for the service of his Creator. Let the aim of all his undertakings be the glory of the Deity. Thus Solomon says, 'In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths.' Prov. iii, 6.

In digesting this complete code of Jewish laws, our author evinced the most persevering assiduity, combined with a profound judgment. He had a thorough and intimate acquaintance with his whole subject, of which he had a full view, at once rapid, correct, and comprehensive. He had very maturely digested his plan, and from it, he in no instance departed. His intention, as he himself declares, was to put an end to that superficial, half-and-half sort of knowledge which the Rabbins have introduced among the Hebrews.

About a century before this work made its appearance, Rabbi Isaac Al-phes, in vain attempted to produce the like of it; and the honour of having produced the most full, comprehensive, and clear system of Talmudic legislation, methodically arranged, freefrom all those extrinsic admixtures with which the parent work abounds, is only due to Maimonides. The great merit of his arduous undertaking was very speedily and generally acknowledged; his fame established, and an honourable rank was assigned to him among the worthies of his nation.

Next in order, we notice his work, "The Book of Precepts.' This is a full and lucid exposition of the 613 precepts contained in the Pentateuch, and enumerated in his preface to the Mishneh Torat. It was originally written in Arabic, and a manuscript in this language is still in the Bodleian. It was translated into the Hebrew by Ibn Tibbon, and others, and published at various periods, with several commentaries attached to it by various learned Rabbins. German and Italian translations of this same work have also been published.

ing."

Next comes his work on logic, "Terms used in the Art of ThinkThis treatise on logic was originally written in Arabic; and is now translated into the Hebrew, German, and Latin languages. It has also been commented upon by the celebrated Mendelssohn; and is to be found in very many notable libraries in Europe.

After the lapse of some time, Maimonides published his Moreh Hannebochim. Some think that by this ostentatious title, he alludes to a saying of Pharaoh, who, when seeing the Israelites somewhat perplexed in consequence of the Red Sea and the high mountains, in their way, exclaimed, Nebochim Him (they are entangled). That his fancy was, that, as the ancient Moses did deliver Israel from that perplexity, so the modern Moses should deliver the same people from the confusion and labyrinth, which was occasioned by several passages of the law, which they did not understand. This, says Dr. Basnage, was a good idea, for he made it a principle, never to follow the doctors implicitly, and

insisting principally on the literal sense of the sacred Scripture, he has very often hit upon the right meaning of God's word. This principle has elicited for him the following expression of Scaliger: Primus fuit inter Hebræos qui nugare desiit."

Indeed, he was not altogether raised above prejudices, so as to be free from inserting in the body of his work, many things which are censurable by exact critics; but, says Dr. Basnage, it is so difficult for a man absolutely to divest himself of the notions he has sucked with his mother's milk, and which seem essentially connected with the religion he professes, that we ought to admire the good sense and equity of those who make part of the sacrifice, and pardon them what is wanting to make it perfect.

Maimonides's principal design in this work was, to silence the cavils of the materialist, and put the scoffing infidel to the blush, by proving the truth and authenticity of the sacred Scriptures, and convincing his readers that the divine law revealed to Moses is in perfect accordance with the choicest gift God has bestowed on man, "his reason." The work is partly critical, partly philosophical, and partly theological; and is divided into three parts. The first contains seventy-six chapters, and treats of the various synonymes, homonymes, metaphors, allegories, and similes found in Scripture; and, moreover, comments on prophecy-heaven, the universe, and angels. The second part discourses, in forty-eight chapters, on God, on the celestial bodies and their influence, and on the law. The third, containing eightyfour chapters, treats on the vision of Ezekiel, providence, and the reasons for the divine commandments.

