favouring the rich or the noble.' Our author proceeds to some remarks on the firmness of a judge,' in which he exa'ts the virtue of inflexibility: he who is naturally destitute of this virtue, will never be a good magistrate: Noli quærere fieri judex, nisi valeas virtute irrumpere iniquitates. Love, fear, and ambition, are commonly the straits (cachapos) in which justice is shipwrecked, and against which the judge ought to show himself intrepid and a despiser of danger.' After this explicit declaration, it is somewhat singular to find in the succeeding page the following remark: A judge ought to obey promptly the legitimate and rational orders that his superiors may give him, although they may be contrary to the public right, because they emanate from the supreme authority.' Whilst such sentiments are entertained, it is not surprising that the laws are administered without either wisdom or justice: notwithstanding, the author celebrates with deserved encomiums the names of Nerva, Papinian, sir Thomas More, &c. who lost their lives in defence of truth and equity. The concluding chapter is on the temperance or moderation of a judge; and contains many historical anecdotes, and rules for the government of the passions in fulfilling this high station.

The treatise on public and private violence' evinces the same laboured research, the same facility of anecdote, and the same defect of judgment, as the dissertation on the duties of judges The author defines the nature of public and private violence, of war, of arms, and their use. Violence is public or private as it opposes the public or private right.' He then gives a brief account of both the ancient and modern modes of warfare, of the implements of war, and of the different nations who have distinguished themselves in arms, not forgetting the Amazons, and the military prowess of the Anglo Saxon women. This includes much information in the smallest possible compass, and the facts are disposed so as to be more conspicuous and intelligible than if made to fill copious volumes of turgid declamation. The second and third chapters treat of the rights of war in a doubtful cause, and in a certain and just cause.' The various opinions of philosophers for and against the propriety of war are discussed; and it is concluded, that the good make war from necessity, and the bad to gratify their inordinate passions; but the philosophers who were guided by reason, and good men, always thought that force, to be legiti mate, ought to be regulated by reason and justice, in the same manner as the physical organization is subject to certain definite proportions.' We pass over many interesting particulars in these chapters, to notice more minutely the succeeding one: viz. the right of war with respect to neutral states.' Fron these opinions our readers may form some idea of the princi

plas inculcated by a neighbouring nation, to open the way to that licentious abuse of power which now unhappily destroys the peace of Europe.

• All those who declare war against their enemies may open, by force of arms, the roads that they find closed. The right of passage, however, authorizes nothing more in neutral countries, than to make use of what is necessary to the subsistence of the soldier, and to the transporting of ammunition, for all of which a just price ought to be paid. All who are obliged to pursue an object and follow an end, ought equally to use the adequate means. Some writers on jurisprudence disapprove of the passage of armies through neutral countries, on account of the damages which usually result but the contrary is true; since the means necessary to conduct a legitimate action to its end, are also legitimate. They may also erect or demolish fortresses, and take possession of those that exist in neutral countries, if necessary. In the begin ning of the last century, prince Eugene of Savoy took possession of Chiari, a city belonging to the Venetians, without paying any attention to the complaints and protestations of the citizens, because it was necessary to resist the superior force of his enemies. It is likewise allowable to seize whatever is carried to the enemy in the way of commerce.'

These sentiments require no comment: they are admirably adapted to promote usurpation; and when once the legitimacy of an object is established, nothing more is wanted to render all means of attaining it both necessary and just. We may only add, that long before Bonaparte's avowal of the right of conquest, these opinions were most industriously disseminated all over the continent in almost every possible manner, in newspapers, papers posted on the walls, &c. The presbyter of the order of St. Peter' will probably in no long time have the satisfaction of seeing his principles of public justice acted up to in their fullest extent, without going out of his own country. We did not indeed expect to find the justice of the destruction of the enemy's commerce so explicitly established, and that too by those who have so often vociferated the unmeaning jargon of the liberty of the seas. Consistency will sometimes communicate a portion of honour to a ruffian, and of honesty to a robber.

The chapter on hostages and prisoners' admits that the former may be put to death by the right of reprisals, but that humanity forbids the exercise of such a right. This is a gross abuse of terms, common to many writers: there can be no right in society contrary to humanity; and because one man or nation may act unjustly, surely another man or nation cannot thereby be authorized to do the same. The author concludes his treatise by a chapter on duels,' and one on private defence;'

in the latter of which he proves it a natural right to kill our adversary, if there remains no other resource to save our own lives. He also touches upon the cases where a husband may kill his wife taken with her gallant, and shews that in such cases the laws only dispense with the punishment, leaving the crime still to exist.

From the above extracts and observations our readers will be enabled to judge of the speculative ideas of jurisprudence in Portugal; and we add with pleasure, that their practical ones are of late still more improved. Was the author as profound as he is agreeable, he would enjoy no inconsiderable rank among writers on this subject.

ART. VII.-Neuer kritischer Commentar über das Neue Testament, von D. J. Otto. Thiess.

A new Critical Commentary upon the New Testament. Vol. I. 8vo. Halle. 1804.

