remains. That thefe collectors were probably the fame with thofe called the men of Hezekiah, Prov. xxv. 1. who made a new addition to the book of Proverbs.-That these men of Hezekiah, befide their being authorized or commiffioned by him, must have been qualified for this high office by the one great Shepherd, Mafter and Teacher, God. One Prophet at lealt divinely inspired, and well known to be fuch, muft have been joined in the commiffion. And who more likely to be fo, and to have the fuperintendency of the whole, than that great Prophet, ⚫ who lived and flourished in Hezekiah's reign, and wrote the acts ⚫ or hiftory of that King, the Prophet Ifaiah ?'

As this fuppofition, according to our Author, is highly reafonable in itself, fo could we find any thing to corroborate it in the book before us, but especially any little mark of the hand-writing of this great prophet in the epilogus annexed, this, he imagines, would give a ftrong confirmation to the whole of his conjecture. Now one fuch mark, he thinks, there is, and he fubmits it to the judgment of the learned and curious. It depends upon the explication he has given of that obfcure claufe, c. xii. ver. 11. If we read it,as if planted with briars-(and there is no other reading or conftruction, he fays, but what is highly irregular and abfurd) it is very remarkable, that the word fhamir occurs no less than eight times in the prophecy of Ifaiah, and is conftantly put for a briar: whereas in the other Prophets, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, who all use the word, though each but once, it is as conftantly put for another pointed thing, though of a different kind, viz. an adamant or diamond. Thofe who have been used to refearches of this kind, our Author perfuades himself, will fee fomething in this proof which is not to be defpifed.-How far it is fatisfactory we fhall not take upon us to determine.

In regard to the Reply, &c. which is annexed to this Appendix, it relates, principally, to the abufive, illiberal language, which the Author of the Divine Legation, in his new edition of that work, has caft upon our Author, and to fome controverted points of small importance to the generality of readers.

ERRATA in our laft APPENDIX.

Page 553, art. 19, 1.2, for vents, r. events. In the Table of Articles p. vi. column 2, for Pike, his fcripture account of justifying faith, r. a Letter to Mr. Pike, on that subject. In the Index, for Sterne, Dr. r. Sterne, Mr.

ERRATA in July Review, viz. Page 36, 1. 9, after the word under, infert, her. P. 58, 1. 18, for Ερμενίων, Γ. Ερμηνεων. Ρ. 5 · 59, 1. 5, after Odes, place a comma, inftead of the full-point. P. 82, art. 4, 1. 13, for Pike's Scripture Account of Juftifying Faith, correct as above noted in the Errata of our laft Appendix. P. 85, art. 13, l. 13, for Oxford, r. Orford,

THE

MONTHLY REVIEW,

For SEPTEMBER, 1760.

A Syftem of the Principles of the Law of Scotland. By George Wallace, Advocate. Vol. I. Folio. il. 5s. in Boards.

Millar.

W

E have the pleasure to learn, from the Introduction to this very ingenious and extenfive volume, that it is the work of an Author as yet at the early period of life: a circumstance which greatly enhances his merit, and, in the eye of candour, extenuates any defect that may be found in his performance. It is a proof of great power of Mind, and unremitted vigour of Application, to have fo quickly amaffed such a fund of knowlege: but it is ftill a higher fubject of applaufe, to have made fo good an ufe of fuch various and extenfive erudition. Indeed, he must have been conscious of fuperior talents, who could, fo early venture to form a plan fo vaft and comprehenfive, as to require all the lights which Philofophy, Hiftory, Jurifprudence, and Literature are capable of furnishing. For a young Writer even to miscarry, in fo bold and arduous an enterprize, would not be inglorious and how much greater is it then, like our Author, to add confpicuous merit in the execution, to the honour of the defign? What may we not expect from the riper productions of a Genius who is already capable of exhibiting fuch a fample of his abilities?

We do not propofe to give an account feriatim of the work before us, fince the titles are fo numerous, that such a defign VOL. XXIII.

would

would carry us beyond our prefcribed limits. We are fenf ble, moreover, that a particular criticism on a treatife refpecting the Laws of Scotland, would be unintelligible to the greatest part of our English Readers, and confequently ungrateful. But as the learned Author has traced the Scotifh Laws back to their fource, and drawn the principles of Law in general, penitus ex intima Philofophia, as Cicero expreffes it, we fhall therefore, after giving a general view of his system, confine our animadverfions to fuch parts as may afford amusement, and information to the studious and philofophic.

We would, however, previously recommend the ftudy of the Scotifh Law to our, English Lawyers and Legiflators. They will find that, in many inftances, it adheres more ftrictly to the Civil and Canon Law than ours; but they will perceive, nevertheless, that, in various particulars, efpecially fuch as concern the bonos mores of the subject, it deserves our imitation, under certain reftrictions. It must be acknowleged at the fame time, however, that our Northern Countrymen may likewife borrow from us, with great advantage to their Code.

