city of refuge. Here he remained until the death of the High-priest, when he was allowed to return to his native town without fear of the avenger. The advent of a new High-priest was aptly chosen as a time of release; for in a theocratical state it marked a decisive epoch in the life of the nation; and the new spiritual chief fitly restored to their old privileges those who had been deprived of them without guilt on their part. The institution of the cities of refuge as ordained in the Pentateuch, was extremely beneficial in shielding the innocent, in preventing unnecessary bloodshed, and in restraining the fierce ardour of the avenging relatives, which often blindly exterminated whole families and tribes.

The law of Moses, so stringent in cases of murder, was equally careful in protecting the citizens from assault or bodily injury. If a person struck, in a quarrel, a free Israelite or a stranger, and thereby threw him temporarily on a sickbed, without inflicting upon him any serious injury, he had to pay him a double fine, for the loss of time, and for the expenses of the cure.- If a man smote his manservant or his maidservant with a rod, and he died under his hand, it is surely to be avenged.' Thus the right of the slave was established, and his immediate death, even if not intended by his master, was visited by adequate punishment; though if he survived the ill-treatment for a day or two, his master was not held responsible.-Not only man's life, but his person generally was protected by the enactment of strict and literal retribution. The violent and unprincipled man must have trembled and stayed his hand at the words: Thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.' In most cases, however, this physical retaliation was changed into a fine or penalty paid to the sufferer, and agreed upon by the two persons concerned; and the

law was, as a rule, enforced only when the violence had been inflicted intentionally and maliciously. If the master chastised his slave so as to deprive him of the use of any member, be this even a tooth, he was compelled to release him immediately without ransom.

Man's life might be endangered not only by the hand of man, but by an infuriated beast, and the law wisely and humanely interposed to prevent this misfortune as much as possible. If, for instance, an ox gores a man or a woman, that they die, then the ox shall surely be stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push in time past, and it has been testified to his owner, and he has not kept him in, so that he killed a man or a woman: the ox shall be stoned, and his owner shall be put to death.' Yet as death occasioned by such accident could not be punished as severely as an intentional and deceitful murder, redemption by money was permitted, on a just and liberal valuation made by the judges. If a slave were thus killed by an ox, his master was indemnified for the loss by thirty shekels, the average price of a slave, while the animal was of course killed.

II. From the right of persons so strenuously and rigidly guarded by the code of Moses, we turn to the second class of laws, those which concern the right of property.

Provisions of this nature were most needful, nay indispensable, in a young community, which but gradually and slowly changed from nomadic to agricultural pursuits, and whose wealth consisted not so much in gold and silver as in the more uncertain and cumbrous possession of flocks and herds. Among such a people it was particularly necessary to enforce the sacredness of property. There

fore, the first law of this kind relates to the protection of animals. A cistern or pit left without covering is extremely dangerous to the security of beasts. Therefore it was enacted: If a man opens a pit, or if a man digs a pit, and does not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein; the owner of the pit shall pay for it, and give money to their owner, and the dead beast shall be his.'—Again, if one man's ox killed another's, then the live ox was sold, and the money divided between the two proprietors; but if the owner had before been warned of the violent disposition of his ox, and had not guarded and watched him, then he had to pay the full money for the damage caused by the animal.

Next follow the laws bearing on the eighth commandment, Thou shalt not steal.' If we picture to ourselves a patriarch whose tent covered but a small space of ground, but whose possessions stretched out boundlessly around him, thousands of animals-camels, oxen, asses, sheep, and goats-grazing in the pastures and on the plains without guard or protection, we can readily understand, how dangerous theft would have been, had it not been repressed by a severe law. Therefore, it was enforced that if a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it, or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for one ox and four sheep for one sheep.'

If a thief broke into a house at night, when no help could be procured, and if he was killed by the master, it was not regarded as murder, but as legitimate self-defence. But if the thief broke in during the broad daylight, the master was not permitted to take his life, as he was then free to call in the aid of the authorities against the lawless burglar. The thief was compelled to restore the theft doubly, if it was found untouched in his hands; if he was unable to do so, he was sold into servitude to a Hebrew master, till he was able to pay the fine. But if he had,

before detection, applied the theft, wholly or partially, to his own uses-for instance, if he had killed or sold stolen cattle the punishment was more rigorous; he was obliged to pay five oxen for one ox, and four sheep for one, the justice and expediency of which enactments are self-evident.

If a man allowed his cattle to graze in the fields or vineyards of another, and so injured his harvest of wheat and fruit, the offender was required to pay for the loss he had occasioned from the best of the field and the best of his vineyard.'

In the East, it is the custom at the end of the summer months, before the crop is sown for the ensuing year, to burn the thorns and weeds left in the fields. But owing to the dryness of the soil, a conflagration spreading over contiguous fields and meadows may, and often does, ensue. For the damage thus caused, full restitution was to be made by him to whose neglect it was due.

All property committed to the safe-keeping of others was to be regarded as sacred, and he who consented to take the charge was answerable for loss or injury. However, in this respect the distinction was established and adhered to, that if inanimate objects were, by cunning or violence, wrested from the depositary, he was not bound to make restitution to the proprietor; but if animals, as oxen, asses, or sheep, were entrusted to his care, he was responsible for theft, but not for such accidents as the death of an animal, or its abduction by robbers or laceration by a wild beast. But if it was found that he had in any way intended to act fraudulently towards the proprietor, he was compelled to restore to him the twofold value of the deposit. All these disputes were decided by the competent judge, by means of adjuration.'

III. If all the laws concerning the rights of person

and of property bear the stamp of wisdom and judiciousness, those relating to the moral intercourse between man and man, to which we will now briefly advert, breathe the purest spirit of humanity, and may well be termed sublime. Full of moderation and of forethought, they are an admirable study for the legislators of all ages, and a model for all nations. They are characterized by that feeling of love and tender charity which everywhere pervades the Mosaic code; they breathe the true and noble benevolence which the Hebrew was taught to practise towards the poor, the helpless, and the stranger.

Reverence to old age was repeatedly enjoined: "Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the Lord!'

Parents, judges, kings, and priests were considered as God's representatives on earth. The crime of parricide. too enormous to be realised, and therefore not even mentioned in some ancient legislations, was to be punished by instant death; nay more, it was enacted, 'He who curses his father or his mother shall also die.'

Charity and mercy, or love of justice and truth, suggested laws like these: "Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the Lord.'

"You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.'

'You shall do no unrighteousness in mete-yard, in weight, or in measure.'

'Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin shall you have.'

'Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small but thou shalt have a just and perfect weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have, that