obliged to enrol the birth of their children, and to prove their legitimacy, before they were registered by the Archons; just as the families of the Hebrews were recorded by the Levites. Rebellious children were treated as criminals in both institutions; and the duty of maintaining parents was equally enforced, with an exemption in favour of bastards. A curious example of the derivation of the Greek from the Hebrew code is presented in this precept:-"If any one's estate after his death shall be called in question, the enjoyer is to prove the lawfulness of his parent's possession, according to the golden rule- Honour your parents.'" Their purgation oath strongly resembled the Jewish oath of jealousy, where a man suspected the fidelity of his wife. The laws of Solon in relation to the degrees of relationship within which marriage was prohibited, agree likewise with the Jewish regulations concerning those matters.

Amongst the Greeks, it was provided that a particular tribe should be specially chosen to preside over and look after the laws. This exactly corresponds to the selection and office of the Levites, whose duty it was to make copies of the Law for public use, and to preserve the original statutes in their custody. Moreover, having the custody of public records-in presiding over the national education-in regulating public solemnities-in performing religious rites-in cultivating literature, and in the pursuit of scientific attainments. In the matter of education we may easily find proof that its necessity was alike recognised by the Greeks and the Hebrews. The latter were commanded to teach their children the statutes and judgments of the Law, as well as their national history; which were not only to be recited on public occasions, but also to be written upon tablets for a continual remembrance. This suffices to show that instruction in the art of reading was not neglected; while with the Greeks so great was the value set upon education, that it was amongst the chief rewards of those who died in battle that their children should be educated at the public expense. The rites of purification, so prominent in the Jewish system, were observed religiously by the Romans as well as by the Greeks. But since the Roman laws of the twelve tables were confessedly constructed of materials brought from Greece, it will be unnecessary to trace an exact comparison in order to illustrate their resemblance, in many particulars, to the Mosaic code. The ancient Roman laws, being collected and arranged in the Justinian code, which brings us down to the year A.D. 529, spread over the rest of Europe. This celebrated digest has been embodied into the legal institutions which govern the greatest part of Europe. So that wherever an agreement between modern laws and the Mosaic code is found, it may fairly be referred to an inspired original.

Some conception, then, may be formed of the wisdom of the Hebrew institutions, when distinct marks of their influence

Dr. Wines has

can be traced throughout the civilized world. observed, that the inspired lawgiver was a stranger to that modern refinement which represents the reformation of the criminal as the only legitimate end of punishment. We do not find much of that sympathy which sheds tears over the hardened criminal, while it forgets the victim of his villany. In the certainty and severity of the punishment for murder, unqualified even by exceptional cases of temporary insanity, there is little sanction for the scruple which shrinks from inflicting death upon a murderer, and which, we fear, would often preserve the life of the guilty at the expense of the innocent. The lex talionis was common both to the Greek and Roman laws. It is obviously founded upon pure natural equity. It is the principle of all those laws which are designed to protect from personal outrage. If we consider the nature of crimes, we find that they are, in most instances, incapable of adequate redress, because the thing injured cannot be restored to its former condition; and if it could, the pain suffered cannot be justly compensated, because we have no standard by which to estimate the value of pain, except the loss or inconvenience occasioned by it; and when we are driven to the shift of reckoning the damage by some consequent disadvantage, it is manifest that the gravest part of the offence escapes with impunity. In modern institutions this difficulty is sought to be defeated by treating the commission of the crime as an offence against the state, and its consequences as an offence against the person injured. But with the Hebrews the law of retaliation seems to have been followed in a simpler form. In this particular they were closely followed by the Greeks, and subsequently by the Romans. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, had its Greek counterpart in the enactment that, if a man put out the eye of a one-eyed person, both his own should be plucked out. With the Hebrews, a thief was bound to restore sometimes sevenfold, sometimes fourfold; with the Greeks, he was compelled to restore twofold; with the Romans, fourfold. Both with the Greeks and Romans there was a form of action for hurting another man's slave, and also for personal injuries and affronts. But with respect to the Jewish law of retaliation, it was not so barbarous as some have supposed. It was not the "wild justice of revenge." It was inflicted, not by the party injured, but by an authorized tribunal. It was a last resort, where the offender had refused to make reparation to the injured. So also with the Greeks and Romans; it was a mode of punishment adopted only where due compensation could not be otherwise obtained. It was probably the most primitive form of punishment. In a rude state of society it is the only redress. There revenge often took the place of justice; as may easily be supposed, where the injured united in himself the office both of judge and avenger. We find, therefore, in the Hebrew as well as in the Greek and Roman institutions, that,

although the spirit of retaliation was preserved, yet the authority of a magistrate was interposed to prevent its abuse. A similar law is common to the Asiatic tribes, and is still preserved amongst the Arabs. Traces of it are also to be found in the Salic laws, as well as amongst the ancient Germans. There is, however, one peculiarity in the laws of Moses which distinguishes them from all other legislation. It is this. The transgression of these laws was threatened with a national curse, which no human power could execute or avert. No mere human legislator could have framed his laws upon such a principle as this. Dr. Wines justly remarks:

"This favored people were not more distinguished during their journeyings and encampments in the wilderness by the mysterious shekinah which shot its fiery splendours up to midheaven, symbolizing the divine presence among them, than they afterwards were by their civil constitution-a constitution containing the elemental principles of all just, wise, and equal legislation, and bearing indubitable proofs of a divine wisdom in its formation."

