mind of a rare character who seems born to govern the human race. Such an awful and severe genius was the legislator of the Hebrews. The Sabbatical institution he boldly extended to a seventh year, equally as he had appointed a seventh day. At that periodical return the earth was suffered to lie fallow and at rest. In this Sabbath of the land," the Hebrews were not permitted to plant, to sow, or to reap; and of the spontaneous growth no proprietor at those seasons was allowed to gather more than sufficed for the bare maintenance of his household. There was also release of debtors. The sublime genius of Moses looked far into futurity, when, extending this great moral influence, he planned the still greater Sabbatical institution for every fifty years. Seven Sabbaths of years closed in the Jubilee, or the great year of release. Then at the blowing of the horn in the synagogue the poor man ceased to want; the slave was freed; all pledges were returned; and all lands reverted to their original proprietors. To prevent an excessive accumulation of wealth, the increase of unlimited debts, and the perpetuity of slavery, this creator of a political institution like no other, decreed that nothing should be perpetual but the religious republic itself.-pp. 131, 133.

But the Rabbins, in carrying the simple principles of Judaism to an extreme as they did, forgot not the Sabbath; and though the primitive restrictions, associated with that day, were austere enough, yet they endeavoured to cause an aggravation of them. Thus they prohibited any female from looking at herself in a mirror on the the Sabbath day, lest she should be tempted to pluck a hair from her head; no Israelite could shake the dust off his shoes, without committing a breach of the Sabbath; and on that day he could neither lift a weight, nor touch money, bathe, nor play on any instrument; nay, at Jerusalem, the distance between that city and the Mount of Olives, was exactly measured, and its length was sent forth over the world, to the dispersed Jews, as the exact limit of their walk on the Sabbath day. It is obvious that a people, who were bound down by such a discipline as is here implied, must be altogether unfit for familiar intercourse with the community, amongst the members of which they happened to be located.

There are to be added to these two reasons for the separate existence of the Jews, two others; the nature of which we shall proceed to explain. The first of these was the excessive number, together with the minuteness of their rites in the ceremonial law. The practice of circumcision alone was sufficient to create a permanent distinction between the Jews and the rest of the world. Whilst it is admitted that this rite was of divine origin amongst the Hebrews, still there is proof of its having been practised by the Egyptians. Celsus, the celebrated medical writer, reproaches the Jews for attaching the dignity of a religious coremony to an observance which was common to many other nations. One result, however, was effected by this rite; namely, that no convert to Judaism could become a Jew, without giving the strongest possible proof of his sincerity in submitting to the sufferings involved in this initia tory process.

But the cause which has been, perhaps, the most efficient in pushing the Jewish nation beyond the pale of the common family of mankind, was the fourth and last, namely, the number of ordinances respecting the food of the Jews, which the Rabbins, again carrying to an extreme a simple provision of Moses, established. Moses made a distinction between pure and impure animals, but the Rabbins went farther. In the hot climate of the East, where the illustrious legislator was fixed, it was only proper in him, with a view to the health of the people, to forbid them from eating the fat of the swine, or the limb of a living animal, or the meat of an animal which had died, or rank shell fish, or birds of prey, and carnivorous animals. These would have been highly improper materials or aliments, and therefore any ordinance must have been wise by which the consumption of such articles was prevented, or even only diminished. But when the Rabbins took it upon them to improve upon the foundation of Moses, they proceeded altogether on an arbitrary scheme, for many of the aliments which they denounced were by no means unwholesome, whilst some of those which they admitted into consumption, were undoubtedly objectionable, on account of their noxious properties. Amongst the animals which were prohibited, were the rabbit, some wild fowl, the moor-cock, and other creatures whose flesh was certainly much more innocent, as an article of human food, than that of the buffalo, the wild ox, or the he-goat; and yet flesh of the latter kind was prohibited.

