 14.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           243
ments set up among them; insomuch that, as dean Graves *
has truly observed, we mayv almost be said to have two histories of Moses and his miracles,-one in the written record of
the Pentateuch, and the other in the institutions, ceremonies,
and festivals of the Hebrew people. The consecration of the
tribe of Levi to the religious service of the nation was commemorative of the miraculous destruction of the first-born of
the Egyptians.t  The passover was commemorative of the
several miraculous events preceding and accompanying the
exode.4  The pentecost was commemorative of the miracu.
lous promulgation of the law.~  The feast of tabernacles was
commemorative of the miraculous supplies, guidance, and
protection, which the Israelites enjoyed throughout all their
journeyings and encampments in the wilderness.1I  Nay, the
entire Jewish ritual, with all its sacrifices, sabbaths, new
moons, and feasts of various name, was, either directly or indirectly, commemorative of the miraculous deliverance out of
Egyptian bondage, and the various other miraculous interpositions of divine providence in behalf of this people, whereby
they were shielded, sustained, guided in the right way, and
finally established in the promised land, a free and independent nation. In this manner, the whole series of signal miracles, from the first, which Moses wrought in the presence of
Pharaoh, to the last, which brought them safely over Jordan,
was recalled to the memory of the Jews, and attested as authentic and indubitable, yearly, monthly, weekly, daily, almost hourly, as long as a vestige of their religion remained.
Attested, I say, as authentic and indubitable; for, could an
impostor, in a remote age, invent these miracles, and get the
whole Jewish race, not only to believe the facts themselves,
but also, which would be more difficult, that both they and
their ancestors had, from time immemorial, been in the habit
of celebrating various festivals, and performing  various pubX On the Pent. Pt. Lect. 6.   t Comp. Ex. xiii. and Num. iii. and viii.: Ex. xii,    ~ Deut. xxvi. 5-10.      [ Lev. xxiii. 40-43.




244               COMIMEzTARIES ON THE
lie actions, in memory of them? That would be just such
another impossibility as for me now to get the people of New
York to believe, not only that the first Dutch governor divided
the waters of the Hudson river, and led their ancestors over
on dry ground, but also, that an immense building, erected,
at the time of the miracle, of stones procured from the bed of
the stream, is still stanIding, that it is opened only once a
year, and that, on this occasion, they themselves do, as their
ancestors did before them, participate in a commemorative
festival, marked by peculiar and remarkable ceremonies.
Thus are the miracles of Moses guarded against the charge
of falsehood at every point. They could not be imposed
upon the Jews in the age of Moses; for they were of so publie a nature, and so completely within the cognizance of
men's senses, that, unless they were real, they could not have
gained the credence of a single person; much less, of an entire nation. They could not be imposed upon the Jews in
any subsequent age; for, in order to this, at the very moment
when the miracles were first told to them, they must have
been made to believe, that their ancestors for ages back had
known them, that they themselves had been taught them in
infancy, and that they were surrounded with public monuments, and in the habit of performing public actions, commemorating them; which is impossible.
The miracles of Moses differ from the pretended miracles
of false religions in their nature, as well as in their authenticity. Both in their intrinsic properties and their external
circumstances, the difference between false miracles and true
is as great as the difference between darkness and light.
Counterfeit miracles are apt to be trifling in their character,
as the cutting of a stone with a razor, the suspension of a
coffin in tIre air, or some other inanity. Mohammed himself
set up no claim to the power of miracles; and those which are
ascribed to bim,-as his conversation with the moon and his
night journey from Mecca to Jerusalem and thence to heaven,




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           245
— are ridiculous legends, which are rejected by the more sober and reflecting of his own followers. The marvellous adventures of the heathen deities are not only trivial and absurd, but often degrading and immoral also. Stch are the
stories of Mercury's stealing sheep, and of Jupiter's transforming himself, now into a bull, and now into a shower of
gold, the more readily to compass a base gratification. But
the miraculous interpositions of divine power recorded in the
Pentateuch are uniformly marked with a grandeur worthy
of the creator of the world, before whom the gods of the mythologists, not excepting even their supreme Jupiter, dwindle
into vanity and emptiness. Let him who would mark the
characteristics, which distinguish true religion from false, and
real miracles from lying wonders, compare the manner in which
the ten commandments were proclaimed from the fiery summit
of mount Sinai, by the voice of Jehovah, in the hearing of more
than two million souls, with the studied secresy and mystery
and mummery, with which the oracles of the pagan gods were
delivered. Here the divine voice, issuing from the visible
glory, was distinctly heard by the assembled nation, promulgating the moral law, with every circumstance, which could
impress the deepest awe upon even the dullest minds. HIow
solemn, how awful was this manifestation of the Deity, and
how well suited to make indelible impressions upon the
imaginations and souls of the mortals, to whom he revealed
himself, in a law worthy of the sublimity which invested its
promulgation, a law perfect and glorious as its author. The
entire annals of paganism  may be challenged to furnish a
parallel to this scene.
The miracles of Moses differ from the miracles of priestcraft
in their end, quite as much as in their authenticity and their
nature. The pretended miracles of paganism were without
point or meaning; but those of Moses interpreted, at the same
time that they confirmed, his doctrine. Every miracle had its
lesson. Along with the almighty power which produced it




246               COMMENTARIES ON THE
each revealed a principle, which was thenceforth to take the
place of the miracle, and render a similar interposition of the
Deity ever afterwards unnecessary. In illustration of this
point, let us glance at the series of miracles, which preceded
and accoinplished the exodus of Israel.
Idolatry, as observed above, had now spread its infection
throughout the entire mass of mankind. In this false and corrupt system of religion Egypt stood preeminent. Herein she
was the teacher of other nations; and her pernicious influence
had extended itself far beyond her territorial limits. The whole
virus of polytheism seems to have collected itself in this polished and cultivated people. It had, obviously, become essential to the religious interests of mankind, that a striking display should be made of the folly and futility of idolatry, as
well as of the existence and power of the one living and true
God. It is a p)artial and imperfect view of the miracles
wrought in the field of Zoan, which those take, who regard
them as limited in their design to the deliverance of the chosen
people out of Egyptian bondage. This they were undoubtedly
intended to effect; but a further and more important purpose
was, to confound the impure idolatry of Egypt, and to make
suchl a revelation of the infinite, eternal, and unchangeable
Jehovah to the Israelites, as would be sufficient to call forth
and confirm their faith in his being, wisdom, power, holiness,
justice, goodness, and truth. That the plagues of Egypt had
this breadth of design, that in them God was engaged in opposing and defeating the power of the Egyptian idols, is distinctly announced by himself in the declaration,* " Against
all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment." The same
thing appears from the remark of Jethro,t the father-in-law
of ~Moses, on hearing a recital of them:  " Now I know that
Jehovah is greater than all gods; for in the thing wherein
they dealt proudly, he is above them." Nothing, therefore,
can be more certain than that the controversy was less with
* Ex. xii. 12.   t Ex. xviii. 11.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           247
the sovereign than with the idols of Egypt; and that the miracles, in breaking his power and subduing his will, were intended to confront and put to shame the gods in whom he
trusted. Unless we take this broad view of the subject, the
miracles, though they remain stupendous exhibitions of divine
power, lose their peculiar appropriateness and significancy.
With this principle for our guide, let us briefly examine the
system  of miracles, employed to humble the pride of the
Egyptian monarch, in confounding and defeating the power
of the Egyptian gods, and so to effect the exodus of the chosen people from the Egyptian dominions.
The first in the series was manifestly aimed against one of
the prevalent forms of Egyptian superstition, that of serpent
worship. No fact of ancient history is better attested than
that in Egypt the serpent was an emblem of divinity, and that
its worship formed a conspicuous part of her idolatry.*  The
second time that Moses and Aaron appeared before Pharaoh,
he demanded a miracle t in proof of a divine mission. Aaron
cast down his rod, and it became a serpent.4  The king's
magicians imitated this miracle, " for they cast down every
man his rod, and they became serpents."~ Either by sleight
of hand they substituted serpents for their rods, or Jehovah,
for a wise purpose, changed them into serpents. So far the
contest between the true God and the false gods seemed
equal; or, if there was any advantage, it appeared rather on
the side of the idols. But what followed? "Aaron's rod
swallowed up their rods."11 This result clearly proclaimed
the superiority of the invisible God of the Hebrews over the
serpent-gods of the Egyptians.
The second miracle,-which was the first plague,-was directed against the worship of the Nile, and intended to disprove the divinity of that river. The miracle consisted in
smiting the waters of the river, and turning them into blood.'
- Deane on the Serp. in Smith's Heb. Peop. p. 38.
t Ex. vii. 9.         Ex. vii. 10.          ~ Ex. vii. 12.
U Ex. vii. 12.     ~ Ex. vii. 20.




248                COMMENTARIES ON THE
The iNile, it is well known, was a chief deity of the Egyptians.*  Indeed, Moses was colmmanded to meet Pharaoh,
" early in the morning as he went forth to the water,"':  that
is, just as he was preparing to bring his daily offering to the
false god. At this point of time, when the Nile was receiving, or about to receive, the religiouns homage of Egypt's
haughty sovereign, all its waters were turned into blood, and
the fish that was in the river died, and the Egyptians could
not drink of the water.: HIow manifestly did Jehovah here
execute'" judgment against the gods of Egypt!"~ What could
be better suited than this miracle to cover 7with confusion the
whole system of Egyptian idolatry?
The next plague was intended as a confutation of reptile worship, a practice in which Egypt had, at a very early period of
her history, obtained an infamous notoriety.  This miracle
consisted in bringing up firogs from  the Nile and all the
waters of Egypt, ill such numbers, that the loathsome creatures penetrated everywhere, even into the houses, and into
the bed-chambers, and into the beds, and into the ovens, and
into all the receptacles of provisions.l Mlust not this have
been felt as a signal and most painful rebuke of the particular species of superstition, against which it was directed?
The third plague was still more loathsome.  The miracle
consisted in smiting the dust of the earth, so that it became
lice, covering man and beast throughout all the land of
Egypt.~  This miracle was aimed against the entire system of
idolatrous worship; since, as no priest could officiate in the
temples with so impure an insect on his person, not a single
religious rite could be performed during the continuance of
it. " To conceive the severity of this miracle," observes
* Herod, c. B. 2. 90. Cic. de Nat. Deor. Plut. de Is. et 0 ir. p. 363.
" The monuments bear witness to the same effect as the ancient authors."
fIengsten. Eg. and Bks. of Mos. p. 113.
t Ex. vii. 15.        t Ex. vii. 20, 21.        Ex. xii. 12.
11 Ex. viii. 3.      ~[ Ex. viii. 17.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            249
Stackhouse,s "as a judgment on their idolatry, we must recollect their utter abhorrence of all kinds of vermin, and their
extreme attention to external purity, above every other people,
perhaps, that have ever existed. On this head they were more
particularly solicitous, when about to enter the temples of
their gods; for Hlerodotus informs us, that the priests wore
linen garments only, that they might be daily washed, and
every third day, shaved every part of their body, to prevent
lice, or any species of impurity, from adhering to those who
were engaged in the worship of the gods. * * * *  thence we
find, that, on the production of the lice, the priests and magi
cians perceived immediately from what hand the miracle had
come; for it was probably as much from this circumstance,
as from  its exceeding their own art to imitate, that they exclaimed,' This is the finger of God.' "
The fourth plague was the miracle of flies, "a grievous
swarm, coming into the house of Pharaoh, and into his servants' houses, and into all the land of Egypt," so that " the
land was corrupted by the swarm of flies."t It is probable,
that this miracle was designed as a curse on the animal worship of Egypt. "A poisonous fly resting on all animals without distinction must have exhibited the weakness of these
imaginary gods, and the folly of their worship, in the most
affecting manner."; But further: There is reason to think,
that the instrument, by which this plague was inflicted, was
itself regarded with idolatrous veneration. Baal-Zebub, " the
lord of flies," was the tutelary deity of Ekron,-a city of the
Philistines, which was near the confines of Egypt,-and was
worshipped there as a fly-god, the defender of the people
against this noxious insect. It is probable, that a like superstition prevailed in Egypt. The guardian god of lower Egypt
was adored under the symbol of a winged asp. In this form
* Hist. of Bib. Vol 1, p. 473.
t Ex. viii. 24: Smith's Heb. Peop. p. 40.




250               COMMENTARIES ON THE
Wilkinson * found it sculptured in one of the royal tombs at
Thebes. The deity showed himself utterly incapable of
protecting his worshippers against the power, that was thus
grievously afflicting them, and pouring contempt upon the
whole system of animal worship. Here, agtain, we have Jehovah " executing judgment against the gods of Egypt,"t and
"in the thling wherein they dealt proudly" showing himself
" above them.4"
The fifth plague, like the preceding one, was designed to
show the folly and falsity of the brute worship of Egypt. The
miracle consisted in bringing " a grievous murrain," a contagious, inflammatory, and very fatal disease, "upon the
horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and
upon the sheep."~ The severity of this miracle, as a vindictive
stroke, aimed against the abomination of animal worship,
may be estimated from the fact, that the death of a single one
of the sacred animals was looked upon by the Egyptians as
a great public calamity. IHow terrible, then, must have been
their consternation at seeing them  perish by thousands!
What severer judgment could the God of the Hebrews have
executed against the gods of the Egyptians? HIow humbling
were such visitations to the pride of a nation, claiming preeminence over all others in power and wisdom! I-Iow strong
their tendency to wean the people from their absurd and
impure theology!
The next miracle,-the plague of boils,l —deserves to arrest
our most serious attention. " Hitherto the judgments of God
had been chiefly directed against the objects of idolatrous
worship; this affected the most cultivated and powerful supporters of this idolatry."~T The reader is requested to notice
particularly the means, which the Lord directed Moses to
employ to produce this plague, —"handfuls of ashes of the
* Anc. Eg. Vol. 5, pp. 45, 84.    t Ex. xii. 12.
$ Ex. xviii. 11.          ~ Ex. is. 3.
1 Ex. ix. 8-12.           I Smith's Heb. Peep. p. 41.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           251
furnace, sprinkled toward the heaven in the sight of Pharaoh."*
THE furnace. WVhat furnace? The answer to this question is
important; for on it the force and significancy of the miracle
mainly depend. The Egyptians, like the orientals, believed
in the existence of an evil principle, which they adored under
the rname of Typho. This malign deity was worshipped with
human sacrifices. The fact is mentioned by several ancient
authors; but Plutarch,t from Manetho, describes the manner
of the worship. " Formerly in the city of Idithya," he says,
" they were wont to burn even men alive, giving them the
name of Typhos, and, winnowing their ashes through a sieve,
to scatter and disperse them in the air."  This was done to
propitiate the cruel deity, and that evil might be averted fronm
every place, whereon there fell a single palticle of the ashes
of the human victims consumed upon his altars. These altars,
there is every reason to suppose, were " the furnace" of the
sacred text, and these ashes were the ashes which Moses was
directed to sprinkle by handfuls towards heaven, in the sight
of Pharaoh; for what occasion would be more likely to call
into requisition the horrid rites above described, than the
tappalling visitations, under which Egypt had been now for
some time suffering.? The ashes, from which the Egyptian
court and hierarchy were hoping for relief and victory, cast by
Moses into the air, instead of preventing evil, became a new
source of it, for it turned to boils and blains on the persons
of king, priest, magician, and people. Thus the rites of this
Egyptian Moloch proved a curse rather than a blessing to his
worshippers, and the power and supremacy of Jehovah were
incontestably established. The triumph was complete; and the
Egyptians could not but see and own, that there was neither
might, nor wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against
the Lord.t Does not this miracle, thus explained, make God's
controversy with the idolatry of Egypt clear as a sunbeam? 
* Ex. ix. 8.
t De Is. et Osir. in Smith's Heb. Peep. p. 42.: Prov. xxi. 30.




252               COMkMENTARIES ON TEE
And does it not give a meaning, consistency, and force to the
transaction, which would otherwise be wanting to it?
The seventh plague was a severe tempest, attended with
lightning, thunder, hail, and rain.*  This miracle carried
the war upon the Egyptian superstition into a new departinent of it,-the vegetable kingdom. The wisdom of Egypt
deified, not only beasts, reptiles, and insects, but trees and
plants also. Among the vegetable gods of her impure and
grovelling theology were, of trees, the peach, the pomegranate, the vine, the acanthus, the fig, and the tamnarisk;
and of plants, the onion, the garlic, the papyrus, and the ivy.
If these were not all actually worshipped as deities, some of
them were, and the others received a superstitious veneration,
as sacred and divine. Here, then, in the wide-spread destruction, occasioned by this miraculous storm  to the vegetable
growth of Egypt, for " the hail smote every herb of the field,
and brake every tree of the field,"{[ we have a fresh confutation of the Egyptian idolatry.
In the address which Jehovah, when about to inflict this
plague upon Egypt, directed Moses to make to Pharaoh, there
occurs an expression, which confirms the view here taken of
the significance and intent of this whole succession of miracles: " That thou mayest know that there is none like me in
a11 the earth.": Here there is a direct comparison between
Jehovah and some other beings. To suppose between hini
and men would be jejune and frigid. It must certainly be
between Jehovah and other gods. But if so, then the entire
series of plagues was, as here contended, a controversy
between true religion and false, a war carried on by the living
God against the senseless and impure system of idolatry,
weak in every thing, except its power to corrupt and destroy
the souls of men. The account of this miracle contains also
an intimation of the effect, which the issue of the controversy
thus far had had on the Egyptians. Some are described as
* Ex. ix. 23, 24.    t Ex. ix. 25.:    Ex. ix. 14.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           253;fearing the word of Jehovah," and, as a consequence,'making their servants and cattle flee into the houses;"*
others as regarding not the word of Jehovah," and so " leaving their servants and cattle in the field."t  From this statement, it is plain that there were some, we may reasonably
suppose there were many, of the wealthy Egyptians, whose
confidence in their idols had been thoroughly shaken, and who
now believed that Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews, was the
living and the true God.
The eighth plague had a similar object with the seventh, and
was, as it were, the consummation of it. The miracle consisted in an unprecedented incursion of locusts, brought by a
strong east wind.: "Very grievous were they.      * 
They covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was
darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all
the fruit of the trees which the hail had left; and there
remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of
the field, through all the land of Egypt."~  Thus was completed the triumph of the God of Israel over the vegetable
gods of Egypt. Solne writers have supposed, that this miracle was directed especially against the worship of Serapis,
whose function it was to protect the country against locusts.j
If such was the office of this god, his impotence stood conspicuously revealed. At any rate, through the present and
preceding penal visitations, Egypt saw all she held most dear
and sacred on earth, crushed, broken, obliterated, and destroyed, by a power, which seemed armed against the entire
range of her idolatrous worship. Iow galling to a nation so
proud of her wisdom, her power, and her gods!
But a still more humiliating blow was yet to fall upon the
pride of Egypt; a still more signal proof was to be given of
the impotence and nothingness of her idols. One class of
* Ex. ix. 20.           f Ex. ix. 21.
$ Ex. x. 13.            { Ex. x. 14. 15.
1 Smith's Heb. Peep. p. 43.




254               COMMlENTARIES ON THE
her deities alone remained yet unabashed and untouched by
the power of Jehovah,-the heavenly luminaries.  It is
against the divinity of these orbs, particularly of the most
resplendently glorious of them, that the ninth plague was
directed.*  "The sun was worshipped throughout Egypt.
The sacred emblems of his influence and supremacy were
constantly in use. * *- * * The moon was also worshipped
under the namie of Thoth. * * *  These sublime objects of
their idolatrous worship seemed to be too distant from our
earth, too great and too glorious, to be affected by any
power which Moses could wield. *' * *  But Jehovah
had arisen out of his place to vindicate his insulted majesty.
* * * *  In the accomplishment of this purpose, no object
was so high, no creature so great, as to withstand his will.
MIoses was commanded to stretch out'his hand toward
heaven, and there was a thick darkness in all the land of
Egypt three days.' So deep was the darkness that during
the whole of this time,' they saw not one another.' So overwhelming were the amazement and sorrow, that during this
period no man'rose from  his place.' Uncertain whether
they should ever again see the light, they lay paralyzed in a
darkness that could be felt. Here the triumph of the God of
Israel was complete, and the perfect vanity of Egyptian
idolatry demonstrated. Egypt, with all her learning and
prowess, supported by a gorgeous and almost boundless
range of idolatrous religion, is exhibited as convicted, punished, and without any power to escape, or any hope of
alleviation."t
Having thus " executed judgment against all the gods of
Egypt,"'f and shown himself " greater than all gods," being
"above them in the thing wherein they dealt proudly,"~'
Jehovah by the tenth and last in this terrible series of penal
inflictions, intended to teach the Egyptians, by causing the
* Ex. x. 21-23.        t Smith's Heb. Peop. p. 43-44.
$ Ex. xii. 12.         ~ Ex. xviii. 11.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           255
iron to enter into their own souls, that to him alone it belonged to execute judgment in the earth. On that direful
night, when the first-born of every family in Egypt, " from
the first-born of Pharaoh that was on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon,"@  became a
corpse, all the innocent HIebrew blood that had gorged the
monsters of the Nile, was required, to the last drop, of
Pharaoh and his people.
From all this the conclusion is, that the miracles of Moses
were undoubtedly real, and that, as a consequence, his mission was certainly divine. For who but a man commissioned
as God's vicegerent, could wield a power like that displayed
in the plagues of Egypt, and the subsequent wonders of the
Red Sea and the wilderness?  Who but a true divine messenger could control the laws and elements of nature?
IIow stands the question, then, of the divine legation of
Moses? Let me sum up the argument in one brief sentence.
The general credibility of the Pentateuch, the publication of
a theology worthy of the true God, the overthrow of idolatry,
and the substitution of a better faith and worship in its place,
the superhuman purity and excellence of his moral code, and
the clear and well established power of miracles,-such is
the array of proofs, which concentrate their force, in a blaze
of demonstration, around the warrant of Moses to publish
laws in the name of Jehovah.
* Ex. xii. 29.




256                CO]MMENTARIES ON TIHIE
CHAPTER VI.
Objections considered and answered.
NOTWITHSTANDING these clear and irrefragable proofs of a
divine legation, the inspiration of Mioses has been both denied and ridiculed by men, who claim the character and
authority of philosophers and historians, and who arrogantly
assume, as their exclusive right, the title of free thinkers; as
if all the rest of the world, besides themselves, were fast
bound in the chains of prejudice and priestcraft. These
writers ground their denial of inspiration to Moses on certain
internal evidences of imposture, contained in his laws themselves. They allege, that many of his statutes are trivial,
absurd, and unworthy the wisdom and majesty of Deity;
that the spirit of his legislation is sanguinary and cruel; that
his code permits many things, now commonly regarded as
social evils; that it recognizes what they are pleased to stigmatise as the monstrous principle of retaliation; that it
omits the doctrine of future rewards and punishments; and
that his laws respecting the extermination of the Canaanites
violate the plainest dictates of religion, and the most sacred
rules of justice.
Most if not all of these objections will be sufficiently refuted in that general exposition of the Mosaic code, which it
is the object of these pages to offer; yet it may be well, in
advance of such a confutation, which must of necessity
spread itself over the entire treatise, and at the hazard of




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.               257
some repetition, to present in this place, a brief specific answer to the allegations above recited. This, therefore, is
what I now propose to do. We will consider them  in the
order in which they are mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
The first objection is based upon the alleged trifling nature
of many of the Mosaic laws.  Such are the laws against cutting the hair and beard after a particular manner;  against
boiling a kid in the dam's milk;t against wearing garments
made of linen and woollen mixed together; against the
interchange of male and female attire;~ against cutting the
flesh;i against receiving the price of a dog and the hire of
a prostitute into the public treasury;~ against the sowing of
mixed seeds;** against worshipping in groves and high
places;tt and against the use of certain kinds of animal
food.:4
All these laws, with others of an apparently like trivial
nature, were aimed against the idolatrous customs, then
prevalent in the world.  Unless, therefore, idolatry itself,
with all its horrid train of crimes and impurities, was a trifle
unbecoming the care of God, the agencies adapted to its
extirpation could not but be worthy of his contrivance and
institution. Let us glance at a few of the practices, against
which the laws in question were directed.
A particular mode of shaving the head and face were regarded by certain sects of idolatrous priests as essential tc
the acceptable worship of their gods.~~  By others it was supposed that the pursuits of husbandry would be rendered more
successful by sprinkling the fields and gardens with the milk
* Lev. xix. 27.            t Ex. xxiii. 19, 34. Deut. xiv 21.: Levit. xix. 19.          % Deut. xxii. 5.    [1 Levit. xix. 28.
r, Deut. xxii. 5.          ** Levit. xix. 19.
tl Ex. xxxiv. 13. Deut. vii. 5. $: Levit. xi.
~ Herod. L. 3, c. 8; also L. 4. c. 175. Maimon. More Nev. Pt 3. x. 1
See also Dr. Clarke's very instructive note on Lev. xix. 27.
17




258                COMIME~NTARIES ON THE
of a goat, in which a young kid had been previously boiled.*
Maimonides,t who, with an untiring industry, searched into
every nook and corner of ancient history, for the purpose of
bringing to light all the institutions and usages of idolatry, informs us, that the gentile priests used to wear garments made
of a mixture of the produce of plants and animals, hoping
thereby to have the beneficial influence of some lucky conjun,'tion of the planets, and to derive thence a blessing upon their
sheep and flax. From the same writer: we learn that another
common custom  of idolatry was for men, in the worship of
several of their gods, to put on the garments worn by women,
and women those used by men.  Ile found an express precept in an old magical book, enjoining that men should stand
before the star of Venus in the ornamented garments of
women, and; women in the armor of men before the star of
Mars. The savage rite of cutting the flesh was generally
practised by the ancient heathen nations, to pacify the infernal deities, and render them propitious to departed souls.~
Anubis, one of the principal Egyptian divinities, had the
head of a dog,I1 and was worshipped under the symbol of that
animal. Nothing was more common than to consecrate the
wages of prostitution to the gods; and, indeed, this vile comnlerce was carried on within the very precincts of the temples,
and under the sanction of the impure divinities, whose priests
fattened on its unholy gains.T  To worship in groves and
* See Cudw. on the Lord's Sup. and Spencer de Leg. Heb. cited in Dr.
Clarke's note on Ex. xxiii. 19.
t De Idol. Also on Lev. xix. 19.        { On Deut. xxii. 5.
Q See Magee on Aton. and Sac. vol. 1, p. 101.
[[ Anth. Class. Die. Art. Anubis. This opinion, indeed, has been shaken
by Wilkinson, (Anc. Eg. vol. 5, p. 260,) who has rendered it probable,
that Anubis had not the head of a dog, but of a jackal. Still it remains
certain, that the dog was a sacred animal with the Egyptians, and, as such,
received a superstitious veneration. See Smith's Heb. Peop. pp. 39, 40.
~ See Prof. Bush and Dr. Clarke on Levit. xix. 29; also Augustin de
Vivit. Dei, L. 18, c. 5.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           259
high places was supposed to be peculiarly acceptable to the
false deities of paganism, and was certainly favorable to the
impurities, which were but too often found associated with
their worship. Particular citations here are unnecessary, as
all heathen antiquity is full of allusions to this practice.
Finally the old Zabii not only sowed mixed seeds and
grafted different kinds of trees upon one another as a religious rite, but used abominable filthiness at the time of
doing it.
Such were some of the cruel, absurd, and impure customs of
idolatry, against which the laws in question were directed,
and which, it cannot be denied, they were well adapted to
destroy. Doubtless, there were some things condemned in
these laws, which are in themselves innocent and harmless,
and which, if practised now, would not incur the divine displeasure, as worshipping God in groves, sowing mixed seeds,
wearing clothes of wool and flax mingled together, &c. But
in that age these things were so closely connected with others
which were evil, that, with a people of gross intellect, and
but little addicted to refined distinctions, the two could not
be disjoined, and the permission of the one would be likely
to draw after it the practice of the other.
A parallel to this procedure of Moses, we find in the conduct of the early protestant reformers. They waged war
upon a variety of usages, harmless enough in themselves, but
hurtful through their connexion with the papal system.
These usages were among "the monuments of idolatry,"
which must be overthrown at all hazards. Something analogous we have in our political history. The tax on tea was a
paltry thing in itself. Why was it refused, and the horrors of
civil war encountered, rather than pay it?  N ot, surely, on
its own account, but because of its relation to a sy stem. This
was precisely the principle of these Mosaic laws. In condemning them, therefore, we condemn the principle of the




260               COMMENTARIES ON THE
war of independence, and call in question its wisdom and
necessity.
There is another class of the Mosaic laws,-the rites of
purification,-whose divine original has been denied, on this
same ground of triviality. But the extended system of ritual
purification, established by these laws, embraced, among
other purposes, one as noble and sublime, as any other in all
the wide range of the Mosaic legislation. It was to convey
into the minds of the Israelites the idea of the divine
holiness; an idea, which, as far as we can see, could be infused
in no other way. This has been clearly shown by the ingenious author of the Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation, to
whose chapter on the development of the idea of holiness,
the reader is referred. He will there see the argument handled at length, and with masterly ability. It must be presented
here in a condensed form, and so shorn of a portion of its
strength.
All the nations, by whom the Israelites were surrounded,
worshipped unholy beings. How, then, were the chosen
people to be made to understand and feel the holy character
of God? Whatever may be the speculations of philosophers
about innate ideas, it is yet true, that all acquired knowledge
comes to us through the medium of the senses. By them the
knowledge of external objects is conveyed to the mind; and
these simple ideas serve as material for reflection, comparison,
and abstraction. Thus the idea of power, among the Hebrews,
was derived, through the eye, from the horn of an animal and
the hand of a man; because, through these parts, their
respective strength was mainly exerted. And hence the
words horn and hand came to be used as abstract terms,
denoting the general quality of power. Thus "a horn of
salvation" means a mighty salvation; and "the power of the
tongue" in HIebrew is " the hand of the tongue."  So the
same word, in that language, by a similar transfer of the




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           261
material to the immaterial, means both sunshine and happiness.
These few instances will show how the abstract ideas of the
Hebrews were originated; viz. through the impressions made
by external objects on the senses.
Mark now both the fact and the principle. The fact is, that
the whole world of matter did not afford a single object, capable of conveying to the mind the idea of God's holiness. The
principle is, that the idea, having been first originated, must
then be thrown into the mind through the instrumentality of
the senses, by a process instituted for that purpose.  lark,
also, the correspondence between this principle, founded, as
it is, upon the laws of mind, and the system devised to
instruct the Israelites in the knowledge of God's moral purity.
Throughout the entire Levitical economy, purity is the predominating idea. This idea pervades all its ceremonies and
observances. The priests were to be purified, the sacrifices
were to be purified, the people were to be purified, the camp
was to be purified, every thing was to be purified and re-purified; "'and each process of the ordinances was designed to
reflect purity upon the others; until, finally, that idea of
purity, formed in the mind, and rendered intense by the convergence of so many rays, was transferred to God, —in whom,
as a moral being, it would become moral purity, or holiness.
Thus they learned, in the sentiment of Scripture, that God
was of too PURE eyes to look upon iniquity. That the idea
of moral purity in the minds of the Israelites was thus originated by the machinery of the Levitical dispensation, is supported not only by the philosophy of the thing, but by many
allusions in the Scriptures. Such allusions are frequent in the
writers of both the Old Testament and the lNew; evidencing
that, in their minds, the idea of moral purity was still symbolized by physical purity. The rite of baptism is founded
upon this symbolical analogy. In the epistle to the HIebrews,
St. Paul says:'It was therefore necessary that the patterns




262               COMMENTARIES ON THE
of things ill the heavens should be purified with these' i. e.
with these purifying processes addressed to the senses. The
plain instruction of which is, that the parts and processes of
the Levitical economy were patterns addressed to the senses
of unseen things in heaven, and that the purifying of those
patterns indicated the spiritual purity of the spiritual things
which they represented."
Undoubtedly the Levitical rites of purification had other
purposes to answer, which this is not the place to unfold. But
if the end here indicated were the only one, I put it to the
candor of thinking men, whether a system of laws and observances, designed and adapted to originate the idea of moral
purity, or holiness, and to transfer it to the object of religious
worship, is justly open to the charge of frivolity.  Ought it
not rather to be numbered among the proofs of the divine origin of the Mosaic institutions? To my mind it furnishes presumptive evidence to that effect of no inconsiderable force.
The second objection to the divine legation of Moses is
grounded on the inhumanity of the Mosaic code. The criminal jurisprudence of the lawgiver is here made the point of
a fierce assault. The particular charge against this part of
his polity is, that it is vindictive and cruel. How is this?
At the very threshold of the penal laws of nMoses, we find
civil liberty making a great stride in its work of human
irprovement.  How much, and how justly, do we congratulate ourselves on that; principle of our constitutional law, that
no criminal attainder shall work corruption of blood! Yet
this principle was embodied in the constitution of Moses, notwithstanding the opposite doctrine prevailed in the governnents of the most polished nations of antiquity. His statute
is expressed with characteristic clearness and brevity:'The
fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall
the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall
be put to death for his own sins.""  This principle Moses in* Deut. xxiv. 16.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             263
corporated ilLto his code, in the face of prejudice, common
opinion, immemorial usage, and the sentiment of inexorable
and insatiate revenge. Undeniably, it is a specimen of legislative policy, which takes its author out of the crowd of ancient legislators, and places him  on an eminence far above
them all.
Loud complaint has been made-against Moses on account
of the number of crimes made capital in his code. But
great injustice has been done him  in this particular. The
crimes punishable with death by his laws were either of a
deep moral malignity, or such as were aimed against the very
being of the State. It will be found, too, on examination,
that there were but four classes of capital offences, known to
his laws,-treason, murder, deliberate and gross abuse of
parents, and the more unnatural and horrid crimes arising out
of the sexual relation. And all the specifications under these
classes amounted to only seventeen; whereas, it is not two
hundred years since the criminal code of Great Britain numbered one hundred and forty-eight crimes punmishable with
death,-many of them of a trivial nature, as petty thefts and
trespasses upon property. But "no injury simply affecting
property could draw down upon an Israelite an ignominious
death. The Mosaic law respected moral depravity more than
gold. Moral turpitude, and the most atrocious expressions
of moral turpitude,-these were the objects of its unsleeping
severity."
The principal punishments, known to the Mosaic code,
were the sword, stoning, stripes, compensations, restitutions,
reparation of losses, and fines. Our inspired jurist appointed
no ignomninious punishments for the living. Blows were not
regarded in that light by the Asiatics; and burning, hanging,
and burying beneath a pile of stones, which were of this nature, were, it is probable, according to the laws of Mloses, inflicted after death, and are, therefore, to be looked upon as
* Spring's Obl. of the World to the Bible, Lect. 3.




264                COIMMENTARIES ON THE
posthumous disgraces. To his everlasting honor be it said,
that Moses stained not his penal code with any of those torturous and lingering punishments, which have disgraced the
jurisprudence of so many polished nations since his day,-as
breaking on the wheel, impaling, flaying alive, roasting over
a slow fire, drowning, exposure to wild beasts, and, above all,
crucifixion, that horrid offspring of ancient barbarity, in which
life and consciousness and intolerable agony were prolonged,
not unfrequently to the third day, and sometimes even to the
seventh. Ift; then, his penal inflictions must sometimes be
admitted to be severe, at least human nature is never cornpelled to shudder at their cruelty.*
If Moses be blamed for admitting capital punishments into
his code, he must even bear the reproach along with the
purest, wisest, and most humane jurists of all ages. The great
design of punishment he represents to be the protection of
society and the vindication of law and justice. Transgressors
inust suffer, not simply, or chiefly, that they themselves may
be amended, but, to use his own expressive language, that
others "may hear, and fear, and commit no more any such
evil."t  He was quite unacquainted with a modern refinement
of wisdom, which represents the reformation of the criminal
as the only legitimate end of punishment.  He had no syml.
pathy with that mawkish philanthropy which pours forth
such floods of tears over the fate of the hardened perpetrator
of clime, that it has scarcely one left to mingle with those of
the unhappy victims of his viiianies.  This is not the place to
vindicate either the lawfulness or the policy of capital penalties. Let the jurisprudence of all christendom stand as their
defence. It may, however, be observed, in passing, that such
punishments are as conformable to right reason, as they are to
revelation and the practice of enlightened legislators. The
equity of putting a murderer to death arises from this, among
*' The law of the twelve tables is full of very cruel punishments'
Montesq. Sl of Laws, B. 6. c. 15.    t Deut xix 20.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            265
other considerations, that the law by which he is punished
was nmade for his own security. IIe has himself enjoyed the
benefit of the law, which condemns him. It has been a continual shield over him all his life. Can he, then, in reason,
object to it?*
The war code of Moses has also been made a point o1
attack by the enemies of revelation, and by some of its professed friends. How little do such persons know of it! How
slender the ground for their assaults, which have sometimes
been conducted with a ferocity equal to that which they charge
against the Hebrew lawgiver! The Canaanitish wars, which
formed no part of the general war system, will be considered
in a subsequent part of the present chapter; and the other
military laws of ]Moses will receive a full elucidation in one of
the succeeding books of this treatise. The extraordinary
mildness of these laws towards the citizen, their wise moderation towards the enemy, and their unexampled tenderness
towards female captives, will then be made to appear, to the
satisfaction, I hope, of every candid inquirer. It will be seen,
that they offer, in these respects, a perfect contrast to the military laws and usages of other ancient nations, even of those
which were renowned for their clemency and refinement.
" Lex nulla victo parcit,"-no law spares the- vanquished,was the great military maxim of antiquity. It was the right
of war, recognized by all nations, questioned by none; and
often the conqueror pushed the exercise of this barbarous right
to its utmost rigor. He sacked, demolished, burnt, and murdered, without pity for age or sex. Slavery was the mildest
lot to be hoped for by those who had been unfortunate enough
to survive the carnage of the combat. In this manner were
treated Sidon by Artaxerxes Ochus; Tyre, by Alexander; the
towns of the Marsi, by Germanicus; and Jerusalem, by
Titus. " It was thus," indignantly exclaimed the authors of
the Letters of certain Jews to Voltaire,t " it was thus that the
* Montesq. Sp. of Laws: B. 15. c. 2.   t Letter 3.




266                COMMENTARIES ON THE
military laws of the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans
were mild, and those of the Hebrews barbarous."
How imperfectly do those understand the Hebrew legislation, who accuse it of inhumanity! Its distinctive character
is gentleness and beneficence. No ancient legislation will
bear a moment's comparison with it in this respect. It forbids
to cherish sentiments of hatred and revenge.*  It enjoins the
forgetfulness of injuries, the cultivation of mutual love, and
the practice of kindness even to enemies.t  It commands
respect and compassion towards the aged, the deaf. and the
blind.T It enjoins that the traveller, uncertain of his route, be
directed in the right way.~ It requires benevolence and generosity towards the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the
stranger.ll For them, the corners of the field were to remain
nnreaped, and the forgotten sheaf was to be left where it had
fallen.T  For them, the husbandman was forbidden to go over
his corn patch a second time, or to twice glean the grapes of
his vineyard and shake the boughs of his olive trees.**  Servants, engaged in the preparation of food, and men, employed
in gathering in the bounties of nature, had the legal right to taste
the fruits and viands, about which they were busied.tt  Even
animals shared in the thoughts and the compassion of the Hebrew Lawgiver4.: "These precepts are very touching. They
are the finest political morality; and not only very high morality, but very deep sentiment.  A  complete collection of the
rules of this character, scattered through the Mosaic legislation,
wvould form one of the most striking collections of kind, considerate, merciful maxims ever known.~~  And they would
prove Moses to have been, not only a wise and benevolent
* Lev. xix. 17, 18.  t Ex. xxiii. 4, 5.  $ Lev. xix. 14, 32.
@ The Jews interpret the law contained in Deunt. xxvii. 28, as extending
to travellers. See the eleventh of the Letters of certain Jews to Voltaire.
Lev. xxv. 35. Ex. xxii. 21. Deut. xxiv. 17.
Lev. xix. 9. Deut. xxiii. 19.     ** Deut. xxiii. 19-21.
tt Dent. xxv. 4..t Deut. xxii. 6, 7. xxv. 4.
{2 Lect. 3 of Spring's Obl. of the World to the Bible.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           267
legislator, but a man of feeling, delicacy, and refinement; a
man of large and magnanimous spirit; a man who saw in
every other man a brother, and with whom every human
form, though unblest by fortune and unknown to fame, constituted a sure passport to his sympathy, his solicitude, and
his love.
Surely, such a system of laws could never have been dictated by a barbarian legislator for a horde of savages. It is
precisely in this point of humanity, that the Mosaic legislation
leaves all other ancient constitutions far behind, and shines
with a preeminently mild and genial lustre.
Another objection against the divine origin of the Mosaic
legislation is grounded on its tolerance of various acknowledged social evils,-polygamy, slavery, extra-judicial divorce,
and blood-avengement. "The laws of Moses (says the objector) are not, at least some of them are not, the best, intrinsically, that could be framed; therefore, the system is not ot
divine original." The premises in this argument are admitted;
but the conclusion, it is contended, is illogical. The absolute
perfection of every statute in a civil code is not the characteristic mark of inspiration in the lawgiver; but the highest
excellence attainable under all the-circumstances of the case.
This is that infallible sign of the Divinity, which fails all rmere
human legislation; but it may be asserted, without qualification, of the political system of Moses.
When God assumed the relation of king to the Hebrew
people, two general methods of administration were open to
his election;-either to overrule the will by an act of omnipotence, or to influence it by motives addressed to the understanding and the conscience.  In employing the former
method, his power would be the chief attribute required; in
the latter, his wisdom. That God chose to deal with his people as accountable agents, and that, notwithstanding the
extraordinary providence by which they were conducted, and
the constant blaze of almighty power that encircled them, the




268               COMMENTARIES ON THE
will remained ever free and uncontrolled, is a truth written
upon every page of the history.
God, then, as temporal sovereign of the Israelites, having
chosen this method of government, was under a sort of necessity of proceeding upon the same principles with any wise
human legislator. Now, such is the invincible proneness of
man's will to revolt against what directly opposes its prejudices, that prufdent lawgivers, in framing laws in conflict with
these prejudices, have always found it necessary to yield something to them in order to break and evade the force of human
perversity.
Thus did our inspired lawgiver act with his people, who,
if he had not indulged them  in some things, would have
revolted against all. Hience a partial toleration of some social
evils, is no argument against a divine wisdom in the lawgiver;
but is, on the contrary, an essential attribute of such wisdom,
without which the signature of its divinity would be wanting.
To place this point in a stronger light, let us suppose that a
perfectly wise man were now to receive full authority to legislate for China. Would he frame a code of laws for the
government of that empire, irrespective of the ancient customs, the cherished opinions, and the deep rooted prej udices
of the nation, which are strong in the gathered strength of
revolving centuries a Such a procedure would stamp him as
a fool, instead of a sage; and would inevitably defeat his best
intentions. A truly wise lawgiver would study the character
and circumstances of the people. He would respect, and, to
a certain extent, even flatter their prejudices. He would
limit, where he could not remove; modify, where he could
not reverse; ameliorate, where he could not perfect; and so,
by degrees, would prepare the nation for improvements in the
system of government, more radical than he would venture
to propose at first. No really wise legislator will make laws,
which shock the general spirit of a nation.*
* Montesq. Sp. of Laws, B. 19, c. 11.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             269
Even Rousseau perceived the force and acknowledged the
justness of this principle. In his treatise on the social compact, he observes:* "The prudent legislator does not begin
by making a digest of salutary laws, but examines first
whether the people for whom such laws are designed are capable of supporting them. It was for this reason that Plato refused to give laws to the Arcadians and Cyrenians, knowing
they were rich and luxurious, and could not admit of the
introduction of equality among them. *  *  *  *  When
customs are once established and prejudices have taken root
among a people, it is a dangerous and fruitless enterprise to
attempt to reform them." Again, in another place of the
same treatise, he says:t  "Legislation should be variously
modified in different countries, according to local situation,
the character of the inhabitants, and those other circumstances,
which require that every people should have a particular
system of laws, not always the best in itself, but the best
adapted to the state for which it is calculated."  If this celebrated infidel had been writing in defence of the actual procedure of M/Ioses as an inspired lawgiver, he could not have
uttered any thing more pertinent or forcible than these sentences.  Moses, though a real and earnest, was, nevertheless,
an enlightened and wise reformer. His policy was to correct
errors gradually and with caution, rather than to attempt the
sudden and violent eradication of them; to repair, strengthen,
and adorn the political edifice, rather than to undermine its
foundations, and triumph over its ruins. He well knew, that
systems of government grow and assume form and solidity
with time; that, however bad they may be, they come at length
to be rooted in the customs, and often also in the affections
of the people; and that to violently destroy the former shocks
an(d deranges the latter, and so produces misery rather than
happiness.4   "The secret of great statesmen," says NieB. 2. C. 8.                      t B. 2. C. 11.
+ See President Sparks' Pref. to the Am. Ed. of Smith's Lects. on Modern History, for some excellent reflections on this subject.




270               COMMENTARIES ON THE
buhr,*"  is the gradual development and improvement of the
several parts of an actual constitution; they never attempt to
raise an institution at once to perfection."  Nations are, for the
most part, very tenacious of their customs, and very apt to
revolt against violent innovations. Wise statesmen, therefore,
do not change them suddenly, but lead the people to make
the change themselves.t
The procedure of Moses in a mere human lawgiver would
carry all voices, as the very perfection of political prudence.
And shall that be charged as imposture in him, because he
claimed to act under a divine guidance, which would be honored as consummate wisdom in a Solon, a Numna, a Chatham,
or a Washington? Yet this is what the infidel and the rationalist do in the objection which we are considering. }Moses
tolerated polygamy, divorce, slavery, and the avenging of
blood in the death of the murderer by the nearest of kin to
the slaughtered victim. But he evidently did not approve
these things any more than the most humane and enlightened
legislator of modern times. Why, then, did he permit them?
IDecause the abolition of them, at the time and under the circumstances of his legislation, would have endangered his
whole polity. They had been practised the world over from
time immemorial. They were inwoven in the whole framnework of society. Their propriety and even necessity were
unquestioned. And they had long since gained over to their
support those master passions of the soul,-the ambition of
lordship, the love of pleasure, and the thirst of gain.
Weigh these circumstances in a just balance, and cease to
wonder, that 1Moses did not slay at a blow the whole brood,
and to argue thence his fraud and charlatanry. Admire rather
the generous philanthropy and heroic courage, which fired his
spirit and nerved his arm in the work of reform. Mark the
gentle but efficient skill, with which he takes out their sting,
X Lects. on the Hist. of Rome, p. 91.
t Montesq. Sp. of Laws, B. 19. C. 14.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           271
restrains their excesses, mollifies their rigors, and almost
reverses their properties; and then acknowledge, that the
hand that accomplished all this must indeed have been guided
by a wisdom more than human.
Again, the divine mission of Moses has been assailed and
denied, because he admitted into his code the primitive and
in early times universal principle of " like for like," technically called the "lex talionis."  It is thus expressed in the
21st chapter of Exodus:  "Thou shalt give life for life, eye
for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning
for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."*
It is admitted, that, as a law of private vengeance, none
could be better fitted to destroy the peace and safety of societv, and to sow the seeds of hatred, revenge, and all uncharitableness. But considered as the rule of official judgment in
cases of personal injury, it appears in another light, and is to
be judged upon principles different from those applicable in
the former case.
Of penal laws, it is the most ancient on record; and it is,
obviously, founded on pure natural equity. The divine government itself recognizes the justice of the principle. In the
providence of God, crimes and punishments often correspond
in the most remarkable manner. Indeed, it is an observation
made long ago, that what mischiefs any one prepares against
another, he, without knowing it, first contrives against himself.
However widely the lex talionis deviates from our penal
laws, it accords not merely with the usages of the rude and
barbarous nations of antiquity, but with the express statutes
of nations accounted to have been highly civilized. It existed
in great rigor among the ancient Athenians, and Solon even
ordained, that whoever put out the eye of a one-eyed person,
should for so doing, lose both his own. It constituted a part
of the Roman laws of the twelve tables, so famous in antiquity; but the punishment was afterwards changed to a
* Vv. 23, 24.




272               COMMENTARIE ON THE
pecuniary fine, to be levied at the discretion of the proetor.
" It prevails less or more," observes Dr. Adam Clarke, "in
most civilized countries; and is fully acted upon in the canon
law in reference to all calumniators:'If the calumniator fail
in the proof of his accusation, let him suffer the same punishment, which he wished to have inflicted on the man, whom.
he falsely accused.'*
In our exposition and defence of this law, it is, as already
hinted, important to observe, that it did not authorize the
retaliation of injuries by individuals, and so make each man
a judge and avenger in his own cause. Such a principle as
this never entered into the mind of the Hebrew lawgiver. It
is abhorrent to the whole genius of his legislation, and would
have been as earnestly repudiated by him, as it is by any one
of his assailants. In every instance of the application of the
principle of the lex talionis, it was the duty of a legal tribunal
to adjudge, and of the public executive power to inflict, the
punishllment.
Another material observation is, that the person receiving
the injury retained always the natural right of remitting the
punishment, if the other chose to compound the matter by
apologies and pecuniary compensations. The law does not
peremptorily command an injured person to avail himself of
the right of retaliation, without any alternative. It only fixes
the punishment, to which the author of an injury must submit, if he cannot compound matters with the injured party.
Such satisfactions were in fact so common, that Moses found
it necessary to restrain the use of them, in the case of deliberate murder: "Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of
a murderer."t
The law, as it stands in the Miosaic code, is probably to be
regarded as a mere declaration of the general principle, that
whoever has done an injury to another is bound to make
suitable reparation for the wrong which he has committed;
* Corn. on Levit. xxi. 24.    t Num. xxxv. 31.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             273
-a principle essential to the safety and good order of society.
— a principle, indeed, without which society could not exist.
But even if interpreted and administered literally, how favorably does it compare, on the score of liberality, with vwhat
was, at no distant period, the law of our British ancestors!
It is not so very long, since both the theory and practice of
British jurisprudence might have been expressed, not in the
Hebrew formulary of " an eye for an eye," but in such inaxims as " a man for a sheep," "a man for a guinea," nay, mark
it, ye who stigmatize the MIosaic law of retaliation as savoring
of barbarian rudeness, " a man for a twelve-pence-farthing!"
The usages which prevail at this day in several countries
of the east throw light upon the manner in which the law of
retaliation was, in all probability, administered among the
ancient Hebrews. Burkhardt* says that all insulting expressions, all acts of violence, a blow however slight, and the infliction of a wound causing a single drop of blood to flow,
have their respective fines ascertained. He gives an amusing
specimen of a kadi's sentence, which ran thus: "Bokhyt
called Djolan a dog; Djolan returned the insult by a blow
on Bokhyt's arm; then Bokhyt cut Djolan's with a knife.
Bokhyt, therefore, owes to Djolan,For the insulting expression,... 1 sheep.'; wounding him in the shoulder,.. 3 camels.
Djolan owes to Bokhyt,
For the blow on his arm,...   1 camel.
Remain due to Djolan... 2 camels and 1 sheep."
The baron de Montesquieu,t a writer whose humanity and
love of rational liberty are equalled only by the depth of his
genius, the solidity of his judgment, and the extent of his
juridical learning, affirms, that all the punishments inflicted
upon crimes, that attack the safety of the citizen, are a kind
of retaliation, by which society refuses security to a member, who has intentionally deprived another of his security.
* Cited by Bush on Lev. xxi. 24.  t Spirit of Laws.




274                COMMENTARIES ON THE
These retaliatory punishments, he says, are derived from the
nlature of the thing, founded in reason, and drawn from the
7ery source of good and evil. Thus a man deserves death
whIen he has violated the security of society so far as to dep>ve another man of his life. So crime committed against
the security of property should, most naturally, be punished
with the loss of property. And this, indeed, ought to be the
case, if men's fortunes were equal. It was the case in the
Hebrew polity, where all the citizens possessed landed estates, of a less or greater extent. But, as in most states there
are multitudes without property, and as those who have no
property of their own, are generally the readiest to attack the
property of others, it has been found necessary to substitute a
corporeal for a pecuniary punishment. So, then, according to
this profound jurist, the principle of the lex talionis is the
principle of all those criminal laws, which are designed to
protect the citizen from injury in his person and his property. It should be observed, in passing, that M3/oses is not
the originator of the lex talionis; but that in admitting it
into his code, he simply conformed to the common practice
of the primitive ages.
It has often been alleged, that Christ* made war upon the
lex talionis as of more than doubtful morality, and thus assumed an attitude of direct hostility to the law of 3Moses.
Such an idea must have arisen from a total misconception of
his words. It was against a perversion of the law, that Jesus
levelled his reproofs. The persons addressed by M/loses and
by Christ belonged to distinct classes. Moses speaks to the
perpetrator of the injury and tells him, that he was bound to
give "1 eye for eye and tooth for tooth;" that is, to make
satisfaction for wrongs and injuries committed by him.
Christ, on the other hand, addresses the injured party, and
forbids him, as an individual, to give vent to his vindictive
* In his Serm. on the Mount, Mat. v. 38, 39.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           275
feelings, —abusing a rule of public justice to the indulgence
of private revenge, and pleading it in justification of his vindictiveness. It would seem that in the time of our Savior, the
jus talionis was confounded with moral principles, that is to
say, it was held that the law of Moses, which was merely
civil or penal, justified a person, in a moral point of view, in
inflicting on another the same injury which he hlad received
from him. The persons, who give this exposition to the law,
do not appear to have recollected its true character as a civil
or penal law, nor to have remembered, that the literal retaliation could not take place, until after the decision of a
judge on a suit, brought by the person injured, and then was
never to exceed the original injury.*  Christ made no reference whatever to any action of a civil tribunal, whereas the
sole reference of Moses was to this very thing. HIow absurd
to allege a conflict between them, when their discourse does
not even relate to the same matter; the reference of one
being to a judicial decision, and of the other to private vengeance. Thus does every appearance of a want of harmony
between the different parts of revelation vanish, when the
principles of common sense and sober criticism are applied
to their interpretation.
Another objection to the divine original of the law of Moses
is, that it omits the doctrine -of future rewards and punishments. This objection is unworthy of any man who claims
the name of a philosopher. It is conceded, that Moses did
not annex to his laws the promised joys and threatened terrors of eternity. And what inference is to be drawn from
the omission? Had he introduced such sanctions, he would
have been chargeable with a flagrant incongruity. In excluding them, he acted conformably to the nature of his mission.
Who and what was Moses? The founder of a civil polity; a
polity, no doubt, designed to keep up the knowledge and wor* Jahn's Bib. Arch. S. 256.




2z6               COMMENTARIES ON THE
ship of the true God, in opposition to the absurd dcctrines
and impure rites of idolatry, and to foreshadow and introduce
the christian dispensation; yet still, in the strict sense, a civil
polity. And what proper connexion have the terrors of eternity with a code of civil laws?  It thus appears, that the
HIebrew legislator was restrained from annexing future punishments as sanctions to his laws, by considerations arising from
the character of his mission, and the nature of the institutions,
which he was commissioned to establish. But did not Mlnoses,
therefore, believe in such punishments?  Htow absurd would
such an inference be! As well might we lay the sweeping
charge of national infidelity at the door of Great Britain and
the United States, because the British parliament and the
American congress do not enforce the enactments in their
statute-books with such sanctions. But to proceed forth from
this point, and argue, as Bishop Warburton* has done, an ignorance in the ancient sons of Jacob of a future world, shocks
all our religious feelings. To a mind intent on discovering
the truth, instead of defending a fanciful theory, and that will
fairly survey all the grounds of an opinion in the premises,
hardly anything can be plainer, than that the doctrine of a
future life and of future retributions, was well known, and
held with a firm grasp, by the patriarchs and their descendants; and by none of them, with a more living power, than
by the great lawgiver and founder of the state.
" But although 1Moses does not annex the sanctions of a future life to the violation of his laws, there is a most remarkable peculiarity in his procedure with regard to punishments,
which distinguishes him from all other legislators. It is this:
tie threatens the whole nation, if as a nation they should
wickedly transgress his laws, with punishments in this life,
which no human power could execute; but which the divine
providence could, and certainly would, inflict upon the people
and the land. No mere human legislator could have done
*Div. Leg. passim.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.              2177
this; at least, could so have done it, as that the issue should
not expose to the people the emptiness of his threatenings.  It
is the sure criterion of an immediate messenger from heaven,
enacting laws by command of the Most HIigh.'*
One further objection to the divine mission of the Jewish
lawgiver I notice. It may be expressed in the following sentences:  "Moses could not have acted under a divine comimission, or he would never have enacted laws involving a direct and manifest breach of the most sacred rules of justice.
What right had the Hebrews to injure the Canaanites, either
in their persons or their estates?  They had never been thus
injured by the latter; and they could, therefore, have no plausible pretence, much less any just warrant, to make war upon
them, and strip them of their territories."t
So the case is often put. But the true question is not, what
right the Israelites had to the land of the Canaanites, nor
whether they had, in themselves, any right at all. It is,
whether God, as sovereign owner and ruler of the world, had
a right to punish their abominable wickedness by the agencies
actually employed, and whether it was the dictate of wisdom
and goodness to use such means for the abolition of idolatry?
The crimes of the Canaanites were of such a nature, that no
pretence to freedom  of thought and liberty of conscience
would, in any well-ordered human government, be allowed as
a justification of them, or as a bar to the infliction of condign
punishment.  And shall it be said, that the supreme lawgiver
and judge is hindered by justice from recalling a life, which
has been forfeited to civil society, and which the civil law itself might take away by the hand of a common executioner a
* Mich. Com. on the laws of Mos. Art. 8.
t Various answers have been given by different writers to this objection.
The most rational and satisfactory defence of the command to exterminate
the Canaanites, which I have ever met with, is the one offered in the text.
The reader will find it handled much more at large, in Lowman's excellent
chapter on the subject in his Civ. Gov. of the Hebrews.




278              COMMENTARIES ON THE
Those who contend for such a doctrine, cannot, surely, be
aware of the consequences, to which it would lead. If considerations of justice forbid the Deity to punish flagitious
offenders by a forfeiture of the blessings of this life, the same
considerations would operate as a bar to any penal inflictions
whatsoever at his hand. So that, upon this principle, crime
would enjoy a perfect immunity from punishment, so far as
the divine government is concerned. Besides, what would be
unjust in God, must be equally unjust in men; and hence it
will follow, that all the laws of society to punish and restrain
the most flagitious offenders, are nothing less than usurpation,
and an unjust invasion and abridgement of personal liberty.
And so the principle will end in the utter subversion of all
government, human and divine; and, on pretence of maintaining the rights of justice, it will effectually and forever
banish justice from the earth, aye, and from heaven too. It
must, therefore, be held to have been just in God to punish
the idolatry of the Canaanites, with the forfeiture of their
estates, their liberties, and even their lives.
But granting so much, the objector still asks,  "Why did
not God punish the Canaanites by his own hand,-by earthquake, tempest, famine, pestilence, or inundation?  Why
should he commission the Iiebrews to dispossess them of
their lands, especially as such an example would be liable to
the most dangerous abuses, and might be pleaded by every
enthusiast or impostor, as a warrant for invading and robbing
his neighbors, under pretence of religion, and in the name
of the most holy? A procedure of this nature has very little
the appearance of wisdom, and still less of goodness."
Thus reasons the objector. In opposition to this logic,
which wears an imposing air of humanity and regard to the
divine honor, I maintain, that, considering the abolition of
idolatry as one grand design of the Mosaic polity, the means
employed for the accomplishment of that end, were the dictate of consummate wisdom and benevolence.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           279
For, in the first place, we know that the most terrific visitations of divine providence had been tried without effect.
tHad not the whole antediluvian world, amounting probably
to hundreds of millions of sinners, found one comrlon grave
in the waters of a universal deluge?  Itad not Sodomn and
Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboim, in this very land of Canaan,
been whelhned beneath a fiery tempest for their crimes? IHad
not ghastly famine glutted its voracious appetite with tens of
thousands of these idolaters, when it drove the Israelites
down to Egypt for bread? And what the better were men
for these direful punishments?. Did they not, on the contrary, become daily mnore besotted and daring in their
impiety?
IBut, in the second place, nnfruitful seasons, sickness,
whelming watersj and the blasting thunderbolt would be considered but as common accidents; or rather, they would be
interpreted as proceeding fromn the vengeance of their demons,
and so, instead of rooting out idolatry, would add fresh vigor
to its growth.
And this leads to the third and principal observation, which
I have to submit in this argument. It is this: —God gave the
territories of the Canaanites into the hands of the Hebrews,
coupled with a reason for the grant and a condition of its
perpetuity, which were in themselves a public condemnation
of idolatry, and a standing confutation of it. Both the reason
and the condition are thus expressed in the 18th chapter of
Leviticus: " The land is defiled; therefore I do visit the iniquities thereof upon it, and the land itself vomitethl out its
inhabitants. Ye shall, therefore, keep my statutes and my
judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations;
that the land spew not you out also, when ye defile it, as it
spewed out the nations that were before you. For whosoever
shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that
commit them shall be cut off."*
* Yv. 25-29.




280               COMMENTARIES ON THE
IH'ere both the right of possession and the obligation of surrender are very plaillly set down. And how does the record
represent the matter? The Canaanites are expelled from
their country for their abominable idolatries. The Israelites
are put in possession of their lands, on profession of their
faith in the one supreme and living God, and are to hold
them only so long as they keep themselves from the like
abominations. And the power and truth cf Jehovah are
pledged to the fulfilment of the promise and the exaction of
the forfeiture, in opposition to the power of all the idol gods,
worshipped by the neighboring heathen nations.
I-low admirable is the wisdom displayed in this arrangement! How far does it transcend all that mere human sagacity could have contrived! Natural evils of the most dreadful kind had been tried in vain. The corruption of men's
minds was such as to convert evils of this nature rather into
a means of strengthening than of destroying idolatry. What
remedy could be devised, adequate to the removal of the
evil? Htuman wisdomn  must here acknowledge itself completely at fault.  But the things that are impossible with
men, are possible with God. IIe drives out a nation of idolaters from their possessions, and plants in them another, of an
opposite and purer faith. He makes the grant of these lands
to the latter perpetual, on condition of their adherence to the
faith and worship, on which it is founded. And by an extraordinary providence, maintained from age to age, he vindicates his own uncontrollable sovereignty and omnipotence,
over the pretended power of the whole rabble of heathen
divinities. What other confutation of the hopes of idolaters,
what other encouragement of the hopes of the worshippers of
the true God, can be imagined, comparable to this?  Gratitude for innumerable deliverances and innumerable blessings; a contempt for idols, generated and strengthened by a
thousand manifest proofs of their utter nothingness; a solemn
dread ot the vengeance of an ever present and almighty




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           281
power; the clearest calculations of interest; and the very
instinct of self-preservation, the strongest that our nature
owns, —-were thus all enlisted in support of the doctrine of
the divine unity, and became so many props and guaranties
for the worship of the one true God.
As to the apprehension that such a commission from God
as that which Moses held, will countenance the reveries of
enthusiasm or the artifices of imposture, it is but a panic
dread. So long as pretence and reality are not convertible
terms, and the ideas suggested by them do not coalesce in one
and the same thing, so long all such fears will be irrational
and groundless. WVhen any man will show me the same
proofs of a divine mission, that Moses showed his countrymen,
when for forty successive years I shall see the elements above,
beneath, and around me contradicting the laws of nature in
obedience to one who claims to act under a commission from
the author of nature, and who alone has power to control,
suspend, or reverse those laws, then will I open my ear to his
doctrine, yield my conscience to his guidance, and to every
contemptuous sneer and profane censure I will answer, in the
adoring words of Eliphaz the Temanite: —" Shall mortal man
be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his
Maker?*  Till then, I shall continue to regard the apprehension of danger to the peace and safety of nations, from the
command of Jehovah to exterminate the Canaanites for their
idolatries, either as the mere whimsy of a morbid imagination, or as one of the many hypocritical pretences, with which
infidelity seeks to veil its hatred of God and religion.
Besides the objections considered above to the genuineness,
authenticity, and inspiration of the Pertateuch, many others
have been made. They are such as these following:
The moral and religious conceptions of more enlighteled
ages are often shocked by the doctrines of the Pentateuch.
* Job iv. 17.




282              COMMENTARIES DN TIlE
Several of its statements are opposed to the facts and deductions of modern physical science.
IMany of its representations of the Deity are unworthy of
the true God, and imply very rude notions of his nature.
It is filled with contradictions and discrepancies.
The art of writing was unknown. or at least not in use, in
the time of Moses; of course, he could not have been the
author of it.
The style of the Pentateuch is too much like the style of
the later Hebrew writers to admit the supposition, that its
composition belongs to the high antiquity commonly ascribed
to it.
The work relates events posterior to the time of Moses;
how, then, could he be the author of it?
It uniformrnly speaks of Moses in the third person, and not
in the first.  This is a modesty unsuited to his official
character.
The Pentateuch is replete with inconsistencies, incredibilities, and impossibilities;-as the whole of the ceremonial
law; the rite of circumcision; the institution of the Sabbath;
the laws respecting slavery; the distinction of meats; the
number of the Israelites on their egress from Egypt; Pharaoh's command to destroy their male children; their tame
submission to it, supposing it to have been really given; most
of the events connected with their departure from Egypt;
their spoiling of the Egyptians; the number of their flocks
and herds; the amount of their wealth; their skill in the
mechanic arts; the story about the quenching of their thirst
at Miarah and Hloreb; the law against destroying all the inhabitants of Palestine at once, lest wild beasts should increase
upon them; the command to destroy witches, &c., &c., &c.
All these objections, and others of a like nature, have been
made by infidel and rationalistic writers; and they have
been repeated and enforced by Dr. Norton, formerly professor of divinity in Harvard university, with much learning




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.              283
and ability, in an elaborate note appended tc tLe second
volume of his Genuineness of the Gospels.*  Soime of them
are trivial and impertinent; some have no foundation in fact
or reason; but others, it must be owned, offer to the candid
inquirer difficulties of no inconsiderable magnitude. It' does
not fall within the province of the present work to reply to
objections of this sort. The most of them have been refuted,
again and again, by learned and able defenders of divine
revelation.t  My object in bringing them to the notice of the
reader is to state a general principle concerning difficulties,
which has an eminent applicability here. The principle is,
that often, in things which are invested with the highest certainty, difficulties still inhere, which we find ourselves quite
incapable of resolving to our own satisfaction.4 This incapacity on our part is nothing more than the natural consequence
of the limited powers of the human understanding, or the
limited attainments we have made in the knowledge of the
subject under investigation. It results from the principle just
stated, that, when a truth is proved by solid reasons, the difficulties which may still inhere in it, ought not to weaken our
conviction, provided they are difficulties, which only puzzle
the mind, without invalidating the proofs themselves. There
is a broad difference between seeing that a thing is absurd in
itself, and not comprehending every thing that belongs to it;
and a difference quite as broad between an unanswerable
question in relation to a particular truth and an unanswerable
objection against it. Mu!ltitudes there are, who confound these
two sorts of difficulties, though no two things can be more
distinct than they.  Suppose, for example, that I were unable
to answer the vulgar objection to the rotundity of the earth,
* Pp. 48-200 of the Add'l. Notes.
t See Hengsten. on Eg. and the Bks. of Mos., Jahn on the Lang. and
Style of the Pent., Stuart on the Canon of the 0. T., Graves on the Pent.,
and two elaborate Arts. in the Bib. Sac. for May and Nov. 1845.
1 Burlan. Princ. of Nat. Law, c. 2.




284                COMMENTARIES ON THE
that in that case the people on the opposite side must fall off;
would such inability stagger my belief of it, the proofs remaining as they are?  Must not the proofs themselves be
invalidated, before I will consent to give up my conviction?
When I come to understand the law of gravitation, I can
explain the difficulty to the peasant's satisfaction, as well as
to my own. Now let us apply this illustration. Suppose it
to be objected to the law,-" Ye shall not round the corners
of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy
beard,"*-that it is too trivial to have proceeded from God;
and suppose, further, that I am unable to assign any reason
for the introduction into the code of a statute apparently so
unimportant; should I, on account of my inability to answer
the objection, surrender my faith in the divine mission of the
lawgiver, while so many and so solid grounds of it remain?
The moment I come to know, that the law in question was
levelled against idolatry, and that it was both designed and
adapted to counteract that baleful system, the difficulty vanishes entirely. The difference, then, between an unanswerable
objection against a proposition and an unanswerable question
relating to it, seems to be this:  An unanswerable objection
proves, that what was before taken for a truth cannot be true,
because the admission of it would involve some absurdity;
an unanswerable question proves only our ignorance of some
points connected with a known truth. The former is relative
to the substance of the matter; the latter is relative only to
our want of knowledge concerning it.t
* Lev. xix. 27.
t There are few persons, who have paid much attention to the study of
the 0. T., and particularly of the Pentateuch, who will not fully sympathize with the late Prof. Stuart in the following remarks, which occur in
the Introduction to his work on the Canon of the 0. T. The learned
author has but given form and voice to feelings, which must be familiar
to the consciousness of every thoughtful and candid inquirer. " In the
early part of my biblical studies," he says, "some 30-35 years ago, when




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.                  285
N'OTE ON  BISHIOP  WARBURTON'S  OPINION  CONCERNING  THE
IGNORANCE  OF THE ANCIENT  ISRAELITES OF A  FUTURE
STATE OF RLEWARDS AND PUNISHIMENTS.
The theory of this celebrated prelate having been alluded
to in the preceding chapter,* a brief glance at it, as we pass
along, may not be unacceptable to the reader.  The object of
the fifth book of the Divine Legation, is to prove, " that the
doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments is not
to be found in, and did not make part of, the Mosaic dispensation.t  The following are the author's principal positions
on this subject: " In no one place of the Miosaic institutes, is
there the least mention, pr any intelligible hint, of the rewards and punishments of another life."'    Again: "The
Israelites, freom the time of Moses, to the time of their captivity, had not the doctrine of a future state of rewards and
p)unishments."~  These expressions are sufficiently bold and
I first began the critical investigation of the Scriptures, doubts and diffil
culties started up on every side like the armed men whom Cadmus is
fabled to have raised up. Time, patience, continued study, a better acquaintance with the original scriptural languages, and the countries where
the sacred books were written, have scattered to the winds nearly all these
doubts. I meet, indeed, with difficulties still, which I cannot solve at once;
with some, where even repeated efforts have not solved them. But I quiet
myself by calling to mind, that hosts of other difficulties, once apparently
to me as formidable as these, have been removed, and have disappeared
from the circle of my troubled vision. Why may I not hope, then, as to
the difficulties which remain? Every year is now casting some new light
on the bible, and making plain some things, which aforetime were either
not understood, or were misunderstood. WVhy may not my difficulties be
reached by some future progressive increase of light?' For one, I can say
that my experience exactly corresponds with this; and I have attained to
that state of mind, in which, whenever a difficulty occurs, which I cannot
satisfactorily explain, I uniformly, and without hesitation, set it down as
relative to my own ignorance, and not to the substance of the thing itself.
rP 275.        B. 5) S. 1.       B. 5 S. 5.        B. 5. S. 5.




286                COMMENTARIES ON THE
energetic; but those which follow  are still more so.  "In
none of the different circumstances of life, in none of their
various casts of composition, do we ever find them acting on
the motives, or influenced by the prospect, of future rewards
and punishments, or indeed expressing the least hope or fear
or common curiosity concerning them; but every thing they
do or say respects the present life only, the good and ill of
which are the sole objects of all their pursuits and aversions."' Again: " I infer, as amidst all this variety of
writing the doctrine of a future state never once appears to
have had any share in this people's thoughts, it never did,
indeed, form any part of their religious opinions."  " Their
subterfuge is quite cut off, who pretend, that M.roses did not
indeed propagate the doctrine of a future state of rewards
and punishments in writing, but that he delivered it to tradition. For we see he was so far from teaching, it, that he
studiously contrived to keep it out of sight, nay, provided for
the want of it; and that the people were so far from being
influenced by it, that they had not even the idea of it."t
These are strange and startling declarations. IHow clearly
do they evince the blinding power of a predominant love of
system over a genius of unsurpassed vigor and brilliancy!
iNo intelligible hint of another life in the Mosaic writings!
No trace of the doctrine of a future state in the Jewish scriptures before the captivity! No evidence of higher motives
to virtue from Moses to Ezra than such as are connected with
the present world! Let us look a little into the sacred books
of the Israelites, to ascertain, if possible, whether the positions of this distinguished and learned prelate are sustained
by them.
The eternity of the supreme being is distinctly taught in
the Pentateuch. I AM: THAT I AMW: is the sublime title,
under which he reveals himself. Now, in the very first
chapter of Genesis, in the record of that great transaction, in
B. 5 S. 5.        t B. 5, S 5:    Ex.iii. 14.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           287
which the history of our world begins, Moses says, " God
created man in his own image."*  Would it not be a frigid
interpretation of these words, which would restrict their
meaning to the mere assertion, that God had endowed man
with a somewhat higher intelligence than other animals? 
Do they not more than hint the doctrine, that the soul of
man is kindred to the Deity, not only in the possession of
reason, freedom of will, and moral rectitude, but also of a
nature adapted and destined to immortality? It seems to
me, that any lower interpretation would eliminate all proper
meaning from them, and reduce them to a piece of idle bombast. The soundest interpreters assign this force to the expression. Dean Gravest says: "The expression of the image
of God plainly implies the idea of the soul's immortality."
The same writer cites Abarbanel, Tertullian, Vatablus,
Paulus Fagius, Edwards, Augustin, Poole, and Patrick as
holding the same view.
In the second chapter of Genesis, we have an account of
the trial of our first parents. The penalty of failure was to
be death. Does not this clearly imply the promise of life as
the reward of obedience? And the life, thus implicitly promised, must have been an endless one; otherwise death
would have followed obedience as well as disobedience, and
the distinction between virtue and vice would have been
destroyed.
The third chapter contains a history of the fall of man.
The execution of the threatened sentence is suspended, and
a future deliverer and redeemer is promised. Thereupon
Adam changed the name of his wife, and called her Eve,
" because," says the historian, " she was the mother of all
living."'  This is a remarkable record. It deserves to be
deeply studied. At first he had called her by a name, which
signified simply a " female man."  Now he changes that appellation to another signifying "life."  Wherefore such a
* Gen. i. 27.  -t On the Pent Pt. 3, Lect. 4.  $ V. 20.




288               CO31MENTARIES ON THE
change? One should rather suppose, that he would now call
her by a name denoting death. What rational explanation
can be given of the change actually made, except that it is
an expression of Adam's faith in the promise of a new and
immortal life to be bestowed upon him and his posterity,
through the intervention of the predicted deliverer?
In the next chapter the historian informs us of the offerings
of Cain and Abel; of the rejection of the former and acceptance of the latter; and of the foul murder perpetrated, in
consequence, upon Abel, by his elder brother. What do we
see here? Virtue crushed, and vice triumphant; the good
man perishing by violence, and his murderer, though driven
from his home, and exiled from the place where the visible
symbol of the divine presence dwelt, yet spared to found
cities, and become the father of a numerous and flourishing
posterity. If there is no hereafter, if death is the annihilation of our being, what a spectacle would this be to contemplate!  The omnipotent judge punishing goodness, and
rewarding crime! A righteous man perishing, because he
had acted in a manner conformable to the will of God!
Surely, the facts contained in this record very distinctly
point to a future state of rewards and punishments. The
writer to the Hebrews intimates as much, when he says of
Abel, that "' he being dead, yet speaketh.'"* Of what does
he speak? Of the immortality of the soul and the retributions of another world. Very respectable commentators concur in this view of the transaction. Dean Gravest says:
1" We cannot conceive, that the circumstances attending this
first infliction of death upon man, could have been ordered
by providence so as to testify more plainly this great truth of
a future state of recompense, had this been the sole purpose
for which they were designed. To conceive, that a just and
merciful God should openly approve the sacrifice of Abel,
and yet permit him, in consequence of that very action, to
* Heb. xi. 4.          t On the Pent. Pt. 3, Lect. 4.




LAWS'OF THE ANCIENT HEBURES.            289
suffer a cruel death, which put a final period to his existence;
while his murderer, whom the same God openly condemned,
was yet permitted to live; all this is so monstrous, so contradictory to the divine attributes, as to prove, beyond possibility
of doubt, that this event was permitted to take place, partly
at least, in order to show, that death was not a final extinction of being, but on the contrary, a passage from this world
to another, where the righteous should be recompensed for
their adherence to the will of their heavenly father, in opposition to suffering and death, by a sure and eternal reward."
Fagius* observes: "His blood poured forth witnesses that
you put him to death. Let this comfort the righteous, who
are slain for their justice, that they still live with God, and
are his chief care."  Taylort says: "The patriarchs before
and after Job, and the Israelites before Christ, had a notion
of a future state. By sacrifices was plainly shown, that a
way was open to the divine favor and acceptance; and the
favor of God imports happiness; which to Abel, who was for
that very reason, because he was accepted of God, unjustly
slain, could be only in a future state; and dying on account
of that faith,'he speaketh' an invisible future state of reward."  Doddridge: also interprets the words "he being
dead yet speaketh," as referring to the testimony borne by
his story to a future state.  So Philo Judaus:~ " Abel,
though cut off, lives. * * * This the divine oracle attests,
for it expressly declares, he cries out against the criminal by
whom he suffered: but if he no longer existed, how could he
thus cry out? Thus the wise man, who appears deprived of
this mortal life, lives an immortal one."
In the fifth chapter of Genesis, we have an account of the
translation of the patriarch Enoch: "And Enoch walked
with God; and he was not; for God took him."ll If there
is no future life, in which virtue receives its appropriate
* Cited by Poole in loc.      t Scheme of Scrip. Div. c. 24.
$ Fam. Exp. on Heb. xi. 4.   % Opp. t. 127.    11 V. 24.
19




290               COMMENTARIES ON THE
reward, what a picture does the sacred historian here offer us
of the God of the Hebrews! A man, illustrious beyond all
his contemporaries for piety, is cut off in the midst of his
days from all the honors and enjoyments of life, and rewarded with annihilation! What heart but must recoil from
a being, who recompenses the devotion of his servants with
the extinction of their being?  Who can believe that Moses
teaches a doctrine so abhorrent both to reason and revelation a This record of the translation of Enoch, so far from
being a mere hint of another life, seems to me almost as
plain a revelation of it, as the declaration of the Lord of life
himself, " The hour is coming, in the which all that are in
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth."+
Warburton,t to evade the force of this scripture, says, that
the fact that Enoch walked with God, and was not, because
God took him, is related with a studied obscurity and brevity, as if to conceal the idea of another life. To this Dr.
Graves: well replies, that " it is related in exactly the same
style and manner as every other fact in this part of the
patriarchal history; and it is so plain, that the only possible
way of concealing or obscuring the information it contains,
would be entirely to suppress the fact. Enough is told to
justify the observation of the apostle, " By faith Enoch was
translated, that he should not see death; and was not found
because God had translated him; for before his translation,
he had this testimony, that he pleased God."~
A little farther on in the sacred narrative,l[ we come to
the great trial of Abraham's faith in the command to offer up
his son Isaac. We have the explicit testimony of St. Paul,~
that he did this in the belief, that God would raise him from
the dead. Could such a thought have occurred to a mind in
utter darkness as to a future state, and to which death sug
* John v. 28, 39. t Div. Leg. B. 5, S. 5. + On the Pent. Pt. 3, Lect. 4.
4 Heb. xi. 5  ]] Gen. xxii.       f Heb. xi. 19.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            291
gested no other idea, than that of an eternal sleep? It is impossible.
That Abraham and the other patriarchs, contrary to the
theory of Bishop Warburton, were influenced in their conduct by the prospect of a future life, is a truth which
rests for support on inspired authority.  "By faith," says.
the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, "Abraham  sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country,
dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with
him of the same promise. For he looked for a city which
hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God."s Again,
speaking of the patriarchs in general, the same writer says:
" These all died in faith, not having received the promises,
but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them,
and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers
and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things
declare plainly, that they seek a country. And truly, if they
had been mindful of that country from which they came out,
they might have had opportunity to have returned. But
now they desire a better country, that is an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he hath
prepared for them a city."t
When God revealed himself to Moses in the burning bush,
it was in these words: " I am the God of Abraham, the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."t  According to the authoritative interpretation of our Savior,~ the doctrine not only
of a future life, but even of a resurrection from the dead, is
taught in this passage. It must, therefore, unless the divine
expounder has put an erroneous construction upon it, be regarded as containing something more than a mere hint of
another life. It is a distinct revelation of it.
Moses is commonly supposed to have been heir apparent
to the crown of Egypt. Whether this be so or not, the
highest dignities below the throne were open to his ambition;
* Heb. xi. 9, 10. t Heb. xi. 13-16.: Ex. iii. 6. 6     Mat ziiL 21, 32.




