Besides the tithes there was a small poU-tax, amount- ing to half a shekel for each adult male. This tax was paid for the maintenance of the sanctuary. In atUlition to this, the first-fruits and the first-born of men and cattle augmented the revenue. The first-bom of men and of unclean beasts were to be redeemed by mone}-. To this may be added some fines paid in the shape of sin-offerings, and also the vo^vs and free-wiU offerings.
3. In addition to these great moral and liturgical ends of the Mosaic institutes, we must not fail to notice their REPUBLICAN ECONOMY. The whole territory of the state was to be so distributed that each family should have a freehold, which was intended to remain perma- nently the inheritance of that family, and which, even if sold, was to return at stated periods to its original o%vners. Since the whole population consisted of fami- lies of freeholders, there was, strictly speaking, neither citizens, nor a profane or lay nobility, nor lords tempo- ral. We do not overlook the fact that there were per- sons called heads, elders, princes, dukes, or leaders among the Israelites ; that is, persons who by their intelligence, character, wealth, and other circumstances were leading men among them, and from whom even the seventy judges were chosen who assisted IVIoscs in administer- ing justice to the nation. But we have no proof that there was a nobility enjoying prerogatives similar to those which are connected with birth in several coun- tries of Europe, sometimes in spite of mental and moral disqualifications. We do not find that, according to the Mosaic constitution, there were hereditary peers tem- poral. Even the inhabitants of towns were freeholders, and their exercise of trades seems to have been com- bined with, or subordinate to, agricultural ]>ursuits. The only nobility was that of the tribe of Levi, and all the lords were lords spiritual, the descendants of Aaron. The priests and Levites were ministers of public wor- ship, that is, ministers of Jehovah the King, and, as such, ministers of state, by whose instrumentality the legislative as well its the judicial power was exercised. The poor were mercifully considered, but beggars are never mentioned. Hence it appears that as, on the one hand, there was no lay nobility, so, on the other, there was no mendicity.
LAW OF MOSES
291
LAW OF MOSES
Owing to the rebellious spirit of the Israelites, the salutary injunctions of their law Avere so frequently transgressed that it could not procure for them that de- gree of prosperity wliicli it was calculated to produce among a nation of faithful observers; but it is evident that the Mosaic legislation, if truly observed, was more fitted to promote universal happiness and tranquillity tlian any other constitution, either ancient or modern.
4. We close this part of our discussion by a few mis- cellaneous observations on minor peculiarities of the Mosaic code.
It has been deemed a defect that there were no laws against infanticide ; but it may well be observed, as a proof of national prosperity, that there are no historical traces of this crime ; and it would certainly have been preposterous to give laws against a crime \vhich did not occur, especially as the general law against murder, "Thou shalt not kill," was applicable to this species also. I'lie words of Josephus (Contra Apionem, ii, 24) can only mean that the crime was against the spirit of the Mosaic law. An express verbal prohibition of this kind is not extant.
Tliere occur also no laws and regulations about wills and testamentary dispositions, although there are suf- ficient historical facts to prove that the next of kin was considered the lawfid heir, that primogeniture was deemed of the highest importance, and that, if there were no male descendants, females inherited the freehold property. We learn from the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews (ix, IG, 17) that the Jews disposed of property by wills ; but it seems that in the time of IMoses, and for some period after him, all Israelites died intestate. However, the word SinOijKi], as used in ]Matthew, IMark, Acts, Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, and re- peatedly in the Hebrews, implies rather a disposition, arrangement, agreement between parties, than a wiU in the legal acceptation of the term. See Testament.
There are no laws concerning guardians, and none against luxurious living. The inetHciency of sumptu- ary laws is now generally recognised, although renowned legislators in ancient times and in the Middle Ages dis- played on this subject their wisdom, falsely so called.
Neither are there any laws against suicide. Hence we infer tliat suicide was rare, as we may well suppose in a nation of small freeholders, and that the inefficiency of such laws was understood.
The Jlosaic legislation recognises the human dignity of women and of slaves, and particularly enjoins not to slander the deaf nor mislead the blind.
Moses expressly enjoined not to reap the corners of fields, in consideration of the poor, of persons of broken fortimes, and even of the beasts of the field.
Tlie laws of INIoses against crimes are severe, but not cruel. The agony of the death of criminals was never artificially protracted, as in some instances Avas usual in various countries of Europe even in the present century; nor was torture employed in order to compel criminals to confess their crimes, as was usual in ancient times, and till a comparatively recent period. Forty was the maximum number of stripes to be inflicted. This max- imum was adopted for the reason expressly stated that the appearance of the person punished should not be- come liorril>le, or, as J. D. Michaelis renders it, bur7if, which expresses the appearance of a person unmerciful- ly beaten. Punishments were inflicted in order special- ly to express the sacred indignation of tlie divine Law- giver against wilful transgression of his commandments, and not for any purposes of human vengeance, or for the sake of frightening other criminals. In some in- stances the people at large were appealed to in order to inflict summary punishment by stoning the criminal to death. This was, in fact, the most usual mode of exe- cution. Other modes of execution also, such as burn- ing, were always public, and conducted with the co- operation of the people. Like every human proceeding, this was liable to abuse, but not to so much abuse as our present mode of conducting lawsuits, which, on ac-