This work was originally written in Arabic; copies of it, in that language, are still extant, four being in the Bodleian. The reason why he did not write it in Hebrew, is variously assigned: his enemies assert that he feared to bring the many new, not to say heretical ideas which his book contained, before the Israelitish communities, in a language which all could comprehend, and that therefore he preferred concealing them, particularly from the learned Rabbins of the French school, by adopting a language not very generally understood. His friends, on the contrary, assert that his reason was simply because the Arabic language is more copious than the Hebrew, and that, from having continually studied the Arabic authors, who had written on philosophy, that language was more familiar to him, and more completely in his power on philosophical subjects, than any other he was acquainted with. It appears to us, says Dr. Raphall, that in this case, as in many others, the most charitable opinion is likewise the most true. Had concealment been the object of Maimonides, he would not at all have written, and would certainly not have been so active to encourage and assist those who translated his book into the Hebrew language.

The first translator of this work into Hebrew, was Rabbi

10

Judah ben Solomon ben Al-Hophni, called Al-Charisi, and is the author of the work Tachckemoni. This version, however, seems to be very obscure, and was soon superseded by that of Rabbi Samuel ibn Tibbon, which was, in every respect, more successful. This learned Rabbi, having been requested by the principal Rabbins of Provençe, to translate the Moreh Hannebochim into Hebrew, deemed it his duty to correspond with Maimonides, sending to him specimens of the translation, and the Arabic copy from which he was translating, that he might revise it, and also correct those errors which had crept in through the carelessness of transcribers. It was, on this occasion, that Maimonides, being glad that a translation of his work had been undertaken by a very competent man, deemed it proper to send him the following advice: "Whosoever wishes faithfully to translate a work, must avoid rendering it literally, and must not be tied down by the too anxious study to adhere to the precise wording of his original. He should, on the contrary, seize upon the precise meaning of entire sentences, and then render that meaning in such phrases as are most in accordance with the idiom and genius of the language in which he is writing."

This work of Maimonides, though highly esteemed by posterity, has only gained real influence over a small minority of his coreligionists, at least in as far as relates to the important reformation in religious belief, which he endeavoured to bring about, and the philosophical bent which he tried to give to Rabbinical Judaism. This attempt caused, for a time, discussions and agitations in the synagogues, whose character was decidedly opposed to any philosophical tendency, notwithstanding the light with which, in other respects, they appear highly gifted. Its doctrines threw them all into consternation and division. Such an expurgation of Judaism from the legends of the Talmud, and such an effort to induce his people to use the common sense of general mankind in connexion with revealed truth, could not fail to arouse the bigotry of the old school of Rabbinists.

The first outcry was raised at Montpellier, a city of France, where Rabbi Solomon and two of his disciples, Rabbi David and Rabbi Jonah, brought against the work an accusation of heresy, both in respect of the Talmud and the word of God. Rabbi Solomon, who presided over the synagogue at Montpellier, observed three things: 1st. That Maimonides, having studied under the famous Averroes, had embraced the principles of the Peripatetic philosophy, and frequently introduces it in his works; which did not agree with the religion of the Cabbalists, who would not be obliged to reason justly, and have bounds prescribed to their imagination. 2dly. As Maimonides has very distinctly specified the end of the rites and ceremonies of the law, he gave a very great advantage to the Christians; because he showed thereby,

that the end of this institution having ceased, the laws were to be abolished. And, 3dly. That Maimonides has treated of the operations of God, in a manner well enough adapted to the scholastic divinity; and, therefore, the Dominicans have thought it their interest to give vogue to this work, instead of condemning and burning it. In consequence of these charges, the book was condemned and burned in the market-place, and a sentence of excommunication was pronounced against any one who should read it, or any other work imbued with the Greek and Arabic philosophy, or the writings of Greek and Arab philosophers.