292                COMMENTARIES ON THE
and boundless wealth, splendor, and luxury were his by pres
scriptive right. All this he renounced for reproach, exile,
poverty, toil, privation, ingratitude, and death. Wherefore
pursue a course, so irrational in the world's esteem, and so
contradictory to its most cherished maxims?.  Because, according to the writer to the ilebrews,* he had respect to
rewards unappreciated in the world's philosophy. Either,
therefore, Bishop Warburton is mistaken, or St. Paul is; for
they put forth diametrically opposite opinions on the question
whether or not the Israelites were ever actuated by the prospect of future rewards and punishments,-the former teaching that they were not, the latter that they were.
Balaam was undoubtedly favored with a portion of the true
prophetic spirit. His prayer " let me die the death of the
righteous, and let my last end be like his," conveys a distinct
allusion to the rewards of a future state of being.t  " It imports," observes Dr. Graves,4 " a wish to die the death of
the righteous, in order to enjoy the happiness of another life,
which the righteous only can  share."  If anything could
establish the correctness of this interpretation, it would be
the unnatural and jejune construction which Warburton is
compelled to put upon the passage. According to him, the
prayer means, "' Let me die in a mature old age, after a life
of health and peace, with all my posterity flourishing about;
me; as was the lot of the righteous observers of the law."~
Qould any thing be more forced and frigid?
The Mosaic statute, repeated not -less than four times in
the Pentatauch,11 prohibiting all recourse to wizards, witches,
necromancers, and the like, viewed in connexion with the
continuance of the superstition in spite of the rigorous
enforcement of the prohibition, and especially in connexion
with Saul's application to the witch of Endor to bring up
* Heb. xi. 26.    t Num. xxiii. 10.   $ On the Pent. Pt. 3. L;
{ Div. Leg. B. 5.  11 Lev. xix. 31; xx. 6, 27. Deut. xviii. 11.




LAWS- OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          298
Samuel from the dead,* affords an incontestible proof, not
only that the doctrine of the separate existence of the soul
after the dissolution of the body formed a part of the popular
creed of the Jewish nation, but also that the abuse of the
doctrine constituted a prominent feature of the' popular superstition.
The solemn Hebrew adjuration. which we find in 1 Sam.
25:6, and other places of the Old Testament,-" As Jehovah liveth and as thy soul liveth," contains a; hint of iminortality, by no means equivocal. Why this remarkable conjunction of terms? Is it accidental?  Is it rhetorical merely?
Is it not rather intimated, in this wonderful association of the
human spirit with the father of spirits, that as the one lives,
so shall the other? The being of the one is recognised as the
pledge of the being of the other. In this language the divine
spirit is so intimately connected with the human spirit, that
the eternal existence of the former is made the immoveable
ground of the eternal blessedness of the latter.
By the inspired teachers who succeeded Moses, and whose
writings form  a part of the sacred volume, the doctrine of
another life was developed with continually increasing clearness and force. From the mind of David, the royal prophet
and sweet singer of Israel, the contemplation of the future
state of retribution seems hardly ever to have been absent.
Let us glance at a few of the places in his pious and inspired
hymns, in which this idea appears conspicuous.
In the 16th Psalm,t David uses these glowing expressions:"I have set the Lord always before me; because he is at
my right hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is
glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope.
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou
suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt show me
1 Sam. xxviii.            t Vv. 8-11.




2914               COMMENTARIES ON TI!E
the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy: at thy
right hand there are pleasures for evermore."
It is true that the psalmist here speaks in the person of the
Messiah, and the words, " neither wilt thou suffer thy holy
one to see corruption," are explained by Peter* as applicable
to him alone. Yet, without doubt, he expresses his own full
assurance of a future state, in which earthly sorrow shall terminate in heavenly joy, and momentary pain shall be rewarded
with everlasting felicity.t
In the psalm immediately succeeding to this,: the royal
poet expresses himself thus:-" deliver my soul from the
wicked, which is thy sword: From  men which are thy hand,
O Lord, from men of the world, which have their portion in
this life, and whose belly thou fillest with thy hid treasure:
they are full of children, and leave the rest of their substance
to their babes. As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness."  Here the psalmist draws an express contrast between
the gross earthly pleasures of the men of the world and the
pure celestial happiness of the righteous in another life. In
opposition to those who have " their portion in this life, and
whose belly is filled with hid treasure," he places all his felicity in the vision of God, anticipates the hour when he shall
awake (i. e. from death to life) in the divine likeness, and expresses his assured confidence, that then he shall be satisfied
with the fulness of joy, yea, with the exceeding abundance of
eternal glory.~
In psalm 21: 1, the writer says, " Into thy hands do I yield
up my SPIRIT, for thou hast redeemed [purchased] me, O Lord
God of truth." These expressions represent death as the giving up of something that goes away at the bodily dissolution.
Blind must he be, who, in such expressions, sees only nature,
or, as the naturalist would say, a debt due to nature, and nothing of grace, nothing of covenant, nothing of the redemp* Acts ii.   t See Horne in loc.   i xvii. 13-15.     HI-orne in loc.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT tIEBREWS.          295
tion and immortality of the soul. The passage contains
clearly the idea of restoration, or the paying back of a deposit,
placed in the hands of Jehovah.
The forty-ninth psalm is a glorious testimony to the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments. The
psalmist commences with a solemn call to all the inhabitants
of the world to give ear to a lesson of divine wisdom. The
lesson is the folly of trusting in riches, for of wealthy transgressors he says:*  "This their way is their folly: yet their
posterity approve their sayings. Like sheep they are laid in
the grave; death shall feed on them; and the upright shall
have dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty
shall consume in the grave from their dwelling. But God
will redeem my soul from the power of the grave; for he
shall receive me."  Here we have a contrast between sinners
who trust in their wealth and the upright. Both are, indeed,
subject to the power of death; both shall be laid in the grave;
both shall be re-animated and come forth out of the dust;
but the upright shall have dominion over the wicked in the
morning. Graves,t Patrick,4 and Horne~ interpret "the
morning" here as denoting the resurrection. Horne's paraphrase of the fourteenth verse is strikingly beautiful: "The
high and mighty ones of the earth, who cause people to fear,
and nations to tremblearound them, must one day crowd the
grave; in multitude and impotence, though not in innocence,
resembling sheep driven and confined by the butcher in his
house of slaughter. There death, that ravening wolf, shall
feed sweetly on them, and devour his long expected prey in
silence and darkness, until the glorious morning of the resurrection dawn; when the once oppressed and afflicted righteous,
risen from the dead, and sitting with their Lord in judgment,
shall have dominion over their cruel and insulting enemies;
whose faded beauty, withered strength, and departed glory,
* Vv. 13-15.  t On the Pent. Pt. 3, Lect. 4. $ In loc.  ] In loc




296                COMMENTARIES ON THE
shall display to men and angels the vanity of that confidence,
which is not placed in God."*.
The main sentiment of the psalmn which we have just been
considering, is brought out with still greater distinctness in
the seventy-third. The writer describes himself as brought
into a state of the niost anxious perplexity by a view of the
worldly prosperity of the wicked; but the darkness, which
for a time clouded his mind, was scattered by the light of religion, revealing the final doom of the unigodly and the future
glory and felicity of the pious. He thus describes both the
disease and the remedy:t  "Verily I have cleansed my
heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency. For all
the day long have I been plagued, and chastened every morning.  If I say I will speak thus; behold, I should offend:against the generation of thy children. When I thought to
know this, it was too painful for me; until I went into the
sanctuary of God; then understood I their end. Surely thou
didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst themn down
into destruction.  How are they brought into desolation, as
in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors.  As a
dream when one awaketh; so, 0 Lord, when thou awakest,
thou shalt despise their image. Thus my heart was grieved,
and I was pricked in my reins. So foolish was I, and ignorant; I was as a beast before thee. Nevertheless I am continually with thee: thou hast holden me by my right hand.
Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive
me to glory.  Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is
none upon earth that I desire besides thee. 1MVy flesh and my
heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my
portion for ever."  How clear is the doctrine of a future life
*'; Warburton interprets'in the morning,' to mean,'by the judgment
of the law, which was administered in the morning hours.' What straits
is a system driven to, to require such an interpretation!" Graves on
the Pent.
t' Vv.  3-26.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           297
in these verses! How strong the psalmist's hope of a personal
enljoyment of its blessedness! With what rapture and exultation does he dwell upon the blissful anticipation!
The list of references to another life in the book of Psalms
might be greatly extended; but let these instances suffice.
That Solomon, the pride of his nation and wonder of the
world for wisdom, was acquainted with the doctrine of retribution in a future state, and that he held it to be the strongest
foundation and sanction of virtue, the inspired productions of
his pen afford decisive proof. In Proverbs 4: 18, he compares " the path of the just" to "the shining light, that
shineth more and more unto the perfect day." Patrick,
Poole, Doddridge, and Graves concur in interpreting these
words as a beautiful description of the reward of virtue, increasing from day to day, till it terminates in endless glory.
In the same book (8: 35, 36) wisdom is represented as saying,
" Whoso findeth me findeth life," and "All they that hate me
love death." Eternal life and eternal death are here, plainly,
intended.  The same must be understood in chap. 12: 28,
where we are told, that " in the way of righteousness is life,
and in the pathway thereof there is no death;" and in chap.
14: 27, where it is said, that "the fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death." In these
places, it is impossible to interpret the words life and death
otherwise than as appertaining to a future state of being,
because the wicked enjoy the present life as well as the righteous, and the righteous are subject to temporal death not less
than the wicked. Still clearer, if possible, is the doctrine of
future retribution in the thirty-second verse of this chapter:
"The wicked is driven away in his wickedness; but the
righteous hath hope in his death."  If death is the annihilation of our being, the righteous are as much driven away as
the wicked; and neither can have any well grounded hope in
the mortal struggle. It is true, that Warburton interprets the
expression, " the righteous hath hope in his death," as mean




298               COMMENTARIES ON THE
ing, " he hath hope, that he shall be delivered froit the most
imminent dangers."  But, so long as there is any ground
whatever for the hope of escape from such perils, this feeling,
as far as my observation has extended, is as strong in the
wicked as it is in the righteous. Besides, this interpretation
does violence to the language of the sacred writer. Hope in
death is surely not the same thing as the hope of escape from
death. The latter must rest upon some probable, or at least
possible, grounds of escape; the former may and does exist
in full strength, after all such grounds have been removed.
Passing now from the book of Proverbs to that of Ecelesiastes, if in the former we meet with only scattered and incidental notices of the doctrine of future retribution, in the latter we shall find this doctrine entering into the very substance
of the writing, and constituting in fact its leading dogma.
" The royal preacher expatiates on the transitory condition of
mankind, if considered as confined to the present state of
existence; the vanity and vexation of spirit attending all
present human enjoyment; and the apparent inequality of
providence, by which there appears one event to the righteous and the wicked. But in all the difficulties and perplexities, all the vanity and vexation of spirit, which this partial
view of human nature implies, the royal preacher brings
forward the prospect of a future life and just retribution, as
the solution and the remedy, the consolation and the cure."*
And he closes the whole discussion with these memorable
words, intended to imprint upon the heart of his readers the
great truth, which it had been his principal aim to unfold
and enforce:t " Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep his commandments: for this is the
whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into
judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or
whether it be evil."
Miracle was superadded to verbal instruction to confirm
* Graves on the Pent. Pt. 3, Lect. 4.  t Eccl. xii. 13, 14.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            299
the doctrine of the soul's continued existence after the death
of the body, and of its capability of a blessed immortality.
Three instances occurred of an actual resurrection from the
dead, produced by the miraculous power of Elijah and Elisha,
prophets of the most high God, —viz. the son of the widow of
Zarephath,* the son of the Shunamite woman,t and the man
let down into the sepulchre of Elisha.:  "These miracles,
combined with others of a different kind wrought by the
same prophets, which must have excited general attention,
could not fail of impressing extensively and deeply on the
Jewish nation the opinion of the soul's surviving death, and
being capable of a blessed immlortality."~ But a miracle far
more remarkable and illustrious, and tending more directly
and powerfully to confirm the doctrine of a future state of existence, we have in the translation of Elijah.ll  "And it came
to pass, as they,[ still went on, and talked, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them
both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father!
the chariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof! And he saw
him no more."  With such a record as this before him, how
was it possible for a man of Warburton's genius, a doctor of
divinity and a bishop in the established church of England,
to avow the opinion that the Jews, from Moses to the captivivity,'" had not even the idea of a future state,%'"  and never
" expressed the least hope or fear or common curiosity concerning it?"tt
A very few citations from the subsequent prophets must
close this already too extended note. In the fourteenth
chapter of Isaiah, in a bold and sublime scen'c representation, the invisible world is uncovered, and we see and hear
* 1 Kings xvii. 17-23.   t 2 Kings iv. 33-36.: 2 Kings xiii. 21.
{ Graves on the Pent. Pt. 3, Lect. 4.  11 2 Kings ii. 11, 12.
~ Viz. Elijah and Elisha.         ** Div. Leg. vol. 4, p. 344.
tt Div. Leg. B. 5, S. 5.




300               COMMENTARIES ON T.UE
what is transacting there. Nebuchadnezzar, the fallen tyrant
of Babylon, descends to the lower regions, whose inhabitants,
aroused by his approach, come forth to meet him:* "Hell
from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming:
it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the
earth: it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of
the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art
thou also become weak as we? Art thou become like unto
us a?" Does not this whole representation prove, that the idea
of a state of future retribution was familiar to the Jewish
mind in the age of this prophet?
In his twenlty-sixth chapter, Isaiah, celebrating the faithfulness of God to his people, says:t " Thy dead men shall
live, together with my dead body shall they rise. Awake
and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of
herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead." The interpretation of this passage is much disputed. Various senses are
assigned to it by the commentators. Into these controversies
I do not enter; nor is it needful that I should; for, whatever
the specific reference of the prophet may be, the passage is a
clear proof, that the doctrine of a resurrection of the dead
was current among the Jews at the time when it was penned.
Passing by numerous other allusions to a future state, in
this sublime and evangelic prophet, we come to his fiftyseventh chapter, " in which he describes, in terms the most
clear and impressive, that strict retribution, by which divine
justice will correct all the inequalities of the present life, and
render to every man according to his works:"  " The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful
men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is
taken away from  the evil to come. He shall enter into
peace: they shall rest in their beds, each one walking in his
uprightness."~
* Vv. 9, 10,                         t V. 19.
4 Graves cn the Pent. Pt. 3, Lect. 4.  i Vv. 1, 2.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.         801
1 pass the references to a future state of rewards and punshminents contained in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the minor
prophets, though much might be gleaned from these writers,
which would have a strong bearing upon the present discussion; and close with the sublime and awful description of
the great and terrible day of the Lord, the day of final retribution, which we find in the prophecies of Daniel:* " I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days
did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of
his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery
flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued
and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood
before him: the judgment was set, and the books were
opened. I saw in the night visions, and behold one like the
Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the
Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
And there was given him dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve
him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall
not pass away, and his kingdom, that which shall not be
destroyed."  "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the
great prince which standeth for the children of thy people:
and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since
there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time
thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found
written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the
dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and
some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be
wise, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and
they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever
and ever."
*vii. 9, 10, 13, 14.  xii. 1-3.




302               COMMENTARIES ON THE
CHAPTER VII.
Influence of the Laws and Writings of Moses on the subsequent
Civilisation of the World.
A woRy, like the Pentateuch, distinguished for its literary
merit, its theology, its ethics, and the preiminent excellence
of its system of civil institutions, could not fail to exert a
wide and powerful influence on the opinions and practices of
mankind. To trace and unfold this influence, as we find it
modifying the religion, the literature, the philosophy, and
the legislation of the world, since the age of Moses, is the
purpose of the present chapter. As, however, it is not always easy to distinguish between the effect of the Pentateuch
and of the other inspired writings, which form the canon oi
the Old Testament, I shall not be particularly studious of
such discriminations, but shall treat of the influence generally of the Hebrew scriptures; never forgetting, however,
that the chief place, in such a review, is due to the books of
Moses.:Moses made no secret of the high estimate, which he
placed upon his labors, as a lawgiver. " What nation is
there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous
as all this law, which I set before you this day?"* is the confident tone, in which he claims the obedience of his country
* Deut iv. 8.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           303
men and the admiration of the world. It is a challenge
which might still be made in reference to the greater part of
the nations of the earth. Moses seems to have been impressed with the conviction, that his legislation was destined
to exert a commanding influence on the progress of government and civilization. He evidently anticipated, that his
laws would become known, and would be imitated, by other
nations; and, ever upon the alert for motives to enforce the
observance of them  upon his own countrymen, he employs
this expectation as an argument to that end. " Keep, therefore, and do them (he says), for this is your wisdom and your
understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear of
these statutes, and say, surely this great nation is a wise and
understanding people."*
The event was in harmony with the anticipation. Hardly
any historical fact rests upon a more solid foundation than
that the most celebrated nations and lawgivers of antiquity
borrowed many of their wisest institutions firom the laws of
Moses. We have plain and certain proofs, that these laws
were powerfully felt in modifying the religious sentiments,
the philosophical opinions, the literary labors, the political
maxims, the civil institutions, and the moral judgments and
practices of mankind. The exhibition of these proofs is the
labor now in hand.
The reader's attention is here, in a preliminary way, called
to the geographical position of the country of the HIebrews,
in its relations to the other countries of the eastern hemisphere. A glance at the map shows how admirably it was
situated for becoming a central point of illumination, a fountain whence streams of knowledge might flow to a benighted
world. The divine voice itself, in describing the boundaries
of the promised land, says: " From  the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the river Euphratcs, even unto the
uttermost sea, shall your coast be."F  The western border of
* Deut. iv. 6.           t Deut xi. 24.




304               COMMENTARIES ON THE
the Hebrews was the Mediterranean sea, by means of whose
waters there was an easy access to the entire southern coast
of Europe and northern coast of Africa. Their eastern border
was the Euphrates, which, discharging itself into the Indian
ocean, opened a way to the whole southern shore of Asia.
In this commanding position, this city set on a hill, Jehovah,
fixing the abode of his chosen people, set up a school for the
instruction of the nations. Judea, enjoying the sacred light
of revelation,'became the great depository of religious, moral,
and political knowledge for the world. And it was so central,
and so easy of access, that, light could thence be most readily
made to radiate to every region of the globe.*
That the Hebrew institutions were not designed for the exclusive benefit of the Hebrew people, we know from the
express declarations of holy writ. See in confirmation of
this Ex. 9: 16. 15: 14; Num. 14: 13-21; Deut. 4: 6-8.
28:10. The prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the
temple is particularly pertinent here. Therein that illustrious
monarch prays, that " all the people of the earth may know
thy name, to fear thee, as do thy people Israel."t And
again, in his solemn benediction of all the congregation of
Israel at the conclusion of his prayer, he makes request, that
God would " maintain the cause of his people Israel at all
times, that all the people of the earth may know that Jehovah
is God, and that there is none else."T This last citation is
the more important, as it contains a distinct recognition of
the principles and objects of the Jewish law. According to
this decisive testimony, these, from the very first, stood connected with the communication of the knowledge of the true
God to all the people of the earth.
The Mosaic law tended to promote the instruction and im
provement of mankind by exhibiting to all the nations in the
vicinity of the Hebrews, and all that were affected by their
- Dr. Mathew's Bib. & Civ. Gov. pp. 103, 104.
t 1 Kings viii. 43.. 1 Kings viii. 59, 60.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            305
fortunes, the most striking proofs of the existence and power
of the true God. Such, in the earlier ages, were the Egyptians, the Canaanites, and the Phenicians, renowned respectively for their wisdom, their military prowess, and their
commercial enterprise. Such, in later times, were the Assyrians, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans who swayed
successively the sceptre of universal empire. It is not, therefore, unlikely, as dean Graves  has suggested, that whatever
knowledge of the true God was preserved among mankind,
was derived from this source, or at least was from thence
materially extended and improved.
A deep impression of the power of the true God was made
on the mind of remote antiquity by the miracles wrought in
behalf of the chosen people. This appears in the confession
extorted from Pharaoh's magicians, —" this is the finger of
God."t  It is seen in the expostulations of the Egyptian
people with their king on his obstinacy in refusing to let the
Israelites go.1 It is seen in the terror felt by the Canaanites
on the approach of the Israelitish armies, when kings trembled on their thrones, and the hearts of their people melted,
and there remained no more courage in any man.~ It appears in the passionate exclamations of the Philistines, three
hundred years afterwards, when the ark was brought into the
camp of Israel,-"- Woe unto us, who shall deliver us out of
the hands of these mighty gods?  These are the gods, which
smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness.l1
The effect produced on the mariners, when Jonah told them
he was a Hebrew, and feared Jehovah, the God of heaven,
who made the sea and the dry land, shows very plainly, that
the displays of omnipotence, on behalf of Israel, were not unknown to the surrounding nations.~' That also which was
soon after produced on the Ninevites, when they learned that
* On the Pent. Pt. 3 Lect. 5.    t Ex. viii. 19.    $ Ex. x. 7.. Josh. ii. 9-11. ix. 9-11, 24.  I 1 Sam. iv. 8.    ~ Jonah X 1..
20




306               COMMENTARIES ON THE
he was a Hebrew prophet, sent of God, evinces the same
thing.*
How far the knowledge of the true God was diffused by
these means, it is impossible at this distance of time, to trace
with much distinctness. It cannot, however, be doubted,
that the manifest and admitted superiority of Jehovah over
the idols of the heathens. must have had a powerful effect in
weakening their confidence in these false gods, and in leading
thoughtful minds to favor a purer and more rational faith.
The reign of Solomon was eminently favorable to the
spread of the religious ideas of the Hebrews. The mliagnificence of his temple, the splendor of his court, and the un..
rivalled fame of his wisdom attracted to his capital, from all
quarters, men and women, illustrious for their rank and influence. Jerusalem became the Athens of its day; the centre
of light to the surrounding nations; who were ambitious to
sit at the feet of its renowned sage and sovereign.  The
queen of Sheba, with a very great company, and all the
kings of the earth sought his presence to hear his wisdomn.f
Thus did the men, who swayed the destinies of their respective countries, become acquainted with the civil and religious
institutions of Moses, and with the amazing history of the
divine interpositions in favor of a people, professing the faith
and worship of the true God. This knowledge, thus widely
extended, constituted a leaven, which must have produced a
great ferment in men's religious and political ideas, and must
have tended, in no inconsiderable degree, to their instruction
and reformation.
It was not, however, merely persons of this description,princes and the ambassadors of princes,-who were drawn to
Judea as the rich store-house of knowledge and wisdom.
Before the reign of Solomon, a vast multitude of foreigners
had been attracted thither, and without probably embracing
the Jewish religion wholly, and becoming citizens in the full
* Jonah iii 5-9.   t 1 Kings iv 29-34. x. 1-13. 2 Chron. ix. 1-12.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           307
sense by being circumcised, had renounced idolatry and become worshippers of the true God. Some idea of the total
number of this class of residents may be obtained from the
fact that no less than one hundred and fifty-three thousand
and six hundred of them  were employed in the work of
building the temple. Their character for intelligence may be
estimated from the circumstance, that nearly four thousand
of them were fit to be made overseers of the work.*  This is
a record in the history, brief and incidental it is true, and
therefore apt to be overlooked, like many others, as insignificant, which yet is of the high st importance, as showing,
that the Hebrews were far from being an insulated people,
unknown and unfelt by other nations. It proves, on the contrary, that they occupied a commanding position, that the
influence of their religion and laws was widely diffused and
powerfully felt, and that the tendency of their polity was to
disseminate light, and render the knowledge of the true God
increasingly conspicuous and increasingly operative.
Let any one duly consider these circumstances,-the immense influx of foreign residents into Judea, and the flocking
thither of the great and the learned for purposes connected
with the improvement of the mind and the amelioration of
government,-and he will readily conceive what a flood of
light must have been poured upon the nations from this central orb. But there was gradually introduced into the Jewish
history an element, which gave to the Mosaic laws and
writings a tenfold diffusion and power, and proportionably
increased the obligations of mankind to them. Commerce
first, and military subjugation afterwards, by degrees dispersed the Jews throughout the principal nations of the
world. Wherever they went, they appear to have won, by
their intelligence and their excellent moral qualities, no
small share of esteem and influence. Many of them rose to
exalted stations in the respective governments, under which
* 2 Chron. ii. 17, 18.




308              COMMENTARIES ON THE
they lived. Hecataens attests the high estimation, in which
they were held by Alexander the Great, who permitted them
to hold the country of Samaria, free from tribute, for theiI
fidelity towards him. Ptolemy Soter entrusted the fortresses
of Egypt to their hands, as believing they would defend
them faithfully and valiantly. Ptolemy Philometer and his
queen Cleopatra committed their entire kingdom to the Jews,
in appointing Onias and Dositheus generals of all their
forces.
The affection of Ptolemy Philadelphus towards both the
nation and the laws of the Jews is well known. He purchased the freedom of 120,000 Jewish slaves at an immense
price, which he paid out of the royal treasures, and sent
them back to their own country. He 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 chronicles of the kings of Assyria, Media, and Persia,
afford additional testimony to the estimation in which the
Jewish people were held by contemporary nations. The
superior wisdom and virtue of the more cultivated Hebrews
attracted the notice and regard of the Asiatic sovereigns, who
elevated them to the highest civil dignities. Witness the
case of those excellent men, Daniel and Nehemiah,-the
former of whom became the prime minister and favorite of
Darius, the Mede, and the latter held a responsible and confidential office under the Persian Artaxerxes. Witness also
the elevation of the Jewess Esther to the throne of Persia,
and of her noble-hearted and inflexible kinsman, Mordecai,
to the primacy of the realm. During the reign of Artaxerxes,
the Ahasuerus of the scriptures, "many of the people of the
* See all these facts, with the authorities on which they rest, in Josephus contra Apion.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           309
land became Jews;"* that is, they renounced idolatry, and
became worshippers of Jehovah. This is another incidental
record of the highest significance and value, as evincing the
power and influence of Judaism on the gentiles.
The majesty and providence of God extorted from successive Assyrian, Median, and Persian monarchs, public official
decrees, recognizing his power and sovereignty in the most
explicit terms; commanding all people, nations, and languages, to praise and extol and honor the king of heaven;t
and to tremble and fear before him;4 and denouncing the
most terrible punishments upon such as should dare to speak
any thing amiss against the God of Israel.~  And this reverence and worship of the true God was enjoined upon their
subjects by these heathen princes, because, say they, "' He is
the living God, and steadfast forever; he delivereth and he
rescueth, and he worketh signs and wonders in heaven and
earth; his kingdom  is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation.]j
Edicts to this effect were published by Nebuchadnezzar,
Darius, Cyrus, and Artaxerxes.  " Such public and solemn
testimonies to the majesty of the God of Israel," observes Dr.
Graves,'" must have contributed materially to check error
and idolatry, in a country where the form of the government
rendered the example and opinions of the monarch so powerful and operative. They must have gained the Jews, even in
their captive and degraded state, much consideration and attention; and as such a state led them to take pride in their
religious superiority,-the only superiority now left them,and to exalt the divine original and wisdom of their religion;
so these events must have gained their representations weight
and credulity."
The oriental nations were the primeval seat and source of
* Esth. viii. 17.  t- Dan. iii. 29. iv. 1, 37.: Danz vi. 25-27.
d Dan. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. Il Dan. vi. 26, 27. iv. 3.
~ On the Pent. Pt, 3, Lect. 5.




310                 COMMENTARIES ON THE
civilization and philosophy. The full effect of the. MiIosaic
writings in checking idolatry and spreading the knowledge of
true religion in those distant regions, cannot, at this late day,
be clearly traced, nor duly estimated.  But a remarkable instance of it occurs in the history of the Magian or ancient
Persian religion.*
The Persians, in process of time, appear to have declined
fiom that purity of doctrine and worship, which they had received from their pious ancestor Elam, and to have engrafted
upon their national religion the superstitions of the Zabian
idolatry.  From  this they were probably, in a good degree,
recovered by the instructions of the patriarch Abraham. But
they again lapsed from the purity of their primitive faith;
and, although they never sank into the gross idolatry of other
nations, they paid a superstitious reverence to the heavenly
bodies and the elements of nature, particularly fire and the
sun.  They admitted into their religious creed the doctrine of
two original and independent principles of evil and of good,
so derogatory to the honor of the one supreme and universal
lord and king.
From these corruptions-as observed by the author of Lectures on the Pentateuch-this religion was again purified by
the celebrated Zoroaster.  This illustrious person is represented by writers best informed in oriental literature and
history, to have been cotemporary with Daniel; and if not
himself a Jew, yet perfectly acquainted with the Jewish
scriptures; to which, indeed, the distinguishing features of
* What is here delivered concerning Zoroaster and the Persian religion,
is the valuable substance of dean Graves's dissertation on the subject in
the 5th Lecture of his 3rd Part on the Pentateuch. The reader will find
the topic much more extensively treated there, with copious references to
the following authorities:-Hyde's Religio Veterum Persarum; Lord's Religion of the Persees; Prideaux's Connection; Universal History-, Pocockii
Specimen Ilistorime Arabicre; Maurice's History of Hindostan; and HoLtinger's Historia Persarum.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            311
his reformation were, in a high degree, conformable. Hence
his condemnation of two independent principles, and his assertion, that the supreme God was the universal creator of
both good and evil. This dogma he evidently borrowed from
the, doctrine of Isaiah, which that sublime prophet introduces
in such a manner as to prove, that it was particularly designed to rouse the attention of the eastern nations, and more
especially Persia, to this important truth. The statement of
the principle is in a prophecy relating to Cyrus the Great,
the most renowned and powerful nlonarch, that ever filled the
Persian throne: " I am the Lord, and there is none else; I
form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create
evil; I the Lord do all these things."*
This radical principle of true religion Zoroaster inculcates
clearly and strongly. And in other subordinate'particulars
of his scheme, we find a conformity to that of Moses, too
close to be accounted for, except on the supposition of a deliberate imitation. Thus, as Moses heard God speaking from
the fire. Zoroaster pretended to do the same. As the Jews
had their Scheckinah, or special presence of God, resting on
the mercy-seat, so Zoroaster taught the magians to regard
the sacred fires in their temples as emblems of the divine
presence.  As the Jews had frequently received fire from
heaven to consume their sacrifices, Zoroaster pretended to the
same. As the Jewish priests were of one tribe, so were
those of the Persian prophet. As the former were supported
by tithes and offerings, so were the latter. Many of the distinctions between things clean and unclean are preserved in
the religious code of Zoroaster. His doctrine and religion he
delivers as the doctrine and religion of Abraham; so that
his innovations had clearly for their object the bringing back
of the magian religion to the purity, which it had originally
derived from the instructions of that illustrious patriarch.
Some idea may be formed of the wide as well as the puri* Is. xlv. 5-7.




312                COMMENTARIES ON THE
fying influence of this comparatively uncorrupted faith, obtained by Zoroaster from  the books of Moses, from  the extent to which the magian religion prevailed. TWe learn from
Lucian, that, in his timne, which was soon after the promulgation of the gospel, it was received by the Persians, the
Parthians, the Bactians, the Arians, the Sacans, the Medes,
and various other eastern nations. And even to this day, its
doctrines are held by a large sect both in Persia and India;
who, says Prideaux, worship in his language, practice his
rites, and preserve his book with the highest reverence, as
the sole rule both of their faith and manners.
So much for the influence of Moses and his writings on the
religion of the ancient world. Let us now inquire into the
extent of that influence on letters. That both ancient and
modern literature is indebted to the Hebrew  scriptures for
many of its choicest beauties, is an opinion, which has been
very generally entertained by the learned. In support of this
opinion, we have the concurrent testimony of Jewish authors,
christian fathers, pagan writers, and modern critics.
Aristobulus, an Alexandrian Jew, who lived about two
hundred years after Plato, is said to have written a commentary on the books of Moses.  This work is now lost, but some
fragments of it are extant in Clemnens* Alexandrinus and
Eusebius.t  Of Plato this Jewish author says: "I-Ie followed
our institutes closely, and diligently examined the several
parts thereof."'Of Pythagoras he observes: " lIe translated
many things out of our discipline into the opinions of his own
sect.":  Josephus~ likewise affirms, that "Pythagoras Ilot
only understood the Jewish discipline, but embraced many
things therein contained."
*Strom. 1.              t- Praep. Evang. L. 9. C. 6.
$ See Gale's Court of the Gentiles, B. 1. C. 2. Also Selden de Jure Nat.
Hebr. L. 1. C. 2. It is due to truth to say, that Prideaux has thrown much
doubt upon the genuineness of this commentary of Aristobulus, Pt. 2. B. 1.
i Contra Ap L. 1.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            313
The primitive christians strongly insisted on this point in
their arguments and apologies for the christian religion. Thus
Tertullian:*  "I am fully persuaded, that holy writ is the
treasury of all following wisdom. Which of the poets, which
of the sophists is there, who did not drink altogether of the
prophets' fountain?  Thence also the philosophers quenched
their thirst; so that what they had from our scriptures, that
we receive back from them."  Again Tertulliant observes:
" The philosopher Menedernus, who was a great patron of the
opinion of divine providence, admired that which the seventy
related, and was in this point of the same opinion." Clemens
Alexandrinust styles Plato " the Hebrew philosopher," and
again and again asserts, that " the Greeks stole their chief
opinions out of the books of 3Moses and the prophets."  Justin Martyr~ affirms concerning Plato: "' Ie drew  mnany
things from the Hebrew fountains, especially his pious conceptions of God and his worship."[l  The same is declared by
Augustin.~
The testimony of pagan philosophers, critics, and historians
is to the same effect. Ierrnippus,** a disciple and biographer
of Pythagoras, says, that his master " transferred many things
out of the Jewish institutions into his own philosophy." On
this account he styles him " the imitator of the Jewish dogmas."  Hence Grotiustt says: "According to the testimony
of Hermippus, Pythagorean lived among the Jews."  INumenius,t: a Greek philosopher of the Pythagorean school, speaking of Plato, exclaims: " What is Plato, but Moses atticising 2" Gale, in his Court of the Gentiles, has gone into an
extended examination of the sentiments of Plato concerning
God, his nature and worship, the production of the universe,
* Apol. C. 47.    t Apol. C. 18.  $ Strom. 1.  { Apol. 2.
See Gale's Court of the Gentiles, B. 1. C. 2.
~ De Civitat. Dei, L. 8. C. 11.
** See Ibid. Also Selden de Jur. Nat. Hebr. L. 1. C. 2.
tt Votum. p. 124.:t In Gale, B. 1. C. 2.




314                COMMENTARIES ON THE
the fall of man, &c. &c. In this review, he has pointed out
many striking analogies between the opinions of that philosopher and the doctrines of holy scripture.  The reader is referred, for full satisfaction, to the work itself; a few instances,
as a specimen, follow.  In his Phaedo, he speaks of a " divine
word," transmitting to us a knowledge of the soul's immortality; where the allusion is probably to a scriptural tradition.
In his Philebus, he says: " The knowledge of the one infinite
being was from the gods, who communicated this knowledge
to us by a certain Prometheus, together with a bright fire."
Who can doubt the reference here to those original divine
communications made to the patriarchs, and to the Scheckinah,
that fiery symbol of the divine presence?  Not less plain is
the allusion, in Plato's first or self-existent being, to the sublime
declaration of Jehovah,* " I am that I arn."t  In his Timaeus,
Plato says: "6 After the father of the universe had beheld his
workmanship, he was delighted therein."  How indubitably
does this flow from the divine record,: "' And God saw every
thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good."
Plato's way appears to have been to disguise what he received from the Jewish fountain, under the form of parable
and allegory.  Origen~ suggests the reason of this.  " It was
the custom of Plato," he says, " to hide his choicest opinions,
under the figure of some fable, because of the vulgar sort,
lest he should too much displease the fabulous people by
making mention of the Jews, who were so infamous amongst
them."[l Plato himself owns as nluch in saying, that " what
* Ex. iii. 14.
t See August. de Civit. Del. L. 8. C. 11, with Lud. Vives's Notes.
$ Gen. i. 31.                  & Cont. Cels. L. 4.
I! Serranus, a learned French protestant divine, in his preface to Plato's
works, assigns the same cause for his silence respecting the Jews. " These
symbols," he observes, "Plato drew from the doctrine of the Jews, as all
the learned early Christians assert; but he industriously abstained from
making any mention of the Jews, because their name was odious among
all nations."




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEB1IREWS.          315
the Greeks receive from the barbarians, they put into a better
form or garb."  Besides, there is little doubt, that Plato does,
in point of fact, make distinct references co the Jews, under
other names, as Phenicians, Syrians, Egyptians, Chaldeans,
and Barbarians.*
Clearchus, a distinguished disciple of Aristotle, in a book
now lost, but cited by Josephus,t says, that he had heard his
master speak of a certain Jew, with whom, when he resided
in Asia, he had held frequent conversations. This person,
Aristotle described as a man of wonderful learning, wisdom,
temperance, and goodness; and said, that he [Aristotle] had
received more knowledge from him, than he had been able to
impart in return. A remarkable proof of Aristotle's acquaintance with the Mosaic law is adduced out of Arriant by
Prideanx.~ It is well known, that this philosopher had been
the tutor of Alexander the Great. When Alexander went into
winter-quarters, in Asia Minor, he ordered all the soldiers of
his army, who had married that year, to return into Macedonia, spend the winter with their wives, and come back to
him in the spring.  This agrees with the Jewish law,ll but
not with the usages of any other nation known in history.
Does it not afford probable ground for the conjecture, that
Aristotle learned it from the Jew, with whom he so much
conversed while in Asia, and that, approving it as an equitable
usage, he had made it known to Alexander, while acting as
his preceptor, who was thence induced to put it in practice
upon this occasion?
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.
* See in confirmation of this many authorities in Gale, B. 1. C. 2.
J- Con. Ap. L. 1.   ~ Lib. 1.     ] Connex. Vol. 1. p. 366.
H Deut. xxiv. 5.    ~ Lect. 8.




316                COMMENTARIES ON TIE
Strabo* makes honorable mention of Moses as a lawgiver;
and Diodorus Siculust acknowledges Aim to be the first of
legislators, from whom all laws had their origin.4
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, Grotins, Bochart, Selden, Usher, Cudworth, Stillingfleet, Witsius, Magee, and a host of others, of
scarcely inferior note. MiNost of these authorities are cited in
different parts of Gale's Court of the Gentiles. It would occupy more space than can be spared for such a purpose to
introduce extracts from them all here. Let one or two suffice.
Bochart's~ testimony is in these words: "Whatsoever was
most ancient among the heathen, the same was fetched or
wrested from our scriptures." Grotiusll expresses his opinion
thus: "That which the ancient philosophers drew from the
theology of the Phenicians, and the poets from them, the
Pheni-cians drew friom the Hebrews."  That the Phenicians
were identical with the ancient Canaanites; that they were
well acquainted with the Jewish doctrine and traditions;
that, by reason of their devotion to navigation and 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 Phenicians, Syrians,
Assyrians, &c., has been proved at large by learned men.T
The intellectual qualities and achievements of the Hebrew
race were such as naturally to give them  a commanding
power and influence. The sublimity, splendor, and force of
*Lib. 16.           t Biblioth. Lib. 1.
$ See Gale, B. 1, B. 2. B. 3, C. 9.'   Phaleg. L. 1, C. 1.
1! On Mat. xxiv. 38.
1~ See Boch. Phaleg. Lib. 4, C. 34; also his Canaan, Pref. and Bks. 1
and 2. Gale's Coart of the Gentiles, B. 1, Chaps. 3-12. Josephus con.
Ap. L. 1. Euseb. Prep. Ev. L. 1. Voss. de Hist. Graec. L. 3, C. 16.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           317
the, Hebrew genius have never been surpassed. In history,
in statesmanship, in military renown, in poetry, in1 eloquence,
kn music, in architecture, in legislation, and in the true philosophy of life, the annals of Judea furnish names, illustrious
beyond those of most other nations. As historians, Tacitus
and Thucydides must yield the palm to Moses and the author
of Samuel. Of how many important and interesting points
of historical inquiry would the world be ignorant without the
Pentateuch! Moses was the father of history. His power
of condensation has never been surpassed. The first few
chapters of Genesis furnish a connected history of two thousand of the earliest years of time. Unlike other ancient historians, Moses has no fabulous ages. There is, in his clear,
consistent, and unmatched pages, no uncertainty, no fable,
no conjecture, no chasm. In the writings of all other early
historical inquirers, the first ages of mankind are like a distant ocean, whose troubled waters are overspread with shadows, clouds, and darkness; but the Mosaic history, to borrow
the elegant simile of Bryant, is like a bright but remote
object, seen through the glass of an excellent optician, clear,
distinct, and well defined. The historic record of Moses is a
treasure above the price of rubies. By its sure, serene, and
steady light, we are conducted, through the long night of
ages, back to the very threshold of creation, and placed
beside the first human pair, in the garden of Eden. As mil
itary commanders, Joshua, David, and the Maccabees will
compare favorably with the great captains of antiquity.
Among legislators and statesmen, where shall we meet with
higher civil qualities than those which gave such lustre to
the names of Joseph, Moses, Samuel, David, Solomon,
Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah? The music of the temple
service, as arranged by David and Asaph, has never been
surpassed in sublimity and richness. The architecture of the
temple and palace of Solomon, as has been shown by learned
men, was imitated by the most polished nations of antiquity.




318               COMMENTARIES ON TIHT
Its influence has been traced in those elegant structures,
whose very ruins attest the fine architectural taste ana
genius of the Greeks. Socrates, Cicero, and Seneca, the
brightest names in the philosophic annals of Greece and
Rome, pale before the sublime and sententious ethical wisdom of Solomon.  Demosthenes is matched, if not over
matched, in oratory, both by the prophet, whose lips were
touched with a living coal from the altar, and by the great
apostle to the gentiles.  In the higher walks of poetry,
Homer, Milton, and Shakespeare are inferior to Isaiah and
the author of the book of Job. In lyrics, Pindar and Sappho
must yield the supremacy to Moses and David. " Compare
the book of Psalms with the Odes of Horace and Anacreon,
with the hymns of Callimachus, the golden verses of Pythagoras, and the choruses of the Greek tragedians; and you
will quickly see how greatly it surpasses them all in piety of
sentiment, in sublimity of expression, in purity of morals,
and in rational theology."* Indeed, the lyrical compositions
of the royal poet are marked by a depth of feeling, a strength
of thought, a brilliancy of genius, a chasteness of diction, and
a purity of taste, not surpassed by any writer in any nation or
age of the world. In pastorals, Virgil and Theocritus are
more than equalled by Solomon. In elegy, David is the
superior of Bion and Mrioschus. The whole range of elegiac
poetry offers nothing that can be compared with his sublime
and exquisite lament over the death of Saul and Jonathan.t
In deep and breathing pathos, Jeremiah distances all competitors, whether among ancient or modern bards.  The
sacred scriptures throughout are distinguished by a sublimity
of genius, a vigor of conception, a wealth of thought, a splendor of imagery, and a grace and beauty of style, which give
to the bible, though much of it was written in a comparatively rude age, an elevation and an excellence, which do not
belong to the most admired productions of the human mind,
* Bp. Watson in Smith's Heb. Peop. p. 183  t 2 Sam, i 19- 27




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           319
in the most advanced and cultivated condition of human
society. And the age of Pericles in Greece, of Augustus in
Rome, of queen Anne in Britain, of Louis XIV. in France,
and of the Mledici in Italy, all nave their counterpart, if not,
indeed, their remote origin, in the brilliant reign of a Hebrew
prince, whose renown for wisdom is not bounded even by the
limits of civilization, but has penetrated the dark mass of
barbarian rudeness and ignorance.
It would be strange, indeed, if a book so comprehensive, so
weighty, so perfect, and so wonderful, as the bible, had had
no influence on human thought and learning. In point of
fact, its influence has been most penetrating and diffusive.
That the greater part of the myths, which make up the
ancien' 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, to which the reader
is referred for full satisfaction. From the remarkable correspondence of the heathen mythology with the scriptures, it is
manifest, that the former is but a corruption of the latter.
This is so plain and certain, that no one who has studied the
subject will hesitate to assent to the remark of Bochart:
"The agreement is so wonderful, that even to the blind it
will appear, that the ancient framers of fables borrowed
many things from the sacred writers."
That poetry was the earliest form of literature, is asserted
by Strabo,* and proved by Vossius.t The early pagan bards
were much indebted to the poetry of the scriptures. Linus,
Orpheus, Homer. and HIesiod, as well as others who followed
them, drew  copiously from  the waters of the sanctuary
b Lib. 1.             t De Hist. Graec. Lib. 1, C. 1




320               COMIMETARIES ON THE
Phenicia and Egypt wele their preceptors; and these had
both been under the tuition of Israel in the best part of their
learning.*  Some suppose Linus, the earliest of the Greek
poets, to have been a Phenician by birth,t and to have flourished about the time of the expulsion of the Canaanites by
the Hebrews under Joshua. If so, he must have known the
wonders wrought by divine power in behalf of the chosen
people, and the sublime doctrines of the Jewish lawgiver
concerning the power and providence of Jehovah. The few
fragments of his poems which remain, appear to have flowed
from this sacred fountain. "It is easy," he says, in a golden
line still extant, " for God to achieve all things; and with
him nothing is impossible."  Steuchus Eugubinus has drawn
an elaborate parallel between the Mosaic and Orphic theology; in which he has shown the traduction of the latter from
the former. According to him, the first part of the theology
of Orpheus consisted in praises of the creator. The second
treats of chaos, the formation of man out of the earth, the
infusion of the rational soul by his maker, &c. &c. These
and other topics are clearly derived from  the Mosaic history,
though they are overlaid with a veil of allegory, in which the
lively imagination of the Greeks so much delighted. Justin
MartyrT has preserved a fragment of Orpheus, wherein there
appears to be something of the history of Abraham and the
tables of the decalogue. Artapanus is cited by Eusebius,~
affirming that Moses was called by the Greeks Musaeus, and
that he was the teacher of Orpheus. UIpon this Witsiusll observes, that it is not necessary to suppose Orpheus contemporary with Moses; but that the meaning of Artapanus is,
that for whatever there is just and true in his theology, he is
* See on this subject Gale, B. 3, C.1; and Wits. Aegypt. L. 2, C. 14.
tj "Linum a Phoenice venisse tradunt veteres."  Wits. Aegypt. L. 2,
C. 14.; Cited by Gale, B. 3, C. 1.
{ Praep. Evan. L. 9, C. 27.  11 Aegyptiaca, L. 2, C. 14.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             321
indebted to Moses. Witsius* is further of the opinion, that
Moses is expressly mentioned and praised by Orpheus, under
the epithet vdoyevi7f, i. e. born of or produced by water, in
allusion to his being taken out of the water by Pharaoh's
daughter.t  Homer, the prince of Grecian poets, was coternporary with Isaiah,: or flourished only a short time beire
him. That he visited Egypt, and spent some time there, is
an opinion, commonly entertained by the learned.~  Some
even think, that Egypt was his native country.ll Sir Walter
RaleighT was of the opinion, that he derived not a few of his
fictions from scripture traditions, which he gathered up in
Egypt. This he infers fiom  the affinity of many of his expressions to scripture language; and he believes him not unacquainted with the books of Moses. Eugubinus likewise
speaks of a " manifest concord " between the sublimity and
religious rites of Homer and those of sacred scripture. The
same general position as to indebtedness to the Hebrew
sources seems true of Hesiod, his entire theogony being,
apparently, but a corrupt imitation of sacred persons, actions,
and stories.**
Nor was the obligation of pagan history to the Hebrew
scriptures less than that of pagan poetry. One great design
of Eusebius, in his Chronicon, is to demonstrate the high
antiquity of the divine records, and the derivation of much
of the matter of profane historians from the Hebrew writers;
and this design has been learnedly and successfully carried
on in modern times by Joseph Scaliger, Vossius, Bochart,
Grotius, Witsius, Gale, and others. The scriptures contain a
series of historical records. of priceless worth. Half the ages
of the world would be shrouded in impenetrable darkness,
* Aegyptiaca, L. 2, C. 14.        t Ex. ii. 10.
t Carion Chron. L. 2, in Gale, B. 3, C. 1.
4 See Grotius on Mat. x. 28, and Gale, B. 3, C. 1,
J) Sanford Descens. L. 2, in Gale, B. 3, C. 1.
V lHist. Pt. 1, B. 1, C. 6.    ** Carion Chron. L. 2. Gale, B. 3. C. 1.
21




822               COMMENTARIES ON THE
but for the light cast upon them by these venerable writings.
The creation of the material universe, the formation, trial,
and fall of man, the promise of a savior, the patriarchal age,
the deluge, the foundation and settlement of the new world,
the confusion of languages., the division of men into several
communities, their dispersion into the various regions of the
globe, the history of the earliest monarchies of earth, the call
of Abraham, the selection of a particular nation to be the
chosen people of God, their descent into Egypt, their residence there, their exodus out of the house of bondage, their
establishment into a commonwealth, the momentous events
of their subsequent history, the overthrow of their state, the
progress and decline of Canaan, Persia, and Media,-all this,
and much more, would, without the Hebrew  scriptures,
either be wholly lost to mankind, or buried in the mists of
tradition and fable.
In regard to all these points, and many others, profane
historians have drawn much of their matter from Hebrew
sources, either directly, or through the Chaldeans, the Egyptians, and especially the Phenicians. If any one doubts this,
let him read the 4th chapter of the 2nd book of Witsius's
Aegyptiaca, the 3rd chapter of the 3rd book of Stillingfleet's
Origines Sacrae, and chaps. 2-8 of the 3rd book of Gale's
Court of the Gentiles. He will find there such an array of
proofs, as must convince the most incredulous.  There is
scarcely any part of the sacred record, which, in a form more
or less corrupted, has not found its way into the pages of
profane story. Gentile writers, both Greek and barbarian,
abound with references to the origin of the world, its creation
by the power of God, its primitive chaos, its subsequent
order and beauty, the production of light, the formation of
man out of the dust of the ground, the infusion of the rational
soul, man's creation in the image of God, the paradisiacal
state, the fall, the tree of life, the depravation of man's will
and affections, the flood, the dove and raven of Noah, the




LAWS OF THE A&CTENT HEBREWS.             323
tower of Babel, the golden calf, the siupply of water in the
wilderness, &c. &c. It would detain us too long to exhibit
the proof of all this in detail. Let a few specimens suffice.
Moses affirms, that the world had a beginning.*  This
all the poets, philosophers, and historians, who flourished
before the time of Aristotle, with one spirit and voice, as
Lactantius says, attest; and none more fully than Plato.
It was the common opinion of Greeks, Egyptians, Indians,
and the gentile nations generally; derived, beyond a doubt,
from  the original fountain of divine revelation.  Aristotle
was the first of the philosophers, who taught the eternity of
the world. To this he was impelled by a proud spirit of
speculation, a vain fondness of philosophizing, that made
him reject all traditions, which he could not bend to his own
reason.t
Moses makes God the creator of the world..  In like manner heathen writers ascribe the origin of the world to a real
divine efficience.~ Plato, in divers of his works,ll speaks of
the supreme cause; of the cause of causes; of natural things
as not springing up of themselves, but as being the products
of God's workmanship; of its being unworthy of a philosopher to treat only of second causes, and leave out God, who
was the first and chief cause; of a first beauty, which is the
cause of all the rest; and of one supreme idea of good
(God), which gives being, virtue, and essence to all things
else, eternal in duration, infinite in power, and independent
in working. HIomer says: "By Jove's nod the earth existed, and whatsoever the earth brings forth; the sea existed,
and whatsoever the sea produces; the air existed, and whatsoever the air sustains; the heavens existed, and whatsoever
* Gen. i. 1.
t See the authorities in proof of these positions in the Aegyptiaca of
Witsius, B. 2. C. 14, and in Gale, B. 3. C. 3.
f Gen. i. 1.            ~ See Wits. & Gale, as above.
II As in his Phaed. Tim. Theaetet. Soph. & Repub.




394               COMMENTARIES ON THE
moveth in tile heavens. All these works are wrought by the
nod (i. e. the will) of Jove." nMaximus Tyrius * discourses
most elegantly and eloquently concerning God, representing
him as the maker of all things by the simple exertion of his'will. I-e speaks of him as the being, who marshalled the:
host of heaven, who guides the sun, moon, and stars in their
orbits, who determines their rising and their setting, who
distinguishes times and seasons, who governs the winds, who
formed the sea and the earth, who pours out the rivers, who
draws forth the fruits, who produces the tribes of animals,
and, in fine, whose mind, simple, uncompounded, and incorruptible, is in no respect divided, but with incredible velocity, with a mere glance of the eye, adorns and makes
glorious whatever it touches.  From  what fountain could:
these sublime and noble ideas of the divine power and providence be drawn. if not from scripture history or tradition?
They are certainly emanations of celestial light.
The. order of the creation, as narrated by Moses, is imitated
by pagan writers. According to the Mosaic account, the,
heaven and the earth were the beginning of the creation;
according to Plato, fire and earth were the elementary principles of things. What Moses calls tohoo bohoo, emptiness
and confusion, the poets call chaos, a confused and shapeless
mass.  Moses represents a universal darkness as originally
overspreading all things; Thales, the philosopher, taught that
darkness preceded light. Ml]oses speaks of the earth as orbginally surrounded by water;t Thales, again, says that water
was the first principle of things, and that God was that spirit
that formed all things out of water.t
Moses speaks of the spirit of God as moving, literally
" brooding," upon the waters. The word expresses the tremulous motion of the hen, while hatching her eggs, and suggests the idea of incubation. This undoubtedly gave rise to
the notion, so widely prevalent among the ancients, that the
* Dissert. 25.    j Gen. i. 2.:  Cie. de Nat. Deor. L. 1. C. 10.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.              325
world was generated from an egg. The affinity of the Mosaic
and pagan histories, and the derivation of the one from the
other, are here apparent to every one, on the slightest inspection.*   The Mosaic account of the creation, indistinctly
understood, is, manifestly, the germ of all the above cited
opinions.
Anaxagoras,t who was the first of the philosophers to teach
distinctly the separate existence of one supreme and all-directing mind, spoke of the material world as originating from
a chaotic mass, consisting of different kinds of particles,
which afterwards combined in homogeneous masses; "an
opinion," observes Dr. Graves,: " so similar to that of the
Mosaic records, that we can scarcely doubt but that it was
from them derived."
3Moses states, that man was formed out of the dust of the
ground.~  Numerous are the vestiges of this fact in pagan
authors.  By Sanchoniathon,1 the oldest of profane historians,
man is said to have sprung out of the earth. It is probable,
that Plato alludes to this, when he mentions a Phenician fable
touchinH the brotherhood of mankind, as having all had a
common extraction out of the earth.T  Socrates, Zeno, and
Plato concur in affirming, that the genesis of men was from
the earth.** The latter of these writers takes pains to say,
that this ancient tradition, as he styles it, is worthy of all
credit.
Moses affirms the direct infusion by the Deity of the
rational soul into mlan.tt  Herein also he is imitated by profane writers. Sanchoniathon, according to the version of
Philo Byblius, states the same fact, in almost the same words.
Orpheus says, that man was framed by God himself out of
* Wits. Aegypt. L. 2. C. 14.
t See Bruck. Hist. Philos. L. 2. C. 1. Sect. 20.
$ On the Pent. Pt. 3. Lect. 5. Sect. 2.
Q Gen. ii. 7.   11 Gale, B. 3. C. 4.  ~[ In Gale, B. 3. C. 4.
** See the citations in Wits. Aeg. L. 2. C. 15. tt Gen. ii. 7.




326                COMMENTARIES ON THE
the earth, and received from him a rational soul.* Epicharmus, in Plutarch, teaches, that the soul came from God, and
was by him breathed into man. He adds, that at death each
part goes whence it had come, the earth returns to earth, and
the spirit ascends to God.t Grotius produces a like sentiment out of Euripides.
In the Mosaic history it is said, that God created man in
his own ilnage.   Profane history has copied this. Plato, in
his Critias, affirms, that in the first men there was a portion
of God, a divine nature, which he denominates the old
nature.~  In his Republic,ll  he places the likeness to the
Deity in the soul, and indeed in the wisdom and probity of
the soul. In his Theaetetus, again, he makes the image of
God to consist in justice, holiness, and prudence.T  In the
above instances, how admirable the correspondence between
sacred and profane story! In those which follow, the agreement is not less striking.
Moses relates that man, formed in the image of God, was
placed in Eden,** a garden of pleasures, where all was beauty, melody, serenity, fragrance, and delight. This blissful
state of man in paradise has been celebrated by heathen
poets, philosophers, and historians, under the name of the
golden  age.  Particular citations are here  unnecessary.
Allusions to this happy period, and descriptions of it, pervade
the literature of pagan nations. Their writers kindle and
glow under the inspiring theme. They represent this primitive state of man as a state of unmingled happiness.
Innocence, peace, and joy are constant inhabitants of his
soul. External nature is in harmony with his pure mind
Here are no pinching frosts, no burning heats, no stubborn
soil, no blasting winds, no devouring beasts, no thorns, weeds,
or brambles. Perpetual spring reigned. No labor of agri* Gale, B. 3. C. 4.   t Wits. L. 2. C. 15. $ Gen. i. 27.
g Gale, B. 3. C. 4.   I Lib. 10.  ~y Wits. Aeg. L. 2. C. 15.
** Gen. ii. 8.




LAWS OF THE ANCIE1[T HEBREWS.            327
culture was necessary. The unploughed earth yielded its
delicious fruits. The gentle breezes fanned the spontaneous
flowers. The rivers flowed with milk and nectar, and honey
distilled from the rock. From the Mosaic paradise, without
doubt, the ancient heathens borrowed their ideas of the gardens
of the Hesperides, where the trees bore golden fruit; and
probably also of the gardens of Adonis, a name which seems
evidently derived from Aden or Eden.* The famed Elysian
fields of the ancient mythology, with their glow of purple
light, and their perpetual verdure and serenity, are a manifest, though corrupt imitation of the garden of Eden. This
was the opinion of the great Bochart,t who derives the word
Elysius from the Hebrew" alis,"-joyful, —by the not unusual
change of a into e. Thus it appears, that the Elysian field
signifies a place of delight or joy, a meaning entirely coincident
with that of Eden, the garden of pleasure. How exactly do
these heathen descriptions of the golden age, the Hesperian
gardens, and the Elysian fields, reflect the beautiful and
splendid images, which form the picture of the paradisiacal
state.
Moses states concerning our first parents, that they were
naked.4  Plato, in his Politicus, speaks of men in the golden
age as living in the open air, naked and uncovered. -Moses
mentions the conversation between the serpent and Eve.~
Plato speaks of men in the primitive times holding converse with beasts. The tree of life figures conspicuously in
the Mosaic history.ll  There can be little doubt, that the
ambrosia of the ancients, which made immortal, and their
nectar, which made young, were but obscure and broken
traditions of the tree of life. The temptation of Eve by an
evil spirit, under the form of the serpent, is recorded by
Moses.T  Stillingfleet, in the 3rd book of his Origines Sacrae,
* See Gale's C. of G. B. 3. C. 4; Stillingf. Orig. Sac. B. 3. C. 3; and
A. Clarke in loc.   t Can. L. i. C. 34.: Gen. ii. 25.
i Gen. iii. 1.    I Gen. ii. 9, iii. 22, 24.  ~ Cen. iii. 1.




328                COMMiIENTARIES ON THE
has shown, that there is an allusion to this story in Pherecydes
Syrius's account of the war of the giants against Saturn.
The reference is so manifest, that Celsus, the early antagonist
of christianity, grounds upon it an argument to prove, that
Moses corrupted and altered the heathen fables, for the purpose of framing his own history out of them.
The fall of man is narrated at length by iMoses.* In his
Critias, Plato, after discoursing of the "divine nature,"
which belonged to man in the golden age, adds: "' This divine
nature, being at length contempered with the mortal part in
man, the human inclination or custom prevailed, even to the
pestilential infection and ruin of mankind; and from this
fountain all evils rushed in upon men, who thereby lost the
best of their precious things."' To the like effect he discourses
in his Theaetetus, declaring that man fell from  his original
rectitude, or likeness to God, into a kind of nothingness and
inhumanity.t  Whence could Plato derive such scriptural
notions, if not from scripture itself, or at least from scriptural
traditions? Origen does not doubt, that his opinions came
from this source.  He conceives, that Plato learned the history of man's fall from his intercourse with the Jews in Egypt,
and that he describes it under an allegorical form in his syrmposiacs. Porus (Adam), feasting with the rest of the gods,
and becoming drunk with nectar, goes into Jupiter's garden
(Eden), and there is circumvented and led into sin by Penia
(the serpent).:
This parallel between sacred and profane history, as it
respects the subject-matter of both, might be greatly extended,
whereby it would yet more clearly appear, to what an extent
the latter has borrowed its materials from the former. With
these brief illustrations of the subject, however, the reader
must be left to pursue the investigation for himself.
Chronology and geography have been, not improperly,
* Gen. iii.     f Literally, manlessness. want of manhood.
tSee Stillingf. Orig. Sac. B. 3, C. 3, and Gale B. 3, C. 5.




.LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          329
denominated tle two eyes of history. Certainly, nothing is
more essential to clear and correct historical knowledge, than
that the events lie before us, in their due order of time, and
their proper locality. In both these respects, the obligations
of profane to sacred history can hardly be overestimated.
Ancient chronology, without the bible, would be involved
in  inextricable  confusion.  Chronological inconsistencies
abound in the most authentic historians of antiquity. Sir
Isaac Newton, by applying his powerful mind to the study of
the scriptures, has detected great errors in the chronology of
the ancients. It is only by a rigid adherence to the scriptural
standard of dates and eras, as Dr. Hale* has well said, that
the historical inquirer can hope to avoid the mazes, the deserts,
and the quicksands of ancient and primeval chronology, in
which so many adventurers have been swallowed up and lost,
by following the ignus fatuus of their own imagination, or
the treacherous glare of hypotheses. That the scriptural
account of times is the fountain and measure of pagan chronology, has been evinced by Eusebius, Bochart, Melancthon,
Preston, and others. Bochart affirms the derivation of the
Chaldean chronology from the sacred annals of the IHebrews.
He proves his assertion thus. Simplicius, the ablest of the
ancient commentators on Aristotle, mentions a work of that
philosopher, in which he states, that he had received from
his pupil Alexander the records of the Chaldeans, on examining which he found, that the series of times extended
through so many years; which, says Bochart, answers to the
scripture account of times. One great design of Eusebius, in
his Chronicon, was to prove the traduction of ethnic from
sacred chronology. Melancthon speaks of it as " the singular
glory of the church, that nowhere, in the whole mass of mankind, there can be found a more ancient series of empires and
times; neither has any other nation such certain numbers of
years passed, so exactly computed." But none have spoken
* New Analysis of Chronology.




330               COMMENTARIES ON THE
more clearly on this point than Preston, in his third Sermon
on the Divine Attributes. "I will add to this," he says,
"but one argumnent for the authority of the scripture.  Consider the exact chronology which is found in the scriptures,
and the agreement of them with the heathen histories. In
latter times there have been great confusions; but the greatest evidence that is to be found, is the table of Ptolemy lately
found, which doth exactly agree with the scripture. tHe
exactly sets down the time, that Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus
reigned; so also the time when Jerusalem was taken; which
compare with the scripture, and you shall find these agree
with Daniel and Jeremiah. And this is the greatest testimony the scripture can have from heathen men."*
Geography is the other eye of history. There is ample
proof, not only that scripture geography preceded pagan, but
that thile iatter was, in great part, derived from the former.
Porphyry, in his fourth book against the christians, informs
us, that Sanchoniathon gave an account of places conformable to that of M/Ioses. A chief design of Bochart, in his
Phaleg, is to evince the traduction of profane from sacred
geography. He shows, that from Japhet (Gen. 10: 2.) the
Grecians referred their first plantations to Japetus; that from
Javan (Gen. 10:2.) they derived their Ionians; that from
Elisa (Gen. 10: 4.) they derived their Elis and IIellas; that
from IKittitn they onamed a city in Cyprus Citium; and that
from Tarsis (Gen. 10: 4.) came Iberis, or Spain. Many other
instances he gives to the same effect; particularly that from
Misraim  and Ludim, father and son, (Gen. 10:13.) Egypt
and Ethiopia were originally called by those names.  Conformably to this, Diodorus * speaks of the friendly intercourse kept up between the Egyptians and Ethiopians, and
infers from it their near relationship. In this manner has this
learned man and distinguished geographer demonstrated the
identity of sacred and ethnic geography. In the preface to
* Gale's Court of the Gentiles, B. 3. C. 2.  f Lib. 3.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             331
his Canaan, he gives his opinion very explicitly thus:
" Moses, by divine revelation, approved himself more skilful
in geography, than either HIomer, or Hesiod, or any of later
times among the Grecians.  For he mentions more nations,
and those more remote by far. Neither doth it suffice him
to name them, but withal he opens their original; showing
us in what age, and from what place, and upon what occasion, each was dispersed into countries most remote, even
from the Caspian and Persian seas to the extreme Gades;
and all this in one chapter." See further on this subject
Gale's Court of the Gentiles, B. 3. C. 2, and Stillinigfeet's
Origines Sacrae, B. 3. c. 4; where it is shown, that sacred
geography is not only the most ancient, exact, and certain,
but also the fountain and measure of pagan geography.*
Having demonstrated the obligation of pagan  religion,
poetry, and history to the inspired oracles, I proceed to make
manifest a like indebtedness on the part of pagan philosophy.
This is a vast field, affording scope for an extended treatise
in itself. A nlere glance is all the attention that can be bestowed upon it in the present work.
The very term  so poi, wise men, philosophers, among the
Greeks, Ileinsius t deduces, without the least doubt of the
truth of the etymology, from the Hebrew sophim, watchmen.
He says, that both the Hebrews and the Phenicians, as well
as the Greeks, called their learned men by this name, because they were accustomed to observe the motions of the
heavenly bodies from elevated places.
But not to insist upon the etymology of a word, as of
much weight in the argument, let us attend to other consid* "Moses is the only faithful guide in the history of the first peopling of
countries. The tenth and eleventh chapters of Genesis diffuse more light
on that subject, than all the writings of profane historians, which, on this
head, are nothing but a heap of confusion, conjectures, and contradictions."
Gog. Orig. Laws, B. 1. c. 1. Art. 5.
t Exercit. Sacr. L. 1. C. 2.




332               COMMENTA/RIES ON THE
erations. Three general circumstances may be mentioned, as
affording strong presumptive evidence of the obligations of
Grecian philosophy to the Hebrew scriptures.
The first circumstance, on which this conclusion rests, is
the fact, that Egypt and Phenicia, themselves large recipients of the precious 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, iln
which her people had hitherto been sunk. A spirit of inquiry
and research was awakened. Thales, Anaxiniander, Anaxagoras, Pherecydes, Pythagoras, Plato, Herodotus, and a host
of other Grecian philosophers and historians, travelled into
Egypt, Chaldea,* and Phenicia; some of them residing in
those countries for a long series of years. I-Iere they became
acquainted with the more cultivated and learned of the Jews;
saw their religion, and heard their conversations on the origin'of the universe, on the power, sovereignty, spirituality and
unity of the true God; on the divine providence; on moral
* See the Chron. Tables of Marshall, the Univ. Hist. and Bruck Hist.
Philos.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          333
good and evil; on human diUty; and on other topics, connected with religion, and philosophy. 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.
The intercourse between Europe, Asia, and Egypt continued
to increase, and access to the sacred treasures of revelation
became more and more practicable and common. Mind was
stirred. Thought was developed. Inquiry became keen and
discursive. A thousand scattered rays, emanating originally
from the sacred volume, were concentrated, in a blaze of
light, on the little promnontory of Attica. Literature, philosophy, and the fine arts spread rapidly over Greece, and were
cultivated with an ardor unknown in any other age: or
country. Then did the Greeks, possessing the finest genius,
and blessed with the most delicious climate and picturesque
scenery, produce those immortal works in poetry, eloquence,
history, and philosophy, which have embalmed their memory;
which have become universal models of taste and composition; and which have constituted the solace and delight of
cultivated minds, in every age and nation of the world.
The second general circumstance, affording ground to infer
the derivation of pagan philosophy from sacred sources, is
the fact, that the earlier philosophers delivered their instructions, not in elaborate systems, which is the form they would
have taken, had they been the result of original thought and
investigation; but in pithy sayings and unconnected dogmas,
the very method they must have adopted, had they derived
their tenets from the broken fragments and records of Holy
Scripture.
The third circumstance is, that the higher we trace the
religious opinions of the philosophers, and the popular worship of Greece, the purer and more uncorrupted do we find
themr.. " The nearer we approach to the sources of eastern
tradition, the more conspicuous appears the radiance of that




334               COMMENTARIES ON THE
heavenly light of original revelation, whose beams, though
clouded and dispersed, still contribute to enlighten and
direct mankind; the more clear traces do we discover of that
primeval and patriarchal religion, which acknowledged the
existence and inculcated the worship of the true and only
God. We find no mortals yet exalted to divinities, no images
in their temples, no impure or cruel rites."'*
The testimonies of Jewish, pagan, and christian writers,
adduced in a former part of this chapter,t and the presumptive proofs here brought forward, 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 incontestible proofs of this fact, is a comparison of
the maxims of her philosophers with the teachings of Holy
Scripture. This, however, is a labor too extensive for the
present work; and unless it is handled at length, it is better
not to touch it at all. Let the reader, who would see it 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
is quite possible, indeed, that it may never be fully known,
how far the Greeks and other heathen nations were indebted
to AMoses 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
birth-place 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
* Graves on the Pent, Pt. 3. Lect. 5, Sect. 2.
t Pp. 312 seqq.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          335
that the altars of pagan philosophy caught their first spark
frcm the flame, that glowed within the temple of Jerusalem.*
It remains to trace the influence of the Mlosaic legislation
on government and law in succeeding ages. Grotius, than
whom no man was more competent to express an opinion on
the subject, in his Truth of the Christian religion, 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 Mlosaic laws
has been noticed by many learned men besides Grotius; as
Josephus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Augustin, Selden, Gale,
Cunaeus, Serranus, Sir Matthew Hale, and Archbishop Potter. This last mentioned writer, in his Grecian Antiquities,
has traced out many resemblances between the Greek and
Hebrew legislation. " The Athenians had a prescribed bill
of divorce, and so had the Jews. Among the Jews, the
father gave names to the children; and such was the custom
among the Greeks. The purgation oath among the Greeks,
strongly resembled the oath of jealousy among the Hebrews.
The harvest and vintage festival among the Greeks, the presentation of the best of their flocks, and the offering of their
first fruits to God, together with the portion prescribed to the
priests, the interdiction against garments of divers colors,
protection from violence to the man who had fled to their
altars, would seem to indicate that the Greeks had cautiously
copied the usages of the Jews. And whence was it, that no
person was permitted to approach the altar of Diana, whe
* Comp. Spring's Discs. on the Bib. pp. 41, 42.




336               COMMENTARIES ON THE
had touched a dead body, or been exposed to other causes of
impurity, and that the laws of Athens admitted no man to
the priesthood, who had any blemish on his person, unless
from the institutions of Moses? And has not the agrarian
law of Lycurgus its prototype, though none of its defects, in
the agrarian law of the Hebrews?  M any of the Athenian
laws in relation to the descent of property and the prohibited
degrees of relationsllip in marriage, seem  to have been
transcribed by Solon from the laws of Moses.  Sir Mfatthew
H-Iale, in his history of the Common Law of England, affirms,' that among the Grecians, the laws of descent resemble those
of the Jews.' "  The law of the Areopagites against accidental manslaughter, which punished the offender with a
year's banishment, is manifestly borrowed from the Mlosaic
law respecting the cities of refuge.t
That Plato's ideal republic was, in many of its principles,
derived from the Hebrew constitution, is an opinion held by
many, and, as would seem, on good grounds. His sacred
college of conservators of the laws, composed of the principal
priests, the elders of the people, venerable by age and virtue,
and the chief magistrate as president, was a clear imitation
of the Jewish sanhedrim. Not less clearly of Jewish origin
was his law respecting the election and approval of priests,
requiring that they be perfect and legitimate. From  the
same source, evidently, came his law excommunicating an
offender, who had been guilty of striking his parent, and even
forbidding any one to eat and drink with such a person, lest
he should thereby be polluted. So manifest are the obligations of Plato to the Mosaic law, that Clemens Alexandrinus,
apostrophizing him, exclaims,".But as for laws, whatever are
true, as also for the opinion of God, these things were conveyed to thee from the Hebrews.:
* Spring's Disc. on the Bib. pp. 94, 95.
t Petit de Legibus Atticis, in Gale, B. 3. c. 9.
$ Gale, B. 3, C. 9.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             337
If the Grecian laws can be traced to the Hebrew as their
fountain-head, the Roman laws must, of necessity, confess a
similar origin. The twelve tables, a work concerning which
Cicero declares, that he prefers it alone to all the volumes of
the philosophers, were confessedly borrowed from the Grecian
legislation.
Through these channels, as well as more directly front 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. Sir Matthew Hale has traced
the influence of the bible generally on the laws of England
Sismondi testifies, that Alfred the Great, 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. The same historian also states,
that one of the first acts of the clergy, under Pepin and
Charlemagne, was to improve the legislation of the Franks
by the introduction of several of the Mosaic laws.*  Dr,
Olaus Rabenius, formerly professor of law and syndic of the
university at Upsal, informed Michaelis,t that, until recently,
the civil law of lMoses had been a jus subsidiarum in Sweden,
and that, although it is no longer cited in the courts, there necessarily remain, in the Swedish jurisprudence, many vestiges
of its former authority. The civil institutions of 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. Upon the whole, the opinion of Millnan, expressed in his History of the Jews, seems
well considered and well founded, that the Hebrew lawgiver
has exercised a more extensive and permanent influence oeaer
* Spring's Obl. of the World to the Bib. p. 96.
t See Pref. to his Com. on the Laws of Moses.
22




338               COMMENTARIES ON THE
the destinies of mankind, than any other individual ill the
annals of the world.
In a former part of this chapter I have spoken of the
genius, taste, and literature of the ancient Hebrews. Will
the reader pardon me for adding here, though it may not be
exactly in place, that the page of history, science, art, and
philosophy, is not unadorned with splendid Jewish names,
that have figured since the canon of scripture was closed.
Aben-Ezra, Abarbanel, MIaimonides,-" the eagle of the
synagogue,:'-Buxtorf, Mendohlson, and Neander were men,
of whom any nation might boast. The proudest glories of
old Spain were in a great measure due to the talent, learning,
and energy of the Hebrew race. Never did rulers make a
greater mistake, than Ferdinand and Isabella, in expelling
that people, one of the brightest jewels in their crown, front
their dominions. Rarely has a sublimer moral spectacle
been presented to the world, than that afforded by the departure, from every thing most dear to them, of so vast a multitude, ill loyalty to the faith of their fathers. Spain had
become to these people a second Palestine. Its charming
climate, its fertile fields, and the unrivalled beauty of its landscapes, had caused them almost to forget their exile from the
green vales and vine-clad hills of their revered fatherland.
Yet, rather than renounce the religion, inherited from an
fllustrious line of ancestors, cheerfully, courageously, uncomplainingly, did they leave their quiet homes, their pleasant
possessions, their hoarded treasures, and the sepulchres of
their beloved dead, —the rich generously sharing their last
dollar with the poorest of their brethren,-to seek a country,
they knew not where; to find a home, perchance, beneath
the inhospitable billows, or on the more inhospitable shores,
to which their shattered barks might be driven.
I cannot pass in silence a remarkable peculiarity in the
fortunes of this remarkable people. While, under the pres



LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           339
sure of causes far less, both in number and malignity, than
those to which the Jewish people have been subjected, the
descendants of other celebrated nations of antiquity have so
degenerated, that we can scarcely recognize, in their present
character, a single element of their ancestral greatness, the
Israelites retain no inconsiderable portion of the genius,
learning, skill, and enterprise of their remote progenitors. I
cannot help sometimes picturing to myself what sort of nation
they would form, if the scattered remnant of their tribes
could once more be put in possession of their own country.
They would carry there the liberal principles and indomitable
energy of America, the commercial ability of England, the
science of France, the learning of Germany, the arts of Italy,
and the agricultural skill and industry of the dwellers along
the shores of the Black Sea and in the fertile basins of the
Danube and the Rhine. They retain, in their dispersion and
after so many centuries of oppression, all the elements of
greatness and of power, out of which to frame a model republic, and once again to become the light and glory of the world.
Who knows whether providence has not some such splendid
destiny in reserve for them? Surely, a preservation so signal
cannot be without an ultimate object, equally remarkable.
Would that the veil were removed from their hearts, and they
could at length recognize, as one day they will assuredly
recognize, in the pure and gentle Nazarene, their long expected lMessiah! If the casting of them off be the riches of the
gentiles, what shall the receiving of them be to the christian
church but life from the dead?
Why should a people, thus honored in their ancestry, their
history, and their influence, be oppressed, enslaved, and maltreated by Christian nations?  These live, as it were, upon
the patrimony of Israel, and yet despise and revile the people,
from whom they received their inheritance. Besides the
rights of our common nature, which belong alike to all, the
Israelite has a superadded claim to the consideration and




340              COMMENTARIES ON THE
gratitude of his fellow-men, arising from the lustre of his
name, and from the unequalled benefits which his nation has
conferred upon mankind. Yet in most countries of christendom he is denied the privileges, which are his birthright as a
man. He is treated as if he had neither human rights nor
human feelings. Ignorance, prejudice, and superstition surround him as with an adamantine wall of civil disabilities and
social degradation. In Europe, in Africa, and in Asia I have
myself seen him insulted and abused in a manner that caused
the blood to tingle in my veins. Let us thank the God of
Israel, that it is otherwise among us. Let us rejoice, that in
this home of freedom and equality, persecution has never disturbed the descendants of the patriarchs in the peaceful retirement of their firesides, and that exclusion from political
rights has not been practised towards them. IHere Jew and
Christian stand together upon the same platform of civil and
social immunities. May we not hope, that, when Jehovah
shall judge the nations, he will in mercy remember the land,
which has afforded a refuge and a home to the sons of Jaccb?




