"The multifarious engagements of our learned physician, numerous and toilsome as they were, could not divert him from his favourite studies of Hebrew jurisprudence and literature; we therefore find him labouring with indefatiga ble diligence and patience on a digest of the Jewish laws, collected from the immense and confused compilations of the Talmud. This great work he entitled Yad Hachazakah, The strong hand, or Mishneh Torah, The Mishnical Law:' it has been several times printed; and is held in high estimation as an excellent compendium of the laws and decisions of

the Talmud.

“Another work of still greater interest and value, was his MORE NEVOCHIM, or 'Instructor of the Perplexed,' which he completed in his fiftieth year, and to which he appears to have brought the most profound learning under the direction of the soundest judgment. It is a critical, philosophical, and theological work, in which he endeavours to explain the difficult passages, phrases, parables, allegories, and ceremonies of the Old Testament; and is rendered particularly important, by an excellent Exposition of the grounds and reasons of the Mosaic Laws,' to which many of our most eminent Biblical critics and commentators have been deeply indebted. It was written originally in Arabic, by Maimonides, and afterwards translated into Hebrew, with his approbation, by his friend and disciple, R. Samuel Aben Tybbon, author of an Hebrew translation of Euclid, and other learned works. A prospectus of an edition of the Arabic, to be accompanied with a Latin version and notes, was circulated by the eminent Orientalist Dr. Thomas Hyde; but not meeting with sufficient encouragement, he abandoned the design. The prospectus has been since reprinted in the Syntagma of Dr. Hyde, by Dr. Gregory Sharpe. In 1520, Justinian, Bishop of Nebio, published a Latin translation of this work, in folio, beautifully printed with a Gothic type, by Badius Ascensius, at Paris. The younger Buxtorf undertook a new version of the Hebrew into Latin, which was printed at Basil, by J. J. Genath, 1629, 4to. with a preface including a

biographical account of the author. The Hebrew, accompanied with Rabbinical in 1553, and at Jaznitz, in 1742: other commentaries, was printed at Venice, editions also have been printed at different times, which it is unnecessary to particularize."--pp. 16–18.

The work which Dr. Townley has translated, is divided into twenty-four chapters, which treat of all the subjects which Maimonides deemed important in the law-such as-whether the Mosaic precepts have a discoverable design, or depend solely on the will of God. That the law has a two-fold intention: the perfection of the mind, and the welfare of the body-that the Mosaic precepts are rational-the origin of oblations, &c. He divides the law into fourteen classes, and endeavours to explain and vindicate the precepts included in those classes.

forms an unanswerable argument The whole work in support and illustration of the remarks at the beginning of this article. It shows how little all the learning and ingenuity of man can do for the dispensation of Moses, unaided by a greater light than its own, and how paltry the whole system appears when unconnected with its grand ultimate object. Take for an example what he says about the clothing of the priests, the burning of incense, and the holy anointing.

"To add to the honour of God's house, and to render it more august, he exalted the dignity of its ministers and separated the priests and levites from others: he also commanded that the priests should be clothed with beautiful and costly vestments, as it is said, (Exod. xxviii. 2,) Thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty;' and ordered that no one should be admitted into the ministry (of the sanctuary,) who had any bodily defect, none who had any deformity being eligible to the priesthood; the reason of which was, as explained in the Talmud, because the vulgar do not judge of men

according to their real perfection which is rational and intellectual, but according to their personal comeliness, and the beauty and richness of their garments: the design, therefore, of all these precepts was, that the house of God might be held, by every one, in due reverence and honour.

"The Levite likewise, who neither offered nor sacrificed, and of whom it was not said that he might expiate sin, as was said of the priests, (Levit. iv. 26,) 'The priest shall make an atonement for him,' and again, (Levit. xii. 7,) The priest shall make an atonement for her,' -but whose office was singing, might be rendered ineligible by his voice; for in singing the chief object is to affect the mind by the words which are sung, which can never be effected except by melodious voices, pleasant tunes, and suitable instruments of music, such as have always been in the sanctuary.

"It was also to honour the sanctuary, that even the priests themselves, the lawful ministers of the sanctuary, were forbidden to reside in it, or to enter it at pleasure; and that no one but the High-Priest was ever permitted to enter into the Holy of Holies, and that only four times annually on the day of expiation.

"To prevent the stench which would otherwise have been occasioned by the number of beasts which were every day slaughtered in the sanctuary, and their flesh cut to pieces and their inwards and legs washed and burnt, God ordained that incense should be burned in it every morning and evening, and thereby rendered the odour of the sanctuary and of the vestments of those who ministered exceedingly grateful; which has occasioned the saying of our Rabbins, that the odour of the incense extended to Jericho.--This, therefore, is another of the precepts conducing to the reverence and veneration which ought to be entertained for the sanctuary; for if the perfume had not been pleasant, but the contrary, it would have produced contempt instead of veneration, since a grateful odour pleases and attracts, whilst an unpleasant one disgusts and repels.

