CHAPTER XVII. THE CIVIL INSTITUTES OF MOSES; OR THE HEBREW CODE OF CIVIL LAW. IN scripture phrase, the code is most often called 'The statutes and the judgments"-the "commandments and precepts" which the Lord gave by Moses (Deut. 6: 1 and Ex. 21: 1). I approach this subject with a feeling of regret that the necessary limits of this volume forbid any attempt to make my presentation of this topic exhaustive. The utmost I can do within the limits prescribed is to give an outline rather than a full development of this code. I shall aim to make this outline full enough to show the steps and stages of progress in the science of legislation which are obvious in these "statutes and judgments." I must first call attention to certain points of a general nature, most of which will need only a brief state ment. 1. This code of laws was given to the Hebrews by God himself, through the hand of Moses. For the sake of brevity and to distinguish it from other codes we may speak of it as the code of Moses and may speak of Moses as the Hebrew lawgiver; yet let it be said once for all that we recognize no authority-no authorship other than that of God himself. 2. This code was built upon the moral law of Sinaithe ten commandments. It simply expands and applies the general principles expressed or implied in that summary. 3. It was framed with the purpose of reaching the highest moral standard practicable in the circumstances of the people-the highest which it was possible to enforce. This doctrine assumes that any special statute which is so far above the moral status of the people as to be practically inoperative and void may be for this very reason an evil rather than a good inasmuch as it may break down rather than build up the law-abiding (270) spirit of the people. Consequently the best statute for any given people may be the best that can be in the main enforced-the best which they can be brought up to respect and obey. Hence it may happen that some of the statutes in the best practicable system will be only second best-i. e. not theoretically perfect, but only the best practically for the circumstances. We may illustrate this by the law of divorce, as to which Jesus himself remarks that Moses "because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so" (Mat. 19: 8). The provisions for an easy divorce were a concession to a sadly low morality among the people-the best under the circumstances-the best that could be made operative with that people, but by no means theoretically perfect. The reader will take note that we had no occasion to apply this principle to the moral law of the ten commandments, nor indeed to the underlying principles of this code of "statutes and judgments," but only to some of its practical applications of these principles. 4. It is an inference from our last-named point that this code must needs take the people as they were; must have regard to existing usages, to the common law under which they had been living, and perhaps must be compelled to tolerate some undesirable usages until better principles could be inculcated and a higher moral tone of public sentiment could be established. Illustrations of this principle appear in the prevalent system of servitude, and in polygamy. 5. Another inference from the point above made is that this code can not be held responsible for what was in existence before its promulgation; e. g. personal slavery. It can be held responsible only for doing the best that could be done with such a people-a people so educated, accustomed to such usages and trained in such ideas. 6. That this code, though given by the Lord himself, was not theoretically perfect but only the best practicable, is obvious from the fact that it was from time to time modified. Cases of this appear in the law respecting the six years' emancipation of Hebrew servants (compare Ex. 21: 2-7 with Deut. 15: 12-17); the taking of pledges from the poor for the payment of debts: (compare Ex. 22: 26 with Deut. 24: 6, 10–15). See also the law of inheritance in a family consisting of daughters only (Num. 36). 7. That this code was framed with the design of a special adaptation to the Hebrew people appears in such facts as these, viz. that though it went into immediate effect and continued in force during their wandering life in the wilderness forty years, yet it anticipated their ultimate residence in Canaan, especially in its land-law and its provision for the entailment of real estate. Also it anticipated the future demand for a king according to the usage of contiguous nations and provided for this modification in the general gov ernment. 8. At the point where the administration of justice first appears, the sole responsibility seems to have rested on Moses (Ex. 18). At the suggestion of Jethro (as we have seen) important modifications were introduced. Further modifications were made after the settlement in Canaan. In consequence of the close connection between the church and the state-the religious law and the civil-the same class of men were to a great extent put in charge of both. The tribe of Levi became the ministers of religion and the administrators of civil law as well. Exempted chiefly from agriculture and from military service, they became the learned class the lawyers of the nation. "The priests' lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the law at his mouth" (Malachi 2: 7). 