of Christianity.  The views and sentiments, the aggregate of which make up the body of Christian opinion, are not all of Jewish or Christian origin.  They are the moral creed of societies whose opinions and civilization have been derived in part from other sources.  The philosophy of Greece and the law of Rome have contributed in nearly equal proportions to the theosophy of the Hebrews.  The jurisprudence of all Christian nations is mainly referable to Rome for its origin, and the same is the case with at least the Sunnite Mahometans.  The nations of Islam took only their religious creed from their Prophet; the jurists of Kufah retained and expounded the civil law which prevailed among them before his time.  That law was the law of the Greek Empire, developed in the same way as that of the Western Empire under the judicial and legislative auspices of Roman Praetors and Pro-Consuls, aided by Roman jurists.  Theophilus, one of the jurists employed by Justinian for his compilations, lectured in Greek on the Institutions; and the substance of his lectures still survives under the name of the Paraphrase of Theophilus.  The Greek edicts and novels of Justinian’s successors are mainly Roman law.  Throughout the Byzantine Empire (within which Kufah and the region where Bagdad now stands were included) Roman law was paramount, and Roman jurists were numerous.  The arrangement, the subdivisions, and the substance of Mahometan jurisprudence, show that it has been principally derived from this source.  Some of its doctrines are doubtless aboriginal engrafted on the law of the Empire; and it has been modified in some respects to reconcile it to the religious dictates of Islam, just as the law of Pagan Rome was modified after Christianity became the religion of the Empire.  But still Mahometan jurisprudence retains undeniably the lineaments of its parentage.

This consideration places in a strong light the importance of the study of Mahometan law.  The increasing intimacy of our relations with independent Mahometan states makes it of the utmost consequence that we should entertain correct views of their opinions and institutions; and no better key to the knowledge of both can be found than in the historical study of their law.  Again, we are called upon to legislate and supply judges for British India, a large proportion of the inhabitants of which are Mahometans.  Even the Hindoos of the former Mogul Empire have adopted many legal forms and doctrines from their conquerors.  A minute and accurate acquaintance with Mahometan jurisprudence is an indispensable preliminary to judicious legislation for British India.  For these reasons, it could be wished that Mr. Baillie, or some other equally accomplished laborer in that field, would set himself to do for the “Futawa Alumgeeree” what Heineccius and other modern civilians have done for the law-books of Justinian—­present the European public with an elegant and exact abstract of its contents.

* * * * *