tute good grounds for argument, either for or against the truth of any doctrine." p. 31.

We shall leave it to our readers to determine how far Mr. Johlson has conformed to the Old Testament Scriptures in framing this distinction, and whether in the last sentence he has not conceded the vantage ground of the Jewish religion to the heathen and the Deist. If the evidence of revelation, both Jewish and Christian, may not be rested on the basis of uncontrolled miracles, we look in vain for any historical ground upon which to meet the infidel. It is true he appeals to the immediate revelation of the Eternal, and "the public legislation, of which more than six hundred thousand persons were witnesses," as establishing "such doctrines and precepts, as should last permanently for all coming generations." To this, the obvious reply is, that the scriptures contain a multitude of doctrines and precepts, acknowledged on all hands to be permanently binding, which, nevertheless, were never sanctioned by any immediate manifestation of Jehovah. The position, that miracles demonstrate a divine commission to legislate "for that period of time" only, is untenable upon any principles of reason or legislation.

The exposition of the Decalogue is judicious, and consistent with truth, so far as it extends. There is no Christian who might not meditate with profit upon what we are here taught from the third commandment: "Not to make a bad use of the divine name; never to use it unnecessarily, and never to utter it, but with a feeling of the deepest veneration. Therefore, even a prayer is a sin, if unaccompanied with real devotion; how much more sinful must an unnecessary oath be, not to mention a false one, which is an unpardonable profanation and disregard of the holy name of God."

The Christian reader will need no laboured argument to convince him that the Jewish, like the Popish doctrine of traditions, is an excrescence upon the body of revealed truth, an after thought of such as desired to find authority for their cunningly devised fables. The Judaic belief upon this point may be thus summed up:

"We believe, that God communicated some laws orally to Moses, which he in his turn was only permitted to communicate orally to others; and we explain in this manner the verse in Exodus, (chap. xxxiv. 27.) Write down these words alone, for, according to the meaning and intent of these words, I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel."—" The Scriptures and tradition constitute

together but one whole, they being the component parts of the Mosaic law." "The chief Rabbi, Mr. Hurwitz," (it is added in the margin)" drew here my attention to the numerical value of

The numerical value of the first בעל-פה and בכתב the words

is 434, and of the second 187, which added produce the sum of 611, which is precisely the value of the word (Law)!" "When

the learned men of those days (A. M. 3890) saw, that the teachers of the law continually decreased in numbers, occasioned through the intolerable oppressions they had to encounter, and that the law was daily more and more neglected and forgotten, they determined, under the presidency of this pious chief (Rabbi Judah Stanassy) to commit the tradition, which had hitherto been preserved orally, to writing, in short sentences; the book thus composed, they called the Mishna; that is, repetition of the law."- "It was afterwards found to be too short and unintelligible without further elucidation: it came therefore to pass, that, two hundred and eighty years after the afore-mentioned period, this Mishna, and in fact the whole law, were more clearly and amply explained and illustrated, under the presidency of the pious and learned chiefs Rabina and Rab Ashy. The work, which was produced under this revision, is called the Gemara or Talmud, and is divided into 36 books."

The chapters upon Morals contain a variety of just and useful precepts, but nothing which is peculiar to Judaism as a system. It strikes us, however, as a singular feature in the moral code of a modern Jew, that it is forbidden (as it is in these expositions of the law) to take any interest for money. After citing the passage in Deut. xxiii. 19. "Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother," &c. it is asked "But suppose the verse had another meaning, and should not refer to the borrower but to the lender; and that its import be: From a stranger thou mayest take interest, but not from thy brother;' will this permit us to loan to those on usury who are not of our faith?" The answer is, "We can by no means give such a turn to this precept, for, in the first instance, this passage can not allude to usury, since we do not find a word of this import in the Holy Scriptures. Secondly, all our fellow citizens, no matter of what faith they may be, are our brothers, and we are accordingly obliged to assist them in their need without compensation." "All kinds of interest, without reference to the amount are strictly prohibited. And as no kind of interest is allowed by law, it is evident that there can be no word, which signifies usury," p. 88.

It is due to the author of this book to say that here and in all its pages there is manifested a spirit of kindness and beneVOL. III. No. I.-S

volence, which prejudiced persons are too apt to consider as altogether foreign from the character of the Israelite.

The concluding chapter of the volume bears the title of Means to become pious, and might readily be expected to contain some intimation of the Jewish tenets upon the momentous question, how sinful men may be just with God. Instead of this, there is a careful avoidance of any acknowledgment that mankind are under condemnation, or in need of any divine influence; and what we are permitted to gather concerning justification, leads to the inference that our righteousness is a meritorious observance of the moral and ceremonial precepts. In order "to become daily more virtuous," we are instructed to appreciate the excellence of virtue; to commune with the pious; to read the Scriptures, and to pray; and the chapter is taken up with certain defective, but judicious remarks upon the duty of prayer.