9. The question how far this divinely revealed code of law is authoritative upon human legislators and should control legislation in this Christian age, should be carefully considered. With no attempt to exhaust this question, I may suggest briefly:-(1.) That the great principles of this code should underlie every code of human law. These principles must be good for all time-for man in his social and civil relations everywhere. For example, its doctrine of equity; its law of love; its regard for the personal rights of life, chastity, property; its doctrine of the essential equality of every man's rights before the law; and its assumption that the poor, being otherwise defenseless, have special need of the protection of law, and should be regarded therefore as the special wards of government and its of ficers. (2.) As the moral law of the ten commandments is obviously the compend and summary of the great principles which underlie this Hebrew code, so should this moral law be the compend and summary of the principles that should underlie every human code of law in whatever age of the world and in whatever stages of civilization.- (3.) As the Hebrew code while accepting the supreme authority of the ten commandments and aiming to embody and apply its principles did yet allow to itself a certain latitude in adjusting its "precepts and statutes" to the condition of the people, so may human legislators. Lessons of wisdom may be drawn from this code in both these lines. of its example; viz. its fidelity to the principles and doctrines of the perfect moral law of Sinai; and its careful adaptation of these principles to the actual status of the people so as to reach the highest possible amount of practical efficiency in securing the ends of justice and of virtue. The brief analysis and treatment of the civil code here attempted will follow mainly the same order of subjects which appears in the law of Sinai; thus: I. Crimes against God: 1. Idolatry;-2. Perjury;-3. Presumptuous sins;-4. Violations of the Sabbath;-5. Blasphemy;-6. Magic. II. Crimes against parents and rulers (Fifth commandment). III. Crimes against the person and life (Sixth commandment). IV. Crimes against chastity (Seventh commandment). V. Crimes against property; laws respecting property (Eighth commandment). VI. Crimes against reputation; violations of truth (Ninth commandment). VII. Hebrew servitude. I. Crimes against God: 1. Idolatry. The laws against idolatry included both the professed worship of the true God by means of images, and the worship of other gods. As the law of Sinai for bade both these practices with no special discrimination between them, so did the "statutes and judgments"-the law apparently holding it of small account to attempt any discrimination. In the case of the golden calf (Ex. 32) Aaron having more knowledge of the true God than the body of the people, may have thought only of worshiping the Lord ("To-morrow is a feast to the Lord"); but the people bringing their notions from their Egyptian life, may have had no thought beyond the calf, and so may have worshiped it as their God. Plainly the professed worship of God by means of images was a perpetual temptation to let slip all just conceptions of God and to worship images only, or some other object than God. No discrimination in point of penalty appears in the law. Both forms seem to have been condemned and punished with no attempt to discriminate between them. Individual idolaters, after careful examination and clear proof of guilt, were stoned-the witnesses casting the first stone (Deut. 17: 2-7). No man might allow himself to be seduced into the worship of other gods-no, not by a brother, or a son, or a wife, or by friend dear as his own soul, but must expose the sin of his seducer and spare not his very life (Deut. 13: 6-11). A city given to idolatry, if the case be proven, must be utterly destroyed and made a perpetual desolation (Deut. 13: 12-16). The statutes were absolutely sweeping against any possible form of similitude, image, or representation, made for an object of worship; and also against the worship of the heavenly bodies-a form of idolatry both ancient and widely diffused (Deut. 4: 13-19).To guard them against temptation in the social line, they were forbidden to eat in idolatrous festivals (Ex. 34: 15). Apparently many special usages were forbidden because of their associations with idol worship (Lev. 19: 27, 28). The prohibition to eat blood or fat may have been in part sanitary, but probably was also anti-idolatrous. The distinction between things clean and unclean helped to make them a peculiar people, and may have been so intended. 2. Perjury. The law of Sinai tacitly indicates that the Lord himself would take the perjurer in hand, would never hold him guiltless, and would be responsible for his punishment. The statutes touch only a |