church which can be fairly construed into a proof of the contrary. The second class are the unbelieving Jews: with regard to whom the statement of Warburton appears to be true to its fullest extent. The existence of this opinion among them is sufficiently proved by the testimonies we have lately adduced; and its antiquity will be equally apparent from a remarkable passage in Josephus, which we quoted on a former occasion. The nature of the proofs which they offer in support of this opinion is well deserving of our attention: since we shall thus be enabled to estimate the truth and justice of the charge which has been brought against them, of doing violence to the sacred text for the purpose of eliciting from it this important doctrine. Among the scriptural passages which they allege from the Pentateuch for this purpose, the following are some of the most remarkable. Maimonides professes to establish the doctrine of future rewards on these words: "That it may go well with thee, " and that thou mayest prolong thy daysP." But he confesses that they are not available for his purpose without the aid of cabalistical interpretation 9. Another text adduced by the same writer', is the following: "Yet now, if thou wilt, forgive their sin: and if not, "blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast "written. And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever "hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my "books." "And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, "to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he "might preserve us alive, as it is at this day. These words are understood by Maimonides to express both the temporal and eternal reward of obedience". Pages 282 and 392. P Deut. iv. 40. The whole verse is as follows: "Thou shalt keep there"fore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, "that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that "thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God "giveth thee, for ever." "Hoc est quod dixit Deus, Ut bene sit tibi, et prolonges dies: cujus "dicti explicationem traditione accepimus, Ut bene sit tibi, in seculo quod "totum est bonum, et prolonges dies, in seculum quod totum est longum." Por. Mos. pp. 58, 59. Exod. xxxii. 32, 33. Deut. vi. 24. r Por. Mos. p. 66. "The application of them to this subject will be best understood from his own words: "Ejus, quod hic ait, Ut bene sit nobis omnibus diebus, sensus est, The rabbi Tanchum builds on the foundation of these words: "Which if a man do, he shall live in them." He also cites the authority of Onkelos, who thus paraphrases them: "Which if a man do, he shall through them have "eternal life; quæ si fecerit homo, vivet per ea vita æter6 nay,” The rabbi Simon ben Iohay deduces the resurrection of the dead from these words: "In the sweat of thy face "shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; "for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto "dust shalt thou return." Of this text he gives the following paraphrase: "Thou art now dust, O Adam, and "with that dust thou shalt again be clothed at the time "of the resurrection of the deada!" The rabbi Simai professes to give an evident demonstration of the resurrection from the promise of God that he would give the land of Canaan to the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacobb: for it is to be observed that the promise is not only to the seed of Abraham, but to Abraham himself. Now as Abraham did not possess that land, it is contended that a resurrection must be necessary in order to realize the promised. We need not proceed further in the citation of texts and arguments, since the above will answer every purpose as a specimen of the whole. Those who wish to pursue the inquiry further will find a long enumeration of texts in Warburtone, and a number of scriptural citations, together with the reasonings which have been framed upon them by the eminent doctors of the Jewish nation, in the treatise of Menasseh ben Israel on the Resurrection f. It would be a waste of time to remark, what must occur to every mind not blinded with religious delusion, the very defective nature of the arguments thus offered. The learned Jew to whom we last referred is compelled to acknowledge, that the passages which he has cited from the Pentateuch afford only a probable evidence, not a demonstra "Ut pervenias in mundum, qui totus bonus est et longus, quæ est subsisten"tia perpetua et æterna. Quod vero ait, Ut vivificaret nos sicut hodie, id in"telligitur de subsistentia corporali prima, quæ ad tempus tantum durat.” More Nev. p. iii. c. 27. p. 418. 2 Gen. iii. 19. b Ex. vi. 3, 4. d Men. ben. Is. I. i. §. 4. • Div. Leg. vi. §. 3. vol. v. p. 414. They are taken from the work of Menasseh ben Israel. Lib. I. cap. 1. tive proofs; and therefore feels himself called upon to assign the reasons why a doctrine so important as that of a future retribution should not be taught in a more direct and perspicuous manner. Of these reasons we have already taken a review h Having seen the nature of the arguments employed, and of the reasons assigned, for the obscure and imperfect discoveries of the Law on this vital subject, our surprise at finding that the doctrine of a future state is still maintained to have been the most essential part of the Mosaic dispensation, must now be rather enhanced than diminished. But in order to explain so great an apparent inconsistency, we have only to consider what are the sources of information from which, according to Jewish notions, a just estimate of that dispensation is to be drawn. We find then that the Law which was given by God to Moses is declared by the Jews to have been of two kinds, the Written and the Oral. By the Written they understand that which is contained in the Pentateuch. By the Oral, that which, as they contend, was orally delivered by God to Moses, which was in like manner communicated by Moses to the Israelites, and afterwards transmitted to posterity and perpetuated in the traditions of the Jewish church. The manner in which these traditions are deduced from the time