It is impossible not to admire the benevolence which runs through the entire of this piece of legis lation ; and when the age to which its origin is referred, and the peculiar circumstances under which it was produced, are considered, our admi ration rises to a very high pitch, and we feel that it is most insufficient praise to say that nothing so benign in spirit had been previously conceived : nothing more beneficent and humane has been carried into effect, even since Jesus came to seek and to save the lost The conduct which the Romans observed towards the debtor affords a striking contrast to what is thus required by Moses. Insolvent debtors might be compelled to serve their creditors, and often had to endure treat ment as bad as that of slaves (Liv. 23 ; A. Gell.
xx. 19 ; Appian, Ital. p. 4o). In Athens also the creditor had a claim to the person of the debtor (Nut. Vit. So/. 15). Moses himself seems to have admitted some restrictions to his benevolent laws ; for from Lev. xxv. 39, seq., it appears that a poor Israelite might be sold to one possessed of substance : he was, however, to serve, not as a bond, but as a hired servant, who at the jubilee was restored with bis children to entire liberty, so that lie might re turn unto the possession of his fathers.
That the system of law regarding loans was car ried into effect there is no reason to doubt. It formed an essential part of the general constitution, and therefore came recommended vvith the entire sanction which that system had on its own behalf ; nor were there any predominant antagonist prin ciples at work which would prevent this from proceeding step by step, in its proper place and time, with the residue of the Mosaic legislation. Nor do the passages of Scripture ( Job xxii. 6; xxiv. 3 ; Matt. xviii. 28 ; Prov. xxviii. 8 ; Ezek. xviii. ; Ps. xv. 5 ; cix. 1) which give us reason to think that usury was practised and the poor debtor op pressed, shew anything but those breaches to which laws are always liable, especially in a period when morals grow corrupt and institutions in consequence decline ; on the contrary, the stem reproofs which such violations called forth forcibly demonstrate that the legislation in question had taken effect, and had also exerted a powerful influence on the national character, and on the spirit with which the misdeeds of rich oppressors and the injuries of the needy were regarded.
While, however, the benign tendency of the laws in question is admitted, may it not be questioned whether they were strictly just ? Such a doubt could arise only in a mind which viewed the subject from the position of our actual society. A modern might plead that he had a right to do what he pleased with his own ; that his property of every kind—land, food, money—was his own ; and that he was justified to turn all and each part to account for his own benefit. Apart from religious consi derations this position is hnpregnable. But such a view of property finds no support in the Mosaic institutions. In them property has a divine origin,
and its use is intrusted to man on certain conditions, which conditions are as valid as is the tenure of pro perty itself. In one sense, indeed, the entire land —all property—was a great loan, a loan lent of God to the people of Israel, who might well there fore acquiesce in any arrangement which required a portion—a small portion—of this loan to be under certain circumstances accessible to the destitute. This view receives confirmation from the fact that interest might be taken of persons who were not Hebrews, and therefore lay beyond the sphere em braced by this special arrangement. It would open too wide a field did we proceed to consider how far the Mosaic system might be applicable in the world at large ; but this is very clear to our mind, that the theory of property on which it rests—that is, making property to be divine in its orig,in, and therefore tenable only on the fulfilment of such con ditions as the great laws of religion and morality enforce—is more true and more philosophical (ex cept in a college of Atheists) than the narrow and baneful ideas which ordinarily prevail.
Ilad the Hebrews enjoyed a free intercourse with other nations, the permission to take usury of foreigners might have had the effect of impoverish ing Palestine by affording a strong inducement for employing capital abroad ; but, under the actual restrictions of the Mosaic law, this evil was impos sible. Some not inconsiderable advantages must have ensued from the observance of these laws. The entire alienation and loss of the lent property were prevented by that peculiar institution which restored to every man his property at the great year of release. In the interval between the jubilees the system under consideration would tend to prevent those inequalities of social condition which always arise rapidly, and which have not seldona brought disaster and ruin on states. The affluent were re quired to part -with a portion of their affluence to supply the wants of the needy, without exacting that recompense which would only make the rich richer and the poor more needy ; thus superinduc ing a state of things scarcely more injurious to the one than to the other of these two parties. There was also in this system a strongly conservative in fluence. Agriculture was the foundation of the constitution. Had money-lending been a trade, money -making would also have been eagerly pursued. Capital would be withdrawn from the land ; the agriculturist would pass into the usurer ; huge inequalities would arise ; commerce would assume predominance, and the entire common wealth be overturned—changes and evils which were prevented, or, if not so, certainly retarded and abated, by the code of laws regarding loans. As it was, the gradually increasing wealth of the country was in the main laid out on the soil, so as to aug ment its productiveness and distribute its bounties.