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.                  341
CHAPTER VIII.
Review of the leading Constitutions of Gentile Antiquity, with special
reference to the Question, how far Civil Liberty was secured by them.*
THE obligation of mankind to the Hebrew legislation was
considered in the last chapter. It cannot, however, be properly appreciated, without a brief inquiry of the kind proposed in the present chapter. A full analysis of even the
leading constitutions of antiquity, would fill more of my
space, than can be spared for such a purpose. A glance is
all that can be attempted; but it will be sufficient to convince
us, that nowhere, without the limits of Palestine, was there
* A great number of special references were prepared for this chapter;
but, unfortunately, they have been mislaid and lost; and the authorities
are not now before me for re-examination. Besides the more commcn
ancient authors, as Aristotle, Plato, Xenophon, Plutarch, Herodotus,
Thucydides, }Elian, Cicero, Livy, Tacitus, &c., the principal modern authorities consulted are Salvador's Histoire des Institutions de Moise et du
Peuple Hebreu, Goguet on the Origin of Laws, Niebuhr's Roman History
and Lectures, Adams's Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the
United States of America, Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws, Potter's Grecian
Antiquities, Puffendorf's Law of Nature and Nations, Barthelemy's Anacharsis. Heeren's Researches on Ancient Greece, Ferguson on the Roman
Constitution, Gillie's Greece, and De Solme on the English Constitution.
The last named of these works has been particularly useful to me in
affording an insight into the structure and working of the Roman policy.
I have borrowed much from him, sometimes using his very words, oftener
condensing the substance of his observations.




342               COMMENTARIES ON THE
to be found a rational, well poised and well guarded public
freedom; and that all antiquity does not afford an example
of a state, where the people enjoyed any just influence in the
government, till we come to the Jewish republic. From the
earliest ages, mankind have been, for the most part, governed
by arbitrary power. Even where a seeming exemption from
such rule has been secured by established laws, the laws
themselves have been arbitrary and despotic; at one time
extravagantly severe, at another as extravagantly indulgent,
-the mere expression of individual authority and caprice.
Thus, in every period of the world's history, the mass of human beings have been ruled either by arbitrary men or
arbitrary laws.
This proposition, so far as it relates to oriental countries,
needs no formal proof. Throughout the vast regions of Asia,
despotism, absolute and unchecked, has been, at all times, the
prevailing form of government. Dynasty has succeeded to
dynasty, and empires have arisen upon the ruins of empires;
but no change has elevated the people to a share in the
government, or brought with it any improvement in their
condition, except so far as such improvement has resulted
from the character of the reigning sovereign. From Nimrod
to Ninus, from Iinus to the subversion of the Persian empire by the victorious arms of Alexander, whenever the
affairs of Asia rise to our view on the troubled bosom of history, some new scene of capricious or vindictive tyranny
freezes us with horror, or fires us with indignation. An incident occurred in the history of Cainbyses, which is a key to
the polity of all the Asiatic nations. That prince wished to
marry his sister, and consulted his ministers of justice on the
lawfiulness of the procedure. The interpreters of law could
find no statute authorizing such an act, but they found one
which permitted the kings of Persia to do whatever they
pleased. What could the people be in a country where the
sovereign, as was the case in Persia, kept sixteen thousand




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           343
and eight hundred horses for his private use t Xerxes wrote
to mount Athos to get out of his way; ordered the Ilellespont to be scourged for daring to break in pieces his bridge
of boats; and commanded, that the builders be put to death,
because their structure was unable to withstand the fury of
the tempest. Who but a tyrant, bereft of reason through the
intoxication of power, could have enacted such solemn puerilities, such revolting atrocities? Thus has it ever been in
the east. The many have been ground down into hopeless
degradation to pamper the pride of the few. Voluptuousness and luxury have reigned in the palaces of the nobles;
poverty and wretchedness have deformed the hovels of the
peasants.
Leaving the countries watered by the Choaspes and the
Tigris, and directing our observation to that, which, by a happy metaphor, has been styled the gift of the Nile, we undoubtedly see a nation less devoted to war and conquest, and more
proficient in agriculture and the arts, as well as in civil polity
and law. Yet the people were equally without authority or
influence in the state. Of the despotism of Egypt, we need
no other proof, than her very ruins, those stupendous and imlperishable monuments, whose stability rivals that of nature
herself. Under what other than a despotic government, could
have been constructed her pyramids, her temples, her palaces,
her lake Moeris, four hundred and fifty miles in circumference,
the sole product of human industry, and her mighty labyrinth,
before whose vastness and intricacy Herodotus stood confounded, and which, he assures us, must have cost more than
all the public monuments of Greece together. Where, but
under an iron despotism, could the revenues of a fishery,
amounting to more than a quarter of a million per annum,
have been appropriated to the ladies of the royal household
for the purchase of robes and perfumes?  The institution of
caste, or hereditary professions, which is of the essence of
despotic rule, prevailed in full rigor in Egypt. For the rest,




344               COMMENTARIES ON THE
what sort of government was that, where the priests not only
bound the conscience of the sovereign, but fettered genius by
prescribing a model for every work of art; where involuntary accidents were punished as premeditated crimes; where
theft was actually encouraged and rewarded by a contrivance
of state; and where it was less dangerous to murder a man,
than to kill a cat, an ibis, a hawk, orI an ichneumon,-the
criminal, in this latter case, being invariably seized upon by
the populace and torn in pieces.
But not to detain the reader with these generalities, let us
come to a closer study of the Egyptian institutions. The
government of Egypt was theocratic. Its laws emanated
fiom the gods. The power of causing the gods to speak, and
the right of interpreting their utterances, belonged to the
priests.
The state was divided into three principal castes,-the
sacerdotal, the military, and the vulgar. The first of these
represented intelligence, the second symbolized force, and
the third found its analogy in matter. The king, in a change
of dynasties, was always chosen from the first or the second
class. He was a priest, or a captain; never a man of the
people. The people had no voice in the election. The suffrages of the two privileged classes were not of equal weight
and value. The priests, less in number than the warriors,
balanced this disadvantage by the greater dignity of their
rank. Tle vote of a priest of the first order was equivalent
to the votes of a hundred warriors; of a priest of the second
order, to those of twenty warriors; and of a priest of the
third order, to those of ten warriors. If in any case the
election was doubtful, the oracle, which spake only at the
dictation of the priests, decided the question. If the king
happened to be taken from the military caste, he was forthwith initiated into the sacerdotal caste, which spared no
pains to keep him ever afterwards subject to their control.
The sacerdotal class made the laws; interpreted them; pre



LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           345
served them in their own archives; and cautiously concealed
them from all eyes. Thus all the great civil dignities of the
state, all the magistracies, all the professions demanding in.
telligence, were filled by themselves; they could be filled by
no others. The warriors, in time of peace, performed in
rotation certain services near the person of the king. In
time of war, they were assembled by his order, and were
recompensed by sharing with the sacerdotal caste the honor
of wearing certain badges of distinction. The people were a
mere herd. They enjoyed neither honors nor possessions.
Under secondary divisions, they comprised all who were
devoted to agricultural, mechanical, and commercial pursuits.
Such was the distinction of persons under the Egyptian
constitution. Let us now glance at the distribution of property.
The soil of Egypt was divided into three great portions.
One of these belonged to the sacerdotal caste, and was not
subject to taxation. Besides this, the priests received in the
temples each his portion of wine and sacred viands, so that
they had no need to consume upon their living any of their
own private goods. Both the other divisions belonged to the
king. One of thenm furnished him with the means of supporting his dignity and defraying the expenses of government.
The other formed the appanage of the soldiers, to each of
whom was allotted a certain portion of ground, which was
exempted from public burdens. But it did not belong to
him in fee simple, as the lands of the priests did to them.
His domain could be changed, or even taken away from him
wholly. The people had no landed estates of their own.
They cultivated the lands of the king, the priests, and the
warriors.
Such were the leading features of the Egyptian constitution.
It contained no principle of national unity, since the same
state comprehended classes as distinct as different races. It




$46               COMMENTAIES ON THE
contained no principle of social equality, since all had not the
right to do the same things, nor to reach the same civil dignities. It contained no principle of civil liberty, since men
were not permitted to develope their faculties in the manner
best adapted to their individual qualities, and most agreeable
to their personal predilections.
But what shall we say of Greece? Were not Sparta and
Athens blessed with free institutions? Did not civil liberty,
in all its genial influences, find a home in those illustrious
states? The genius of liberty did, indeed, for a time, hover
over those sunny regions, like the dove above the waste of
waters; but, like her, too, she found there no rest for the sole
of her foot.
The great aim of Lycurgus, as of the Cretan lawgiver
Minos, whose institutions he closely imitated, was to raise up
a nation of invincible warriors. H-ow far civil freedom,
according to any just notions of it, was enjoyed by the Lacedemonians, will appear from a brief statement of some of the
leading provisions of their political and social system. I
shall not weary the reader with a detail of the institutions of
Lycurgus; but present them merely in outline.
The essential defect of the political constitution of Sparta
was the want of a proper balance of powers. The constitution, as it came from the hand of Lycurgus, recognized three
orders in the government, viz. the kings, the senate, and the
assembly of the people.
M.ionarchy, though retained in name, was virtually abolished.
The authority of the kings was extremely limited. Their
prerogative was confined to the high-priesthood, the chief
military command, and the presidency of the senate. They
were but the first citizens of the state; and their will, as it
would seem, was far from having a predominating influence
in the public affairs. They had no negative on the proceedings of the senate. As presidents of the body, they had
simply a vote, like the other senators; or, as some say, two




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           347
votes. This was the extent of their power, which, one may
see at a glance, was weak and greatly circumscribed.
The senate, instituted by Lycurgus, consisted of twentyeight members, besides the kings. They held their office for
life. The whole executive power of the state was in the
hands of this body. Almost the whole legislative power was
entrusted to it likewise. As all laws must originate here,
they had a perfect negative before debate. To the assembly
of the people belonged the right of ratifying or rejecting laws
proposed to them  by the senate. But they must do this
without debate. All deliberation was expressly forbidden to
them. They could not even assign a reason for their vote. A
simple aye or no was all that was allowed. Surely, the substance of political power was, by this arrangement, wholly
taken away from the people; and only a faint shadow of it
left to them. But perhaps they possessed an effective check
inl the privilege, accorded to them by the constitution, of
choosing the senators? Not at all. The senators were, indeed, elective by the votes of the people in their legislative
assemblies. But as their office was for life, and as the influence of kings and senators would be commonly used with
great unanimity in favor of the eldest son, to fill up a vacancy
made by the death of his father, and as the people were not
permitted to debate, their choice was probably little more
than a consent by acclamations to a nomination made by the
senate; and so this body came to be much the same thing as
an hereditary house of peers. The consequence of all this
was to render the senators absolute masters of the legislature.
Moreover, to the senate belonged the trial of the most important judicial questions, and particularly all such as were of a
capital nature. Here, then, we have nearly all the powers
of the state, —legislative, judicial, and executive, collected
into one centre; and that centre an irresponsible body of
nobles.
The government was little short of a pure oligarchy. The




848               COMMENTARIES ON THE
power of the nobility soon exhibited itself as too strong and
absolute. Plato says, that it was exercised with such violence
and wantonness, that it wanted a bridle. And this curb was.
in effect, sublsequently imposed upon it by the appointment
of five magistrates, called ephori; a magistracy, instituted to
defend the rights of the people against the tyranny of the
nobles, and furnishing the model after which that of the tlibunes of Rome was afterwards formed.
Thus it is seen at a glance, how defective, how ill-balanced,
how utterly wanting in popular sympathy, and how little
likely to be permanent, this famous constitution was. It
failed in the essential particular of the balance. Nor would it
have lasted for any considerable period, but, on the contrary,
would have been speedily annihilated, if it had not been accompanied and supported by a social system, which, while it
strikingly displayed the genius and sagacity of the lawgiver,
destroyed all the real merit of his celebrated institution,
making of it one of the most horrible despotisms, that has
ever cursed mankind. Some of the more important elements
of this system were the banishment of gold and silver; the
prohibition of travel and all intercourse with strangers; the
interdiction of arts; the discouragement of science and letters; the public meals; the incessant martial exercises; and
the doctrine, that parents should not be entrusted with the
education of their own children, since every man was the
property of the state. It is not the usual custom of legislators to regulate the manners by positive laws. But the code
of Lycurgus embraced, not only the civil polity and general
police of the state, but the private conduct of the citizens as
well. Nothing was free at Sparta, not even the most indifferent actions. Food, dress, the style of architecture, the intercourse of a married man with his wife, the kinds of business,
amusements, and the very topics of conversation, were all
regulated by law. The clothing must be the same in summer
and winter. The children were restricted to a single garment,




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          349
and shoes and stockings we'e a luxury, which they: were never
permitted to enjoy. One slender meal a day was all that was
allowed them. The food of all was coarse and spare; corpulency was a high crime. To the young grave questions were
continually proposed, which they must answer quickly and
justly, or they were beaten without mercy. Well did the
witty Alcibiades, when certain Lacedemonians boasted to
him of their contempt of death, reply,-" I do not wonder at
it; it is the only means you have of freeing yourselves from
the perpetual irksomeness and constraint, which are caused
by the life you are obliged to lead."
To this austere life the Spartans were condemned, from the
moment of their birth. The kings themselves enjoyed no
exemption from  it.  Plutarch relates an incident, which
affords a striking proof of this. King Agis had returned from
an expedition, in which he had gained a brilliant victory over
the Athenians. Desiring to sup with his wife, he asked, that
his portion might be sent home. His request was denied,
and he was obliged to go and eat his supper at the public
tables. Piqued at this severity, he neglected the next day to
offer the sacrifice usual on occasions of victory; and a fine was
in consequence imposed upon him to punish his resentment.
The rigor of the Spartan discipline made the people contract a harsh, cruel, and even ferocious character. Proofs
innumerable of this fact might be cited. Weak and deformed
children they cast without pity into a deep cavern at the base
of Miount Taygetus. The unrelenting severity of the Spartans towards their conquered enemies is well known. Witness
their horrid barbarities in Athens, a city dear to all Greece.
If the testimony of Xenophon is to be believed, they there
put to death m vre persons in eight months of peace, than the
enemies had killed in thirty years of war. How exquisite
was their cruelty towards their four hundred thousand
wretched Helots! Personal beauty in a slave was a crime
punishable with death. Every slave received annually a cer



350               COMMENTARIES ON THE
tain number of lashes, just to remind him of his bondage and
his obligation to obedience. No master could give freedom
to a slave, however much he might desire to do so. A cap
and coat of dog-skin or sheep-skin was all the clothing they
were allowed. They were often compelled to drink to intoxication, and then to sing mean songs and dance ridiculous
dances, that so they might afford to the Spartan youth an exhibition of what drunkenness was. And what shall I say of
an institution, called by ancient authors the ambuscade? No
wonder that this institution gave to Plato a bad impressioi
of Lycurgus and his laws. Every year the governors of the
youth selected the boldest and most sagacious of them, fed
them like stalled oxen for some time to increase their ferocity,
armed them with daggers, and furnished them with several
days' provisions. Thus prepared and equipped, they were
sent to the fields, where they concealed themselves in the
day-time, to sally forth at night, and slaughter all the miserable Helots, whom they encountered.
But the very offspring of the Lacedemonians were the
objects of a most unnatural severity. At the annual festival
of Diana, all the children in Sparta were whipped till their
blood ran down upon the altars of the inhuman goddess.
The innocent victims often expired under this cruel ceremony,
while their own fathers and mothers stood by, exhorting them
to bear the scourging without uttering a single cry of distress,
or giving the least sign of pain. Brutality is too mild a term
for this pretended fortitude; nor do I know a word, which
will adequately express its dark and terrible enormity. Human nature starts back, petrified and aghast, from a spectacle,
than which incarnate demons could have contrived nothing
more monstrous and revolting. But I will not further pursue
the odious and sickening detail. Morality, humanity, and all
the comforts, refinements, elegancies, and pleasures of life
expired under this stern and frigid system. Every thing was
sacrificed to the one absorbing passion of military glory. To




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           851
call this people either happy or free, is an abuse of language.
Their happiness was that of the tiger, watching, seizing, or
devouring his prey; their liberty, that of a man chained in a
dungeon,-the liberty of remaining as he is. Population, the
surest criterion of national freedom and felicity, diminished to
such a degree, that at length not more than one thousand
families of the old Spartans remained, while nine thousand
foreigners had come in, despite all their prohibitory laws.
Beyond a doubt, the constitution of Lycurgus preserved
the independence of his country throughout a long series of
ages. Beyond a doubt, it produced a race of warriors and
politicians, brave, martial, prudent, firm in their maxims,
constant in their designs, and skilled in the military art,
above all the people of Greece. But here our admiration
must pause. At this point our eulogy must turn to censure.
In making his people such as here described, Lycurgus
stripped them of all the gentler attributes of humanity, and
made them put on the fierceness of wild beasts. From the
best study I have been able to give to his polity, I cannot regard it otherwise than as a frightful and unrelenting despotism.
There is no tyranny, like the tyranny of law. A despot may
relent; but law is inexorable. A despot may die, and be
succeeded by a prince of milder temper and juster views;
but law is permanent, and knows no such fortunate casualties.
But does not Athens afford some relief to this picture?
Undoubtedly she does; and yet her citizens can hardly be
said to have enjoyed the blessings of true liberty. HIer
constitution was, without doubt, sufficiently popular; yet,
like that of Sparta, it failed in the balance.
From the first, the Athenians were strongly inclined to
democracy. Though their government was regal, absolute
monarchy was unknown, as a legal constitution. The power
of making laws never formed a part of the royal prerogative.
Even Homer, in his catalogue of the Grecian forces at the
siege of Troy, distinguishes the Athenians by the name of




352              CO]MEWTARIES ON THE
"people."  This designation makes apparent the early proclivity of the Athenians to democratic government, and shows,
that the principal authority was already in the hands of the
people. After the death of Codrus, the seventeenth king of
Athens, a dispute arose between his two sons, Mledon and
Nelius, which gave the Athenians, impatient of the name of
king, a pretext for abolishing royalty. Jupiter was, by a
decree of the people, made sole sovereign of Athens. MIedon
was chosen chief magistrate, with the title of archon. The
office was at first hereditary, and for life. Twelve hereditary
and perpetual archons followed Medon, and governed Athens
for a period of three hundred and thirty-one years. But the
perpetual archonship was too vivid an image of royalty to
suit the democratic temper of the Athenians. It was, therefore, abolished, and the term of office limited to ten years.
Even this limitation did not satisfy the Greeks, nor produce
tranquility.  The restless spirit of democracy at length
reduced the term to one year, and substituted nine archons
in the place of one.
The archons were not all of equal dignity. The first in
rank represented the majesty of the state, was honored with
the title of archon, and gave his name to the civil year. The
second, under the name of king, was the head of religion.
The third was styled polemarch, and was chief of the military
affairs. The other six were called thesmothetes. They were
guardians of the laws, and acted as judges in the ordinary
courts of justice. Legislation was in the assembly of the
people. The archons were commonly chosen by lot; but
sometimes the people claimed the right of naming them.
The annual elections only increased the disorders of the
state.  Liberty, as often happens, was confounded with
licentiousness.  Intestine broils never ceased.  Factions
arose every day. All order and harmony were at an end.
Athens was upon the brink of ruin. The turbulence of




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBIREWS.           353
democracy and the perpetual fluctuations of law became at
length insufferable.
The people in their distress, applied to Draco to frame a
new code of laws. Draco was a man of illustrious birth and
distinguished virtue, bat of little ability as a statesman. IIe
was wholly unequal to the task of reforming a political constitution, and of introducing an improved code of jurisprudence. His temper was hard and austere. There appears
to have been little in his laws remarkable, beyond the extremie rigor of their penalties. Every infraction of theml was
punished with death; a severity, which defeated the very
end in view, since it rendered them incapable of execution.
Thus the remedy proved worse than the disease; and a
few years afterwards, Solon, a man of true genius and statesmanshlip, was summoned, by the unanimous voice of his
countrymen, to take the helm, and right the tottering ship of
state. To this labor he addressed himself with consummate
ability; but he was in the end obliged to confess, that the
task was beyond his powers. His constitution, he said, was
not the best in itself, but the best that the Athenians would
bear. This acknowledgement is a key to his method of procedure. His endeavor was to adapt his laws to the people,
rather than the people to his laws. His polity was exceedingly complex. Yet it failed to establish an equilibrium of
powers, with adequate and effective checks upon each other.
The balance was wanting. It is not necessary to go into a
detailed analysis of his constitution. Suffice it to say, that,
knowing how jealous his countrymen were of their liberty
and independence, he bent his main endeavor to curb the
restless spirit and restrain the overgrown power of dernocracy.
One of the checks, which he introduced into the constitution, was the division of all the citizens into four classes,
upon a property basis, and the restriction of all the offices
and dignities of the state to the first three, ti at is to say, to
23




354               COMMENTARIES ON THE
the rich; though he allowed to each of the members of the
fourth class a vote in the assembly of the people. This would
seem, a-t first view, an inconsiderable privilege; but it
proved, in the end, to be a formidable power. As the right
of trying appeals from the civil courts, the right of interpreting the laws, which had the defect of being written with
much obscurity, and the right of peace and war, of making
treaties, and of regulating commerce and finance, as well as
the right of general legislation, were vested in this body, the
people were absolute masters of the state. All authority was
centred in them, and the government was a pure democracy.
Another check, which Solon, sensible of the evils of such
a constitution, imposed upon the power of the multitude, was
the institution of a senate of four hundred. This body he
made the great council of the state, and clothed it with very
high powers. The most important of its functions was the
preparation of business for the assembly of the people. It
was a law of Solon, that nothing should come before the people in their assemblies, which had not first been debated and
approved in the senate. If this law had been always observed, it would have made the senate a balance of a very effective kind, and would have given greater steadiness to the
public administration, and a more prolonged existence to the
commonwealth. But the senate had no absolute negative;
and without such a check, a popular assembly is as much
disposed to overleap constitutional and legal barriers, as
kings and nobles are.  In effect, demagogues were never
wanting at Athens, to remind the people, that all authority
was lodged in their hands; and in point of fact, they claimed and exercised all the powers of the state, whenever they
thought fit, brushing away the laws of Solon, like so many
cobwebs.
A third check, introduced by Solon, was the re-establish-:ment of the Areopagris, shorn of its ancient glories by the




LAWS OF THIE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           355
laws of Draco, with enlarged powers and dignities. This
august court was made the guardian of the laws, the keeper
of the public treasure, the superintendent of education and
morals, and indeed the inspector-general of the whole state.
So high was its reputation for wisdom and justice, that Cicero
said, that Athens could no more be governed without the
areopagns, than the world without the providence of God.
From  it alone there lay no appeal to the assembly of the
people. This court was certainly a most important check to
the rashness and haste of the multitude; nevertheless, even
here, if the people chose to interfere, there was no balancing
power in the constitution to restrain their despotic will. So
that, as we still see, the whole power of the state was collected into one centre, and that centre was the people in their
general assembly.
One further check Solon sought to impose upon the power
of the democracy. "The urgent necessity for balances to a
sovereign assembly, in which all authority, legislative, executive and judicial, was collected into one centre, induced
Solon, though in so small a state, to make his constitution extremely complicated. No less than ten courts of judicature,
four for criminal causes, and six for civil, besides the areopagus and general assembly, were established at Athens. In
conformity to his own saying, celebrated among those of the
seven wise men, that the most perfect government is that,
where an injury to any one is the concern of all, he directed,
that in all the ten courts, causes should be decided by a body
of men, like our juries, taken from among the people; the
archons only presiding, like our judges. As the archons
were appointed by lot, they were often but indifferent lawyers,
and chose two persons of experience to assist them. These
n time became regular constitutional officers, by the name
of assessors. The jurors were paid for their service, and ap.
pointed by lot. This institution of juries for the trial of
causes is the glory of Solon's laws. It is that denartment.




356               COMMENTARIES ON TEM
which ought to belong to the people at large. They are most
competent for this; and the property, liberty, equaiity,
and security of the citizens, all require, that they alone
should possess it. Itinerant judges, called the forty, were
appointed to go through the counties, to determine assaults,
and civil actions under a certain sum."
But, notwithstanding the checlks and balances thus embo.
died in his constitution, the work of Solon proved a failure.
HI-is two anchors, as he called the senate and the areopagus,
proved too weak to hold the vessel of state amid the storms
which assailed it. Thie former had no share in the legislative
department of the government; and the latter, itself dependent upon the people, could not resist the waves of popular
commotion. Within ten years from the establishment of his
constitution, Solon had the mortification of seeing Pisistratus
sole master of his beloved Athens, with a body-guard tc
attend him, after the manner of the Persian sovereigns.
The question is, did this constitution, or could it, secure to
the citizens the enjoyment of civil liberty   We are constrained to answer in the negative. In a state, where the
whole body of the people, convened in general assembly, are
the legal sovereign, the government must be irregular, con
fused, contradictory, and often tyrannical. Unchecked by
an effective balancing power, lodged in fewer hands, a power'
possessing an absolute veto, it is not properly the rule of a
sovereign, but of a mob; and it must partake, more or less,
of the fluctuations and injustice of mob law. This is the
jnucdgent of reason; and it is verified in the history of
Athens. Not unfrequently the magistrates proceeded in much
thle same manner as they now do among the Turks. Let the
following instance serve as an illustration. A barber in the
Piraeus, who had spread the news of the defeat of the Athenians in Sicily, on the authority of a person who came into
his shop, was put to the torture by command of the archlons,




LkWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           357
oecause he could not tell the name of the person who had
communicated the intelligence to him.
The remark of Cicero was perfectly just, that the rashness
and licentiousness of the popular assemblies ruined the
republics of Greece; to which Goguet, with equal truth, has
added, "particularly that of Athens."  The Athenians were
always impetuous, always rash, always fickle, always, in a
word, the sport of the demagogues who ruled them. This
last expression is a kley to the ~whole political history of'
Athens. A government, in which every citizen has the right
to vote in making, interpreting, and executing the laws, must.
it would seem, be the beau ideal of a free constitution. The
argument in support of this view would run somewhat after
this fashion: "A  man who contributes by his vote to the
passing of a law, has himself made the law. In obeying it,
he obeys himself; he therefore is free."  But this is not
reasoning; it is merely playing upon words. His vote is but
one of a thousand, perhaps ten thousand. He has had no
opportunity to examine, deliberate, state objections, suggest
restrictions, or propose amendments. He has only been
allowed to express his assent or dissent. And in doing this,
it is a hundred to one but he has been led by some intriguing
aspirant for power and place. The multitude, absorbed in
the care of providing the means of subsistence, have neither
the time nor the knowledge necessary for functions of this
nature. Besides, nature, sparing of her gifts, bestows upon
comparatively few an understanding equal to the complicated
business of legislation. As a sick man trusts to his physician,
and a client to his lawyer, so the greater part of a popular
legislative assembly must trust to those who have more abilities than themselves. These, wholly taken up with the
thoughts 6f their own power, live but to increase it. Versed
in the management of public affairs, foreseeing the most im
portant consequences of measures, and having exclusive con
trol of the springs of government, they offer propositions




358               COMMENTARIES ON THE
make speeches, present facts and arguments which there is
no time to examine, conceal what is designed to promote their
own private views, by joining it to things which they know
will be acceptable to the people, employ skilfully all the common places of rhetoric, and so are enabled to gain ever to
their side the majority of votes, in airost every proposal
which they make. So that, in the end, what is proclaimed
as the general will, is, in reality, nothing more than the effect
of the artifices of a few cunning men, who, exulting over
their success, deride in secret the sottishness of the people,
Dwhom they had flattered in public, only to mislead and betray
them. This is an exact account of the manner in which the
public affairs were managed at Athens, where legislation
would often have been wiser and more beneficial to the state,
if it had been determined by the casting of dice, than by the
suffrages of the multitude.
The truth is, as Goguet has well said, we are too much accustomed to view the Athenians on their favorable side. We are
struck with the shining images of the history of Athens, and
imposed upon by its lustre.'We are dazzled by the victories
of Marathon and Salamis, by the pomp of the spectacles, by
the taste and magnificence of the public monuments, by that
crowd of great men, who will render the name of Athens
forever precious and memorable. Nevertheless, when we
examine the interior state of this republic, far different scenes
present themselves. We see a state in incessant combustion,
assemblies always tumultuous, a people perpetually agitated
by factions, hurried away by first impressions, and abandoned
to the impetuous eloquence of unprincipled orators. Virtue
was proscribed at Athens, and the most eminent public services were not only forgotten, but often punished by the ostracism. Well did Valerius Maximus exclaim, " Happy Athens,
after such unjust treatment, still to have found citizens, wlho
loved their country."
An absolute democracy, like that of Athens, and a repre



LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             359
sentative lepublic, like that of Judea, are governments, as
wide asunder as the poles. In Athens, the people held and
exercised all power,-legislative, executive, and judicial,subject teo no effective restraint or responsibility. It was a
government of will, rather than of law. Its leading principle
was, "stat pro ratione voluntas."  The only reason which it
rendered for its actions, was, "sic volo, sic jubeo, sic veto."
It was a despotism, as pure and absolute as that of Nero;
and, in practice, it always proved itself as capricious and tyrannical. Licentiousness there was at Athens, without doubt;
but not true civil liberty. These are so far from being identical, that the one is contrary to the other, and destructive of it.
The Roman constitution next demands our attention.  The
ghost of Romnulus, we are told by Livy, soon after his disappearance from among men, revisited the distinguished senator,
Proculus Julius, and addressed him thus: " Go tell my countrymen, it is the decree of heaven, that the city I have
founded shall become the mistress of the world. Let her cultivate assiduously the military art. Then let her be assured,
and transmit the assurance from age to age, that no mortal
power can resist the arms of Rome."  How faithfully Rome
obeyed the spirit of this counsel, let her colossal power under
the Caesars inform  us, when the significations of her will
were obeyed throughout the vast regions, that stretch from
the Atlantic to the Ganges, and from Siberia to the Great
Desert. Whatever other merit may be denied to regal, republican, or imperial Romne, none will ever dispute her title to be
regarded as a perfect model of a predatory state.
How far civil liberty was secured by the Roman constitution, and what degree of power and authority in the administration of public affairs belonged to the Roman people, will
appear in the progress of these inquiries.
A full analysis of the Roman constitution is not proposed.
The innumerable stages through which it passed in its development, render such analysis a work of great difficultyv, and




360               COMMENTARIES ON TIIE
wo)uld demand more space than can be given to this or any
other of the topics embraced in this preliminary book. Nor
is it required by the end I have in view; my object being
rather to point out the defects of the constitution, so far as
guaranties of public liberty were concerned, than to analyze
the constitution itself:
The reader's attention is first invited to the constitution of
the Roman comitia. The comitia were assemblies of the
people, convened for the purpose of electing officers, or enacting laws. The comitia were not a simple body, nor did they
vote in a uniform way. They were of three sorts, according
to the manner in which the votes were taken. Sometimes
they voted by curiae, sometimes by centuries, and sometimes
by tribes.
But this needs explanation. It is to be premised, that the
ancients did not vote as individuals, but as corporations.
Thus the Athenians, from the earliest times, were accustomed
to vote in tribes, four of which would be outvoted by six,
although the number of individuals in the six might be much
smaller than that of the four. This method of voting corresponds to that authorized by our constitution, whenever the
election of a president of the United States happens to devolve upon the house of representatives. The representatives
do not, in that case, vote in their individual capacity, but according to states; and a state with fifty representatives would
have no mnore voice in the election, than a state having but a
single representative.
It, was in accordance with this principle, that all popular
votes were given in ancient Rome. Yet, as already stated,
there were different manners of voting. By the constitution
of Romulus, the Roman people were divided into two tribes,
called Ramnes and Tities, the former consisting of the original citizens, and the latter of the Sabines, who were subsequently incorporated into the body of the state. A constitution, which allowed only these two tribes to vote, would have




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           361
given rise to difficulties, since it would often nappen, that
one tribe wished a thing, which the other opposed, and hence
would have resulted endless collisions and feuds. How was
this difficulty obviated? In the following manner. Each
tribe was divided into a hundred associations, called gentes;
and each gens, again, consisted of several families, forming
in itself a small state, with many peculiar rights, called jus
gentium and jura gentiumn. They resembled the tribes of
the Arabs and the clans of HIighlanders of Scotland. But
between the division into tribes and gentes, there was another, named curiae, of which there were ten in a tribe.
They answered to the orders at Cologne, and to the classes
in the Lombard towns. Each curia was a tenth part of a
tribe, and, on the other hand, included in itself ten gentes.
The membership of a curia implied special religious duties,
and conferred the right of voting in comitia. Thus the curiae
stepped into the place of the tribes. A third tribe under the
name of Luceres, composed of Albans and other foreigners,
was formed by Tullus Hostilius, and was admitted to the full
franchise in the reign of Tarquinius Priscus. The number of
tribes was afterwards increased by Servius Tullius to thirty.
Servius also made another division of the people, for political purposes, into six classes, upon a property basis. The
first class consisted of persons, whose estates iIl res corporales, that is, land, slaves, cattle, metal, farming implements, and the like, amounted to about $2000; the second.
to $1500; the third to $1000; the fourth to $500; the fifth
to $250; and the sixth included all those whose property fell
below the last named sum. The six classes were subdivided
into one hundred and ninety-three centuries. Ninety-eight
of these, a clear majority of the whole, were comprehended
in the first class; twenty-two, in the second; twenty, in the
third; twenty-two, in the fourth; and thirty, in the fifth;
while the whole of the sixth class formed but a single century. As the voting was by centuries, the lowest class had




362               COMMENTARIES C N THE
but one vote, though no other class contained so large a
number of individuals as this. The centuries composing the
first class were entitled to a priority in voting. If they
voted unanimously, as in fact they commonly did, the question was decided. In that case, the remaining centuries
did not vote at all. If the votes of the first class did not
determine the question, the other centuries went on voting,
till a majority was obtained. As soon as that happened, the
voting ceased. So that the great body of the Roman people,
in the comitia centuriata, had the barren honor of a casting
vote, in case of a tie in the ballots of the higher classes. It
any thing in the nature of political power can be conceived
more shadowy than this, I am at a loss to imagine what it is.
The object of the whole institution seems to have been to
give to a very small minority a decisive influence in the
state. Wealth and birth had all the power, while numbers
were of little account.
It has been mentioned above, that Servius Tullius increased the whole number of tribes to thirty, four of which
belonged to the city, and twenty-six to the circumjacent
country. This institution, however, must not be confounded
with that of the three tribes named above. Each tribe had a
magistrate called tribunus (tribune), chosen by the members
of the tribe. The tribes were composed only of plebeians.
At first the comitia of the tribes had no legislative power;
they could only elect their own officers, and make arrangements concerning their local interests. An important power
was conferred upon the assembly of the tribes by Servius,
viz. the right of trying appeals from judgments of condemnation pronounced by a magistrate against plebeians.  The
patricians had long possessed the privilege of appeal, in such
cases, to thk assembly of the curiae. The functions of the
comitia of the tribes were gradually enlarged, till at length
they obtained an important share in the business of legislation.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          363
Thus we have, in this constitution, three distinct species
&f popular assemblies, —the comitia curiata, the comitia centuriata, and the comitia tributa.  The assemblies of the
curiae and the centuries formed an aristocracy; that of the
tribes, a democracy. As it was not with any precision determined by law what should be done in the several assemblies, and as the patricians and plebeians did not, therefore,
balance each other by regular checks, the administration of
the state became a continual scene of contradictions. The
centuries alone, in which the high-born and the rich had an
undoubted majority, as well as in the senate, had for a long
time the authority of making laws.  The plebeians denied
the legislative authority of the senate; and the senate in like
manner denied the right of the tribes to make laws. Justice
required, that the plebeians should have a share in the enactmnent of laws. But, instead of becoming a co-ordinate branch
of the legislature, instead of aiming at a concurrent authority
with the senate and the comitia of the centuries, or, which
would have been better still, with the senate and consuls, as
distinct branches of the legislative department, they obtained
a separate and independent power of legislation. Hence the
intricacy of his constitution; hence three distinct sources of
laws, decrees of the senate, acts of the centuries, and resolutions of the tribes; —a perpetual fountain of division and
tumult.
The word liberty is one of those terms, which have been
most misunderstood, or misapplied.  Writers have represented, that no people can be free, who do not expressly enact
their own laws. Thus Rousseau, in his Social Contract, says,
that the people of England are much mistaken in thinking
themselves free; they are free only during the election of
members of parliament; as soon as these are elected, the
people are slaves; they are nothing. IIe here commits the
egregious blunder of confounding a melre function of government with a constituent part of liberty. The patricians and




364: SIOMIENTARIES ON THE
senate of Rome, who were always the real masters of the
state, sensible that their own tyranny would be at an end
under a lawful authority entrusted to a single ruler, had the
address to persuade the people, that, provided those who exercised a despotic power over them, and who' every day
heaped wrongs and insults upon them, were called consuls,
dictators, senators, patricians, military tribunes, or, indeed,
received any appellation other than that horrid and hated
one of king, they were free, and that these empty titles might
wisely be purchased at the price of every calamity. This
they were able to accomplish by occasionally performing the
illusory ceremony of assembling the people, that they might
make a show of consulting them. They made them believe,
according to the doctrine of Rousseau just cited, that liberty
consisted in the mere giving of votes, no matter how great
the disadvantage in the manner of giving them might be, and
no matter how much the law might afterwards be neglected
or violated, which was thus pretended to be made in common.
But how false and deceptive are all such ideas! True liberty
consists in the security of persons and property, so that
every man, while he respects the persons of others, and
suffers them to enjoy in quietness the fruits of their industry,
is certain that he himself will be permitted to enjoy the same
blessings at the hands of his fellow-citizens. To concur by
our votes in the enactment of laws, is to enjoy a certain
degree of power; to live in a state, where the laws are equal
for all, and where they are sure to be executed with moderation and fairness, is to be free. But that is a wretched servitude, call it by what name you will,-democracy or aristocracy, a republic or a despotism,-where the laws are partial,
uncertain, fluctuating, and feebly and irregularly administered.
The relation of debtor and creditor in the Roman comnonwealth was one of extreme hardship and severity.
Mammon prevailed as much in ancient Rome as in some




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           365
modern countries. Avarice raged like a fiery furnace in the
bosom of patrician creditors. Private rapine was added to
political ambition. The laws allowed exorbitant interest for
the use of money. An insolvent debtor might by the decree
of the judge, be delivered into the hands of his creditor, by
whom  he might be scourged, tortured, or put to death at
discretion; the most aristocratic and detestable law ever
known among men. The severity of the actual law was
very oppressive, but it was aggravated by being altogether
one-sided; for when a patrician was in pecuniary difficulty,
his clients were under obligation to assist him, whereas
plebeians, being obliged for the most part to borrow from
patricians, enjoyed no such advantage. So tenacious were
these haughty and avaricious nobles of all the rigor of their
power over debtors, that Veturius, the son of a consul, who
had been reduced by poverty to the necessity of borrowing
money, was delivered up to his creditor, who exacted from
him all the services of a slave, the senate refusing to grant
any relief. This law was so execrable, so diabolical, one
might almost say, that an attempt to get rid of it at almost
any rate would have been a virtue.
The oppressions growing out of this law were the occasion
of instituting the office of tribunes of the people.  And
what did the Roman people gain by this institution?  In
reality very little. The first tribunes can scarcely be called
a magistracy even of the commonalty. Certainly they were
not a magistracy of the state. Neibuhr represents their position as analogous to that of a modern ambassador, whose
duty it is in a foreign state to protect the subjects of his own
sovereign. The Roman tribunes had not sufficient power for
the effective protection of the commonalty. They had only
enough to head every popular tumult, and to blow into a
flarme every spark of popular discontent. If the number had
been three hundred, instead of three, and they had formed a
representative assembly, with power to propose laws, delibe



366               COMMENTARIES ON THE
rate, amend, and improve, that would have been a real advance, and would have constituted an effective balance. But
the tribunes had no right to propose any law, or move any
resolution. They could only forbid such measures as they
deemed injurious. The legislative authority vested in the
people was not delegated to their tribunes. These functionaries had power to conclude nothing.  The people
reserved to themselves the right of ratifying any resolutions
taken by them. Tllis circumstance rendered the institution
of tribunes in the issue totally ineffectual; for the advantages which accrue to the people from the appointment of
representatives are quite inconsiderable, unless they at the
same time wholly entrust to them their legislative authority.
In the present case, the Iornan people, fondly cherishing a
chimerical appearance of sovereignty, endeavored to settle,
with a hundred thousand votes, things, which would have
been better settled by the votes of their representatives, and
so defeated the very object of their appointment. But how
and why?  Thus.  The consuls, senators, dictators, and
other great men of the state, whom, as De Lolme aptly
says, the people were prudent enough to fear, and simple
enough to believe, continued to mix with them, and play off
their political artifices. They made speeches; changed at
pleasure the place and form of the public assemblies; dissolved the comitia, whenever it suited their purposes, under
pretext that the auspices were unfavorable; conferred upon
the consuls, when they despaired of success by other means,
absolute power over thle lives of the citizens; or even appointed a dictator, in whom all the powers of the state were
centred. Sometimes they falsely accused the tribunes before
the assembly itself; at other times, they artfully slandered
them in private, and so deprived them of the confidence of
the Romans. In this manner the people were brought to see,
without concern, the murder of Tiberius Gracchus, a true
patriot, a virtuous citizen, and the only Roman, who truly




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           367
loved them. In this manner Caius Graccus, who could not
be deterred, even by his brother's fate, from imitating his
brother's generosity, saw himself in the end so utterly forsalken by the people, that not one of them would lend him a
horse to fly from the fury of the nobles. Often the patricians
fomented divisions among the plebeians, and kept moderate
men from attending the comitia by rendering them  scenes
of tumult and confusion. In a word, that nothing might be
wanting to their aristocratic insolence, they sometimes falsified
the number of votes in declaring them, and even carried
off the urns, into which the citizens were to cast their suffrages. And all these things happened, not in those degenerate ages, when one half of the people were made to arm
themselves against the other in the comitia, but ill what is
commonly esteemed the best period of the republic, the times
immediately preceding and following the third Punic war.
If, when the tribuneship was instituted, a representative
assembly of the commonalty had been formed, with powers
corresponding to those of the English house of commons or
the American house of representatives, how different would
have been the history of Roman liberty! The distinction
between a representative constitution and a popular constitution is well stated by De Lolnie. According to him, a representative constitution places the remedy in the hands of
those who feel the disorder, while a popular constitution
places the remedy in the hands of those who cause it. In
the former case, the care of repressing the invasions of power
is committed to the men who suffer from them, in the latter,
to the men who practise them.
But there was a deeper and more radical defect in the
Roman constitution; a defect inherent in political organizations of that sort; a defect, which struck at the very vitals of
the public liberty. The tribunes were faithless to their trust,
and, human nature remaining as it is, they could scarcely be
otherwise. Under a constitution like that of Rome, it was




368              COMMENTARIES ON THE
impossible that the people should have faithful defenders.
They could not show a preference for a man, without attacking his virtue. They could not elevate him, without losing
him. They could not lavish their favors upon him, without
sending him to swell the number of their enemies. As soon
as their favorites saw themselves in a condition to control
power, they became, from that very circumstance,. its defenders. They were beyond the reach of oppressions themselves;
why should they care to restrain them?   By so doing they
would but lessen a power which they hoped would one day
be their own. How could it be expected, that men, who
aspired to be praetors, consuls, and senators, would be zealous
to limit the powers belonging to those offices? In point of
fact, they were not; and their long contest with the patricians
was not a struggle for general liberty, but a scramble for dignities, emoluments, and power. This was the only end they
ever pursued with sincerity and perseverance. They never
employed the power of the people for things really beneficial
to the people. They never set bounds to the exorbitant and
despotic power of the magistrates. They never repressed
that class of citizens, who, however great their crimes, knew
how to secure an immunity from punishment. They never
sought to regulate the judicial power. But these are precautions, without which nations may struggle to the end of time,
and they will never attain true liberty. The judicial power
especially is a sure criterion of the goodness of government;
and this, at Rome, was always a mere instrument of tyranny.
Consuls, praetors, dictators, tribunes, and senators seem all to
have been clothed with the power of life and death. While
such infamous monsters as Verres and Piso were for the most
part secure against the danger of punishment, they themselves
could, through mere wantonness and cruelty, cause the inferior
citizens of Rome to be scourged with rods, and even put to
death upon the cross. And what can we say of the personal
rights of the weaker members of society, in a state where the




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           369.aw regarded children as things rather than as persons, as a part
of the furniture of the family mansion, which, like any other
part of it, the head of the family might remove, sell, or destroy, at his discretion; where a father, through sheer caprice
could compel his married daughter to repudiate a husbands
whom she tenderly loved, and whom he himself had approved;
and where a wife was considered, in the eye of the law, as
the daughter of her husband, who might retain or dismiss
her at pleasure, and, for certain offences, might even take her
life?
Very high encomiums have been bestowed upon the tribunal of censors at Rome by Montesquieu, Rousseau, and most
other writers, who have treated of the Roman affairs. More
just appears to me the opinion of De Lolme? who considers it
a piece of state-craft, like those described above, invented by
the patricians, as an additional means of securing their own
authority., It was founded on a principle similar to that advocated by Sir Thomas IMVore, in his Account of Utopia, the
happy region; though not carried to the extreme of that
writer, whose ravings, in many parts of his work, can hardly
be matched out of bedlam; for he made it a capital crime in
the people even to talk of the conduct of their rulers. Still,
the power of the censors, under the Roman constitution, in
its own nature altogether arbitrary, was at the same time wide
in its range, and excessive in degree. Among other discretionary powers, entrusted to them,e was that of determining
the social standing of every member of the state; that of
punishing with the brand of ignominy (nota censoria) every
moral baseness which could not be reached by the law, as disaffection towards parents,: alienation between husbands and
wives, harshness towards neighbors, excessive luxury, idleness, and the like; and, by the Ovinian law, that even of
filling vacancies in the senate. These were, indeed, vast and
terrific powers; and all of them, as may be seen at a glance,
well adapted to advance the interests of the aristocracy, and




370               COMMENTARIES ON THE
to diminish and restrain the privileges of the people. Certainly the existence of a censorial power in a state is of very
great importance. It is a power capable of producing excellent effects. It may even be said to be essential to liberty.
But the exercise of it, unlike that of the legislative power,
ought to be left to the people themselves. " The sentiments
of the people are the only thing in question here. It is, therefore, necessary, that the people should speak for themselves,
and manifest their sentiments. A particular court of censure
would frustrate the intended purpose. It is attended, besides,
with very great inconveniences. As the use of such a court
is to determine upon those cases which lie out of the reach
of the laws, it cannot be tied down to any precise legulations.
As a further consequence of the arbitrary nature of its functions, it cannot even be subjected to any constitutional check;
and it continually presents to the eye the view of a power
entirely arbitrary, and which, in its different exertions, may
affect, in the most cruel manner, the peace and happiness ot
individuals. It is attended, moreover, with the very pernicious consequence, that, by dictating to the people, their
judgments of men and measures, it takes from them the freedom of thinking, which is the noblest privilege, as well as the
firmest support of liberty." (De Lolme.) The true ends of
the censorial power were better secured, and with less danger
to liberty, as I shall show hereafter, under the Hebrew constitution, by the institution of the prophetical office, and still
better, under the English and American constitutions, by a
free press. How terrible the censorial power, exercised by
the Hebrew prophets, was to tyrants, we see in the history of
Ahab; how formidable the power of a free press is to our
own rulers, every day attests. The right, so constantly and
freely used among us, of openly canvassing and arraigning
the conduct of public men, dispels the halo of greatness
which surrounds them, brings them down to the level of the
rest of the people, and strikes a salutary terror into their




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          371
nlinds, whenever they feel tempted to overstep the bounds of
a lawful authority and abuse the trusts confided to them by
their fellow-citizens.
If we examine the revolutions, which happened at Rome,
we shall find them uniformly terminating in settlements,
which inured to the benefit of the few, while the interests of
the many received but little attention. Thus, the only consequence of that great revolution, by which the kings were
driven from Rome, was, that the powers, lately exercised by
them, were transferred to the senators, by whom the revolution
had been instigated. The cause of public liberty gained
nothing.  Indeed, it was rather damaged than otherwise.
Power was stretched even beyond its former tone; a fact
more than intimated by Livy, when he says, in allusion to
the consuls, that the people now had two kings, instead ot
one. In like manner, the commotion, in which the people
withdrew in a body from Rome, and posted themselves on a
hill beyond the Anio, ended in nothing but the advancement
of a few particular persons, under the title of tribunes. The
grievances, which had caused the commotion, remained
unredressed; and the most that the tribunes did with them, was
to use them as an instrument in advancing their own personal
views. Even the code of the twelve tables, which the people
procured at the greatest cost and pains, was, as to the framing
of it, wholly in the hands of the patricians, and left the
power of the senate and consuls as undefined as before. The
revolution, whereby the decemvirs were expelled from power,
on account of their capricious and wanton abuse of it, issued
but little better for the cause of the people. The tribunes
did, undoubtedly, by means of it, obtain many additional
privileges, and got a law passed, to the effect, that the resolutions of the comitia tributa, in which they had the right to
propose new laws, should be binding upon the whole
commonwealth. This is well described by Livy as acerrimum
telum, a most active and powerful weapon; and most actively




3 72              COMMENTA.RIES ON THE
and efficaciously did they use it, till the consulship, the
praetorship, the censorship, the priesthood, the senatorial
dignity, and all the other offices of executive power, were
within their grasp. This was the goal, at which they were
constantly aiming. This was what they meant in all their
proposals for: relieving the people of their debts, for diminishing the rate of interest, and for dividing among the people
the lands taken from the enemy. These were all equitable
and excellent proposals; but, unfortunately for the people,
as made by their tribunes, they were only pretences, devised
to cover and conceal schemes of personal ambition. To these
selfish views and aims they continually made the cause of the
people subservient. That this is not mere assertion, but fact,
we have clear proof in the manner in which they procured
for themselves the right of admission to the consulship.
Availing themselves of what was called an interregnum, that
is, a time when there happened to be no magistrates in the
state but themselves, they brought three propositions before
the comitia of the tribes, viz. one for regulating the rate of
interest, another for limiting the quantity of land that could
be held by a citizen, and a third requiring that one of the
two consuls should be taken from among the plebeians. The
tribes voted in favor of the first two measures, but agains
the last. The tribunes declared, that the three bills must be
accepted or rejected together. The most violent commotions
followed, and lasted: through an entire year. The tribunes
clung to the consulship, and at length triumphed. Livy
truly observes, that, on this occasion, it was quite manifest
which of the laws in question were most agreeable to the
people, and which to those who proposed themll. The tribunes
were so intent upon personal advantages, that they were
willing to sacrifice to them the most weighty interests of their
constituency. "A few tribunes, indeed, did at times apply
themselves seriously, out of real virtue and love of their
duty, to remedy the grievances of the people; but their




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           373
fellow tribunes, and the whole body of those men, upon whom
the people had, at different tines, bestowed consulships,
aedileships, censorships, and other dignities without number,
united together with the utmost vehemence against them;
and the real patriots, as Fulvius and the Gracchi, constantly
perished in the attempt." (De Lolme.)
If the laws concerning the liberty of the citizens were imperfect in themselves, the execution of them was still more
defective. Soon after the expulsion of the kings, a law was
passed, confirming the right of the citizens,-a right previously enjoyed by them, —of appealing to the people from
decrees of death passed upon them.  The consuls, however, paid little attention to such appeals, but as we learn
from Dionysius and Livy, sported with the lives of the citizens
in the most arbitrary manner.  The same law was introduced into the twelve tables; but it was as little respected by
the decemvirs, and the magistrates who succeeded them, as it;
had before been by the consuls. About a hundred and forty
years later, this law concerning an appeal to the people was
enacted for the third time; but to no better purpose than on
the previous occasions. It was continually violated by the
different magistrates of the republic; and once the senate, of
its own authority, ordered four thousand citizens to be put to
death, despite the urgent remonstrances of the tribunes
against so summary and severe an exercise of public justice.
According to the constitution, no war could be waged, without
the sanction of the people in the curiae or centuries. But
instances occur, in which the senate alone declared war, levied
armies, and carried on hostilities. Neibuhr is of the opinion,
that the agrarian law was actually passed under Spurius Cassius; but if so, it is certain, that the people did not enjoy the
benefit of it. Nor did the magistrates content themselves
with perpetrating acts of injustice in their political capacity.
They added the most shameless extortions.  First they
plundered the provinces. But Italy itself did not escape,




374:              COMMENTARIES ON THE
The disease at length reached the very heart of the republic.
And here a new disorder arose. The judges proved as corrupt, as the magistrates had been oppressive. As early as
the times of the Gracchi, it had become a general complaint,
that no man, who had money, could be brought to punishment.
Cicero says, that in his time, the same opinion was universally received; and his orations abound with lamentations
over the levity and infamy of the public judgments.
Thus, on a review and recapitulation of what has been said
concerning the Roman constitution, it appears, that the principal assembly of the people, the comitia centuriata, was constituted in such a manner, as to give a preponderating influence to rank and riches; that an exact and well defined division of powers was wanting; that there was no adequate
system of checks and balances; that the patricians were at the
greatest pains to give the people wrong notions of liberty;
that a tyrannical and frightful power was exercised by creditors over debtors; that the tribuneship was radically defective
in its constitution; that, by the use of a great variety of artifices, the senators and great men of the state held the people
always under their control; that the tribunes themselves were
not faithful defenders of liberty, but continually betrayed
those who confided in them; that the judicial power was a
mere instrument of tyranny; that the senate, consuls, and
dictators possessed an arbitrary power over the lives of the
citizens; that the tribunal of censors was a mere piece of
state-craft, devised as an additional prop to patrician and senatorial power; that almost all the revolutions and public commotions at Rome ended in advancing the power and interests
of the few, while the grievances of the many remained unredressed; and that imperfect as the laws concerning the liberty
of the citizens were, the execution of them was still more
defective. Let any one attentively consider these things, and
say, whether popular liberty in ancient Rome was any thing,




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           375
more than a name, a dream, a gilded blind, cunningly contrived to conceal from vulgar eyes the real tyranny of aristocratic rulers.
I deny not that there were elements in the Roman, Grecian,
Egyptian, and even Asiatic polities, worthy of praise and
imitation. But the point which I have aimed to establish is
this,-that civil liberty, founded on equal rights, and acting
through the popular will, was a blessing unknown to the
whole ancient gentile world. When we turn from the dreary
prospects, on which our eyes have rested through this chapter,
where tyranny rules, the hour and the scene each moment is
imbued in blood, to the green vales and vine-clad hills of
Palestine, we shall see millions of freemen reposing, in happiness and security, beneath the sheltering aegis 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, which shot its fiery
splendors up to mid-heaven, symbolizing the divine presence
among them, than they afterwards 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.




376               COMMENTARIES ON THE
CHAPTER IX.
Geographical Limits and Population of Palestine.*
TFE principal passages in the Pentateuch and other historical books of the Old Testament, relating to the boundaries of the holy land, are the following:-Gen. 15: 18-21.
Exod. 23: 31. Numb. 34: 1-29. Deut. 1: 6-8. 11: 24.
Josh. 11: 16-17. 13: 1-7. 19: 24-31. 15: 47. Judg. 1: 31.
2 Sam. 8  3. 1 Kings 4: 21-24.  2 Chron. 8: 1-6. 9: 26.
The reader is requested, before he proceeds filrther, to peruse
these passages, and compare them together. On a careful
examination of them, the first thing, which strikes the mind,
is an apparent inconsistency in their statements respecting
the eastern and southern limits of the Israelitish territories.
In the thirty-fourth chapter of Numbers, where the boundary
line is described with great nminuteness, the river Jordan is
mentioned as the east border; and an irregular curve, extending across the desert, from the southern extremity of
the Dead Sea to the river of Egypt, forms the south border.
But in all the other passages, where the boundaries are spoken of, viz. Gen. 15, Exod. 23, Deut. 1, 11, 2 Sam. 8, 1
Kings 4, and 2 Chron. 8, 9,-eight passages in all,-the
Euphrates is mentioned as the eastern limit; and in Exod.
23: 31, the bounds of Israel are spoken of as stretching to
the southward, as far as the Red Sea.
* See on the subject of this chapter Mich. Com. on the Laws of Moses,
4rts. 19-28.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            377
But there is no real contradiction. The boundary of the
holy land, which the Isiaelites were to divide, after expelling
the inhabitants, was one thing; the boundary, beyond which
they were not permitted to extend their conquests eastward,
was another. Jordan was the former; Euphrates the latter.
The intervening territory was not necessarily to be occupied,
exclusively, by the Israelites; but was to serve as a pastureground for their cattle; the greater part of it, indeed, being
fit for no other purpose. The appointment of the Euphrates
as a boundary included in it a prohibition to the Israelites
against extending their dominion beyond it.; which, in point
of fact, they never did, not even in the reign of David,
although he obtained important victories over the kings of
Mesopotamia. Palestine proper, that country which was to
be the fixed abode of the Hebrews, lay west of the Jordan.
Moses laid no claim to the territories east of that river.
The Israelites were forbidden, without provocation, to molest
the Mloabites and Ammonites, the children of Lot, and to
drive them  from  their lands.*   Even the Amorites, a
Syrian tribe descended from Canaan, were not dispossessed
of their territories, nor was the purpose of dispossessing them
entertained, till Sihon, their king, without provocation on the
part of the Hebrews, marched an army beyond his frontier,
and commenced hostilities against them. In this attack, the
Amorites wer:e unsuccessful; and, by right of conquest,
Moses seized upon their territories, and appropriated them to
the use of the chosen people.t The same thing afterwards
happened to the Edomites, whose country lay to the south of
the land of Israel. Their conduct was such as to give just
cause of war; and David took occasion thence to conquer
their territories, and annex them to the Israelitish dominions.:  This extended the boundary of Israel, on the
* Deut. ii. 9  Judg. xi. 15.        t Numb. xxi. 21-25.
+ 2 Saim. viii. 14. 1 Chlion. xviii. 13.




378               COMMENTARIES On THE
south, to the Red Sea, agreeably to a divine promise,* and
gave to the Hebrews the ports of Aela and Eziongeber.
The case, then, appears to be this.  1. The Hebrews were
to drive out the Canaanitish nations, inhabiting the country
lying between the [Mediterranean sea and the river Jordan,
and between the river of Egypt and the mountains of Lebanon. This region was to be their peculiar inheritance. This
was the land of promise, and was to be, in a preeminent
sense, the holy land. Accordingly, we find, that a remarkable distinction was always made between the country lying
to the east, and that situated to the west of the Jordan.
The latter was, even by the tribes inhabiting the former,
ever accounted more sacred than their own.t  2. The Israelites were permitted to make conquests of the surrounding
regions, when provoked to war by the nations occupying
them. These conquests might be extended as far as to the
river Euphrates, should there be just occasion for so doing.
3. Beyond this boundary, the Hebrews were not permitted to
pass, under any provocation, nor for any purpose, to make
conquests and annexations. The permission to go so far was
tantamount to a law against going any farther.
Let us now, as far as we are able, trace the limits of the
Hebrew dominions, as they were at their widest extent, or as
they were intended to be, if the Israelites had obeyed the
divine command respecting the extermination of the Canaanites.
The western boundary was to be the great sea, that is,
the Mediterranean. The boundary was to commence, where
the south border touches the sea, viz. at the river of Egypt,
and to stretch northward to a great distance. How far, however, is a question still in dispute. All agree that it extended
to Achzib, or Ecdippa, a little above the thirty-third degree of
north latitude, and about fifteen miles to the north of Acco,
the Ptolemais of the Greeks, and the Acre of the Turks. It
* Exod. xxiii. 31.       t Josh. xxii. 24, 25.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             379
was of great importance to the Hebrews, that this last mentioned place should be embraced within their territories. It
is the Gibraltar of Palestine. Its possession is decisive of
the fate of the country. Whoever holds it is master, or may
easily make himself master of all Palestine. The whole
course of history, ancient and modern, evinces this fact. The
reason is plain. From this city, the vast and fertile plain of
Esdraelon extends, in a southerly direction, from  the Mediterranean to the Jordan, dividing Palestine into two unequal
halves. In this plain have been fought nearly all the great
battles, which have decided the fate of the country. Here
Sisera fell, and his army was routed and slain.*  Here Saul
lost his crown and his life together.t  Here king Josiah was
defeated and slain.: And here, during the crusades, the
bloodiest and most decisive battles were fought. This plain
was the chief theatre of those holy wars.
But the real boundary here never corresponded to the
boundary contemplated by the law. The people of Israel
did not expel the Philistines, agreeably to the divine command. David was the first who executed what the lawgiver
required on this head; and even he rather subdued than exterminated these strange nations. The clear possession of
this coast is of great importance to a state established in
Palestine, even though it do not engage in commerce; for
without it the boundary can never be secure. As long as
the Philistines continued to occupy but a small tract of the
coast, the Israelites were never at rest.  Sometimes they
were even brought under the Philistine yoke, as we see from
the books of Judges and Samuel.
As it regards that part of the coast, which extends northward, from Achzib to Zidon, the learned are not agreed,
whether the sea was here to form the Israelitish boundary, or
whether a narrow strip of territory was to be left to the undisturbed possession of the Sidonians. The majority of
* Judg. iv.    T 1 Sam. xxxi       t 2 Kings xxiii. 29.




380               COMMENTARIES ON THE
biblical scholars hold to the first of these opinions. The arguments, which they bring in support of it, are weighty and
strong. The principal passages, bearing upon the point, are
the following: —Josh. 13: 6. 19: 28, 29. Judg. 1: 31. By
consulting these places, it will be seen, that "all the Sidonians" were included among the people to be driven out of
their territories by the Israelites; that the border of Asher
was to extend "unto great Zidon," and "the strong city
Tyre;" and that tribe is censured for not " driving out the
inhabitants of Zidon."
Michaelis dissents from this opinion, and maintains, on the
contrary, that the narrow strip of coast, between mount HIor
and the sea, extending from Achzib to Sidon, about half a
degree of latitude in length, was to be left to the Phenicians,
who were the actual possessors of it at the time of the conquest. The arguments, by which he defends this position,
are plausible, if not convincing. They are as follows: 1. This
coast was never in the possession of the Hebrews. They
never made any attempt to conquer it,-not even in the
reigns of David and Solomon. 2. These two monarchs
lived in the closest friendship with the kings of Tyre; nor
is the alliance between them, though often referred to in
scripture, ever mentioned with disapprobation. 3. In all the
catalogues given by Moses himself, whether longer or shorter,
of the nations to be expelled by the Israelites, the Sidonians
are never included.  4. The boundary line of the tribe of
Asher, traced by Joshua, seems to confirm this view. It
first touches the sea near mount Carmel and the river Belus,
Thence the boundary line runs landward a great way to the
north; then turns southward, passing Sidon and Tyre, apparently without reaching the sea in this quarter; and,
finally, comes to touch the coast again near Achzib. Whence
it would seem that the small tract of coast north from Ecdippa, which we call Phenicia, was to remain in the indisputed
possession of the original proprietors. 5. This little country




LAWS OF THE ANCIEINT HEBREWS.          381
would be more valuable to the Israelites, if it remained in the
possession of the Phenicians, than if they conquered and annexed it to their own dominions. It would have been of no
great use to them, if incorporated into their territory, since
they were not to be a trading people. But if the trading
people, who inhabited it, had been driven out, and the maritime commerce, which the Israelites could not carry on
themselves, had totally ceased, they would have lost a most
valuable market for their surplus corn, wine, oil, and other
commodities, which they exported by means of the Phenicians, together with the caravan trade from Arabia to Phenicia, which must have been very profitable. The loss of these
markets would, at the same time, have been the loss of their
chief motives to industry, agriculture, and manufactures.
Neither could there be much danger to the: Israelites in
suffering this little stretch of coast to continue in possession
of the Phenicians, since their boundary here was quite secure
by means: of mount Lebanon, at whose foot the sea flowed.
The inhabitants of so small a tract of coast could not become
very formidable, especially as their devotion to comnmerce
would naturally lead them to cultivate relations of amity and
peace with foreign nations. 6. In the blessings of Jacob, it
is actually represented as a fortunate circumstance for Zebuion, that he was to have his inheritance on a sea coast, well
frequented by ships, and not far from Sidon.
This theory is plausible, and the arguments brought to sustain it not destitute of force. Still, as the learned commentator himself confesses, it is pressed with great difficulties. The
strongest objection is drawn from the passage in Judg. 1: 31,
where it is represented: as a fault in Asher, that he " did not
drive out the inhabitants of Zidon."  From  this it would
seem, that he should have done so, and have taken possession
of it himself. Mlichaelis ingenuously owns, that he knows
not what satisfactory answer to make to this objection. To
escape from difficulty, he suggests an emendation, perhaps I




382               COMMENTARIES ON THE
might better say, a mutilation of the text. He co.jectures,
that tle words " inhabitants of Zidon " are an interpolation,
though he pretends no other authority for the criticism, than
the strength of the argument for excluding Sidon from the territories of Israel. This is a bold liberty, and not to be tolerated, except in a case of absolute necessity. Whether or not
the present is such a case, the reader will judge for himself.
The southern boundary of Israel, according to the statute
contained in the thirty-fourth chapter of Numbers, was to extend from the MIediterranean sea, at the point where the
river of Egypt empties into it, to the southern extremity of
the Salt, that is, the Dead sea. WVhat stream  is meant by
the river of Egypt, is a point much disputed by biblical geographers. Some consider it a rivulet, which falls into the
sea at El-Arisch, the ancient iRhinocolura. Others regard it
as a stream, which empties into the Sirbonic lake, or gulf,
near Calich.  Others, still, understand by it the eastern, or
Pelusic branch of the Nile. Dr. Hales* has given the subject an extended examination, and has exhibited strong
proofs of the correctness of the last mentioned of these
opinions. The statements of Ilerodotus and Pliny favor this
view. The formert mentions mount Casius, lying between
Pelusium  and the Sirbonic lake, as the boundary between
Egypt and Palestine; and the lattert reckons the Sirbonic
lake itself as the boundary. Between these two points, the
river of Egypt and the southern extremity of the Dead sea,
the boundary fixed by the law of AMoses, ran, in an irregular
curve, through various places, whose names will be found in
Numbers 34: 3-5. The position of most of these places has
never been determined with exactness; and of course the
curvatures of the boundary line cannot be laid down with
certainty.
The nearest neighbors of the Israelites, on this side, were
* Anal. Chron. V. 1, pp. 413, 414.       t L. 3, C. 5.
J Nat. Hist. 1. 5, C. 13.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           383
the Edonmites. They were descendants of Esau (called also
Edom*), and of course nearly related to the Israelites. They
had a fertile country and lived under a settled government.
Then came the Amalekites, Geshurites, and other wild Arab
tribes. These were fierce, warlike, marauding nations, who
lived by plundering their neighbors, and making slaves of
their young women. With such people, no settled peace
could be had. Moses, therefore, took advantage of an unprovoked attack of the Amalekites to incorporate into his code
a law for their extermination. This procedure has drawn
down upon him very bitter reproaches. Yet he ought not to
be blamned for it, for prudence required, that the desert
should be cleared of such neighbors. Their unprovoked and
repeated injuries gave the Hebrews a just right to exterminate them. It was no more unjust in Israel to proceed in
this manner towards the Amalekites than it would be in the
United States to destroy a nest of pirates, that had taken possession of some neighboring island, for greater convenience
of preying upon the property and lives of our citizens.
We must not suppose, that these Arab tribes had accurately
defined limits and fixed habitations. Such a notion would
often involve us in great perplexity in reading the Bible.
They were wandering herdsmen, just as the Arabs of our day
are. They pastured their sheep and cattle, wherever convenience dictated. They had no right of property in the soil.
There might be encampments of Amalekites, Midianites, and
other nomadic tribes, with their flocks and herds, all on the
same plain, and within short distances of each other. Nay,
they might even be mingled together, as we see the Kenites
were with the Amalekites; for Saul, when about to attack the
latter, sent to request, that the former would withdraw ftor a
time, from that quarter.t We can hence easily see how
Balaam, from the heights of Moab, could see so many different nations.4  They were not whole nations, but hordes of the
* Gen. xxxvi. 43.   t 1 Sam. xv, 6.: Numb. xxiv.




384               COMMENTARIES ON THE
various nations, whose fates he predicted, when he cast his
eye upon their several encampments, scattered over the wide
desert below.
Even Edom, though under a regular government, had not
its boundaries perfectly defined. The history of the march of
the Israelites shows this. The territories of Edom extended
from the southern border of Palestine to the Red Sea, and
included the seaport town of Eziongeber. Now, in going
from Sinai to the eastern shore of the Jordan, it is necessary
to cross this region somewhere. Yet Moses did not traverse
the country of Edom, but went round it.*  This makes it
clear, that there could not have been an accurately defined
boundary, but that uncultivated and unappropriated wastes
must have overspread the country.
The southern boundary of Israel did not always continue
what it was made by the law recorded in Numb. 34. God,
through his servant Moses, promised the chosen people, that
their bounds should be from the Red Sea to the sea of the
Philistines.t This looks like a permission, when a just provocation should afford the occasion, to conquer the Idumean
territory, and appropriate it to their own use; which was actually done in the reigns of David and Solomon. The father
conquered and annexed to the Israelitish dominions the
whole country, even to the Red Sea; and the son made the
Idumean ports of Aela and Eziongeber, on that sea, the seat
of an extensive, rich, and flourishing commerce.  Some
learned men believe, that the ships of Solomon, starting from
this point. circumnavigated Africa. But this is a matter,
which does not belong to the present inquiry.
The eastern boundary of what was strictly the holy land
was the river Jordan. But the permitted boundary, and, for
a considerable time, the actual boundary, was the river
Euphrates. In point of fact, the Jordan never formed the
bounding line of the Israelites on the east. A vast extent of
* Numb. xxxiii. 35-37.    jt Exod. xxiii. 31.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          385
country, forming the kingdoms of Sihon and Og, which was
peculiarly adapted to the rearing of cattle, became the possession of Reuben and Gad, who were rich in herds. TLe
Amorites, a Canaanitish nation, then held possession of the
land of Gilead. This was conquered by the half tribe of
Manasseh, who obtained it for a habitation.*  How far the
inheritance of these tribes extended to the eastward, is the
question now in hand. In maps, these countries are confined
within narrow limits, and are kept at a great distance from
the Euphrates. The question is, did they not approach
nearer to that river than is commonly supposed? This question is lucidly treated by Michaelis. the substance of whose
article in relation to it, is embodied in the following para
graphs.
It seems almost certain, that mount Gilead, properly so
called, from which the whole country had its name, lay far
without the space, which the common maps of Palestine
imelude, and was, in fact, at no great distance from the
Euphrates. Of this any one will convince himself, who will'take the trouble to weigh the history of Jacob's flight from
L~aran. Laban overtook him on the tenth day. Let it be
remembered, that Haran is several days' journey to the east
of the Euphrates; that an immense stretch of country lies
between the upper part of that river and the lower part of
the Jordan; and that Jacob was encumbered with vast herds
of cattle, camels, sheep, and goats, with their young, besides
w-ives, children, and servants. Ten or fifteen miles a day
wvould be good travelling, under such circumstances. Who,can believe, that Jacob could have approached the mouth of
the Jordan in ten days? Yet Laban overtook him on mount
Gilead. The inference is clear, that this mountain could not
have had the position usually assigned it; but must have
been in the neighborhood of the Euphrates. How far the
land of Gilead may have stretched beyond the peaks of the
* Numb. xxxii. 39-42.




386                COMMENTARIES ON THE
mountain, and whether it extended quite to the Euphrates, it is
impossible to determine. Indeed, of the eastern and northern
boundaries of the lands belonging to the two and a half tribes,
we know almost nothing. The city of Kirjathana, which
Moses assigned to the tribe of Reuben, in the opinion of
Michaelis, lay only one day's journey from Palmyra.
Whether, in the time of Mloses and Joshua, the tribes on
the further side of Jordan pastured their herds as far eastward
as the Euphrates, or not, they certainly did afterwards; and
that before the time of David.*  This fact has not been much
noticed, because it is recorded in a book, which, consisting in
great part of dry catalogues of names, is comparatively but
little read.  On this account, many remarkable historical occurrences, related in it, are commonly overlooked. B3ut in 1
Chron. 5, 9, it is expressly said that the posterity of Reuben
dwelt eastward, as far as the river Euphrates, because their
cattle were multiplied in the land of Gilead. A very surprising history is added in vv. 10-22. It is to the following
effect. The two and a half trans-jordanic tribes, in the days
of Saul, made war with four powerful Arabian nations,
among whom were the HIagarites, whose country bordered on
the Persian gulf. They gained a decisive victory, tlk a
hundred thousand captives, and an immense quantity of cattle
and sheep, drove out the former inhabitants, and' dwelt in,
their steads, throughout all the east of Gilead, till the captivity.t  Thus it appears, that these conquests, reaching to the
banks of the Euphrates and the shores of the Persian g clt;
were maintained from  the reign of Saul to the time af the
Assyrian captivity; a period of nearly three hundred yea.s.
David not only rendered these possessions more secure,
but extended the Israelitish dominions in that direction by
still further conquests. Solomon, his son and successor, built
* 1 Chron. v. 9, 10.
t Vv. 10, 22. A statement, which affords pretty strong ground foy
believing, that the land of Gilead actually extended to the Euphrates.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             387
Tadmor,* by the Greeks called Palmyra, which was not
more than a day's journey from the Euphrates. It is also related of him, that " he had dominion over all the region on
this side the Euphrates, from Tiphsah, (without doubt the
ancient Thapsacus on that river,) even to Azzah, over all the
kings on this side the river."t
Towards the south, also, the eastern boundary of Israel
extended pretty far eastward, and lay in part beyond the land
of Moab. Maon, which belonged to the tribe of Judah, even
in the days of Joshua,4 and where Nabal dwelt,~ is described
by Abulfeda as the farthest city of Syria towards Arabia, and
as six days' journey from  the sea, and two beyond Zoai
Even in those eastern deserts, the Israelitish state could boast
some wealthy and powerful citizens. Three private persons
in Gilead were in such circumstances as, at their own expense,
to supply David's whole army with food and other necessaries.11 Nor is this matter of wonder, since the rearing of
cattle, especially in such extensive pastures, tends to produce
greater riches, than the cultivation of paternal fields.
Michaelis has an elaborate article on the northern boundary
of the Israelites. He regards it as extending, in a serpentine
line, from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean, in such a way,
that Palmyra was on the south, and Damascus on the north
side of it, and reaching the sea somewhere about the thirtysixth degree of north latitude. For a detail of the argument,
by which this line is established by the learned commentator,
the reader is referred to the original work.
It thus appears, that the Israelitish boundaries, at their
widest actual or intended extent, embraced a territory, froul
six to eight degrees of latitude in length, and as many of
longitude in breadth; a territory of not less than one hundred
million acres. It is true, that large portions of this territory
consisted of mountains and deserts. Much of it was fit only
* 1 Kings ix. 18. 2 Chron. viii. 4.' - 1 Kings, iv. 24.
% Josh. xv. 55.     1 Sam.xxv. 2.  11 2 Sam. xvii. 27, 29.




3858               COMMENTATRIES ON THE
f-Il pasturage, and much of it was good for nothing at all.
Still it is likely, that one half of it, or fifty million acres, was
capable of cultivation.  At a moderate computation, the lands
to be divided among the Israelites, on both sides of Jordan,
in the lifetime of Joshua, must have amounted to twenty-five
million acres.  This, distributed among six hundred thousand
citizens, would give to each about forty-two acres.  Let us
still reduce this quantity one half; and even then each householder would have a farm  of twenty-one acres.*  I have no
doubt, that this is below the amount actually divided.  Yet,
assuming it as the amount, let us see what can be said as to
the capability of the land of promise maintaining so great a
number of people, as were to live upon it.
gMy first remark here is, that Palestine was an extremely
fertile country, the glory of all lands in the richness of its
soil.  Mloses distinctly so represents it; and his representation is confirmed by the testimony of Josephus,t Tacitus,t the
great Arabian geographer Abulfeda,~ and the best modern
travellers, particularly Dr. Shaw.1  The whole country was
one vast and busy workshop of rural industry, abounding in
all the productions of the tropical and temperate zones. It
was cultivated like a garden. The sides of the mountains
were terraced, even to their summits, and the cold rocks were
covered with soil by the hand of industry.  No judgment
can be formed of its pristine fertility, from the state, to which
it has been reduced, by eighteen centuries of tyranny and devastation. Yet even now intelligent travellers represent the
soil of Palestine as unusually rich and productive.
In the second place, all the Israelites had always the right
* Curius Dentatus, as Pliny informs us, looked upon that Roman as a
pernicious citizen, who was not content with seven acres of land, and did
not find it sufficient for his subsistence. At one time, the Roman law did
not allow more than that to each citizen.
f Jewish War, L. 3, C. 3.          J Hist. L. 5, C. 6.
h Tabulae Syriae, p. 9.           11 Travels, pp. 336, 337.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           389
of pasturage in the deserts, and thither they were accustomed
to drive their flocks and herds, to graze upon the fertile spots,
which, like innumerable islands, dot the sandy wastes of
Arabia. The consequence of this was, that every Israelite
had all his fields for cultivation. Palestine could thus support a much greater population than a country equally good.
in which large portions of the farms are necessarily used for
pasturage. I am enabled to illustrate this point, from the
state of things in the place where I write, the township of
East Hampton, on the eastern extremity of Long Island. The
inhabitants of this township have pasture grounds, to the
extent of nine thousand acres, on the high lands of IMontauk,
where thousands of sheep, cattle, and horses find abundance
of excellent pasturage, during the spring, summer, and
autumn. This leaves the people at liberty to cultivate a much
larger proportion of the remaining land, than they would
otherwise be able to do. And, were it not that there are
other large tracts, fit only for the growth of wood, on account
of the lightness of the soil, I am persuaded, that the territory
would sustain a population nearly double that, which the
same number of acres would support, under the ordinary
system of farming, where each particular farm must supply
pasturage to the flock and the herd. Palestine enjoyed two
advantages over this place, viz., first, in having an unlimited
quantity of pasturage in the deserts and mountains, and,
secondly, in the superior mildness of its winters, which took
away the necessity of providing any great amount of fodder.
On both these accounts, a still larger proportion of the land
could be appropriated to the sustenance of man; and in the
same proportion its power of supporting a numerous population would be increased.
In the third and last place, a country of equal fertility in a
southern latitude will support more inhabitants than in a
northern one. And this for several reasons. As 1. Large




390               COMMEI CARIES ON ThE
tracts of land are required to furnish the fuel necessary for
a cold country; while, in a warm climate, but little wood is
needed for fuel. Hence the spaces, which, in the former,
must be devoted to the growing of wood, can be used for tillage in the latter. In point of fact, the article of wood was
very scarce in Palestine. 2. A  much greater amount of
clothing is consumed in cold than in warm countries. Consequently, in a northern climate, a vast quantity of land must
be taken up in producing cotton, flax, and wool, which, in a
southern one, can be devoted to the raising of bread stuffs.
3. In a country of the latitude of Palestine, and one which,
like that, is cultivated as a garden, the land may be cropped
several times within the year, which adds immensely to its
capability of sustaining human life. This, indeed, is an advantage, for which Moses expressly celebrates Palestine.*
4. The same number of people consume less food in a warm
country, than in a cold one. Men must be temperate in a
hot climate, if they would keep their health. They seldom
eat meat, but live mostly on vegetables. Chardin represents
the inhabitants of northern Europe as beasts of prey, in comparison with the Asiatics. The nearer we approach the
equator, the more abstemious we find the people. There are
millions of people in India, who live on the value of a penny
a day. Even in Europe, there is a sensible difference between
the inhabitants of the north and the south. A Spaniard will
subsist for a week on what a German would eat at a meal.
The luxury of an Englishman displays itself in the number
of dishes and the quantity of solid meats on the table; that
of an Italian, in sweetmeats and flowers.t  But 5. It is more
important to observe, that the industry of husbandmen in
countries, where rain seldom falls, and the fields must be watered artificially, surpasses any thing that our farmers exhibit.
In such countries, they learn to make use of every foot of
* Deut. xxxiii. 14.       f Rouss. Soc. Cont. L. 3, C. 8.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           331
land. They cover the naked rocks with soil, and raise wall3
Lo prevent showers from washing it away. Numerous examples of this are seen in Switzerland. Maundrell, in his
travels, discovered many traces of this laudable economy in
the ancient cultivation of the holy land.
Thus far the argument has been conducted solely on
grounds of reason. It has been of an a priori character.
But does the history of agriculture furnish no facts, bearing
upon the present inquiry?  Yes, many and important ones.
From  the evidence given in 1843 before the committee on
allotments of land in the British parliament, it appears, that
a hundred and twelve bushels of wheat had been obtained
from an acre of land dug with the spade; that the average
profit derived from cottage allotments was at the rate of a
hundred dollars an acre; and that one man on the eighth of
an acre of very indifferent land had grown a crop worth
twenty-five dollars, or at the rate of two hundred dollars per
acre.*  Mr. Thornton, in his Plea for Peasant Proprietors,
says, that a Flemish farmner of six acres of moderate land
obtains from two acres and a half as much grain, potatoes,
butter, pork, and milk, as are required for the consumption
of himself, his wife, and three children, and sells the produce
of the remaining three acres and a half.t The twenty-five
millions of acres, which, on a moderate estimate, were, or
should have been, distributed among the Israelites, on the
conquest of Canaan, if parcelled out into estates of six acres
each, would have supported four million families engaged
exclusively in agriculture, and at least as many more occupied
in other pursuits. That is to say, this territory would have
furnished sustenance to a population of forty millions. And
when at its greatest extent, the land of Israel must have been
capable of maintaining double that number of inhabitants.
* Cited in the N. A. Rev. for July, 1848.  t Ibidem.




