in other words, adopted their own laws. Nor is there an instance on record, to the best of my knowledge, in which their laws were not proposed to the representatives of the people, and received their unanimous consent. On the one hand, there were some strong democratic tendencies in their government, and in the other some strong tendencies to despotism; but both under so many checks and balances, that never was nation better acquainted with their public interests, and rarely have the rights and duties of rulers and subjects been more definitely prescribed, or life, liberty and property more secure.

The liberties of a people depend much on the proper distribution of landed property. The Hebrew government was founded on an equal agrarian law. Unlike the agrarian law of Lycurgus, which debased the Spartans to a state of semi-barbarism, and ultimately committed the culture of their lands to their slaves; and equally unlike the feudal system of the middle ages, which has given shape and colouring to all the political and civil institutions of modern Europe; it made provision for the support of 600,000 yeomanry, with from six to twenty-five acres of land each, which they held independant of all temporal superiors, and which they might not alienate, but on the condition of their reverting to the families which originally possessed them, every fiftieth year.* Such

*Graves' Lectures on the Pentateuch.

were the immunities of the mass of the Hebrew population; not of its lords, nor its vassals, but its medium population. There were the poor beneath them, and men of superior rank and property above them, the princes of their tribes and the heads of their thousands. But there was no degraded peasantry and no hereditary noblesse. And notwithstanding all that has been said of the pre-eminence of one poor, dependant tribe—a tribe that were disqualified from becoming the proprietors of a single foot of landed property-never was there less of a proud aristocracy in any form to trample on the rights of the poor, or, until a late period of their kingdom, of a merciless oppression of the lower orders of the people. No nobler people, no better organized community ever existed, than the ancient Hebrews. Inured to honourable industry-wealthy, but without ostentatious magnificence-ready at a moments call to resist every attack upon their country's freedom-with an honest pride exulting in their revered ancestrythey may well be regarded, during the more auspicious periods of their history, as the noblest specimen of a free and independant nation. The proud descendant of Abraham was not always what he is now. "Many that are first shall be last, and many that are last shall be first." We may conceive of the sadness and despondency with which some lineal son of the ancient family of God, seated by the rivers of some modern Babylon, would exclaim, "how shall I sing the Lord's song in a strange

land!" And we may easily conceive of the high enthusiasm that would enkindle in his bosom as he turns his thoughts in prospect toward the hills of his own loved Palestine, and anticipates the time when his people shall be no longer a hissing and a by-word among the nations. How would his eye kindle, as by the light of prophecy he beholds the lion of the tribe of Judah displace the crescent that even now waves over the ruined Temple, and the mosque of Omar fall before the man who in the visions of God had a "line of flax and a mea suring reed in his hand," to rebuild the walls that are once more to contain the emblems of the divine presence and glory! How would his heart beat with hope as such visions passed before him, and taking his harp from the willows, with what emotions would he again sing, "The Lord is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation; he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my fathers God, and I will exalt him."

"Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." The love of liberty thus expressed in the Old Testament is still more clearly indicated by the Christian dispensation. One of the most unfounded objections to Christianity that ever originated with designing, or was believed by foolish men, is that it is adapted to subject the many to the few. So far from this, it is the only religion which honestly and effectually consults the interests of men for time, as well as eternity. It is the only instrument by which the poor can

defend their rights and resist the encroachments of the proud and oppressive. The whole spirit and genius of Christianity are everywhere friendly to freedom. It teaches us that men of every tribe, language, clime, and colour are the creatures of God. It announces that the great Creator "hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the face of the earth." It pronounces the incidental, and circumstantial, and temporary distinctions between men, as of minor consequence, and of no account whatever, when compared with the great points of similitude which result from their common origin, their common depravity, their common suffering, common dependance, and common responsibilities.

It is remarked of the divine Founder of the Christian faith, that the "common people heard him gladly.” He was himself one of the common people. He was raised from an obscure family in Israel, and was from the humbler walks of life. All his sympathies were with the common people. He knew the heart of the suffering and oppressed, and was touched with the feeling of their infirmi ties. Of the same character were his Apostles, and the principal teachers of his religion. And of the same character do we find all their doctrines and precepts. "To the poor the gospel is preached. In Christ Jesus, there is neither Greek nor Jew, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free." "The cultivated heathen," says Tholuck, "were offended at Christianity precisely for this reason,

that the higher classes could no longer have precedence of the common people."* We have very justly regarded the Kingdom of Spain, as furnishing no very enviable exhibition of civil liberty. But notwithstanding all the corruptions of Christianity in that Papal Kingdom, evidence is not wanting, that it exerted some influence at least in restraining arbritrary power. In the last hours of the distinguished Queen Isabella, a recent and accomplished historian of our own country informs us, that "she expressed her doubts as to the legality of the revenue of the alcavalas, constituting the principal income of the crown. She directed a commission to ascertain whether it were originally intended to be perpetual, and if this were done with the free consent of the people: enjoining her heirs in that event, to collect the tax so that it should press least heavily on her subjects. Should it be found otherwise, however, she directs that the legislature be summoned to devise measures for supplying the wants of the crown-measures depending for their validity on the good pleasure of the subjects of the realm."†

Never, with the Bible in our hands, can we deny rights to another, which under the same circumstances we would claim for ourselves. "Christianity," says Montesquieu," is a stranger to despotic

*Biblical Repository. Vol. II.

Prescot's Hist. of the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella.