If any be unable to pay a debt, and he sell the maidservant who has borne him children for money, the money which the trader has paid shall be repaid to him by the owner of the maid, and she shall be freed [or ransomed]. 119. If the wife of a man has been caught in lying with any male, one shall bind them and throw them into the waters. If the owner of the wife would save her, or the king his slave [he may]. 129. If a man violate the wife [betrothed] of another man, who has not known a man, and who is still living in the house of her father, this man shall be put to death, but the wife is blameless. 130. If a wife of a man on account of another male has had the finger pointed at her, and has not been caught sleeping with another male, she shall jump into the river for her husband. 132. If a man has set his face to put away his concubine, who has borne him children, or his wife who has given him children, to that woman he shall return her marriage portion, ... and she shall bring up her children, ... and she shall marry the husband of her choice. 137. thing taken away by violence; ... or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely ... then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he sball restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found; . . . he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto. Lev. vi, 2-5. If thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go empty: thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy threshing-floor, and out of thy winepress. Deut. xv, 12-14. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her [the captive concubine], then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast humbled her. Deut. xxi, 14. And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Lev. xx, 10. But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die: but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death. Deut. xxii, 25. This law of ordeal is given in Num. v, 12-28, which the reader may consult, since it is too long to be inserted here. When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. Deut. xxiv, 1, 2. If a man has betrothed a wife to his son, and his son has known her, and he [the father] afterward defile her and has been caught, then he shall be bound and cast into the waters [that is, drowned]. 155. According to John the betrothed wife shall also be drowned. If a man has betrothed a girl to his son, and his son has not known her, and if then he has defiled her, he shall pay her half a mina of silver, and shall pay to her whatever she brought from her father's house, and she may marry the husband of her choice. 156. If anyone is guilty of incest with his own mother after his father, both shall be burned. 157. If anyone be caught after his father in the bosom of her that brought him up [stepmother], who has borne children, he shall be driven out of his father's house. 158. If a man has apportioned to his son, whom he prefers, field, garden, and house, and has given a sealed deed; after the father's death, when the brothers divide [the property], the present his father gave him shall he take, and over and above shall he equally share in the paternal property. 165. (See also 171.) If he be guilty of a grave crime against his father which cuts him off from sonship, he shall be forgiven for the first time, but if he be found guilty a second time, his father may cut him off from sonship. 169. If the son of a paramour, or of a vowed woman [prostitute] say to the father and mother that brought him up, "You are not my father or mother," his tongue shall be cut off. 192. If the son of a paramour or prostitute has known his father's house, and has hated his adoptive father and mother and goes off to his father's house, one shall tear out his eye. 193. If a man has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off. 195. If a man has caused the loss of an And if a man lie with his daughterin-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. Lev. xx, 12. If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her. Deut. xxii, 28, 29. The nakedness of thy father, even the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover. Lev. xviii, 7. (For the penalty see Lev. xx, 11.) And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev. xx, 11. And Sarah my master's wife bare a son to my master when she was old: and unto him hath he given all that he hath. Gen. xxiv, 36. And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts. Gen. xxv, 5, 6. If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and though they chasten him, will not hearken unto them: then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city. . . . And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deut. xxi, 18-21. For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. Lev. xx, 9. The following seems to point to the same law: The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it. Prov. xxx, 17. He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. Exod. xxi, 15. Thou shalt give life for life, eye for other man's eye, his eye shall be put out. 196. If he has broken another man's limb, his limb shall be broken. 197. (See also 200.) If he put out the eye of anyone's slave, or break the bone of anyone's slave, he shall pay one half of his value. 199. If a man, during a quarrel, has struck another and wounded him; then he shall swear, "I did not hurt him willingly," and shall pay the physician. 206. If he has died of his blows, he shall swear, and if he was a freeborn man, he shall pay half a mina of silver. 207. If he be the son of a poor man, he shall pay one third of a mina of silver. 208. If a man strike a freeborn woman and cause her to lose her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels of silver for what was in her womb. 209. If that woman die, his daughter shall be put to death. 210. If a man has hired an ox or ass [sheep], and a lion has killed it in the field, that loss is for its owner. 244. If the ox has gored a man, and it is proved that he has been used to gore, and if he [the owner] do not bind his horns, or shut up the ox, and this ox gore a freeborn man, and kill him, the owner shall pay half a mina of silver. 