It is mentioned by the author as a curious circumstance, that when Napoleon caused an extraordinary Sanhedrim to be held in Paris, one of the most learned of the Rabbins was required to give his reasons why the ritual of forbidden food should not be abolished. His answer was that the prohibitions were of a divine origin; and that though human reason could not detect any just cause why a particular animal should not be eaten, yet it was probable that some motive, known only to divine wisdom, required the prohibition. The camel, argued the Rabbin, (he will be remembered by many as the Chevelier de Cologna) the camel is interdicted; now as we know that its flesh affords a nutritious and even delicate food amongst the orientalists, the great legislator must have had some more important motive in prohibiting the use of these animals as food: we must, therefore, he concludes, infer that the distinction between clean and unclean animals has originated in a higher and more occult source. So strong is the force of habit, that up to the present hour no Jew will eat of a beast which is not slaughtered by a Jewish butcher. The latter is understood to search the animal most carefully, to see that no blemish exists in its body, and he affixes to the meat a leaden seal, with the word "Kasher" (lawful) upon it. This seal renders the meat acceptable to the Jewish consumer, for he will not purchase it on any other terms. Now, mean and trifling as the process appears to be, it certainly

serves as a guide to point out to a stranger, in any country, if a Jewish family is to be found in it. Of the truth of this remark the author is satisfied from an example with which he is acquainted. Some Spanish Jews, fleeing from persecution, took ship, and landed by mere accident at Embden. They knew nobody in the place, and were in the most anxious state of doubt, not knowing which direction to pursue. On entering the city, they met a lad carrying a goose with a label annexed to it: on the label was the Hebrew word Kasher; they followed the lad home, and it is needless to say how they were received by the master, for whose accommodation, of course, the approval of the Jew poulterer was thus officially affixed. The author represents, although we do not know for what adequate reason, that the simple circumstance of prohibited food, has reduced the Hebrew nation to the state of the Hindoos, and been the heaviest curse which they have yet had to endure; because, in all cities, they are condemned, by an intolerance not always Christian, but very often merely Jewish, to inhabit separate and obscure quarters: thus in the city of London we have the Jewry; in Paris there are La Rue des Juifs, and La Juiverie. This sort of appropriation of a specific place of residence in most metropolitan cities for Jews, seems to be of long standing. Cardoso, of whom we have already spoken, sought to reconcile this inauspicious fact to a theory of his own, by saying, that these Jewish inclosures had not originatated so much in the contempt of the Jews by the population of those cities, as in the arrangements of a particular Providence, which was ever vigilant in providing that Israel should be as much as possible removed from the contagion of vice and folly.

There can be little doubt that the misfortunes of the Israelites have been very considerably augmented by the contemptible regulation which forbids them to share in the meat of a Christian. When Napoleon assembled the Jewish Sanhedrim of Paris, a banquet was given by him, at which the late A. Goldsmid assisted. He was allowed to convey his own Kasher dish to the table of royalty: for on no other terms would he have joined the imperial banquet. Absorbed for a short time in the subject of the moral and political reform of the Jews, he was silent: but, suddenly striking his forehead, he exclaimed, "But what can be done for their eating?" Goldsmid hit the nail on the head: for, strange as it may appear, the difficulty of deciding upon the forbidden aliments was the main cause of the abrupt breaking up of the Sanhedrim. It is not known to many, that, at this moment, a Jew's kitchen-that is, a thoroughgoing Rabbinical Jew, such as Abraham Goldsmid was-is a spot as rife in superstition as the haunt of any witch that ever rode on a broomstick. Our author tells us, that,

Two spirits have been conjured up in the bewitched circle-there haunts Kasher, the lawful food, and Treffo, the impure. Remove a pan, or handle