If we had been asked what might be mentioned as the two great, distinctive doctrines of the Jewish faith, as opposed to Gentile or Deistical systems, we should have answered without hesitation, the doctrine of sacrifice as connected with an atonement for sin, and that of a Messiah, promised to redeem Israel. Yet in a work professing to communicate the fundamental points of the Mosaic religion, there is not one syllable enjoining sacrifice, nor a single allusion to the Messiah. The evasion of these subjects, which are so prominent in the Old Testament, is manifestly the result of a deliberate purpose. Various occasions offer, where one would suppose some notice of these great truths could not have been avoided. In speaking of the worship of God, the author divides it into the inward and the outward service of God," and describes the outward worship as "those acts of piety, through which we prove our love to God, by words and deeds. This worship, however, does not merely consist in the exercise of acts of benevolence and charity, but also in private and public prayers, and the observance of the ceremonial laws." (p. 68.) Here the reader must observe that the fairest opportunity of introducing the doctrine of sacrifices is passed over in studied silence. A manual which takes its name from Moses contains no allusion to that which fills so very large a space in the writings of that holy man. How manifest is the implied concession, that the law had but a "shadow of good things to come," when even the shadow is abandoned by this misguided people.

As far as we are permitted to learn any thing from this

epitome, with regard to the method of obtaining pardon and justification, the ancient ground upon which Israel rested is altogether vacated. An Infidel, a Mussulman, or a Christian, with the Bible in his hands, would unquestionably conclude, that these favours were to be obtained, if the Scriptures are any rule of faith, through the medium of sacrifice; and all history evinces that such was the uniform belief of the ancient Jews. But we here find that sacrifices are declared to be no essential part of worship.

"Sacrifices are not a necessary requisite to our worship. Only when the temple yet stood, and the Israelites lived together in their own land, sacrifices were ordered to be brought at the place which God had chosen," to let his name dwell there" (Deut. 12 ch. 11v.); but on no account, was it permitted to bring them beyond the precincts of the temple. But since our temple is now destroyed, and the Israelites are dispersed in every land, the sacrifices have ceased of necessity; for, to offer them now, would be in direct contradiction to the will of God. And then, even when we were yet in Palestine, private sacrifices were not necessary, and a man was not considered as sinning, if he never brought a single voluntary offering in all his life; as a virtuous and religious life is more agreeable to the Deity than any presents we can bring." p. 70.

The last sentence of the paragraph just quoted is as remarkable an instance of blindness, prejudice, or wilful sophistry, as we have ever detected in the writings of a learned man. In order to prove that sacrifices are not "indispensably necessary at public worship," it is urged that "private sacrifices were not necessary.' If this were literally true, it is altogether irrelevant to the argument: for the public worship of Israel mainly consisted in offerings which had reference to the whole body of the people. We may instance the solemnities on the great day of atonement, concerning which it is enjoined; "And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins once a year.” (Lev. xvi. 34.) And further than this, no man could with impunity pass his whole life without making sacrifice, unless he could so live as never to feel conscious of guilt, to be expiated by a burnt offering; or so as never to sin in a single instance through ignorance, when a sin-offering was demanded; or so as to contract no ceremonial uncleanness, which made a trespass-offering necessary; or unless he should never so feel his obligation as to render solemn thanks by a peace-offering. (Lev. i. 2. iv. 27. v. 3. vii. 12.) The expostulation of Jeho

vah, in the forty-third of Isaiah, plainly shows that even the oblations which might be called voluntary, were no less moral duties than the others, being precisely on the same footing with thanksgiving in general.

It is undoubtedly true, that acceptable sacrifices can no longer be offered; but instead of giving the destruction of the temple as a reason for this, we are to regard both these events, the cessation of ceremonies and the ruin of the visible sanctuary, as effects of the same new dispensation. The modern Jewish doctrine is evidently fabricated to suit the melancholy necessity of their present condition. Their notion at the present day is this: that as there is no longer any temple, their repentance and their death will be sufficient to secure forgiveness, yet at the same time, that this blessing would be much more easily obtained by means of sacrificial rites. "Hodie victimas offere non possumus, destituti mediis ad hoc necessariis, quæ quando obtinemus, tum remissio illa tanto facilior reddetur." (Respon. ad quæst. sept. Brenii.) Here it is assumed, in contradiction to the whole tenour of the Mosaic law, that sacrifices, instead of expiating sin, were merely given to enable them by the use of other means to obtain remission. Our author represents repentance and reformation as in themselves an atonement.

"A man does penance or becomes converted, when he confesses his sins before God, with a sorrowful and humble heart, and prays to him sincerely for forgiveness on account of the fault he has committed; but the chief requisite is, that he make a positive resolution, to become better, to endeavour earnestly to obtain the mastery over his evil inclinations, to be very watchful over his conduct, and to compensate, as much as possible, for errors committed, with deeds of virtue and piety." p. 65.

In this there is a total relinquishment of the doctrine of sacrificial expiation, as held by the ancient Rabbins, from whom we quote two passages, as given by Outram. Abarbenel, one of their most judicious writers, in the preface to his commentary upon Leviticus, thus states his views on this subject: "Adam and his sons offered sacrifices, supposing that by them they rendered worship to God. For they burned the fat and reins, instead of their own reins and vitals; and made libation of the blood of sacrifices instead of their own blood and life: thinking before God that the blood of themselves who sacrificed deserved to be shed, and their body offered for their sins, but that through Divine benignity, the animal substituted be