of Israel, has denied a foundation of the faith, ' and is to be esteemed a heretic, an epicurean, and a destroyer of plants; wherefore we are bound 'to persecute him with every odium and injury, ' according to the Psalmist: "Shall not I hate him, O Lord, that hateth thee?"'*

Joseph Albo, a Spanish rabbi of the fifteenth century, in a treatise which its vehement opposition against Christianity recommends to high estimation among the Jews, has animadverted upon Maimonides for not having duly considered the true meaning and proper application of the term (Py) root or foundation. He rejects the article concerning the Messiah, and several others, from the foundations of the faith; which he reduces to three-The existence of one God:-The divine origin of the law of Moses :—and a future state of rewards and punishments. The ten other articles propounded by Maimonides, he admits ought to be believed by a Jew; but contends that they are to be regarded only as branches issuing from these three roots so that he who denies either of them, subverts the whole law; whereas he who denies the advent of the Messiah, the resurrection of the dead, or any similar article, is not chargeable with

Surenhus. Mishna,

* Comm. on Massecheth Sanhedrin, c. 11. Par. iv. p. 264. The original of this passage is cited, and accompanied with a Latin version, by Carpzovius, in Introduct. Raym. Mari. Pug. Fid. p. 43. The second declarative clause being differently rendered / by these two learned men; by Carpzovius, as conferring a claim to be treated with brotherly love; by Surenhusius, as imposing an obligation to exercise it; and the general object of the whole passage not being affected by this variation, I have thought it best to include both

senses.

subverting the law; because he does not touch the root, but merely lops off one of the branches from the tree, which will nevertheless stand without it.It has further been argued, that Rabbi Hillel, the famous contemporary of Shammai, declared that Israel will have no Messias, having already enjoyed him in the person of Hezekiah; and that it must not be affirmed that Hillel had denied the law, and excluded himself from the privileges of an Israelite. Abarbinel notices this anecdote of Hillel, and employs no little sophistry to explain away the declaration attributed to him; imposing upon it a sense very different from what the words naturally convey, and strenuously insisting that Hillel did not really disbelieve the future advent of a Messiah. He has replied to the objections of Albo, and supported all the thirteen articles of Maimonides. They have been approved and sanctioned by almost all the rabbies for the last five hundred years. They have been publicly adopted as the creed of the synagogue, and have been inserted in the prayer books as fundamentals, which all Jews are expected to believe, and are required to repeat every day.*

Most of these articles are capable of an interpretation in which the Christian will coincide with the Jew but many learned men have considered the whole as designed by the compiler, more as an

* Albo, Sepher Ikkarim, Orat. i. c. 3, 4. 23. Orat. iv. c. 42. apud Huls. Theol. Jud. p. 8. Maim. Symbolum Fid. a Genebrard. p. 6-18. Abarbinel De Cap. Fidei, a Vorstio, p. 12. 62-65. Heb. and Eng. Prayer Book, London, 1770. p. 2-4. Heb. and Eng. Prayer Book for Germ. Jews, p. 58, 59. London, A. M. 5569. i. e. A. D. 1809,

abnegation of Christianity, than as an assertion of Judaism. No reasonable doubt can be entertained respecting the sense in which they are received by the generality of intelligent Jews. Those articles which affirm the unity, incorporeity, and eternity of God, are intended as a rejection and condemnation of the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. The sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and twelfth, are pointed against the mission of Jesus, the inspiration of the New Testament, the abrogation of the 'Mosaic ritual, and the introduction of another economy. The eleventh is understood as a denial of the doctrine of vicarious sacrifice and atonement by the death of Christ.*

The advent of a Messiah appears to possess much less importance in this creed of modern Jews than there is reason to believe was assigned to it in the system of their pious ancestors. Nor will this alteration excite the wonder of any person, who considers the hopes they have indulged and the disappointments they have experienced for so many ages.

The eleventh article asserts, that obedience to the divine commands is rewarded, and transgression punished: but,-whether the present condition of human nature is a state of innocence or depravity;-whether any man actually performs an obedience that merits reward;-how pardon is to be obtained for transgression; or whether there is any forgiveness attainable at all;-this creed is

* Buxtorf. Synag. Jud. c. iii. p. 23–25.

Huls. Theol. Jud. p. 8.

wholly silent. The sentiments of modern Jews on these momentous points must be sought elsewhere.

The thirteenth article is expressed in terms sufficiently general to comprehend the various opinions maintained by Jewish writers on the resurrection of the dead.-Some have considered it as the exclusive privilege of pious Israelites : some have represented it as promised to all Israelites, but to no Gentiles. Some suppose that pious Israelites will be raised at the coming of the Messiah, and the rest of the nation at the end of the world. According to some, the pious will rise to be rewarded, and the wicked to be punished; but those who have been neither pious nor wicked, will not be raised at all. Some expect all Israelites to be raised, except those who disbelieve a resurrection, deny the divine authority of the law, or become epicureans. Others extend the privilege to the pious among the Gentiles, who observe the precepts which the Jews say were given to the sons of Noah. But none of the rabbies allow the resurrection to include all mankind.*

The precepts of the Jewish religion are six hundred and thirteen. They are considered as a digest of the whole law; and every precept is referred to some text in which it is believed to be either expressed or implied. Some difference exists as to the matter of a few precepts; but almost

* Buxtorf. Synag. Jud. c. iii. p. 31-35. Huls. Theol. Jud. p. 173. Hoornbeck contra Jud. p. 433-435. 551–553.

all the rabbies agree in the total number, and the specification given of them by Maimonides has been generally followed.-They are divided into two classes, affirmative and negative. The affirmative are two hundred and forty eight; answering, as is alleged, to the number of members in the human body: the negative, three hundred and sixty five; which rabbinical anatomy pronounces to be the number of veins or other smaller vessels:--according to others the negative precepts correspond to the days in a solar year.-By one learned rabbi the total is stated to be the same as the number of letters in the decalogue: another, equally learned, counting in his copy of the decalogue six hundred and twenty letters, has thought an addition of seven precepts necessary to supply the deficiency.-All these correspondencies have been represented as full of the most valuable instruction.*-Speaking of the two tables of the decalogue Mr. Crooll says: These two tables contained the whole law; for ' in the Ten Commandments there are six hundred ' and thirteen letters, and each letter stands for ' one command, and in the whole law of Moses 'there are six hundred and thirteen command

ments; and such was the power of these two

tables, that it contained the complete law of Moses. Thus far it is proved, that a perfect 'God gave a perfect law.'+

Maimon. Symbol. Fid. et Buxtorf. Synag. Jud. c. iii.

Raym. Mart. Pug. Fid. p. 85-89. Legis Præcept. a Genebrard. p. 36-66. p. 39. 41. Leusden. Phil. Eeb. Dis. v. s. 2. See also a recital of all these Precepts in Hebrew and English, in Prayers for the Feast of Pentecost, p. 119-131. London, A. M. 5567. i. e. A. D. 1807. +Restoration of Israel, p. 32, 33.