majority of the Israelites became farmers after a time, and worshiped the Amorite gods. But the assumption is impossible that all, without exception, bowed the knee to the Baals. Agriculture flourished more genially in Ephraim than elsewhere; and here the fusion of Israelites and Amorites was more thorough than anywhere else. But the other two divisions of the country-Judah and Gilead-stood in closer touch with the Arabian desert, and remained on more primitive economic levels. Judah's rocky soil was more friendly to the shepherd than to the farmer, as many examples prove. Gilead was "a place for cattle" (Num. 32:1). Here, the goats lay along the mountain side (Song of Sol. 4:1). Here, people and flock fed in the ancient days (Mic. 7:14). And here Yahweh would bring Israel once more to the sheepfold and the hills (Jer. 50:19). It is highly significant that the first two great prophets, Elijah and Amos, are identified with Gilead and Judah respectively (I Kings 17:1; Amos 1:1). In protesting against the corruption of the age, they are both represented as leaving their own, more primitive homes, and going over into Ephraim, the favored land of agriculture and the stronghold of the Amorite gods.

No distinct, independent class of merchants and manufacturers, in the European sense, arose in Israel. The more advanced forms of industry, which have had such a tremendous development in western civilization, were comparatively backward in Israel and among the Semites at large. Nevertheless, long before the arrival of Israel in Canaan, a considerable trade in manufactured goods and natural products had arisen between Egypt, Arabia, Canaan, Mesopotamia, Greece, and outlying tribes. In connection with trade, it is necessary to have definite centers where exchange can be regularly carried on. Hence the growth of cities. Another stimulus to city

1 Breasted, History of Egypt (New York, 1905), p. 260; Rogers, History of Babylonia and Assyria (New York, 1901), Vol. II, p. 280.

life is manufacture, which tends to centralize at the points of exchange. We have seen that walled cities dotted the land of Canaan long before the Israelites entered the country; and we have shown that the invaders were not able to take these Amorite strongholds. The confinement of the Israelite clans to the hill-country for several generations excludes notice of commerce and manufactures from the narratives of Judges and Samuel. In those books, the country landlord stands at the forefront of the stage. Although country and city-highland and lowland-were at length united under the kings of Israel, the Books of Kings in their present form are so preoccupied with religious conflicts that the economic phase of life is obscured in those writings.

Among the Semites, the old nobility of the clanships retained personal hold over commerce and manufactures, managing these forms of industry through slaves. Even kings were not ashamed to become traders by proxy, as in the case of Solomon, who in this regard followed the example of the rulers of Egypt and Babylon (I Kings, chaps. 9 and 10). The figures of the noble and his steward are familiar in the literature of the Old and New Testaments. The chief slave of Abraham, "who ruled over all that he had," stood near the top of the social system, next under the baal himself (Gen. 24:2). Leading slaves of this kind were everywhere favored in proportion to their importance. In order to stimulate them to the most faithful service, they were given commissions or a share in the profits; and they were thus able to acquire wealth of their own. The case of Simonides in the novel Ben Hur (Book IV, chap. iv) is a well-known illustration. Such men might buy their freedom, and set up independently of the ancient nobility if they wished, as provided for in Leviticus: "If he become rich, he may redeem himself" (Lev. 25:49). But the stress of war and the general insecurity were so great in the ancient Semitic world that the

benefit of detachment from the old clanships appears to have been outweighed by its disadvantages. Accordingly, favorite slaves who became wealthy preferred to stand connected with some noble family of established position and influence.

Thus, there was a tendency in Israel and throughout Semitic civilization toward the rise of a distinct merchant and manufacturing class, or "third estate," as it has been called in European history. But this tendency never got full expression; and the industrial side of life was never detached from the old clanships. Much can be learned at this point by comparison. In ancient Greece and Rome, and again in mediaeval Europe, commerce and manufactures began under the conditions just outlined; but their evolution went much farther; and the tendency toward the formation of a new social class became irresistible. The "third estate" "third estate" sprang into existence outside the limits of the old noble families. An interesting situation resulted. The old nobility of Europe, through its control of the taxing power and the courts, hindered the ascent of the third estate. Great historic collisions resulted, the outcome of which was the admission of the new class to a voice in the government. The basis of the state, in Greece, Rome, and modern Europe, was thus transferred from Family to Property. In Semitic civilization, however, nothing of this kind occurred. Government remained on the family basis; and the unfledged "third estate" continued within the shelter of the ancient clanships.

Likewise the laboring class, or proletariat, never acquired the character of distinction within Israel.-The earliest legal codes in the Old Testament make no mention of hired labor, but assume that slavery is the universal condition of the lower class. These codes are in Exod., chaps. 20 and 21 ff. But in later laws, provision is made for the free laborer, thus:

Thou shalt not oppress a hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren [the children of Israel], or of thy sojourn

ers that are in thy land within thy gates. In his day thou shalt give him his hire; neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor and setteth his heart upon it (Deut. 24:14, 15).

Likewise, another late law provides that "the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with thee all night until the morning" (Lev. 19:13). These laws were made in full view of a condition in which the price of hired labor was fixed by the overshadowing influence of slavery. Where slavery is an established institution, as in Israel, it would not profit the upper classes to pay "free" labor much more than slaves got-that is, a bare living. This deduction agrees with the laws just cited; for laborers who had to be paid from day to day could not have stood above the economic level of slavery.

The industrial institutions of Israel developed under the forms of the ancient Clan State.-In spite of a progressive tendency, the economic side of Hebrew life always remained primitive. The social classes that became prominent in the later civilizations were unfledged in Israel and throughout the Semitic world. The "third estate," on the one side, and the "proletariat," on the other, were never organized on an independent footing. They existed potentially; but they had no means of self-expression, and no class-consciousness. Our survey

of Israelite industry, therefore, ends where it set out-with the clan. From first to last, society was conceived only as a brotherhood group.

CHAPTER VIII

EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL

All ancient peoples had gods.-It is a commonplace that all the clans and nations of antiquity had religions, and that they all worshiped what were supposed to be real beings which we call "gods." The same is true of present-day savages who have not been converted to a higher faith. Ancient nations and unconverted savages, then, have this in common: they are what we call "pagan," or "heathen." From the standpoint of primitive religion, or heathenism, there is no single, true God, besides whom no other god exists. For in the view of primitive religion, all gods are equally real: one god is as much a real being as another. All the written records of antiquity, including the Bible itself, are prepared in view of this impressive fact. Long before the dawn of "historic time," the idea became established in the human mind that there are gods. No book-not even the Biblehas ever laid open to us the secrets of the process by which the human mind became possessed of the god-idea. Sociological study of the Bible, therefore, is not required to investigate the origin of religion in general. It presupposes, or takes for granted, the idea of the gods and the practices of heathen religion as data with which to begin.

In primitive religion, the gods are thought of as members of the social group.-It is a matter of great significance for sociology that in primitive religion the god of any people is considered to be a member of the social circle that worships him. The gods, in fact, had as real a place in the social fabric as the worshipers themselves. To describe the situation in modern terms, Church and State were always united