392          LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.
Surely, in this view of the case, which is rational and solid,
all difficulty as to the Israelitish territory being able to support
the largest population ever assigned to it, vanishes. Indeed,
the difficulty never could have arisen, except upon the ground
o. a twofold error; the error of confining the holy land
within too narrow limits, and the error of underrating the
productive capability of a given quantum of soil.




BOOK II.
ORGANIC LAW OF THE HEBREW STATE.
CHAPTER I.
Fundamental Principles.
IT is the proper function of the sciences to arrive at general
principles; that is to say, primaryv, or general facts, in which
all secondary, or particular facts are included. Gravitation
may serve as an illustration of my meaning. By this one
simple principle, astronomy explains all the complex laws of
the celestial harmony.
In political, as well as physical science, there are certain
great principles, true or false, from which, in any given case,
all the numerous details of social organization flow.* Every
state is based upon some fundamental ideas; and the study
of those ideas is the most important object of inquiry in the
study of its constitution. No social system can be understood
without a knowledge of its fundamental principles. The HIebrew government, like all others, was founded upon certain
great nmaxims of policy, to the development and elucidation
of which the reader's attention is now invited.
The first and most essential of these fundamental principles
was the unity of God.t
To some it may have an odd sound, to hear announced, as
X Salvador's Histoire des Institutions de Moise, 1. 1, p. 63.
~ D)eut. vi. 4.




391               COMMENTARIES ON THE
a principle of political science, what we are apt to regard as
a mere religious dogma. But this can arise only from a want
of due reflection on the subject. When Moses made his appearance in the world, idolatry had crept in on every side.
It was firmly established in all nations. With its long train
of moral and social evils, it had become the common sentiment and common practice of mankind. It had gained the
credit of a settled truth, and the authority of an undoubted
principle of common sense. There was not a civil constitution then in being, which was not based upon the assumed
truth of polytheism. The Israelites themselves had become
so infected with it, that all the miracles wrought for their
deliverance, were not sufficient to cure their superstition, and
keep them steadfast to the worship of the true God.
A civil constitution, inseparably interwoven with the worship of the one living God, was, as far as we can judge, an
indispensable agency in enabling, perhaps I ought rather to
say, in compelling the Hebrews to answer their high destination. By this means, the worship of the true God would be
made imperishable, so long as the nation continued a nation.
By this means, it would happen, that religion and the political existence of the people must be annihilated together.
Whatever reason, therefore, there was for desiring the overthrow of idolatry, there was the same reason for incorporating the idea of the divine unity into the political structure
of the Hebrew commonwealth.
Such a politico-religious constitution could then be introduced without difficulty, since it was in accordance with the
political ideas of the times. Religious prodigies were as
familiar as civil edicts, and as constantly bore their share in
the administration of public affairs. All the ancient lawgivers called in the aid of religion to strengthen their respective polities. Thus did Menes in Egypt; Minos in Crete;
Cadmus in Thebes; Lycurgus in Sparta; Zaleucus in Locris;
and:Numa in Rome.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.              395
BlBt the procedure of Moses differed fundamentally from
that of these heathen legislators. They employed religion in
establishing their political institutions, while he made use of
a civil constitution as a means of perpetuating religion.*
Thus Moses made the worship of the one only God the fundamental law  of his civil institutions.  This law  was to
remain forever unalterable, through all the changes, which
lapse of time might introduce into his constitution. Thus
was the Jewish lawgiver enabled to secure a result of indispensable necessity to human virtue and happiness; a result,
which, as far as we can see, could have been attained in no
other way.
In this procedure Moses has shown himself one of the
greatest benefactors of mankind. The pernicious influence
of polytheism will be more fully exhibited in our chapter on
the Hebrew  theocracy.  Let it suffice for the present to
observe, that the superstitions connected with it are a prolific
source of immorality, crime and misery. But it is to be
carefully noted, that it is one thing to make the single
article of the worship of one God the first principle of a
civil polity; and it is another and totally different thing to
make the numerous articles of a religious creed, and their
maintenance among the people, the object and scope of
political arrangements.  Moses framed no symbolic books for
the people to subscribe; nor did he publish any mere theolkogical dogma, the belief of which was to be enforced by civil
penalties. Such was the structure of the Hebrew state, as
will be explained in the next chapter, that idolatry became,
under its constitution, a civil crime.   No mere private
opinion, however, nothing but the overt act of idolatry, was
* It is not meant to be asserted here, that Moses did not also employ
religion in establishing his political institutions, but merely to direct
attention to the fact, that with the heathen legislators religion was the
means, and government the end, while with him government was the
mreans, and religion the end.




396                  COMMENTARES ON THE
punishable, under the laws of Moses, by the civil authorities.*
A  second  fundamental principle  of the Hebrew  government was national unity.
This idea was, in that age, as new and startling as the doctrine of the divine unity. The most ancient sages made
their ideas of the material universe the type of their political
and social institutions. The Egyptian priests regarded the
*Mich. Com. on the Laws of Moses, Arts. 32, 33, 34, and 245. The political prohibition of idolatry, under the sanction of civil punishment, was
not, as we shall see in the next chapter, founded on the doctrine of the
true God, considered as a theological dogma, but on the principle that
Jehovah, having delivered the Israelites from slavery, and made them a
nation, was, by their own free choice, constituted civil head of their commonwealth. He was, therefore, to be honored as their king, as well as
their God. Even on the assumption of the truth of idolatry, on the supposition that there actually were other gods, this principle bound every
subject of the Israelitish government to worship none but the God of
Israel. Still, it was not opinions that were prohibited, but actions. But,
words may be political actions. Blackstone, indeed, (B. 4. C. 6.) lays
down the doctrine, that words spoken amount only to a high misdemeanor,
and no treason; for the words may be spoken in heat, without any intention, or they may be mistaken, perverted, or misremembered by the
hearers. But he adds, that words set down in writing constitute an overt
act of treason, for scribere est agere. But by the law of Moses, words
spoken against the divine King of Israel were considered as compassing,
that is, designing and aiming at the overthrow of the government. They
were an overt act of treason, which was punished capitally. Hence blasphemy was a state crime; and I have no doubt, that to speak any evil of
the God of Israel, or to deny his existence, was blasphemy, within the
meaning of the statute.  This law extended to foreigners: as well as to
natives, Numb. 15: 15. While Moses provided, that strangers, who took
refuge in the land of Israel, should be treated with justice and kindness,
he gave no protection or privilege to any foreign religion. He prohibited
absolutely all manner of idolatry. Still, if the stranger was, in his heart,
a friend of paganism, Moses did not authorize any inquiry into his private
opinion. Such an inquisitorial procedure was foreign both to his temper
and his legislation. His laws gave no sanction to it. They were framed
against actions, not ideas.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           397
universality of things as composed of two distinct essences;
the one intellectual and active, the other physical and passive.*  This philosophic dogma had a predominating influence on the civil state. In the political system framed by
them, the spiritual essence of the universe was the symbol of
the sacerdotal aristocracy; while the baser material essence
represented the common people. Thus the higher and lower
classes, the nobility and commonalty, were separated by a
gulf, as impassable as that which divides the inhabitants of
different planets.
Moses, endowed with a capacity and animated with a principle higher than any preceding philosopher or statesman,
rejecting this doctrine of dualism in the formation of his
commonwealth, substituted in its place the principle of national unity. His, however, was not that species of unity,
which the world has since so often seen, in which vast multitudes of human beings are delivered up to the arbitrary
will of one man. It was a unity, effected by the abolition of
caste; a unity, founded on the principle of equal rights; a
unity, in which the whole people formed the state, contrary
to what happened in Egypt, where the priesthood was the
state, and contrary to the celebrated declaration of a French
mnonarch,t who avowed himself to be the state.
Let us glance at the decalogue  t to ascertain, if possible,
its relation to this question of the unity of the Hebrew state.
These ten precepts belonged not simply to the department of
ethics among the Hebrews. They were civil, as well as
moral laws. They were intended to serve as the basis of the
whole system of civil legislation. They have suggested to
modern legislators the first idea of the declaration of the
rights of man.
Mark the expressive form given to the preamble of these
laws. It is as significant as it is laconic. " I am Jehovah
THY God, which brought THEE out of the house of bondage."
* Herod. 1. 2.      t Louis XIV.        i Ex. xx.




398               COMMENTARIES ON THE
Here the Hebrews are addressed as one man; and so they
are throughout the enactment of this fundamental code.  It
is Israel, it is the entire people, to whom the lawgiver speaks.
HIere is no distinction of castes. IHere is no appropriation
of dignities to one class; no hereditary inferiority assigned to
another. The priesthood had not at this time been instituted,
nor the tribe of Levi set apart to its peculiar functions. This
tribe formed, it is true, a kind of literary aristocracy, and its
dignities and duties were hereditary. Still, as will be shown
in our chapter on the Levitical order, it was far from constituting a nobility, in the modern acceptation of that term.
The same fundamental rights are recognized as belonging
to all; the same fundamental duties as binding upon all.
The whole law is in the interest of the whole people.* Social
distinctions, therefore, whenever they arise, must rest upon
the natural basis of superior intelligence and worth.
Another of those great ideas, which constituted the basis
of the IHebrew state, was liberty.
Liberty is a word often uttered, but seldom understood. It
is the theme of much glowing declamation, but of little
sober inquiry. Poets anid orators have eulogized the charms
of liberty; demagogues use the word every day, as an instrument of political advancement; yet few, comparatively, investigate or comprehend its nature.  Civil liberty, the liberty
of a community, is a severe and restrained thing. The fundamental idea of it is that of protection in the enjoyment of
our own rights, up to the point where we begin to trench
upon the rights of others. It is natural liberty, so far restrained, and only so far, as may be necessary for the public
good. Every law, which abridges personal freedom, without
a corresponding general advantage, is an infringement of
civil liberty. But it is no infringement of liberty to restrain
the freedom of individuals, when the public good requires it
On the contrary, civil liberty implies, in the very notion of it.
* Maimon. More Nevochim, pt. 3. C. 34.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             399
authority, subjection, and obedience. Montesquieu has well
defined it, when he says, that it " consists in the power of
doing what we ought to will, and in not being constrained to
do what we ought not to will.*" Liberty is a right of doing
what the laws permit. If one citizen might do what they
forbid, all might do it, which would be anarchy. True
liberty would expire in such a state of things.
This rational, restrained, regulated liberty was amply secured by the Hebrew constitution. In the preamble to the
ten commandments,t before cited, God expressly declares,
that he llad brought his people out of the  "house of
bondage."' In another place he says: "I have broken the
bands of your yoke, and made you go upright.": These expressions, rendered into their modern equivalents, mean: "I
have delivered you out of a state of servitude, and constituted
you a nation of freemen."  "Is Israel a slave?" cries Jeremiah, —his heart bursting with sadness at the contrast between the freedom secured by the constitution of his country
and the vassalage imposed upon his countrymen by foreign
arms.
The learned Fleury 11 has declared his opinion on this
point in unequivocal terms.  "The Israelites," he says,
" were perfectly free. They enjoyed the liberty cherished
by Greece and Rome. Such was the purpose of God."
MIontesquieu~T makes a reflection, which is applicable here.
HIe says, that countries are not cultivated in proportion to
their fertility, but to their liberty. Tried by this test, the
freedom of Palestine will bear a favorable comparison with
that of any nation in any age of the world; for never was
territory more highly cultivated, or more productive, than
that of the chosen tribes, in the palmy days of their history.
The freedom, secured by the polity of Moses, will more
* Spirit of Laws, B. 11, C. 3.   t Ex. xx. 2.. Levit. xxvi. 13.
{ Levit. ii. 14.         11 Manners of the Israelites, C. 20.
S Slirit of Laws, B. 18, C. 3.




400               COMMENTARIES ON THE
fully appear, as we advance in our inquiries. There is no
doubt, that the constitution was as free as it could be, consistently with its own safety and stability; and it is probable,
that the Hebrew people enjoyed as great a degree of personal
liberty, as can ever be combined with an efficient and stable
government.
A fourth fundamental principle of the Hebrew constitution
was the political equality of the people.
This was absolute and entire. I lay down the following
proposition broadly and without qualification. The members
of the body politic, called into being by the constitution of
Moses, stood upon a more exact level, and enjoyed a more
perfect community of political rights, dignities, and influence,
than any other people known in history, whether of ancient
or modern times.,4 few words will place this point in a clear and convincing
light.
It is a principle of political philosophy, first announced by
i-Iarrington,* and much insisted upon by Lowmant and the
elder Adams,: that property in the soil is the natural foundation of power, and corsqeuently of authority. This principle
will not now be disputed. Hence, the natural foundation of
every government may be said to be laid in the distribution
of its territories. And here three cases are supposable, viz.
the ownership of the soil by one, the few, or the many.
First, if the prince own the lands, he will be absolute; for
all who cultivate the soil, holding of him, and at his pleasure,
must be so subject to his will, that they will be in the condition of slaves, rather than of freemen. Secondly, if the
landed property of a country be shared among a few men,
the rest holding as vassals under them, the real power of
government will be in the hands of an aristocracy, or nobility, whatever authority may be lodged in one or more persons, for the sake of greater unity in counsel and action.
* Oceana, p. 37.  t Civ. Gov. Heb. C. 2.: Defence, Letter 29.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.                401
But, thirdly, if the lands be divided among all those who
compose the society, the true power and authority of government will reside in all the members of that society; and the
society itself will constitute a real democracy, whatever fbrm
of union may be adopted  for the better direction of tdhe
whole, as a political body. Under such a constitution, the
citizens themselves will have control of the state.  They will
not need to have this power conferred upon them by express
grant. It will fall into their hands by the natural force of
circumstances, by the inevitable necessity of the case. There
is no truth in political science more easy to comprehend,
more open to the view  of all, or more certainly known in
universal experience, than that the men who own the territories of a state will exercise a predominating influence over
the public affairs of such state.*  This is agreeable to the
constitution of human nature, and is confirmed by the concurrent testimony of all history.
The provision of the IIebrew constitution in reference to
the ownership of the soil, is that of my third supposition.
Mloses ordered, that the national domain should be so divided,
that the whole six hundred thousand free citizens should
have a full property in an equal part of it.t  And to render
this equality solid and lasting, the tenure was made inalienable, and the estates, thus originally settled upon each family,
were to descend by an indefeasable entail, in perpetual succession.:
The principle which lies at the bottom of this argument for
* England, it must be owned, is an exception to this remark. But this
is owing to peculiar circamstances. The enormous debt of England has
created a species of property called funded property,-which has all the
stability of landed possessions, and which is much more diffuse4 among
the people. The vast commercial and manufacturing wealth of England
is another cause of the diminished political influence of land. Hence the
predominant influence is no longer in the territorial property. The funded
property prevails over the landed, the boroughs over the counties.
t Numb. xxxiii. 54.:       Levit. xxv. 23.
26




402                COMMENTARIES ON THE
the political equality of the I-Iebrew citizens, is strongly developed, in its application to our own country, by one of our
ablest political writers.  "The agrarian in America," says
the elder Adams,* " is divided into the hands of the common
people in every state, in such a manner, that nineteen twentieths of the property would be in the hands of the commons,
let them appoint whom they might for chief magistrate and
senators. The sovereignty, then, in fact as well as theory,
must reside in the whole body of the people; and even an
hereditary king and nobility, who should not govern ac-ording to the public opinion, would infallibly be tumbled instantly
from their places."  Such was the opinion of /Mr. Adams in
regard to the nature and operation of this principle. IHe
held, that the sovereignty of a state is an inseparable attribute
of property in the soil. Lord Bacon and Iarrington were of
the same opinion. The former uses property and dominion
as convertible terms;t and the latter says expressly, that
empire follows the balance of property, whether lodged in
one, few, or many hands.:
The details of the agrarian law of M{oses will occupy our
attention in a subsequent part of this treatise. The reader,
however, is desired to mark, in passing, a few points in it,
evincing its great wisdom.  It made extreme poverty and
overgrown riches alike impossible, thus annihilating one of
the most prolific sources as well as powerful engines of ambition. With the denial of the means of luxury, it took away
all the ordinary incitements to it, in the example of a titled
and wealthy aristocracy. It gave to every member of the
body politic an interest in the soil, and consequently in the
maintenance of public order and the supremacy of law, which
* Defence, Letter 29.
t'' How shall the plough, then," he says, "' be kept in the hands of the
owners, and not mere hirelings! * * * How, but by the balance of
dominion, or property 3"
+ Prerogative of Pop. Gov. C. 3.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           403
he had not even the power to part with. It made the virtues
of industry and frugality necessary elements in every man's
character. Its tendency was to secure to all the citizens a
moderate independence, and to prevent those extremes of
opulence and destitution, which are the opprobrium of modern
civilization. Great inequality of wealth in a nation is a great
evil, to be avoided by the use of all just and prudent means.
It was a leading object with Moses to give to his constitution
such a form, as would tend to equalize the distribution of
property. Under his polity, the few could not revel in the
enjoyment of immense fortunes while the million were snffering from want. Misery was not the hereditary lot of one
class, nor boundless wealth of another. The govei'nment
watched over all, and cared for all alike. No citizen could
justly charge his poverty to its neglect.
The agrarian of Moses elevated labor to its just dignity,
and removed the odium, which adhered to it in all other ancient
states. It is an error, into which our best informed political
writers have fallen, to suppose, that, for the first time in the
history of the world, labor has taken its true position in our
country. It was as much fostered by the government, it was
as generally practised, and it was as honorable among the
ancient Hebrews, as it is even in New England. St. Paul
says, " if any man will not work, neither shall he eat."s  This
saying of the apostle was but the reflection of a common Hebrew sentiment, and shows in what estimation labor was held
by that people. Intelligent labor, manly labor, independent
labor, labor thinking, and acting, and accumulating for itself,
was the great substantial interest, on which the whole fabric
of Hebrew society rested. Such was Hebrew labor, and such
the position assigned to it by the Hebrew lawgiver.
But, not content with establishing originally a full equality
among the citizens, the constitution of Moses made provision
for its permanent continuance. With such jealous care dic
* 2 Thess. iii. 10.




404                COMMENTARIES ON THE
it watch, that the people might never moulder away, and be
lost to the state in the condition of slaves, that it provided
for a general periodical release of debts and servitudes;partially by the institution of the sabbatical year, but more
completely by tliat of the jubilee. No matter how often the
property had changed hands, at the return of the jubilee year,
it was restored, free of encumbrance, to the original owners
or their heirs.@  The Israelite, whom  calamity or improvidence had driven abroad, needed no longer to wander for want
of a home of his own to welcome him. This was a wise, as
well as benevolent provision of the constitution. It was admnirably suited to preserve a wholesome equality among the
citizens. The rich could not accumulate all the lands. The
fiftieth year, beyond which no lease could run, was always
approaching, with silent, but sure tread, to relax their tenacious grasp. However alienated, however unworthily sold,
however strongly conveyed to the purchaser an estate might
be, this long-expected day annulled the whole transaction,
and placed the debtor in the condition, which either himself
or his ancestor had enjoyed. At the return of this day, the
trumpet peal was heard, in street and field, from mountain
top and valley, throughout the length and breadth of the
land.t  The chains fell from the exulting slave. The burden
of debt, like that of Bunyan's Pilgrim, rolled off from shouldeis, long galled by its pressure. The family mansion and
the paternal estate again greeted eyes, from which misfortune,
through many a weary year, had  divorced them.  The
inequalities of condition, which the lapse of half a century
had produced, once more disappeared. Garlands of flowers
crowned all brows; and the universal gladness found vent in
music, feasting, and merriment.:
* Levit. xxv. 10, 13.     t Ibid. xxv. 9.
+ Godwyn's Moses and Aaron, 1. 3. c. 10. Jahn's Bib. Arch. Sect. 351.
A reflection of Lord Bacon, in his History of Henry VII. (p. 72.) is pertiJent here. He is commending the wisdom of the law, which required,




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.                 405O
A magistracy elected by the people, the public officer
chosen by the public voice, was another of those great principles, on which Moses founded his civil polity.
The magistrates are not properly the ministers of the
people. unless the people elect them. It is, therefore, a
fundamental maxim  in every popular government, that the
people should choose their ministers, that is to say, their
magistrates. The people need councillors of state and executive officers, as much as monarchs, perhaps even more than
they.  But they  cannot have a just confidence in these
officers, unless they have the choosing of them. And the
people, in every nation capable of freedom, are well qualified
to discharge this trust. Facts, obvious to sense, and to which
they cannot be strangers, are to  determine them  in their
choice.  The merits of their neighbors are things well known
to them.  "Should we doubt of the people's natural ability
in respect to the discernment of merit, we need only cast an
eye on the continual series of surprising elections made by
"that all houses of husbandry, that were used with twenty acres of ground,
or upwards, should be maintained and kept up forever, together with a
competent proportion of land, to be used and occupied with them, and in
no ways to be separated from them."  On this he observes: " The houses
being kept up, did of necessity enforce a dweller, and the proportion of
land for occupation being kept up, did of necessity enforce that dweller
not to be a beggar or cottager, but a man of some substance. This did
wonderfully concern the might and manhood of the kingdom, to have
farms, as it were, of a standard sufficient to maintain an able body out of
penury; and did, in effect, amortize [transfer as an inalienable possession]
a great part of the lands of the kingdom unto the hold and occupation of
the yeomanry, or middle people, of a condition between gentlemen and
cottagers, or peasants. Thus did the king sow hydra's teeth, whereupon,
according to the poet's fiction, should rise up armed men for the service of
the kingdom." This observation of a wise and able politician sets in a
striking light the wisdom of this part of the Hebrew constitution. If the
law, on which Bacon is here commenting, " did wonderfully concern the
mnight and manhood of the kingdom," how much more the agrarian of
Moses!




'I. 6               COMMENTARIES ON THE
the Athenians and Romans, which no one surely will attribute
to hazard."~  The people, therefore, though in the mass incapable of the administration of government, are, nevertheless,
capable of calling others to this office. They are qualified to
choose, though, as a general thing, not qualified to be chosen.
In their sentiments," said the great Edmund Burke, "the
people arle rarely mistaken."
The election by the Hebrew people of Jehovah himself to
be the civil head of their state, is a point, which has been
already established, in the introductory essay.t The proofs
need not be repeated here. No fact can be plainer, or more
certain, than that the judges, instituted at the suggestion of
Jethro, were chosen by the suffrages of all Israel. The direction of Moses to the people, upon that occasion, is very
explicit.  His words are, "Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make
thein rulers over you.": The meaning is," Do you elect the
proposed officers, and I will commission and induct theIn into
office." It is very observable, that these magistrates were to
be taken " out of all the people," and not from any privileged
class. The only qualifications for office required were, that
they should be " able men, such as fear God, men of truth,
hating covetousness,"~ " wise men, and understanding, and
known among their tribes." The possession of these high
attributes was enough; no other patent of nobility was required. MIr. Jefferson's test of official competency is expressed
in the three interrogatories, "Is he honest?  Is he capable 
Is he faithful?"  If he had added a fourth, " Does he fear
God?" he would have had the Mosaic test to a tittle.  Moses
demanded four qualifications in a civil ruler, viz. ability, integrity, fidelity, and piety.
When the land of Canaan was to be divided among the
tribes, Joshua addressed all Israel thus: C" Give out firom
* Montesq. Sp. of Laws, B. 2. C. 2.    t Pp. 47, 48.
X Dent. i. 13.                  ~ Exod. xviii. 21.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           407
umong you three men from each tribe, and I will send
theme,"  &c. " Give out from among you;" that is. " Select,
choose for yourselves."  When Jephthah was made judge, it
is expressly said, "The PEOPLE made him head and captain
over them."t  These instances, and others which might be
cited, prove, that the great principle, that rulers should be
elected by the ruled, that authority should emanate from
those over whom it is to be exercised, was fully embodied in
the Hebrew constitution.
A principle, closely allied to this, viz. that the people
should have an authoritative voice in the enlactment of the
laws, is another of those great ideas, which underlie the Hebrew government; and this principle, like the preceding one,
is fundamental in every popular government.
When Moses, on descending from the mount, rehearsed to
the people the laws which he had received from the Lord,
with one voice, they answered and said, " All the words that
the Lord has said, will we do.": What is this, but an acceptance by the nation of the constitution proposed to them?
The Hebrew constitution was adopted by the Hebrew people,
as truly as the American constitution was adopted by the
American people. " This adoption, by the Jewish nation, of
the laws, which Mloses brought from God, was repeated at
the death of Moses, and by a statute, once in seven years was
to be repeated ever after by the assembled nation. So that,
from generation to generation, once in seven years., the tribes
met in a great national convention, and solemnly ratified the
constitution. They took what might be called the freeman's
oath to observe that constitution."~  The government, then,
was, in a solid and just sense, a government of the people;
for the magistrates were chosen by their suffrages, and the
laws were enacted by their voice.
* Josh, xviii. 4.      f Judges xi. 11.
t Exod. xix. 8.        1 Beechers Works, vol. 1, p. 179.




408                CO[MMENTARIES ON THE
The responsibility of public officers to the people was the
seventh fundamental maximn of the Hebrew polity.
In proof of this the reader is referred to the closing scene
of Samnuel's public  administration. Tile aged statesman
resigns his authority to the convention of the people, by
whom it had been conferred. History records no sublimer
or more touching scene. HIe calls upon his constituents, if
any had been injured by his public acts, or knew of ally
abuse of the trusts confided to himr, to step forward and
accuse him.  With one voice they reply, " Thou hast injured,
oppressed, defrauded none."*
Several incidents, related in the history of the kings, confirm this view. When Saul was chosen king, a writing, limiting the royal'prerogative, was prepared by Samuel, and deposited in the sanctuary, where reference might afterwards be
made to it, in case of royal usurpation.t A similar writing
was exacted of his successors.:  Solomon, during the latter
period of his life, had reigned as a despot. When his son
mounted the throne, Judah and Benjamin  were the only
tribes, which acknowledged him. The other tribes offered to
submit t9 his authority, on conditions which were not accepted.
But when the young king rejected their terms, they rejected
him, chose a sovereign for themselves, and established a separate kingdom.~  These instances show, that the people held
their rulers to a stern responsibility for the manner in which
they discharged their pub;ic trusts.
All this was the action of the republican spirit of the
nation; a spirit, inspired, cherished, and sanctioned by the
constitution. Who can doubt whether it was a constitution,
intended for a free and self-governing community?
A  cheap, speedy, and impartial administration of justice
was another of those great ideas, on which Moses founded
his civil polity.
* 1 Sam. xii. 1-5.                      f Ibid. x. 25.
t2 Sam. v. 3. 1 Kings xii. 4; 2 Kings xi. 17.   1 Kings xii. 1 —20.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           409!lnder the Hebrew constitution, the poor and the weak
were not to be the victims of the rich and the strong. The
small as well as the great* were to be heard, and equal
justice awarded to all, without fear or favor. That terrible
and ruinous evil, "the law's delay," was unknown to the
Hebrew  jurisprudence.  Courts of various grades were
established, from  high courts of appeal down to those ordained for every town. " Judges and officers shalt thou
make thee in all thy gates,"t was.he constitutional provision
on this subject. To what a mi.ate subdivision the judiciary
system  was carried, appears from  the ordinance, which re,
quired, that there should be " rulers over thousands, rulers
over hundreds, rulers over fifties, and rulers over tens, who
should judge the people at all seasons.:  Care was thus
taken, that in suits and proceedings at law, every man should
have what was just and equal, without going far to seek it,
without waiting long to obtain it, and without paying an exorbitant price for it. Certainly, with a judiciary constituted
in this manner, justice could be administered promptly, while
provision was made against the evils of hasty decisions, in
the right of appeal to higher courts; in important cases,
even to the venerable council of seventy, composed of the
wisest, the gravest, the ablest, the most upright, and trustworthy men in the nation.~
Another vital principle of the Hebrew constitution was
peace.
A thirst of conquest, and the foul passions, which it implies
and engenders, had no place in the legislator's own bosom,
and were utterly repugnant to the spirit of his legislation.
It was a prime object of his polity to discountenance and repress a military spirit in the nation.
In the first place, his constitution made no provision for a
standing army; and a soldiery under pay was an innovation
* Deut. i. 17.    i Deut. xvi. 18.     t Ex. xviii. 21.
i Deut. vii. 8, 9.




410                 COMMENTARIES ON THE
long posterior to the time of Moses. The whole body of
citizens, holding their lands on condition of military service,
when required,* formed a national guard of defence.  Thus
the landholders (and every Israelite was a landholder) formed
the only soldiery, known to the 1Mosaic constitution.
In the second place, the intensely agricultural character of
the Hebrew government served to impress upon it an almost
equally pacific character. Light and darkness are scarcely
more repugnant to each ther, than husbandry and war.
Among the ancient Germans, as we learn from Tacitus and
COesar, the chiefs, in the general council of the nation, made
an annual distribution of the lands in the country.  The motive prompting to such a procedure was, that the thoughts of
the people might not be diverted from war to agriculture.
Deeply did those sagacious chieftains feel, for clearly did
they perceive, that permanent landed possessions, improved
habitations, and a too curious attention to domestic conveniences and comforts, would beget in the tillers of the soil an
affection for the spots they cultivated, which would produce
sentiments and manners, quite repugnant to their own
schemes of conquest and military aggrandizement.
Thirdly, the use of cavalry, at once the effect and the
cause of a passion for war, was prohibited by the constitution.t  On the occasion of a certain victory, when a large
number of the enemy's horses had fallen into his hands,
Joshua was directed by the oracle to "' hough," or hamstring
them, that is, to cut their thigh sinews.4  This was practised
* Judges v. 23.                  t Deut. xvii. 16.
f Joshua xi. 6. The object of " houghing" the horses was not, as most
expositors, following Kimchi and Bochart, have represented, to merely
lame them in the hind legs and let them go, but to kill them. A horse
can be hamstrung in an instant, and, as the operation cuts the artery of
the thigh, he soon dies of the wound, by bleeding to death. This plan is
still sometimes used by military commanders to render horses, which have
been taken in battle, and cannot be carried away. unserviceable to the
enemy.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           411
on similar occasions, even as late as the reign of David.*
The law against multiplying horses appears to have been
faithfully observed, till the proud ambition of Solomon swept
away this, in common with many other wholesome provisions
of the national constitution. In governments, which have
made conquest a leading object of pursuit, the principal
military force has consisted in cavalry, and this especially in
rude societies. In the infancy of the military art, the superiority of cavalry over infantry is very conspicuous. The
fate of battle depended on that part of the army, which
fought on horseback, or in chariots. It is obvious, that no
founder of an empire, in those early ages, who intended his
people for a career of conquest and military grandeur, would
or could have dispensed with cavalry in his armies. The
fact that Mloses forbade the use of this species of force, is a
proof that he designed his people for peaceful pursuits, and
not for military glory.
]But AMoses had  another motive for his prohibition of
cavalry. The political equality of all the citizens, as we
have seen under a former head, was a darling object with
him. But in all ancient nations, where cavalry was employed, the horsemen, being necessarily the wealthier members of the community, became also the more powerful.
The system threw the chief political power into the hands of
a few rich citizens, who could afford to mount and bring into.he field themselves and their dependants. This naturally
tended to the establishment of monarchical and aristocratical
governments. Moses could not but perceive this tendency,
and on this account, as well as on account of his repugnance to
an aggressive military policy, he excluded a mounted soldiery
from  the forces of the republic.  It is remarkable, how
speedily the substitution of the monarchical for the republican form of polity, led to the introduction and use of
cavalry in the Israelitish armies.
* 2 Sam. viii. 4.




412               COMMENTARIES ON THE
Fourthly, according to the testimony of Josephus, it was
required, except in the case of the Canaanitish nations, that,
previous to actual hostilities, heralds should be sent to the
enemy with proposals of peace; and not until negotiation
had failed, was force to be called in. This testimony is confirmed by a law contained in Deuteronomy 20: 10. Considerable light is also thrown upon the point, by what I will
venture to call a state paper of Jephthah. * It is a letter of
instructions to his ambassadors, directing them as to the
manner in which they should conduct a negotiation with
the king of the Ammonites. The instructions are drawn up
with an ability, force, and skill, which would not discredit
any statesman of modern times.
Another proof of the repugnance of Moses to aggressive
wars, and of the peaceful spirit of his general policy, may be
drawn from the law of the HIebrew festivals. Thrice every
year all the males were required to repair to the capital.t
With such a law in operation, how could a nation engage in
schemes of foreign conquest? The idea seems little less than
preposterous.
Finally, this view of the pacific character of the Hebrew
constitution is strengthened by a forcible argument of Michaelis,4 in which that learned writer undertakes to prove,
that the sin of David in numbering the people, which has so
puzzled the commentators, consisted, not in any ambitious
motions, hid in the secret chambers of his own heart, but in
openly aspiring at the establishment of a military government, and in attempting, with that view, to subject the whole
nation to martial regulations, to form a standing army, and
so to break clown and ride over one of the fundamental provisions of the constitution, —the many successful wars which
he had carried on having, in all likelihood, filled his mind
with the spirit of conquest.
* Judges xi. 12-27.            F xxxiv. 23.
$ Corn. on the Laws of Moses, Art. 174.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           413
In beautiful harmony with the peaceful genius of his institutes, was the conduct of Moses, whenever he wished to
march through the territories of other nations. Unlike the
mere military chieftain of ancient times, whose sole aim was
conquest and plunder, he always asked permission to do so,
promising to abstain from treading down the cornfields, and
to pay for every thing he consumed, not accepting even
water. Sihon himself was not conquered and despoiled of
his territories, because of his refusal to grant a passage
through them, nor because he marched an army of observation toward his frontier, for the Edomites had done the same
before, but because he proceeded beyond his frontier into the
wilderness, and, without provocation, attacked the Israelites
first.*
Let us pause here, for a moment, to contemplate the remarkable phenomenon, offered to our observation. What do
we behold? A man, whose deep sagacity, under the guidance of a divine illumination, " discerned the hollowness of
martial glory, in an age when battles were the business and
delight of nations; when hardly any thing was respected,
either in societies or men, in comparison with military fame;
and when public virtue and civil wisdom  dwindled into
nothing before the splendid sins of war."t  In such an age,
his penetrating genius saw, that the true elements of public
prosperity lay in the path of public tranquility; and that
the greatness of a nation consisted not in standing armies, in
menmorable victories, or in uncounted acres; but in the calm
virtues of industry, frugality, and beneficence; in the bloodless triumphs of disciplined intelligence; in the mild dignities,
which play around the domestic circle; and in the amount
of individual prosperity and happiness, spread through the
homes and hearts of the land. And was he not right in this
estimate?   Of all the evils, which afflict humanity, the
greatest in magnitude, the most injurious in its moral influx Numb. xx. 14-21; xxi. 21-23.  t Christian Examiner for Sept. 1836.




414                COMMENTARIES ON THE
ences, the most repugnant to christianity, and the most expensive of money, is war. How, then, can we sufficiently
admire the wisdom of a lawgiver, who, in an age of barbarism and war, established a government upon the broad principles of equity and peace? In vain does the imagination
essay to follow, in all their amplitude and variety, the
streams of happiness, which shall gush forth, as from a thousand fountains, when war shall never again unfurl his crimson banner to the breeze, nor imprint his bloody footsteps
upon the earth. Then shall religion, learning, social order,
and regulated liberty become the inheritance of the race.
Humanity shall receive purer impulses. Arts shall flourish,
and science extend her enriching victories. Plenty and contentment shall become the general lot. Piety, that plant of
renown, the fairest flower that bloomed in the abode of
primeval innocence, shall again strike deep its roots into the
human heart.  And the broad  earth, now  scathed  and
blighted by the curse of its offended maker, shall again smile
in the freshness and beauty of Eden.
The doctrine that agriculture constitutes the best basis of
the prosperity and happiness of a state, was the tenth fundamental principle of the Mosaic polity.
Moses labored to impress upon his people the conviction,
that their country was best adapted to agriculture, and that
agriculture was most favorable to its to-ue and lasting prosperity.*  Ie represented it as a land flowing with milk and
honey; a land of brooks of water, of fountains, and of depths
that spring out of valleys and hills; a land of wheat, and
barley, and vines, and fig-trees, and pomegranates; a land of
oil-olive and honey; a land that drank liberally of the river
of heaven, and wherein bread should be eaten without scarceness.t  Niothing can be plainer, than that it was on agriculture alone, taken in its broadest sense, so as to include the
culture of vineyards, olive grounds, and gardens, that Moses
* Christian Examiner for Sept. 1836. t Ex. iii. 8: Deut. i. 25, viii. 7-10.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.              415
saw fit to lay the foundation of the Israelitish state.*  By a
provision in the constitution, before explained, no Israelite
could be born, who did not inherit a piece of land from his
progenitors.
Country life has inspired the genius, and tuned the lyre, of
mnany a rural bard. Their smiling pictures have lent new
charms to nature herself, and have inspired, in many hearts,
a taste for rural scenes and labors. But agriculture presents
itself to us under a point of view more positive and practical.t
It is the parent art, the paramount interest, of civilized society.  The great pursuit of man is agriculture.  It is the nurse
of the human race. It has principles which elevate it to the
rank of a science, a noble and comprehensive science. In
the improvement of domestic animals and the fertilization of
soils, the most abstruse principles of physiology and chemistry
must be consulted. The principles of natural philosophy,
also, have an equal relation to agriculture; for there is not a
change of the seasons or the wind, there is not a fall of rain
or of snow-, there is not a fog or a dew, which does not affect
some one or more of the manifold operations of the farmer.T
The relation of science to agriculture is close and vital.  It
is an error to suppose, that the whole education of a farmer
consists in knowing how to plough and sow and reap, the rest
being left to the earth, the seasons, good fortune, and providence. The nature of soils and plants, the food they require,
and the best methods of supplying it, are objects worthy of
an earnest study. In a word, farming is a science, whose
principles must be investigated, mastered, and skilfully ap.
plied, in order to insure profitable crops. There is no other
pursuit, in which so many of the laws of nature must be
understood and consulted, as in the cultivation of the earth.
What, then, shall we think of those ancient nations, which
* Mich. Com. on Laws of Mos. Art. 41.
t Salv. Hist. Inst. Mos. 1. 3. C. 4.
$ Wadsworth's Add. to the N. Y. Ag. Society.




l fi 0COMMENTARIES ON THE
treated agriculture as a servile profession, and refused to the
tillers of the soil a rank among the citizens of the state?
What shall we say of those Greek philosophers and legislators, who abandoned to slaves and the dregs of the people the
culture of the lands?  Both Plato* and Aristotlet required
slaves to till the land.  In many of the states of Greece, agriculture was a servile profession.  The inhabitants of conquered countries were compelled to practise it, while the citizells found employment in gymnastic and military exercises,
forming, as Montesquieu says, a society of wrestlers and
boxers.  Thus the soil was tilled by the Helots among the
Laced aemonians, by the Periecians among the Cretans, by the
Penestes among the Thessalians, and by other conquered people in other republics.:
Not thus did the Hebrew  lawgiver think  and act.  He
made agriculture the great channel of Hebrew  industry.
Doubtless, the circumstances of the Hebrew people and the
grand design of their polity had an influence over this direction. Still, it cannot be doubted, that Moses regarded agriculture as, in itself, the most useful and the most honorable of
employments.
The honor accorded by a lawgiver to any pursuit is a sure
test of the esteem in which he holds it; and the most effectual means of causing any branch of industry to flourish
among a people, is to honor it. Apply this test to agriculture
among the Hebrews, and what is the resultS  We see the
same men passing from the labors of the field to the exercise
of the highest public functions, and returning again to their
* De Legibus, 1. 5.
t Pol. 1. 7, C. 10. It is true, indeed, that Aristotle, in another place
says, that the best republics were those, in which the citizens themselves
tilled the land; but this, as Montesquieu observes, was brought about by
the change of the ancient governments, which were become democratic;
whereas, in earlier times the cities of Greece were subject to an aristocratic
government.
4 Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws, B. 4, C. 8.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.                417
private toils. Even after his elevation to the royal dignity,
Saul goes back to the labors of husbandry.*  Elijah casts his
prophetic mantle upon Elisha, when the latter is engaged in
ploughing.t  David is taken from  the sheepfold, to fill the
throne of l-is country, and to become the leader and shepherd
of the people.: The highest proof of the devotion of a
people to agriculture, and of its flourishing condition, is the
increase of population; since, among an agricultural people,
this will generally be in proportion to the increased means of
subsistence. ]But nowhere, in the whole history of mankind,
has an equal extent of territory given birth and sustenance
to a population, as numerous as that of ancient Palestine.~
The figures of the prophets attest the zeal of the Hebrews in
preparing their soil, in removing stones and weeds  and in
surrounding their fields with walls and hedges.
Small proprietorships and the cultivation of all the territories of the state by the actual owners, was the policy of the
I-ebrew laws. Let us inquire into the effect of this policy on
the social condition and general welfare of a country.
Under the system  of small ownerships, Attica reached the
height of her prosperity, but when Herodes Atticus became
universal proprietor, she sank to poverty and misery.  We
look at Rome under Servins, and we see a vast body of small
proprietors, enriching themselves by the cultivation of their
own lands.11 We look again, and see universal poverty.
Immense tracts are now in the hands of the Scipios and
Pompeys, who have replaced the numerous small, but pros1 Sam. xi. 5.                  t1 Kings xix. 19.: 1 Sam. xvi. 11, 12.           ~ See B. 1, C. 9, of this work.
I Curius Dentatus once said to his soldiers, when they insisted on a
larger division of the conquered lands: " God forbid, that a citizen should
look upon that as a small piece of land, which is sufficient to support a
man." (Plutarch's Lives.) He declared that man a pernicious citizen, who
did not find seven acres sufficient for his subsistence. Seven acres was the
number fixed by law for each Roman on the expulsion of the kings.
(Pliny in Anthon's Class. Diet. Art. Curius.)
27




418               COMMENTARIES ON THE
perous proprietors. The same scenes have, in modern times,
been re-enacted in the south of Spain. When the industrious
MIoors held that country, the lands were divided and worked.
by the owners, who enriched both themselves and the state.
[But since these industrious cultivators of their own estates
have been succeeded, in the ownership of the soil, by a few
princely grandees, the most fertile territories, which the sun
visits in his course, are abandoned, I had almost said, to
sterility and desolation.*  Thus has it been everywhere and
always. General wealth and comfort have increased in proportion to the division of the land.
The condition of the several sections of our own country
confirms this view. W~here do we see competence, domestic
comfort, industry, intelligence, and manly dignity most extensively diffused among the masses? In those portions,
where the land is divided into small farms, and every nman
works his own estate. The' introduction of slavery into
Georgia was owing to the system  of large proprietorships.
The fatal influence of cultivation by tenantry compelled a
resort to slave labor, at a time when slavery was abhorrent to
the feelings of the inhabitants, as well as to the principle on
which the colony had been founded.t
But the most remarkable exemplification of the fruits of
the two systems of large and small proprietorships is seen in
the comparative condition of England and France. In the
united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a population of twenty-six millions, the number of landed proprietors
does not exceed eighty-five thousand. In France, with a
population of thirty-four millions, the landholders are five
and a half millions. Yet the aggregate wealth of Britain is
greater than that of France. The rental of the former country
exceeds that of the latter by about one-third.
The effect of this state of things on the social condition
V Carey's Past, Present, and Future, C. 4.
i North American Review for July, 1848.




LATWS OF THE ANCIENT IIEBREWS.           419
of the tw) countries is well worthy of our study. Great
Britain has a million and a half of public paupers, or one in
eleven of her whole population; and she expends thirty-five
millions of dollars annually for their maintenance.  France,
with double her population, has only a little more than a
third of this number, or one in fifty of her whole population;
and the sum expended on their support is less than two million dollars per annum, being about one twentieth of the cost
of English pauperism. Great Britain and Ireland together
contain fourteen millions of human beings, whose utmost
possible earnings fall short, by about one fourth, of what it
would cost her to maintain the same persons in the poorhouses, notwithstanding a rigid system of economy is practised in those establishments. The consequence of all this is,
that the body of the British working people is fast sinking
into a state, to which there has hardly ever been a parallel.
At Stockport Assizes, in the autumn of 1841, a father and
mother were arraigned and convicted of poisoning three ot
their children, to defraud a burial society of 31. 8s., due on
the death of each child. It was whispered at the time, that
the public authorities hinted that this case -might not be a
solitary one, and perhaps it would be best not to probe matters too deeply in that direction.  " Such instances are like
the highest mountain apex emerged into view, under which
lies a whole mountain region not yet emerged." Statements,
like those contained in this paragraph, would be incredible,
if their authenticity did not rest on unimpeachable testimony.*  The English nation is richer than any nation ever
was before; and yet half her people are starving. The fable
of Tantalus is here a reality.  With  a soil blooming in
beauty and waving with yellow harvests, with a commerce
whitening every sea, with workshops studding all her terri* The authorities relied on for these statements are parliamentary re.
ports, cited in three several articles in the North American Review for
the years 1847 and 1848.




420               COMM5IENTARIES ON THE
tory, with industrial implements and mechanical skill unnlatched, and in the midst of plenty such as earth has seen
never, her people perish froin hunoger.  It is as if some demon had covered the land with his enchantments.
Let us now turn our regards to France, to see the effect of
the opposite system of agriculture; that system in which the
lands are minutely subdivided, and, for the most part, worked
by those who own them. The French people are less educated, less intelligent, less skilful, and less industrious, than
the English. They ought, therefore, to be in circumstances
of greater destitution and misery; and they undoubtedly
were so, before the revolution of 1789. At that time the
minute division of landed property commenced. Since then,
wages have slowly, but steadily increased, and the social
condition of the people has advanced in the same ratio. Rye
and wheat flour have superseded buckwheat and oatmeal.
The dress of the laboring classes has improved. Their houses
are better built, better lighted, better warmed, and better
furnished.  And, while the rate of wages has increased,
bread and clothing have been cheaper; which is a sure proof
of the growing prosperity and comfort of the common people. There is pauperism in France undoubtedly; but in the
rural districts it is trifling, and the whole amount is but
little, when compared with the enormous aggregate of it in
England.*
Whence this difference? What is the cause of the general
misery of the laboring classes in England, and the general
well-being of the same classes in France? They have their
roots in the respective systems of landed property in the two
countries. To a great extent, they are the result, in the one
case, of large, in the other, of small proprietorships. The
average size of landed estates in England is eight hundred
and eighty acres, while in France it is only twenty acres.
"The profit of the earth is for all" was a Hebrew maxim,
* See note to preceding page.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            421
which grew into a proverb. The monopoly of the soil is a
sore evil. It makes the many the slaves of the few. It produces ignorance, improvidence, destitution, turbulence, and
crime. It is essential to the progress of -man, that he be unshackled, that his faculties have free play. But this can
never be, unless the earth be owned by those who till it.
Ownership of the soil will give tone to the mind. vigor to the
body, and earnestness to industry. As well might one circle
an oak with iron bands, and expect it to unfold its majestic
proportions, as to cramp the human mind by unequal inrstitutions and an oppressive distribution of land, and then
expect a full development of its powers, and a happy state of
society. "a As the attraction of gravity is the great principle
of motion in the material world, so the possession of the
earth in fee simple by the cultivator, is the great principle
of action in the moral world. Nearly all the political evils,
which have afflicted mankind, have resulted from  the unrighteous monopoly of the earth; and the predicted renovation can never be accomplished, until, to some extent, this
monopoly has passed away, and the earth is extensively
tilled by the independent owners of the soil.*'@   Great proprietorships are the scourge of any country. All history
attests this truth.  The multiplication of farms, and their
cultivation by the actual owners, is the dictate of true political wisdom. It is this, which peoples the country, and even
the cities. It is this, which elevates the masses. It is this,
which confers dignity upon the common people. It is this,
which stimulates industry, quickens genius, and developes
the resources of a state. It is this, which gives true freedom
and independence to a nation. And this, to the broadest
extent ever known in practical legislation, was the policy of
Mloses.
These observations will, perhaps, be sufficient to establish
* Beecher's Works, vol. 1, p. 318.




422               COMMENTARIES ON THE
the wisdom of the HIebrew constitution in its partition of the
territories of the republic. Let us now see what can be said
in regard to the policy of founding a state on agriculture
alone. I shall say nothing here of the special design of the
I-Hebrew  institution, but shall confine my inquiries to the
point of general legislative policy.
It must be confessed, as Mllichaelis* has observed, that the
extreme indifference of lMoses to foreign and maritime commerce is not a little remarkable. To some of the politicians
of our dlay, this will seem little short of an absurdity. Yet
it may be, that some erroneous notion lies at the bottom of
their wonder. The wealth acquired by Holland and Great
Britain, by means of foreign trade, is so striking, that many
are apt to imagine, that commerce alone is the true source of
national prosperity, and that it is the greatest benefit which
a legislator can confer upon a people. The mere name commerce fascinates their imagination, and seems almost to incapacitate them for sober reflection and comparison. In the
delirium  of their golden dreams, they forget, that it may
prove the ruin of both public and private prosperity; as
awhen too many superfluous commodities are imported, and
the nation is thereby plunged into the mire of foreign indebtedness.
A. main cause of the overvaluation of commercial as compared with agricultural pursuits, I imagine to be this, that the
gains of commerce lie more upon the surface, and are more
open to the general observation, while those of agriculture
are of a retiring nature, and seldom obtrude themselves on
public notice. It will not, therefore, be impertinent to enter
somewhat into detail on this point, with the view of showing
the superior importance of the cultivation of the earth, as a
means of national prosperity, and so of vindicating the wisdorn of Moses in founding upon it his civil polity.
Great Britain is the most commercial nation on the globe.
* Corn. on Laws of Mos. Art. 39.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HE'BREWS.            423
Her trade with the United States is nearly twofold that which
she carries on with any other country. Yet the entire annual
movement of this commerce both ways about equals in value
the crop of oats and beans in the former country. The whole
foreign commerce of Britain, in pursuit of which she over
spreads the ocean Evith her fleets, and plants her colonies inll
the most distant islands, is actually less in value, than the
annual grass crop of the British isles.* The breadstuffs,
annually extracted from our own soil, amount to more thail
eight hundred million bushels, and their value is triple that
of the aggregate exports and imports of the whole country.
Our grass crop exceeds in value the whole outward and inward movement of our foreign commerce.. The annual Indian
corn crop of Tennessee and Kentucky reaches one hundred
and twenty million bushels, and is worth as much as all our
exports to Great Britain and France. What is not a little
remarkable, the corn crop of these two states exactly equals,
while the agricultural productions of the single state of New
York greatly exceeds in value, the entire cotton crop grown in
all the states and territories of this union.t
The instability of commercial pursuits, and the greater certainty of the ultimate rewards of agricultural labor, are
worthy of consideration here. The prizes in commerce are
comparatively few. While one man rises, multitudes sink.
The late /Mr. Gallatin instituted researches upon this point,
and arrived at results, which seem almost incredible.  I have
scarcely the courage to repeat them, even under the shelter
of such a name. According to this distinguished statesman
and philosopher, the fortunate individuals, who attain wealth
* Address of Edward Everett before an Agricultural Meeting in England.
t These statistics may not be exactly accurate at the present time. The
paragraph containing them was written in 1842, and its statements are
founded on the Report of the Patent Office for the previous year.




424                COMMENTARIES ON THE
by trade and commerce, are less than ten per cent of the
whole number, who engage in such pursuits.
The physical and moral influences of agriculture ought not
to be overlooked, in estimating the wisdom of a lawgiver,
who has seen fit to found his polity upon it. It is the nurse
of health, industry, temperance, cheerfulness, and frugality;
of simple manners and pure morals; of patriotism  and the
domestic virtues; and, above all, of that sturdy independence,
without which a man is not a man, but the mere slave, or
plaything, of his more cunning fellows. Agriculture tends to
produce and cherish a spirit of equality and sympathy.
Buying and selling are the chief business of cities, the giving
and receiving of wages a transaction of hourly occurrence.
This produces a collision of interests and feelings, which necessarily begets a spirit of caste, and checks the current of
sympathy. But there are comparatively few of these repelling influences in country life. The man who owns fifty acres,
and the man who owns a thousand, live side by side, on terms
of mutual esteem  and friendship.  Both, if they are equally
entitled to it, have an equal share in the public respect. Both
feel and own the bond, that unites them in the cultivation of
the earth.
Agriculture begets and strengthens love of country. The
heart of the husbandman is bound to the fields, on which he
bestows his labor. The soil, which responds to his industry
by clothing itself in beauty and riches, has a place in his
affections. Especially, the circumstance, that his possession
has come down to him through a long line of honored ancestors, greatly strengthens the attachment, which he feels both
to his home and his country.*
The agricultural interest is, in the highest degree, conservative in its nature and action. It is the great antagonist of
that mad spirit of radicalism  and revolutionary innovation,
which is the most terrible enemy of popular institutions.
* Mathew's Bib. and Civ. Gov. Lect. 2.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            425
This has long ago been observed by Aristutle. "IHusbandry," he says, " is the best stuff of a commonwealth, such a
one being the most devoted to liberty, and the least subject
to innovation or turbulence." The same thing is noticed by
Harrington. "Tillage," he observes, "bringing up a good
soldiery, brings up a good commonwealth; for where the
owner of the plough comes to have the sword too, he will
use it in defence of his own. The plough in the hands of the
owner produces the most innocent and steady genius of a
commonwealth."*
It is in the scenes and occupations of country life, that the
mind is most tranquil, sober, and unclouded.  It is in such
an atmosphere, that it can discern most clearly the relations
of things, and look beyond the events of a day. From amid
the deep calm of rural pursuits, free states have drawn many
of their most illustrious patriots and civilians.t The influence
of agriculture, therefore, is rather favorable, than adverse, to
those exalted and commanding civil qualities, which form
the consummate statesman. A Hebrew  farmer was sumnoned from the quiet of a pastoral life on the distant plains
of Midian, to become the founder and lawgiver of a mighty
republic. A Roman farmer was called from his plough to
the helm of state, at a crisis of imminent peril to his country's welfare.  And an American farmer led the revolutionary armies to victory, and secured for his grateful and
admiring countrymen the blessings of liberty, independence,
and self-government.
In a word, this great business, the cultivation of the earth,
lies, so far as any branch of human industry can be said to
lie, at the foundation of all that is important and valuable in
civil society. And if, as Mr. Webstert once said, if it was
for his sins that man was condemned to till the ground, it
* Oceana, p. 30.          t Mat. Bib. and Civ. Gov Lect. 2.
$ Address at Rochester to the N. Y. Agricultural Society.




426               COMMENTARIES ON THE
was the most merciful judgment that almighty benignity
could have inflicted upon him.
I promised, in considering the expediency of founding a
state on agriculture, to confine myself to the point of general
legislative policy. Let me recal that promise, so far as just
to advert to the more immediate reasons, which may be supposed to have moved Moses to give no encouragement to
commerce. They were probably such as these: 1. Commerce
would tend to counteract the first and highest principle of his
polity, since it would lead the Israelites to contract intimacies
with foreign nations, which could hardly fail to draw them
into idolatry. 2. It would entice too many citizens to leave
their own country and settle in foreign lands, which would
weaken the sentiment of patriotism, and at last cause them
to forget their relations and their home. The merchant is,
in some sense, a citizen of the world, and has no such ties,
either of interest or affection, binding him to his native land,
as the man, who lives upon his hereditary farm. 3. It would
introduce luxurious tastes and habits, before the nation was
rich enough to bear the expense of their indulgence. Comnmerce is more apt to be hurtfill, than beneficial, in the infancy
of a state. 4. Maritime commerce would be likely to stir up
enemies, against whom they could not successfully contend,
without special divine assistance, which it would be irrational
to expect, when engaged in pursuits, prejudicial to true religion. It would, in all probability, have embroiled them
with the Sidonians and Tyrians, just as, in modern times, we
have seen France incurring the irreconcileable enmity of
England and Holland, by the establishment of an East India
trading company. 5. The vicinity of these two commercial
nations, and the constant passage of Asiatic trading caravans
to Egypt, secured to the Israelites all the most important advantages of foreign commerce.*
I should, however, fail to do justice to the Mosaic.egisla* See on this subject Mich. Com. on the Laws of Mos. Art. 39.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           42T
tion, if I were to leave this topic, without adverting to one
branch of commerce, with which no nation can dispense
without essential detriment to its prosperity-I mean a domestic trade, carried on between the different parts of the
same country. For such an internal commerce, provision
was made in the national festivals, whereby thrice every
year the entire male population of Palestine was assembled
at Jerusalem. Religious conventions of the kind have generally been made subservient to the purposes of commerce.
The fairs, so common in Germany, originated at public
masses, to which the people flocked from every quarter. The
holy pilgrimages to Mecca gave a strong impulse to the commerce of Arabia. In a similar way the interests of internal
trade were consulted in the institutes of Moses. Yet it was
done in such a manner, that the carrying of it on could not
become a distinct employment, but would merely occupy the
weeks of leisure fiom the toils of agriculture:-before the
harvest at the feast of the passover; after harvest at the feast
of pentecost; and on the conclusion of the vintage, at the
feast of tabernacles.*
As for foreign commerce, to expand a little hint contained in
the last paragraph but one, the country of the Hebrews was
so situated, that they could enjoy its advantages, without engaging in it themselves.  The Phenician cities,, Tyre and
Sidon, were on their borders, ready to supply them with all
they wanted in return for their agricultural productions.
The rich caravans of the desert continually swept by them,
affording them, without expense or hazard to themselves, the
benefit of the enterprize of foreign nations. Moses endeavored
to make his countrymen content under their vines and fig
trees, and to convince them, that in these unambitious cares
and labors they would find the most solid prosperity and
happiness. And was he not right in this judgment? It is
true, that his hopes were disappointed.  This unaspiring
* Mich. Corn. on the Laws of Mos. Art. 39.




428               COMMENTARIES ON THE
emplcyment was too quiet for his countrymen, when war was
the business of the rest of the world. But the event proved
the truth of his principles and predictions. Solomon laid
Ophir and Tarshish, the East and West Indies of his day,
under contribution. He had his harbors in the Mediterranean
and the Red Sea. He built Tadmor in the desert, now  a
marble wilderness, as a station for his caravans. Wealth
flowed in through a thousand channels. But as the prophetic
eye of Mloses had foreseen, and his prophetic voice forewarned,
it proved the ruin of his country. It became a golden weight,
which ground its free institutions to the dust.*
But, although Moses made no laws favoring foreign commerce, his legislation was far from being chargeable with the
illiberality of the Greek and Roman laws, or the bigotry of
the early canonists. The profession of a shopkeeper was
infamous among the Greeks, as it obliged a citizen to wait on
a slave or a stranger.t This was more than the haughty
spirit of Grecian liberty could brook. Hence Plato, in his
laws,: makes it a criminal offence in a citizen to concern himself with trade, and orders such an one to be punished. The
civil law treated commerce as a dishonorable occupation, and
forbade the exercise of it to persons of birth, rank, or fortune.
The Claudian law forbade the senators to have any ship at
sea, which held more than forty bushels.~  The canon law
went farther still, and declared commerce inconsistent with
christianity. At the council of Melfi, under Pope Urban II.
in the year 1090, the canonists decreed, that it was impossible, with a safe conscience, to exercise the trade of a merchant.
The decree was to the effect, that a merchant could rarely, if
ever, pursue a conduct pleasing to God; that no christian
ought to become a merchant; and that if any of the faithful
* See an able article on Moses and his Institutions in the Christian Examiner for Sept. 1836.,      qTionteq. Sp. of Laws, B. 4, C. 8.
B,, -2 ^e         QLiv. B. 21.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           429
meddled with merchandise, he should be excluded from the
pale of the church.*
Again, the Hebrew state was founded on the industry of
all the citizens. This was the eleventh of those fundamental
principles, which lay at the basis of the constitution.
This idea has been partially developed already; but it was
so vital to the Hebrew legislation, that it deserves a distinct
consideration. WVe have seen that a leading object of Moses
was to make the country of the Hebrews a vast and busy
scene of rural industry. INow, the culture of the earth requires a great number and variety of implements; and a soil
of but moderate fertility will afford sustenance to a much
larger population than is required for its tillage. In these
two ideas, behold the germ of an effective system of mechanical industry, and a powerful stimulus to the cultivation and
development of mechanical skill.
The lawgiver's first care was the cultivation of the land;
his next to provide, that the people might be conveniently
and comfortably lodged. He enjoined upon all to labor, that
they might not only eat and be satisfied, but that they might
also build goodly houses, and dwell therein.t The counsel of
Solomon was but an echo of this Mosaic law': " Prepare thy
work without, and make it fit for thyself in the field; and
afterwards build thine house."'
The various objects of necessity, convenience, and luxury,
enumerated in the sacred books, prove to us, that industry
and the arts were far from being in a depressed state among
the Hebrews. They made divers stuffs of wool, cotton, goat's
hair, and some say of silk.~ The art of dyeing was in use
among them, and reached a high perfection. Their principal
colors were blue, crimson, purple, and yellow, which were
obtained from vegetables, fishes, and minerals. They labored
especially to impart a snowy whiteness to their fabrics used
* Blackstone's Com. B. 1. C. 7.
t Deut. viii. 12.  $ Prov. xxiv. 27.  i Ex. xxxix.




430                COMMENTARIES ON THE
for clothing.  Righ stuffs, interwoven with threads of gold,
and adorned with fringes of variegated colors, presented to
the eye designs of various sorts.*
In the construction of the tabernacle, we read of fine
twined linen, and of broad tapestries, covered with beautiful
figures of delicate workmanship, and joined to each other by
clasps of gold. The details in Exodus respecting the proportions of the various pieces, which formed the carpentry of
this portable temple, and the numerous articles which constituted its furniture, indicate the use of a great number of
instruments, proper for dividing and measuring.t
Together with the arts of carpentry, founding and pottery,
the Israelites brought from Egypt the art of engraving precious stones, the art of working metals, the art of inlaying in
gold, and the art of moulding. The curtains of the tabernacle with their ornaments, the ark overlaid with gold, the
mercy-seat with its cherubim, the table of show-bread with
its furniture, the golden candlestick, the vail, the altars of
burnt offering and incense, the ephod., with its curious girdle,
the breastplate with its mysterious urim  and thummim, the
priestly vestments, and all the other paraphernalia of the
royal tent, must have required, for their construction, a high
degree of mechanical ingenuity.:
In the reign of Solomon the arts shone out in full effulgence. TIe temple, the royal palaces, their rich furniture,
superb gardens, beautiful works in gold and ivory, splendid
concerts of vocal and instrumental music, roads multiplied
and handsomely paved, towns and fortresses built and repaired, and the great marble city of Palmyra, starting into life
like a vision of beauty, attest the encouragement afforded to
the arts by that munificent monarch.~
The indignant rebuke of the prophet Amos to the rich and
luxurious idlers of his day, is a proof both of the progress of
* Salv. Inst. de Moise, 1. 3, c. 5.   t Ibid. 1. 3, c. 5.
~'bid. t. 3, c. 5,                  Ibid. 1. 3, c. 5.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           431
Jewish art and of the stern demand for labor, which the
Jewish law made upon all. " Woe to them that are at ease
in Zion; *: * that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat the lambs of the flock,
and the calves out of the midst of the stall; that chant to
the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments
of music, like David; that drink wine in bowls, and anoint
themselves with the chief ointments; but they are not grieved
for the affliction of Joseph."*
Isaiah, complaining of the luxury of the daughters of Zion,
enumerates more than twenty articles of their toilet, all costly
or elegant, which are as clear an indication of the state of
Jewish art, as they are of the pride and ostentation of the
Jewish ladies: "In that day the Lord will take away the
bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and
their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, the chains,
and the bracelets, and the mufflers, the bonnets, and the
ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets,
and the ear-rings, the rings and the nose jewels, the changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and
the crisping pins, the glasses and the fine linen, and the
hoods and the vails."'t
At the time of the captivity, artists abounded in Jerusalem. Of ten thousand heads of families, carried to Babylon
at the first invasion, one thousand were workmen in wood
and in metals. Winkelman, in his history of art, has made
the following observation on this fact: " WVe are but slightly
acquainted with art among the Hebrew people; nevertheless,
it must have reached a certain degree of perfection, at least
in design and finish. Among the artists whom Nebuchadnezzar carried captive from  the single city of Jerusalem,
were a thousand, skilled in inlaid work. It would be difficult to find as many in the largest of our modern cities."t
It is sometimes made matter of reproach against the Ite* Amos vi. 1-6.   t Is. iii. 18-23.    J Salv. 1. 3, c. 5.




432               COMMENTARIES ON THE
brews, that they left none of those great monuments like the
pyramids and temples of Egypt, which struggle successfully
against the devastations of time. IHow little do such persons
appreciate the true grandeur of nations! There were not
slaves in Palestine to erect such ostentations structures; and
free labor employs itself about things more useful. Voltaire
himself takes notice of this fact. He regards the pyramids
as a proof of the slavery of the Egyptians; and says that
nothing could constrain a free people to rear such masses.
The temple, the palace of their heavenly king, is the only
monumental edifice, of which the memory has been preserved, This shared the fate of the Jewish people; and,
after having served as a fortress in the last efforts of liberty,
the nation and the temple fell together.*
Since that day the fate of the Jewish people has been one
of almost unmingled bitterness. " Scattered and pealed"
has been deeply engraved upon its forehead. But they have
always displayed much of the energy, activity, and industrious application to business, which distinguished their remote ancestors. This even their worst enemies have been
compelled to acknowledge. An old Spanish chronicler, with
an ingenuousness which would be amusing, if it did not recal
painful memories, says of them: " This portion of humanity
was at least good to awaken industry and to pay imposts."t
How far these permanent elements of industry may have
been the result of the exact and positive spirit of their ancient
law, it is impossible now to trace with distinctness. I do not
affirm, but I suggest for reflection, whether the economy, the
ability, the tenacity, and the energy of the modern Jews, are
not due to some profound cause, which is to be sought in the
great principles of their original institution.
Again, the inviolability of private property, and the sacredness of the family relation, are principles, which entered
essentially into the Hebrew constitution.
* Salv. 1. 3, c. 5.       Ibid. 1. 3. 5.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          433
Tt cannot be necessary to adduce, at any length, the proof
of this proposition, for no one can open tile Pentateuch,
without meeting it on every page. The whole scope of the
second table of the decalogue is to guard the institution of
the family and the institution of property. The right and the
advantage of private property are everywhere assumed by
Maoses. To facilitate its increase, to regulate its use, and to
provide for its distribution are leading objects of his law. In
this the Hebrew legislator does but echo a sentiment common
to all just and wise lawgivers. A political community could
not be organized, except upon a basis of individual property
and right. This is the only bond, strong enough to hold such
an association together. Not even a savage tribe could live
together without property. The ownership by each member
of the body politic of his tools, arms, clothing, and habitation,
is essential to the rudest form of civil society. None would
be willing to till the ground, if others had an equal right with
him to gather the harvest. None would even erect a hut, if
his next neighbor might enter and take possession the moment
it was finished. If the idle and the industrious, if those who
waste and those who save, have the same rights, and are to
share alike in the fruits of the earth and the products of labor,
then prudence, frugality, thrift, and provision for the future
become simple impossibilities. All this is recognized in the
legislation of Moses. That legislation has no sympathy with
a social theory, which has of late gained some currency in
the world; a theory, which places activity, industry, ability,
and virtue, upon the same level with indolence, idleness, incapacity, and vice; a theory, which begins by offering a premium for ignorance and incompetency, and which must end
in the annihilation of all industry, all emulation, and every
opening faculty. Neither has the legislation of Moses any
sympathy with another principle, which. has a prevalence
perhaps still more extensive,-I mean the principle of a separation of the pecuniary interests of the husband and wife.
28




434               COMMENTARIES ON THE
The husband and wife are regarded by the Mosaic law as one
person, having, as it were, but one soul, one interest, one will.
Doubtless the doctrine, that the man is the head of the
woman, and that the property of the latter becomes, as a
result of the nuptial tie, part and parcel of that of the former,
is sometimes productive of much hardship and suffering; but
who, that reflects on the frailties and passions of human nature, can doubt, that the contrary doctrine, adopted and applied as a practical principle of legislation, would be attended
with evils far greater, both in number and magnitude?
The spirit of the 3M/osaic law is opposed to the modern radicalism of woman's rights; a radicalism, which boldly avows
its purpose of " subverting the existing order of society and
dissolving the existing social compact." MIoses did not favor
the manhood of woman. " Unto the woman he said, X * *
thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over
thee."" Paul interprets this precept, when he says of women,
6' It is not permitted to them to speak in the churches; but
they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the
law."t  lie speaks in the very spirit of Moses, when he says,
"The man is the head of the woman;"t "wives, submit
yourselves unto your own husbands;"a}  "Adam  was first
formed, then Eve."ll  Man has a mission, and so has woman,
to which the wisdom that never errs, has adapted the bodily
and mental constitution of each. Man's mission is to subdue
and till the earth, to cultivate the mechanic arts, to make
roads and dig canals, to carry on commerce, to encounter the
perils and fatigues of war, to institute and administer governinent, to be the shield of woman in moments of danger and
sudden alarm, in a word, to perform the rough business of
life,-that which requires physical strength and endurance.
Woman's mission, while it has no less of dignity, is very different from this. It is to be the light and joy of the house* Gen. iii. 16.      t 1 Cor. xiv. 34.: Ibid. xi. 3.
Eph. v. 22.         H1 ITim. ii. 13.




LAWS OF THE ANCIE1NT HEBREWS.           435
hold, to nourish and train the immortal children wittin its
precincts, to mould the whole mass of mind while in its most
plastic state, to fill the throne of the heart, to be the priestess'n the sanctuary of home, to be the comfort and support of
man in seasons of sorrow and of suffering, to miove in the
realm of ignorance and want, to shine, to cheer, and to bless
in all the varied ministrations of sympathy and love, fromn
the cradle to the grave. What purer, nobler, holier realm
call she desire? " The true nobility of woman is to keep her
own sphere, and to adorn it." *
Another essential principle of the legislative policy of
Moses was the sanctity of human life.
No legislation of antiquity approaches that of the Hebrew
lawgiver, in its solicitude to guard the lives of men.  The
prohibition against killing was one of the ten precepts, which
formed what may be called the magna charta of the HIebrew
state.t The crime of murder was punished with death.
There was no redemption. It was declared, that the land
could not be purged of the stain of blood, except by the
blood of him who had shed it.T Even an ox, which had gored
a man to death, and, by parity of reason, any other animal, as
a goat, a dog, or a horse, that had killed a person by pushing,
biting, or kicking, was to be stoned;~ not, indeed, to punish
the beast, but the owner, and so to oblige him to be careful
in preventing his oxen, dogs, and other domestic animals,
from injuring his neighbors. The flesh of the goring ox could
not be eaten,1I a prohibition which served to keep up a wholesome horror of murder, at the same time that it punished the
man by the total loss of his beast. A man, who built a house,
was required to make a battlement, or balustrade, to the roof.T
If he neglected to do this, and a person fell from the roof in
consequence, and was killed, the owner of the house brought
bloodguiltiness upon himself; he was considered in the light
Mrs. Sigourney.     t Ex. xx. 13.     t Num. xxxv. 33.
Q Ex. xxi. 28.       11 Ibid. xxi. 28  ~ Deut. xxii. 8.




4336              COMMENTARIES ON THE
of a murderer.*  A very peculiar statute concerning homicide
by an unknown perscn is recorded in Deut. 21: 1-9. This
statute will be particularly examined in a subsequent part of
this work, and I forbear, therefore, a detail of its provisions
at the present time. By consulting the passage, the reader
will perceive, that the elders, or magistrates, of the nearest
city were obliged to purge themselves and their city of the
murder, and make a solemn avowal, that they were ignorant
of the perpetrator of it. He will perceive also, that, in the
absence of the press, nothing could be better fitted than the
ceremonies ordained to give publicity to the murder, and to
make every one, who had any knowledge of the matter, give
information concerning it. There can be no doubt, that the
investigation instituted by the laws of Moses over the body
of a person, who had come to his death by means unknown,
is the origin of the coroner's inquest in modern times. No
ancient law made such provision for the detection of secret
murders as this of Moses. That of Plato, which is regarded
as the best, simply ordained, that if a man was found dead,
and the murderer could not be ascertained, proclamation
should be made, that he should not come into any holy place,
nor into any part of the whole country; for if he were discovered and apprehended, he should be put to death, be
thrown out of the bounds of the country, and have no burial.t
These provisions of the Mosaic code to beget an abhorrence of
miurder, and to guard the lives of the citizens, are very remarkable. They evince a humanity in Moses, unknown to
all other ancient legislators. They must have tended, in a
high degree, to introduce a horror of shedding human blood,
and to give intensity to the idea of the sacredness of human
life.
A fifteenth fundamental principle of the Hebrew governmielt was education; the education of the whole body of the
I Deut. xxii. 8               t Plato de Leg. 1. 9.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            437
people; especially, in the knowledge of the constitution,
laws and history of their own country.
An ignorant people cannot be a free people. Intelligence
is essential to liberty. No nation is capable of self-government, which is not educated to understand and appreciate its
responsibilities. In a republican government, the whole
power of education is required.*  Upon this principle Moses
proceeded in the framing of his commonwealth.
The details of the arrangements for the education of the
HIebrew people, contained in the Pentateuch, are but scanty.
We are, therefore, greatly in the dark, as to the specific
means employed. So far, however, is clear, that the Mosaic
law required, that the greatest pains should be taken to
mould the minds; the principles, the habits, and manners of
the young. Parents were, again and again, commanded to
teach their children, from infancy, all the words of the law,
and all the glorious facts of their national history. They
were enjoined to talk of them, when they sat in the house,
and when they walked by the way, when they lay down, and
when they rose up.t  The whole system of legislation was
crowded with commemorative rites and festivals. Into the
meaning of these, it was taken for granted, that the young
would inquire, and it was ordained, that their curiosity
should be satisfied by the explanations of their sires.t  The
passover reminded them of the wonders of the exode; the
pentecost, of the terrific splendors, which accompanied the
giving of the law; the feast of tabernacles, of the hardships
and miraculous supplies of the wilderness; and the monumental heap of stones at Gilgal, of the standing of the
waters of Jordan upon an heap, to afford a passage to their
forefathers. Even the borders of their garments, their gates,
the frontlets between their eyes, and the posts and lintels of
* Montesq. Sp. of Laws: B. 4, c5. 5  Deut. vi. 7.
Ex. xsiii.'4, 15.




438               COMMENTARIES ON THE
their doors, were to become their teachers by the laws and
maxims which were inscribed upon themn.
It is hence plain, that Hebrew parents were required, not
only to teach their children orally, but also to impart to them
the arts of reading and writing. Since they were commanded
to write them, they must themselves have learned the art of
writing; and since they were to write them for the use of
their children, these must have been taught the art of reading. There is reason to believe, that the ability to read and
write was an accomplishment, more generally possessed by
the Hebrews, than by any other people of antiquity.t  This
was certainly the case in the time of our Savior. In his addresses to the common people, he constantly appealed to
them in such words as these: "' I-ave ye not read what Moses
saith? Have ye not read in the scriptures?"t Such language
implies an ability, on the part of the people, to examine the
scriptures for themselves. The same thing is indicated by a
fact, stated by the evangelical historian concerning the inscription placed over the head of Jesus at his crucifixion:
" This title then read many of the Jews."~ The writings of
Josephus are crowded with testimonies as to the great care of
the HIebrews in the education of their children. IHe says,
among other things, that first of all they are taught the laws,
as best fitted to promote their future happiness; that the
people weekly assemble to hear them read, and to learn them
exactly; and, to crown all, he ad.ds, somewhat hyperbolically,
no doubt, that, " if any one do but ask any of our people
about our laws, lie will more readily tell them all than he
will tell his own name."  "' We find it to be the uniform testiinony of Jewish writers, that the school was to be found in
every district throughout the nation, and under the care of
* Deut. vi. 8, 9.     t Mathew's Bible & Civ. Gov. Lect. 4.
+ Mat. xii. 3. xix. 4. xxi. 16. xxii. 31. Mark ii. 25  xii. 10, 26.
Luke vi. 3.
2 John xix. 20




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           439
teachers, who were honored alike for their character and station.">  Maimonides, in his treatise on the study of the law,
says: " Every Israelite, whether poor or rich, healthy or sick,
old or young, is obliged to study the law; and even if so poor
as to be maintained by charity, or beg his bread from door
to door, and have wife and children, he must devote some
time to the daily and nocturnal meditation of it." He asks,
"' Iow long ought a man to pursue the study of the law?"
and replies, " Till death."
An important friction of the Levites was to superintend
the education of the people. The proofs of this proposition
will be submitted in a subsequent chapter. For the present,
I merely advert to the fact, in passing, that, in the reformation undertaken by Jehoshaphat, that excellent prince, in the
true spirit of the Mosaic institution, commanded the priests
to go through the land, and teach the people, city by city,
the laws of Mloses.t  Several of the leading political principles of Plato, as I have shown in the first book,4 were
borrowed from the Hebrew lawgiver; but in no other point
did his republic so closely resemble the Jewish, as in this,
that he enjoined it upon all the citizens to learn accurately
the laws.
In full harmony with the spirit of the Mosaic laws, and
indeed as a natural result of their operation, higher seminaries of learning, under the name of " schools of the
prophets,"~ were introduced and established among the
Hebrews.  These institutions were presided over by men
venerable for their age, character, ability and learning. The
notices of these schools in the sacred books are rather scanty,
and this has given rise to various opinions concerning them.
From their name some have conjectured, that they were
M* tthew's Bib. & Civ. Gov. Lect. 4.
t 2 Chron. xvii. 8, 9.           $ Chap. 7.
1 Sam. xix. 18. 2 Kings ii. 3, 5.




