tunately he was not gifted as an orator, and so did not depend upon fervid harangues. Instead he initiated a well-planned campaign. First he educated his fellow Israelites (Ex. 429-31): So Moses went and gathered together all the elders of the Israelites, and spoke all the words which Jehovah had spoken to him, and did the signs in the sight of the people. And the people believed; and when they heard that Jehovah had visited the Israelites, and that he had seen their affliction, they bowed low their heads in worship. Later, when conditions were favourable, he organised them for definite action. He also formulated the just demands of the oppressed industrial class which he represented and then personally presented them to the reigning Pharaoh. When these demands were refused he resorted to practical agitation. His frequent stormy interviews with the king were significant, because he was able thereby to impress the right of his cause and the social principles for which he contended upon his kinsmen and upon the people of Egypt. Having exhausted these methods, he depended upon patient, persistent waiting for the outworking of the social and economic laws through which the rule of God is manifested in the life of the world. In his thought, as in the minds of the early Hebrew story-tellers, Jehovah was the personal embodiment of all these laws. He was regarded as the immediate as well as the ultimate cause of all natural phenomena. The foreign invasions, the degeneracy of the reigning house, the anarchy, the resulting unhygienic conditions, the pestilences, and the sudden collapse of power, which about 1200 B.C. came in rapid succession upon the once rich and mighty Egyptian empire, were believed by the early Hebrew historians to be special miracles performed by Jehovah at the request of Moses in order to liberate their ancestors. There is every reason to believe, however, that God is the same to-day as yesterday, and that he then as now used natural and economic forces in accomplishing his purpose in human history. If so, this ancient industrial struggle possesses a unique interest and value for the modern industrial age. THE CRISIS IN EGYPT 11 The Great Social and Economic Principles Illustrated by the Crisis in Egypt. The issue was so clearly drawn, the factors involved were so obvious, and the outcome was so decisive that the social and economic principles illustrated by this great industrial struggle stand out clear-cut and convincing. The first is that the union of great wealth and political power in the hands of one man or of a few men is fatal to the ultimate prosperity of a nation and to the welfare and happiness of its citizens. It is only through the united judgment and the loyal co-operation of a majority of the people that the economic and political powers of a nation can be wisely exercised. Centralised in a few irresponsible hands, it is subject to personal caprice and ambition, as is dramatically illustrated by the reign of Ramses II. The second principle is that when men are unjustly herded together and pitilessly exploited, they inevitably breed contagion and pestilence as well as discontent and the spirit of insurrection. Furthermore, when the industrial workers are thus exploited, the masters of industry who are responsible for these evils in the end also inevitably feel the dire consequences. Into the royal palace in ancient Egypt the dread pestilence stalked, claiming as its own the heir to the throne. To-day from the congested tenement districts the germs of filth diseases and the more deadly moral contagions, without regard for social distinction, invade the homes of the rich and cultured. Furthermore, excessive wealth won by injustice in the end proves in itself a destructive nemesis. It was the vice and luxury begotten by wealth that ultimately destroyed the efficiency of the reigning Egyptian house and brought about its downfall. Human history is full of similar illustrations. Equally significant is the positive principle that is clearly illustrated by Moses' own experience: violence never avails in correcting industrial evils. The only true method is that of Moses: education and organisation of those industrially oppressed; clear presentation of their claims and rights; patient, persistent agitation in order to educate public opinion; and efficient organisation to protect their interests. These are the methods which won in ancient Egypt in the twelfth century before Christ, and they alone will secure justice for the same classes to-day. The Social Significance of the Deliverance of the Hebrews. The exodus from Egypt did far more for the Hebrews than merely deliver them from a galling industrial serfdom. It gave them a keen sense of national unity. It also afforded them an opportunity in the free life of the wilderness and in close contact with their nomadic kinsmen to develop the social institutions which they had inherited from their Semitic ancestors. Here Moses was able to impress upon them the moral and social ideals which lie at the foundations of the laws which later generations formulated and attributed to him. The