This great insult, conveyed by the public burning of Maimonides's book, and the excommunication pronounced against its readers, became the signal for general war; and the synagogues of Spain also were very soon divided into two great and formidable parties. Whilst Rabbi Judah ben Joseph Al-phachar, chief Rabbi of Toledo, made common cause with Rabbi Solomon of Montpellier, the most celebrated teachers of the Spanish synagogues formed a decided majority in favour of Maimonides. The Narbonnese Rabbins retaliated the excommunication, and along with those of Gerona, and Saragossa, loudly and strongly condemned the intemperate zeal of the French Rabbins. Indeed, many, even of the congregations of Provençe, have joined in this condemnation. Rabbi Solomon, however, was not to be overcome, and, after a long contest, he went so far, relying on the support of his partizans in Castile and the north of France, as to excommunicate all those congregations of Provence, Arragon, Navarre, and Catalonia, who persisted in defending the cause of Maimonides.

Sometime ere this bursting of the storm, Maimonides had closed his mortal career, and gone to appear before the tribunal of Him who is righteous and just. He, however, having always been free from prejudice, having a mind fully enlightened by philosophy, and a heart warmed by philanthropy and piety, being also gifted by nature with talents of high order, accompanied with solidity of judgment, and profundity of thought, did not think it amiss to express in his Moreh Hannebochim, the following opinion in reference to at least a part of the Talmud:

"I have said in my comment on the Mishna that I would explain the parables, proverbs, and tales of the whole Talmud, and I had already collected matter for doing so; but, upon reflection, I abandoned the design, and for the following reasons: If I were to explain a parable by another parable, and a proverb by another proverb, and hidden things by hidden things, I should have gained nothing; but to explain those passages as they should be for the common people, is not expedient. And if one of the many foolish Rabbins reads these histories and proverbs, he will find an explanation not necessary; for to a fool everything is right, and he finds no difficulty anywhere. And, if a really wise man reads them, there will

be two ways in which he will consider them. If he take them in their literal sense, and think them bad, he will say, this is foolishness; and in so doing, he says nothing at all against the foundation of the faith; or, he thinks there is a mystery in them, and goes his way, thinking well of the story, but explaining or not explaining it.

"There are persons (Rabbanim) who object to the assigning of a reason for any law whatever, and according to them it is best not to institute any inquiry into the cause of any law or warning. This objection proceeds from unsound minds, which possess no clear consciousness of the motives for this objection. They imagine that if these laws have a useful discernible object which induced God to command them, then they resemble such as are given by human beings, and might have been given by them. But if no object can be discovered and no advantage assigned, then are they doubtless from God, for a human mind would not have fallen upon such things. These weak-minded reasoners imagine man more perfect than their Creator, inasmuch as they think that man would command nothing without purpose, while God would command that which is useless, and caution against things, the practice of which is harmless. Away with such an idea. Precisely the reverse is the case, and the object of all laws was to procure some advantage, as we have explained the text, '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.' Scripture further says, Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.' Scripture thus says that even the statutes will teach the nations that they are founded on wisdom and knowledge; and if the laws have no motive, if they serve no object, bring no advantage, and avert no mischief, why should the believers or practisers be considered as a great and wise nation? But the matter is undoubtedly as we have stated, viz.: the object of every one of the 613 precepts is either to convey some correct notion, to remove some erroneous opinion, to accustom to some good order, to prevent iniquity, to inculcate good habits, or to caution against bad habits; and they may be reduced under three heads, viz., intellectual, moral, and social qualities; every law, therefore, tends either to promote social virtues, or to diffuse true knowledge or morality."

And, in a letter to his disciple, Rabbi Joseph, who was about to open an academy at Babylon, he says:

"Beware of wasting your time in the exposition and laborious poring over the Gemara (i. e., Talmud); for I have read much therein, and have drawn from it but very little profit."

With such passages before us, can we wonder at the rash conduct and intemperate zeal of Rabbi Solomon, who ever yielded an implicit obedience to the following Talmudical decision?" All those who reject the Agadoth, (i. e. legends, aphorisms, parables, apologues, &c.,) as did Sadock and Baithos, are deniers of the law, and as such are condemned on account of the greatness of their