immediately this duty and sought the ease and comfort of individual subjects and the prosperity and happiness of the state; being deeply impressed with the belief founded as it was in a philosophy no less sound than sagacious, that without this, the state would be but a herd of public robbers rather than a kingdom, should the weak be unprotected, and the powerful enabled by their riches and influence to commit crimes with impunity. Thirty judges were selected out of their principal cities which formed a body for dispensing justice through the whole kingdom. The prince in filling these vacancies chose such as were most renowned for their honesty, and put at their head him who was most distinguished for knowledge, and love of the laws, and was had in the most universal esteem.

To guard against surprise affairs were transacted by writing in the assemblies of the judges. The president of this senate wore a collar of gold set with precious stones, at which hung a figure represented blind; this being called the emblem of truth. When the president put this collar on it was understood as a signal to enter upon business. He touched with it the party who was to gain his cause, and this was the form of passing sentence. At the death of Tharader, A. C. 705, the Egyptians being unable to agree about the succession, were for two years in a state of anarchy, when at length, twelve noblemen conspiring together seized upon the government, and divided it among themselves in so many parts, each governing his own district, with equal power, and authority, but no one was permitted to invade or seize the dominion of the other. Thus they reigned harmoniously for fifteen years when they were conquered by Psammetichus, A. C. 670, who and his successors continued a regular line of kings for about one hundred and thirty-six years; when the history of that ancient kingdom became blended with that of the Persians and the Greeks until

after the death of Alexander; when a new monarchy arose in Egypt founded by Ptolemy the son of Sagus, which continued to Cleopatra a period of about 300 years.

§ 11. The Carthagenians derived their manners, customs and laws from the Tyrians, and their government has been thought to have been founded upon principles of the most consummate wisdom. Aristotle ranks it among those which were held in great esteem among the ancients. This opinion was founded upon the fact that for upward of five hundred years from its foundation, and until his day, no considerable sedition had disturbed the peace, nor any tyrant oppressed the liberty of the state. It united those different authorities which counterpoised and gave mutual assistance to one another. These authorities were that of the two supreme magistrates called Suffetes,---that of the senate and that of the people. To this was subsequently added the tribunal of one hundred, which had great credit and influence in the republic. The power of the Suffetes was only annual, and their authority in Carthage was similar to that of the consuls at Rome. The manner of their election is unknown. They had the power of convening the senate over which they presided, and propounded subjects for discussion, and received the votes. They also presided in all important debates. Their authority was not limited to the city, nor solely confined to civil affairs. It extended to the command of armies also. On the expiration of their employment as Suffetes, they were made prætors, which also empowered them to propose and enact new laws. The senate was composed of persons venerable on acconnt of age, their experience, their birth, their riches, and their merit, and it formed the council of state. Its number is not exactly known: it must have been large, as a hundred were selected from it to form a separate assembly. In the senate all affairs.

of consequence were debated, letters from generals read, ambassadors admitted, alliances formed, and peace or war declared. The unanimous voice of the senate was supreme, from which no appeal lay. But in case of their disagreement, then the subject matter of such disagreement was laid before the people, who had the power of a decision of the question. To prevent the submission of questions of disagreement in the senate to the people, was not unfrequently an argument of great force in that body, and not unfrequently a prevailing one, by which the senate raised its authority to so great a heighth, and laid the foundations for its great power. Polybius says that while the senate had the administration of affairs, the state was governed with great wisdom, and was successful in all its enterprises; and Aristotle was of the opinion that the people spontaneously left the care of public affairs and the chief administration of them to the senate, and that it was attributable to this fact that the republic became so powerful and renowned among the ancients; but that the people afterward grew insolent by reason of their wealth, and forgetful of how much they owed to the senate for the blessings which they enjoyed, and hence became desirous of sharing more in the government, and arrogated to themselves nearly the whole power. This, according to the views of Polybius, was the ultimate cause of the ruin of Carthage.

The tribunal of the hundred was composed of one hundred and four persons, denominated, however, by the name of the hundred. Aristotle considered this tribunal the same as the Ephori in Sparta. There can be no doubt that it was designed in its institution as a counterbalance to the power of the nobles and the senate. The main difference between the hundred and the Ephori was, that the former was composed of a much greater numerical force, and their office was perpetual; while the latter was annually elected. These centum

viri are supposed to be the same as the one hundred judges mentioned by Justin, who were selected from the senate to inquire into the conduct of the generals. Isocrates says that in civil affairs the Carthagenian government was aristocratical; in military, royal; and this was probably the case in earliest times. The chief magistrates were called suffetes, which, in the Hebrew language signifies judges. But it appears from Aristotle that these judges or kings, who were two in number, were nothing more than annual magistrates, who convoked the senate and presided in that assembly. When the suffetes and the senate were of one mind, the people had no voice in public affairs, and only decided when they were divided in opinion; and he regards this as an imperfection in their constitution. In a commercial republic, where the people gradually become more rich, and more licentious, such a regulation naturally tended to throw too much power in their hands. During the century which elapsed from Aristotle to Hannibal, the people of Carthage became more powerful than the senate. At Rome the reverse was the case; for there, the senate was more powerful than the people; and to these circumstances chiefly the authors of antiquity ascribe the very different fortunes of the two nations in the ever memorable wars waged between them.

§ 12. The monarchical or regal government was preferred above all others by the wisest among the ancients. It met the approbation of Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch and Herodotus. It was likewise the only form adopted among the nations of the east. The Persians paid great honor and respect to the prince on the throne, for the reason that they regarded him as the vicegerent of God, and placed on the throne by the hand of the supreme governor of the world, and invested with his authority and power, in order to be the minister of his providence, and the dispenser of his goodness towards the people. Pagan

ism sometimes carried this notion quite on the verge of extremes; yet Christianity has at all times fixed with greater precision the true limit to this point. The ancient sages not unfrequently allude to what they understand to be the true position. Thus, Tertulian has said, "we honor the emperor but in such a manner as is lawful for us and proper for him. That is, as a man who is next after God in rank and authority, from whom he has received all that he is and whatsoever he has, and who knows no superior but God alone." For this reason he calls the emperor in another place a "second majesty, inferior to nothing but the first." The Persians not unfrequently styled their prince the great king, the king of kings. It has been supposed that two reasons might induce those princes to take those very ostentatious titles. The one because the empire was formed of many conquered kingdoms, all united under one head. The other, because they had several kings their vassals, either in their court or dependent on them. The crown was hereditary among them, descending from father to son, and generally to the eldest. Absolute as the regal authority was among the Persians; yet it was in some measure kept within bounds by the establishment of a national council, appointed by the state, consisting of seven of the princes or chief lords of the nation, no less distinguished for their wisdom and abilities than by their illustrious birth. We are told in the Scriptures, (Ezra, vii. 14,) that Ezra was sent into Judea in the name and by the authority of king Artaxerxes and his seven counsellors. "Forasmuch as thou art sent of the king and of his seven counsellors." These counsellors were well versed in the laws, ancient customs and maxims of the state. They always attended the prince who never transacted any thing, or determined any affair of importance without their advice. This council had no power to control or interfere with the king's authority, having at