~40               COMMENTARIES ON THE
places of instruction in the art of prophecy. This absurd
fancy was borrowed by Spinoza from  the rabbins, and by
him handed down to his followers; whence these sage logicians have inferred, that prophecy was amlong the practical
arts of the Hebrews, as much as carpentry, or engraving.
But of this we may be certain, that the schools of the prophets were seminaries of prophets, meaning by this term
inspired men, only in so far as that those who were best
instructed in the divine law, being best fitted to convey God's
commands to the people, would, for that reason, be most
likely to be chosen by him for that purpose. In opposition
to the opinion of Spinoza, IBishop Warburton argues,* with
no little force, in support of the opinion, that they were
seminaries designed chiefly for the study of the Jewish law.
It is probable, however, that they were not devoted exclusively
to that department of study, but embraced within their scope
other -branches of knowledge, which were reckoned among
the pursuits of learning in that day. They corresponded to
the colleges and universities of modern times. They must
have exercised a powerful influence on the mind and manners
of the Jewish people. It was in the schools of the prophets,
that David imbibed that love for the religious and civil laws
of Is country, which glowed so intensely in his bosom,
which sparkled in his inimitable lyrics, which became so copious a spring of blessing to his nation, and which won for
himself the exalted title of the " man after God's own heart;"t
not morally and religiously, for that no man has ever yet
been. but, as the whole scope of the passage shows, the man
after God's neart as a civil ruler, a man imbued with the
spirit, and devoted to the maintenance, of the national constitution.
There was a peculiarity in the'MSosaic system of education,
which deserves our notice. It did not overlook the fact. thai
* Divine Legation.   t- 1 Samuel xiii. 14.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           441
every man has what Dr. Arnold calls two businesses; his particular business, as of a farmer, merchant, lawyer, or the like,
and his general business, that which he shares in common
with all his fellow-citizens, his business as a man and a citizen.
Most modern systems of education take but little notice of
this distinction. They go upon the presumption that, if a
mlan learns his particular business well, a knowledge of his
general business will come of itself, or be picked up by the
way. Not such was the view of Moses. He seems rather to
have thought, that every man would be impelled to make
himself master of his particular business, since his bread depended on it; but that the knowledge of his general business,
the want of which is less keenly felt, would be a more fit
subject of legal provision. He intended, that all his people
should share in the management of the public affairs. He
meant each to be a depositary of political power. But he
looked upon power as a solemn trust, and thought it incumbent on a legislator to take care that those who hold it, should
know how to discharge its duties. Htence, in legislating on
the subject of education, he appears chiefly anxious to have
his people instructed in the knowledge of their general business, that is, their duties as men and citizens. lie belonged
neither to that class of political philosophers, who desire to
see the mass of the people shut out firom all political power,
as always and under all circumstances unfit to exercise it, nor
to that class, who wish to see the power of the masses increased, irrespective of their ability to discharge so important
a trust beneficially to the community. In his educational
scheme, power and knowledge went hand in hand. The possession of the latter was regarded as essential to the right use
of the former.
The old Romans have received the highest praises, because,
conscious of the importance of imparting to the rising generation an early knowledge of the laws, they made the twelve
tables one of the first elements of public instruction, requiring




442               COMMENTARIES ON THE
the youth to commit to memory their entire contents. They
were sensible, that what is learned at so early a period is not
only lilkely to be long remembered, but is almost sure to command respect and veneration. But 3Moses gave a broader
application to this principle than it ever received among the
IRoman people. The education, enjoined by Moses, was not,
as among them, 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. How
much does he deserve the gratitude of mankind for so noble
a lesson! 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, digniflied, and venerable public opinion will bear sway.
Upon the whole, it may be affirnmed, that in no part of the
Hebrew constitution does the wisdom of the lawgiver 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, surely,
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 tame surrender of their rights; it is political ]knowledge alone, that
can rear an effectual barrier against the encroachments of arbitrary power and lawless violence.*
In full accordance with the spirit of the Mosaic legislation.
is the beautiful prayer of David, " that our sons may be as
C See this topic handled in a masterly manner by Robert Hall in one of
his Reviews; I cannot now recal which.




LAWS OF THIE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          443
plants grown up in their youth; that our daughters may be
as corner-stones, polished after the similitude of a palace."
Such was the political philosophy of the founder of the Hebrew state, and such was the practice of those statesmen in
after times, who adhered most closely to the spirit of his
institutions. From a survey of the whole matter, the conclusion seems warranted, that the education of the Hebrew
people, conducted mainly, though not wholly, under the
domestic roof, was, nevertheless, a national education, and
worthy of the imitation of other nations. Especially does it
deserve to be studied and copied, so far as that branch of
education is concerned, which consists in development, as
distinguished from instruction. The Hebrew law required
an early, constant, vigorous, and efficient training of the disposition, judgment, manners, and habits both of thought
and feeling. The sentiments, held to be appropriate to man
in society, were imbibed with the milk of infancy. The
manners, considered becoming in adults, were sedulously
imparted in childhood. The habits, regarded as conducive
to individual advancement, social happiness, and national
repose and prosperity, were cultivated with the utmost diligence. The greatest pains were taken to acquaint the Hebrew youth with their duties, as well as their rights, both
personal and political. In a word, the main channel of
thought and feeling for each generation was marked out by
the generation which preceded it, and the stream for the most
part flowed with a steady current.
Such a system of mental and moral culture as that for
which the Hebrew constitution made provision, could not be
without rich fruits. The result was, that the nation reached
a high point of literary attainment and distinction. Under
their most splendid and munificent monarch, the Hebrews
enjoyed what may be called the golden age of their literature. " Solomon and his court were, in their day, the great
centre of attraction for those of all nations, who loved and




z44              COMMENTARIES ON THE
honored knowledge. His wisdom excelled all the wisdom of
the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. He splake of
trees, from the cedar in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that
springeth out of the wall; he spake also of beasts, and of
fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. I-Iis songs were a
thousand and five, and his proverbs three thousand. And
while he excelled in the wide fields of natural science, poetry,
and ethics, the temple, which still bears his name, stood
before the world a monument of skill and taste, which rendered it in after ages the original model of grace, majesty,
and grandeur in architecture. Such gifted luminaries in the
intellectual world do not shine alone. They usually belong
to a constellation, and the king who sets such an example, is
not likely to be without followers. There was, indeed, one
cardinal feature in the Hebrew polity, which was pre-eminently favorable, at all times, to the cultivation of knowledge.
By divine appointment the whole tribe of Levi was set apart
for the service of religion and letters; and while many were
employed before the altar and in the temple, others were
devoted to study; many of whom, especially in the reign of
Solomon, reached a high name both for their attainments in
the science of their age, and the fidelity with which they
made their learning available for the benefit of the people.
Thus was produced that happy conjunction in the history of
knowledge, when learning bestowed honor on the learned,
and the learned brought honor on learning; when the highest attainments were deemed of value, not according as they
gave distinction to him who had reached them, but according
as they tended to improve and to bless the whole family of
man. Among the Hebrews there was no monopoly of knowledge by a favored few. Intelligence was general in the
degree and of the kind adapted to the various pursuits and
duties of those amongz whom it was spread. The tongue and
the pen of even learned royalty were industriously employed
in giving to knowledge that condensed and practical form,




LAIWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          445
which mignt bring it within the reach of all, and make it
available for the advantage of all; of the shepherd and vinedresser, as well as of the sons of the prophets."*
Another of those great ideas, on which Moses founded the
Hebrew government, was union.
I refer here, not so much to those civil ties which bound
the people together in one body politic, as to that oneness of
hearts, opinions, and manners, which forms the strongest
bond of society, and is the firmest rampart of its defence.
This sympathy of souls, and the interchange of social charities springing from it, though not the primary object, was
yet an excellent incidental advantage, of the equal distribution of property, heretofore noticed. The nation was thus
composed of a brotherhood of hardy yeomen, no one of
whom could become either very rich or very poor, or could
have anything in his outward circumstances greatly to excite
the envy or the contempt of the others. IHow well suited
such a condition of things was to make solid friendships, let
the opinions of all antiquity, from Aristotle to Cicero, as
well as those of every succeeding age, attest.
The system of education, in vogue among the Hebrew people, tended powerfully to the same result. To this cause
Josephus, with much plausibility, traces that unanimity of
sentiment concerning God and morals, which, he says, so
remarkably distinguished his nation, that even the women
and servants spake the same things.
To the same effect was the incessant inculcation of
kindness and charity, not only towards one another, but also
to strangers, enforced by the oft repeated admonition, "Ye
know the heart of a stranger, for ye were strangers in the
land of Egypt."t  " If," says the venerable patriarch, whose
history, there is reason to believe, Moses introduced to the
knowledge of his countrymen, if he was not himself the
author of it, "if I have withheld the poor from their desire,
* Mathew's Bible and Civil Government, Lect. 4.      Ex. xxiii. 9.




446              COMMENTARIES ON THE
or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail; if I have
eaten my morsel alone, and the fatherless have not eaten
thereof; if I have seen any perish for want of clothing, or
ally poor without covering; if I did despise the cause of my
man-servant or my maid-servant, when they contended with
me; what then shall I do when God riseth up; and when he
visiteth, what shall I answer him? Did not he that made
me in the womb, make him? and did not one fashion us?'.t
How beautifully does this acknowledgment of brotherhood
with paupers and bondmen, from one of the most illustrious
princes of his age, and this warm gush of charity towards
every creature, wearing the human form, and crushed
beneath the burden of human sorrows, contrast with that
utter want of sympathy for man as man, which characterized
all the ancient systems both of government and philosophy!
The " odi profanum vulgus et arceo" of IHorace, —that bitter
scorn and supercilious contempt of the profane herd,-was
but the echo of a mode of thinking and feeling, well nigh
universal among the learned and the great of his day.
Much of Greek, and nearly all of Roman letters, breathes a
proud oblivion and contempt of the common people. The
scornful sentiment of the Roman poet, cited above, "'hate
for the profane rabble," is but too faithfully reflected from
the pages of ancient scholarship.
But, after all, the great and sufficient means of cementing
the bond of sympathy and friendship among the HIebrews,
were the three annual festivals, at which the males must, and
the females might, assemble at Jerusalem. The divine wisdom has a reach, a compass, a manifold fulness in its plans,
which the shortsighted policy of man would in vain labor to
imitate. Thus it was in the institution of these solemnities.
While the primary end of their appointment was of a religious nature, another and a most important one was the promotion of that fraternal esteem and charity, so congenial
* Job. xxxi. 13 seqq.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            447
both to the character of Moses and the temper of his laws.
This was the opinion of Maimonides. " The festival days,"
says he,* " were appointed generally for purposes of joy, and
because such public assemblies promote that union and
affection, which are necessarily required under all civil and
political governments."
From a similar motive sprang the national games of Greece,
so celebrated in ancient story; and the institution of those
assemblies has ever been looked upon as a master stroke of
policy and prudence. The Greek nation, as observed by
Goguet,t composed of a multitude of small states, jealous
and envious of each other, had need of some common centre,
where all might occasionally find themselves united and commingled. This is precisely what happened in these games,
whither repaired an incredible number of spectators from all
parts of Greece. By this concourse was formed a bond of
correspondence, a sort of confraternity, among all the citizens
of the different Grecian cities. The Greeks, at these times,
appeared to be) in a manner, inhabitants of the same place;
thev offered in common the same sacrifices to the same deities, and participated in the same pleasures. By this means
grudges were calmned; animosities stifled; and quarrels
terminated. They had also an opportunity, in these grand
assemblages, of effacing those prejudices, which are commonly kept up only by not knowing the persons, against
whom they are entertained.
Whatever advantages, of this nature, Greece derived from
the institution of her games, the same flowed, in a still higher
degree, to the Hebrews from  their national festivals. By
being thus brought frequently into contact, on an equal footing,.they were reminded of their common origin and their
common objects. The fact was brought home vividly to
* More Nevochim, C. 18.
t Origin of Laws. I cannot cite the chapter, because I am not now
where I can have access to the work.




448               COMMENTARIES ON THE
their thoughts, that they were sons of the same tather, worshippers of the same God, and heirs of the same promises.
Persons of distant towns and different tribes met together
on terms of brotherhood and fellowship; and old relations
were renewed, and new ones formed. Thus the twelve petty
states would become more and more closely connected, and
would be, not merely nominally, but really, and from social
love, united into one great people.
How strong the cementing power of these solemn convocations was actually found to be, plainly appears, in the
motive, which prompted the politic and crafty Jeroboam, on
the revolt of the ten tribes from the successor of Solomon, to
set up the golden calves at Dan and Bethel: "' Jeroboam said
in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of
David. If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of
the Lord at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people
turn again to their Lord, even unto Rehoboamrn, ki/ of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again unto Rehoboam,
king of Judah."*
HIere we have a clear proof, that the separation of the ten
tribes from the tribe of Judah, under Rehoboam and Jeroboam, could not have been permanent, had not the latter
abrogated one part of the law of Moses relative to the festivals. This shows, in a very striking manner, how naturally
one common place for national festivals has the effect of
preventing, or healing, any such political breaches; and that
the legislator, who should be desirous of inseparably uniting
twelve small states into one great nation, could not adopt a
more effectual plan for that purpose, than that which Moses
pursued in the case of the tribes of Israel.t
To bring the illustration of this point somewhat more
closely to ourselves, what is it, let me ask, that constitutes the
strongest bond of union between the people and states of our
own confederacy? Is it a common ancestry? Is it the pro* 1 Kings ii. 26, 27.   t Mich. Com. on the Laws of Moses, Art. 198.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           449
pertv we all claim in the public annals of the country? Is it
the cementing power of our revolutionary struggle?  Is it
even our national constitution, that precious legacy, bequeathed to us by the wisdom of our patriot sires? These
things, doubtless, have their influence, nor is it a feeble one;
but not one, nor all of them combined, are adequate to the
result. What, then, is that mysterious, cohesive power, which
holds us together, and which alone can hold us together, as
one people? It is our migratory habits. It is our universal:fondness for travel. It is the fact, that each of us has a
parent, a child, a brother, a sister, in the distant north, the
extreme south, the far-off west. It is the certainty that none
of us can find ourselves in a railway car, or steamboat, on
any of the iron roads or majestic rivers of this broad empire,
without meeting, or making, an. acquaintance or a friend. It
is the cheap postage system, which enables heart to speak to
heart, between the most distant points, -without taxing even
the poor with an expenditure, out of proportion to their means.
It is the magnetic telegraph, which transmits the messages of
business and of affection, with lightning rapidity, from one
extremity of the country to the other. It.is our numerous
watering places, where the inhabitants of the:north, the south,
the east, and the west, find themselves once a year, like the
ancient Greeks at their games, and like the ancient Hebrews
at their festivals, united and commingled, —sitting at the same
table, bathing in the same waters, drinking at the same
springs, inhaling health  from the same breezes, engaging in
the same sports, mingling in the same social, circles, and
joining in- the song and the joke and the laugh together. It
is these -infuences, and such as these, that bind us more
firmly as a people into one common brotherhood, than would
a cordon of paper constitutions long enough -to encircle the
globe.
A well adjusted system of checks and balances between
the several powers of government-was another fundamentIal
29




450                 COMMENTARIES ON THE
principle of the civil polity of Moses. To form a free government, it is necessary to combine the several powers of it, to
adjust them to each other, to regulate, temper, and set them.n rnot.ion, to give, as Montesquieu expresses it, ballast to one,
in order to enable it to resist another. This is a masterpiece
of legislation, never produced by hazard, and seldom attained
by prudence.  It is exactly here, that the point of greatest
difficulty with a legislator lies. This will afford scope for the
exercise of all his genius, however comprehensive, sagacious,
and commanding it may be. It is here that we see the
proudest triumph of the British and American constitutions.
Here also, as it seems to me, is the chief defect of the constitution of the new French republic. There is no division
of powers in it.  There is no balance, no check.  All the
authority of the state is collected into one centre, the single
assembly; and the constant tendency will be to a similar centralization of power in that body.  It will be well if the
system  does not degenerate into the government of an irresponsible junto of master spirits, or even into the despotism
of one man, bold enough, and popular enough, to seize the
reins of supreme power.*
Unfortunately, history is but too full of proofs, that restless and ambitious spirits, who do not hesitate to seek personal aggrandizement, in the confusion, if not the ruin of
their country, are the growth of all ages and nations. It is
well observed by Lowman,t that there are two principal
methods of preventing the evils of ambition, viz. either to
take away the usual occasions of ambitious views, or else to
make the execution of them difficult and improbable.
The Hebrew constitution, it may be boldly affirmed, made
*This was written in 1849. I do not expunge it, because nothing has
occurred since to change my opinion of the constitution, as it stood at that
time. If the usurpation of Louis Napoleon does not confirm it, as least it
is not against it.
t Civil Gov. of the Hebrews, c. 6.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           451
both these provisions, in a manner equal, if not superior, to
any known constitution of government in the world. Its
very foundation, as we have seen, was laid in a rigid equality
of all the citizens, effected by a perfectly equal division of
the national domain; which division, moreover, a fundamental ordinance of the constitution made perpetual. Such,
then, was the peculiar character of the agrarian of the Hfebrews, that, on the one hand. few could acquire the means of
bribery to any considerable extent; and, on the other, there
could hardly, at any one time, be many indigent persons to
be corrupted. The power in the hands of so large a number
of freeholders was so much greater than the power in the
hands of one, or of a few men, that it is impossible to conceive how, without first destroying some of the fundamental
provisions of the constitution, ambition and tyranny could
accomplish their nefarious designs.
But, besides cutting off the usual occasions and incitement~
to ambition, the constitution made all factious attempts so little
likely to succeed, as to be next to impracticable. The powers
of each department of the government, as will more clearly
appear from our analysis of the constitution in the following
chapters, were so balanced by the powers of the other departments, that, without the concurrence of all, it was well
nigh impossible for any one part to draw to itself any considerable preponderance of authority over the others. The
authority of the judge was checked by that of the senate of
princes; the power of the senatorial council was balanced by
that of the judge and the popular assembly; while the whole
was tempered and restrained by the oracle of their heavenly
king. Whoever will attentively consider the true plan and
arrangement of the government, will acknowledge, that it
must have been exceedingly hard, if not absolutely impracticable, for any person, tribe, magistrate, or public council, to
invade the property of the citizens, or overturn the liberties
of the state.




452               COMMENTARIES ON THE.
But it has been repeatedly charged against the institutes of
{Moses, thlal they were purposely contArvea to d]raw all t~he
wealth and power of the nation into the hands of the
Levites; and that, therefore, the chief danger to the popular
liberty arose out of the constitution of that tribe. Never was
so malignant an accusation raised upon so slender a foundation. On the contrary, the organization and disposition of
the tribe of Levi was contrived with consummate wisdom,
both to impart a vital action to the whole system, and,
at the same time, to act as a balance wheel to regulate its
motions.
Let us sift a little the charge against this part of the constitution, and see to what it amounts.
There are two principal sources of political, as of personal,
power,-knowledge and property. It is undeniable, that the
Levites were the scholars of the nation; and it is readily
granted, that, if to this advantage they had united an independent government, such as the other tribes enjoyed, and
an equal possession ofterritory, there would have been a
continual and dangerous tendency to the accumulation of
property and power in their hands. But Moses committed
no such capital mistake, as such an organization would argue.
His constitution, at one blow, deprived the Levites of a
united and independent government, and rendered them
incapable of holding landed property.  According to an
ancient prophecy of their great progenitor, they were "divided in Jacob and scattered in Israel." They were distributed
into cities, allotted to them throughout the territories of all
the other twelve tribes.
By this arrangement both the estates and the persons of
the Levites were given into the hands of the remaining
tribes, as so many hostages for their good behavior. They
were so separated from each other, that it was impossible for
them to form any dangerous combinations among themselves,
or to afford mutual assistance in the execution of any ambi



LAWS OF TEE ANCIENT, HEBREWS.          453
tions projects. Upon suspicion of any factious attempts on
their part, it was in the power of the other tribes, not only
to put a stop to their whole livelihood, but also to seize upon
all their persons at once.
Itence it may be perceived, that, whatever influence the
constitution conferred upon the Levites to do good, the same
constitution took away from them all power to endanger the
peace, or the liberties of their country. Never, certainly, did
any other constitution watch, with such eagle-eyed jealousy,
to preserve the people from the dangers of ill-balanced
power, or guard the public liberty with so many and so admlirably contrived defences against the projects of factious
and restless ambition. Most justly does Lowman take notice
how much these provisions of the Hebrew government to
prevent the occasions of faction excel all the constitutions of
the famed Spartan lawgiver for the same purpose, so much
celebrated by Grecian authors. Nor would they, he adds,
have missed their praise, had they been published by a
Lycurgus, a Solon, a ]Numa; or, indeed, by any body, but
Moses. The more we examine into the nMosaic plan of government, and the more reflection we bestow upon it, the
more shall we be convinced of the admirable equilibrium of
its powers, and the more shall we feel its fitness for the
efficient preservation of the public liberty.
The necessity of an enlightened, virtuous, salutary public
opinion, is the last of those great ideas, which I shall notice
as lying at the basis of the h]ebrew constitution.
Public opinion is an instrument of mighty power; and it
is none the less powerful, because its operation is silent and
unperceived. It is a great and pervading principle of action
among men. No human being is beyond the reach of its influence. The despot moderates his tyranny in obedience to
its mandates. The legislator respects its authority in making
laws. The politician seeks to turn it to account in promoting
his schemes of personal advancement. A disregard of it cost




454               COMMENTARIES ON THE
Charles I, of England, his head, and drove Charles X, of
France, from his throne. Ignorance or contempt of it has
prostrated monarchs, overthrown governments, and drenched
the plains of Europe and America in fraternal blood. Yet
how benign it may be made in its operation and effects!-not
like those destructive engines, with which the walls of hostile
cities are battered down, but like those happier contrivances,
by which the waters of rivers are diverted from their channels,
and conveyed to the orchards, gardens, and cornfields of the
neighboring valleys, which thus become indebted to them for
their fertility and their beauty, for the riches, which reward
the husbandman's toils, and the bloom and fragrance which
regale his senses. Public opinion is " the empire of mind instead of brute force, and will always prevail, when intelligence
is generally diffused, and thought is fiee and untrammelled.
Mere statute law is comparatively powerless, if public opinion
is against it. Civil liberty, too, even if acquired to-day, may
be lost to-morrow, unless there is accompanying it a sound
public opinion, growing out of general intelligence, and an
elevated tone of moral sentiment among the mass of the
people. Hence the great importance of those regulations in
a community, which tend to improve the standard of public
sentiment."@* No legislator ever understood this principie
better than Moses, and none ever applied it with a wiser forecast. Undoubtedly the most efficient means employed by him
to form a just, pure, wise, and vigorous public opinion, was the
system of education, which he established among the people,
and which has been already described. But Moses introduced into his code many other regulations, which had a strong
tendency to that end, even if such was not their primary intention. Let the reader consult Ex. 22: 21-24, Deut. 24:
6, 10, 19-22, Ex. 23: 4, Deut. 22: 6, 24: 14, Levit. 19: 32,
and Ex. 23: 1. Dr. Springt takes notice of the precepts
* Mat. Bib. & Civ. Gov. Lect. 4.
t Obligations of the World to the Bible, Lect. 3.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           455
here referred to, and denominates them great moral axioms,
designed to form the moral sensibilities of the Hebrews by a
standard refined and honorable, to guard them against unnatural obduracy, and to be a sort of standing appeal to the
tenderness and honor of men in all their mutual intercourse.'Dr. Matthews* speaks of them  as "' statutes by which the
national mind in the Hebrew commonwealth was trained to a
high standard of public sentiment, imparting to all classes a
sensibility to the proprieties of life, and a spontaneous regard
to its relative duties, which, in some degree, render a people
a law unto themselves. To produce and perpetuate such a
governing power, the power of opinion, is the very essence of
wise legislation; and, in proportion to its strength and prevalence among a people, will the foundations of civil freedom
be strong and enduring." This was the steady aim and successful endeavor of the Jewish lawgiver.
Such, then, as I conceive, were the great ideas, the fundamental principles, which lay at the basis of the Hebrew state.
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. What better
basis of civil polity, what nobler maxims of political wisdom,
does the nineteenth century offer to our contemplation, despite
its boast of social progress and reform?  The institutions,
founded on these maxims, tower up, amid the barbaric darkness and despotisms of antiquity, the great beacon light of
the world, diffusing the radiance of a political philosophy,
* Bib. &'Civ. Gov. Lect. 2.




4566             COMMIENTATRIES ON. THE
full of truth and wisdom, over all the ages, which have
succeeded that, in which they were first promulgated to
mankind.
CHAPTER II.
The Hebrew Theocracy.
IN order to lay down a true plan of the HIebrew government, it will be necessary to inquire whether, besides the
common ends of government,-the protection of the life,
liberty, property, and happiness of the governed, —the lawgiver had any special views in its institution. If so, the
government would naturally be adjusted to those ends; and
it can hardly be understood, without a knowledge of the
particular views, which it was intended to answer. Now it
is certain, that such special designs entered into the mind of
the Jewish lawgiver, and modified his system of' government.
By the free choice of the people,* Jehovah was made the
civil head of the Hebrew state. Thus the law-making power
and the sovereignty of the state were, by the popular suffrage, vested in him. It is on this account, that Josephnus,t
and others after him, have called the Hebrew government a
theocracy. Theocracy signifies a divine government. The
term is justly applied to the Mosaic constitution. Yet there
is danger of being misled by it, and thence of falling into
error respecting the true nature and powers of the Ifebrew
government. It may be too broadly applied. There was a
strong infusion of the theocratic element in the Hebrew constitution. Still it was but an element in the government;
and not the whole of the government. In other words, the
* See the Tnt. Essay.     t Against Apion, I. 1.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           45T
Hebrew government was not a pure theocracy. It was a
theocracy, but a theocracy in a restricted sense. Every
student of the Hebrew  history knows, that the Hebrew
people, like other nations, had their civil rulers, men who
exercised authority over other men, and were acknowledged
and obeyed as lawful magistrates.*
What, then, was the true province of the theocracy? What
were its leading objects? These objects, as I conceive, without excluding others, were chiefly two. One was to teach
mankind the true science of civil government. It corresponds
with the goodness of God in other respects, that he should
make a special revelation on this subject. I hold it to have
been an important part of the legislation of the MIost I-Iigh,
as the lawgiver of Israel, to show how civil authority among
men should be created, and how it should be administered,
so as best to promote the welfare and happiness of a nation;
and also how the relations between rulers and ruled should
be adjusted and regulated. But another object of the theocratic feature of the Hebrew government, and the leading
one undoubtedly, was the overthrow and extirpation of
idolatry. The design was, first, to effect a separation between
the Israelites and their idolatrous neighbors, and, secondly,
to make idolatry a clrime against the state, that so it might
be punishable by the civil law, without a violation of civil
liberty. A fundamental purpose of tile Mosaic polity was
the abolition of idolatrous worship, and the substitution in its
place, and the maintenance, of true religion in the world.
The only agency, adequate to the production of this result, as
far as human wisdom can see, was this very institution of the
Hebrew theocracy.
The design of the present chapter is to examine and unfold
the true nature and bearing of this element of the Hebrew
constitution.
In Exodus 19: 4-6, we find this remarkable and important
* Mathews' Bit. and Civ. Gov. Lect. 1.




458              COMMENTARIES ON THE
record. God there addresses the Israelites thus:-" Ye have
seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on
eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now, therefore,
if ye will hear my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then
ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people; for
all the earth is mine, and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of
priests, and an holy nation."
The nature of this covenant is still more clearly disclosed
in a further account of it, in the twenty-ninth chapter of
Deuteronomy. " Ye stand this day," says Mioses in an address to his countrymen, " your captains of your tribes, your
elders and your officers, and all the men of Israel; that ye
should enter into covenant with Jehovah thy God, and into
his oath that he maketh with thee this day, that he may
establish thee this day for a people unto hinlself; (for ye
know how we have dwelt in the land of Egypt, and how we
came through the nations that ye passed by, and ye have
seen their abominations and their idols, wood and stone,
silver and gold, which were among them;) lest there should
be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose
heart turneth away from Jehovah our God, to go and serve
the gods of those nations."
Here we have what Lowman,* not inaptly, calls the original contract of the Hebrew government. Two principles constitute the sum of it; viz. 1. the maintenance of the worship
of one God, in opposition to the prevailing polytheism of the
times; and 2. as conducive to this main end, the separation
of the Israelites from other nations, so as to prevent the
formation of dangerous and corrupting alliances.
Without stopping to inquire critically into the meaning of
the several expressions here employed, the general sense of
the transaction is plainly to this effect:-If the Hebrews
would voluntarily receive Jehovah for their king, and would
honor and worship him as the one true God, in opposition to
* Civ. Gov. of the Heb. C. 1.




LAtWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS             459
all idolatry, then, though God, as sovereign of the world,
rules over all. the nations of the earth, he would govern the
Hebrew nation by laws of his own framing, and would bless
it with a more particular and immediate protection.
This view is confirmed by the testimony of St. Paul, if
bishop Warburton* has correctly interpreted a passage in his
letter to the Galatians.t  Speaking of the law of Moses, the
apostle says, "It was added because of transgressions."  It
was ADDED. To what was it added?   To the patriarchal
religion of the unity, says the learned prelate. To what end?
Because of transgressions; that is, according to the same
authority, the transgressions of polytheism and idolatry; into
which the rest of mankind were already absorbed, and the
Jews themselves were hastening apace.
To this agrees the opinion of Maimonides,t the most
learned and judicious of the Hebrew doctors. Hlie observes,
that the first intention of the Mosaic law, as is clearly evident
from many parts of the scriptures,~ was to eradicate idolatry,
and to obliterate the memory of it, and of those who were
addicted to it; to banish every thing that might lead men to
practise it, as pythons, soothsayers, diviners, enchanters,
augurs, astrologers, necromancers, &c.; and to prevent all
assimilation to their practices. I-Ie assigns this general reason for many of the laws, that they were made to keep men
from idolatry, and from such false opinions and practices, as
are akin to idoiatry,-incantations, divinations, soothsaying,
passing through the fire, and the like.
Idolatry had now reached its most gigantic height, and
spread its broad and deadly shadow over the earth. To preserve the doctrine of the unity, in the midst of a polytheistic
world, was the fundamental design of the Mosaic polity.
* Div. Leg. B. 5, S..           iv. 21.
t Townley's More Nevochim of Maimonides, C. 3.
X See the Pentateuch passim. and. many other places in the Old Testament.




460               COMMENTARIES ON THE
To this all other purposes, however important in themselves,
or useful in their general action, were both subordinate and
subservient. If this were a design worthy the wisdom  and
goodness of God, none of the means adapted to promote it,
can be beneath his contrivance, or can, in the least degree,
derogate from the dignity and perfection of his nature.
This single observation sweeps away at once the foundation
of most of the silly ridicule, with which infidels have amused
themnelves, ill their disquisitions on these venerable institutes. Statutes, which, at first sight, and considered apart
from their true relations and intentions, seem frivolous, and
unworthy the wisdom and majesty of God, assume quite a
different air, and appear in a light altogether new, when
viewed as necessary provisions against the danger of idolatry.
Let me illustrate this observation with a few examples.
In the nineteenth chapter of Leviticus,* we find the following law: " Ye shall not round the corners of your heads,
neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."  This law
has called forth many a sneer from men, who, without any
remarkable claim to such a distinction, arrogate to themselves
the exclusive title of free thinkers. But to those who really
think with freedom and candor, it will appear a direction,
not only proper, but important, when it is known, that it was
aimed against an idolatrous custom, which was extensively
prevalent, when the law was given. Herodotus says, that
the Arabians cut their hair round in honor of Bacchus, who
is represented as having worn his in that manner,t and that
the Mlacians, a people of Lybia, cut their hair so as to leave
a rounded tuft on the top of the head,: just as the Chinese
do at the present day. Bochart,~ cited by Patrick,[[ notes,
that the Idumaeans, Moabites, Ammonites, and other inhabitants of Arabia Deserta, are called " circumcised in the cor*v. 27.             t Lib. 3?. C. 8.   t Lib. 4. C. 175.
Q Canaan, 1. 1. C. 6.   11 In loc.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT hEBREWS.              461
ners," that is, of hle head. The hair was much used in divination among the Greeks. HIomer represents it as a common
custom for parents to dedicate the hair of their children to
some god; which, when they came to:manhood, was cut off,
and offered to the deity. In accordance with this custom,
Achilles, at the funeral of Patroclus, cut off his golden
locks, which his father had dedicated to the river god Sperchins, and cast them  into the flood.*  Virgil represents the
topmost lock of hair as sacred to the infernal gods.t Idolatrous priests, ministers of a false religion, made the mode of
cutting the hair and beard, forbidden by Moses, essential to:the acceptable worship of the gods, and efficacious in procuring the several blessings prayed for by the worshippers. It
was to eradicate idolatry, which was, so to speak, the hinge:on which the whole law turned, that Moses introduced this
prohibitory statute into his code.
In the twenty third chapter of Exodus,t the following statute occurs: "Thou shalt not seethe (boil) a kid in his
mother's milk."  Dr. Clarke ~ thinks, that the sole design of
this law was to inculcate a lesson of humanity. It is probable, however, that it was directed against an ancient custom
of idolatry. Dr. Cudworth I cites a manuscript comment of
a Karaite Jew  on this place, to the effect, that the ancient
heathen were accustomed, when they had gathered in all
their fruits, to take a kid, and boil it in the dam's milk, and
then, in a magical way, to sprinkle with it their trees,
fields, gardens, and orchards, thinking thereby to make them
more fruitful.  SpencerS[ has shown that the same idolatrous
custom, prompted by a similar motive, prevailed among the
ancient Zabii.
* Horn. I1. 1. 23. vv. 124 seqq.
t Aen. -1. 4. vv. 698 seqq.  See also Dr. A. Clarke's Commentary on
Levit. xix. 27.
tv. 19.                            ~ Inloo.
[l Discourse on the Lord's Supper, p. 36.  ~[ De Legibus Hebraeorum.




462               COMMENTARIES ON THE
A similar reason there was for the statute, which forbade
the wearing of "garments mingled of linen and woollen."*
Il{aimonidest informs us, that he found it enjoined in old
magical books, that the idolatrous priests should clothe thernselves in robes of linen and woollen mixed together, for the
purpose of performing their religious ceremonies. A divine
virtue was attributed to this mixture. It was supposed that
it would make their sheep produce more wool, and their
fields better harvests.
On the same ground rested the law, which enjoined, that
"( the woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a
man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment.":
iMaimonides ~ found it commanded in the books of the idolaters, that men in the worship of Venus, the Astarte or Ashtaroth of the Phenicians, should wear the dress of women, and
that women, in the worship of Mars, the Moloch of the east,
should put on the armor of men. Macrobius l1 cites the old
Greek author Philocorus, as saying, concerning the Asiatics,
that, when they sacrificed to their Venus, the men were
dressed in women's apparel, and the women in men's, to denote that she was esteemed by them both male and female.
It was a common practice of idolatry to confound the sexes
of the gods, making the same deity sometimes a god, and
sometimes a goddess. The Cyprians represented their Venus
with a beard and sceptre, and of masculine proportions, but
dressed as a woman. The Syrians worshipped her under the
form of a woman, attired as a man. At Rome, they had
both a male and female Fortune; also, as Servius and Lactantius tell us, an armed Venus. This doctrine of a community of sexes in their gods, led the idolaters to confound, as
far as possible, their own sex, in their worship of them.
* Levit xix. 19.          t- Townley's More Nev. c. 12.. Deut. xxii, 5.           { More Nev. c. 12.
11 L. 3, c. 8, cited by Townley in his 33d Note on Maimon. Mor. Nev.
Also by Lowman on Civ. Gov. of the Hebrews, C. 1.




L.AWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS,               463
Hence the custom, so widely diffused, of men and women
wearing a habit different from that of their sex, in pelrforming religious rites.  Julius Firmicus describes this manner ot
worship as common among the Assyrians and Africans.
From  them  it passed into Europe.  It was practised in
Cyprus. at Coos, at Argos, at Athens, and other places in
Greece.* At Rome, it does not appear ever to have become
a common practice, but we read of Clodius dressing himself
as a woman, and mingling with the Roman ladies in the
feast of the Bona Dea.t
The law, which prohibited the sowing of a field with mixed
seeds,: was based on a like reason. It is true, that MIichaelis~
and Dr. Clarke 1I regard this prohibition as simply a prudential maxim  of agriculture, designed to make the Israelites
careful to have their seed as pure as possible, and so to prevent the evils of negligent and slovenly farming.  More reasonahle appears the opinion of Maimonides,~T Spencer,*  and
Patrick,tt who regard the statute in question as directed
against idolatry, the very name and memory of which the
Mosaic law sought to blot out and destroy.  Maimonides interprets Levit. 19: 19, as forbidding the grafting of one species of tree into another, and says, that the prohibition was
designed to guard the Israelites against a most abominable
and corrupting practice of idolatry. The Zabii performed
this kind of grafting, especially of olives into citrons, as a religious rite, accompanying it, at the moment of insertion,
with the most indecent actions.4  Dr. Spencer observes, that
* See Young on Idolatrous Corruptions in Religion, vol. 1, pp. 97-105.
t Dr. A. Clarke in loc.:         Levit. xix. 19. Deut. xxii. 9.
{ Comment. on the Laws of Moses, Art. 268.  11 In loc.
~ More Nev. by Townley, C. 12.    ** De Leg. Heb. 1. 2. c. 18.
ft Comment. on Deut. xxii. 9.
It: The words of Maimonides are: —" Oportere, ut cum una species in
aliam inseritur, surculum inserendum manu. sua tenet formosa quaedam
puella, quam praeternaturali ratione vir quidam  vitiet et corrumpat,
ipsaque eongressus hujus tempore plantulamn illam arbori infigat."




464                COMMENTARIES ON THE
it was a rite of idolatry to sow barley and dried grapes together. [By this action the idolaters consecrated their vineyards to Ceres and Bacchus, and expressed a dependence on
these deities for their fruitfulness. It was, in effect, a renunciation of the care and blessing of the true God, and a declaration of their hope in the favor of idol gods. Bishop
Patrick well remarks, that if the Israelites had followed this
custom, it would have made the corn and the grapes, that
sprang up from such seed, impure, because polluted by idolatry.
These laws, and others which infidelity has dared to reproach and ridicule as frivolous, did the divine wisdom enact,
in order to eradicate idolatry, and establish the fundamental
truths of the existence and unity of the living God. The
design of themn was, to keep the Israelites from waliking in
the ordinances and manners of the nations, which were cast
out before them.*  And to this end they were well adapted.
It was essential, that the idolatrous ceremonies of the gentiles:should be prohibited, because, if they had been permitted,
they could not fail to lead to idolatry.
We find a very remarkable law in Leviticus xvii. 1-7. It
forbids, even on pain of death, the killing of any animal for
food, during the abode of the Israelites in the wilderness,
unless it was at the same time brought to the altar, and
offered to the Lord. This certainly appears, at first view,
not only harsh and rigorous, but even unjust and'tyrannical.
But it was aimed against idolatry, which, as we shall soon
see, was treason in the Hebrew state, and therefore justly
punishable with death. The statute is thus translated by
_Michaelis:t —" Whoever among the Israelites killeth an ox,
sheep, or goat, either within or without the camp, and bringeth it not before the convention-tent, to him it shall be
accounted bloodguiltiness; he hath shed blood, and shall be
rooted out from  among his people; and this, in order that
* Lev. xviii. 3, xx. 53.  t Mich. Comment. Art. 244.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           465
the children of Israel may bring to the door of the convention-tent their offerings which they have hitherto made in the
field, and give them unto the priest, to be slain as feast
offerings in honor of Jehovah; that his priest may sprinkle
the blood on the altar of Jehovah, and burn the fat as an
offering perfume in honor of him; and that no man may
any more make offerings to satyrs, running after them with
idolatrous lust."  "The reason and design of this law," observes the same writer,* "we have no need to conjecture;
for Moses himself expressly mentions it. Considering the
propensity to idolatry, which the people brought with them
from Egypt, it was necessary to take care lest, when any one
l:illed such animals as were usual for sacrifices, he should be
guilty of superstitiously offering them to an idol. This precaution was the more reasonable, because, in ancient times,
it was so very common to make an offering of the flesh it
was intended it eat. And hence arose a suspicion, not very
unreasonable, that whoever killed animals, usually devoted
to the altar, offered them of course; and, therefore, Moses
enjoined them not to kill such animals otherwise than in
public, and to offer them all to the true God; that so it
might be out of their power to make them offerings to idols,
by slaughtering them privately, and under the pretence of
using them for food."  This law was expressly repealed on
the entrance of the nation into the promised land,t when
the enforcement of it would have become a hardship and a
tyranny.
There is a part of the Mosaic code, to which I must call the
reader's attention in this'counexion; I mean that which concerns clean and unclean meats~ The law upon this point has
ever been most open to the ridicule of unbelievers. It descends to so minute a detail, that men, ignorant of its true
nature and end, have, on account of its apparent unfitness to
engage the concern of God, hastily concluded against its
* Ibid. Art. 244.      t Deut. xii. 15.
30




466                COMMENTARIES ON THE
divine original. But if they would but take the trouble to
reflect, that the purpose of separating one people from the
contagion of universal idolatry was a design not unworthy of
the governor of the universe, they would see the brightest
marks of divine wisdom in an institution, which took away
from that people the very grounds of all commerce, whether
of trade or friendship, with foreign nations. Doubtless the
design of this institution, as of most others in the Mosaic
system, was manifold. Among the ends to be answered by
it, a not unimportant one was to furnish the chosen tribes a
code of wholesome dietetics. That considerations of this
nature entered into the legislator's mind, is the unanimous
opinion of the best interpreters, both Jews and Christians.
Maimonides* labors, with great zeal and learning, to prove the
correctness of this view of the law. Dr. Adam  Clarket
speaks of the animals denominated unclean as affording a
gross nutriment, often the parent of scorbutic and scrofulous
disorders, and of those called clean as furnishing a copious
and wholesome nutriment, and free from all tendency to generate disease.  MI. de Pastoret,: a celebrated French writer,
notices the constant attention of Moses to the health of the
people, as one of the most dist distinguishing traits in his character as a legislator. The flesh of the prohibited animals, that
of the swine especially, was certainly calculated to aggravate,
if not to produce, that shocking malady, the leprosy, which
was endemic in the east, and prevailed, to a frightful extent,
among the inhabitants of Palestine.  Purposes of a moral
nature, also, entered, beyond all question, into the general
design of the law. The distinction of meats tended to promote the moral improvement of the Israelites by impressing
* See his More Nevochim in various places.
t Commentary in loc.
I Moyse, consider6 comme Legislateur et comme Moraliste, C. 7. Cited
by Townley in the Dissertations prefixed to his Translation of the More
Nevochim.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           467
their minds with the conviction, that as they were a peculiar," so they ought to be a "holy nation;" by prohibiting
the eating of flesh, whose gross and feculent nature might
stimulate vicious propensities; and by symbolizing the dispositions and conduct to be encouraged and cultivated, or to be
abhorred and avoided. Dr. Townley* cites, as concurring in
this view, Levi Barcelona, Eusebius, Origen, Justin Martyr,
Tertullian, and others.
But, though this law aimed to promote the health and
morals of the Hebrews, such considerations did not exhaust
the scope and intention of it. Its leading design was to counteract idolatry, by separating the Israelites from their idolatrous neighbors, and so preventing the infection of their
example in religion and manners. This opinion does not rest
on mere conjecture; nor even on the basis of logical deduction from admitted premises. The main intention of the law
is unequivocally declared in the 20th chapter of Leviticus:t
"Ye shall not walk in the manners of the nations which I
cast out before you; * * * ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean
fowls and clean; *  *  *  and ye shall be holy unto me."
The wisdom of this provision, considering the end in view,
is most admirable. "Intimate friendships," observes a sagacious writer,4 " are in most cases formed at table; and with
the man with whom I can neither eat nor drink, let our intercourse in business be what it may, I shall seldom become as
familiar as with him, whose guest I am, and he mine. If we
have, besides, from education, an abhorrence of the food
which each other eats, this forms a new obstacle to closer intimacy. Nothing more effectual could possibly be devised to
keep one people distinct from another. It causes the difference between them to be ever present to the mind, touching,
as it does, upon so many points of social and every day con* Fourth Diss. prefixed to his Trans. of the Mor. Nev. t Vv. 23-26.
$ Mich. Com. Art. 203.




46"8              COMMENTARMES ON THaE
tact. It is far more efficient, in its results, as a rule of distinction, than any difference in doctrine or worship, that men
could entertain. It is a mutual repulsion, continually operating. The effect of it may be estimated from the fact, that
no nation, in which a distinction of meats has been enforced
as part of a religious system, has ever changed its religion.":Tt is perfectly evident from the history of the Israelites,
that their entire isolation from other nations was the only
means, save a miraculous control of their understanding and
will, of abolishing idolatry among them. Polytheism  was
then the universal religion of mankind; and the Jews, as
Michaelis*- has observed, often appear to have had their heads
turned, and to have been driven, as if by a sort of phrensy,
to the belief and worship of many gods.
Yet this circumstance, strange as it now appears, when
duly considered, forms no just ground even of wonder;
much less, of any supercilious self-complacency on our part.
Opinions are extremely infectious, as we ourselves have but
too many proofs, in the thousand extravaganzas of the'times.
Let us not flatter ourselves, that, had we lived then, we should
have been superior to the most absurd and besotted follies.
Even Solomon, a learned man and a philosopher, to say
nothing of his inspiration, incredible as it seems to us, built
idol temples, and sacrificed to strange gods. The Jews in
our day are exposed to a similar influence from christianity,
which is powerfully felt by them. Their peculiarities are
invaded by christian institutions and manners. In our country,
for example, the festival of Christmas is extensively observed
by them, though it is, strictly speaking, no more a part of
their religion or manners, than the festival of Baal-peor.  I
was myself once invited to the celebration of this festival in
a Jewish family.  On my venturing to call the attention of
my host to the incongruity of such an observance by a:Jew,
he admitted it, and added, that he had said the same thing to
* Mich. Com. Art. 32




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT: HEBREWS.           469
his children that very morning, when they had asked him
for Christmas presents. Their reply to him was,'" that all
children received presents that day, and they wanted them
as well." This conversation let much light into my mind on
the defection to idolatry of the ancient Israelites.
Another point. Those who wonder at the frequent lapses
of this people, forget, that idolatry did not consist simply in
the worship of those " dead things called gods of gold and
silver," or of " some vile beast laid over with vermilion set
fast in a wall." On the contrary, idolatry touched all the
infirmities of the human heart. The splendid festival of the
idol-worshipper veiled the most voluptuous practices, and
initiated into the most infamous mysteries. The heart of the
Israelite was of flesh, sensual and carnal, like that of other
men. Idolatry was an appeal to his susceptibility of sensual
impressions and pleasures. It was a stealth into dark and
voluptuous rites. It offered a ready aliment to the secret and
wavering passions of the rebellious Hebrews.  IIence their
frequent lapses into the vilest rites of their idolatrous neighbors, despite the clear proofs, with which they had been
favored, of the unity and sovereignty of the divine being.*
That madness of debauchery, which was exhibited in the city
of Gibeah,t reveals the true source of so obstinate an attachment to the idolatry, which consecrated such vices.
The idolatry of the ancient Israelites had, moreover, this
material circumstance of mitigation. They never, at the very
height of their polytheistic madness, formally renounced the
worship of Jehovah. The follies of idolatry are endless; and
among them, a leading one was the belief in what Warburton
calls " gentilitial and local gods."  The former accompanied
the nations, by whom they were worshipped, in all their migrations; the latter were immoveably fixed to the spots,
where they were adored; or, as the learned prelate: has
* D'Israeli's Genius of Judaism, C. 4.
t Judg. xix. 22-25.       $ Divine Legation, B. 5, S. 3.




1470              COMMENTARIES On THE
quaintl3 expressed it, —" the one class were ambulatory, the
other stationary."
This principle led to an intercommunity of worship; so
that the adoption and worship of a new deity was by no means
looked upon as a necessary renunciation of those worshipped
before. Thus it is recorded of the mixed rabble of idolators,
with whom the king of Assyria, after the conquest and removal of the ten tribes, had peopled Samaria, that " they
feared Jehovah, and served their own gods.""  So also
Sophocles makes Antigone say to her father, that " a stranger
should both venerate and abhor those things, which are venerated and abhorred in the city where he resides." Celsus
gives as a reason for such complaisance, the doctrine, that
the several parts of the world were, from the beginning,
parcelled out to severl]. powers, each of whom had his own
peculiar allotment and residence. It was the same idea, that
led Plato to adopt and advocate the maxim, that nothing
ought ever to be changed in the religion we find established
in a country.
In accordance with this principle, the Israelites combined
the worship of idols with the worship of the true God, who,
in amazing condescension, assumed the title of a tutelary local
God, an.d chose Judaea as his peculiar regency.t  Thus,
when the people " made a calf in Horeb,": it was evidently
designed as a representative of the God who had wrought
deliverance for them; for Aaron proclaimed a feast to Jehovah, not to Isis or Osiris. So Jeroboam, when he set up the
golden calves at Dan and Bethel,~ does not give the slightest
intimation of a formal intention to renounce the worship of
Jehovah. And Jehu, one of his successors, while he still
persists in the sin of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, that is,
in the worship of the calves, actually boasts of being a zealot
* 2 Kings xvii. 33.       t Warburton's Div. Leg. B. 5. S. 3.: Exod. xxxii. 4; Ps. cvi. 19.   { 1 Kings xii. 28-33.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            471
for Jehovah.*  Instances of the like nature are scattered
throughout the Old Testament Scriptures; and they prove
conclusively, as Warburtont has observed, that "the defection of Israel did not consist in rejecting Jehovah as a false
god, or in renouncing the law of Moses as a false religion;
but in joining foreign worship and idolatrous ceremonies to
the ritual of the true God. To this they were stimulated, as
by various other motives, so especially by the luxurious and
immoral rites of paganism."
These observations naturally lead us to the inquiry, whether the suppression of idolatry was a design worthy to
engage the care of the divine mind; in other words, whether
idolatry was a matter of mere harmless speculation, or a
fountain of dangerous immoralities, and a prolific source of
evils to the human race, whenever and wherever it has prevailed.
The religious sentiment has ever been paramount, either
for good or for evil, in its action both upon societies and
individuals.  " Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah, and
bow myself before the high God; shall I come before him
with thousands of rains, or with ten thousands of rivers of
oil; shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the friuit
of my body for the sin of my soul.?" —is the piercing cry,
which our universal nature has sent up to heaven, in all ages
of the world. Let the thirty thousand gods of the Greeks
and Romans, the costly temples reared for their worship, and
the countless hecatombs that smoked upon their altars; let
the long and painful pilgrimages of whole armies of devotees
to the shrine of their idolatry, and their innumerable and
cruel self-tortures. inflicted in the vain hope of thereby securing the divine favor; above all, let the rivers of human
blood, shed to glut the rapacity of some sanguinary deity,
which have drenched the soil of every nation under heaven,
— attest the truth of this observation.
* 2 Kings x. 16.    t Div. Leg. B. 5. S. 3  $ Mic. vi. 6, 7.




472-"             COMMENTARIES ON THE
"6 Religion," says Coleridge,* "'true or false, is, and ever has
been, the centre of gravity in a realm. to which all other
things must and will accommodate themselves." The sense,
which mankind have ever entertained of the power of the'
religions principle in moulding human character, plainly
appears in the pains taken by the ancient lawgivers to
impress upon those for whomrn they legislated, an idea of their
inspiration by some deity. Mfinos, lawgiver of the Cretans,
often retired to a cave, where he boasted of having familiar
conversations with Jupiter, whose sanction he claimed for his
legislation.  Mneves and Amasis, renowned legislators of
Egypt, attributed their laws to Mercury. Lycurgus claimed
the sanction of Apollo for his reformation of the Spartan
government. Pythagoras and Zaleucus, who made laws for
the Crotoniates and Locrians, ascribed their institutions to:
IMinerva. Zathraustes, lawgiver of the Arimaspians, gave
obut that he had his ordinances from a goddess adored by
that people. Zoroaster and Zamolxis boasted to the Pactrians
and the Getae of their intimate communications with goddess
Vesta.  And Numa amused the Romans with his conversations with the nymph Egeria.
These facts demonstrate a universal persuasion of the controlling energy of the religious sentiment over men's minds
and practices. It cannot, indeed, be otherwise than that the
ideas which men entertain of the gods they worship, should
constitute a capital element in the formation of their moral
character. Like gods, like worshippers. It is vain to expect,
that the virtue of the devotee will exceed the virtue of the
divinity.  The worshippers of a bloody Mfars, a thievish
Mercury, an incestuous Jupiter, and a voluptuous Venus,
could hardly help being sanguinary, dishonest, and licentious.
"Gods partial, changeful, passionate, unjust,
Whose attributes were rage, revenge, and lust,"
* Manual for Statesmen.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            473,
could never become the authors of the opposite virtues in
those by whom they were adored. Whatever sanctions they
might annex to their laws, their example would always prove
more powerful than their terrors.
Plato excluded poets from his republic, dismissing even
Homer, with a garland on his head, and with ointment
poured upon him. His object, in this otherwise unaccountable rigor, was, that they might not corrupt the right
notions of God with their fables. If we consider the absurdity, as well as the immorality, of their fictions, we shall
hardly be disposed: to blame him. They distinguished the
gods in their places and ways- of living, in the same manner
as they would different sorts of animals. Some they placed
under the earth; some in the sea; some in woods and rivers;
and the most ancient of them all they bound in hell. Some
are set to trades; one is a smith; another is a weaver; one
is a warrior, and fights with men; others are harpers; and
others, still, delight in archery and the chase. Gods of the
sea, the rivers, the woods, the hills, and the valleys; gods of
smithery, music, and the chase; gods of wine, war, and love;
— what more besotted could be imagined? The father of the
gods himself is fast bound by the fates, so that he cannot,
contrary to their decrees, save his own offspring. Not seldomra
does he resort to policy and craft, nay to the basest disguises
and hypocrisies, to accomplish his purposes, which are often
of the most shameful nature. Storm, darkness, fear, rage,
madness, fraud, and the vilest passions were invested
with divinity.  Unbounded lusts and disgraceful amours
were ascribed by the poets to almost all the gods. There
was scarcely a member of the Olympian senate, who would
now be admitted to decent society among mortals. No
wonder that Plato shut out from his commonwealth a class of
writers, whose extravagant and teeming fancy he regarded as
the source of these monstrosities.
It was a principle of polytheism, that the supreme God,




474               COMMENTARIES ON THE
after he had made the world, retreating, as it were, wholly
into himself, had committed the government of it to subordinate deities, and did not interfere in the regulation of
human affairs. Thus the temporal blessings of health, long
life, fruitful seasons, plenty, safety, victory over enemies, and
such like advantages, were to be sought from these demons,
or idols. And these blessings were to be obtained, and the
opposite evils averted, not by the practice of virtue and
beneficence, but by the use of some magical ceremonies, or
by the performance of certain senseless and barbarous rites
of worship. That this was a fundamental doctrine of idolatry, we have undoubted proofs, both from sacred and profane
writers. King Ahaz, in 2 Chronicles,* says, " Because the
gods of the kings of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice
to them, that they may help me."  The prophet Hoseat
represents the Jews of his time as saying, "I will go after
my lovers (the idol gods), that give me my bread and my
water, my wool and my flax, mine oil and my drink."  To a
reproof from Jeremiah for their idolatry, they replied: " As
for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of
the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth,
to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out,
drink-offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our
fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah,
and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of
victuals, and. were well and saw no evil. But since we left
off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out
drink-offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and
have been consumed by the sword and by the famine."t
Here they aver, in substance, that as long as they had worshipped the queen of heaven, all had gone well with them,
and her, therefore, they would worship, and to her sacrifice,
in spite of his admonitions. To the like purport is the decla* xxviii. 23.       t ii. 5.:     Jer. xliv. 16-18.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           475
ration of Plato. In his work De Anima Mundi, speaking of
the punishment of wicked men, he says; " All these things
hath Nemesis decreed to be executed in the second period by
the ministry of vindictive terrestrial demons, who are overseers of human affairs; to which demons the supreme God
hath committed the government of this world."
But was not this a harmless philosophical dogma?  By no
means. It was a doctrine, not more false in point of fact,
than pernicious in its results. It was a denial of the providence of God. The disbelief of this great truth gave plausibility, attractiveness, and energy to the whole system of
idolatry. The supreme being was thought to be too exalted
in his dignity to take any concern in human conduct, too remote from this sublunary scene to regard its vicissitudes with
any interest, too much absorbed in the contemplation of his
own infinite perfections to care for the perfection of inferior
beings, too much engrossed in the enjoyment of his own independent happiness to feel any desire for the happiness of
creatures. Hence his existence came to be, either totally
forgotten, or regarded with indifference. However the case
might have been with a few philosophic and contemplative
minds, to the generality of mankind the true God was as
though he were not. They referred not their conduct to his
direction, for his power had nothing to do with their happiness or misery. He had delegated to demons the government
of this world. The agency of these inferior beings controlled
its affairs; their will determined the blessings or calamities
bf life. While, therefore, it was wise and safe to neglect the
supreme being, it was unwise and unsafe to treat with a like
indifference the subordinate deities, to whom he had committed the administration of human affairs.* Thus men
came to think, that they were not to expect the blessings of
life from the favor of the one true God, by imitating his
purity and goodness; but from a Jupiter, stained with
* See on this subject Graves on the Pent. Pt. 2, Lect. 1.




476               COMAMENTARIES ON THE
crimes that would doom a mortal to the gibbet or the penitentiary; from a Mercury, a thief and a patron of thieves;
from a Bacchus, the god of drunkenness; from a Mars, the
instigator of war and bloodshed; or from a Venus, the patron.
ess of all manner of voluptuousness and debauchery. Hence
they became, almost necessarily, as corrupt in practice, as
they were erroneous and grovelling in their opinions. The
principles of moral goodness were well nigh extinguished in
the human heart, and the practice of the moral virtues had
almost disappeared from  the earth.  And intemperance,
ferocity, lust, fraud, and violence might have brought a
second deluge upon the race, had not the truth of God stood
pledged against the repetition of so dire a calamity.
But further, and worse. Idolatry did not simply lead to
vicious practices, it even consecrated vice in its sacred rites.
Incredible as it may seem, uncleanness formed a part of the
religious worship paid to the gods. Persons of both sexes prostituted themselves in honor of Venus, Priapus, Astarte, Baalpeor, and other filthy and loathsome deities. Of these obscene
rites, as constituting a part of the religion of idolaters, we
have the clearest proofs in authors of undoubted credit.
Strabo* informs us, that a single temple at Corinth maintained more than a thousand religious prostitutes. Herodotust tells us, that women of this description abounded
among the Phenicians, Babylonians, and other eastern nations. He even says, that by an express law, founded on an
oracle, it was ordained, that all the women of Babylon
should, at least once in their lives, repair to the temple of
Venus, and prostitute themselves to strangers. Strangely
enough as it seems to me, an eminent and for the most part
judicious author,s has labored to prove, that this custom must
have been conducive to the virtue of chastity. Facts, however, contradict the theory of this learned writer. Babylon,
* Geog. 1. 8.                 t Lib. 1. c. 187.
t Goguet in his Origin of Laws.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.               477
by the testimony of both sacred and prof4ame authors,   was
one vast sink of pollution.  Its inhabitants made a particular
study of all that could delight the senses, and excite and
gratify thile most shameless passions. The women of Cyprus
sacrificed their chastity before -marriage, to Venus.*  The
Egyptians had religious prostitutes, who were consecrated to
Isis.+  The Isiac rites, transported to Rome, became a mere
cloak for licentiousness.  Tiberius caused the images of Isis
to be thrown into the Tiber. But her worship was too alluring to be suffered to die out and disappear.  It was,: therefore, subsequently revived in full force, and Juvenal speaks
of it in an indignant strain.:  Selden,'De Diis Syriis, has
fully shown the impurities of the ancient idolatrous worship.
Bacchus, Osiris, and Ceres were adored with rites, which
modesty forbids to explain.~  That these religious obscenities
were practised in the days of Moses, is manifest fiom  the
history of the Israelites, who committed fornication with the
daughters of Moab. II The immorality was perpetrated at a
sacrificial festival, the Moabitish women exposing themselves
in honor of Baal-peor, who was the same as the Priapus of
the Romans. It is further evident from a law of Moses, forbidding a father to prostitute his daughter, "' to cause her to
be a whore."[   This lawm rust be understood as prohibiting
the exposure of a daughter as an act of religion, for surely
no man, not even the vilest and most abandoned, could prostitute a child to purposes of common whoredom.
The necessary consequences of religious doctrines  and
ceremonies, like those described in the preceding paragraph,
was the extinction of all true religious principle,. and even of
* Justin i. 18. c. 5. Herod. 1. I.: c.187.: Lewis's Antiq. of the Heb. Rep. B. 5, c. 1.
1 See Anthon's Class. Diet. Art. Isis, and the authorities referred to by
him.
Q See Lowman on Civ. Gov. Heb. c. 1.
U Num. xxv. 1-3.                   Levit. xix. 29.




478                COMMENTARPIES ON TEE
all the principles of moral virtue and goodness. They gave
intensity to the depraved appetites of human nature. They
put the bridle upon the neck of lust, and caused men to run
riot in every species of impurity.
But the ancient mythologists represented their deities under,
if possible, a still more malign and repulsive light. The learned
professor iMleiners* says, that the more ancient Greeks imagined their gods to be envious of human felicity. Whenever
any extraordinary success attended them, they were filled with
terror, lest the gods should bring upon them some dreadful
evil. Herodotust attributes to Solon, in his interview with
Croesus, the formal declaration, — The gods envy the happiness of men."  The Egyptian monarch Amasis grounds the
withdrawment of his friendship from Polycrates, tyrant of
Samos, on the notoriously envious nature of the divine
being.: The sage Artabanus warns Xerxes, that even the
blessings which the gods bestow, are derived from an envious
motive.~  A similar doctrine prevailed at Rome, agreeably
to which the great Fabius, as Livy informs us, remonstrated
with the Roman people against an election to the consulship
in his old age, urging, among other reasons, that some divinity might think his past successes too great for mortal, and
turn the tide of fortune against him. In accordance with this
doctrine, we find even the reflecting Tacitus expressing the
opinion, that the gods interfere in human affairs but to
punish.1!
As a necessary consequence, almost the whole of the religion
of the ancient pagan world consisted in rites of deprecation.
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, in one of the notes appended to his Discourses on
* Historia Doctrinae de vero Deo, p. 208.   t L. 1. C. 32.
t Herod. 1. 3. C. 40.               Ibid. 1. 7. C 46.
N "Non esse curae deis securifttem nostram, esse ultionem."




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           479
Atonement and Sacrifice, 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," adds the
same learned prelate, " 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."
Undoubtedly, then, 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; and to let them
know, that he had not parted with the administration of
providence, nor given over the disposal of temporal blessings
to any subordinate beings whatsoever; so that health, plenty,
and all kinds of prosperity were to be sought from him alone,
and expected as the sole gift of his sovereign bounty. And
here we may take notice, in passing, of an opinion of Origen,
in which Spencer and others of the learned concur, that it was
a very wise procedure in Moses to enforce the observance of
his laws by the hope of temporal good and the fear of temporal
evil. Such hopes and fears were, if not a source of idolatry,
at least a means of strengthening it. The I-Iebrew lawgiver
turned this battery, if I may be allowed the expression, against
the enemy. In the name of Jehovah, Israel's divine king, he
promised temporal blessings to the obedient, and threatened
* Vol. 1. pp. 89-109.




480               COMMENTARIES ON THE
temporal calamities to the disobedient. Thus the very things,
which before had been motives to idolatry, inow became
motives and aids to:true religion. It may be said without
irreverence, that a sort of necessity was laid upon the true God
to proceed in this manner. How could he effectually check
the propensity to idolatry; how could he show, that he had:not delegated to demons the government of the world; how
could he vindicate his own incommunicable sovereignty and,omnipotence, but by doing, in reality, what the false gods
pretended to do a
Upon the same principle it was, I think, that prophecy, in
the more restricted sense of foretelling future events, was so
much emploved under the Hebrew government. The ability
to peer into the future was claimed by the ministers of the
ancient idolatrous worship; and the people, confiding in their
pretensions, consulted them  upon all occasions.  To meet
and overcome the power of superstition in that direction, it
would seem natural, and, indeed, almost necessary, that the
true God should show, by infallible tokens, that the past, the
present, and the future were all one to him.
But the pestilent virus of idolatry was too deeply seated to
be eradicated by such agencies as these. The question, then,
naturally arises: What just and rational means were adequate
to the suppression of it? Opinions are not to be bound by
legal enactments; and to enforce mere theological dogmas
by the arm of the civil law, would be a gross breach of civil
liberty. It would be strange indeed, if a code, to which the
world is indebted for most of the true principles of civil freedom, violated that freedom, in a fundamental article of it.
And, in truth, however certain ignorant or prejudiced writers
may have represented the matter, the constitution of Moses
is chargeable with no such inconsistency.
How, then, was Moses able to suppress idolatry, without infringing the principle here announced? By the introduction
of the theocratic system into his inspired legislation. "One




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            481
God only shalt thou serve," was the first great principle of the
[Hebrew polity. To the end that this fundamental truth of
religion might become a vital element of Hebrew thought,
faith, and manners, the one true God became also the covenanted king, the civil head of the Hebrew state. Thus to the
Israelite the Deity was both a celestial and a terrestrial sovereign, his God and his kling. Viewed as to a main design
of it, then, the theocracy was a divine constitution, employed
the more effectually to supplant idolatry, without a violation
of that precious principle of civil liberty, that mere opinions,
whether theological, ethical, or political, were not to be
cramped and restrained by the pains and penalties of the
civil law.
" The records of the Hebrew polity," observes Coleridge,*
with a just discrimnination, " are rendered far less instructive
as lessons of political wisdom by the disposition to regard
the Jehovah in that universal and spiritual acceptation, in
which we use the word as christians; for relatively to the
Jewish polity the Jehovah was their covenanted king.'
What, then, was the theocracy? God condescended to
assume the title and relation to the I-Iebrew people of chief
civil ruler.  lie stablished a civil sovereignty over them.
He issued his edicts as a civil magistrate. The manner in
which the compact, giving reality to this relationship, was
formed, deserves particular notice.  It is detailed in the
nineteenth chapter of Exodus. Moses, acting under a divine
commission, proposed to the nation the question, whether
they would receive Jehovah for their king, and submit to his
laws? The suffrage of the people appears to have been entirely free in this matter. By their own voluntary consent
Mloses made God their king. Thus idolatry and every thing
leading to idolatry or growing out of it, became a crime
against the state,-became, in fact, "crimen laesae majestatis," high treason, or rebellion.  As such, it was justly
* Manual for Statesmen.
31




482              COMMENTARIES ON THE
punishable with death,-all governments agreeing in this,
that treason is the highest of civil crimes. The punishment
of idolatry by law had, then, plainly, this capital quality ot
justice, that it was punishing the act of those who had chosen
the government under which they lived, when freely proposed to them. Their own suffrages had made it a political
offence. Hence idolatry is called by the Hebrew  writers
" the trangression of the covenant."  It was a breach of the
fundamental compact between the Hebrew people and their
chosen king. The theocracy made religious apostacy a state
crime, which it could not be, without infringing liberty,
under any other constitution.
It is a material consideration, that Moses nowhere deduces
God's right to give laws to the Hebrew  nation from his
being the one only God, but from his having by miraculous
interpositions and works of power, laid the foundation of
theirstate. In confirmation of this view, the reader's attention is invited to a remarkable passage in Deuteronomy.*
I give the passage, as translated by Michaelis:t "When thy
son asketh thee in after times, whence come all the statutes
and laws, which Jehovah thy God hath given thee? thou
shalt say to him, we were in Egypt slaves to the king; but
Jehovah, with a strong hand brought us out of Egypt, and
did before our eyes great miracles, whereby he punished the
Egyptians, and Pharoah and his house; and he brought us
out, to give us the land, which he had by an oath promised
to our fathers: Therefore he commanded us to keep all these
laws."  Here the right of legislating for the Hebrews is, in
express terms, grounded on the favors which God had bestowed upon them, and not upon his absolute sovereignty as
creator and universal lord.
What God says to the Israelites in Exod. 20: 2, 3, is to
the same effect: "I amn  Jehovah, thy God, which have
brought thee out of Egyptian bondage; thou shalt have no
* vi. 20-24.          Cornm. Art. 34.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           483
gods before me." It would have been quite consonant with
sound theology to say: " I Jehovah am God alone; therefore
thou shalt have no gods but me." This fundamental article
of religion is taught in many parts of the Mosaic writings.
But the opinions of the Israelites were not to be fettered by
legal enactments; and yet idolatry must be prohibited on
pain of civil punishment. God, therefore, as Mlichaelis has
observed, addressed a people strangely prone to polytheism,
to this effect:-" Lest you should absurdly suppose, that there
are many gods, who can hear your prayers and recompense
your offerings, know that I alone have delivered you from
Egyptian tyranny; have made you a people; and am the
author and founder of your state: Therefore let no gods but
me be worshipped among you."
But it ought never to be forgotten, that, although God, by
what he wrought for the Israelites, had acquired all the right
to be their sovereign, that any man could possibly have, still
he neither claimed nor exercised that right in an arbitrary
and despotic way. [MIoses, by his direction, permitted the
people freely to choose whether they would accept Jehovah as
their king, and obey the laws which he might give them.
When they had formally assented to this, God was considered
as their king, but not before. The whole world, indeed, was
under his moral rule; his dominion as creator embraced
all the tribes of earth; but Israel was his peculiar property,
whose people had chosen him for their king. The passages
of scripture to this effect are surprizingly pointed and striking.
The history of the election by the Israelites of Jehovah to be
the head of their state, contained in the nineteenth chapter
of Exodus, has been before explained and commented on at
length.t  Other passages are no less remarkable. Thus, in
Deut. 33: 5, it is said "God was king in Jeshurun, WHEN
the heads of the people, and the tribes of Israel were gathered
* Corn. Art. 33.     t See pp. 47, 48 of this vol.




484                 COMIIENTARIES ON THE
together."~* This seems a plain reference to thle acce unt in
Exodus, and as plain an intimation, that God was made king
by the vote of the assembled nation.  So when the Israelites
first desired a man for a king, God said to Samuel, "They
hlave not rejected thee, they have rejected me, that I should
not reign over them."t  Again, when they were to receive
this king, the record is, "Thus saith Jehovah, God of Israel,
I brought up Israel out of Egypt, and delivered you out of
the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of all-kingdoms, and of them that oppressed you; and ye have this day
rejected your God, who himself saved you out of all your
adversities and your tribulations, and ye have said unto him,
Nay, but set a king over us.":
What is the issue?  We have seen the monstrous doctrines,
pollutions, and crimes of idolatry. We have seen the justice,
wisdom, and goodness of the purpose to put a stop to such
dreadful evils. We have seen the nature and ground of God's
claim to the sovereignty of the Hebrew state. We have seen,
that the government was a voluntary compact between the
sovereign and the citizens. We have seen, that idolatry under
this constitution was a state crime, was in fact high treason.
We have seen, that the whole scope and hinge of the Hebrew
polity was the overthrow of idolatry, and that the theocratic
element was introduced into it expressly to further that design.
Let the reader consider and weigh these things, and, if he be
* The common version makes Moses king in Jeshurun. But Kennicott,
Mlichaelis, Adam Clarke, and other distinguished Hebrew scholars, are of
the opinion, that the word Moses crept into the text by mistake of some
transcriber, and was not in the original, as written by Moses himself. Dr.
Clarke, with his usual curtness and vigor, pronounces the sense yielded by
our translation "'most absurd." Dr. Kennicott's argument in support of
the opinion, that God, and not Moses, is the real subject of the proposition,
is forcible and conclusive; but it is hardly worth while to trouble the
reader with philological discussions of that nature. See Clarke in loe.,
Kennicott's first Dissertation; and Michaelis's Commentaries, Art. 24.
i 1 Sam. viii. 7.             $ Ibid. x. 18, 19.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            485
candid and unbiased, if his mental vision be not warped and
clouded by prejudice, he will own, that to have imposed the
penalty of death upon the worship of false gods can no longer
appear in the light of inquisitorial tyranny.
It will be proper to conclude this chapter with a brief
sketch of the religious and moral doctrines of judaism.*
There is one God, says the Jewish lawgiver, and there is
none besides him. He is the sole object of religious trust
and worship. Himself the supreme being, and the necessary
source of all other beings, there is no other that can be conmpared with  him. A  spirit, pure, immense, infinite,-no
material form can be a fit symbol of his nature. He framned
the universe by his power; he governs it by his wisdom; he
regulates it by his providence.  Nothing escapes his omniscient glance; nothing can resist his almighty power.
The good and evil of life are alike dispensed by his righteous
hand.
A public worship of this God is instituted.  Ministers to
preside over it are appointed. Sacrifices and offerings and a
splendid ceremonial are established. But all this pomp is
nothing in his eyes, unless prompted and animated by the
sentiments of the heart. The worship which he demands,
before all and above all, is the acknowledgement of our absolute dependence and of his supreme dominion; gratitude for
his benefits; trust in his mercy; reverence for his authority;
love towards his excellence; and submission to his law.
What purity and beauty in the moral doctrines of this
code! Equity, probity, fidelity, industry, compassion, charity,
beneficence;-in a word, every thing that makes men respectable in their own eyes, every thing that can endear them to
their fellows, every thing that can assure the repose and
* See on this subject " Lettres de quelques Juifs Allemands et Polonais a
M. de Voltaire." The valuable substance of the first Letter is embodied
in these closing sentences.




4:86              COMMENTARIES ON THE'happiness of society,-are placed among the number of human
duties.
Where else, in all antiquity, are to be found ideas of God
and his worship, so just and sublime; religious institutions,
so pure and spiritual; ethical doctrines, so conformable to
the sentiments of nature and the light of reason? IRecal the
picture, presented in a former part of this chapter, of the
religious and moral condition of the ancient world. What
false and grotesque notions of the divine nature! What
extravagant, impure, and  cruel rites!  What objects of
adoration!  From the heavenly orbs to the meanest plant,
from the man distinguished for his talents or his crimes to the
vilest reptile,-everything has its worshippers. Here, chastity is sacrificed in the temples.  There, human blood flows
upon the altars, and the dearest victims expire amid flames,
kindled by superstition. Again, nature is outraged by beastly
amours, and humanity brutalized by vices that cannot be
named without offence. Everywhere, the people are plunged
into a frightfiul ignorance, and the philosophers themselves
grope in doubt and uncertainty.
Wherefore this difference? But one cause, adequate to the
result, can be assigned. All the pagan nations had for their
guide only the feeble and tremulous light of human reason.
Among the ITebrews, a higher, even the pure and eternal
reason, had pierced the darkness, scattered its shades, and
poured a divine illumination into the mind of prophet, priest,
lawgiver, judge, and king. Thus was the intellect of the
nation enlightened, and its heart purified.  Thus were its
manners humanized; its morals elevated; its institutions
liberalized. Thus was the nation educated for its great mission of guidance and of blessing to all the nations of the
earth, in all the periods of their history.
The Hebrew government was a government of tutelage,
No form of polity has ever approached it in grandeur, purity,
simplicity, and beneficence. Iliad men been more perfect, it




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBRtEWS.          487
would have stood forever. But human inconstancy wearied
even of a perfect government; mortal passions corrupted
even a divine institution; and the commonwealth of Israel,
like the empire of Rome, at length fell beneath the weight of
its own vices, and disappeared from the brotherhood of nations. It lives only in history, a monument at once of the
divine goodness and equity.
CHAPTER III.
General Idea of the Hebrew Constitution.
THE political equality of the people, without either nobles
or peasants properly so called, was, as we have seen,* a fundamnental principle of the Miosaic constitution.  This could
not but give the state a strong democratic tendency. iNor is
it matter of surprize, that on this foundation Moses established a commonwealth, rather than a mronarchy.t  On this
point, there is scarcely a dissenting voice among all the
learned men, who have written upon these institutions. Mr.
Hornet does but echo the general opinion, when be says,
that " the form of the Hebrew republic was unquestionably
democratical."
Moses did not, indeed, by an unchangeable law, enact, that
no alteration should ever be made in the form of government. On the contrary, his prophetic eye foresaw, that the
time would come, when his countrymen, infected and dazzled
* Bk. 2, c. 1, p. 400.  t Mich. Com. on the Laws of Moses.
$ Introduction, vol. 2, Pt. 2, c. 1.




488               COMMENTARIES ON THE
by the example of the surrounding nations, would lose their
relish for republican simplicity, and would demand the splendors of a throne and a court. But it was not his wish, thai
they should have a king. Upon this point he reasoned; he
dissuaded; he expostulated; he warned. The spirit of his
law was strongly against monarchy; and all, who afterwards
maintained that spirit, were equally strong against it. This
was the case with Gideon, who indignantly rejected the offer
of a crown. This was the case with Samuel, that model of a
popular magistrate.  He remonstrated, solemnly and eloquently, with the people, against their rash determination to
have a king. He told them, that they were fastening upon
themselves an oriental despotism; that their kings would
rule them with a rod of iron: and that they would repent of
their rashness, when it was too late. The truth is, that all
who followed the maxims of the founder of the state, set
their faces against usurpation, and maintained the rights of
the people at all hazcards, and in the most disastrous times.*
Foreseeing, however, that all his admonitions would, in the
end, prove unavailing, MToses enacted a fundamental law to
define and limit the power of the future kings. This law is
found in the 17th chapter of Deuteronomy.  Despotism
seems to be the native growth of the east. Man there,
cradled in servitude, becomes fitted to listen to his fate, in
the mandates of a tyrant. The climate dissolves the energy
of the heart, and hence the people of the east have always
been mere children in respect of political institutions. ITndolence loves to gaze, and hence they have ever been delighted
with the trappings of royalty, and have been prone to look
on an earthly king with a veneration approaching to idolatry.
The pomp of their sovereign feeds their vanity; his power is
their pride.  They have no notion of' popular freedom.
Hence a chief magistrate, subject to the laws of his people,
a constitutional king, is a conception, foreign to all their
* Chr. Exam. for Sept. 1836.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             489
habits of thought and feeling. In Egypt, Moses had witnessed the abuse of the regal power; in the wilderness, he had
observed the tyranny of the petty despots in the neighborhood of Israel. Hence the enactment of the law referred to
above. The particular provisions of this law will be ex
amined in another chapter.  I will only observe now, in
passing, that they were such as to insure, whenever the anticipated change in the form of polity should take place, the
existence of a constitutional monarchy. The king, permitted
by MIoses to the folly of his countrymen, was, in truth, what
a late monarch in France* claimed to be, a "citizen king;"
a popular magistrate, rather than an arbitrary sovereign. If
the Hebrew statesman could not wholly resist the proclivity
of his nation to the regal form of government, he at least,
with prescient wisdom, limited the power intrusted to the
hands of royalty. In this he shows how thoroughly his own
spirit was impregnated with democratic principles, how deep
was his hatred of tyranny, and how ardent and irrepressible
his sympathy for the rights, the liberty, and the happiness of
man.t
Considerable difference of opinion exists among the learned
in regard to the number and nature of the departments of the
Hebrew government, and the officers by whom the administration of public affairs was conducted. The mixture of civil
and military authority, which marks this constitution, the
blending of the legislative and judicial functions in the same
assembly, the union of various and, according to our way of
thinking, somewhat incongruous powers in the priesthood,
the apparent chasmst in the Mlosaic legislation arising from
the frequent retention by Moses of ancient consuetudinary
* Louis Philippe.
t See on this subject D'Israeli's Genius of Judaism, c. 4.: I say " apparent chasms," because what are chasms to us were not so
to the Israelites, being supplied by a then well known law of usage; a' lex non scripta," corresponding to the common law among us.




