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 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 monarch,1 who avowed himself to be the state.
Let us glance at the Decalogue2 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." 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. Here is no distinction of castes. Here 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 literacy 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 Hebrew 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 and 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, 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 commandments3, before cited, God expressly declares that he had 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."4 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,5 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 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." Montesquieu makes a reflection, which is applicable here. He 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 my 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 fully appear is we advance in our inquiries. There is no doubt, that the constitution vas 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, that any other people known in history, whether of ancient or modern times.
A few words will place this point in a clear and convincing light.
It is a principle of political philosophy, first announced by Harrington, and much insisted upon by Lowman and the elder Adams, that property in the soil is the natural foundation of power, and consequently 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. 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 form of union may be adopted for the better direction of the 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 Hebrew constitution in reference to the ownership of the soil is that of my third supposition. Moses 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.6 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 indefeasible entail, in perpetual succession.7
The principle which lies at the bottom of this argument for the political equality of the Hebrew 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 according 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. He held that the sovereignty of a state is an inseparable attribute of property in the soil. Lord Bacon and Harrington were of the same opinion. The former uses property and dominion as convertible terms, 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 Moses 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 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 suffering from want. Misery was not the hereditary lot of one class, nor boundless wealth of another. The government watched over all, and cared for all alike. No citizen could justly charge his poverty to its neglect.
The agrarian law 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 practiced, 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."8 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 did it watch, that the people might never molder 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 that 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.9 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 admirably 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.10 The chains fell from the exulting slave. The burden of debt, like that of Bunyan's Pilgrim, rolled off from shoulders, 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.11
NOTES:
1 Louis XIV. 2 Exodus 20. 3 Exodus 20:2. 4 Leviticus 26:13. 5 Leviticus 2:14. 6 Numbers 33:54. 7 Leviticus 25:23. 8 2 Thessalonians 3:10. 9 Leviticus 25:10,13. 10 Leviticus 25:9. 11 A reflection of Lord Bacon, in his History of Henry VII (p. 72) is pertinent here. He is commending the wisdom of the law, which required, "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 might and manhood of the kingdom," how much more the agrarian of Moses!