THE Germans have long been noted for their critical study of the holy scriptures; and a very eminent divine of the university of Cambridge has distinguished himself by an hypothesis on the origin of the four gospels, which has met with a very favourable reception on that part of the continent. This will be seen from the use made of it in the work before us; which contains much learning and serious discussion, at the same time that it treats some subjects with a freedom which will not be pleasing to the right reverend opponent of the very learned translator of Michaelis. The work is to be contained in five volumes, of which the first embraces the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In the beginning of this volume the origin of the gospels is investigated. The first accounts were merely manuscripts of disciples to fix in their memory, and bring into a narrow compass, the historical anecdotes of - our Saviour, with which they were acquainted. It was some time before a well-arranged history, or complete collection; was thought of, and christian communities were formed and well organised before the want of written instruction was discovered. The apostles and early teachers communicated by word of mouth what was necessary, and of which they were competent witnesses.

The apostles make no reference to a gospel of established authority; and the apostolical fathers and their immediate successors seem to have laid little stress upon any particular collection. The Gospel, according to the Hebrews, was the Gospel simply; but it had no determinate form, like the Torah of the

Jews, and underwent continually various changes both by additions and omissions. In consequence, it is known under the title of the Gospel of the Hebrews, that of the Ebionites, of the Nazareens, and probably of the Egyptians. These gospels were considered by each possessor as a true account of the circumstances delivered to them by the mouth of the apostles. As the gospel spread, this Hebrew gospel was translated into the vulgar Greek of Judea, and the original copies disappeared.-But this is all conjectural: and the question is, whether such an original gospel was ever adopted by a christian community and made part of its service? If we can bring no proof of it, we may rest securely upon the possession of our four gospels, as being those only which were ever universally received as of established authority.

A comparison of the three first gospels leads indeed to the suspicion of a common origin, but we have no data on which to establish the fact. Matthew's gospel might, if it were really written originally in Hebrew, have been looked up to as of superior authority: but in what respect was it altered in the translation? Luke was not acquainted with our gospel of Matthew, as it stands in the present editions of the Testament; but from the original text, or corrections of it, and oral traditions, he supplied defects, as may be seen particularly in the last journey of our Saviour to Jerusalem. Mark could not have had either our Matthew or Luke before him; but drew from the same sources which they did, keeping closer to the substance of the original text, but farther from its arrangement. Be these things as they may, the intelligence imparted is authentic: the history of our Saviour is clearly given, and originated with those who heard his precepts, and were eyewitnesses of his miracles. Tradition was the origin of the gospels, and on their worth tradition decides. The canon against heretics made all apocryphal except the four established on its authority; and in process of time these apocryphal gospels were filled with fables, and became the repositories of the most abject bigotry.

The object of the 'Critical Commentary' is to establish a real gospel, in which the letter and the spirit must be carefully distinguished; and this is to be extracted not only from the four gospels now in use, but from every part of scripture. In establishing this point, neither talent nor industry is wanting, and it was not embraced without deep reflection. The oldest monuments of christian antiquity are examined with great candour and moderation; and what is not clearly determined by them, is left still within the bounds of conjecture. In fact, a variety of arguments is produced to shew that Mark had scen neither our gospel of Matthew nor that of Luke, yet they

cannot boast of novelty. Nor does the retranslation of the Greek expressions of the separate evangelists into Arabic, in two very ingenious instances, which appear to lead to the origin of their difference, afford us by any means assured remains of the original text. It is not very difficult to represent in a couple of periods, a pretended Hebrew original: but before it is adopted, let us reflect, and with the seriousness which the object demands, how little is the knowledge that we possess of the peculiar state of the language spoken by the Jews at Palestine, in the time of our Saviour. The verbal agreement of the three first evangelists in several passages, is a fact which must have had its source in a prior text: to recover at this time of day that text, seems to be both an endless and not a very profitable labour.

An exact comparison of the evangelists, with a view to mark their verbal agreements, has produced an actual improvement of our knowledge, and limited completely what remains to be explained: but on the other hand, the severest scrutiny of all the fragments of the life of Jesus has excited only a variety of surmises on the age of these accounts, over which the veil spread by antiquity is impenetrable. Hypotheses founded on them are merely conjectural; and he who would build his faith upon such slight materials, must be far advanced in the regions of credulity. We have gained much by knowing that, after unwearied enquiries, nothing farther is to be expected in the details of former times; and the author is most to be praised when he is contending against the presumed certainty of various determinate propositions on the existence of our gospels.

We cannot contemplate the work as a complete critique on the biblical intelligence which we possess of the life and doctrine of our Saviour; but in the Commentary many materials for such a critique, and those well worthy of attention, are to be found. This must have been the author's idea, when he named his work 'a Critical Commentary;' for a commentary it must be called, both from the biblical text being explained by paragraphs and in connection, and from the notes, which oftentimes take up four times as much room as the text of the paragraph. His principles are generally good in explaining that circumstances, in some respects disagreeing, are not to be forcibly compelled to an union; nor, on the other hand, is it right to follow some modern instances, and, running into the contrary extreme, overrate the disagreements. Relations of a fact in common life do not contradict each other, though there is a seeming difference between them, and it is not easy to unite them together in an exact narration; and the difficulties under which the author labours when he would, from