490                COMMENTARIES ON THE
]aws, without any formal introduction of them into the body
of his own laws, and the extreme brevity of the history of
the Israelitish state, as contained in the sacred books, are the
causes of that obscurity, which has operated to produce this
diversity of opinion. As far as I have been able to satisfy
my own mind, the following statement embodies the radical
features of this ancient and venerable polity.*
Each of the Israelitish tribes formed a separate state, hay
ing a local legislature and a distinct administration of justice.
The power of the several states was sovereign within the
limits of their reserved rights.  Still. there was both a real
and a vigorous general government. The nation might have
been styled the united tribes, provinces, or states of Israel.
The bond of political union between the sovereign states
appears to have been fourfold. In other words, there were
four departments of the Hebrew government: viz. the chief
magistrate, whether judge, high priest, or king; the senate of
princes; the congregation of Israel, the popular branch of
the government; and the oracle of Jehovah, a most interesting and singular part of the political structure.  The form of
a legal enactment might have run somewhat after this fashion:-" Be it enacted by the senate and congregation of
Israel, the judge approving, and the oracle concurring."
There was a judiciary system, in which causes of a sufficient
magnitude could be carried up, through courts of various
grades, till they came, for final adjudication, before a supremne national court, which held its session in the capital of
the nation. Finally, on the one hand, the organization of the
tribe of Levi gave vitality to the whole system, acted as a
counterpoise to the democracy, and restrained its excesses,
while, on the other, the prophetical order maintained the
rights of the people, and formed a powerful barrier against
the encroachments of arbitrary power.t
* Lowman on the Civ. Gov. Heb. C. 8.
t I do rot here cite the particular Scriptures in support of these views,




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.              491
A  knowledge of the polity of the Hebrews prior to the
time of Moses will help us in understanding his constitution,
since he retained in it many of the ancient laws and institutions, sometimes unaltered, sometimes slightly modified.
The simplicity of ancient manners rendered complicated
methods of government unnecessary.  The form  actually
employed by most nations in the earliest times, appears to
have been patriarchal. To this rule the Hebrew  polity does
not form an exception.  Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob governed
their families with an authority well nigh unlimited. Their
power over their households was little short of a sovereign
dominion. They were independent princes. They acknowledged no subjection, and owed no allegiance, to any sovereign. They formed alliances with other princes.*  They
treated with kings on a footing of equality.t They maintained a body of servants, trained to the use of arms; were
the chiefs, who led them in war; and repelled force by force.:
They were the priests, who appointed festivals, and offered
sacrifices. ~   They  had the power of disinheriting their
children,11 of sending them away from home without assigning any reason,~ and even of punishing them capitally."*
The twelve sons of Jacob ruled their respective families
with the same authority. But when their descendants had
become numerous enough to form tribes, each tribe acknowledged a prince as its ruler.it  This office, it is likely, was at
first hereditary in the eldest son, but afterwards became
elective. When the tribes increased to such an extent, as to
embrace a great number of separate households, the less
powerful ones united with their stronger relatives, and acsince the passages on which they rest will be often referred to in the subsequent detail of the Hebrew institutions.
@ Gen. xxi. 22-32.      t Gen. xiv. 24. xxxiv. 6-19.
4 Gen. xiv. 13-16.       & Gen. viii. 20. xxii. 13. Job i. 5
11 Gen. xlix. 3, 4. 1 Chron. v. 1 qT Gen. xxi. 14.
** G-en. xxxviii. 24.    tt Numb. 1.




492               COMMENTARIES ON THE
knowledged them  as their superiors. In this way, there
arose a subdivision of the tribes into collections of households. Such a collection was technically called a family, a
clan, a house of fathers, or a thousand.* This last appellation was not given, because each of these subdivisions contained just a thousand persons, or a thousand households; for,
in the nature of things, the number must have varied, and
in point of fact, it is manifest from the history, that it did.
As the tribes had their princes, so these clans, families, or
thousands had their respective chiefs, who were called heads
of houses of fathers, heads of thousands, and sometimes
simply heads.t lHarrington denominates these two classes of
officers phylarchs, or governors of tribes, and patriarchs, or
governors of families. Both, while the Israelites were yet
in Egypt, were comprehended under the general name of
elders.4  Whether this name was a title of honor, like that
of sheik (the aged) among the Arabs, and that of senator
among the ancient Romans, or whether it is to be understood,
according to its etymology, as denoting persons actually advanced in years, is uncertain; probably, however, the former
is the true sense of the term. These princes of tribes and
heads of thousands, the elders of Israel, were the rulers of
the people, while they remained still subject to the power of
the Pharoahs, and  constituted a kind of " imperium  in
imperio."  Of course they bad no written constitution, nor
any very formal code of laws, but governed by custom,
reason, and the principles of natural justice. They watched
over and provided for the general good of the community,
while the affairs of each individual household continued
under the control of its own father. For the most part, it
may be supposed, only those cases, which concerned the
* Judges, vi. 15. 1 Sam. x. 19-21. xxiii. 23. Numb. xxvi. 5-50.
-t Numb. xvii. 3. xxv 15. Joshua xxii. 14. xxiii. 2.: Exod. iii. 16. iv. 29




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            493
fathers of families themselves would come under the cognizance and jurisdiction of the elders.
Such was the patriarchal form of government. It was
found among all the branches of Abraham's posterity;Ishmaelites, Edomites, and Israelites alike. Each of these,
like the ancient Germans, the Roman gentes, and the Scottish
clans, kept together in a body, according to their tribes and
families. Every tribe formed a little commonwealth, having
its own particular interests; while all united became a great
republic, with a common weal. Thus we find the Ishmaelites
governed by twelve princes, according to the number of Ishmnael's sons.*  Their descendants, the Beduin Arabs, have
preserved the patriarchal polity to this day. They call their
princes emirs, and their heads of clans sheiks,-elders,under which latter designation, the Hebrews included both
these orders of rulers. In like manner, the Edomites had
what the sacred historian calls kings, but under them, again,
stood a multitude of chiefs, styled princes, who ruled over so
many clans.t The same arrangement took place among the
Israelites. That there were twelve great tribes is known to
all. That the tribes were governed, each by its own prince,
that they were subdivided into clans, or groups of related
families, having also their respective chiefs, and that these
princes of tribes and chiefs of clans received the common
appellation of "' elders of Israel," will be evident to any one,
who will take the trouble to compare the first chapter of
Numbers with Exod. 3: 16, 4: 29, and 6: 14, 15.
Another order of officers, who, in the end, came to possess
great dignity and power, likewise sprang up among the Hebrews, while yet in Egypt. These were the shoterim, in our
version rendered " officers." That they were different from
the judges is certain, since Moses ordained, that, when the
Israelites came into the promised land, they should appoint
* Gen. xxv. 16.       t Gen. xxxvi.




494                 COMENTARIES ON THE
both judges and shoterim  in every city.*  What the duties
of these functionaries were, there is not much difficulty in
determining. The emirs among the Arabians, a people very
nearly related to the Hebrews, and retaining many of the
ancient customs common to all the descendants of Abraham,
have their secretaries, a class of officers evidently very similar to the Israelitish shoterim.  The most important business
of the shoterim was to keep the genealogical registers; to
record accurately the marriages, births, and deaths among the
people; and probably, as they kept the rolls of families, to
apportion the public burdens and services on the people
individually.  Modern governments, indeed, have no office
exactly corresponding to this, because they do not regulate
their affairs in this genealogical manner; they do not take
the census of the people by families.  But among a people
like the Israelites, whose ideas were altogether clannish, a
people, with whom  all hereditary succession and all posthumous fame depended on genealogical descent, this must have
been an office at least as important as that of a judge., The
proof that this office existed in Egypt, is clear and certain;
for the Hebrew shoterim were employed, under the direction
of Hebrew overseers, to apportion and press forward the
labors, exacted from the people.t  It is likely, that originally
the princes of tribes and chiefs of families performed the
duties of genealogists, but that afterwards, to ease themselves,
they employed secretaries to do the work for them, who came
at length to constitute a distinct order of magistrates, under
the name of shoterim.T
* Deut. xvi. 18. " Judges and officers (shoterim) shalt thou make thee
in all thy gates."
t Exod. v. 6, 10, 14, 15..+ See on this subject, Michaelis's Commentaries on the Laws of Moses,
Arts. 46-51; Jahn's Hebrew Commonwealth, B. 2. Sect. 8; Lowman on
the Civil Government of the Hebrews, c. 5; Lewis's Antiquities of the
Hebrew Republic, B. 1. C. 4; Harrington's Commonwealth of Israel, chaps.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             495
Such waa the polity, which Moses found established among
his countrymen, when he returned to Egypt, after a forty
years' residence in Mlidian. The time had now come, when,
agreeably to the divine purpose, the chosen people were to
be delivered out of the hand of their oppressors, and put in
possession of the land of promise. They were no longer to
pursue the nomadic life of their ancestors, but were to be
settled, as an agricultural people, in fixed habitations. As a
nation, they were designed to answer very important purposes in the divine plan. It was, therefore, necessary, that they
should receive new political institutions, suited to their new
circumstances and high destination. To this end Moses led
theni to the foot of Sinai, where the tribes freely elected
Jehovah to be their king, a solemn compact was formed between the sovereign and the people, and the civil constitution
was settled upon this foundation.*  Thus Jehovah, in accordance with the prevalent notion of those ages, condescended
to be the national and tutelar deity of the Hebrews; his
worship was made the fundamental law of the state; and
idolatry became a political crime.
But the theocratic element in this constitution did not
make a fourth form of government, in addition to the three
forms, with which the world is familiar. It was not a political constitution, fundamentally different from  the monarchical, aristocratical, democratical, and mixed forms of polity.t
Warburtont has shown, that the theocracy continued to the
coming of Christ. But during the period intervening between the establishment of the constitution by Moses and
the birth of the Messiah, the government underwent many
1, 2; Salvador's Histoire des Institutions de MoRise et du Peuple Hebreu,
B. 2. C. 2; and Horne's Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge
of the Holy Scriptures, vol 2, Pt. 2, c. 1
* Ex. 19. Jahn's I-eb. Corn. B. 2, S. 8.
t Mich. Com. Art. 35.        $ Div. Leg. B. 5, S. 3.




496               COMMENTARIES ON TmE
changes, and assumed a variety of forms. It was democratical till the time of Saul, monarchical from his accession to
the throne till the captivity, and aristocratical after the restoration of the Jews to their own country; but through all
these revolutions it retained the theocratic feature.  We
may, therefore, proceed in our study of this constitution, and
in the attempt to present a true analysis of it, just as we
would perform a similar labor in reference to the constitution
of Rome, or of England.
The patriarchal polity, of which a brief sketch is given
above, M11oses retained unaltered. The subdivision of tribes
into collections of families remained as it had been before.
At the time of the exodus, the larger clans of this sort, exclusive of the tribe of Levi, amounted to fifty-eight, and their
chiefs, in conjunction with the twelve princes of tribes,
formed a council of state, consisting of seventy members.*
It is evident, however, that the principle of subdivision was
carried much farther than a perusal of the twenty-sixth chapter of Numbers would at first lead us to suppose. There
must have been a division, not noticed by the historian, according to which the collections of families were far more
numerous, and of course the number of heads of families far
greater, for no less than two hundred and fifty chiefs of this
rank joined the rebellion of Korah.t  The princes of tribes
and chiefs of families were the natural representatives of the
people and magistrates of the state.: They commanded
their respective tribes in war, and guided their counsels in
peace. They appear to be alluded to in the song of Deborah
as those who "ride on white asses and sit in judgment;" a
passage in which, I am inclined to think, there is a reference
to this union in their persons of civil and military authority.
Whether these officers were elective or hereditary seems
hard to determine. lHarrington~ considers them hereditary.
* Numb. xxvi. Exod. xxiv. 1.      ft Numb. xvi. 2.
I Jahn's Heb. Com. B. 2, S. 11.   ~ Corn. Is. C. 2.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.              497
Jahn* inclines to regard them as elective. Lowmallt doubts.
AMichaelist can find no trace of the manner in which they
were chosen. I rather think that Jahn is right. At least it
is certain, that the office was not strictly hereditary in the
first-born of the tribe or the family. This is plain from the
case of Nabshon. Though he was prince of Judah, he was
not the heir-male of the tribe. IHe was the son of Anlinadab,
the son of Ram, who was a younger son of HIezron, the son
of Pharez, himself a younger son of Judah, the original
patriarch of the tribe.~  This certainly is not a proof that the
office was elective, but it looks that way; and the analogy of
other offices in the Hebrew government strengthens the probability.
Another order of functionaries, retained by Moses, was
that of the shoterim, translated in our bible " officers."  In
Num. 11: 16, and Deut. 29: 10, they are named in connection with the elders, that is, the princes of tribes and heads
of families. They were, therefore, magistrates and representatives of the people.  However obscure and uninflnential
their office might have been originally, it gradually acquired
importance, till it came at length to be one of great dignity
and authority.  WVe have seen before, that they were the
keepers of the genealogical tables.  In Egypt, they were
charged with seeing, that every Israelite delivered the required number of bricks.l  It was their business to give their
discharge to citizens, who were by law exempt from military
duty.~  Another function appertaining to them was to communicate to the people the orders of the general respecting
military afairs.*?   From the shoterim and elders together, as
being persons of the highest respectability, the supreme
senate of seventy was to be chosen.tt  We find them repeat* Heb. Com. B. 2, S. 11.               t Civ. Gov.Heb. C. 5.
+ Com. on the Laws of Moses, Art. 46.  & 1 Chron. ii.
]] Exod. v. 10 seqq.' Deut. xx. 5-9.  ** Josh. i. 10.
tt Numb. xi. 16.
32




498                COMMENTARIES ON THE
edly mentioned as forming a part of the legislative assemblie3
of the nation.*  And in the time of the kings, we find the
chief shoter, though not a military commander, exercising a
general superintendence and control over the whole army.t
When the nation was settled in Palestine, the shoteriin were
distributed into every city, and performed the duties of their
office for the city and its surrounding district.4  They conld
not properly discharge their functions without having accurate catalogues of the names of the Hebrews, with a record
of the age, pecuniary ability, and domestic circumstances of
each individual master of a household. There appears evidently to have been a chief genealogist, who was the president
of the whole order, and exercised a general superintendence
over the affairs entrusted to them.  Several of these chiefs
are mentioned by name under the kings.~  In 1 Chron. 24:
6, and Jer. 52: 25, mention is made of a " principal scribe
of the host," that is, a chief shoter, " who mustered the people of the land" for war.  How  the shoterim  were chosen
the history does not distinctly inform us. There is little difficulty, however, in gathering from what it does say concerning them, that the office was elective.  While the Hebrews
dwelt in Egypt, and before the Levites had been set apart
from the other tribes, and consecrated to letters and religion,
they must either have been selected out of every clan, or,
more probably perhaps, chosen from  the whole tribe, irrespective of families, according to the opinion entertained of
their fitness for the office.  After the Levites had become
fairly installed in their office, as the learned class, the genealogists were generally taken from among themn.jl  " This was
a very rational procedure, as the Levites devoted themselves
e Deut. xxix. 10. xxxi. 28. Josh. viii. 3. xxiii. 2.
t 2 Chron. xxvi. 11.   I Deut. xvi. 18., 2 Sam. viii. 17. xx. 25. 2 Kings xxv. 19. 1 Chron. xxiv. 6. 2 Chren.
xxvi. 11. Jer. lii. 25.
II 1 Chron. xxiii. 4. 2 Chron. xix. 11. xxxiv. 13.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT lHEBREWS.           499
particularly to study; and, among husbandmen and unlearned people, few were likely to be so expert at writing, as to be
entrusted with the keeping of registers so important."*
The magistracies, thus far noticed, formed a part of the
polity of the Hebrews, before the exodus from Egypt. But,
by the advice of Jethro, which was confirmed by their king
Jehovah, Moses instituted a new order of rulers, which must
now be explained.t Although in Egypt the tiebrews had a
sort of political government among themselves, yet it is not
to be supposed, that they would be permitted to hold regular
courts for the trial of civil causes. Hence they had no judges
in their bondage, being subject to Egyptian magistrates in
that capacity. On their leaving Egypt, >Moses took the whole
judicature upon himself, and was for some time sole judge.
But this was too much for mortal strength, and, from the little
attention that could be given to each individual case, not
altogether consistent with the public interest. Iis father-inlaw, who appears to have been a man of great judgment and
wisdom, convinced him of this, and by his advice he instituted judges. The principle, on which he arranged the institution, was a remarkable one, and must have been suggested
by the military divisions of the people. He appointed judges
for thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens; in all about seventyeight thousand six hundred.t There was a regular gradation
of rank among these judges, and, in all probability, such a
subordination of the inferior to the superior, that the cases
which the judges of tens found too hard for them, they
referred to the judges of fifties; in the same manner, the cases
which these latter found too difficult to decide, they passed
over to the judges of hundreds; questions too intricate or too
important in the opinion of the judges of hundreds for their
determination, they carried up to the judges of thousands;
* See on the office of the shoterim Mich. Com. Art. 51, and Jahn's Heb.
Com. B. 2, S. 11.
1 Exod. xviii.          $ Exod. xviii. 25.




500                COMMENTARIES ON THE
who, in their turn, referred difficulties too great for their resolution to MIoses, or, after his death, to the supreme judicial
authority, in whomsoever lodged. The principle of this judiciary system was, that the administration of justice should be
brought to every man's door, and of course that it should be
prompt and cheap; notwithstanding which, care was taken
to avoid the evils of hasty and partial decisions, by the right
of appeal to tribunals of a higher grade, when the case was
of sufficient magnitude to warrant such a resort.  This principle was retained in the judicial system of the nation, after
its settlement in Palestine.  But the system itself necessarily
underwent some modifications. It could not remain exactly
as it was; for the people no longer lived together, as in the
wilderness.  On their taking possession of the promised land,
judges, as well as shoterim, or genealogists, were to be appointed in every city,* who were to discharge the duties of
their respective offices for the city and the surrounding district. Yet even the plan proper for Israel as an army marching was not altogether unsuited to their settlement in permanent habitations, as tribes and families. The military division
might have its counterpart in a civil division into counties,
centuries, and decuries.  The old Saxon constitution of sheriffs
in counties, hundreders or centgraves, in hundreds, and deciners in decennaries, was formed upon this model. Lord
Bacont is of the opinion, that king Alfred took this frame of
government from  the laws of Moses. Whether the judges
were to be natives of their respective cities, or even of the
tribe in whose territory the cities were situated, or whether
the fittest persons were to be chosen, without regard to tribe,
family, or residence, does not appear from the history.  The
latter supposition is rendered probable by the fact, that in
after times the office was very generally filled by Levites.4
* Deut. xvi. 18.
+ On Eng. Gov. P. 1. p. 70. cited by Lowm. on Civ. Gov. Heb. C. 9.. 1 Chron. xxiii. 4: xxvi. 29-32. 2 Chron. xix. 8-11.




I AWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             501
This might, not improbably, have been the intention of AMoses,
which he did not seek to render effective by any legal enactnment, as foreseeing, tha that the thing would happen naturally,
since the Levites, devoted to learning by the very constitution
of their tribe, would best understand the laws of the land.
B)esides, it is quite conformable to the ideas of those times,
and. not foreign to the notions and manners of the east in all
ages, that the judicial and sacerdotal offices should be united
in the same persons. Among the ancient Egyptians, the
priests were the usual administrators of justice.*  The Arabs
resorted to the temples and the priests for justice.  Before the
time of Mahomet, they even carried on law-suits before their
gods. This he prohibited;t but to this day, the seat of justice is commonly called by the Arabs God's tribunal; and the
usual form of citation is, "Thou art invited to the tribunal
of God."t
The chief function of the Israelitish judges was to administer justice between man and man.~  It is possible, and,
looking to the general spirit and frame of the Hebrew
constitution, not improbable, that they united some degree of
military power to their civil authority.  They are mentioned
as among tbie persons summoned by Joshua to' the legislative
assemblies. l   It is hardly probable, however, that the seventy
two thousand judges of tens and fifties had seats and voices
in these diets.  It is more likely, that only those of hundreds
and thousands, perhaps even only the latter of these classes,
are to be understood, when judges are mentioned as constituting a part of the public deliberative assemblies of the
Hebrews.~
* Jablonski's Pantheon, p. 102 of the Prolegomena, cited by Mich.
Art. 49.
t Koran, Sura iv. 61-64 and v. 46-55.
1 Arvieux's Travels through Palestine in Mich. Corn. Art. 49.
8 Deut. xvi. 18.     11 Josh. xxiii. 2, xxiv. 1.
[ On the subject of the Heb. Judges see Mich. Com. Art. 49; Jahln's




502               COMMENTARIES ON THE
The judicial office among the Hebrews was elective.
Josephus says so expressly, though with hardly greater plainness than Moses. " Ttike you wise men, and understanding,
and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers
over you,"* were the lawgiver's words to his countrymen,
when he instituted the office. The only function which lie
here claims for himself; is that of commissioning those whomn
the people should elect. Even the supreme judge was chosen
by the free suffrages of the people. The historian distinctly
informs us, that " the people made Jephthah head and captain
over them."t Four stages may be noted in the proceedings
relating to Jephthah;-the preliminary discussion, the nomination, the presentation to the people, and the installation.4
The enemy was encamped in Gilead. At this point, the
people and their rulers, assembled in convention on the plain,
said to one another, " Who shall be our chief, to lead us
against the foe?" This was the discussion, in which every
citizen seems to have had the right to participate. In the
exceedingly brief history of the affair, it is not expressly
stated, but it is necessarily implied, that Jephthah, of Gilead,
a man of distinguished military genius and reputation, was
nominated by the voice of the assembly. But this able captain had been some years before driven out from his native
city. It was necessary to soothe his irritated spirit. To this
end the elders went in person to seek him, laid before him
the urgent necessities of the state, softened his anger by
promises of preferment, and brought him to Mizpeh. 1iere,
manifestly, they made a formal presentation of him to the
people. for it is added, " the people made him head and captain over them."  That is, they completed the election by
giving him their suffrages, recognizing him as their leader,
Heb. Com. B. 2, S. 11; Lowm. Civ. Gov. Heb. c. 9; and HIarrington on
the Corn. of Israel, c. 2.
* Deut. i. 13.
t Judg. xi. 11.       $ Ibid. x. 17, 18, and xi. 1-11.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             503
and installing him in his office. lHere, then, we have, 1. The
fiee discussion of the people in a popular assembly concerning
the selection of a leader; 2. The nomination of Jephthah by
the meeting to be chief; 3. The elders' presentation of him
to the people for their suffrages; and 4. His inauguration as
prince and leader of Israel. It is to the analysis of such incidental relations as this scattered here and there through the
history, that, in default of a more exact account of the primitive order of things, we are compelled to resort, in our study
of the Hel'r.-w constitution, for much of the information,
which it would be gratifying to find in a more detailed and
systematic form.
The magistrates, then, in every tribe were a prince of the
tribe, chiefs of families or clans, genealogists, and judges.
" Each of these classes of magistrates had its own peculiar
duties. The judges administered justice. The genealogists
kept the genealogical tables, in which they occasionally noted
the most remarkable occurrences of their times  The historical notices contained in the first book of Chronicles, and
which are not found in the books of Moses, were probably
derived from  these tables.*   The heads of families, with
the prince of the tribe, had charge of the general concerns
of each tribe, and to them  the judges and genealogists were
in some degree subordinate. In Palestine these magistrates
were distributed into the several cities, and those who resided in the same city, composed the legislative assembly of
that city and the surrounding district. When the magistrates of all the cities belonging to any one tribe were collected, they formed the supreme court, or legislative assembly, of the tribe.  In like manner, the magistrates in several
different tribes might assemble in one body, and legislate
conjointly for all those tribes which they represented. When
the magistrates of all the tribes met together, they firmed
the general legislature of the whole nation. Though there
1 Chron. iv. 21-23, 39-45. v. 10, 19-22. vii. 20-24.




5 01               COMMENTARIES ON THE
was no pecuniary emolument attached to these fices, they
conferred great dignity and authority upon those who held
them."`*
Such is a brief view of the magistracies, instituted or
confirmned by the Mosaic constitution.  Let us now direct our
attention to the tribes themselves in their individual capacity,
in their relation to one another, and in their legislative functionls.
It is agreed, on all hands, by those who have written on
the Hebrew  institutes, that each tribe formed a separate
state.  Each composed an entire political community, in
some respects independent of the others. Each was under
its own proper government, administered its own affairs by
its own  representative  assemblies and  magistrates, and
claimed and exercised many of the rights of sovereignty.
Its local legislation and municipal arrangements were in its
own hands.  "Dan," says the venerable patriarch Jacob,
" shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel."  On
this, bishop Sherlock,t an author of great learning and
judgment, observes: " It is evident, that every tribe had its
own prince and judge, and that every prince or head of a
tribe judged his own people; consequently every tribe had a
sceptre and lawgiver, as well as the tribe of Judah." In
other words, every tribe had its own proper staff of cornmrand and a distinct administration of justice.: The princes
of the tribes, chiefs of families, judges, and genealogists
governed the tribes of Israel, as distinct and independent
sovereignties. The tribes were all equal in respect of political dignity and right. The sovereignty of Simeon, which
numbered but twenty-two thousand men capable of bearing
arms, was as complete as that of Judah, which had seventysix thousand. No one tribe had any political superiority or
right of command over any other. This is plain from the
* Jahn's Heb. Com. B. 2. S. 11.  t Dissertation 3.
+ Lowm Civ. Gov. Heb. c. 5.




LAWVS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          505
fact, that on the death of Joshua, the people inquire of God,
"who should go up for them  against the Canaanites?" *
This question could not have been asked, if any one tribe had
had the right of precedency and government over the rest.
The answer was, " Judah shall go up."t  Judah thus acquired
the right of leading by a decision of the oracle; a clear
proof, that such a right did not otherwise belong to that
tribe.
The powers reserved to the separate tribes, and freely exercised by them, were very great. We find them often acting
like independent nations. This was the case not only when
there was neither king nor judge, in the land, but even under
the government of the kings. They levied war and made peace,
whenever it seemed good to them. Thus we find Joshua exhorting his brethren, the children of Joseph, to make war
against the Perizzites; and Zebulon and Naphthali uniting
to fight against Jabin.~  We see the tribe of Dan, singly and
of its own proper motion, attacking and destroying the people
of Laish, and afterwards taking possession of their city and
the surrounding country. A very remarkable record of this
kind is contained in the fifth chapter of 1 Chronicles.ll It is
there related, that the tribes beyond Jordan, even in the
reign of Saul, carried on, upon their own responsibility, a
most important war. Yet so little interest was taken in it by
the other tribes, that the author of the book of Samuel has not
so much as alluded to it in his history of that prince; though,
in a military point of view, it was a far more brilliant affair
than all his martial achievements together.  Four nations
were leagued together against the trans-jordanic tribes in this
war. The booty taken from the enemy was immense;fifty thousand camels, two hundred and fifty thousand sheep,
two thousand asses, a hundred thousand prisoners of war;
and of slain. the historian says, " there fell down many." The
W Judg. i. 1.       t Ibid. i. 2.
4 Josh. xvii. 15,   { Judg. iv. 10.     It Vv. 18-23.




506                 COMMENTARIES 3N THE
entire territories of these nations came into the possession of
the IHebrews as the fruit of this contest, "and they dwelt in
their steads until the captivity." As late as the reign of
Hezekiah, we see the tribe of Simeon waging two successful
wars,-one against the inhabitants of Gedor, and the other
against the remnant of the Amalekites, —and that without aid
or authority from its neighbor republics.'*
Some occurrences of a different kind, in the history of the
kings, will further illustrate the powers, which the constitution conferred upon the separate tribes.  By divine direction,
David had been anointed king in the life-time of Saul.t
That unction, however, did not inaugurate him as king, nor
confer any authority upon him.  It was rather a prophecy in
action, foreshadowing his future elevation to the throne.
Therefore, when Saul had fallen in battle, David returned, as
a private person, to one of the cities of Judah.  There he
awaited the action of the people in his behalf.  At first he
became king of Judah alone, and that by the free choice of
the citizens of that tribe.4 In the message, which he sent to
the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead, thanking them for their
kindness to Saul, he does not arrogate any right of command
over them, nor address them  in quality of sovereign.  He
simply informs them, that the men of Judah had chosen him
for their king, thus virtually inviting them  to follow the ex* 1 Chroa. iv. 41-43.
~ 1 Sam. xvi. 13. Dr. Clarke, in his note on 2 Sam. ii. 4, remarks:
"David was anointed before by Samuel, by which he acquired jus ad regnum, a right TO the kingdom; by the present anointing he had jus in
regno, authority cvEa the kingdom."-" The invisible king directed the
prophet Samuel to assure the throne privately by a prophetic anointing to
David, the youngest son of Jesse, a citizen of Bethlehem." Jahn's Heb.
Com. B. 4, S. 28. It will be seen, that the views of these eminent scholars
accord with those expressed in the text as to the nature and object of
David's unction by Samuel.: 2 Sam. ii. 1-4.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             507
anple.*  Meanwhile, the other eleven tribes had anointed
Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, as their king.t It is evident,
that David did not regard that as an illegal act on their part,
for he limited his hostile movements simply to defending himself, when attacked by the armies of Ishbosheth. Joab, his
general-in-chiet, had no orders to attack the troops of his rival,
or to maintain his own claim to the throne by force of arms.
Ishbosheth reigned two years without any rupture with David
or his men; nor did the civil war commence, till Abner, captain of his host, crossing over Jordan with his forces, provoked an encounter. Joab, in a conference with Abner, intimlated that he would not have attacked the adherents of
David's rival, unless he had been provoked to it; thus clearly
showing that his orders were to act only on the defensive.4
One after another, the eleven tribes came into the interest of
David; and at length the whole nation chose him for their
king, and made a league with him, that is, proposed a capitulation limiting the royal prerogative, to which he solemnly
assented; after which he was anointed sovereign of all Israel,
as having been elected by the voice of the people to that high
dignity.~
The many and heavy exactions, to which the people had
been subjected during the reign of Solomon, had greatly exasperated their minds. Towards the close of his life, their
complaints became loud and bitter. On his death, they proposed to his son Rehoboam, certain new stipulations, with a
view to lighten the public burdens. Their request, though
reasonable, was insolently and contemptuously rejected by the
fiery young monarch. Thereupon ten of the tribes refused
their allegiance to the new government, and chose a king of
their own. It would almost seem as if this was not an act of
a 2 Sam. ii. 5-7.                 t lbid. ii. 8-9.
+ Ibid. ii. 12-29. See especially v. 27, as confirming the last statement
in the text.
{ 2 Sam. chaps. iii. iv. v. and xmi.-particularly the last.




508               COMMENTARIES ON THE
rebellion, but the exercise of a reserved right; for Judah
was forbidden by the Lord to make war upon the ten tribes.
At anv rate, an instantaneous revolt of this kind could not
have occurred, unless the Israelites had been governed, as
Michaelis expresses it, " tribe-wise,'" each tribe being a little
republic, and having its own leading men, according to
whose views the rest of the people regulated their conduct.
From the above detail it appears, that " the Hebrew constitution authorized each tribe to provide for its own interests; or, if the strength of any one of them was insufficient for the purpose, to unite with some of the other tribes,
and make common cause with  them. WVe frequently find
several tribes thus acting in concert. Judah and Simeon
united in their war against the Canaanites; as did also
Ephraim and MIanasseh. The tribes of Zebulon and Naphthali united with Barak to oppose the army of Jabin. Manasseh, Asher, Zebulon, and Naphthali, chose Gideon for
their leader against the Midianites. The tribes east of Jordan made choice of Jephthah for their general to carry on a
war against the Ammonites. In later times, and during the
reign of Saul, the same tribes made war upon the Hagarites,
the Ituraeans, the Nobadites, and the Naphishites.  Upon
the death of Saul, eleven tribes remained faithful in their
allegiance to his family, and seven years intervened before
they submitted to David. After the death of Solomon, ten
tribes revolted from the house of David, and elected Jeroboam for their king. In short, any tribe, or any number of
tribes united, exercised the power of convening legislative
assemblies, passing resolves, waging wars, making treaties,
and electing for themselves chiefs, generals, regents, and
kings."~*
* Jalhn's Heb. Comr. B. 2, S. 13. The passages on which Dr. Jahn relies
for thse statements made in this extract are,-Judg. i. 1-3, 22. vii. 23, 29
viii. ]1 -3, xi. 1-11. 1 Chron. T. 10, 18, 19. 2 Sam. iii. 17. 1 Kings xii.
1-24.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             509
In such a constitution of the tribes, various disturbing
forces could not but exist; and the history informs us of the'action of these antagonistic forces upon several occasions
Rivalries would naturally spring up among twelve sovereign
states so closely connected with each other. Lesser interests
wvould sometimes stand in the way of the general welfare.
Hence arose jealousies, which sometimes issued in fierce,
sanguinary, and protracted civil wars.*  All this we may readily believe from the examples of Holland, Switzerland, the United States, and especially of the German empire, which, from
the inequality of its constituent parts, is perpetually distracted by divisions, and has often been the scene of intestine
hostilities.  Nothing, then, could be more probable than
sectional jealousies and  rivalries among  the constituent
members of the Hebrew commonwealth; and [Michaelis has
well remarked,t that two cases may be supposed, in which
they would certainly break out, and display all their mischievous effects: —. If any two tribes became more powerful
than the others, in which event they would regard each other
with suspicion and hatred; and 2. If any one tribe acquired
considerable ascendancy over the rest, of which the consequence would be, the excitement of their universal envy and
opposition. The learned commentator adds, that both these
cases actually occurred in the Israelitish republic; a fact of
so much importance, that it may be said to form the key to
the whole Hebrew history. The Israelites entered Palestine
with a force of six hundred thousand citizens, capable of
bearing arms, exclusive of the tribe of Levi. Of course, the
medium strength of the tribes would be about fifty thousand.
Those tribes, which exceeded that number, would be accounted
strong; and, in like manner, those which fell below it, wou4d
* Judg. xii. 1-6. xx. 1-48. 2 Sam. iii. 1. 1 Kings xii. 16-24.
t Commentaries on the L]aws of Moses, Art. 46;-an article to which I
acknowledge my indebtedness in illustrating this part of my subject, since
1 have embodied the valuable substance of it in these paragraphs.




510                COMMENTARIES ON THE
be deemed weak. It may gratify the reader to see the comparative strength of the tribes, at this time, brought into one
view. This is done in the following statement, in which
fractions of thousands are omitted for the sake of brevity.
The tribe of Joseph numbered eighty-five thousand; Judah,
seventy-six thousand; Issachar, sixty-four thousand; Zebulon,
sixty thousand; Asher, fifty-three thousand; Dan, forty-six
thousand; Benjamin, forty-five thousand; Naphtali, forty-five
thousand; Reuben, forty-three thousand; Gad, forty thousand;
and Simeon, twenty-two thousand.*  It will not escape the
notice of the reader, that one tribe, that of Simeon, was very
weak; that two, Joseph and Judah, were very powerful;
while the others did not vary materially from  the average
strength. The tribe of Joseph was, indeed, divided into two
half-tribes; but it was still, and even as late as near the close
of Joshua's administration, regarded and spoken of as one
tribe.t  Ephrairn, however, in consequence of the prophetic
blessing of Jacob, and the predictions concerning his future
extraordinary increase,: though as yet numerically weak, in
comparison with Ml[anasseh, was regarded as his superior, and,
indeed, obtained a certain preeminence over all the other
tribes.  From this time, therefore, we find a perpetual emulation and rivalry existing between the two tribes of Ephraim
and Judah. This sentiment of jealousy, sometimes reaching
even to hatred, displayed itself on all occasions; and allusions to it are not infrequent in the prophetical writings.~  It
is very distinctly recognized by Isaiah,ll when, foretelling the
peaceful effect of Messiah's reign, he says, " And the envy of
Ephraim shall depart, and the enemies of Judah shall be cut
off. Ephrailn shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex
Ephraim." The prophet predicts a state of harmony and
* Numb. xxvi.    t Josh. xvii. 17.  1 Gen. xlviii. 15-20.
I Judg. viii. 1. xii. 1. 1 Kings xi. 26; xiv. 30; xv. 16. Ps. 1xxvii.
9-11, 60, 67, 68. Is. xi. 13. Jer. iii. 18. Ez. xxxvii. 16-19. Hos. i. 11.
xl xi. 13.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            511
peace by declaring, that the hereditary and proverbial enmity of Judah and Ephraim shall cease.*  Thoughont the entire
Hebrew history, from the exodus to the captivity, these two
were regarded as the leading tribes of Israel. In the wilderness, Moses gave the precedence of all the tribes to Judah,
in assigning to it the most honorable place in the army, whether in the camp or on the march.t  But after his death, two
events occurred, which tended greatly to the exaltation and
preiminence of Ephraim. That tribe had the good fortune
to give to the nation a chief magistrate in the person of
Joshua, and also to have the tabernacle, the palace of their
invisible, heavenly king, set up in Shiloh, a place within the
territory of Ephraim.: Both these circumstances advanced
the honor of the tribe; and the latter, by promoting trade
and marriages, gave it no inconsiderable advantages, in respect of the increase of wealth and population.  From
that time, the ambition of Ephraim knew no bounds. The
jealousy of the Ephraimites towards the other tribes appears
in their conduct to Gideon and Jephthah.~  Their special
jealousy of Judah showed itself in their refusal to submit
to David, after the death of Saul; 11 in their adherence to
Absalom, when he revolted against his father; i  and in the
readiness with which they joined in the revolt of Jeroboam,
who was himself of the tribe of Ephraiin.**  The author of
the seventy eighth Psalmtt represents Ephraim as having been
the chief tribe, and God as having rejected it fir its political
and religious apostacy, when the tabernacle and the kingdom
were transferred to Judah. Even while Ephraim continued
the most influential tribe, Judah enjoyed a more extensive
sway, than the other tribes to the west of the Jordan.'When
* Alexander on Isaiah, —note on Ch. xi. 13.
t Num. ii. 3. x. 14.   + Josh. xviii. 1. 1 Sam. iv. 3.
Q Judg. viii. 1.  xii. 1.  11 2 Sam. ii. 8, 9.  l[ Ib. xviii. 6.
** 1 Kings xi. 26. xii. 16. See Alexander's note on Is. xi. 13.




612               COMMENTARIES ON THE
the monarchy was substituted for the democracy, a king was
elected from Benjamin, the youngest and weakest of all
the tribes.  This seems to be a perfect levelling of the
tribes. Apparently no preference was given to any of them,
on account of any preeminence in dignity, or power, supposed or real. If, however, we look a little below the surface
of things, we shall judge otherwise. We must bear in mind
how exceedingly genealogical and clannish was the way of
thinking among the Hebrews. This will throw no little light
upon the point. As Benjamin and Joseph were sons of the
same mother, the Benjamites regarded themselves as in some
sense belonging to the tribe of Joseph. Of this we have a
certain proof in the fact, that Shirnei, though a Benjamite,
said, that he was the first man of all the house of Joseph to
meet king David, when. he returned victorious, after crushing
the rebellion of Absalom.*  Ience, even when Benjamin
was advanced in the person of Saul to the leadership of
Israel, Ephrairn still enjoyed a certain preeminence. In the
80th Psalm, composed about this time, Ephraim, Benjamin,
and Manasseh are mentioned as the chief tribes, Ephraimn
being placed before the other two. The rivalship between
the tribes continued, with unabated force, during the reign of
Saul. That king had but little authority in the tribe of Judah; for, when he was pursuing David with the bitterest
enmity to take his life, David had little difficulty in eluding
him, by fleeing from place to place within the limits of that
tribe. And when at last he fled into the land of the Philistines, there does not appear to have been any necessity for
his doing so. IIe might have remained where he was, without much peril of a capture. On the other hand, Saul, as
king, was very partial to his own kindred, including, beyond
a doubt, the children of Joseph, as well as those of Benjamin. Upon them he conferred most of the offices within the
gift of the crown. This he openly acknowledged, and made
* 2 Sam. xix. 20.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             513
it the ground of a claim  to their gratitude and support.*
WThen Saul fell in battle, eleven of the tribes, doubtless under
the lead of Ephraim, adhered to his family, and chose Ishbosheth for their king. Judah alone recognized David as
their sovereign. But David was a man of consummate
ability and great nobleness of character.  He acted with
prudence, moderation, and magnanimity. These are qualities, which never fail to excite the admiration and love of the
people. Thley so won upon the tribes of Israel, that, by degrees, they all voluntarily submitted themselves to his rule.
It was the surrender of their hearts rather than of their arms.
The civil and military talents of David were equal to each
other, and both were of the highest order.  Under his administration, the territories of the state were greatly enlarged; its wealth and power were increased; and its renown
was spread far and wide.  Its name struck terror, not only
into the petty tribes in its immediate neighborhood, but into
the great nations dwelling on the shores of the distant Euphrates. The tribe of Judah now became exceedingly powerful. Its numbers were incredibly multiplied, the effect not
merely of the natural increase of population, but also of the
multitude of foreigners, who flocked to its capital, and became proselytes to the Jewish religion. Even before this
time, the other tribes had begun to be called by the common
name of Israel.t  Thenceforward Israel came to be their
ordinary designation, and they were animated by a common
jealousy of the tribe of Judah.4  It was in this sentiment,
that the roots of that unnatural rebellion excited by Absalom, found a congenial soil. The extraordinary success of
that patricidal revolt has been the puzzle of many, and is
wholly inexplicable, except as the result of a deeply seated
and long cherished animosity on the part of the other tribes
towards the tribe of Judah. This animosity even broke out,
* 1 Sam. xxii. 7.          t 2 Sam. ii. 9.
$ 2 Sam. xix. 11, 40-43. xx. 1, 2.
33




,14:              COMMENTARIES ON THE
and raged violently, on the king's return. A strife arose between Judah and the other tribes, as to which should recal
him to the throne, and it came near ending in a revolt of the
eleven tribes from David.*  The power and splendor of the
tribe of Judah culminated in the reign of Solomon. David
and Solomon, kings of the house of Judah, were no common
men. For seventy three years did the other tribes submit to
their government, awed by the splendor of their genius, the
force of their character, and the vigor of their rule. But the
fire was all the while glowing under the ashes, and waited
but an occasion to burst forth in fierce and devouring flames.
That occasion was found in an imprudent declaration of Rehoboam, the son and successor of Solomon, on his accession to the
throne. Ten of the tribes, led by Jeroboamn, an Ephraimite,
revolted, shook off their allegiance to the kings of Judah, and
set up a separate kingdom, with Jeroboam for their king.t
He takes but a superficial view of the Hebrew history, who
regards the conduct of Rehoboam, however unwise or even
unjust it might have been, as the cause of this schism. It
was but the occasion, the pretext. The cause was the old
grudge of Ephraim against Judah. The separation was not
a sudden occurrence; it was not fortuitous; it was but the
natural result of causes, which had long been working. It is
very remarkable, that, of all the kings who reigned over
Israel, although they were very far from succeeding one
another in the line of hereditary descent, there was not one
that did not belong to Ephraim; so that, with the single ex
ception of Saul, all the Hebrew kings were natives of one oi
other of the two rival tribes.
As the result either of an admirable stroke of policy on the
part of David, or of an equally admirable good fortune,
Benjamin, after the separation, remained united to Judah, and
the two tribes ever afterwards formed one kingdom.  The
event, to which I refer, was the choice by David of the city
2 Sam. xix. 9-14. 40-43. xx, 1, 2.  t I Kings xii. 1-20.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             515
of Jerusalem  for his residence and capital.  This city was
within the territory of Benjamin, but it lay close to the confines of Judah, and had long been inhabited by members of
the latter tribe, as well as of the former. David's selection
of it for the royal residence was well calculated to flatter the
pride of the Benjamites, and unite them more closely to his
family. It appears to have had the effect to extinguish the
jealousy, which Benjamin, in common with Ephraim, had felt
towards the tribe of Judah. At all events, its issue was, as
stated above, to link the fortunes of these two tribes together
in indissoluble bonds.
Such, then, were the jealous rivalries, which, sometimes
more and sometimes less active, we find always subsisting
among the tribes of Israel; and such the bitter fruits, which
they produced. But it was not ambition alone, which disturbed the peace of the nation, and caused the blood of the
citizens to stream forth in civil strife. Great as the reserved
rights of the tribes were, they occasionally magnified them
beyond their just bounds and betrayed a strong disposition to
nullify the laws of the general government. But such a procedure was at the peril of the tribe engaging in it. In the
book of Judges* we have a painfully interesting account of
an act of nullification on the part of Benjamin; wherein we
see, that the authority of the national law was vindicated-by
the other tribes with a severity, bordering on barbarism. The
tribe of Benjamin was prophetically described as a ravening
wolf;t —a figure highly descriptive of its fierce and warlike
character. The case, to which I refer, was this. A Levite
and his wife were travelling peaceably through the territories
of Benjamin.  At Gibeah, some demons in the form of men,
called by the historian "sons of Belial," abused the latter in
such a way as to cause her death. The Levite appealed for
retribution to the tribes in a general court. With the exception of Benjamin, they assembled at once in convention at
* Chaps. xix, xx.             t Gen. xlix. 27.




516               COMMENTARIES ON THE
Mlizpeh. There, the states-general, in regular session, heard
the appeal to their justice. They carefully examined into the
facts of the case. They found certain of the inhabitants of
Gibeah guilty, not only of a violation of the rights of hospitality and humanity, and of a riotous breach of the peace,
but moreover, which, in a national point of view, was of
greater importance, of a breach and violation of the common
right of the tribes to a safe passage through the whole country. It was, therefore, not so much an injury to any private
persons, as to the tribes of Ephraim and Judah, to which the
Levite and his wife belonged. Indeed, it was an injury to all
the tribes in common, since the case of Ephi'aim and Judah
might become the case of any of them.  No man in all Israel
could have any security in travelling, if such open outrage
and violence were suffered to go unpunished. But the tribes
were independent of each other. No one tribe had jurisdiction over any of the rest. Benjamin was a sovereign state.
Neither Judah nor Ephraim could, by the constitution, call
the inhabitants of Gibeah to account. This was, therefore,
a case calling for the interposition of the states-general. Yet
even they could not proceed directly against the guilty par
ties. That would have been in derogation of the sovereignty
of Benjamin. Therefore, having by investigation satisfied
themselves of the facts in the case, they sent a summons to
the tribe of Benjamin to deliver up the delinquents, that they
might be dealt with according to law. Benjamin declined a
compliance with this summons, and determined rather to dissolve the union of the states than submit to the will of the
nation, though expressed in a deliberate, dispassionate, and
constitutional manner. This changed the entire case. It was
no longer the murder of a private person by some ill-disposed
individuals of the city of Gibeah, but an open rebellion of
the whole tribe of Benjamin. The authority of the national
union was opposed and set at naught. And, not content with
refusing to gi've up the murderers to justice, Benjamin raised




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            51T7
an army to protect them, and levied war against all Israel.
The rest of the tribes declared them in a state of rebellion,
and proceeded against them accordingly, So stubborn and
unbending was the spirit of the nullifying tribe, that the
national army was twice defeated. But in the third battle
Benjamin was routed, with the loss of twenty-five thousand
men; and there was no danger of the offence being repeated,
for the offending city was levelled with the ground, the country was made a wilderness, and six hundred men, posted on
the inaccessible rock of Rimmon, were all that remained of
the contumacious tribe.*
From this history of the Berijamite rebellion the passage
is natural to a consideration of the union of the tribes in a
general government; for, while the history illustrates the
distinct nationality and independent spirit, I might amost add
the turbulent temper, of the separate tribes, it affords, at the
same time, a proof and an example of the reality, strength,
and vigor of the national administration.  The central government was not a mere confederacy of states. Such an
organization would have been too feeble, and too tardy in its
action, for the elements, which it was intended to control.
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 the individuals in the tribe. HIe made it
bear on every individual in every tribe, thus giving to each a
personal interest in the national concerns, and making him
as much a member of the nation, as he was of his own
tribe.t  The tribes formed but one nation. And 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
* Lowm. Civ. Gov. Heb. C. 14. Chr. Exam. No. 76.
t Chr. Exam. No. 76.




518               COMMENTARIES ON THE
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 coinmon 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
HIebrew was strongly concerned to maintain the honor of his
tribe, the constitution of the general government gave hin an
equal interest in the honor of his country.
Thus we see, that the constitution was so contrived, that,
notwithstanding the partial independence and sovereignty ot
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 law. Any of the tribes
could be called to an account by the others for an infraction
of the organic law: and, if they refused to give satisfaction,
they might be punished by war. t Obedience to the statesgeneral, in whom the tribes were united into one government,
was a fundamental obligation of every member of the national union. On this point the constitution was imperative.
Disobedience to their orders, a rebellious opposition to their
authority, was an act of high treason;-the greatest crime
that can be committed, since it is an injury, not to any one
man, or any number of private persons, but to the whole
society, and aims at subverting the peace and order of the
government, on which the property, liberty, happiness, and
life of the citizens depend.:
Let me adduce two proofs of this obligation on the parn
* Jahn's Heb. Com. B. 2. S. 13.  t Ibid. Judg. xx.
t Lowm. Civ. Heb. c. 14.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.                  519
of the tribes to submit to the will of the nation, as embodied
in the resolves of the general government.
The first is taken from a record, which I find in the thirtysixth chapter of Numbers.*  By a law, passed some time
before, constituting daughters, in default of sons, the legal
heirs of their fathers, it would happen, that the inheritance
of the daughters of Zelophehad, who belonged to the tribe
of Manasseh, if they married into another tribe, would be
transferred from their own to their husband's tribe. This,
should it ever occur, -Manasseh thought would be a hardship
and a wrong. What course did that tribe pursue? She did
not attempt to rebel against the authority of the nation, and
nullify the laws of the land. She brought the case before
the national legislature, and sought relief through its action.
She appealed to the justice of the nation in congress assenmbled, just as the states of our union do. Her petition
was respectfully considered, and a law was enacted in accordance  with  its  prayer.   By  this law, heiresses were
* The critical reader, who examines the references to see whether they
sustain the text, might, on a cursory perusal of the chapter here cited, be
inclined to think, that in the view presented in this paragraph, too much
is rested on assumption. A deeper study of the subject, however, will be
apt to change such an impression. For. first, either the first eleven verses
of the 27th chapter should come in before this chapter, or this chapter
should come in immediately after those eleven verses, since, as Dr. Clarke
says, both certainly make parts of the same subject, and there it is expressly said, that the matter was brought "before Moses, and before
Eleazar the priest, and before the princes, and before all the congregation," and by them referred to the oracle. Secondly, even in this chapter,
the chiefs of Manasseh are related to have laid their petition before Moses
and the princes, who may here very well be taken, in a general sense, to
mean the whole diet. And, thirdly, even if this chapter stood wholly disconnected with the 27th chapter, and neither the diet nor any part of it
had been mentioned at all, still the analogy of numerous other cases in
the Hebrew history would authorise us to assume, that the matter had
been, in due form, laid before the states-general of Israel, and by them
solemnly adjudicated.




520               COMMENTARIES ON THE
required to marry in their own tribes, that no part of the
ancient inheritance might be alienated from  the original
family. It is plain, that, if the decree of the nation had
been different from what it was, Manasseh's duty would have
been submission. Resistance and nullification would have
been in derogation and contravention of rightful authority.
The second proof of the duty of obedience on the part of
the tribes to the decrees of the general government, I derive
from the history of the wrong done by certain Benjamites to
a Levite, who was passing through their territory, taken in
connexion with the national proceedings, which followed
thereupon.*  The states-general immediately convened at
Mlizpeh, and passed a resolve, calling upon the local government of Benjamin, to deliver up the offenders, that they
might be dealt with as their conduct deserved. This order
Benjamin refused to obey. What said the national government? Did it say, that Benjamrlin, being a sovereign state,
had a right to interpret the constitution for herself, and
to act her own pleasure in the matter? Far from it. It declared, that she had been guilty of an infraction of the
organic law, and an act of treason against the state. And
the nation proceeded at once to vindicate her own sovereignty and supremacy. There was no coaxing, no truckling, no
faltering. Not honied words, but hard blows, promptly administered, and with a terrible energy and rapidity of repetition, were the means employed to sustain the majesty of the
government and the authority of the law.
It thus appears that the IIebrew 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,
* Judg. xix. 20.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            521
with a general government, which was sovereign in the highest sense. The constitution of Israel had, in this respect, a
similitude to our own, which will strike every reader. It
may also 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
nevertheless united into one great state, under a general government. 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 afterwards
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,
as we have seen, 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 13enjamite rebellion* teaches us, they did not always want either
promptness or energy.t
As the twelve tribes, though independent and sovereign
* This is said to have happened (Judg. xix. 1), when " there was no
king in Israel-;" i. e. when the tribes had no common head, no general
chief magistrate.
t Mich Corn. Art. 46.




622               COMMENTARIES ON THE
for local purposes, yet formed but one political body for the
care and promotion of the common weal, they would naturally have general legislative assemblies, who would, as occasion required, meet together and consult for the good of the
nation at large. This we find to have been actually the
case.*  The law can neither enact, interpret, nor execute
itself. For the discharge of these functions there is required
a certain number of citizens, organized into one or more
bodies, and forming a legislative, judicial, and executive
corps. Conringius,t bishop Sherlock,: and Lowman~ totally
misconceive and misrepresent the Hebrew constitution, when
they deny, that it lodged any properi legislative power in the
national diet, or states-general of Israel. Their error arises
from a misinterpretation of Deut. 4: 1, 2. "l Now, therefore,
hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments
which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live and go
on, and possess the land, which the Lord God of your fathers
giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye
may keep the commandments of the Lord your God, which I
command you."  The same thing is repeated in Deut. 12: 32.
" What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou
shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." From these
precepts, the learned authors, cited above, erroneously conclude, that no proper legislative authority or power was confided by the constitution to the general assemblies of Israel.
There is, undoubtedly, a sense, in which the law was perpetual and unchangeable, viz. in its principles. The principles
of a pure and absolute justice remain always the same; and
new developments of those principles, made necessary by
new circumstances, do not change, even in modifying them,
the truth of former developments. It would be absurd in a
* Exod. xix. 7, 8. Numb. i. 16, xvi. 2, x. 2-4, xxvii. 2, xxxvi. 1. Deut,
xix. 10. Josh. xxiii. 2, xxiv. 1. Judg. xx. 2.
t De Rep. Heb. S. 10.  $ Dissert. 3.  ~ Civ. Gov. Heb C. 7.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBIBEWS.            523
legislator, in giving a code of laws to a people, to take away
from them the power of enacting new laws, as new manners
and new conditions of the body politic required them. The
command of Moses in this case must be understood as addressed to individuals, and as announcing to them, that they
must observe the whole law, without adding to it, or taking
from it, on their private authority. When he speaks to the
national assemblies, to all Israel, his language is altogether
different. Then, on the contrary, he commands to seek justice, to provide for the public welfare, to pursue (go on in)
the way of equity, otherwise called "the way of the Lord,"
without turning to the right hand or to the left; that is,
without departing from  the fundamental principles, laid
down in the constitution. Thence the Hebrew doctors derive
the maxim, assented to by the great Selden, "From  the
senate [the national diet] proceeds the law to all Israel."*
The great principle of legislation, which pervades the Hebrew constitution, is, that the general will, the common consent of the citizens, freely and clearly expressed in regularly constituted assemblies, is necessary to give birth to law.
This principle Moses seems to have regarded, if not as an
essential, at least as an important bond of social order, and a
great source of strength to the body politic. HIence at Sinai
he obtained the assent of the people, through their elders, to
the proposition of Jehovah to be their king and to the laws
which lie should dictate.t  Again, after numerous laws had
been given, and while the Hebrews still remained encamped
at the foot of mount Sinai, he called the diet together anew,
rehearsed "' all the words of the Lord and all the judgments,"
and proposed a fresh vote upon them, whereupon the people,
by their representatives, signified their unanimous approval,
and formally enacted them into laws. Not content with even
* Mischna, vol. 4, c. 10, and Selden de Synedriis, cited by Salvador, in
Hist. des Inst. de Moise, 1. 1, c. 2.
I Exod. xix. 3-8.




524               COMMENTARIES ON TIHE
tI is expression of the popular will, he caused them all to be
written out, engrossed as it were, and the next day, after
offering a solemn sacrifice accompanied by various imposing
and impressive ceremonies, he read them  in the audience of
the assembly, and required another formal assent. This last
act was strictly of the nature of a compact between Jehovah
as sovereign and the Hebrews as subjects; and it is expressly called so by 3\foses.*  In like manner a short time before
his death, when the code had been completed, he assembled
the national legislature, and submitted the whole body of
laws to their approval, and caused them to renew the compact with their king.t Surely, never did legislator attach a
higher importance to the general will, or take more pains to
obtain a full, free, and fair expression of it.
This great principle of popular consent, as the basis and
nerve of legislation, received fresh confirmation, on various
memorable occasions, in the subsequent history of the commonwealth.  After the passage of the Jordan, Joshua assembled the states-general of Israel, agreeably to an express
injunction of Moses, and caused the nation to renew its vote
in favor of the code, which had been framed for it.4: Near
the end of his life, this same Joshua, a worthy successor of
Moses, as having no small share of his ability, and as being
deeply penetrated with his spirit, convened the representatives
of the nation at Shechemn, recounted the leading events of their
history, and made them re-elect Jehovah for their king, renew
the compact with him, and give their assent once more to the
laws, which he had ordained.~ On the return of the Jews
from Babylon and the re-establishment of their republic, the
law was publicly proclaimed for many successive days, and a
solemn formula was drawn up, in which the assent and sanction of the nation might be expressed. To this document
twenty-three priests, seventeen Levites, and forty-four chiefs
Exod. xxiv. 3-8.              t Deut. xxix. 9-13.
j Josh. -iii. 30-35.          i Ibid. xxiv.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           525
3f the people, —eighty-four leading nlen in all,-signed their
names, and affixed their seals. The rest of the people gave
their assent to the covenant and the statutes, in a manner
somewhat less formal, but no less binding.@
These facts are a demonstration, that the principle in question entered essentially into the constitution of Moses, and
into the practice of the nation. They put the seal of authenticity upon it. Bossuet himself, a man of vast genius, but
whose social relations made him too much the friend of absolute power, and from whom nothing but the force of truth
could have drawn such an expression of opinion, recognizes
this fact in the following terms: " God, through the agency
of I3oses, assembles his people, proposes to them the law,
which establishes the rights of the nation, both sacred and
ci7il, public and private, and causes them to give their assent
thereto in his presence. The entire people expressly consent
to the compact. Moses receives this compact in the name of
the people, who had given it their assent."t  Again: "All
who have spoken accurately concerning the CHebrew] law,
have regarded it, in its origin, as a solemn pact and treaty,
by which individual men agree together in reference to what
is necessary to form themselves into a civil society.":
But since Jehovah is the creator of men, and can lay upon
them whatever obligations he pleases, since he needs not
human assent to strengthen his authority, why should he propose laws, instead of imposing them? Why should he exact
the free concurrence of individuals? If his word is truth,
expressing both that which is, and that which ought to be, to
what end should serve the approval of a multitude? To this
I reply as follows: First, God did not give laws to the IIe
brews as their creator, but as their deliverer and the founder
of their state. Secondly, an important purpose or the Hebrew
polity was to teach mankind the real nature of civil govern* Neh. viii. 18; ix. 38; x. 1-29.
t Politique Sacree, 1. 1. Art. 4.    { Tbid.




626               COMMENTARIES ON TIE
ment, and the true source of political power; whence it necessarily follows, that the authority of Jehovah, as civil head
of the Hebrew state, must be drawn from the same fountain,
rest upon the same basis, and be regulated by the same principles, as the authority of a human ruler, standing in the
same relation to a civil community. Thirdly, several valuable political advantages, even with Jehovah himself for king,
resulted from the assent of the people to the code. As 1.
The law then became not simply a rule, but a rule clothed
with the consent of all. It was the expression, not of an
absolute power, but of the general will; or rather, to speak
more philosophically, it was the expression of political truth,
sanctioned by the general will. A rule arbitrarily imposed,
however good it may be, tends to despotism; and a thing,
wrong in itself and contrary to the eternal principles of justice, though sanctioned by the voice of the whole world, can
never be a law to bind the conscience. 2. The consent of the
people to the public compact had the effect of obliging each
individual towards all the rest. And 3. It had the further
effect of binding the moral person called the state, which was
formed by this union, to the infinite and unchangeable being;
the Hebrews, on their part, promising to shun whatever was
hurtful, and to submit to whatever was useful, to the body
politic, and Jehovah, on his, engaging to recompense their
fidelity with prosperity and happiness.
It has been well remarked by Salvador,* that no other
nation offers the example of a compact so wise and so sublime.  Hie adds the opinion, which is worthy of being
pondered, that it is the essential cause of the strong power of
cohesion, developed by the political association of the Hebrews, inspiring prophets, full of genius, with the thought,
that, as long as the laws of nature shall endure, Israel and
his law shall never pass away. Such, then, is the principle
* Hist. des Inst. de Mdise, 1. 1. C. 2. The whole of the chapter on the
formation of the law, is well worthy of the reader's attention,




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           527
of the Hebrew legislation, viz. that law must rest upon the
foundation of the general will, the consent of the nation freely
and clearly expressed.
The legislative assemblies, created by the constitution of
Moses, were of two kinds,-an upper and a lower house.
The former was a select assembly, called commonly the princes, elders, or senators of Israel; and was convened by the
sound of a single trumpet. The latter was a larger and more
popular assembly, called the congregation of Israel; and the
signal for calling it together was the blowing of two trumpets.*
These were the signals while Israel was an army, and abode
in the wilderness; but after the nation was settled in Canaan,
either they met at stated times, or heralds must have been
employed to convey the summons for assembling to the persons having a seat in the diet. "These general assemblies
were convened by the chief magistrate of the commonwealth,
by the commander of the army, or by the regent; and, when
the nation had no such supreme head, by the high priest, in
his capacity of prime minister to the invisible king. The
great assembly mentioned in the twentieth chapter of Judges,
was undoubtedly convoked by the high priest Phinehas, who
was so zealous for the honor of Jehovah.t  It was to these
assemblies, that Moses immediately addressed himself, and to
them he delivered the precepts, which he received from Jehovah. The magistrates, particularly the genealogists, then
communicated to the people the precepts and orders of AMoses,
each one to the families under his immediate direction. In
like manner, the commands of the generals and the resolves
of the assemblies were made known to the people, who were
sometimes assembled ready to receive these communications;
or if not, were called together by the proper officers. The
legislative assemblies exercised all the rights of sovereignty.
* Numb. x. 2%-4.
f Numb. x. 2-4. Josh. xxiii. 2. xxiv. 1. 1 Sam. xi. 14. Judg. x. 2"
28.




528                COMMENITARIES ON THE
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.'"*
I forbear for the present all investigation of the vexed
question as to who were entitled to seats in the national legislature, reserving such inquiries, till I come to treat, in
detail, of the different branches, which composed it.
I have already spoken of the inferior courts among the
Hebrews, by which the local administration of justice was
conducted. But the judiciary system could not be complete,
without a supreme judicature, which, accordingly, we find to
have been established by the constitution. The provision for
this court is in the following words: " If there arise a matter
too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood,
between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being
matters of controversy within thy gates (i. e. ill the inferior.
local courts); then thou shalt arise, and get thee unto the place
which the Lord thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come
unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be
in those days, and inquire; and they shall show thee the
sentence of judgment."t  The priests the Levites and the
judge here evidently mean a nat.onal council or court. The
phrase cannot be understood of the whole tribe of Levi, but
must be interpreted of such priests and Levites only, as had
some commission to give judgment in the place, which Jehovah should choose. They were not priests and Levites in
general, but chosen members of a national tribunal. It was
not, indeed, made necessary by any provision of the constitution or any direction of law, that the priests or Levites
* Jahn's Heb. Corn. B. 2. S. 14. Exod. xix. 7, xxiv. 3-8, xxxiv. 31. xxxv.
1. Josh. ix. 15-21. Judg. xx. 1-13, 18, 28. xxi. 13 seqq. I Sam. x. 24.
xi. 14, 15. 2 Sam. iii. 17-21. v. 1-3. 1 Kings xii.
t Deut. xvii. 8, 9.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            529
should be in this tribunal at all; yet, on account of their
learning and knowledge of the laws, they would naturally be
esteemed best qualified to be chosen to interpret them.
This supreme judicature, composed of persons of the greatest
ability, experience, and learning in the laws, was not only
highly important and useful, as a court of appeal in adjudicating difficult cases, and those in which great interests were
at stake between individuals; but it was absolutely indispensable for the decision of controversies, which might arise between different tribes.  As no one tribe had any authority or
jurisdiction over any other, such controversies could be decided
only by some common judge. The tribes, as sovereign states,
were subject to no lower court, than the supreme judicial
council of the whole nation.  What concerned one tribe'was by no  means to be determined  by the judges of
another.* It is hardly necessary to add, that the judgment
of this court was final. Hence it was enacted: "Thou shalt
do according to the sentence, which they of that place which
the Lord shall choose (the supreme court) shall show thee;
and thou shalt observe to do all according to all that they
inform thee; according to the sentence of the law which they
shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which- they
shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not decline fromn
the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right hand
nor to the left." t
From this general view of the Hebrew constitution, a brief
reference to the tribe of Levi can by no means be omitted.
This was the learned class, a kind of literary aristocracy.
The members of this tribe were devoted to the tabernacle
and the altar, that is, politically speaking, to be the ministers
and courtiers of the king Jehovah. They performed, not
only the rites of religion, but also the duties of all those
offices of state, for which learning was necessary.  They
* Lowm. Civ. Gov. Heb. c. 5. Selden de Synedr. 1. 3. c. 4.
t Deut. xvii. 10, 11.
34




530                COMMENTARIES ON THE
were by birth devoted to the cultivation of the sciences,
especially the science of government and jurisprudence.
They were to study the book of the law; to make, preserve,
and disseminate correct copies of it; to instruct the people
both in human and divine learning; to test the accuracy of
weights and measures; to exhort the soldiers, and inspire
them with courage, when about to engage in battle; to perform the duty of police physicians; to determine and announce the moveable feasts, new moons and interealary years;
to discharge the functions of judges and genealogists; with
a variety of other duties. *  Consequently they were to be
theologians, jurists, lawyers, historiographers, mathematicians,
astronomers, surveyors, teachers, orators, and medical practitioners.  " What fruits might not such a plant have borne,
if the priests and Levites had faithfully accomplished the
purposes of their appointment!"+
The prophetical, not less than the Levitical order, among
the HIebrews, had very important relations to the civil state.
The prophets were the popular orators of the Israelitish coinmonwealth. They were not, as has been, with different
views and for different ends, alleged by the church of IRRome
and the school of Voltaire, an appendage of the priesthood.
On the contrary, they were quite independent of the sacerdotal order, and of the royal power as well.: In the public
assemblies on the sabbath, the new moon, and in the solemn
convocations, the prophets, observes Cahlnet,~ harangued the
people, and freely reproved the disorders and abuses, which
showed themselves in the nation. They were true patriots,
who spoke the truth, without disguise and without fear, to
* Numb. xviii. 2-1. Lev. xxv. 8, 9. Deut. xvii. 9. xx. 2-4. xxxi. 11-13.
Lev. xiii. 14. 1 Chron. xxiii. 4. 2 Chron. xvii. 7-9. xix. 8. xxxiv. 13.
Mali. ii. 7.
t Jahn's Heb. Com. B. 2. S. 12.
1 Eichhorn cited by Salvador, 1. 2, c. 3.
0 Dissert. sur les Ecoles des Hebreux, S. 11.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             531
people, priests, senators, princes,  and  kings.  TWe have
an instance of this in the indignant rebuke of Isaiah, chap. 1:
21-24: " I-ow has she become an harlot, (faithless to her
compact with Jehovah,) the faithful city, full of justice,
righteousLess lodged in it, and now murderers. Thy silver
is become dross, thy wine weakened with water. Thy rulers
are rebels, and fellows of thieves, every one of them loving
a bribe and pursuing rewards. The fatherless they judge
not, and the cause of the widow cometh not unto them.
Therefore, saith the Lord, Jehovah of hosts, the mighty one
of Israel, I will comfort myself of my adversaries (literally,
from them, i. e. by ridding myself of them) and I will avenge
myself of rmy enemies."
Thus it appears, from all which has gone before, that the
nature of 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 Hlebrew  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
* Alexander's Translation, Earlier Prophecies, pp. 16, 17.




532               COMMENTARIES ON THE
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. Finally, it is necessary to the
best welfare of a state, that men of lofty genius, men endowed with sagacity to discover the connexion between anr
existing evil and antecedent acts of folly or injustice, men inspired with great ideas, political or moral, should be able
freely to utter their thoughts, and boldly to censure both mnagistrates and people. This necessity the Hebrew constitution
meets by its institution of the prophetical order; an institution, which, in those remote ages, admirably supplied the
want of a free press, and must have contributed, powerfully
and effectively, to the formation of a public opinion, wise,
just, pure, and dignified.
Before concluding this chapter, let us glance at the government of the individual tribes and cities.
Each tribe was a reproduction, a miniature copy, as it
were, of the nation. It would naturally happen, that the
government and functionaries of the former would correspond,
in all important respects, to the latter. Nor have we any
reason to doubt, that such was the case. This at least is the
general opinion of the learned. As all Israel had a council
of elders and a representative congregation of the people, so
each tribe had its senate of princes and its popular assembly.
All the tribes together formed a sort of federative republic,
in which nothing could be done or resolved without the general consent of their respective representatives, and in which
each individual tribe had a constitution formed upon the
model of the national constitution.
As the general government was the type of the provincial
governments, so these furnished the model of the city
administrations. Every city had its bench of elders, distinct




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             533
from its judges and genealogists.* Thus the cities, like the
nation and the tribes, had an upper and a lower house, a board
of aldermen and a board of assistant aldermen. These inunicipal assemblies managed the public business of the cities,
as the assemblies of the tribes administered the general affairs
of the tribes, and the assemblies of the commonwealth those
of all Israel. Numerous proofs of this constitution of the
city governments occur in the sacred books.  That every
city, with its surrounding district, was to have a board of
judges and genealogists, we have already seen.t  That a
board of elders was superadded to this as a part of the municipal administration, the evidence is equally clear. The
men of Succoth having offended Gideon, when pursuing the
routed Midianites, on his return from the battle he caught a
young man of the place, and compelled him to give to him
in writing a list of the princes and elders of his city.4  In
the law concerning the expiation of an uncertain murder,
the two boards are mentioned in connexion, and yet plainly
distinguished from each other; for it is said, "Thy elders and
thy judges shall come forth."~  In like manner, when, on the
return of the Jews from Babylon, the matter concerning the
unlawful marriages was in hand, " the elders of every city
and the judges thereof" are related to have appeared, with
the transgressors, before " the rulers of all the congregation."ll
The author of the book of Judith speaks of a council of ancients in Bethulia, and of three mayors, or governors, to
whom the executive function was committed. Ile also mentions one of the governors, Ozias, as having made a feast to
the elders.~T
To these municipal assemblies it belonged to direct the
public affairs of the cities by their council and authority, and
* Deut. xxi. 1 seqq. Judg. xi. 5, 6, 11. viii. 6, 14. Ruth iv. 4, 9. Ezra x. 14, and many other scriptures.
t Deut. xvi. 18.  + Judg. viii. 6, 14.  { Dent. xxi. 2.
[[ Ezra x. 14.    [   Judith vi. 14-21,




534               COMMENTARIES ON THE
to interpret the law in whatever related to the interests of
their respective cantons.  Salvador* thinks, that like the
censors at Rome and the ancients of Sparta and Athens, they
watched over the public manners and morals. Seated without parade at the city gate, or beneath the shade of trees,
they lent the ear, he says, to the aggrieved citizens, to the
weeping wife, to the oppressed slave, to the poor, the stranger, the orphan, and the widow. If their complaints admitted
of legal redress, they proclaimed and enforced the law; if
not, they became the counsellors and comforters of the afflicted. By their efforts, a rigorous father was softened; a
wandering son was reclaimed and brought back to the paternal
mnansion; and families, rent by discord, were re-united in peace.
On the sacred days, the presence of the rulers, reverently listening to the reading of the law and the exhortations of the orators,
impressed upon the youthful citizens the importance of the
subjects handled, and communicated to the assemblies a calm,
thoughtful, and dignified air.
Thus flowed the current of affairs, during those long periods of repose enjoyed by Israel, despite the powerful
enemies by which the nation was surrounded. Such was the
simple but energetic polity, which impressed upon the soul of
the Hebrews memories never to be effaced, and which, in
spite of many odious actions, produced by the barbarism of
the times, imparts a charm to their sacred books, unknown to
other compositions; a charm, which neither distance of time
nor diversity of manners has power to dissolve, or evvn to
weaken.
X Hist. des Inst. de Moise 1. 2. c. 2




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS..385
CHAPTER IV.
The Hebrew Chief Magistrate.
MosES lid not, by an express law, unalterably determine in
what sort of magistrate the supreme executive authority of the
Israelitish state should be lodged. On the contrary, he provided beforehand, in his constitution, for a change in the form
of the government and the title and prerogatives of its head,
without subjecting the nation to the horrors of a civil war.
And the change from the republican to the regal form was,
in a subsequent age, actually accomplished without bloodshed
or commotion, an event hardly paralleled by any other in history. Still, Moses was far from  being indifferent in regard
to the name and powers of the civil head of the state. His
chief magistrate was a republican president, who had the
title of judge, or rather, as Jahn says, governor, and was
elective by the people.
A strange notion in regard to the chief magistracy of Israel
has been entertained by several very learned authors; viz.
that it was the design of Mloses, that the nation should, if
possible, do without a chief executive officer. Such appears
to have been the opinion of lHarrington,* Fleury,t Lewis,:
* Commonwealth of Israel, C. 3.
t Manners of the Ancient Israelites, C. 23.
$ Antiquities of the Heb. Rep. B. 1, C. 4.




536               COMMENTARIES ON THE
Michaelis,* Smith,t and Dupin.4  Their idea would seem
to have been, that, considering how difficult it is to control
power once entrusted to the hands of an individual, the lawgiver of Israel wished to have the ends of an executive answered in his republic, without setting apart a single person
for that tempting distinction, trusting that, on emergencies,
men would appear, who could discharge the duty required
by the occasion, without any other commission, than their
own preeminent qualifications, instinctively acknowledged by
the public voice. In the view of these writers, the judges
were all extraordinary magistrates, not unlike the dictators
in ancient Rome.
I have called this a strange opinion, because a state without
a chief magistrate, is as monstrous as a body without a head.
iBut I must add, that, notwithstanding the great names, by
which it is supported, it appears to me wholly without foundation. If I look either to the conduct or the laws of Moses,
I can discover no ground for such an idea. Let us first take
his acts for our guide in the study of this point. Moses himself was, unquestionably, the chief magistrate of the Hebrew
state. Now, when he had finished his course, and the time
of his departure was at hand, about to yield up the authority,
which he had so long and usefully exercised, he was mainly
anxious to provide a suitable successor in that office; a man
of courage, prudence, piety, and other needful gifts of government.~  He was to be one, who should go out and come
in before them; that is, he was to have the command of their
armies in war, and the direction of their civil affairs in peace.
As to the opinion, that this was to be an extraordinary magistracy, it is pure assumption.  Nto intimation is given,
that it was to last only during the conquest and settlement of
Canaan. The reason assigned by Moses for his anxiety in
the matter, viz. that the congregation of Jehovah be not as
* Comment. on the Laws of Moses, Art. 53.   t Hebrew People, C. 3.
t Hist. of the Canin. B. 1, C. 3.    a Numb. xxvii. 15-17.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           537
sheep that have no shepherd, seems to me to settle the
question beyond doubt or cavil. Sheep without a shepherd
would be as appropriate a symbol of Israel without a chief
magistrate after the settlement of Canaan, as before it. This
reason for the office of leader or head, viz. its great usefulness
or importance to the well-being of the body politic, which are
inherent and permanent qualities, stamps it as an essential
and standing part of the constitution. And this is conformable to the general sentiment and practice of mankind. The
wisest nations have ever deemed it convenient to have a first
magistrate, either hereditary or elective, either for life or a
term of years, who should be the commander in chief of their
armies, and who should preside over the civil administration.
No otherwise can the force of a nation be properly employed
for its protection, and its laws duly executed.
But, again, if we look at the laws of Moses, we shall come
to the same conclusion, viz. that the opinion I am combatting
is without any solid foundation. Michaelis* says truly, that
Moses gave no law, imposing an obligation on the people to
choose one universal magistrate of the whole nation. Yet he
at least does that which is equivalent; he manifestly takes it
for granted, that the nation would have such a magistrate.
Thus in Deut. 17: 9, the judge of the whole republic is mentioned in connexion with the high priest; and that, not as a
military, but as a civil functionary. In the twelfth verse of
the same chapter, the word judge is used as a title of supreme
authority. A still more decisive passage occurs in 2 Sam.
7: 11. It is an address, which Jehovah, by the mouth of the
prophet Nathan, made to king David, concerning his intention to build him a house. The divine speaker, in a distinct
allusion to the chief magistrates of Israel, prior to the institution of monarchy, says expressly: " I COMMANDED judges to
be over my people Israel."  Upon the whole, there can be
no reasc nable doubt, that, as the Lacedaemonians had their
* Art. 53.