Our Author, after an Introduction, in which he traces the progrefs of Law from the primeval state of mankind, divides his work into four parts, of which the volume before us contains the first only. Each part is divided into a number of books, and each book into a number of titles. The first book treats of the word Law-of the Law of Nature material-of the Law of Nature intelligent-of the internal and abfolute Reasons on which moral Obligation is founded-of the confequences which dutiful conduct has in procuring the efteem, the love, and the favour of the world; and of the patrimonial advantages which naturally flow from it—Of the Being and Attributes of God; and of the connection which the belief of his existence has with moral Obligation- Of the Immortality of the Soul; and of the proof brought from it. of moral Obligation-Of the Law of Nations-Of the Civil Law.

The fecond book treats of the fupreme Legiflative Power of Scotland-Of the Subjects of Scotland-Of public and private Law Of written Law; and of the written Law of Scotland-Of customary Law-Of the Objects of Law.

Perfons and Things are the fubjects of the third book; which is branched out into various fubdivifions: but theie we forbear to enumerate, as being more material for the conEderation of Lawyers than Philofophers.

The

The fourth book concerns the Inftitution of Marriagethe Rights and Obligations of Husband and Wife-the Dif folution of Marriage; and many other fubdivifions, which we fupprefs for the reafons above affigned.

The fifth book regards the Legitimacy of Children-the Duties, Rights, and Obligations of Parents and ChildrenBaftards. The fixth treats of Tutory; and the many various branches which arise from that head. The feventh, relates to Reftitution, and its feveral fubdivifions. The eighth, concerns Donations; with the relative titles. The ninth and laft, treats of Delinquencies-of Injuries; and the feveral titles which fall under those heads.

In the Introduction our Author obferves, with good reafon, that the first man must have proceeded out of the hand that made him, in a state more perfect than that in which infants are at present born. But, he adds, the capabilities of which his nature is poffeffed, could not alone have secured the existence of the kind. Ignorant of the nature of every thing with which he was furrounded, he might either have fwallowed some noxious food, or fallen a prey to the venom, ferocity, or carnivorous difpofition of the beafts of the field; or been drowned in the firft ftream which prefented itself to his view. Amidst these accidents, to which he was at every turn exposed, it is probable that a few hours would have put a period to his exiftence. The number, therefore, of human kind which exift at present, proves that the Creator muft either have himself tended the first man, or endowed him by his immediate agency, with fomething analogous to that knowlege, which, we find, can be acquired only by experience.

He then proceeds to trace the origin of focial Life. The affections, he remarks, which man has for his kind, would not have been made conftituent parts of his nature, had the Deity intended to leave it to accident to determine concerning the ftate in which he fhould live.

It is impoffible, he continues, for one to be afraid of an object which he knows not to be terrible; fear implying in all cafes, an antecedent opinion formed concerning the object of it. A man, therefore, who had never feen any of his own kind, would not, as has been fuppofed by fome Philofophers, fly from another whom he faw making towards him; because he could not know that he had any thing to fear from him. From hence, he concludes, that focial life began at that inftant at which the two firft of human kind caft their eyes on each other,

We must confefs, however, that our Author's reafoning in this refpect, is as little fatisfactory as that of the Philofopher Montefquieu, whofe attacks he controverts. Montefquieu, we well remember, oppofes the fentiments of Hobbes, who supposes man by nature in a state of war. The French Philofopher, on the other hand, reprefents man as a timid animal, who, if he had never feen any of his own kind, would na-` turally fly from another who approached him. Our Author differs from both, and imagines that man, led by the affections of his heart, would feel a longing after fomething which he had never beheld; and on the first approach of one of his own kind, would immediately recognize this to be the object which alone would fatisfy his defires.'

In truth, neither of the three feem, to us, to have confidered this point with fufficient accuracy and precifion; and their conclufions, being too general, prove nothing. If we confider mankind collectively, it cannot with truth be faid, that man is, by nature, either timid, or prone to war, or inclined to be focial and affectionate, though each may be predicated of individuals among the human kind. Individuals of the human species are by Nature framed with different faculties and difpofitions. Some are penetrating and fagacious, others ftupid and undifcerning: fome lufty and robuft, others comparatively weak and flender: fome meck and referved, others forward and ferocious. Add to this, that the characters of moft men are ftrongly marked in their countenances. We read of men in history who have awed even bloody affaffins by the fole terror of their afpect. The Gaul who came with an intent to kill Marius, was fo terrified only by his look, that he flew from him, and declared he had no power to hurt him. On the other hand, the benignity and ferenity of Auguftus's countenance, produced the fame effect in a ruffian who had a defign of throwing him from a precipice: and Suetonius tells us, that they on whom he looked stedfaftly, were obliged to turn away their eyes, as if the fun had shone

in their faces.

Now if we fuppofe a Marius and a Sardanapalus in a state of nature, to have been the two firft of human race, who caft their eyes on each other, we fhall conclude that the latter would naturally flink and fly from the former; but this would prove nothing with refpect to the general ftate of the queftion: for it is reasonable to imagine, that in a state of nature, the weak and pufillanimous, would avoid the daring and robuft, till experience taught the former, that he had nothing to apprehend from the latter. We cannot wholly

agree