The principles of the Hebrew constitution differed fundamentally from those of the heathen legislators. They employed religion in establishing their civil institutions; while Moses made use of a civil constitution as the means of establishing religion and perpetuating the worship of the true God-the highest end to which laws could be directed. The worship of one God in prescribed ordinances, which even strangers were bound to reverence if they did not care to observe, produced amongst the Israelites that national unity which is the greatest source of political strength. All their laws were conducive to this end. Idolatry was proscribed both to the Jews and to the strangers within their gates. The civil equality of the people was secured, in the first instance, by the equal distribution of the land amongst their tribes and families. It was preserved by the laws, which prohibited its alienation for more than fifty years; after which it reverted, free and unencumbered, to the ruined family to whom it had once belonged. Civil liberty was maintained in a form more perfect than any which has since subsisted in the world. The periodical release from debts and servitude encouraged thrifty but unfortunate poverty to fresh industry, with the rewards of freedom and the hope of prosperity. The liberality towards a needy brother, which was so constantly enjoined, was a barrier against want and destitution; while the free election of magistrates and public officers secured most efficiently the just and careful exercise of their authority. Yet we think Dr. Wines mistakes obedience for choice when he insists that a fundamental principle in the Jewish government was, "that the people should have an authoritative voice in the enactment of their laws." We confess we have been unable to trace the origin of any of the Hebrew laws to the wisdom of a popular assembly. The Jewish polity was eminently peaceful. We shall find, that, although the nation owed its dominions to

conquest, its security was maintained by peace. Moses made no provision for a standing army; the whole body of citizens, holding their lands on condition of military service when required, formed a national guard of defence.

The details we possess of the arrangements for the education of the Hebrew people are but scanty. It is evident, from a perusal of the Pentateuch, that the diffusion of the knowledge of God, and the provisions of the law, formed a prominent feature in the system. The reading of the law, and of the national history to explain it, is constantly enjoined. The laws were also to be published in writing, which would certainly imply a general proficiency in the art of reading. This duty was imposed upon the tribe of Levi, who, relieved from the distractions of ordinary pursuits by the contributions of their brethren, formed a sort of literary aristocracy, to which was intrusted the duty of public instruction, and the care of such public affairs as were of importance to be recorded. In this capacity they not only promulgated the religion of which they were the ministers, but it will be easily perceived that under such an arrangement their own influence, nay, their very existence, depended upon the faithfulness and diligence with which they discharged their office; because, from the constitution of their order, as religion decayed their authority would cease. Thus their means of subsistence was wisely made

to depend upon the fulfilment of their duty.

Subsequently we find the educational system developed in the schools of the prophets, whose functions appear to have been divided between lectures upon national law and the preservation of the purity of religious worship. Such were the provisions for public instruction; but domestic religion was as carefully provided for. Parents were again and again commanded to teach their children all the words of the law. Upon consideration, then, the education of the Jews will be found to have consisted of two parts: the first, which taught him his duty to God; and the second, which taught him his duty to his neighbour. That peculiar kind of education which teaches a man his business in life was left to be acquired by himself in the practice of his particular employ We find here no sanction for that excess of refinement which, leaving untaught the principles which make a man a good citizen and a true Christian, would, to use the popular phrase, elevate him in the social scale; converting a ploughboy into an astronomer or a poet, unfitting him for one sphere of life without providing him with the means of enjoying the literary and social luxuries belonging to another.

ment.

Such is the wisdom of the divine institutions bestowed upon the Hebrews. It is difficult to conceive that, had they obeyed them, anything short of a miracle could have deprived the Jewish nation of the power and prosperity which, under their guidance,

they had so rapidly acquired. There is probably no subject upon which human wisdom has prided itself more than legislation. Dr. Wines has shown there is none for which it is more indebted to the Bible. We are not disposed to complain of the freedom with which he has used European authors; for he could not have paid a higher compliment to our literature than in the ample way in which he has availed himself of its materials in his attempt to rear a monument to the wisdom as well as the truth of the Old Testament. However bright the much-vaunted wisdom of the ancients may appear upon the page of history, it shines in a borrowed light. In the volume before us we are led to the fountains from which they drew their purest principles and their most famous ordinances; in short, whatever contributed to the welfare and happiness of mankind. Exceptions may be taken to some of Dr. Wines's opinions; but enough remains to show that the civilization of the world is owing to the influence of Hebrew institutions. There we find all those principles which have made the nations of antiquity illustrious. We find that to the deviation from the precepts of divine wisdom may be traced the destruction of the most famous empires throughout the history of the world. The most admired of the institutions of the ancients derived whatever value they had from Hebrew traditions; and so far as they debased them to the convenience of the hour, so far did they sow the seeds of their own ruin. The influence of right principles upon the prosperity of communities may be traced almost as exactly as the influence of right principles upon the success of individuals. It would be difficult to point out a national sin which did not eventually recoil either upon its immediate authors or with accumulated violence upon their posterity. Those men and those periods in history which have been distinguished by their opposition to the laws of God, have been memorable for the national calamities and disgraces which, sooner or later, have overtaken them. If, then, the principles embodied in the laws of Moses are in such a sort a moral obligation upon the world as that the violation of them has always been disastrous, it is impossible to suppose that they were not intended for the practical guidance of mankind.

The Portrait of a Christian Gentleman: a Memoir of Patrick Fraser Tytler, Esq. By his Friend, the Rev. W. Burgon, M.A. London: John Murray. 1859.

We thank Mr. Burgon for this work. Some of our northern critics are dissatisfied with it. They think that Mr. Tytler was not sufficiently distinguished by talents and reputation to deserve