a knife, and you raise that multiform demon Treffo, which no Hebrew dare touch, and whose diabolical agency is at eternal war with that benevolent spirit to hungry Jews, their beloved Kasher. This active diabolism of Treffo is occasioned by a duplicate set of culinary utensils, to preserve the sanctity of the Mosaic kitchen; those dedicated to butter must not touch those appropriated for meat. Should a butter knife be stuck into a joint, or a meat knife be plunged into butter, that dread omen would shake a Jewish house. The Kasher vanishes for ever when the Treffo triumphs, and the dinnerless family, for there is no exorcism to expel this demon, with trembling and with curses, cast away the polluted food, or send it to a stranger in the gates." Moses permits an impure animal to be sold to an alien. How has this tradition of these duplicate utensils come down to them, and how has this panic been raised? The answer is ready. Not a single superstition, indeed, is practised, which is not founded on some scriptural phrase; or, if at a loss for the highest authority, the physical prohibition is deduced from a metaphorical sense; the manner we shall now show. Moses forbids " seething a kid in its mother's milk;" as no reason is assigned, the Rabbins, not satisfied with the literal acceptation of the precept, extend it to all sorts of animals, and to all sorts of milk; or, they allegorise the text. The Cabalists allege, for this prohibition, that the flesh of a kid may not be cooked in its mother's milk, because milk is the symbol of pity, and the flesh that of judgment; and pity and judgment must be kept distinct. An admirable maxim, degraded by its ludicrous application. Why do the tribes of Israel for ever regret the absence of choice fillets and rumps? Father Jacob, wrestling with an angel, had the hollow of his thigh put out of joint; and this hamstringing of their Patriarch still occasioning disagreeable recollections, the sons and daughters of Israel shall never regale on any hind quarter whatever. They may "not eat of the sinew which shrunk"-so many thousand years ago!-pp. 164, 167.

Amongst even the most fastidious and enthusiastic of the Jews, a sort of relaxation of religious discipline is recognised; and it is admitted amongst them that the prescription of a doctor may safely be permitted to supersede the ordinance of Moses. The Rabbins differ much on particular points, but they teach that they are at liberty to choose which side they may, at the moment, like best. The following anecdote illustrates this truth: A Jewish gentleman, well known in the scientific world, took, by accident, an extraordinary fancy to a roasted peacock, and had one dressed for his gratification. When the splendid repast was served, a religious scruple made our Jew pause; and for his own satisfaction he had the dish transported to a neighbouring Rabbin, to take his opinion upon the question, whether or not such aliment was forbidden.

The Rabbin was of opinion, but he would not speak decidedly, that the bird was forbidden; and the Jew who consulted him was so influenced by this opinion, that he expressed his resolution to send the dish to a Christian neighbour, whose appetite was not so strictly regulated by his religion. When the Rabbin heard this, he asked, as a favour, that the peacock should be given to himself, saying, candidly, that he intended to eat it. Eating the pea

66

cock," he observed, " is, as I told you, among the doubtful things: one Rabbin is of one opinion, and another of another; you have required my opinion as your Rabbin-you are bound to abide by it; I think it unlawful to eat it, but my father was of a different opinion, and therefore it may be eaten by me, because I act on my father's opinion: I accept the peacock, but I must not ask you to partake of it."

The author next takes up the subject of Jewish conversion, and states that this had been an object of Christian ambition since the time of the fathers of the church. The measures, however, which were adopted for this purpose, in the early Christian times, had only the effect of revolting still more the Jewish nation, and of implanting in their minds an implacable hatred of the Christian name. When, however, the time came that massacres of the Jews, and the extortion of their effects, could no longer be continued, the zeal for their conversion was not less ardent in Christian breasts. The mode of conversion, at this period, was that by public conferences; and though these were very numerous, yet they mostly terminated as religious disputes in general do, in each party adhering more firmly than ever in his peculiar opinion. At a later period, professorships were instituted in Italy, France, and Germany, for the purpose of converting Jews; and our author states, that, in Rome, their attendance on the lectures was compulsory..

At Cassel, the Jews were obliged, by government authority, to learn a catechism, and attend a periodical lecture, in which the grounds of christianity were explained to them, in a suitable manner. But no conversation followed; and, indeed, all autheutic history shows that the number of sincere converts from the Jewish to the Christian faith, has been exceedingly small, notwithstanding the zeal, industry, and treasures that have been expended in this country, as well as on the Continent, for that purpose, by well intentioned, but truly speculative Christians. From all the facts connected with this important subject, which have come to the knowledge of the author, he is fully of opinion that the object which so many christians have at heart, the substitution of the religion of Christ for that of the Old Testament, amongst that community where the latter is so ardently preferred, will not be accomplished, at all events, by the method of bringing it about which has hitherto been put in practise.

In a succeeding chapter, the author enters into an examination of the causes of the hatred which has been uniformly entertained for the Jews in every country where they have been partially domiciled; and the concluding chapter is devoted to a description, historical and modern, of the English Jews. It is not quite certain at what time Jews first made their appearance in this country; but we know that they were objects of cruel persecution, as well as of infamous extortions. In the language of the law they were deemed