251. If he [the ox] kill a man's servant, then a fine of one third of a mina in silver must be paid. 252. eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Exod. xxi, 24, 25. If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, and destroy it; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake. Exod. xxi, 26, 27. If men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed if he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed. Exod. xxi, 18, 19. And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall surely be punished. Exod. xxi, 20. If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. Exod. xxi, 22, 23. If it [any beast] be torn in pieces, let him bring it for witness; he shall not make good that which was torn. Exod. xxii, 13. But if the ox were wont to gore in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. Exod. xxi, 29. If the ox gore a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. Exod. xxi, 32. Finally, we can say with Jeremias: Moses and the law are not empty words. The discovery of the Hammurabi Code has brought Moses back to the glorious company of great lawgivers. His existence is an historical necessity. We may safely say with Von Ranke, "Moses is the most sublime personality of ancient history." FOREIGN OUTLOOK. SOME LEADERS OF THOUGHT. Jean Réville. He has recently assumed the rôle of an apologist of what he calls liberal Protestantism, in the presence of a miscellaneous audience in Geneva where he delivered five lectures on the origin, nature, and mission of liberal Christianity. At the outset we are compelled to praise him for the method of procedure. In opposition to the conservatives, whose standpoint he looks upon as outgrown, he undertakes to show that liberal Protestantism is the true form of Christianity for modern times; and in opposition to those who have broken with religion in general, and who look upon all faith of a religious nature as superstition, he attempts to prove that the Christian not only need not abandon reason, but that religion legitimates itself before both reason and conscience, and that a unitary understanding of the world is possible only in the light of religion. Thus his purpose is not merely to combat the old theology, but rather to sustain the essential elements of religion as he sees them. He says that negation is sterile, and that especially in the domain of religion and morality affirmation alone can produce the energy necessary to life. The genesis of liberal Protestantism is, according to Réville, nothing less than the Reformation itself considered in the light of its fundamental character and consistently and logically carried out. In other words, it is nothing but the Reformation in modern society, and it is neither conservative on the one hand, nor revolutionary on the other, but a progress and an evolution. In general Réville tries to preserve the religious and ethical values even where he feels obliged to sacrifice the substance of orthodoxy, and he is convinced that anyone who will strive to realize all that he maintains as necessary to religion will not think of the religion of liberal Protestantism as poor and inadequate. With this estimate of it we cannot quite agree. There is a "liberality" which is consistent with profound earnestness in religion, even among the masses. But that form of religious faith and practice which seems to delight in calling itself liberal generally has for its effect, except with a very few, a relaxing of all the ordinary expressions of religious zeal. Nor is Réville's contention that liberal Protestantism is the logical outcome of the fundamental principles of the Reformation correct, except in the formal sense that one of the fundamental principles of the Reformation was the right of private judgment in matters of religion. For anyone to say that the ordinarily so-called liberal Protestantism is the logical outcome of the Reformation is to be guilty of the worst kind of logical fallacy. The right of private judgment does not necessarily, nor even generally, lead men to that form of faith which is so dear to the "liberal." Besides, that other fundamental principle of the Reformation, namely, the final authority of the Holy Scriptures in matters of faith, is simply abandoned by those who love to call themselves liberals. There are, indeed, liberals who hold to the authority of the Scripture; but they are not those who parade their liberality. It would be a sufficient refutation of the professed liberals to ask which of their doctrines and practices is an evolution of a doctrine or practice of the principal reformers. For the most part the doctrines of the reformers are so changed by the liberals of to-day as to be contrary to the doctrines of the Reformation. There is something essentially perverse or else essentially dishonest in the reasoning of the so-called liberal Protestant. Julius Boehmer. He has recently given us an interesting study of the Old Testament basis of the doctrine of the kingdom of God (Der alttestamentliche Unterbau des Reiches Gottes. Leipzig, 1902, J. C. Hinrichs'che Buchhandlung). The question in his mind at the beginning of his investigations was whether there was in the minds of the writers of the Old Testament the idea of a kingdom of God and what they meant by the expression. It is Boehmer's purpose to take up in a later work the limits on the same theme given in the apocryphal, pseudepigraphical, and Talmudic literature, so far as this is pre-Christian or contemporary with the beginnings of Christianity. It will thus be his particular merit to have striven to supplement and enlarge the study of the kingdom of God as hitherto conducted. By so doing he will deserve nothing but thanks, even though not all might agree to his conclusions. Boehmer holds that originally Israel not only had the divine name Melech, but that that name meant to Israel what it meant to all other Semites. The gradual development of the religion of Jehovah on the one side, and the establishment of the kingly power on the other, made the name Jehovah as a kingly name impossible. The kingdom itself appeared to the devout Israelites as a blessing sent from Jehovah. But the evil consequences of the kingly rule which gradually became apparent led to a contrary opinion. The preexilian estimate of the Davidic kingdom, present and future, became more and more unfavorable. Meantime Jehovah became greater and greater; but, although his position had long been a royal one, after Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Hezekiah, his kingship exhibited itself only in penal judgments on his own people and heathen nations. He could be thought of as Saviour-King only after the Davidic kingdom was past and the idea of the Melech deity had relatively faded out of the consciousness of the prophets. This took place at the end of the exile and appears first in Second Isaiah, who represents King Jehovah as the procurer of salvation for the future Israel. Subsequent to that time two separate series of conceptions of Jehovah as King may be traced. The first connects directly with Jehovah, who is thought of as the bringer of salvation in the near future; the second thinks of King Jehovah as the possessor of all power and might. Boehmer regards the first as the specifically Israelitish conception and as corresponding to the lofty prophetic or revealed religion. The second is more nearly a nature religion, and although it threw off some of the objectionable features of Melechism, and was influenced somewhat by the first conception, so that the power of Jehovah was subservient to the interests of morals, still it was distinctly lower than the first. Here is the distinction between the |