538               COMMENTARIES ON tIHE
kings, the Athenians their archons, and the R.cnans their
consuls, so, according to the constitution of Moses, the Hebrews were to have their general judges, or governors of the
whole republic. As to what is alleged by some, as a ground
of belief that Moses did not intend to have an unbroken succession of chief magistrates, that, prior to the establishment
of monarchy, there were times, when the nation was without
a civil head, and that the authority of some of the judges did
not extend to all Israel, but was limited to particular tribes,
that is undoubtedly true. But it is a fact, which may be
accounted for on more rational grounds, than the theory of
these writers. It was the result of a neglect, rather than an
observance, of the Mosaic constitution; a neglect, in all probability, occasioned by the jealous rivalry between the different tribes, as explained in the last chapter.
In order to a just understanding of the frame and operation
of the IIebrew government, it is material to inquire, both
what were the powers, and what the limitations of power,
appertaining to this magistracy. If we would conceive justly
of the office, we must study it, as it was instituted and exercised by Moses and Joshua, in whose history alone we may
expect to find an exact and true account of it, since, after the
death of the latter, this part of the constitution was very soon
altered or neglected, there being no regent or judge in the
land.*
The supreme authority of the Hebrew state was in Jehovah.
God himself was properly king of Israel. With respect to
this divine king, Moses, as Conringiust says, might not improperly be called his viceroy. It is evident from the whole
history, and therefore particular citations are not necessary to
prove, that Moses was clothed with very ample powers. He
had authority to convene the states-general of Israel, to preside over their deliberations, to command the army, to appoint
officers, and to hear and decide civil causes.
* Judg. xix. 1.    4 De Rep. Haebr. p. 249, cited by Lowman, C. 10.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           539
But it may be alleged, and it is certainly true, that Moses
had an authority depending, in a peculiar manner, on God
himself. Let us, therefore, look at this office of chief magistrate, as exercised by Joshua. We find a somewhat detailed
account of it, in the narrative of his appointment as the successor of Moses. The historian says:* " And the Lord said
unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom
is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him: and set him
before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation: and
give him a charge in their sight. And thou shalt put some
of thine honor upon him, that all the congregation of the
children of Israel may be obedient. And he shall stand
before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after
the judgment of urim before the Lord: at his word shall they
go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all
the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation.
And Moses did as the Lord commanded him: and he took
Joshua, and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all
the congregation. And he laid his hands upon him, and gave
him a charge, as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses."
We learn, still more clearly, the nature of this part of the
Hebrew constitution, from the history of Joshua's accession
to the government.  "Now, after the death of Moses, the
servant of the Lord, it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto
Joshua, the son of Nun, Moses's minister."t  The object of
this address was to encourage him to take upon himself the
government of the Israelites.t Thereupon the new regent
immediately issues his orders:~ "Then Joshua commanded
the officers of the people, saying, Pass through the host and
command the people, saying, Prepare you victuals: for within
three days ye shall pass over this Jordan, to go in to possess
the land which the Lord your God giveth you to possess it."
Then he summoned the tribes, who had received their inherit* Numb. xxvii. 18-23.   t Josh. i. 1.:      Ibid. i. 2-9.
I bid. i. 10, 11.




54:0               COMMENTARIES ON THE
ance east of the Jordan, and directed them to accompany
their brethren, and assist them  in taking possession of their
portion on the western side of that river.* Their reply was
remarkable, and deserves to be inserted at length; as we
distinctly see from it their conception of the nature and
extent of the authority, which was vested in Joshua:-t"And they answered Joshua, saying, All that thou commandest us, we will do, and whithersoever thou sendest us,
we will go. According as we hearkened unto Moses in all
things, so will we hearken unto thee: only the Lord thy God
be with thee, as he was with Moses. Whosoever he be that
doth rebel against thy commandment, and will not hearken
unto thy words in all that thou commandest him, he shall be
put to death: only be strong and of a good courage."
These are the principal passages, relating to the office of
chief magistrate among the IIebrews, as it was exemplified
in the history of the first two judges. A critical analysis of
them establishes several important conclusions.
1. The Hebrew judges held their office for life. There was.
unquestionably, a disadvantage attendant upon this arrangement.  On the death of a judge, the supreme executive authority ceased. This often led to anarchy, or at least to great
disorders, in consequence of a delay in electing a successor.
In virtue of the English maxim of law, that the king never
dies, all the rights of the sovereign, on his demise, instantly
vest in his heir. Perhaps, however, the disadvantage, result.
ing from the adoption of the opposite principle in the Hebrew
polity, was more than counterbalanced, by its preventing a degenerate heir, or successor, from giving to idolatry the support
of his influence.:
2. The office was not hereditary. Moses took no steps to
perpetuate this magistracy in his family, or to leave it as an
hereditary honor to his posterity. Ite did not even seek to
confine it within his own tribe. All he desired, in his suc* Josh. i. 12-15.  t Ibid. i. 16-18.  $ Jahn's Heb. Com. B. 3. S. 22.




LAWS OF THE ANCrENT HEBREWS.            541
cessor, was a man fit for the office; a man, in whom was the
spirit of prudence, courage, and the fear of God, with all the
other gifts of government, necessary in an upright, patriotic,
zealous, and able chief magistrate. Joshua, the immnediate
successor of Moses, was of the tribe of Ephraim; Othniel
was of Judah; Ehud, of Benjamin; Deborah, of Naphtali;
Gideon, of Manasseh; and Samuel, of Levi.  The other
judges were of several different tribes; and, they being dead,
their children remained among the common people; and we
hear no more of them. " Let the supreme authority be given
to the worthiest," is the voice of reason. " Let the supreme
authority be given to the worthiest," is echoed back by the
Mosaic constitution, as face answers to face in water, and the
heart of man to man.
3. The chief magistracy of Israel was elective. The oracle,
the high priest, and all the congregation, are distinctly recorded to have concurred in the elevation of Joshua to this
office.* Jephthah was chosen to the chief magistracy by the
popular voice.t  Samuel was elected regent in a general
assembly of Israel.t  And, for aught that appears, the other
judges were raised to this office by the free, unsolicited choice
of the people.
4. The authority of these regents extended to affairs of war
and peace. They were commanders in chief of the military
forces of the Israelites, and chief judges in civil causes. That
Moses united these functions in his person, is undisputed.
He administered justice, as well as commanded  armies.
That Joshua did the same, that his authority was, in these
particulars, of an equal extent, is also clear. Moses was directed to put some of his honor upon him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel might be obedient.~ WV hat
does this mean, but that, as suggested by bishop Patrick,
]Mioses communicated to Joshua some of his own authority,
* Numb. xxviii. 19, 22.     t Judg. xi. 4-11.
$1 Sam. vii. 5-8.           ~ Numb. xxviii. 20.




542               COMMENTARIES ON THE
and made him  an associate in the government?  But the
point is yet clearer from the words, in which the transjordanic tribes recognized Joshua's authority: " All that thou
commandest us we will do, and whithersoever thou sendest
us we will go.  According as we hearkened unto Moses
in all things, so will we hearken unto thee."* This is explicit and unequivocal. The authority of Joshua was coextensive with that of Moses, and comprehended civil as well
as military affairs. Most of the succeeding judges had been
at the head of armies; had delivered their country from
foreign oppression; and were elevated to the chief magistracy
in reward of their military exploits. Eli and Samuel, however, certainly were not military men. Deborah was judge,
and held her court under a palm tree, before she planned the
war against Jabin.t Of Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon, it is
uncertain whether they ever held any military command.
The judges are mentioned in the Mosaic law, in connection
with the high priest, as arbiters of civil controversies.: The
command of the army cannot, therefore, be considered as the
peculiar, much less the exclusive function of these magistrates. They appear rather to have been appointed for the
general administration of public affairs. It is true, that martial achievements were, in several instances, the means, by
which men raised themselves to the rank of judges; but the
present inquiry is, not how the office was obtained, but for
what ends it was instituted.~
The authority of the judge was, without doubt, very great.
As general, he had the chief command of the army; as civil
head of the state, he convened the senate and congregation,
presided in those assemblies, proposed the public business,
exercised a powerful influence over their deliberations, and,
in all things, acted as viceroy of Jehovah, the invisible king
of Israel. I-Ie was the fountain of justice, and the executive
* Josh. i. 16, 17.  t Judg. iv. 4, 5.  J Deut. xvii. 9, 12.
i Jahn's Heb. Com. B. 3, S. 22




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            543
power of the government was principally lodged in his
hands.*
5. A contumacious resistance of the lawful authority and
orders of the Hebrew judges, was treason. This, is plain
from the address of the eastern tribes to Joshua, in formally
recognizing him as the head of the nation, and promising allegiance to his government. " Whosoever he be," they say,
" that doth rebel against thy commandment, and will not
hearken unto thy words, in all that thou commandest him, he
shall be put to death."t It is, perhaps, still plainer from
Deut. 17: 12: "The man that will do presumptuously, and
will not hearken unto   * * * * the judge, even that man shall
die."  And this was consonant to reason and justice; for,
the chief authority, both in military and civil affairs, being
vested in him, he embodied and represented the majesty of
the state. Rebellion against him was rebellion against the
supreme power. It was a violation of all order and government, an attempt to frustrate the will of the nation, an act of
mutiny and sedition; offences, which, in all governments,
have been regarded and treated as capital crimes.
6. The authority of the Israelitish regents was not unlimited and despotic. It was tempered and restrained by the
oracle. This is distinctly affirmed, in the history of the
appointment of Joshua to the chief magistracy, as the successor of IMoses.:  It is there said, that he should stand
before Eleazar the priest,, who should ask counsel for him,
after the judgment of urim before the Lord. This implies an
obligation to follow the counsel, when given. This use of
the oracle throws light on some parts of the Hebrew history,
which are commonly not well understood. In particular, it
suggests the reason why the Israelites were so often conquered
and oppressed by their enemies. It was either because of
their rashness in trusting to their own wisdom, without asking
* Lowm. on Civ Gov. Heb. C, 10.
t Josh. i. 18.            $ Numb. xxvii. 21.




544               COMMENTARIES ON THE
counsel of the oracle, or because of their neglect to follow the
counsels, which they received from it. In either case, the
behavior of the Hebrews could not be otherwise than highly
criminal, under this constitution; and, of course, highly provoking to their divine king. The power of the Hebrew chief
magistrates was further limited by that of the senate and
congregation. In ordinary cases, it would seem, they were
not bound to consult the states-general. It was enough, if
these did not remonstrate against the measures of the judge;
a procedure to which they were by no means backward in resorting, whenever, in their judgment, occasion required it.
But, in important emergencies, they summoned a general
assembly of the rulers, to ask their advice and consent. This
we find to have been repeatedly done by Moses, Joshua, and
Samuel.
Still another limitation to the authority of the Hebrew
judges was in the law itself. Their power could not be
stretched beyond its legal bounds. This is pretty plainly intimated, in the address of the people to Joshua, on his
accession to the chief magistracy. They say, in effect, that
they would be obedient to him, provided he himself would
obey the law of Jehovah, and follow the path traced out by
his servant Moses.*  This magistracy was always in subjection to the law, nor, as far as appears from the history, did
any of the judges ever abuse the power committed to them,
unless we except Gideon, who, through his own superstition,
gave some slight encouragement to idolatry. As it is a maxim of the British monarchy, that the law maketh the king,t
so it was a principle of the Hebrew commonwealth, that the
law made the judge; and as, under the English constitution, ho
is not king, where will and pleasure rule, and not the law;t
so, under the Israelitish constitution, he would not long have
continued judge, who, trampling on the law, should have
made his own will the rule of his administration.
* Josh. i. 17.       t Blacks. Comment. B. 1. c. 6.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            545
The observation may appear singular, yet I believe it to be
true, that the constitution of Carthage throws light on this
part of the constitution of Israel.  " The history of the Carthaginians," observes Michaelis,* " will here assist us in forming
more accurate ideas of this chief magistrate of the Israelitish
republic, and in comparing his office with a well known European one.  In the Hebrew  language, a judge is called
schofet. The Carthaginians, who were descendants of the
Tyrians, and spoke Hebrew, called their chief magistrate by
that name. But the Latins, who had no such 8ch, as we
have, wrote the word with a sharp s, and, adding a Latin termination, denominated them suffetes. By the historian Livy,
they al e compared to the Roman consuls. In book 28, chap.
38, he says,' Ad colloquium suf'etes eorum, qui surnmus Poenis
est mnagistratus, cun quaestore elicuit.' There, however, he is
speaking, not of the suffetes of the city of Carthage itself,
but of inferior ones. But in book 30, chap. 7, he mentions
the former in these words:' Senatum suffetes, quod velut
consulare apud imperium erat, vocaverunt.' Now such were
the judges of Israel, whose history is recorded in the book
called by their name."
No salary was attached to the chief magistracy in the
HIebrew government. No revenues were appropriated to the
judges, except, perhaps, a larger share of the spoils taken in
war, and the presents, spontaneously made to them, as testimonials of respect.t  No tribute was raised for themn. They
had no outward badges of dignity. They did not wear the
diadem. They were not surrounded by a crowd of satellites.
They were not invested with the sovereign power.:  They
could issue orders; but they could not enact laws. They had
not the right of appointing officers, except perhaps in the
army. They had no power to lay new burdens upon the
people in the form of taxes. They were ministers of justice,
* Comment. Art. 53.      t Judg. viii. 24. 1 Sam. ix. 7. x. 27.
t Pastoret, Histoire de la Legislat. t. 3. pp. 79 seqq.
35




4 46              COMMENTARIIES ON THE
protectors of law, defenders of religion, and avengers of
crime; particularly the crime of idolatry.*  But their power
was constitutional, not arbitrary. It was kept within due
bounds by the barriers of law, tile decisions of the oracle,
and the advice and consent of the senate and commons of
Israel. They were without show, without pomp, without
retinue, without eqiuipage; plain republican  magistrates.
" They were not only simple in their manners, moderate in
their desires, and free from avarice and ambition, but noble
and magnanimous men, who felt that whatever they did for
their country, was above all reward, and could not be recomnpensed; who desired merely to promote the public good;
and who chose rather to deserve well of their country, than
to be enriched by its wealth. This exalted patriotism, like
every thing else connected with politics in the theocratical
state of the Hebrews, was partly of a religious character;
and those regents always conducted themselves as the officers
of God. In all their enterprises, they relied upon him, and
their only care was, that their countrymen should acknowledge the authority of Jehovah, their invisible king. Still,
they were not without faults; neither are they so represented
by their historians.  These relate, on the contrary, with the
utmost frankness, the great sins, of which some of them were
guilty. They were not merely deliverers of the state from a
foreign yoke, but destroyers of idolatry, foes of pagan vices,
promoters of the knowledge of God, of religion, and of morality; restorers of theocracy in the minds of the Hiebrews;
and powerful instruments of divine providence in the promotion of the great design of preserving the Hebrew  constitution, and, by that means, of rescuing the true religion from
destruction."t
Such was the chief magistrate of Israel, as created by the
constitution of Moses. It will be interesting and not Unim.portant, to inquire into the state of the conntry, during the
* Calmet's Diet. Art. Judges.  t Jahn's Heb. Com. B. 3. S. 22.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             547
government of the judges. Very grave errors on this point,
and such as are calculated to discredit the wisdom of this
constitution, have been committed by authors, otherwise
candid and learned. It has been by no means uncommon to
represent the four hundred and fifty years, during which this
consular magistracy lasted, as times of imbecility, confusion,
anarchy, barbarism, and crime. Harrington * speaks of the
Israelitish commonwealth, during this period, as " without
any sufficient root for the possible support of it, or with such
roots only as were full of worms."  Lowman t speaks of " the
weak state of the Hebrews," and Smith, $ of " the moral
and social deterioration of the people," during the same
period. Nothing can be more unfounded, or unjust, than
such representations. This error is probably grounded on
another, viz. that of regarding the book of Judges as a complete history of the times of the judges. But such it manifestly is not. The book is exceedingly fragmentary as a
narrative, being made up rather of heads of history, than
history itself. It is aptly characterised by Jahn ~ as "' a mere
register of diseases, from which, however, we have no right
to conclude, that there were no healthy men, much less that
there were no healthy seasons; when the book itself, for the
most part, mentions only a few tribes, in which the epidemic
prevailed, and notices long periods, during which it had
universally ceased."  If any one will attentively read over
the book of Judges, and take the trouble to compare the
times of oppression and adversity with those of independence
and prosperity, he will find the duration of the former less
than one-fourth that of the latter. The entire history of one
hundred and twenty years of this period is contained in
these two brief records: — The land had rest forty years;"I[
"the land had rest four score years."    Surely, Othniel,
* Commonwealth of Israel, c. 3.    Civ. Gov. Heb. c,. 10.
$ Heb. Peop. c. 3.           & Heb. Com. B. 3. S. 23.
il Judges iii. 11.           ~ Ibid. iii. 30.




t48               DO1MMENTARIES 3N THE
Ehud, and Shamgar must have governed with prudence and
ability, since all the time of their administration was prosperous and peaceable, both within and without. It is quite
apparent, therefore, that the Israelites experienced much
more of prosperity than of adversity in the time of the
judges. Under their government, the nation enjoyed periods
of repose, happiness, and plenty, of which the history of
other ancient nations affords but few examples. Wherefore,
then, change the republican to the regal form? Pride and
folly prompted the revolution; a revolution, soon repented
of with bitter but unavailing regrets; a revolution, in which
lay buried the seeds of despotism and ultimate dissolution.
This magistracy of judge, regent, or consul, was the true
primitive arrangement of the Hebrew constitution: This the
wisdom of the divine lawgiver appointed as one of the bonds,
whereby the tribes were to be united in the power of their
arms, in their national councils, and in the administration of
justice.' If Moses, in framing his polity, had stopped here, it,
would have been necessary for any one, in analyzing and describing it, to arrest himself at the same point. But since he
provided for the establishment of the regal form of government among the Hebrews, whenever they should tire of republican simplicity, and since he enacted a fundamental law
to define and limit the power of the future kings, the study
of the Hebrew chief magistracy involves an examination of
the regal office; nor would the analysis of the Mosaic constitution be complete without it. To this labor, therefore, I
now address myself.
The law, referred to in the last paragraph, is in these
words' When thou art come into the land, which the Lord
thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell
therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over mne, like as all
the nations that are about me: -Thou shalt in any wise set
him  king over thee whom  the Lord thy God shall choose:
one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee:




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            549
thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy
brother. But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor
cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should
multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you,
YVe shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall
he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away:
neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
And it shall be when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdoin, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out
of that which is before the priests the Levites. And it shall
be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his
life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all
the words of this law and these statutes, to do themr: that
his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he
turn not aside from the commandment to the right hand or to
the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst. of Israel."*
Agreeably to the provisions of this enactment, the nation
was at liberty, whenever it thought fit, to institute the regal
form of government; the king was to be chosen by the concurrent voice of the people. and the oracle; the sovereign
must be a native Israelite; the multiplication of horses was
interdicted to him; he was not to have many wives; he
might not accumulate and hoard large treasures; he was to
be the defender of religion; the law must be the rule of his
government; he must regard his people as brethren and
equals; and, upon these conditions, the throne was to be hereditarv in his family. I propose briefly to illustrate each of
these particulars.
1. Mzonarchy was permitted to the Israelites. Moses was
not ignorant of the temper of the orientals. He knew their
strong propensity to kingly government, which, at a later
period in the world's history, was remarked by the Greeks
and Romans. He well understood, also, the general muta
bility of human affairs. On these grounds, he anticipated,
and the law under consideration presupposes, what afterwards
took place, a desire in the Hebrew people to have a king, in
* Deut. xvii. 14-20.




550               COMMENTARIES ON THE
imitation of the polity of other eastern nations. For the gratification of this desire in a peaceful way, Mloses provided in
this law. Among the immediate causes of this change in the
Il-ebrew constitution, we may probably, without error, enumerate the effeminacy and cowardice of the. people, the
disunion and jealousy of the tribes, the formidable power of
the Ammonites and the Philistines, from whose incursions
the eastern and southern tribes were constant sufferers, the
fear that, after the death of Sarnmuel, being left without a
supreme regent, and consequently becoming disunited, they
would fall a prey to these terrible enemies, the'degeneracy of
Samuel's sons, the example of all their neighbors, the idea
of the greater respectability of a nation with a king at its
head, the desire or the necessity of being always ready for
war, a want of faith and constancy in the Hebrew mind,
and, more than all perhaps, a weak longing after the pomp
and glitter of royalty. But, whatever the cause might be,
the change was made. It conduces not a little to the honor
of the Hebrews, that they effected it in accordance with the
principles of theocracy, and without bloodshed. This is a
clear proof, that the time of the judges was neither an impious nor a barbarous age.@
2. The right of election was left to the people; subject to
this limitation, however, that they were not to appoint any
one as king, who was not chosen by God. At first view, the
two parts of this proposition appear contradictory to each
other. But the difficulty vanishes, when it is understood as
simply implying, that the oracle and the states-general must
concur in the choice. In some of our state legislatures,
United States senators are elected by a separate vote of each
house, in which case the two houses must be of accord, or
there is no election. The case was analogous in the election
of an Israelitish sovereign. The people and the oracle must
concur. A fair interpretation of the statute itself will lead
* Jahn's Heb. Corn. B. 3, ss. 24, 25. Michi.''Comment. Art. 54.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT IHEBREWS.          551
to this conclusion. "THou shalt in any wise set him  king
over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from
among thy brethren shalt TIOU set over thee: THOU mayest
not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother."*
That the oracle was to be consulted in the election, this passage
places beyond doubt. That the people also were to have a
voice in the transaction, it makes almost equally clear. The
earnest cautions, addressed to them in reference to the choice
of a sovereign, would be absurd, if all liberty of action were
absolutely taken from them, and they were simply to receive
one, arbitrarily imposed upon them by the will of another.
But the meaning of the statute may be best studied in the
actual application of it. In this, as in other instances, the
history throws light upon the code. In regard to the institution of the monarchy, and Saul's elevation to the throne, let
any one attentively read that part of the first book of Samuel,
which is contained in chaps. 8-11, and he will find set forth
in it the following facts. Samuel convoked the general diet
of Israel at Mizpeh. There, after recounting the Lord's past
mercies to them, he reminded them, that in demanding a
king, they had rejected Jehovah; who had himself saved
them out of all their adversities.  He then called them to
present themselves before the Lord by their tribes. On the
application of the sacred lot, the tribe of Benjamin was taken.
Afterward, in a similar manner, the family of Matri was
taken; and then, in the same way, Saul, the son of Kish, was
selected. Samuel then presented the nominee of the oracle
to the representatives of the people for their approval and
confirmation. Many of them, probably a majority, gave an
affirmative vote. But a powerful minority opposed his investiture with the royal authority, on the ground, that they did
not believe him possessed of sufficient military talent and
experience to lead the Israelitish armies to victory. The narrative inclines me to think, that Saul was not inaugurated and
* Deut. xvii. 15.




652               COMMENTARIES ON THE
invested with the kingly power on this occasion. The circumstances, which seem to me to render this a probable opinion,
are the following. Saul assumed neither the state nor the
authority of a king; but went back to his agricultural pursuits in Gibeah, as aforetime. No tribute was levied for him,
nor any arrangement made for supporting the regal dignity.
He received gifts fi'om only a few, while by many he was
openly contemned. The mass of the people paid him scarcely
any deference at all. Samuel did not let go the reins of government, nor resign his power as chief magistrate of Israel;
for his authority was joined to that of Saul in summoning the
Israelites to the assistance of Jabesh-gilead, against Nahash,
king of the Amnmonites. In this war, Saul exhibited military
talents of a high order. Nor were the moderation and clemency, displayed by him, at its close, towards those who had
opposed his elevation to the throne, less signal. His valor,
prudence, and magnanimity completely won the confidence
and the heart of the nation. Samuel, taking advantage of
this favorable temper of the people, convened a general assembly at Gilgal, proposed Saul as king a second time, and
obtained a unanimous vote in his favor. Then, fbr the first
time, it is said, that they, that is, the people, made Saul king,
and gave themselves up to great and general rejoicings. Immediately after his inauguration, Samuel formally resigned
his office as judge, surrendering his authority into the hands
of the people, from whom he had received it, and by whom
he was honorably exonerated from all charge of blame in his
public administration, and the fullest testimony was borne to
the purity of his official conduct. Josephus* says, that, on
the occasion of Saul's election and inauguration at Gilgal,
Samuel anointed him a second time. This seems not improbable, though the circumstance is not mentioned by the sacred
historian; for the first anointing was a private transaction,
and he was not anointed, when elected by the lot. From this
* Antiq. 1. 6. C. 5.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           553
time Saul assumed the reins of government, and was regarded
as the lawful sovereign of Israel.
How clearly do we see from this detail, that the choice of
a king in Israel was neither in the oracle nor the people
separately, but in both conjointly; since the decision of the
former did not take effect, till it was ratified and confirmed
by the action of the latter. How manifest is it, that the
miraculous designation of magistrates in the Hebrew commlonwealth, was never understood to exclude the free suffrage
of the people in their election. If these things still seem to
any irreconcilable, we are able to adduce examples of their
co-existence even out of the history of heathen states. It is
related by Livy* of Tarquinius Priscus and Servius Tullius,
that, before they were raised to the regal dignity at Rome,
the one had his hat taken off, borne aloft into the air, and
fitly deposited again in its place, by an eagle; and the other
had a flame resting on his head, which, after being for some
time an object of terror to the beholders, glided off, on his
awaking out of sleep, without leaving any trace of its presence on his person. By these portents it was believed, that
each of them was designated of the deity to be king. Still,
neither by themselves nor others were they interpreted as
giving them a right to the throne, much less as excluding
the popular suffrage from their election, or authorizing the
opinion that any man ought to be king of Rome, whom the
people had not first chosen to reign over them. Certainly I
would not be understood, from this illustration, as intending to compare the vain prodigies of the heathens with the
true miracles of the Israelites. Yet it should be remembered, that each people had a like opinion of each. God
raised up judges for his people Israel. That the scripture
plainly asserts. But to infer from hence, that the people did
not elect them, would be false reasoning, since the fact is unquestionable, that they did. So, that God elected Saul to be
* Lib. 1, c. 34, 39.




COMMENTARIES ON THE
king of Israel, is certain. Yet it is just as certain, that the
people did, none the less for that, themselves elect him likewise. The one certainly is as strong as the other.*
The history of David's elevation to the throne still further
illustrates the meaning of the statute under consideration.
The house of Saul had, by God's command, on account of his
infractions of the law, been excluded from the succession.t
The prophet Samuel had, by direction of the oracle, privately
anointed David, as the successor of Saul.: The subsequent
history shows, that that unction did not, of itself alone, confer
a full and valid title to the crown of Israel. When Saul had
been slain in a battle with the Philistines, an Amalekite
stripped him  of his crown, and brought it to David.~  Did
David consider himself entitled to wear it?  By no means.
I-Ie assumed neither the crown itself, nor the authority, of
which it was the symbol. Ile returned, with his followers,
to the city of Hebron, as a private citizen. In that capacity,
he abode there for some time, until, as the historian states,
"the men of Judah (the citizens, the people of that tribe)
came and anointed David king over the house of Judah."ll
Thus did David, by the joint act of the oracle and the people,
become king of Judah. The other eleven tribes raised Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to the sovereign power, and adhered
to him for seven years.~[ Did David, for that, regard them
as guilty of treason? Not in the least. Yet that would have
followed inevitably, if his unction by Samuel had given him
a legal right to the throne of all Israel. David defended
himself, (as who would not?) when attacked by the army of
Ishbosheth;* but he made no attempt to reduce the eleven
tribes to allegiance to his government by force of arms.
When at length they submitted themselves to his sceptre,
their submission was voluntary. They freely chose him for
* I Harrington's Com. Isr. c. 2.   t 1 Sam. xv. 11, 26, 28.
1 Sam. xvi. 13.          ~ 2 Sam. i. 10.
{1 2 Sam. ii. 1-4.    -      Ibid. i. 8, 11.  Ibid. ii. 12-30.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            555
their king; yet, in doing so, it is remarkable that they distinctly recognized the part which the oracle had previously
taken in his election.* Here, again, we perceive the concurrence of the oracle and the people, in the choice of a person
to fill the throne of Israel.
It is probable, as we shall see in the sequel, that David,
when he was made king, reserved the right of naming his
successor. But, notwithstanding this, it is clear, that a general diet was held; that Solomon  was formally proposed to
them; and that they, by their free suffrages, confirmed the
royal nomination.t It was not till after this vote, that Solomon was anointed and inaugurated, and the people gave
themselves up to the festivities, suited to the occasion. The
history adds: " Then (i. e. after his election by the congregation) Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king, instead
of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed
him. And all the princes, and the mighty men, and all the
sons likewise of king David, submitted themselves unto Solomon the king."$  Manifestly, this submission and obedience
were rendered to him, as having been constitutionally elected
to the regal office.
3. The Hebrew sovereign was to be a native Hebrew citizen; he was to be elected from his brethren; no foreigner
was to sit on the throne of Israel. This was a politic and
patriotic law. A foreigner might change the constitution, or
raise up a faction in direct opposition to the national interest.~
Foreigners were heathens, and would be more inclined than
Israelites to violate the fundamental law of the state, by the
introduction of idolatry. But this law was grossly misinterpreted in the later periods of the Jewish history. It was
understood as forbidding, on the part of the Hebrews,
submission to those foreign powers, under whose dominion
they had been brought, through the overruling providence of
* Ibid. v. 1-3.        j] 1 Chron. xxix. 20-22.
$ Ibid. xxix. 23, 24.   { D'Israeli's Genius of Judaism, o. 4.




556               COMMENTARIES ON THE
God. It was on the ground of this misinterpretation of the
law, that the Jews proposed that insidious question to our
Lord, "Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?"*
for they were at that time under a foreign power, Judea
being a Roman province.  If he had said yes, they in,
tended to destroy him through the charge of subverting
this law of Moses; if he had answered no, they meant to
crush him by the power of Rome. But the law had, in reality, no reference to such a case. It referred to free elections.
AMoses speaks only of kings chosen by the Israelites themselves.
A law, such as the later Jews conceived this to be, would
inevitably have led to the annihilation of a conquered people.
The conquerors, unable to trust their fidelity or rely upon
their allegiance, would be driven to the necessity, either of
putting them all to the sword, or scattering them by slavery.
The Hebrew prophets interpreted the law quite differently
from the Hebrew zealots. Jeremiah and Ezekiel exhorted
their countrymen, when now a conquered people, to submit
quietly to the Chaldeans, and conduct themselves as loyal
subjects of the Babylonish government.t
4. The Hebrew king was not to multiply horses. As the
Israelites made no use of horses in agriculture, and but little
as beasts of burden, employing for these purposes oxen and
asses, and as they made most of their journeys on foot, and
of course did not need them for travelling, this must be understood as a prohibition against maintaining a strong force
of cavalry. For defence cavalry was unnecessary. On the
west Palestine had the sea. On the north, its barrier was a
range of lofty and almost impassable mountains, where a
mountee soldiery would be of little use. To the east and
south, it was bounded by vast deserts, where an enemy's cavalry could not subsist, for want of forage. The only object,
therefore, for which an Israelitish sovereign could desire to
* Matt. xxii. 17.
t Mich Comrn. Art. 54. Jahn's Heb. Com. B. 3, S. 25.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           557
keep any considerable force Df this description, would be to
make foreign conquests. But it was against the whole scope
of the Mosaic law, nay, subversive of its fundamental purpose, that the Hebrews should be conquerors of foreign
countries, and their king a universal monarch. And as the
keeping of a strong body of horse could hardly fail to engender a spirit of foreign conquest, it was expressly interdicted
to the head of the state. He was especially forbidden to
attempt the conquest of Egypt in order to obtain horses
5. The Israelitish sovereign was still further forbidden to
marry many wives; so early were women dreaded as the
corrupters of royalty. I look upon this law as a prohibition
against keeping a numerous harem, or a state seraglio; that
inseparable accompaniment of eastern despotism.  Besides
the inherent tendency of the thing to render kings effeminate,
and dissolve their hearts in indolence and pleasure, there was
a special reason against it in the Israelitish polity. It is
incident to the keeping of a harem as a matter of royal state,
that the monarch seek out and collect together the most beautiful women of all nations. But all other nations at that
time were idolaters. Moses dreaded the influence of heathen
beauties upon the religious principles and character of the
Hebrew kings. He feared that it would lead to the introduction and practice of idolatry.  How reasonable his fears
were, the history of Solomon affords a memorable and
melancholy proof. His harem contained a thousand women,
many of whom were Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites, besides the daughter of Pharoah; " strange
women."  His wives turned away his heart after other gods.
He appears to have built temples for them all, and himself
joined in paying divine honors to Ashtoreth, and Milcom, and
Chemosh, and Molech. The conduct of Solomon places in a
very striking light the wisdom of this statute; at the same time
that it shows, that none of the laws of Moses were less observed than this. It shows further, that the spirit of monar



a58                COMMENTARIES OIn THE:
chy, at least in the form in which it has always been found
in the east, was repugnant to the genius of the Mosaic legislation.
6. The king was not greatly to multiply to himself silver
and gold. 1Moses dreaded wealth, not less than women, as
tending to the corruption of royalty. The possession of great
treasure naturally leads to luxury, which is an enemy to
virtue. It is, moreover, in a monarch, a great engine of despotism. He may use it for crushing the liberties of the
people. The hoarding up of large treasures by the sovereign
tends to obstruct the circulation of money, discourage industry, and impoverish his subjects. The Israelitish king, observes Lewis,@ " was allowed to lay up money in the treasury
at the temple, for the occasions of the state, but was forbidden
to fill his own coffers for his private interest, lest he should
squeeze his subjects, and exact more of them than they were
able to bear." There is, undoubtedly, as Miichaelist has
noticed, a wide and obvious difference'between these two
sorts of treasure. That laid up in the public treasury, the
king could not use, without the consent of the other branches
of the government. Of course, he could not pervert it to
purposes of tyranny, on pretence of applying it to the public
service.  David had collected large treasures for the sanctuary.T. According to the common reckoning, they amounted,
in round numbers, to four thousand three hundred and five
million dollars, a sum  almost beyond belief. Michaelis (in
his Commentary on the Age anterior to the Babylonish Captivity, ~..) estimates the shekel at one tenth the value
usually assigned to it. This would reduce the amount to
four hundred and thirty millions. But Kennicott ~ is of the
opinion, that, in the enumeration, a cypher too many has
crept in. Cutting off that, there still remain forty three mil.
* Antiq. Heb. Repub. B. 1. c. 5.
t Corn. on Laws of Moses, Art. 54.
1 Chron. xxii. 14.          ~ Dissert. 2. p. 354.




LAWS OF THM ANCIENT HEBREWS.           559
lion dollars, which, says Michaelis, for David's time, is still a
very great treasure, and only to be accounted for, fromn the
plunder of so many nations.
7. The sovereign of Israel must be the defender of religion.
Judaism could exist only in a constant triumph over idolatry.,
" By the fundamental law of the Hebrew commonwealth, the
king was forbidden to introduce any new mode of religious
worship. Neither could he, like the kings of other nations,
perform the functions of a priest, unless he was of the tribe
of Aaron, as was the case with the Asmonean princes. On
the contrary, he was required to reign as the representative
and vassal of Jehovah, to promote the institutions of religion
as a matter of obedience to him, and to attend to the declarations of the prophets, as his ambassadors.'" *
8. The law, and not the king's own will and pleasure, was
to be the rule of his administration. This point was made
very prominent in the statute, as the reader will perceive by
recurring to it. The king was required to make, or cause to
be made, an accurate transcript of the law out of the book,
which was before the priests the Levites; that is, probably,
the autograph, kept in the tabernacle. This he must have
with him continually, and read therein all the days of his
life, to the end that he might learn to keep all the words of
this law and these statutes, to do them. I-Te might not " turn
aside from the commandment (the constitution and the laws)
to the right hand or to the left."  From this we see, that the
laws were supreme. The kings were as much bound to observe them, as the private citizens. They had no power to
make or repeal a single statute. We have here a perfect exemplification of a government of laws. The constitutional
king of Israel could not assume and exercise arbitrary power,
without first trampling under foot the fundamental law of the
state. Moses made himn simply the first citizen. He aimed
also at making hint the wisest, the purest, and the best.
* Jahn's Heb. Corn. B. 4. S. 26.




560               COMMENTARIES On THE
9. The king must be gracious and condescending towards
his subjects. HiIs heart must not be lifted up. He must look
upon his people, not only as equals, but as brethren. We
find the best kings cherishing this sentiment, and acting
upon it. When David addressed the states-general, he rose
before them, and used this affectionate compellation: " IHIear
me, my brethren, and my people.""  On this foundation the
Iebrew doctors have established the rule, that the king must
render honor to the general assembly; when it presents
itself before him, he must rise from  his seat, and receive it
standling.t
10. All the above conditions being observed by him, whom
the Israelites should choose for their king, the throne was to
be hereditary in his family. This is plain from the concluding words of the statute, which are as follows: " To the end
that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his
children, in the midst of Israel."  Moses enjoins it upon the
king to keep the laws, that he and his posterity may long fill
the throne. But it is quite as important to observe, that,
although the sceptre was hereditary, it was not inalienable.
It might be taken from one family and given to another, by
the concurrent will of Jehovah and the tIebrew people.
Nay, it certainly would be thus transferred, if the king failed
to govern according to the laws. The Hebrew crown, then,
was elective, not in the sense that every individual king was
to be chosen, but only, when occasion required, some particular family. " Consequently, while the reigning family did
not violate the fundamental laws, they would continue to
possess the throne; but if they tyrannized, they would forfeit
it. Moses, who gave this injunction, knew certain elective
monarchies, where every individual king was chosen, as in
Poland. The kingdom of Edom in his time was undoubtedly
* 1 Chron. xxviii. 2.
t Schickard de Jur. Reg. Haebr. p. 91, cited by Salvador, L. 6, c. 2.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             561
of this description; for of eight kings, we find not one, who
was the son of his predecessor."T
Thus we perceive, that the Israelitish kings were nR,  x,.
lute and unlimited sovereigns; they were constitutional monarchs.t  Besides that original and fundamental law, which
we have just been examining, a special capitulation was
sworn to by the kings of Israel. The compact between Saul
and the Hebrew people, made when he was chosen to the
royal dignity, was drawn up by Samuel. That writing, in
which doubtless were specified the rights of the king, was
carefully deposited in the sanctuary.4 Of its contents, however, the bible does not inform us. Still, there can be no
doubt, that the limitations of the royal power, fixed by it,
were numerous and important.  This is the more probable,
as we find several of the kings of Israel, whose sway was
much less limited than that of Saul, yet subject to very great
restrictions.
When the eleven tribes submitted to David, we again find
express mention made of a compact between him and the
people, called a league, or covenant;~ yet, as in the former
case, we are ignorant of its specific provisions. There is probable ground for the conjecture, that it gave to the king the
right of naming for his successor whichever of his sons he
might think most capable of filling the throne beneficially to
the nation; for this right David not only exercised, but all
Israel conceded it to him; insomuch that Bathsheba, instructed by Nathan, said to him: "' The eyes of all Israel are upon
thee, that thou shouldest tell them who should sit on the
throne of my lord the king after him."ll And we find, that
the bare word of the king, in the last extremity of old age,
* Mich. Corn. Art. 54.
t The remaining part of this chapter is, for substance, though much
condensed, and otherwise not a little modified, taken from articles 55-60
of the Commentaries of Michaelis.
I1 Sam. x. 25.? 2 Sam. v. 3.      11 1 Kings i. 20.
36




562               COMMENTARIES ON THE
was sufficient to place Solomon on tile throne, in opposition
to the wishes of the eldest brother, the general of the army,
and the high priest, and to prevent the coronation of Adonijah, even although the ceremony had been commenced.YThis right of setting aside the first born by the arbitrary will
of the king is not usual in hereditary monarchies, and therefore it is probable, that it was conferred upon David by the
terms of the capitulation.
The ten tribes proposed to Rehoboam some new stipulations, with a view to abridge the royal prerogative, as exercised by Solomon. This was, in fact, a new  capitulation,
offered to the young monarch by a people yet in possession
of their liberty. The king despotically refused their terms.
Thereupon the ten tribes refiused their allegiance to him, ald
chose a king for themselves, who, no doubt, acceded to the
wishes of the people, and promised to abide by the stipulations required.t
When Joash was anointed king, mention is again made of
a covenant between him and the people.4  But here, again,
the history gives us no certain information concerning its
contents. Yet there is no doubt, that the design of the
people, in imposing this capitulation upon their king, was to
bring the royal prerogative, stretched beyond all bounds in
the preceding reigns, within something like the original
limits, affixed to it by the law of Moses.
Upon the whole, it is quite clear, that the king of Israel
was not an unlimited monarch, as the defenders of the divine
right of kings, and of the passive obedience of subjects, have
been accustomed to represent him.   I How could he be so,
when every tribe was under its own chief, had its own government and common weal, and even exercised the right of
war? 11 Saul, the first of the kings, appears to have had very
little power. In the beginning of his reign (if his reign
* 1 Kings i. 25-27.-   t 1 Kings xii. 1-20.: 2 Kings xi. 17.
l See Filmer passim.  1 See the last chapter.




LAWS OF THE.ANCIENT HEBREWS.          563
commenced at his first election, according to the common
opinion, which, however, I doubt, for reasons previously assigned,) he still pursued the business of husbandry, apparently laboring with his own hands.*  Afterwards, his army,
even in the field, shared with him many of the rights of the
supreme power.t In the reign of David, such was the power
of this army, that he found it prudent to allow two murders,
perpetrated by its general, Joab, to go unpunished, though
he did so with extreme reluctance. In this, we may perhaps
think, that we perceive the marks of a military government,
where the army is omnipotent, and while it renders the king
independent of the people, still keeps him in subjection to
itself. But this was by no means the case. For, in the first
place, the army was the people; and both Harringtonu and
Lowman~ are of the opinion, that its officers were, to a
great extent at least, the deputies who composed the general
diets of Israel. But, secondly, the military was so in subjection to the civil power, the king and the army were so
limited by the liberty of the people, that the king appears
not even to have had the right to demand of the cities of
Israel the opening of their gates to his troops. The story,
contained in 2 Sam. 20: 1-20, seems to warrant this conclusion. Sheba, a rebel, had thrown himself into the city of
Abel. Joab besieged it by David's orders. The citizens
declared that they had no share in the rebellion. They did
not, however, on that account, open their gates to Joab; but
theiy sent him the rebel's head, and he quietly retired with
iris troops. Even Solomon, who carried the royal prerogative
to a great height, and ruled quite after the manner of a despot, built cities of his own for his cavalry and his chariots,
not venturing to quarter them on the people. In the latter
times, from the reign of Hezekiah, we find the kings still
more circumscribed in their power, by their privy council.
* 1 Sam. xi. 5.                   t Ibid. xiv. 44, 45.
X Commonwealth of Israel, C. 2.   ~ Civ. Gov. Heb. C. 8.




564               COMMENTARIES ON THE
But notwithstanding the limitations of the royal prerogative, imposed by the law of Moses and the jealousy of the
people, there was yet, as Samuel had forewarned his countrymen there would be, a strong tendency to despotism, in the
government of the Israelitish kings. Their will often became
law, even in matters of the highest importance. How tyrannically did Saul act towards David, and those eighty priests,
whom he caused to be put to death, without the shadow of a
trial or a crime!  In the condemnations and pardons, pronounced by David, we also perceive the decisions of despotic
authority. Solomnon went still greater lengths in this respect,
even to the deciding on life and death by his bare will and
word.t
The notion, that the king in person should be the supreme
judge, a doctrine peculiarly Asiatic, tended strongly to promote
the despotism of the Israelitish monarchs. Of the king, there.
fore, as chief judge, it will be necessary to speak somewhat
in detail. It is one of the first ideas of the orientals respect.
ing their king, and what they naturally expect of him, that
he should himself administer justice. Hence we are not surprised to find it related by Iterodotus, that the Medes once
obtained a king from the following circumstance. A man,
who had great reputation for wisdom and integrity, and to
whom almost all were wont to resort as an arbiter in cases of
dispute, refused at last, from the neglect of his domestic concerns occasioned by it, to decide upon their quarrels, or to
listen to their applications for that purpose; and thus he
forced them to choose him for their king. The more ancient
nations are, and the nearer to their origin, the more prevalent
do we find this idea of a king. Indeed, while nations are
yet in their infancy, and the number of the people small, it is
easier to act upon this doctrine. The king of a thousand families may do what to the king of a million would be impossible.
In a great nation, the king cannot, in his own person, exel1 Sam. xxii. 17, 18.             t 1 Kings ii. 25.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           5,65
cise the office of judge, without materially injuring the general interests of the citizens. He cannot have time to inform
himself sufficiently of such a multiplicity of lawsuits, as he
must be called upon to decide. Hence, either many a liti.
gant will not obtain a hearing at all, or causes in general will
not be sufficiently investigated, and arbitrary and unrighteous
decisions will follow. The mischief is still greater, when the
king is very gracious, and gives free access to all his subjects.
In that case, he is apt to be overwhelmed with trifles, and
villainy takes advantage of his goodness, to effect the ruin of
the innocenitand the simple. On the other hand, if his subjects have not free access to him, another evil arises, of no
less magnitude; for then his ministers may be guilty of the
grossest injustice and oppression, and yet the sovereign know
nothing about it. In Asia, it is more practicable for the king
to be judge in his own person, than in Europe, because there,
justice is, in general, very summary, and independent of settled forms. Still, this does not make it less liable to abuse,
nor the actual abuse less mischievous in its consequences.
If the first kings of Israel assumed the office of judge, the
fault lay in the manners of the east. MNoses is not responsible
for it. IHe did, indeed, ordain, that the king should be a daily student of his law, but not that he should discharge the
office of a universal judge. It is, undoubtedly, highly useful
to a king to be acquainted with civil law, that he may keep
his eye on his subordinates, and know whether they decide
conformably to it. In this view, it would appear, Moses desired, that the king should not be ignorant of jurisprudence;
but he did not mean to constitute him the daily judge of his
people.  Let the following circumstances be considered.
nM[oses himself found, by experience, that it was beyond his
power to determine all the disputes among the people, and,
therefore, he appointed other judges of various grades; yet,
in Inatters, which could not be decided by written law, known
usage, or manifest equity, he established an appeal to himself,




3566              COMMENTARIES ON THE
that, on such occasions, he might consult God, and enact new
laws by his direction.*  Could he, then, have thought of imposing on the kings a burden, which he was himself unable
to bear? The king was not a prophet; neither did he, like
Moses, enjoy the privilege of immediate intercourse with God.
Consequently he could not, by a direct consultation with the
unerring one, pronounce an infallible judgment. The high
priest, according to the constitution of Moses, was the supreme
jurist.  Certainly, the legislator, who devoted one whole
tribe to the study of jurisprudence, and constituted its head
the supreme legal authority, could never have intended, that
the king, occupied, as he must be, with the cares of governmlent, and with the conduct of wars, should, in addition, be
overwhelmed with the investigation of lawsuits, which could
not, as a consequence, fail to be decided too much in the summary style of military procedure.
All this was, undoubtedly, in the plan and intention of
Moses. Yet, on its actual institution, and as matter of fact,
the Israelitish monarchy was not, in this respect, thus wisely
iregulated. Without inquiry, without trial, without the intervention of any impartial tribunal, Saul condemned to death
eighty innocent priests, and, among them, the high priest
himself, together with their wives and children.t David was
far from being a tyrant; yet, on some occasions, he had recourse to judicial procedure equally summary, and without
allowing other judges to interfere.: Even his acts of grace
took place without those preliminary and circumstantial inquiries, which, in governments not despotic, are deemed
necessary to render them valid, and to prevent artifice and
fraud fiomn abusing the royal clemency, to the scandal of
lustice and the prejudice of the country. Of this, a memorable instance is afforded in the pardon of the supposed son
* Exod. xviii. Numb. xv. 32-36.
t 1 Sam. xxi. 11-19.: 2 Sam. i. 5-16. iv. 9-12. xiv. 4-11. 1 Kings ii. 5-9.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           567
of the widow of Tekoah.*  Had the king instituted the least
Inquiry into the facts of the case, he could not have been inveigled into a condemnation of himself.
In the time of this king, the defect, which had thus attended the administration of justice, broke out into a formidable evil. As long as David was king of Judah alone, it
was not beyond his power, in some measure at least, to execute the office of judge. But when he became king of all
Israel, and his known humanity and love of justice probably
induced too many of his subjects, all of whom had free access
to his presence, to bring their causes immediately before him,
he found himself overpowered with business, and the course
of law became tedious, to a degree till then unknown in the
east. The complaint does not appear to have been, that unjust decisions were rendered; but that, for want of time to
hear them, even clear cases could not be decided. It is probable, that the course of law was still rapid, in comparison
with what it is with us; but Asia is so much accustomed to
summary justice, that the least delay there seems a great
grievance. It was not imputed to negligence in David, that
he did not do more than one man could do; and the tears
with which Jerusalem, where he was best known, accompanied him in his flight from Absalomn, impress us with a
favorable idea of his previous government. Absalomn, however, availed himself of the opportunity, which the tediousness
of justice presented him, to seduce the affections of the
people from his father. I-e placed himself at the entrance
of the palace, and questioned the complainants, who came
from the provinces to the capital, concerning their suits.
Having heard their statements, he told every one that his
case was clear, and that it was greatly to be regretted, that
the king, oppressed with business, would appoint no one to
listen to complaints. At the same time, he expressed a wish,
that the king would commit the task to him, in which case
* 2 Sam. xiv. 4 —11.




COMMENTARIES ON THE
every man might look for speedy justice.*  By this artifice,
for which a departure from the true intent of the Mosaic constitution furnished the occasion, he excited a general rebellion,
which was attended with much bloodshed. Without any
battle, the universal discontent of the tribes drove David
from the throne; nor did he recover it, till the blood of many
citizens was spilt. It is not mentioned in the history, what
measures the king took after his restoration, to correct those
defects in judicial procedure, which had almost cost him his
crown. -We know, however, that, in the latter part of his
reign, he appointed several thousands of Levites as judges.+
With these he probably filled some of the higher tribunals,
which adcministered justice in the king's name. The Levites
in the provinces are expressly said to have had charge of all
matters pertainillg to God and the king.:  Of course, they
must have had power to administer justice in the king's
name.
Notwithstanding this, however, the king seems to have
reserved the right of pronouncing arbitrary sentence, even in
cases where life was concerned. The innocent blood, which
VsIanasseh and Jehoiakim are said to have shed,~ renders this
more than probable. It is true that blood may be unjustly
shed, with all the forms of law, as in the case of Naboth.ll
But such instances are rare. If a tyrant shed much innocent
blood, it affords ground of presumption, that he has the
power of pronouncing on life and death in himself. At least
European kings, even the most absolute of them, are prohibited from shedding much innocent blood; except, indeed,
in tWe case of the hundreds of thousands, whom they sacrifice in unjust wars.
The mention of war naturally suggests the inquiry, how
far the power of the Israelitish sovereigns extended in mili* Sam. xv. 2-6.             t 1 Chron. xxiii. 4. xxvi. 29-32.
1 Chron. xxvi. 30. 32.
Q 2 Kings xxi. 16. xxiv. 4.  11 1 Kings xxi. 1-14.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            569
taiy matters. On this point, the sacred book leaves us very
much in the dark. Whether the king could, of himself alone,
and without consulting the states-general, proclaim war, and
conclude peace, is a point, which must be reckoned among
the chasms in our knowledge of Hebrew law. Here it would
seem, the jus publicum of the Israelites was itself defective,
because, on the first choice of a king, they had no ancient
usage to guide them; and Moses, who did not himself establish a monarchy, but only permitted its future establishment,
had said nothing on this point, but left all to the determination of the Israelites. It is certain, that Saul made his first
war, without consulting the people.* The case, however,
was one of peculiar urgency; so much so, that he may
almost be said to have been forced into hostilities, in defence
of the threatened liberties of the Gileadites.t  From  this
case, therefore, nothing positive can be inferred in regard to
the general right of the Hebrew  sovereigns concerning
war.
The royal prerogative extended to ecclesiastical affairs.
Indeed, the rights of the kings in reference to matters of this
nature, were so great as to excite our wonder, especially
when we consider, that the priests and Levites, as a sort of
nobility, were intended to balance the power of the kings.
They could condemn even the high priest himself to death.
Not only did Saul,: in his rage and madness, do this; but
Solomon~ speaks as if he could have done it, and, out of
pure clemency, was satisfied with deposing him. The kings
exercised the right of reforming abuses in religion, and gave
attention to the management of public worship, as the most
efficacious means of promoting religion and morality, and so
of securing the obedience of the people to the supreme, invisible, divine Sovereign of Israel. Of this exercise of the
royal prerogative, we have many examples, of which none
1 Sam. xi. 7.             t 1 Sam. xi. 2.
1 Sam. xxii 17, 18.     ~ 1 Kings ii. 26, 27.




570               COMMENTARIES ON THE
are more memorable, than those of David and IHezekiah. It
was altogether suitable to the Hebrew constitution, in which
the worship of one only God was the fundamental principle.
Under that constitution, false religion was treason to the
state, and it was proper, that the kings should have the power
of exterminating so dangerous an enemy.
Among the prerogatives of the Hebrew sovereigns must
also be placed the right of pardon. That this power should
exist somewhere in the state, is highly expedient, and even
necessary. A civil law, without all possibility of dispensation, would be subject to very great inconveniences; and
would be the occasion of sometimes inflicting very grievous
wrong. Without a power of sometimes remitting punishrents, innocence might suffer by the very law, which was
made for its protection. That the right of pardon was exercised by the Israelitish kings, is beyond a doubt. Nor was
the exercise of it always the effect of mere partiality, but of
principle and a consideration of circumstances. David not
only pardoned his son Absalom, but, in a supposed case,
which was laid before him, he granted a murderer his life,
who was represented to have killed his brother, because the
mother herself interceded in his behalf, and his father's race
would have been extinct, had he suffered the penalty of the
law.*
I now pass to a consideration of the royal revenues. Moses
left no ordinance concerning them. With regard to what
later laws and usages introduced on this head, the following
particulars may be gleaned from the books of the Old Testament. The several branches of the king's revenue were,
presents; tithes; royal demesnes; bond service; the right
of pasturage in the Arabian deserts; the spoils of vanquished
enemies; the tribute of conquered nations; and, in the end,
the profits of a lucrative foreign commerce.
1. Presents. Long before the time of the kings, and even
* 2 Sam. xiv. 4-21.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.              571
before the age of Moses, there sprung up in the east a custom, often mentioned in the Persian history, and noticed by
Asiatic travellers, that whoever paid a visit to a person of
higher rank, carried with him a suitable present. Joseph, as
prime minister of Egypt, received such a present from his
brethren.*  Saul did not presume to wait on Samuel, the
judge, without a present.t  This was, therefore, the most
ancient source of a king's revenue, prior to all tributes and
demesnes.  That Saul actually enjoyed a revenue of this
kind is certain.: Whether the tax continued to be paid to
his successors, does not appear. There is no trace of it after
the reign of Saul. It is not improbable, that David abolished
so unseemly an impost, and admitted every petitioner into
his presence, without subjecting him to any expense.
2. Tithes. In 1 Sam. 8: 15-17, mention is made of the
tenth of the produce of the fields, the vineyards, and the
flocks, as the right of the future king. This, on his actual
appointment, was the third tenth which every Israelite had
to pay. The first was given to the Levites;~ the second was
appropriated to the sacrifice-feasts, to which were invited
priests, Levites, friends, orphans, and strangers. [  None but
a very fruitful country could have borne the burden of an
impost to the extent of three tenths of its produce.
3. Royal demesnes.  Samuel mentions a demesne, to which
the king would have a right; for, says he, " he will take your
fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best
of them, and give them to his servants;"~T i. e. in lieu of salaries. This seems inconsistent with the Mosaic law, which
divided the whole of Palestine among the Israelites, and prohibited the alienation of their land.  Nevertheless, it is certain, that the king had a demesne.**  It is likely, that at first
* Gen. xliii. 11-25.    t 1 Sam. ix. 7.    J 1 Sam. x. 27, xvi. 20.
& Numb. xviii. 21-32. Levit. xxvii. 30-33.
Deut. xii. 17-19. xiv. 22-29. xxvi. 12-15.
1 Sam. viii. 14.        Eccl. ii. 4-6. 1 Chron. xxvii. 26-31.




572               COMMENTARIES ON THE
the kings took possession only of the spots, which had not
been previously appropriated and improved, of which there
might be found a considerable number, particularly beyond
Jordan, and about the rills in the Arabian deserts. Still,
that will not sufficiently explain the passage, cited a little
above; for it is there said, the king would take the best parts
of every sort of landed property.
We must, therefore, seek some other mode of providing
him with demresnes. It is certain, that the kings exercised
the right of bestowing the inheritance of state criminals upon
other persons.* It is not improbable, that they availed themselves of the same right, to increase the royal demesnes by
confiscations. Indeed, we have an instance of this, in the
case of Nabal, who was stoned on a false charge of treason,
and his estate annexed to the king's demesnes.t  This mode
of increasing their lands must have formed a strong temptation to wicked kings, to put innocent persons to death for
pretended crimes, in order to seize and appropriate their property. Need we wonder, that, in the Hebrew history, we
find so frequent mention of the shedding of innocent blood?
All this is confirmed, and rendered certain, by what we
find in Ezekiel. That prophet was favored with a vision of
the future reformation of the Israelitish church and state.:
In it he tells us, that the prince will then have his own portion, which he must neither alienate nor enlarge. It is very
distinctly enjoined upon the king not to take the people's inheritance away from them  by oppression, and not to thrust
them out of their possessions. It is further enjoined upon
him not to give lands to his family out of the people's portions, but out of his own. This clearly indicates the practices, and, I may add, the abuses, of preceding times.
The olive and sycamore grounds, in that part of the terri
tory of Judah, which lay nearest the sea, and was called the
* 2 Sam. xvi. 4.            t 1 Kings xxi. 15, 16.
$ Ezek. xlv. 7, 8. xlvii. 16-18,




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             573
lowlands, belonged to the king's demesnes. It is distinctly
stated, that David placed one officer over the trees in that
district, and another over the oil-stores.*
That the kings assigned a part of the royal demesnes to
their servants, in lieu of salary, appears unquestionable.t At
a time, when the sovereign could be possessed of but little
mooney, this was the natural way of maintaining and rewarding his servants.
4. IBond service. For the cultivation of their lands, the
Israelitish kings, governing a country where slavery was permitted, would naturally require servile labor. Accordingly,
we find bond service mentioned by Samuel among the royal
rights, established by usage among the neighboring kingdoms, and which would be claimed and exercised by the
Hebrew  sovereigns, whenever monarchy should  be instituted.: In process of time, these services seem to have been
increased and altered, so that they became very burdensome
and very distasteful to the Israelites.~ It was probably this,
which gave occasion, first to the complaints, and then to the
rebellion, in the reign of Rehoboam.
5. The right of pasturage in the Arabian deserts. This
right belonged to the king, in common with his subjects. We
find David taking advantage of this privilege, and keeping
large herds of cattle, sheep, goats, asses, and camels, partly in
Sharon, and partly in Arabia; the greater part of them, no
doubt, in the latter place. II Among the officers, who had
charge of them, two Arabians are mentioned, Obil, the Ishmlaelite, superintendant of the camels, and Jaziz, the tIagarite, superintendant of the sheep.
6. The spoils of vanquished enemies partly flowed into the
royal treasury.T
7. Among the royal revenues must be reckoned the tribute
I*  Chron. xxvii. 28.         t 1 Sam. viii. 14. xxii. 7.
i: 1 Sam. viii. 12, 16.       & 1 Kings v. 17, 18.
Il 1 Chron. xxvii. 29-31.     ~ 2 Sam. viii. iii. 12.




57:4              COMlMIENTARIES ON THE
paid by conquered nations. These are often mentioned under
the name of gifts.*
8. Commerce. Solomon discovered a new source of royal
revenue, which nmust have been very productive. He engaged in an extensive and lucrative foreign commerce, trading chiefly in gold, silver, precious stones, spices, linen, and
horses.tCHAPTER V.
The Hebrew Senate.
THIS was another department of the Hebrew government,
and one of the bonds of union between the tribes of Israel.
The study of this part of the constitution is not without its
difficulty. The persons composing the senatorial council, the
powers vested in it, and the functions discharged by it, are
points involved in no little obscurity. All the information,
which I find in the sacred books, touching this subject, is
embodied in the present chapter.
According to the Hebrew polity, as we have seen,: every
tribe, and even every city, had its senate of princes, or elders,
as well as a more popular assembly. Some such institution
seems to be essential in every well-balanced government. A
council of sages, venerable on account of their age, wisdom,
and dignity, is necessary to check the rashness and haste of
popular assemblies. Accordingly, we find, that free governments have always had senates of some kind, to balance the
power of the people, to prepare matters of public business, and
*1 Kings iv 21. Ps. lxxii, 10. 2 Sam. viii. 6. - 1 Kings x. t B. 2. C. S.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS             575
to propose measures of state, in some degrlee of maturity, for
the action of the more popular branch of the government.*
That the commonwealth of Israel had a council of this sort,
does not admit of a reasonabla doubt. This is rendered certain by the frequent mention in the Hebrew history of the
princes and elders of Israel, and the distinction, many times
made, between the princes and the congregation. We are
now to inquire when this body was instituted, what it was,
and how long it continued.
l3ertramt has well observed, that the number of seventy
elders, appointed by the law of God, was not so much a new
institution, as the continuation of a former usage; as God
rather confirmed than new instituted many things at Mount
Sinai, which were ancient customs of the fathers. Bishop
Sherlockt also takes notice, "that every tribe had its own
princes and judges," even while they yet remained in Egypt.
Whern Moses was first sent to the children of Israel, to inform  them, that Jehovah had visited them, and seen what
was done unto them in Egypt, he was commanded to gather
the elders of Israel together, and deliver the message to
them.~ This direction was punctually followed, for it is
said: "I Moses and Aaron went and gathered the elders of
the children of Israel."'l  It is a material observation here,
that, besides the princes of tribes, explicit mention is made,
in the same period of the Hebrew history, of the heads of
families, or clans.~  Of these, as we learn from a subsequent
part of the history,** there were fifty-eight, who, being added to
the twelve princes of the tribes, make up the number seventy.
There is little doubt, that, even before the exodus of Israel
out of Egypt, these chiefs of tribes and heads of clans formed
a council of state, a kind of provisional senate. They were
* Lowm. Civ. Gov. IIeb. c. 9.
t De Rep. Hebr. p. 51, cited by Lowm. c. 9.
$ Dissert. 3.     ~ Exod. iii. 16.      1I Exod. iv. 29.
~ Exod. vi. 14 seqq.   ** Numb. xxvi.




57r6               COMMENTARIES ON THE
regarded and addressed as persons of chief dignity in their
respective tribes. That they were clothed with some sort of
authority, is evident from what one of the Hebrews said to
Mloses:" "Who made thee a prince and a judge over us?"* It is,
moreover, apparent, that these dignitaries formed an organized
body, in whose counsels and resolutions the tribes themselves
were united into one nation; since Mloses addressed them, not
as princes of particular tribes, but as elders of Israel.t It deserves, also, particular attention, that when the Israelites left
Egypt, it was in hosts, or by their armies, that they did it.:
They did not go as a confused and disorderly rabble, but
marched in battalions, each under its own officers and its own
standard. This observation, though of little moment in itself, is, nevertheless, important for the inference, which it
supports.  Let it be remembered, that the Israelites left
Egypt in great haste. Now, it would have been impossible
for them to go in hosts, or squadrons, if there had not been
persons, previously known and recognized as commanders.
They could not otherwise have known under what standard
they were to march, or by what particular officers they were
to be led. Obviously, it would not have been practicable to
organize an army of two and a half million people, at the
instant of departure. It would seem, therefore, that, while
the Israelites were yet in Egypt, the princes of tribes must
have been acknowledged as general officers of the tribes, and
the chiefs of families as subordinate officers, commanding
their respective clans.~ It was, in all likelihood, the same
seventy, who, at the giving of the law, were summoned to go
up unto the Lord, with Moses and Aaron.ll What places it
out of all doubt, that these officers were an organized body,
and acted as a council of state, or senate of sages, is a law
contained in the tenth chapter of Numbers.T  Moses is there
directed to make two silver trumpets. When both of them
* Exod. xi. 14.      t Exod. xii. 21, 28.  1 Exod. xii. 41, 51.
4 Lowm. Civ. Gov. Heb. c. 9.  11 Exod. xxiv. 1.  ~ Vv. 1-4.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           577
were blown, the whole congregation was to assemble; when
only one of theml, the princes and heads of the thousands of
Israel were to come together for the despatch of public
business. But this law was given, before the body, which is
the principal subject of this chapter, was called into being,
and, indeed, before the events occurred, which were the special occasion of its institution.
The Israelites lay encamped at the base of Mount Sinai for
the space of a year. At the end of that time, the trumpets
sounded, the cloud was taken up from off the tabernacle of
testimony, and the children of Israel took their journeys out
of the wilderness of Sinai. Their first halting place was the
wilderness of Paran.*  Here the people complained bitterly
for want of flesh. Their murmurs displeased the Lord, and
his anger was kindled greatly. IMoses also was displeased,
and greatly afflicted at so unpromising a state and prospect
of affairs. IHe, in his turn, complained, that he found thle
burden of government too heavy for his individual strength.
"I amn not able," says he, "to bear all this people alone,
because it is too heavy for me." By divine direction, and in
order to alleviate the weight of the burden, that oppressed
him, Moses instituted a council of seventy elders, who might
share his functions, support his authority, and promote his
views.t It was a supreme senate, designed to take part with
him in the government. As it consisted of persons of age,
worth, experience, and respectability, it would serve mate.
rially to support his power and influence among the people
in general. It would unite a number of powerful families
together, from their being all associated with MIoses in the
government, and would materially strengthen the union of
the tribes.:
A detailed account of the origin of this body is given in
the eleventh chapter of Numbers. The general mode of or.
X Numb. x. 11-13.                   t Numb. xi.
$ Mich. Comment. Art. 50.




578              COMMENTARRS ON THE
ganization is related in these words:-" And the Lord said
unto Mloses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of
Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and
officers over them: and bring them unto the tabernacle of the
congregation, that they may stand there with thee. And I
will come down and t'llk with thee there; and I will take of
the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon thenm: and
they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou
bear it not thyself alone. Afnd Moses went out, and told the
people the words of the Lord, and gathered the seventy men
of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle. And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spake
unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave
it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that when the
spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.
But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of
the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and
the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that
were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they
prophesied in the camp."
"Three things," says Salvador,t " are here worthy of note.
The candidate for the senatorial office must be a man of the
people; he must be an elder of the people; and he must have
been previously elevated by the voice of the people to some
public trust." That is to say, he must be a tried man; a man
in whom the people put confidence after trial; and a man of
experience in public affairs.
The seventy senators, chosen from among the elders and
officers, were to be brought to the tabernacle of the congregation, that they might stand there with Moses. In other
words, they were to be solemnly inaugurated, and consecrated
to this service, that they might be a permanent council, to
assist Moses in the government of the people. To give the
greater weight to their decisions, God promises, that he would
* Vv. 16 17, 24-26.  t- Hist. Inst. de Moise, 1. 2. C. 2.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          579
talk with Moses, to declare, suggests bishop Patrick,* that
he appointed them to be assistants to Moses in the government.
The further promise was added, that the Lord would take of
the spirit, which was upon Moses, and would put it upon
them; that is, as again suggested by bishop Patrick,* he
would confer upon these men wisdom, judgment, courage,
and other needful gifts of government, with which Moses was
endowed. To give assurance of the fulfilment of this promise,
it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they
prophesied. The spirit of prophecy was a manifest token,
that they were chosen by God to be coadjutors of Moses, that
they were approved by him, and that they had received from
him a spirit of government.t
Yet these men were not chosen by God alone. The people
concurred in the election. This is very evident from the history cited above. The names of the candidates are there
said to have been written, or inscribed; a very important
statement. In what manner were they inscribed?  The text
does not inform us; and the field is left open to conjecture. Let
it be premised here, that, as the senators were to bear the
common burden of government with Moses, which concerned all the tribes, and that they were specially intended
to prevent mutiny and sedition, it would be highly suitable,
that there should be an equal number from each tribe, and
that they should be persons, whom the tribes themselves
approved. On this point, Hebrew and christian writers are
unanimous. I now return to the question, How were the
names of the candidates inscribed?  Did Moses himself
write the names of the persons, whom he judged competent
and qualified for the senatorial office, and submit them to
the approval of the tribes?  This would have been to deprive the tribes of one of their fundamental rights, that of
designating their own magistrates. Besides, Moses was not
charged with appointing the senate, but with assembling it.
* In loc.                 t Lowm. Civ. Gov. Heb. C. 9.




580                COMMENTARIES ON THE
It is not probable, therefore, that this is what is meant by
their names being written.  Did the citizens, then, of the
respective tribes, themselves elect, by ballot, the persons,
whom they believed most worthy of the dignity, and best
fitted to discharge its functions usefully? This supposition
seems the most reasonable. In the selection and appointment
of magistrates, Moses demlanded, not simply wise men, but
such as were known among the tribes. How could this
demand be answered, otherwise than by a manifestation of
individual opinion a The history of the Acts of the Apostles
sheds light upon this point, and lends confirmation to this
conjecture. The apostles incorporated the principles of the
Il[osaic constitution into their spiritual society.  Needing
certain functionaries, they convene the whole body of the
disciples, and after the example of their ancient lawgiver,
they say to them: "Look ye out seven men, of honest
report, and fiill of wisdom."  The proposition pleased the
assembly.  Thereupon, they themselves selected the functionaries, as suggested; and the apostles, in accordance with
a long established national usage, inducted them into office
by the solemn imposition of hands.t] Here, again, I observe
by the way, we see the concurrence of the oracle and the
people in the election of civil rulers.
Such, then, was the general spirit of the law. Without
insisting on the correctness of this or that particular mode of
selection, the fundamental principle, which is well worthy to
arrest our attention, is plain and obvious. The law institutes
a great national council, or senate, composed, not of priests,
but of civilians; not of men belonging to privileged classes,
or possessing vast estates, but of men wise, prudent, able, of
good repute, fearing God, and already skilled in affairs of
state; not politicians merely, but statesmen, sages, patriots.
The name of seniors, or senators, belonged to the members of
the great council. It is probable, that men of advanced age
* Acts. vi. 3.              t Salvador, 1. 2. c. 2.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           581
were commonly chosen into it; yet young men, of superior
endowments, sometimes gained admission. This we learn
from the speech of such an one in the Wisdomn of Solomon,*
who boasts, that in spite of his youth, he had obtained an
honorable distinction for wisdom among the senators.
The design and functions of this institution are points of
chief importance in this inquiry. The law declares, in general terms, that the senators were to bear the burden of the
people with Moses, that he might not bear it alone. By this
can hardly be mneant the ordinary administration of justice,
for provision had been made for that in the institution of the
Jethronian judges. So far, therefore, as the senate was to
assist Moses in judiciary matters, it could only be in those
greater and more important causes, which were to be brought
before him on appeal, or those difficult questions, which the
judges of the inferior courts themselves referred to him. But
this was not the principal end of its institution. The occasion of its appointment is a proof of this. It was instituted
to crush a rebellion. But for such an end, of what use
would a mere court of judicature be? On the other hand, a
council of sages, a supreme senate, composed of men venerable for their age, and of approved wisdom and integrity,
would be of the greatest efficacy. There can be no doubt,
therefore, that these seventy were to be permanent assistants
of Moses in his councils. They were to aid him with their
advice on all occasions, to preserve peace and good order
among the people, to strengthen the sentiment of loyalty to
the constitution, and to prevent those mutinies and seditions,
which, if permitted to break out and rage, would in the end
prove fatal to the government and the nation. "In this
view," observes Lowman,t "' the seventy elders will appear
to be designed, not only as a standing court of law and
equity, to assist Moses as judge in causes of greater consequence, and in appeals, but to assist the judge with their ad* C. 8. V. 10. seqq.       t Civ. Gov. Heb, c, 9,




582              COMMENTARIES ON THE
-ice on every occasion. This was properly to bear the burthen of the people together with Moses, that he might not
bear it himself alone. For now the judge would not bear all
the envy or ill will of the people, when dissatisfied or uneasy
with any part of the administration; for the common people,
though they know very little of the reasons of any adininistration, are yet apt to think every thing wrong, that does not
please them, or which is attended with difficulties to themselves or the public. Now, a council of seventy persons, of
the most approved wisdom and integrity, would at least share,
this burthen among them all, instead of throwing the whole
on one man. And it would be, moreover, an ease to the
judge's own mind, and make him more resolved in any
counsel to be taken or executed, when it should be with the
advice and approbation of a multitude of counsellors, in
which there is wisdom and safety. And, finally, it was
proper to give authority and respect to such orders as should
be made by advice of persons, whom the people themselves
had approved and chosen, as eminent for their wisdom and
integrity. Consider, then, this court as a standing senate,
always at hand, or as a constant privy council to the judge,
and we have a most wise provision for the easier and better
government of the whole nation; and this will mnake a considerable part of the states-general of the united tribes."
Still, it must be borne in mind, that the senate was not the
government; it was only a constituent part of the government. It was but the council of the nation; the head, as it
were, of the general diet. In all important questions, its
decisions were to be submitted to the congregation, which,
by its approbation, enacted them into laws. Of this we have
a clear proof in the twentieth chapter of Judges, where the
ancients are recorded to have called upon the general assembly of the people to deliberate upon a matter, and give their
decision. Even when the Hebrews demanded a king, they
were far from wishing to change this part of the constitution.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           583
Hence it has been observed by the abbe Guenee,* that " it
was always the duty of the king to govern the nation according to the laws. Their authority was neither despotic nor
arbitrary. The senate, composed of the most distinguished
members of all the tribes, served him as a council. He took
their advice in all important affairs; and if any thing occurred, in which the interest of the whole nation was concerned, the congregation, that is to say, the assembly of the
people, was convoked. The senate proposed, the congregation decided, and the king executed." A memorable example
of this we have in 1 Chron. 13: 1-8. David, after consulting with his counsellors of state, in regard to the removal of
the ark, refers the final decision of the question to the congregation of Israel. They, upon deliberation, approve and
enact. Immediately thereupon, David proceeds to execute
the decree. But it must not be inferred from hence, that the
general assembly never took the initiative, much less that it
had not the right of so doing. Moses tells the Hebrews, that
on a certain occasion he made a proposition to them, which
they approved and accepted; whereas, on another occasion
they proposed a certain measure to him, which, meeting his
cordial approbation, he accepted and executed.t
Such, then, were the leading powers of the Hebrew senate.
Let us inquire by what limitations they were confined within
their just bounds. The Jewish law opposed itself invincibly
to the existence of great landed proprietors, and thus prevented the members of the senate from uniting the influence
of vast territorial estates to that which they derived from
their office. The senator received no salary for his services.
His age and the conditions of eligibility to the senatorial
dignity served as a guaranty of his integrity. The decrees
to which he contributed, extended to his children, his friends,
and himself. Out of the senatorial seat, he was but a simple
* Lettres de quelques Juifs a Voltaire, tom. 2, lettr. 2.




584               COMMENTARIES ON THE
Israelite. The office was not hereditary; and the son of a
senator was no more, in the eye of the law, than the son of
the humblest citizen. These, however, were rather moral
than legal restraints. But the sacerdotal magistracy, engaged
by its very nature to the guardianship of the law; the prophets, those stern state censors and moralists, who launched
the most unsparing denunciations against all, who in any
way abused the trusts confided to them; the decisions of the
oracle; and the necessity of the intervention of the congregation of Israel in important questions, furnished guaranties, of
a positive and effective character, against the usurpation and
tyranny of the Hebrew senate. I-Iere is a system of moral
and legal restrictions upon power, to which it would be difficult to find a parallel in other governments. The remark of
Blackstone respecting the English constitution, is equally applicable to the I-Iebrew polity, viz. that every branch of it
supports and is supported, regulates and is regulated, by the
rest. The senate, the congregation, the chief magistrate, the
oracle, the Levitical order, and the prophetical office, constituted so many checks upon each other's power, so many
dykes and embankments to restrain the exercise of tyranny,
so many combined forces to give the machine of government
a safe direction, and cause it to move in the line of the public
liberty and happiness.
It has been a question with some, whether the senate of
seventy, instituted by Mloses on the occasion of the rebellion
in Paran, continued permanent. Calmet* endeavored to discredit the continued existence of this council. In this opinion
he is followed by Michaelis.t  But the common and more
probable opinion is, that it was a permanent body. Bossuet4
says: " To mraintain the law in its vigor, Mloses formed an
assembly of seventy counsellors, which may be termed the
senate of Israel, and the perpetual council of the nation."
* Dissert. sur la Police des anciens Hebreux.
t Hist. Univ. Pt. 2, i 3.:         Comment. Art. 50.,




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.             585
The abbe de Fleury* observes: "As often as mention is
made in the scripture of assemblies and public affairs, the
elders (or senators) are put in the first place, and sometimes
named alone. Thence comes the expression in the Psalms,
exhorting to praise God in the congregation of the people, and
in the seat of the elders, that is, the public council." There
is, indeed, a strong antecedent probability against the abolition
of this council on the death of Moses; for, as Basnaget well
suggests, "if that great legislator needed such a council,
during his life, it must have been still more necessary to
those who succeeded him in the administration of the republic."  Salvador: has an able if not a convincing argument, to
prove, that the senate is often designated in the sacred books
by the name of its president, or of the general judge, in the
same manner as the senate of Venice was called' most
serene prince."  Thus, when the I-ebrews say, that a man
judged Israel, he thinks the expression signifies, that he governed in concurrence with the senate. The argument, by
which he supports this view, is not without force; but the
reader, who would judge of it, is referred to the original
work. Undoubtedly, the senate underwent many changes in
the progress of time. It would be interesting, but it does not
belong to my present work, to trace these revolutions. I,
therefore, dismiss the subject with the remark, that, whatever vicissitudes it experienced, it appears always to have
maintained its existence.
A difficulty will have occurred to the reflecting reader, as
he has followed me through the above detail. The chapter
professes to treat of the Hebrew senate; but, in reality, it has
exhibited two distinct councils, one instituted in Egypt, and the
other in the wilderness, without attempting to adjust or ex-!Xain their relation to each other. This is a difficulty, not a
* Manners of the Anc. Israelites, c. 21.
f Histoire des Juifs, 1. 2, c. 2.; Hist. des Inst. de Moise, 1. 2. c. 2.




586               COMMENTARIES ON THE
little formidable in appearance. Which of these was the
senate of Israel? Did the latter supersede the former?  Or
did they co-exist, and in that case, was there any union between them?  I have little doubt, that Lowman* has hit
upon the true solution of the difficulty, and I shall here condense the view, which he has taken of this part of the Hebrew constitution. His idea is, that the original senate, composed of the princes of tribes and heads of families, continued to exist, after the institution of the sanhedrim. The
grounds of this opinion are as follows: When the children
of Reuben and Gad came with a petition to have their settlement assigned them on the east of Jordan, they came and
spake unto Moses and Eleazar the priest, and unto the princes
of the congregation. t  Though this was long after the institution of the sanhedrim, yet the princes of the congregation
are assembled to consider the proposal; as they had been
before in the case of female succession, 4: and as they were
afterwards upon the regulation of the marriage of heiresses.~
When Joshua made a league with the Gibeonites, it was
confirmed by the princes of the congregation.][  Other instances of the like nature might be cited, but let these suffice.
Now, as these persons are described by the titles of princes
and chief fathers of the children of Israel, it is plain, that
the same persons must be meant, who were princes of tribes
and heads of families before the institution of the sanhedrim,
and whose rank and authority were not taken away by the
formation of that court. They were still the great council or
senate of the nation. But what, then, becomes of the sanhedrirn, instituted by Moses?  Both classes of officers are
spoken of in such a way, as to show, that they were employed in the great affairs of the nation. Why, then, may
we not conceive of the sanhedrim as a select senate, a sort of
privy council, while all the princes of Israel still had session
* Civ. Gov. Heb c. 9.    t Numb. xxxii. 1, 2.  $ Ibid. 27.
g Ibid. 36.          ]I Joshua ix. 15.