painful experiences of the Hebrews in Egypt taught them to hate political and industrial tyranny of every kind. Involuntarily, their sympathies were forever enlisted in behalf of the victims of social and industrial oppression. No other ancient people showed such tender consideration for the slave, the resident alien, the widow, the orphan, and the hired laborer. Many of Israel's noblest philanthropic laws are reinforced by the formula (e. g., Dt. 515, 2422): Remember that thou wasta slave in the land of Egypt, and that Jehovah thy God brought thee out from there by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Above all, this signal experience led the Hebrews to think of their Deity as a God full of sympathy for the afflicted and dependent and ever eager to champion their cause against cruel oppressors. It is this dominating social element in Israel's early religion that absolutely distinguishes it from all other primitive faiths. This unique social factor in their theology alone explains why the Hebrew prophets rejected the merely ceremonial and credal conceptions of religion and defined its obligations ever more clearly in terms of justice and mercy and love to all mankind. THE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH Israel's Social Inheritance. The social ideals of Judaism and Christianity are the culmination of a long evolutionary process. That evolution began centuries before the ancestors of the Hebrews entered the land of Palestine. In the old nomadic life of the wilderness the primitive Semites wrought out a social creed which they embodied in their customs and institutions and rigorously guarded by taboos and religious sanctions. That creed was the result of an infinite number of social experiments. To a large extent its form was determined by their physical environment. It was the supreme fact in their life. It was so interwoven with religion that in their thought the two were indistinguishable. It was for them the foundation of all ethics; for personal morals apart from the obligation of the individual to the family or clan or tribe were then unknown. The individual survived only by virtue of his membership in this group. The group also could survive only through the loyalty of each member. Hence each man was under solemn obligation to give to it everything which he possessed: his thought, his labour, and, if need be, his life. If any one of the members of his clan or tribe was injured, he must avenge the wrong as he would had his own blood been shed. His social responsibilities were therefore his one constant concern. Within the ancient Hebrew clan or tribe the atmosphere was thoroughly democratic. All worked together for the common social group. All stood on a practical equality. All had a voice, either directly or through the heads of their families, in the councils of the clan or tribe. Such inequalities as existed were chiefly the result of varying degrees of personal ability and service to the community. Even property appears to have been held in common. While the title to it was nominally held by the oldest member of the family or clan, in theory he simply acted as the trustee for the other members of the small social group. The Hebrews, therefore, began their national life with a well-developed social consciousness, with a thoroughly democratic conception of government and an almost socialistic theory of property. The Social Transformation in Israel's Early History. The transition from the nomadic to the agricultural stage was the most significant step in Israel's social history. Fortunately, owing to the peculiar physical character of Palestine, it was gradual. Also the Hebrews always had on their southern and eastern borders a nomadic population with which they were in closest touch. These conditions enabled them to carry over and adjust their inherited social institutions to the settled agricultural life of Palestine. The family remained the primal social unit. The village and city took the place of the ancient clan; but the elders or heads of families remained the chief officials in the new social order. Under the crushing pressure of Philistine invasion the different Hebrew tribes were forced to yield their individual authority sufficiently to make united. action under a common leader possible. Thus the Hebrew kingdom was established under the direction of Samuel and the leadership of the Benjamite Saul. This step corresponded closely to the action of the American colonies in the days of the Revolution. The result was not a kingdom, in the generally accepted sense, but rather a federation of colonies or tribes. The head of this confederacy was called a king, but he was from the first regarded simply as an influential tribal sheik. He and his successors were elected or, if nominated by the dying king, as in the case of Solomon, were accepted by the representatives of the tribes. The tribes maintained their right to reject the nominee of the king and to elect another in his place. The Hebrew king was originally regarded simply as the servant of the people. From the first the Hebrew commonwealth |