of Moses would furnish the subject of a curious and interesting narrative, but the description would lead us astray from our purpose. It will suffice to say, that the Mishna and the Talmud are regarded by the Jews as the authentic depositories of them: and that the doctrine of future rewards and punishments is clearly delivered in those compilations as a part of the Law delivered by God to Moses. We have said that these traditions carry with them, in the estimation of the Jews, an authority equal to that of the written Law. It will therefore not be improper to subjoin a few particulars which may serve to illustrate at once the value which the Jews attach to them, and, on the other hand, that to which they are justly entitled. The eighth foundation of the Law declares, that the Law was given from heaven; and this is made by Maimonides to include both the written Law and the tradi The words of the original are quoted page 406. b Page 407. tional expositions of it, embracing the minutest particulars in the doctrines of the modern rabbins; all of which are maintained to be exactly framed according to the form which God prescribed to Moses. In like manner, the ninth foundation asserts the eternity of the Law; and this is likewise expounded to comprehend the traditional together with the written Law, both of which are said to be protected from change and abrogation by these words: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command "neither shall you diminish ought from it." you, The same writer quotes from the Talmud a declaration, that not even Elijah the prophet had authority to take away aught from the eighteen precepts which were sanctioned by the two schools of Hillel and Shammaim. We are here to observe, that the concurrent decisions of these schools are regarded as a part of the traditionary or oral Law and that the traditionary Law itself is understood to comprise, not only those precepts which the Jews profess to have received in their present state from Moses by traditional conveyance, but also a vast multitude of others deduced from the former in the way of inference, and of others successively deduced after the same manner, as occasions might arise which rendered them necessary, from the precepts which had been formerly received. The principles on which these deductions are formed are contained, as Maimonides tells us, in thirteen rules or modes of reasoning; which rules, as the Jews teach, were delivered to Moses on Mount Sinain. In the application of these principles, when a controversy arose, the question was decided by the majority of opinions, and such majority was supposed to convey the infallible sense of the Divine Law P. This was carried so far, that in settling the traditionary Law, a prophet was not admitted to have any higher authority than any other person qualified to assist in these decisions. In this respect, Joshua and Phineas were of no higher authority than Rabina and Rab Ashe, the compiler of the Talmud. "If a thousand prophets," says Maimonides," all of whom were equal to Elijah and Eli"sha, were to propose an interpretation [of the Law], "and a thousand and one wise men were to propose an"other and a different interpretation, we must incline to Deut. iv. 2. Maim. Por. Mos. pp. 65, 66. m Maim. Por. Mos. p. 24. • Ibid. pp. 11, 19. n Ib. p. 11. P Ibid. p. 11. Ibid. p. 11. "the greater nuinber: the opinion of the thousand and "one wise men, and not that of the thousand illustrious "prophets is to be followed." The traditions thus obtained are regarded as affording the infallible key to the interpretation of the written Law. This is carried to a great extent. The Law, for example, denounces in the case of a particular transgression, the cutting off of the offender's hands. The punishment thus denounced is declared by the traditionary Law to signify nothing more than a disgraceful mulct. "Now if," says Maimonides, 66 a prophet should arise who interpreted this precept of the Law, according to its literal meaning, to "signify the actual abscission of the hand; if he were to 66 allege the authority of a prophet, and plead a revelation "from God: nevertheless he is to be strangled as a false "prophet. Nor," continues he, "should it avail that pro"phet if he should work a miracle in proof of his words; "since Moses, the great prophet who astonished the world "with his miracles, hath long ago declared to us, that no "other Law should ever proceed from God than that which ❝he delivered t!" The above may serve to illustrate the justice of that accusation in which the Scribes and Pharisees are charged by our Lord with making the commandment of God of none effect through their tradition". * Maim. Por. Mos. p. 19. • Deut. xxv. 12. Ibid. p. 13. The substance of the passage, and not a literal translation, is given above. The account which has been given above of the Jewish traditions will be found remarkably coincident with that conveyed in the passage of the Gospel here referred to. "Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain "of the Scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of "his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, "they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash "their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they "come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, " and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. Then the Pharisees and Scribes "asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the "elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto "them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This "people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. How"beit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments "of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition "of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of "God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy "father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die "the death: but ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is "Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by |