LAWS UF THE ANCIENT IEBREWS.            587
and vote in the great and general council of the nation, which,
when assembled, was called by the ancient style, the princes
of the congregation. This may be the reason, why the elders
of the sanhedrim have so little apparent notice taken of
them; for, when the general national senate was assembled,
they were considered only as particular members of it.
Lowman conceives, that the constitution of the old parliament of Paris may give a pretty accurate idea of the
senate of Israel. The kings assembled the great men of the
kingdom, and these assemblies were called the king's court
or parliament. The great men, who attended these assemblies were styled barons of the kingdom, and afterwards
peers of France. They were the bishops, dukes, earls, and
all the great tenants, who held immediately of the crown;
but as it was not easy to examine fully many of the affairs,
which came before them, the kings gave commission to men
of abilities, to assist with their care and counsels; and these
counsellors were called masters of parliament. In the parliament of Paris, then, all the peers of France had session
and vote, but the ordinary business was transacted by a
select number of counsellors. Somewhat after this manner,
it is most likely, the senate of Israel was constituted. The
elders of the sanhedrim formed a select council, to assist the
chief magistrate on ordinary occasions; but on occasions of
greater moment, and especially when the states-general were
convened, the national senate of Israel consisted of princes
of the tribes, heads of families, and elders of the sanhedrim.
But however this might be, and whoever the persons were
who composed the great council of the Hebrew nation, it is
clear and undoubted, that, under the style of princes, chief
fathers, or elders, there was a senate of the whole republic,
who assisted the judge with their advice in affairs of moment.
And this was a second bond of political union between the
tribes.




X588              COMMENTARIES ON TIE
CHAPTER VI.
The Hebrew Commons.
IN treating this subject, three inquiries present themselves.
viz. 1. WVhether a house of commons, or popular assembly,
formed a part of the Hebrew constitution? 2. If so, who
composed it?  3. What were its powers?
The first of these interrogatories must be answered in the
affirmative. It is an undoubted fact, that there was a popular branch in the Hebrew government. This body was called
by different titles, as the congregation, the congregation of
Israel, all the assembly, all the children of Israel, and the
whole congregation of the Lord. ~Moses was directed to
make two silver trumpets, and the following law was enacted
respecting the use of them. " And when they shall blow with
them, all the assembly shall assemble themselves to thee at the
door of the tabernacle of the congregation.  And if they blow
but with one trumpet, then the princes, which are heads of
the thousands of Israel, shall gather themselves unto thee."*
Other scriptures might be cited, but this passage alone is
decisive; and, indeed, there is no dispute on this point
among those who have written on the Hebrew institutions.
In regard to the second question, viz. as to who composed
the congregation, there is less unanimity of opinion. Lowmant does not doubt, from its being described in expressions
so full and emphatic, as "all the congregation of Israel,"
* Numb. x. 2-4.       t Civ. Gov. Heb. c. 8.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           589
"the whole congregation of Jehovah," and the like, that
every free Israelite had a right to vote in this assembly.
Harrington* is of the same opinion. He says: "' While the
whole people was an army, Moses could propose to them in
body, or under their staves, or standards of their camps; then
he needed not, and so he used not, any representative." Both
these writers think, that there were different manners of
holding this assembly, the people sometimes voting in mass,
and sometimes by deputies. The abbe Gueneet holds the like
view. " The assemblies under Moses," he observes, " while
the Hebrews formed one great army, very much resembled
the assemblies of the people at Athens, at Lacedaemon, and
at Rome; but afterwards, it would seem, they were often
composed of deputies, or representatives of the people, not
unlike the parliaments of England and the states of Holland."
Salvador,t the learned Jewish author, is of the same way of
thinking. He regards it as the inalienable right of every
Hebrew citizen to have session and vote in the general assembly, basing it, however, upon the false principle, borrowed
from lRousseau,~ that the people, properly so called, have that
in common with the Deity, that they cannot be rigidly represented but by themselves. Jahnll also expresses the opinion,
that, at least upon very important occasions, as many of the
common people as chose to attend, took part in the deliberations and resolves of this body.
I cannot concur in the view of these learned men. More
just and scriptural appears to me the opinion of Michaelis,lT
that the Hebrew people never voted as a pure democracy, but
always, in the wilderness as well as after their settlement in
Canaan, by known and authorized representatives. His ar* Commonwealth of Israel, c. 3.
t Lettres de quelques Juifs a Voltaire, Pt. 4. L. 2. Note.
H$ ist. des Insts. de Mloise, 1. 2. c. 2.
i Contr. Soc. 1. 4. c. 15.  I! Heb. Corn. B. 2. S. 14.
~ Art. 45.




S90               COMMENTARIES ON THE
gument in support of this view seems to me conclusive; and
I therefore present it in his own words: " From various passages in the Pentateuch, we find that Moses, at making
known any laws, had to convene the whole congregation of
Israel; and in like manner, in the book of Joshua, we see,
that when diets were held, the whole congregation were assembled. If on such occasions every individual had had to
give his vote, everything would certainly have been democratic in the highest degree; but it is scarcely conceivable how,
without very particular regulations made for the purpose,
(which, however, we nowhere find,) order could have been
preserved in an assembly of six hundred thousand men, their
votes accurately numbered, and acts of violence prevented.
If, however, we consider that, while Moses is said to have
spoken to the whole congregation, he could not possibly be
heard by six hundred thousand people, (for what human
voice could be sufficiently strong to be so?) all our fears and
difficulties will vanish; for this circumstance alone must convince any one, that Moses could only have addressed himself
to a certain number of persons, deputed to represent the rest
of the Israelites. Accordingly, in Numb. 1: 16, we find
mention of such persons. In contradistinction to the common
Israelites, they are there denominated' those wont to be called
to the convention.' In the 16th chapter of the same book,
ver. 2, they are styled'chiefs of the community, that are
called to the convention.' I notice this passage particularly,
because it appears from it, that two hundred and fifty persons
of this description, who rose up against Moses, became to
him objects of extreme terror; which they could not have
been, if their voices had not been, at the same time, the
voices of their families and tribes. Still more explicit, and
to the point, is the passage, Deut. 29: 9, where Moses, in a
speech to the Whole people, says,'Ye stand this day all of
you before the Lord your God, your heads, your tribes, (that
is, chiefs of tribes,) your elders, your scribes, all Israel, in



LAWS OF TIE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           591
fants, wives, strangers that are in your camp, from the hewer
of wood, to the drawer of water.' Now, as Moses could not
possibly speak loud enough to be beard by two millions and
a half of people, (for to so many did the Israelites amount,
women and children included,) it must be manifest, that the
first-named persons represented the people, to whom they
again repeated the words of Moses. Whether these representatives were on every occasion obliged to collect and
declare the sense of their constituents, or whether, like the
members of the English house of commons, they acted in the
plenitude of their own power for the general good, without
taking instructions from their constituents, I find nowhere
expressly determined; but, methinks, from a perusal of the
Bible, I can scarcely doubt, that the latter was the case.
Who these representatives were, may, in some measure, be
understood from Josh. 23: 2, and 24: 1. They would seem
to have been of two sorts. To some, their office as judges
gave a right to appear in the assembly; and these were not
necessarily of the same family in which they exercised that
office. Others, again, had a seat and a voice in the diet, as
the heads of families."
But the particular constitution of the popular branch of the
Hebrew government, as to the persons composing it, is a
matter comparatively indifferent. The material part of the
inquiry, which will be found eminently worthy of our attention, relates to the functions, which that body exercised.
These were of a grave and important kind, and such as to
evince the supremacy of the popular will under this constitu:
tion. A few instances, chosen out of many, will illustrate
the powers confided to this department of the government.
We shall find them broad and comprehensive, extending to
the election of magistrates, the management of foreign relations, the adjudication of civil and criminal causes, and the
care of ecclesiastical affairs.
In the nineteenth chapter of Exodus, we have a deeply in



592              COMMENTARIES ON THE
terestin  account of the manner in which God was chosen
king of the Hebrew people, and the laws adopted, which he
proposed for their government. Moses, having received a
commission to make the proposition to the nation, " came
and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their
faces all these words, which Jehovah commanded him. And
all the people answered together, and said, all that Jehovah
hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of
the people unto Jehovah." Here we have an account of the
form in which questions were proposed and resolved in the
national legislature. It is the just and philosophical remark
of Lowman on this passage, that legal forms explain the true
powers of any part of a constitution much better than general
arguments. Let the reader observe how closely this form of
voting resembles that called a rogatio among the rtomans.
A proposal from the senate to the people was in these words;
"Is it your will, 0 Romans, and do you resolve it?" To
which the response, if affirmative, was: "' We will, and resolve it." In the above election, the elders only are mentioned by name; but it is manifest from the expression, " all
the people answered and said," that it was the act of the
general diet of Israel. The term elders was not restricted to
any one class of functionaries, and it is certainly sometimes
applied to the members of the popular branch. And here, I
may observe by the way, we have another proof, that the
congregation was a representative body, and not the whole
body of the people. It was certainly a select assembly,
which, on this occasion, responded to the proposal of MIoses;
yet it is stated in the broadest terms, " all the people answered."
The appointment of Joshua to be the successor of Moses
appears, from the record of it in the twenty-seventh chapter
of Numbers, to have been made, or at least confirmed, by the
popular vote in the national diet. He was to be set before
"all the congregation;" and, when thus proposed, he appears




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT IEBREWS.           593
to have been elected by their vote to the chief magistracy of
Israel.
So also Saul, though designated to the regal office by the
lot, was nevertheless chosen king by the great national diet,
— the congregation of the people. Afterwards, to quiet the
dissatisfaction of certain malecontents, Samuel summoned
the people by their representatives to Gilgal, " to renew the
kingdom there;" that is, to elect Saul king a second time.
"And all the people went to Gilgal," says the historian,' and there they made Saul king before the Lord in Gilgal."1*
When Adonijah, in anticipation of his father David's death,
endeavored to seize upon the supreme authority, the latter,
by a royal edict, caused Solomon to be proclaimed king.
But he immediately summoned the parliament of the realm,
and proposed Solomon as his successor; and the history
adds, "They made Solomon, the son of David, king the
second time. * * *  Then Solomon sat on the throne, * * *
and all Israel obeyed him,"-evidently as being the sovereign
of their own choice.t  Josephus informs us that, when Moses
announced the appointment of Aaron to the priesthood by
Jehovah, he took pains to impress the assembly with a sense
of his brother's great merits; whereupon, he adds, the HIebrews gave their approbation to him whom God had appointed. Jeroboam is expressly said to have been made
king by the congregation of Israel.:
These instances sufficiently evince the authority of the
popular voice, through its representatives, in the election of
the national rulers.
The management of the foreign relations of the nation
belonged, in part, to the congregation. This is evident from
what occurred in the case of the Gibeonites, soon after the
passage of the Jordan. Joshua, deceived by their plausible
tale, made with them a treaty of peace, which was confirmed
* 1 Sam. x. 17-27.       t 1 Chron. xxix..22, 23.
t 1 Kings xii. 20.
38




594               COMMENTARIES ON THE
by the oath of the senate of princes. But when the imposition was discovered, the congregation was loud in its complaints, and could with difficulty be induced to give its assent
to the arrangement. It seems a fair inference from this relation, that a convention of peace, though made by judge and
senate, still needed the ratification of the people, in their
national assembly, in order to its full and binding authority.
The jurisdiction of the congregation extended also to civil
causes. The question of female succession, in default of male
heirs, was, by petition from the daughters of Zelophehad,
laid before Moses, the priest, the princes, and all the congregation. Their father, they alleged, had died without sons;
and their request was, that they might be constituted his
heirs. The question, being a novel one, was referred, by the
other departments of the government, to the oracle. The response was, that the demand of the young women was reasonable, and ought to be granted. Thereupon a decree was passed
to that effect, and a law was enacted to settle the matter of
female succession for all after ages. Here, by the way, we
have the union of the tribes in the four departments of the
government pretty plainly referred to.  Here is the chief
magistrate of the nation. Here is the oracle of Jehovah.
Here is the senate of princes. And here, finally, is the congregation of all Israel.* The body, before which this question was brought, was an assembly of the states-general of
Israel, composed of judge, senate, and commons; and the history of the affair shows plainly, that questions of this nature
were properly, according to the Hebrew constitution, brought
befcre them.
To the congregation belonged likewise the right of taking
cognizance of criminal matters. It was expressly charged
with judging between the slayer and the avenger of blood:
"Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and
the revenger of blood according to these judgments: And the
* Numb. xxvii. 1-9.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           595
congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the
revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to
the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide
in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed
with the holy oil."" It matters not whether the congregation
here spoken of was provincial or national; for, whatever
rights vested in the lower assembly, would undoubtedly inhere
in the higher.
An instance of the power of the Hebrew commons in criminal questions occurs in the history of Saul, and is too interesting to be passed in silence.t Upon a certain occasion,
Saul had given an order, forbidding his army to taste food,
during a day's encounter with the Philistines. Whoever violated the prohibition was devoted to certain death by the
oath of the king. Jonathan, to whose prudence and valor,
under God, the victory was entirely owing, ignorant both of
the order and the anathema, and worn down with the fatigues
of battle, had eaten a little wild honey. Upon his confession
of the fault, Saul fiercely exclaims, "God do so to me, and
more also; for thou shalt surely die, Jonathan."  This is very
positive, and seems irreversible. Yet the people step in, and
say, " Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation for Israel? God forbid! As Jehovah liveth, there shall
not an hair of his head fall to the ground. So the people
rescued (literally redeemed) Jonathan."  Bishop Patrick truly
observes on this place, that the people did not rescue Jonathan
by violence or force. Yet his further opinion, and that of the
learned Grotius, that the rescue was effected by petition,
seems not at all consistent with the expressions employed.
" As Jehovah liveth, there shall not an hair of his head fall to
the ground," has very little the sound of an humble request
to a master. It is more like the voice of conscious authority, clear and strong in the expression of an undoubted right.
Neither is the expression, "redeemed Jonathan," properly
* Numb. xxxv. 24, 25.        t 1 Sam. xiv. 42 seqq.




596                COMMENTARIES ON THE
descriptive of an act of mutiny and rebellion.  There remains, then, but the conclusion, that it was an exercise of
rightful authority, whereby the unconscious offender was pardoned, and the sentence of death reversed, in the general
court of Israel.  It is thus that Lowman interprets the
procedure.*
Ecclesiastical affairs were, also, to some extent at least,
subject to the jurisdiction and control of the Hebrew con.
mons. When David wished to remove the ark to Jerusalem,
he would not do so, without a formal vote of the congregation
to that effect.t  On the accession of Solomon to the throne,
when Abiathar was deposed from the office of high priest,
and Zadok elevated to that dignity, it was "' all the congregation," the great assembly of the people, that established
the latter in the high-priesthood, and caused him to receive
the sacerdotal unction, which constituted a chief part of the
inaugural ceremony.f
In the brief digest of the English constitution, which Montesquieu has given in the sixth chapter of the eleventh book
of his Spirit of Laws, he makes the following remark:
"Whoever shall read the admirable treatise of Tacitus on
the manners of the Germans, will find, that it is from them
the English have borrowed the idea of their political government.  This beautiful system  was invented first in the
woods." On referring to the passage in Tacitus, cited by the
learned jurist, it will be found, that the historian says:
"Ordinary affairs were treated in the council of chiefs; great
affairs, in the assembly of the people; yet so that those matters, on which it belonged to the people to decide, were debated by the chiefs."~ On this Salvador 11 has well observed,
that Montesquieu might have traced the idea of the English
constitution to a higher source, and made it rest upon bases
* Civ. Gov. Heb. C. 8.
t 1 Chron. xiii. 2-4.   $1 Chron. xxix. 20-22.
J De Morib. Germ. P 15.  II Hist. des Insts. de Molse, 1.:2. c.2.




LAWS (IF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          597
more sacred in the eyes of modern nations. This beautiful
system of government invented in the woods indeed! Its
true source is the inspired legislation of Moses. Besides
their military chiefs (the council to which Tacitus referred),
the Hebrews had a senate of civilians, as well as a house ot
commons.  They recognized three distinct crowns;-the
crown of the priests, the crown of the law, and the crown
of the king; in other words the sacerdotal or conservative
power, the legislative power, and the executive power.
Besides, how many of the English have ever read Tacitus?
Whereas the bible, found in every house, has exercised the
greatest influence over their manners and institutions, and
has produced more than one point of resemblance between
the ancient people of Israel and the first nation of modern
times, which has comprehended the whole power of law, and
has founded its polity on the principle, that laws ought to
govern, rather than the will and pleasure of the prince.
CHAPTER VII.
The Hebrew Oracle.
THE fact that the original sovereignty of the Hebrew state,
though by the free consent and suffrage of the people, was
vested in Jehovah, distinguished this government from all
others, ever known among men. This circumstance would
naturally lead us to look for some peculiarity of organization
in the political structure.  Nor does the history of the
government, contained in the writings of its founder, disappoint such expectation. This organic peculiarity appears in




598              COMMENTARIES ON THE
the oracle of Jehovah, as an essential part of the civil con
stitution.
We have already seen,* that there was a strong theocratie
element in the Israelitish constitution; so strong, indeed,
that the government has been commonly called a theocracy.
In what manner and through what agencies, did this element
in the government make itself practically felt? The general
answer to this question is:-It was by means of the oracle
of Jehovah. With the view of shedding, if possible, some
light on this obscure but interesting point, I propose to inquire briefly into the nature and functions of the IHebrew
oracle, to institute a comparison between it and the oracles
of pagan antiquity, and to vindicate the wisdom and benevolence of such an institution, against the sneers and sophistries
of infidelity, by showing its admirable adaptation to the
infant state of the world and the church.
The oracle played a conspicuous and most important part
in the establishment and administration of the Jewish theocracy.  That incomparable summary of the Mosaic code,
and of all moral duty,-the decalogue,-was uttered, amid
terrific thunderings and lightenings, from the mysterious symbol of the Divinity, in an articulate voice, which reached
every ear, and penetrated every heart, and awed every understanding, of the mighty multitude, that crowded around the
base of mount Sinai. So also all the rest of the political,
civil, moral, and religious laws of the Hebrews were dictated
by the oracle, though they were afterward, as observed by
Dr. Spring, in his "Discourses on the Obligations of the
World to the Bible," passed upon and adopted by the legal
assemblies of the nation. The oracle, in the form of the
cloudy pillar, regulated the motions of the Israelitish armies:
" For when the cloud was taken up from the tabernacle, the
children of Israel journeyed; and when the cloud rested,
there the children of Israel pitched their tents; at the corn* B. 2, C. 2.




LAWS OF THE A NCIENT HEBREWS.            599
mand of Jehovah they journeyed, at the command of Jehovah they pitched."* How far the oracle directed the military
affairs of the Hebrews, plainly appears in the history of the
Canaanitish wars, and particularly in the story of the siege
and capture of Jericho.t  In the earlier periods of the commonwealth, the oracle was constantly appealed to on questions of civil and ecclesiastical law, in settling principles of
state policy, and generally in affairs of moment, appertaining
to the public administration. " In the time of Mioses," observes Michaelis,t " the oracle was unquestionably very conspicuous. God himself gave laws to the Israelites; decided
difficult points of justice; was constantly visible in the pillar
of cloud and fire; and inflicted punishments, not according
to the secret procedure of providence, but in the most manifest manner." The constitution of the Hebrew judges, both
higher and lower, the election of civil rulers, the cognizance
of many causes, some in the first instance, and others on
appeal, were branches of the sovereignty of Jehovah, as king
of Israel. The use of the oracle in deciding difficult cases
in law, is the more worthy of note, as it serves to explain the
constitution with respect to appeals. It was thus that the
oracle decided the question, how persons defiled by a dead
body should keep the passover.~ Thus also the oracle determined the question of female succession, in the case of the
daughters of Zelophehad. l  And thus it was the oracle,
again, which declared the punishment of sabbath breaking. 1
Hence it may be seen, that the last resort both in civil and
criminal cases, especially when new and difficult questions
were involved, was in the oracle, and not in the opinion of
the high priest alone, nor of the judge alone, nor of both conjointly with the senate and congregation, unless they were
fully agreed. If a difficulty arose, the last appeal was to the
oracle; in whose decision, the high priest did not give his
* Numb. ix. 17. 18.   t Josh. vi.       $ Comment. Art. 35.
Numb. ix. 6-10.    11 Numb. xxvii. 1-9.  I Numb. xv. 32-36.




600               COMMENTARIES ON THE
private judgment, but the oracle itself gave final judgment
in the case.*
The person charged with consulting the oracle, was the
high priest. An objector may here ask: " Did not this open
the door to corruption.  M]light not an ambitious pontiff
abuse such a trust to unrighteous ends?"  This difficulty
may be best met by explaining to whom the consultation
of the oracle was permitted; the occasions on which it
might be consulted; and the probable manner of the consultation.
The oracle could not be interrogated by any mere private
individual; not even by the high priest himnself, in his personal capacity. This was permitted only to the chief magistrate, or other high functionary of the government.  The
occasions, on which the advice of the oracle could be asked,
must be of a public nature. The matter of consultation must
relate to a question of public policy, of public morals, or of
religious faith. Neither could the consultation take place in
a clandestine way. The person, proposing the question to
the high priest, remained with him during the ceremony.
Josephus affirms, that any person who chose might be present on such occasions.t  This would be an effectual guard
against collusion, and an ample guarantee for the fairness of
the transaction. The office of the high priest, in this particular, was that of a mediator, or middle man.  He was
herein simply the channel of communication between the
Hebrew state and its Divine head. It is remarkable, that
there is not an instance on record, in the Jewish annals of a
high priest, who abused this trust to unworthy objects.
The opinion of learned and judicious authors, as to the
manner of taking the sense of the oracle, is this: The high
* See Lowm. on Civ. Gov. Heb. c. 11.
t See in confirmation of these views Numb. xxvii. 21, and Prideaux's
Connex. vol. 1, p. 155 seqq. with the authorities cited by him. Also
Josephus Antiq. 1. 3, c. 10.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            601
priest clothed in his pontifical garments, and having on the
breastplate of judgment, in which were the mysterious urim
and thummim, symbolical of the clearness and fulness of
the oracular responses, presented himself before the veil of
the tabernacle, over against the mercy seat,-the immediate
residence of the Divine presence. The magistrate, who came
to consult the oracle, stood directly behind him, and propounded the question, which was repeated by the priest.
The answer was returned in an audible voice, in terms explicit, direct, and unambiguous. This explains the reason
why the holy of holies, where the mercy seat stood, is so
often called the oracle. It was because from thence, God
returned answers to those, who came to ask counsel of him,
on behalf of the public conscience, or the public administration.
That the responses were returned in an articulate voice,
seems probable from several expressions of holy writ. When
the ten commandments were given on Sinai, it is said, that
"God SPAEE all these words.""  In regard to the subsequent
laws, it is declared that " Jehovah SPARE unto Moses, saying."t
When Moses went into the tabernacle to learn the divine
will, it is recorded of him that "he heard the voice of one
SPEAKING to him from off the mercy seat.: Similar forms of
expression are used in reference to the like occasions in after
ages, from all which the conclusion seems warranted, that
the responses of the Hebrew oracle were rendered in an
audible voice, and without secrecy, craft, or ambiguity of any
kind.~
I have said above, that the person charged with consulting
the oracle was the high priest. The observation, however,
ought not to be omitted, that there were two ways, in which
the oracle expressed its will, in one of which the high priest
i Exod. xx. 1.   t Exod. passim.    t Numb. vii. 89.
{ Numb. ix. 9. Judg. i. 1-2. xx. 18, 23, 28. 1 Sam. x. 23; and many
other places.




602               CO0MMENTARIES OlN THE
had no share. This was by a voice from the shekinah directly. It was in this way that the ten commandments were
given, in which case the oracle was heard by the whole Hebrew nation. In this manner, also, the other civil laws,
given at Sinai, were dictated to MIoses. What the exact
nature of the phenomenon, called the shekinah, was, we cannotwith certainty determine. "We can only say, that it
appears to have been a concentrated glowing brightness, a
preternatural splendor, an effulgent something, which was
appropriately expressed by the term glory; but whether, in
philosophical strictness, it was material or immaterial, it is
probably impossible to determine."
But notwithstanding this, it still remains true, that the
ordinary mode of consulting the oracle, was through the high
priest, by urim and thummim. It is not material to the illustration of this part of'he Israelitish constitution, that we
should know precisely what these terms mean. Yet it may
gratify the reader to be informed of the several opinions,
entertained by the learned on this point. All that the scripture says concerning urim and thummim, is, that they were
something put by Moses into the breast-plate of the Bigh
priest. The breast-plate was a piece of cloth doubled, of a
span square, in which were twelve precious stones, set in
sockets of gold, and having the names of the twelve tribes of
Israel engraved on them. In this, then, the urirn and thummim were placed. Four principal opinions have obtained as
to what they were. The first is that they were two small
images, which, enclosed within the fold of the breast plate,
gave out the oracular answers. This is the idea of Philo
Judaeus, in which he has been followed by later writers. But
it is too heathenish a conceit to be for a moment entertained.
It has been well characterized as " a Talmudical camel, which
no one in his wits can ever swallow." A second opinion is,
that the urim and thummim consisted in a peculiar radiance.
or shining light, with which certain  of the letters, en.




LAWS OF TIHE ACIENT HEBREWS.            603
graven on the breast-plate, were invested, when a question
had been put; so that these luminous characters, being properly arranged, gave the answer to the inquiry. This was
the notion of Josephus.  Dr. Prideaux has triumphantly
refuted it; but his answer is too long to be inserted here. A
third opinion is that of Michaelis, in which he is followed by
Jahn. These writers think, that the urim  and thummim
were simply a sacred box. They suppose it probable, that
three stones were used, one of them  marked with an affirmative; a second, with a negative; and the third, blank;and that Moses commanded these to be kept within the
doubling of the breast-plate of the priest. This of course
would require the question always to be put in such a way,
that it could be answered with a simple yes or no. But
there are various responses in the scriptures, inconsistent with
the truth of this theory; especially that contained in 2 Sam.
5: 23, 24, where explicit and detailed directions are given.
The fourth opinion is that of Prideaux, who thinks that by
urim  and thummim  we are not to understand any thing
visible and corporeal, but only a divine virtue and power,
given to the breast-plate in consecration, of obtaining oracular answers from God, whenever counsel was asked of him
by the high priest, in the prescribed manner. Amid this
conflict of opinion, one thing seems sufficiently evident, that
the answers were rendered in an audible voice, and that the
breast-plate, bearing the names of the twelve tribes, invested
the high priest with his true representative character, and
thus enabled him successfully to ask counsel of God.*
In comparing the IHebrew oracle with the oracles of paganism, mv remarks will embrace the period of their respective
institution; the times, occasions, and conditions of consulting
* See on this subject Lowm. on Civ. Gov. Heb. c. 11; Prideaux's Connex.
Vol. 1. pp. 155-160; Mich. Comment. Art. 52; Jahn's Archaeol. Art. 369;
Smith's Heb. Peop. p. 533; and Calmet's Diet. Art. Urim and Thummim.




604:             COMMENTARIES ON THE
them; the machinery of consultation; and the nature of the
responses uttered by each.
Infidel writers have represented the Hebrew oracle as a
mere imitation of those of pagan institution; a graft from
one system of imposture, into another but little better.
TMvorgan says, that " while the Jews were in Egypt, they had
been dazzled by the infallible declarations of Jupiter Ammon."  Sir Isaac Newton, however, places the birth of Ammon
more than 400 years after the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt.
These are the words of this illustrious chronologist: "The
year before Christ 1002, Sesac reigned in Egypt. IHe erected
temples and oracles to his father in Thebes, Ammonia, and
Ethiopia; and thereby caused his father to be worshipped as
a god in those countries. This was the original of the worship of Jupiter Ammnon, and the first mention of oracles I
meet with in profane history. The Greeks, in their oracles,
imitated the Egyptians; for the oracle of Dodona, which was
the oldest in Greece, was set up by an Egyptian woman after
the example of the oracle at Thebes."* Thus it appears,
according to this high chronological authority, that, instead
of the Jewish oracle being an imitation of the pagan oracles,
the reverse was the fact. The latter drew their original
from the former.
The Hebrew oracle could be consulted at all times, when
the occasions of the state required; the Grecian, only on
particular days of a particular month in the year. It is
obvious to remark, what an advantage this gave to the priests
of those lying divinities to anticipate the questions to be proposed, and to frame skilful and deceptive replies.
The Hebrew oracle could be consulted only by some high
public functionary, and when questions of moment, relating to
the government of the republic, demanded resolution. The
Grec.ian oracles refused not their utterance to any persons,
- Empire of Egypt, p. 207.




LAWS OS THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.          605
nor upon any occasion, provided only that thle fee was sufficiently ample to cause them to break silence.
This leads me to remark upon another distinction between
the two institutions. No money was ever received for consulting the Jewish oracle. The offer of it would have been
an insult to him, whose voice was heard in its responses,
The Grecian oracles were sources of vast revenues to the priests.
The wealth of the Delphian oracle exceeded that of the most
opulent states and princes. Its treasury blazed with uncounted
jewels, and groaned beneath the masses of gold and silver
that filled its capacious vaults.
Another point of difference appears in the machinery of
consultation, and the character of the responses. Nothing
can be more simple than the method of consulting the divine
oracle; nothing less ambiguous than its answers.  But what
endless mystery, and mumnmery, and cumbrous rites of divination, accompanied the responses of the heathen oraclesl
These were always so contrived as to be susceptible of a
double interpretation. In proof of this, the reader's attention is directed to the response of the Delphian oracle to
Croesus, the powerful monarch of the Lydian empire, respecting the issue of his war with Cyrus. Its purport was, that
he should overturn a great empire, and that the Persians
would not conquer him, till they had a mule for their prince.
History has recorded the result. The wily priests had well
considered their answer. They knew nothing of the issue.
How could they? But they must clutch the treasures of
Lydia's richest sovereign. To this end, they must flatter his
pride. And they must maintain the credit of their oracle,
whichever way fortune might decide the contest.  With
demoniac cunning did they frame the response to answer all
these ends. When the unhappy Lydian, lured to his ruin by
their lying flatteries, dared to reproach them with their deception, with insulting scorn they replied:-" Ungrateful fool!
you have overturned a great empire, even that over which




606               COMMENTARIES ON TIHE
you reigned, and your throne and sceptre have been wrested
from. you by the mule of our oracle, even Cyrus, who, his
father being a Persian and his mother a MIedian, fills the
measure of its import."  Behold the system!  Behold the
commentary! Each worthy of the other, and both of that
infernal craft and policy, in which they had their origin.
One hardly knows against whom to feel the greater indignation; whether against the contrivers of such a system of
delusion, or the bold blasphemer, who dares to liken it to
that oracle of eternal truth, whose immaculate responses
were fitly symbolized by a legend, which signifies, " LIGHTS
AND PERFECTIONS."
Infidels have indulged in a superabundance of malignant
and silly ridicule over this divine oracle; but with their usual
want of inquiry and reflection. I admit, that it is an extraordinary institution. I admit, that it is altogether without
a parallel in the history of the world. But this is no argument against either the fact or the wisdom of it. No other
civil society has ever been formed for precisely the same objects, nor existed under exactly the same circumstances. No
other civil polity ever proposed, as its main end, the overthrow of idolatry, the preservation of true religion in the
world, and the education of mankind for a more spiritual and
universal dispensation of grace. Add to this, that the human
race was then, as it were, in its infancy and nonage. It had
but few abstract ideas. It was, for the most part, confined
in its mental operations to sensible objects. In such a state
of things, philosophy itself would teach us to look for just
such an institution as the Hebrew oracle. And when we
find it making its appearance in the Jewish church, enlight.
ened reason is prepared to exclaim in the language of revelation, " Oh the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and
knowledge of God."
The oracle was the institution of all others, adapted to the
mental condition, habits, and needs of the Hebrew people.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           607
It operated as a salutary check to the ignorance and rashness
of both rulers and people. By powerfully impressing the
imagination through the senses, it supplied the place of a
strong, realizing conception of an infinite and omnipresent
spirit, which was wanting in that minority and pupilage of
the nation. It served to detach their affections and their
trust from the pompous and alluring idolatries of their
heathen neighbors. This sensible manifestation of the Deity,
-the cloud of glory shooting up to mid-heaven in a column
of massy splendor, or resting in luminous folds over the
mercy-seat in the holy of holies,-is so far from being incredible, that, while scripture affirms its truth, reason and
philosophy declare its expediency. The divine oracle with
its attendant visible glories, —the ark, the mercy-seat, the
cherubim, the luminous cloud, the breastplate of judgment,
with its mystical urim  and thummim, and the audible responses of the Deity, —formed a school, designed, with admirable wisdom and condescension, for tutoring the infant
intellect and heart of the world, and training them up to a
full spiritual maturity and strength. "To pour contempt,
therefore, on these extraordinary appearances, as absurd and
romantic fables, would be as unphilosophical and as ungrateful, as it would be for a child, when arrived at manhood, to
censure and despise those condescending methods, by which
parental wisdom and love had moulded and carried forward
his childhood to manly vigor and understanding."+ Let us
not be guilty of the folly, the injustice, we may say, of measuring the intellectual and religious wants of a comparatively
rude and infant state of society, by those of our own more
cultivated, more enlightened, more spiritual, more manly,
and christian age of the world. And while we admire the
beauties of the dawn, and adore the wisdom and benevolence
of those early pencillings of spiritual light, let us rejoice and
* Tappan's Jewish Antiquities, Lect. 6.




608               COMMENTARIES ON THE
be grateful, Fhat the full-orbed sun has~ arisen upon us in all
his splendor.
"I1  the oracle, then," to conclude this chapter in the
words of Lowman,* " we see a considerable part of the Hebrew constitution to direct the councils of the united tribes,
the political wisdom of which is seldom remarked in the
civil government of that nation. There was a congregation
of all Israel, or assembly of the people, that all things might
be done with general consent. There was a senate of wise
and able persons, to prepare things by previous deliberation
and consultation, that things might not be concluded rashly
in a popular assembly, before they were maturely considered
and examined by men of wisdom and experience. There
was a judge to assemble the states-general on proper occasions, to preside in their assemblies, and to command the
armies of thle united provinces, and to see the national rQsolutions duly executed. And finally, here was an oracle,
which was to be consulted by the high priest on great occasions, that no rash resolutions of the people, senate, or judge,
might be brought into execution, in cases of moment and
difficulty; but they were to ask counsel of God, or to obtain
the royal assent of Jehovah, as king of Israel, by his oracle.
This was a wise provision, to preserve a continual sense in
the Hebrew nation of the principal design of their constitution, to keep them from idolatry and to the worship of the
one true God, as their immediate protector; and that their
security and prosperity depended upon adhering to his counsels and commands."
* Civ. Gov. Heb. c. 11.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWSo.                 09
CHAPTER VIII.
The Hebrew Priesthood.
I USE the term priesthood here in an enlarged sense. T
include, under that designation, the whole tribe of Levi, as
possessing a sacerdotal or sacred character. It is of this
tribe, that I now propose to treat, in its constitution, its functions, and its revenues.  No part of the Mosaic institution
has been, either more grossly misunderstood, or more wickedly misrepresented.  It is proper, therefore, to examine it,
in the relations just indicated.*
The tribe of Levi had an organization quite different from
that of the other tribes. These were settled in distinct provinces, and had each a government of its own. This had no
landed property, did not live together, and was without an
independent government.   Its  members  were  dispersed
through all the territories of Israel; drew their livelihood
from the other tribes; and were subject to the government
of the province, in which they lived.
How this happened, it is interesting to inquire. On. the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, all- their first-born males
were sanctified to the Lord, and destined to the altar. But
* On the subject of this chapter, see Lowm. Civ. Gov. Heb. c. 6; Cunaeus
de Repub. Hebr. 1. 2. c. 1; Mich. Comment. Art. 52; Jahn's Heb. Com. b.
2. i 12; Salv. Inst. de Moise, 1. 2. c. 1. and 1. 3. c. 3; Fleury, Manners of
the Israelites, Pt. 2. c. 22, and Pt. 4. c. 5; Lewis's Antiq. Heb. Rep. b. 2;
and Hlarrington's Commonwealth of Israel, b. 2. c. 2.
39




610               COMMENTA.RIES ON THE
the difficulty of obtaining from each family its first-born son,
the difficulty of detaching them from their private interests,
as citizens of such a tribe or such a town, rendered this mode
impracticable. Moses, therefore, without in the least changing
the original principle, substituted, for this service, the tribe of
Levi, in place of all the first-born. But why was this tribe
chosen? And, of all its members, why did Aaron and his
sons obtain the priesthood? Two circumstances dictated the
preference of the tribe of Levi, the smallness of its numbers,
and the zeal which it had displayed in punishing the Israelites
for their idolatry in the matter of the golden calf. The talent, eloquence, and eminent public services of Aaron, which
had already won the admiration and gratitude of his countrymen, pointed him out as the person most worthy of being
raised to the second dignity in the state.
It is remarkable, and deserves attention, as showing the
democratic character of this government, that the tribe of
Levi, though designated by Jehovah to the service of the
temple, received its legal institution from the Hebrew people,
as represented in the states-general of Israel. In the first
instance, Moses, with the senate and the congregation, consecrated the high priest and his associates, thus evincing, that
it belonged to the general diet to choose the chief pontiff
from among the priests most d.stinguished for their ability
and merit, and to establish him in his charge.* Afterwards,
the whole assembly of the children of Israel was convoked
to induct the Levitical order into their office. The people,
by their representatives, laid their hands upon the Levites,
and the high priest consecrated them in the name of the children of Israel, as an offering freely made by them to Jehovah
their king.t
From the above detail it appears, that the designation and
institution of the high priest belonged, not to the council of
priests, but to the senate, and must receive the confirmation
* Levit. viii. 2-5.   + Numb. viii. 5-22.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           611
of the people through their deputies.  But this will still
more clearly appear from some examples in the Israelitish
history. Aaron had four sons. Two of them died without
issue. Of the other two, Eleazar obtained the high-priesthood.* But this dignity was not necessarily hereditary in his
family, for, under the judges, it passed into the family of his
brother. As to the motive for this change, and the manner
in which it was made, the bible is silent. But it informs us
distinctly of the circumstances, which restored the dignity
to the family of Eleazar. Abiathar, having taken part against
Solomon, was deposed, and Zadoc elevated to the pontificate
in his place. By whom was this done? It was the congregation of Israel, that chose, anointed, and established Zadoc
in this office.t  Josephus cannot be accused of partiality to
democratic ideas, and still less of depreciating the rights of
the priests; yet he admits, that this dignity was, and of right
ought to be, conferred by the people. When the nephew of
the high priest Onias publicly reproaches his uncle with his
conduct, he tells him, that it is strange that, having been
elevated by the people to the honor of the high-priesthood,
he should have so little concern for the welfare of his country.: It was the people, who gave the pontificate to Judas
Maccabeus.~  It was the people, again, who conferred the
same dignity upon his brother Simon.1I  In short, 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 Aarcn 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 magistracies,
were the creatures of the law; and the law was enacted by
* Numb. xx. 26.   t 1 Chr. xxix. 22.  + Antiq. 1. 12.,. 4
Q Antiq. L 12. c. 10.  11 1 Mace. xiv. 35.




612               COMMENTARIES ON THE
the people. The constitution, in its parts, was pervaded with
the democratic spirit.
I pass now to the inquiry concerning the functions of the
sacerdotal tribe. Morgan and other skeptical writers have
wished to discover in the Levites a government of priests,
intent solely on the enjoyment of sovereign power, and the
exorbitant enrichment of their own order. Btut this idea is
without foundation, and against truth, being wholly repugnant to the genius and scope of the institution.
The Levites were not a mere spirituality. Certainly they
were the ministers of religion, and charged with all the functions appertaining to the public worship of Jehovah. But so
close was the relation between the law and the religion of the
Hebrews, that all ecclesiastical persons were at the same time
political persons. The entire tribe of Levi was set apart to
God, the king of this commonwealth. Politically speaking,
they were Jehovah's ministers of state. Htence this tribe, as
constituted by Moses, was not only a priesthood, appointed to
the service of the altar, but also a true temporal magistracy,
having important and vital civil relations. The burden of
government was, in great measure, laid upon its shoulders.
Besides performing the ceremonies of public worship, it was
destined to preserve in its integrity, and to interpret in the
seat of justice, the text of the fundamental laws; to teach
these laws to all Israel; to inspire the people with a love for
them; to oppose all its own authority and influence against
any and every attempt to overthrow them; and to bind firmly
together all the parts of the body:politic.
Let the reader transport himself, in imagination, to the age
when Moses lived; let him look at the circumstances, in
which he found himself; let him consider the difficulties to
be overcome by him;-and this institution will readily become
its own interpreter.
In the midst of men ignorant, debased by slavery, and
prone to superstition; in the midst of twelve distinct repub



LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           613
lics, governed by their own assemblies, senates, and magistrates, Moses felt deeply the necessity of some means, both of
elevating the people and of uniting in close and strong bonds
all these different parts of the body politic,-some means,
which would continually recal their regards to the same end,
and prevent the evils, to which federative republics are so liable, where the individual interests of the several members
are apt to overpower and bear down the general interest and
welfare. To obtain this agency, Mtoses gave to the tribe of
Levi the particular organization, under which we find it. He
distributed it throughout all the other twelve tribes, and assigned to it certain specific duties. The high priest, as president of the tribe and supreme interpreter of the text of the
law, had his permanent residence at the capital of the nation.
Thus the centre of the particular system of conservatism and
union corresponded with the centre of the republic itself.
From this centre, the system spread itself out to the utmost
extremities of the nation. Every where its influence was
exerted to inspire a love of law and order; to promote peace;
to cement the bonds of social and political union; to insure
a constantly progressive civilization; in a word, to place continually before the eyes of all their countrymen that law, to
which their own individual interest and happiness were inldissolubly united.
Let us look at another difficulty, which met the Jewish
lawgiver in the framing of his constitution, and particularly
in the organization of this magistracy. The individuals to
compose it must be taken from among men, who, instead of
watching over the preservation of the text of the law, would
quite as likely hasten to change it according to their own
caprices, and, instead of teaching it to others, would themselves, perhaps, tear and lacerate its provisions, beyond the
possibility of recovery. To parry this danger, and at the
same time to establish the institution upon natural guaranties,
Moses had recourse to the power of private interest. By




614:             COMMENTARIES ON THE
making the functions of the Levites hereditary, he was enabled to unite their essential interests to those of the other
tribes, by a combination, which would, as it were, compel
them to fulfil the objects of their charge. Ile excluded them
from  all inheritance in the soil of Israel, and made them
wholly dependent, in their private interests, upon the rest of
the people. Thus the Levite would be led to attach himself
to the law, on which his own livelihood depended. He would
seek the peace and welfare of the state, because they were
the necessary conditions of his own.  Self-interest would
prompt him to respect the law, in order that others might
respect it. Self interest would lead him to publish it, that
the precepts which consecrated his own right, might not be
forgotten. Self-interest, in fine, would cause him to watch
over its entire execution,-thus making of this tribe, a true
and powerful instrument of conservatism.
But while the tribe of Levi, as it came from the hand of
Moses, constituted a true civil magistracy, it was far from
being, as Morgan would have us believe, the tyrant of the
state. _Nio; the state had but one master under the constitution of Moses, and that was the law. To this the sons of
Levi were as much bound to submit, as the other citizens.
" Lex major sacerdotio,"-the law is greater than the priesthood,-was the principle of the Hebrew polity. How vast,
how radical, herein, the difference between the priesthood of
Egypt and the priesthood of Israel! The former made the
laws themselves, changed them at will, and concealed the
books in which they were written from all profane eyes.
The latter were simply charged with preserving the laws
intact, with keeping them constantly exposed to the eyes of
the people, and with teaching them all to all exactly.
If Moses, as is alleged, had really intended to form a
government of priests, clothed with absolute powers, would
he, being of a sane mind, have pursued the course that he
did? Would he have begun, by stripping the priests of the




LAWS OF THE ANCENT HEBREWS.          615
power conferred by territorial estates? Would he have continued, by depriving them of the authority derived from the
command. of the military forces of the nation? Would he
have ended, by withholding from them the influence, which
illusion always enables the knowing to wield over the ignorant?  Moses was no stranger to these things. He had seen
them all, and he had seen their almost omnipotence, in Egypt.
These are capital points in the argument; and it is idle to
attempt either to deny or evade their force. Moses took
away from his priesthood the power derived from property;
the power derived from military command; the power derived firom illusions. What, then, did he leave it? Nothing
but the power of the law; a law, which they did not make,
which they could not change, and which they were themselves bound to obey. Here, surely, is no basis of tyranny.
HIere is no foothold for despotism. Here is no germ or aliment of ecclesiastical oppression. The Hebrew priests could
become despots and tyrants, only by overthrowing the constitution, which gave them being, and on which their whole
livelihood depended.
One of the most important of the civil functions of the
sacerdotal order, under the Hebrew constitution, was that of
acting as judges. This required for its performance a large
proportion of its members. No less than six thousand of
them, in the time of David, acted as judges and genealogists.
"The declaration of Moses on this point," says Michaelis,' is perfectly clear, Deut. 21: 5.'On the mouth of the
priest shall every controversy and every stroke depend.' It
was, in an especial manner, the business of the priests, in all
disputes of a more serious nature, to pronounce the final decision, and lay down the law, much in the same manner as it
is of our judicial faculties and tribunals of appeal." The
words of Moses in his valedictory ode and benediction to
Israel. (Deut. 33: 9, 10.) —" He who said unto his father and
to his mother, I have not seen him, neither did he acknowl



616               COMMENTlARIES ON THE
edge his brethren, nor knew his own children, and shall
teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law,"-must undoubtedly be meant of teaching these laws in the seat of
judgment; inasmuch as the expressions employed refer to
that impartiality, which is so essential an attribute of a good
judge.
The Levites were also the literati of all the faculties.
They were by birth obliged to devote themselves to the
sciences. They formed a sort of literary aristocracy, whose
influence was intended to counteract the hasty measures,
likely to result from the strongly democratic character of the
government.  They acted  as physicians, as teachers, as
transcribers of books, as writers of contracts and other law
papers, as chroniclers and historians, as astronomers, and as
mathematicians employed in the service of the state.
The tribe of Levi, then, comprehended the learned of all
names; the sages and professors of law and jurisprudence;
of medicine and physiology, of the physical and mathernatical sciences; in short, of all the so called liberal arts and
sciences, the possession and application of which constitute
the civilization of a country. It was to be the chief instrument of a continuing and progressive mental, moral, and
religious culture of the people. Its business was to produce,
preserve, and perfect all the necessary sources and conditions
of national civilization; to form and train up the people of
the country to be obedient, free, useful citizens and patriots,
living to the benefit of the state, and prepared to die for its
defence.
Such, in a political point of view, were the noble functions,
such the strongly conservative character of the sacerdotal
order, under the Mosaic constitution.  Yet the Hebrew
priesthood was far firom having obtained a range of powers,
equal in extent and magnitude to that embodied in the college of Roman pontiffs. Within the jurisdiction of this latter
body were included, besides what belonged to religious




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.              617
affairs, adoptions, marriages, funerals, wills, oaths, consecrations, the care of the public annals, the arrangement of the
calendar, and, in concurrence with the jurisconsults, the de.
termination of the rules and forms of judicial procedure.*
The revenues of the tribe of Levi next claim our attention.t
These were undoubtedly liberal; but they have been greatly
overrated and overstated by men, who would neither weigh
the advantages they gave up in return, nor take the trouble
to inform themselves of the real nature, extent, and value of
their services to the state.  Morgan, in particular, has indulged in the wildest and most extravagant calculations, and,
as IMichaelis says, has called falsehood to his aid, with a view
to exaggerate the amount of the already too great income of
his supposed spirituality. What, then, was the provision,
which the law made for the priests and Levites, as near as we
can ascertain it from the history? The tribe of Levi, at the
time of the enumeration in the wilderness, contained twentytwo thousand males, or, probably about twelve thousand
arrived at adult age. The other tribes numbered six hundred thousand, capable of bearing arms. Consequently, the
Levites constituted about a fiftieth part of the whole nation.
Besides cities to dwell in, this tribe was to receive a tenth of
all the produce of the land, both of fruit and cattle. From
this it would appear, that the income of each individual
Levite was equal to the average income of five other Israelites. But if we should conclude from hence, that this was,
the actual proportion, we should deceive ourselves.
A  variety of circumstances tended to diminish the tithe
accorded to the Levites. 1. They were themselves obliged to
* Terrasson, Hist. de la Jurispr. Rom. Berryat-Saint-Prix, Hist. du
Droit Rom. cited by Salv. 1. 2, c. 1.
t I make a general reference here to the passages, which relate to this
subject, viz. Numb. xviii.; Lev. ii. vii. and xxvii. 30-33; Exod. xxiii. 19:
Deut. xxvi. 2-10; Exod. xiii. 13, and xxx. 11 seqq. Lev. xxiii. 19, 20,
IDeut. xviii. 4: Exod. iv. 20.




618               COMMENTARIES ON THE
hand over a tenth of it to the priests. 2. The whole sand of
Israel was not tithable; no woodlands, no timber, paid any
tithe at all. 3. Even the cattle, which constituted an important, if not indeed the most important part of the Israelitish
husbandry, paid only a tithe of the young. When the tenth
lamb, calf, kid, &c. were paid as tithe, the remainder of the
flock and the herd paid nothing more, in wool, milk, butter,
or flesh. HIence it is plain, that the whole country of the
Hebrews by no means paid a tenth of its produce to the Levites. The greater part of the soil, indeed, as all the woodlands and pasture grounds, either paid nothing at all, or so
slight a percentage, as to be really of little account. 4. The
rendition of the tithes was left entirely to the conscience and
the loyalty of each individual Israelite. No compulsory process could be instituted to compel a payment of them; neither
did the priests or the magistrates have any superintendence
or oversight of the matter. It will readily be imagined, that
the law must have been often but partially complied with,
and sometimes wholly eluded. That this was actually the
case, appears from a command issued by king IHezekiah, *
and from the censures addressed by the prophets to the Hebrew people.t  5. If one or more of the tribes abandoned
themselves to idolatry, the Levites lost the revenues accruing
to them from such tribes. This undoubtedly often happened.
The condition of the Levites could not have been one of much
prosperity or abundance, at the time of the idolatry of Mioah,
when one of them, belonging to the tribe of Judah, was
obliged to go about the country, seeking for some employment,
and was glad to find it, even in the service of an idolatrous
Israelite, on condition of receiving his food, one suit of
clothes, and ten shekels of silver, (about five dollars) by the
year. A memorable example of the loss of revenue to the
sacerdotal tribe from religious apostacy, we have in the history of the reign of Jeroboam, when the Levites driven out
* 2 Chr. xxxi, 4.         t Jer. viii. 10: Mal. iii. 8.




LAWS OF TIE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            619
from their habitations to make room for idolatrous priests,
took refuge in Judah and Jerusalem.* 6. Another considerable subtraction must be made from the income of the Levites, if an opinion of Joseph Scaliger and Salvadort is well
founded. 1 am not, indeed, convinced, that their idea is correct; neither am I convinced, that it is erroneous. I shall,
therefore, state the opinion, which they have advanced, and
leave the reader to examine and judge for himself. It is well
known, that, besides the tithe for the support of the Levites,
the Israelites were required to pay a second tithe, which,
however, was not properly of the nature of a tax, since it was
to be consumed by the people themselves, at the offeringfeasts and other entertainments, in the place which the Lord
should choose, to put his name there. To these, besides other
friends, they were admonished to invite Levites, widows,
orphans, strangers, poor people, and their own servants, thus
giving them an occasional season of festivity., There is also,
apparently, mention made of a third tithe for every third
year, to be expended in similar festive entertainments at
home.:  Three opinions have obtained respecting this last
mentioned tithe. One is, that it was really an additional tithe,
distinct from the other two. For this notion, however, there
does not appear to be any sufficient foundation. The second
opinion, which, as it is the more common, seems, I confess, to
be the more probable, is, that what seem to be two tithes,
were in reality one and the same, and the law in Deut. xiv.
28, 29, is merely a direction, requiring that so much of the
second tithe as should not have been consumed in offeringfeasts at the place of the altar, should, during the third year,
be expended in similar entertainments at home. The third
opinion is that of Scaliger and Salvador, referred to above.
* 2 Chr. xi. 13, 14.
t De Decimis, in the Coll. of Sacr. Crit. p. 211, Hist. des Insts. de Mdoise,
L 3. C. 3.
$ Deut. xiv. 28, 29: xxvi. 12.




620               COMME NTARIES ON THM
It is, that every third year the tithe of the Levites did not
belong to them exclusively, but was to be shared by them
with three other classes of persons, viz. widows, orphans,
and strangers. Upon the whole, it is manifest, that the income of a Levite must have fallen very far below that of five
common Israelites.
But it may be suggested, that very important elements
have been omitted in making the above estimate. I reply,
that so far as the Levites proper are concerned, nothing has
been  excluded.  The priests enjoyed other revenues, to
which I am now going to turn my attention. In the first
place, they had a tenth of the tithe of the Levites. Then
there were the first fruits of the earth; the firstlings of cattle;
the redemption money for the first-born of men; portions of
every sacrifice, of which the blood came not into the holy of
holies; all things devoted; all matters of vow; the skins of
the burnt offerings; and some other minor sources of incolne.*  I do not mention the half-shekel poll tax, ordered at
the numbering of the Israelites in the wilderness, because I
am convinced that that was paid but once prior to the captivity, and that the Jews under the second temple, in making
it an annual tribute, went beyond the requisition of the law
of Moses.
The items of income, enumerated  above, undoubtedly
formed a very considerable sum total, which came into the
hands of the priests. The question is, did it all belong to
them as their private property, which they were at liberty to
expend in whatever way they pleased? The thing is impossible; and those who think so, err egregiously. They confound two things, which are distinct in themselves and ought
to be carefully distinguished, the minister and the ministry;
and they imagine analogies between the IHebrews and other
nations, which have no existence, except in their own fancy.
The tabernacle first, and the temple afterwards, were not,
* Numb. xxviii. 5-32, and Leviticus passim.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           621
like oare churches, wholly religious in their design and use. On
the contrary, they had a character and a purpose eminently
political. Public worship was certainly performed there.
But there also the states-general held their sessions; and
there the national treasure was kept. The Israelite, who
consecrated any thing to Jehovah, must not be supposed to
have devoted it to the priest in person, but simply to have
made use of his ministry to convey it into the sacred treasury, which was no other than the national treasury. Not to
the priests themselves, therefore, but to Jehovah, belonged
whatever came into their hands. A liberal sum was, doubtless, allowed for the support of their families; but, after this
had been taken out, the rest became a part of the public
treasure.
This is what I had to say on the constitution, the functions,
and the revenues of the sacerdotal tribe among the Hebrews.
Three considerations the Levites rendered to the rest of the
Israelites for whatever they received from  them.  1. The
tribe of Levi gave up to the other tribes their whole share of
the promised land, except so much as was sufficient to afford
them a place of habitation. 2. They parted with the right
of an independent government, such as the other tribes enjoyed, and completely sunk their political existence.:3.
They gave up themselves to the national service, as ministers
of religion, ministers of state, magistrates, teachers of the
people, and literati of all the faculties, as explained in a
former part of this chapter; services the most laborious,
responsible, and useful to the commonwealth. For all this,
they received a simple annuity., liberal it may be, but depending solely upon the national faith for its payment, while
they divested themselves of all power of re-entry in case of
non-payment. Let the benefits surrendered and the services
performed be weighed in just balances, and the rent-roll of
the tribe of Levi will appear rather below than above the
demands of reason and justice.




622                COMMENTARIES ON THE
CHAPTER IX.
The Hebrew Prophets.
THE right understanding of the prophetical office among
the Hebrews will throw much light on the Mosaic constitution, and strikingly evince the popular character of the Israelitish government. On this point, fair be it from me to disturb the faith, which we have inherited from our fathers, or
to unsettle, in any mind, the received opinion concerning the
true divine inspiration of the Hebrew  prophets.  I receive,
with implicit and unquestioning faith, the testimony of Paul,
that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God,"* and
the testimony of Peter that " holy men of God spake as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost."t  Nevertheless, to foretell
future events, and to impart religious truth and spiritual lessons, were not the whole duty and office of a prophet, under
the constitution of Moses.
Doubtless, the most important functions of the Hebrew
prophets were, in the strict sense, religious in their character.
The office of the prophets was much more like that of our
modern clergymen, than was the office of the priests, who
had, in fact, but few points of resemblance to the ministry
instituted by Christ.4 The prophets were the preachers of
* 2 Tim. iii. 16.      t 2 Pet. i. 21.
$ A single fact is decisive of this, viz. their living in cities by themselves. How could christian pastors discharge their appropriate functions,
how could they fulfil the command to watch for souls, if they dwelt in




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.              623
the ancient church. According to Augustine,* they were the
philosophers, divines, instructors, and guides of the Hebrews
in piety and virtue. These holy men were the bulwarks of
religion against the impiety of princes, the wickedness of individuals, and every kind of immorality.t  But by far the
most important part of their commission was to foretell the
coming and kingdom of the Messiah, with their attendant
circumstances, and, by slow degrees, yet with constantly increasing clearness, to acquaint their countrymen with the
approaching change of their economy, and with the nature of
the new, more spiritual, and universal dispensation, which
was to succeed it.:
Still, as hinted above, the duties of the prophets were not
wholly religious. Their relation to the civil state was not, indeed, fixed by any constitutional provision, or legal enactment.
They did not form a component part of the political system.~
They were not a branch of the machinery of government.
Yet their authority and influence in affairs of state was by
no means inconsiderable. They were, so to speak, the privileged state-moralists, guardians, and popular orators of the
republic. Coleridgeil speaks of them as uniting the functions
and threefold character of the Roman censors, the tribunes
of the people, and the sacred college of augurs. The historian Schlosser~T says: " We hear, in the prophets, the voice
of true patriots, who, standing upon a provision of the law
of Moses, spake the truth to the people, to the priests, and to
the kings."  Horne** speaks of them as possessing great authority in the Israelitish state, and as highly esteemed by
the pious sovereigns, who undertook no important affairs
isolated towns, twenty, thirty, or fifty miles apart, instead of living as now
among their respective flocks.
* De Civitat. Dei, 1. 18. c. 21.
t Horne's Int. Pt. 5. c. 4.  $ Warburton's Div. Leg. 1. 3. Appendix,
# J. A. Alexander's Earlier Prophecies of Is. Intr. p. 16.
[[ Manual for Statesmen.   ~ Cited by Salv. 1. 2. c 3.   ** Pt. 5. c. 4,




624                 COMMENTARIES ON TIHE
without consulting them.  Alexander* represents their infiuence in the government as very powerful, not indeed by official, formal action, but as special divine messengers, whose
authority could not be disputed or resisted by any magistrate,
without abjuring the fundamental principles of the theocracy.  Miltont compares them  to the orators of the Greek
democracies. The lines which this sage and learned poet
puts into the mouth of our Savior, both from their truth and
appositeness, deserve to be cited here.
"Their orators, thou then extoll'st, as those
The top of eloquence; —statists, indeed,
And lovers of their country, as may seem;
But herein to our prophets far beneath,
As men divinely taught, and better teaching
The solid rules of civil government,
In their majestic, unaffected style,
Than all the oratory of Greece and Rome.
In them is plainest taught and easiest learnt,
What makes a nation happy, and keeps it so,
What ruins kingdoms and lays cities fiat."
Nobly said, and truthfully too! The prophetical writings
abound with the finest lessons of political wisdom. I know
Qf no compositions more worthy of the profound study of
statesmen and legislators, than the writings of the Hebrew
prophets. In seven verses of his forty-seventh chapter, beginning at the seventh verse, the prophet Isaiah, as Coleridge
has observed, revealed the true philosophy of the French revolution of 1789, more than two thousand years before it
became a sad, irrevocable truth of history. A collection of
political maxims, forming an excellent manual for statesmen,
might be culled from the books of the Hebrew  prophets; a
collection, which would surprise even diligent students of the
scriptures by the number, the variety, the purity, and the
deep and comprehensive wisdom of its counsels.
* Earl. Proph. Is. Int. p. 12.      t Paradise Regained.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           625
But it is time to look at the institution of the prophetical
office, as it is related in the Hebrew history. The record is
contained in Dent. 18: 9-22. I cite the passage in a somewhat abbreviated form, retaining, however, all the material
parts of it. " When thou comest into the land which Jehovah, thy God, giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the
abominations of those nations.  There shall not be found
among you any * * * * that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a
consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
* * * *  Jehovah, thy God, will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me;
unto him  ye shall hearken. * * * *  But the prophet,
which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I
have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the
name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. * * *
When a prophet speaketh in the name of Jehovah, if the
thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which
Jehovah hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it
presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."
On this passage I offer the following observations.
1. At the time when this law was given, it was the custom
of mankind to pry into future events. No propensity was
stronger or more general than this; and religion was universally regarded as the means of gratifying this curiosity.
Indeed, it was looked upon as a chief service, which religion
owed to her votaries, to give them  information concerning
the future. The nations, by whom the Hebrews were surrounded, had their various ways of peering into futurity,
some of which are enumerated in this law. If no means had
been provided, whereby the Israelites could foreknow things
to come, it would have been very difficult, considering the
prying curiosity of those early ages, to keep them from despising their own religion, and resorting to the divinations oe
40




626               COMMENTAIRIES ON TEE
their idolatrous neighbors. All this is noticed by Origen,*
as a ground of necessity for the establishment of the prophetical office in the Hebrew commonwealth. To keep the
Israelites from being carried away by the torrent of superstition, which overflowed and corrupted the nations, true
religion was provided with an institution, which should really
furnish that knowledge, which false religion pretended to
give. A constant succession of true prophets would be a
powerful means of weaning God's people from superstitious
practices, and of keeping them from consulting diviners to
discover what should befal them.  And this is precisely
what God promises in the passage under consideration.
2. This interpretation, which is the obvious and natural
one, confutes that which restricts the words to a prophecy
respecting the Messiah. Some interpreters do so restrict
their import, because they are expressly applied to our Savior
by Peter.t Certainly the passage has reference to Christ,
since the apostle affirms it. But who is ignorant of the
fulness of meaning, which often inheres in the words of holy
scripture? Bishop Middleton has well expressed the principle, which is applicable here. He observes, that there are
man y passages in the Old Testament, which are capable of
a twofold application; being directly applicable to circumstances then past, or present, or soon to be accomplished;
and indirectly to others, which divine providence was about
to develope under a future dispensation. Bloomfield,: while
pointing out the peculiar resemblances between Moses and
Christ, admits that, after all, this reference may not have
been directly in view, and accordingly, that this may be of
the number of those passages, to which bishop Middleton
refers, as being capable of a twofold application. Dr. J. A.
Alexander~ says, that one of the most plausible interpretations of this passage is, that it contains the promise of a con* Contra Celsum, 1. 1.   t Acts iii. 22.:   In loc.
{ Introduction to Earl. Proph. Is. p. 12.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           627
stant sueeession of inspired men, of which succession Christ
himself was to be the greatest. The word plausible here is
rather ambiguous; but it is evident, that the learned professor
inclines to the belief, that the interpretation is just, as well as
plausible.  This is the decided opinion of Michaelis,* in
which I fully concur. Beyond a doubt, there is a double
reference in the passage, viz. to the Messiah, and to the whole
line of divinely inspired prophets under the Hebrew theocracy. One of these references did not suit the purpose of
Peter, while the other did. He takes that which is in point,
without alluding to that which is not. But his use of the one
reference is not, upon any just principles of interpretation,
exclusive of the other. If a single prophet only is intended,
and that one the Lord Jesus Christ, the context seems to be
without meaning, and the whole passage out of joint. The
words, then, are to be regarded as a record of the institution
of a permanent order of men in the Israelitish commonwealth,
of whom Jesus Christ, as he would resemble Moses in being
the minister of a new dispensation and in his intimate communication with God, would at the same time be the greatest
and the most illustrious.
3. Two tests only of the truth or falsity of the claim to
prophetical inspiration are here recognized, viz. first, whether
the prophet spake in the name of Jehovah or of false gods;
and, secondly, whether or not a future event, foretold by him,
happened according to his word. Miracles could not be demanded of him in proof of a divine commission to speak in the
name of Jehovah. The power of working wonders did not
inhere in his official designation. As long, therefore, as a
pretending prophet was not convicted of being a lying prophet, he was to be tolerated, and was to go unpunished,
although he should have threatened calamity or even destruction to the state. Whoever prophecied in the name of the
true God, must be borne with, until an unfulfilled prediction
* Comment. Art. 36.




628              COMMENTARIES CN THE
proved him to be an impostor.* The trial of Jeremiah, as
related in the twenty-sixth chapter of his prophecies, casts a
strong light upon this subject. He had publicly foretold the
destruction of Jerusalem. For this he was seized, and arraigned before the princes, or senate, as worthy of death.
He offered no other defence than that the Lord had sent him
to speak as he hlad, and he was willing to die in attestation
of the truth of what he affirmed; only he added, by way of
warning, that, if they put him to death, they would surely
bring  innocent blood upon themselves.  Ie had  done
nothing, which, by the law of Moses, merited death, or even
censure. He had predicted evil to the state, but that was
not a crime, unless he had spoken it presumptuously. He
might, indeed, be a false prophet, in which case he would be
worthy of death; but as yet there was no proof of it. If it
was not a crime to be a prophet, it was not a crime to predict
calamity, for nations do not always experience good fortune.
It was his duty to foretell the truth, just as it had been revealed to him, whether it was agreeable or disagreeable. It
is remarkable, that there were prophets among his accusers;
how many is not stated, but apparently not a few.  The
court, after hearing the case, rendered a judgment of acquittal, on the ground both of law and precedent. They aver,
in their judgment, that Jeremiah had spoken in the name of
Jehovah, as the law required, and that the fact of his foretelling evil cannot be imputed as a crime, since other prophets had done the same without rebuke, of which they cite
a memorable instance. And so the case was dismissed, and
the accused set at liberty. The history of the procedure is
very interesting, and the reader is requested to peruse it for
himself.
4. So far as the right of interdiction by man was concerned, this law gave a very broad liberty to the exercise of
the prophetical office. Undoubtedly there could be no right,
* bMich. Comment. Art. 36.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            6a9
in the sight of God, to assume this office, without a true
divine commission and a supernatural divine inspiration.
]But, so far as his fellow-citizens were concerned, every man,
whatever his birth, tribe, calling, or fortune might be, could
say, "I am  a prophet."  He could proclaim to the people
the consequences of their iniquities, and freely censure the
conduct of the magistrates, of the priests, of the senators, of
the kings, of all. He could speak, preach, exhort, reprove,
and fulminate; and no man had the right to close his mouth.
On the contrary, both citizens and rulers were bound to listen
to him, when his voice was raised against corruptions and
abuses, and in favor of the just and the right.* There is no
need to cite examples of the boldness and energy, with which
the prophets reproved the sins of all, from the highest to the
lowest. Nathan dared to say to David, "Thou art the
man."+  Isaiah addressed the rulers as rebellious, as companions of thieves, as loving bribes, and as following after
rewards.:  Ezekiel speaks of the princes as resembling
wolves ravening for their prey, in their eagerness to shed
blood and get dishonest gain.~ Zephaniah represents the
princes of Israel as roaring lions, her judges as evening
wolves, her prophets as treacherous persons, and her priests
as doing violence to the law.ll  Malachi charges upon the
whole nation the crime of robbing God.T
5. This liberty, however, was restrained by a severe penalty,
to be inflicted upon the false prophet.  The prophet, who
presumed to speak without a commission from God, was to be
punished with death. The falsity of his claim to the prophetic
inspiration could be evinced by proving, either that he had
prophecied in the name of strange gods, or that he had uttered
a prediction, which was falsified by the event. The reader,
who would see the justice of so severe a penalty fully
vindicated, is referred to articles 252 and 253 of Michaelis's
* Salv. 1. 2, c. 3.  t 2 Sam. xii. 7.: Is. i. 23.
Q Ezek. xxii. 27.    [} Zeph. iii. 3, 4.   ~ Mal. ii. 8.




630               COMMENTARIES ON THE
Commentaries on the Laws of Moses. The assumption of
the prophetic office without authority was a species of treason
in the Israelitish state; and besides this, mischiefs of a fearful
magnitude flowed both from the public predictions of false
prophets, and from the secret practice of superstitious arts,
such as fortune-telling, astrology, and divinations of all sorts.
6. The passage under consideration affords solid ground for
belief in the supernatural inspiration of the true prophets of
Jehovah. What legislator, not bereft of the last spark of justice
and humanity, would punish with death a mere error in judgment?  Yet this charge is in effect brought against }Moses by
those, who represent the Hebrew prophets as nothing more
than sagaciousmen, whose natural perspicacity enabled them to
foresee and predict future events; men endowed, in a superior
degree, with the faculties of reason, imagination, and genius.
Could there be a clearer proof, if not that the prophets were
supernaturally inspired. at least that Moses and his countrymen
thought so? Unless, indeed, we are willing to suppose, that
the lawgiver himself rather deserved the punishment, which
he threatened against the violators of his law.
Upon the whole, there can be no doubt, that the prophetical
office was designed to be a great and influential element in
the Hebrew  government. The seventy elders, chosen as
assistants to Moses in the valley of Paran, were divinely
inspired men, and spake to the people under the influence of the
IHoly Spirit. From the very foundation of the state, teachers
supernaturally enlightened were appointed to instruct the
people in religion, virtue, and law; and, in the darkest periods
of the Hebrew history, God left not himself without inspired
witnesses to the truth. At length there appeared what have
been called schools of the prophets, that is, companies of
young men, taught and &isciplined under the direction of
Samuel and other aged prophets, who succeeded him. Not
that the art of prophecy became a branch of HIebrew education.
Three principal objects, we may reasonably conjecture, the




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           631
youtas, who frequented these schools, had in view,-the
improvement of their minds, growth in piety, and knowledge
of the Mosaic law. From among the persons thus disciplined
and instructed, the prophets were ordinarily, though not
uniformly, selected by God, who communicated to them, in
addition to the qualifications for the prophetical office thus
acquired, the gift of inspiration.  It was of the utmost
importance, that the prophets should have an ample and
accurate acquaintance with the laws of Moses; and it was, on
many accounts, better that they should acquire this by their
own study, than by immediate inspiration.
It would naturally be expected, that, under a law like that
which we have been examining, the prophets, true and
pretended, would form a numerous body in the state. And
such was undoubtedly the case. Every city had its prophets,
who, says Calmiet,* in the public assemblies on the sabbath,
at the new moons, and in the solemn convocations, preached
to the people, and reproved the various disorders and abuses,
which appeared in the nation.  Ezekiel has indicated, in
a manner extremely elegant and poetical, the duties of a
prophet, under the Mosaic economy.t The prophets served
as a counterpoise to the influence of the priests, the magistrates,
and the senate itself, which rarely omitted, on important
occasions, to call for the advice of one or more of the most
renowned of these inspired men.
Among such a crowd of popular preachers and orators, it
will readily be imagined, that multitudes were mere pretenders; and that there was but a feeble minority of divinely
commissioned prophets. The mass spake without divine light
and guidance. Profaning the name of Jehovah, and sacrificing the welfare of the state to their private interests, they
ignominiously sold both their consciences and their discourses.
Every page of the prophetical writings proves this. "Thy
* Dissert. on the Schools of the Hebrews, ] 11
t Ezek. xxxiii. 2, seqq.




632              COMMENTARIES ON THE
prophets," cries Jeremiah, " have seen vain and foolish things
for thee; and they have not discovered thine iniquity, to
turn away thy captivity." In the same strain, Ezekiel inveighs
against the prophets who daubed with untempered mortar, and
divined lies; and he speaks of a conspiracy of prophets, who
ravened the prey like a roaring lion, and filled their hands
with treasure and precious things. But what if some abuses
grew out of the prophetical institution? It is better, as Salvador says, to give free course to torrents of vain words, than
to arrest a single one, about to be uttered by a true messenger from heaven.
CHAPTER X.
Conclusion.
IN the foregoing pages, I have offered an analysis of the
Hebrew constitution, such as I conceive it to have been,
when it came from  the hand of the inspired Hebrew lawgiver. The constitution contained a provision that, when the
Israelites came into the promised land, it should be submitted
to the people, and formally accepted by them all. They
were to be assembled in an amphitheatre formed by two
mountains,-Ebal, a bleak. frowning rock, towering on one
side, and Geriziln, springing up covered with verdure and
beauty on the other. The one height was a prophetic monument of the prosperity and loveliness, which would follow
the observance of these institutions; the other, of the barrenness and desolation, which a disregard of the constitution
would inevitably bring upon the nation. There the tribes,
when the proper time came, were ranged in order, and




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.            633
listened to its provisions; and there they signified their
acceptance of it, by an act of free choice, which was binding
on them and their children for ever.*
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, fiom  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 Iebrew
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.t 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 statesgeneral of Israel. The Israelites exercised the right of meeting in primary assemblies, of discussing questions of public
* See Chr. Exam. for Sept. 1838.  t 1 Kings xi.




634               ~COwMNuARES Ov THE
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 Hiebrew 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 eminently foreign
to its spirit.  The local governments loom out under the
Mosaic constitution; the central government is proportionably overshadowed.  Herein the Hebrew  constitution  remarkably resembles our own, and as remarkably differs from
other ancient polities. All the ancient Asiatic governments,
and most of the European, were great centralizers. With
them, almost every thing originated and terminated in a
centre. The Greek democracies can scarcely be regarded as
an exception to this rule; the Roman commonwealth certainly was not.
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. If called upon for a single decisive proof
of the strength of the popular will under this constitution, I
would select the change in the government from the republican to the regal form. Samuel was against this change.
The oracle was against it.*   The council of Moses was
against it. The opinion and practice of a long line of illustrious chiefs were against it. It is a reasonable presumption,
* The oracle did, indeed, give its assent; but reluctantly.




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           635
that a strong party of the wisest spirits of the state was against
it. Yet the change was made. How and why? The people
willed it; the people decreed it; and so it was. What more
pregnant argument could there be of the authority and energy,
with which the collective will of the nation uttered and enforced its resolves? The quiet submission of the whole nation
to the will of the majority, after the intense excitement of the
struggle, through which it must have passed, reminds me
more strongly than any thing else in history, of a presidential election among ourselves, which is ever accompanied
with a like convulsion of the public mind, and a like subsequent acquiescence and repose of the defeated party.
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 Romrnans were still savages and barbarians. Privileged classes, enjoying the benefit of milder
laws and special exemptions, were unknown to the Mosaic constitution. Neither patent of nobility nor benefit of clergy
found any place among its provisions. 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 farther), 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




636               COMMENTARIES ON THE
imposes for the good of the community;-liberty, I say, 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 Mfosaic 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




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           637
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 a 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. And
whoever holds to the divinity of his mission, and therefore
necessarily believes, that a constitutional and representative
democracy is a form of government, stamped with the seal of
the divine approbation, while the monarchy was a concession
to the folly of the people, will thence derive a new and forcible argument to cherish and defend the precious charter of
our own liberties, since its type and model came originally
from the depths of the divine wisdom and goodness.
I have sometimes imagined all the legislators of America
gathered into one vast assemblage, and the Jewish lawgiver
appearing suddenly in their midst. " Gentlemen," he might
say to them, "at length my word is fulfilled. What you
boast of doing now, I accomplished, as far as in me lay, in
a distant age. I broke the doors of the house of bondage,
and proclaimed the principle of universal equality among
men. I substituted for castes and privileged classes, a nation
of freemen, and for arbitrary and capricious impositions, the
reign of iaw, equal and universal. I preferred peace to war,
general competence and happiness to the false glory of arms,
substantial blessings to airy nothings. My highest efforts
were constantly directed to procure for all the citizens the
greatest equality practicable, both of the labors and en



638               COMMENTARIES ON THI
joyments of life; for the whole commonwealth of Israel,
lands well cultivated, good habitations, rich herds, and a population healthy, numerous, enlightened, pious, and contented. It is false, what ignorance and irreligion have charged
against me, that I held in abhorrence, after the example of
Egypt, foreign nations.  No other legislator in the world
has ever shown to the stranger an equal justice, an equal tenderness, with myself. Nor is this all: I earnestly labored to
secure a universal intellectual equality.  Far from  being
jealous of the superiority, which God and the discipline of
my faculties had given me, I nourished the animating hope,
that all the lights, which I possessed, would one day become
the common property of all, even the humblest of my fellow,
creatures. LAws, —not men, —were the rulers of my republic; CONSENT, - not force, - the basis of my government.
Conquests, and servitude; magnificent palaces, and servitude; boundless luxury, and servitude; brilliant spectacles,
and servitude; a certain amount of science, and still servitude; —behold a brief but true picture of the governments,
by which I was surrounded. It is a libel upon my name and
memory to charge me with having framed my institutions
upon the model of those stupendous systems of fraud and
tvranny. By the wisdom of my counsels and the energy of
my policy, I overthrew, at a blow, the whole degrading apparatus of political jugglery and priestly despotism.  I
reduced.the speculative ideas of my own and the preceding
ages to a single sublime principle of simplicity. I recognized
the happiness and well-being of the people, as the one
supreme law of political philosophy.  By the institutions
founded upon this principle, I impressed a new character
upon my age and species; I gave a new impulse to man,
both in his individual and social energies I fixed upon my
labors the indestructible seal of a divine wisdom and beneficence. Forward, then, gentlemen, without fear or faltering,
in the doctrine of Jehovah,-in those great principles of free




LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.           639
and equal government, which, taught by the Divine Spirit,
I first promulgated to the world; and to which, after so many
ages of tyranny and misgovernment, you have at length
returned. Cling to these principles, legislators of a world
that had no being when I founded my republic. Give them
a broader development, a higher activity; and the civilization,
the prosperity, the happiness flowing from them, shall outstrip your fondest hopes, and more than realize the brightest
vision of bard or prophet."
Such is the spirit that speaks to us, of this distant age and
clime, in the Mosaic constitution. It is a spirit of faith,
hope, charity. There are some, who entertain apprehensions
concerning the issue of our political experiment, and who
doubt the capacity of the people for self-government. For
myself, I have no such fears. My faith in our institutions
has been strengthened by my study of the Hebrew constitution. I have seen with surprize 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 every where 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, I verily believe,
compared with which the grandest and the sublimest, hitherto
inscribed upon the rolls of taine, 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 sowed in sunshine. It is not in vernal breezes and gentle
rains, that its roots are fixed, and its growth and strength




640          LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS.
insured. 5With blood was it planted. It is rocked in tem
pests. 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. Libert~y and
law, christianity and science, religion and learning are yet to
enjoy a universal triumph, to sway a universal sceptre. The
day is to come, when human nature, relieved from the pressure imposed upon it by the abuses of ancient dynasties,
shall start afresh, with unimpeded and elastic tread, on its
destined race of improvement and perfectibility. Thanks be
to God for that rainbow of promise, with which the civil
polity of Moses has spanned the political heavens!
THE IEND,