"The anointing oil, (Exod. xxx. 31,) produced a two-fold benefit, the pleasantness of what was anointed with it, and the dignity and sanctity of that which was separated by it from the rest of its kind and consecrated to a more excellent use, whether it were a man, or a garment, or any utensil. This also, as well as the other precepts, may be regarded as inducing that veneration for the sanctuary which creates reverence and fear of God; for the minds of men are peculiarly impressed with devotional

feelings on entering the sanctuary, and the hard heart becomes softened and humbled; and thus, by softening and humbling the hearts of men, Divine Wisdom prepares them for receiving with greater readiness the commandments of God, and leads them to fear Him, as is shown in the law, when it says, (Deut. xiv. 23,) Thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks: that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always.' Thus the design of all the before-mentioned actions is made evident."-pp. 267 --270.

With these luminous views of this wise and learned Rabbi, we request our readers to compare the reasonings of the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. ix. and x.

The value of the More Nevochim is greatly increased by the learned Dissertations and Notes of the translator, which in fact оссиру the greater part of the volume, and discover the usual research and discrimination of their author. There are nine Dissertations on curious, and some of them very difficult subjects; and the notes contain a great fund of interesting and valuable illustration.

The learned work of Dr. Outram, of which Mr. Allen has furnished a very admirable translation, is, from its nature, intìmately allied to the subject of the preceding volume. Maimonides, indeed, is often quoted in it. It may be regarded as the production of a Christian philosopher on some of the most important points to which the Jewish Doctor had directed his attention. And if the reader will examine the two works consecutively, he will find an excellent illustration of the vast superiority which a Christian divine has over a Jewish philosopher, in treating the points of his own religion.

"The Author's name was Owtram, but latinizing it for this work he wrote it Outramus; and this way of spelling, without the termination, has been so generally retained, that the translator thought it best to conform to it.-Dr. OUTRAM was a native of Derbyshire, and born in the year 1625. He was entered of Trinity College, Cambridge, where he took his degree of B. A. and obtained a fellowship. In 1649 he took his degree of M. A. and in 1660 that of D. D. He was presented to the rectory of St. Mary Woolnoth, in London; afterwards, in 1669, he was collated to the archdeaconry of Leicester; and, during the following year, he was installed prebendary of St. Peter's church in Westminster. In 1677 he published the work of which the present volume is a translation. He died in 1679."-p. iv.

The work of Dr. Outram has long been known to scholars in its original dress, and highly esteemed by them. It is, in general, a remarkably accurate and scriptural representation of the important subjects on which it treats. It was the examination of the Socinian controversy that led the learned author into the train of thinking which he has so successfully pursued, and of which he gives the following account.

"While I was reflecting on these things, it occurred to me that the Scriptures speak of Christ as our high priest, and of his death not only as the death of a martyr and a witness, but also as that of an expiatory victim, slain for the sins of mankind; that the high priest of the Jews shadowed forth Jesus Christ our high priest, and their expiatory victims, to say nothing here of the others, represented Christ as our victim; and lastly, that it is beyond all doubt, that what was shadowed forth by the types, was really accomplished by the antitype. Being fully persuaded of this sentiment, I thought it necessary to examine the sacrifices of the Jews, and carefully to inquire,—what is the proper design of a sacrifice; what kinds of sacrifices were appointed by the law of Moses: which of those kinds principally shadowed forth the sacrifice of Christ; what a very particular selection of every kind was appointed by God; to what persons each kind was either enjoined or permitted; on what accounts, with what ceremonies, and in what place, it was to be offered

and killed; what was the design of the sacred tabernacle, of the temple at Jerusalem, of the consecrated altar, and of the sacred table; what were the respective parts of the priests, the Levites, and the offerers, in regard to the sacrifices; and, lastly, what opinions were held by the Jewish doctors, and by the Heathens, on their respective sacrifices; and by the ancient Christian writers on both.

"My examination of these and many other points led me to form two conclusions respecting the sacrifices of the Jews. First, That the efficacy of them all, like that of solemn prayers and thanksgivings, properly had respect to God; because I found them all to have been divinely instituted, as means of obtaining or celebrating his favour. Secondly, That the expiatory victims, by their vicarious suffering, expiated the sins of those persons for whom they were offered. These two positions I thought required to be distinctly proved, before I should treat of the Sacrifice of Christ; lest by crowding the Jewish sacrifices, and the ceremonies belonging to them, into the same part of the work with topics peculiar topics peculiar to Christianity, I should induce obscurity on the subjects of my discussion and be tedious to the readers. And conceiving that all the Jewish sacrifices might be examined with nearly the same labour as these two propositions, I thought it better to discuss the whole of the subject at large, than to confine myself to certain parts of it, and those disconnected with each other. Such was the occasion of my writing the following dissertation on the Sacrifices of the Jews, with the addition, where I thought it important, of some accounts of the sacrifices of other nations. I hope the work will be useful to persons who are desirous of knowing, what it concerns all to be well acquainted with, the design and efficacy of the Sacrifice of Christ.”—

pp. 4-6.

The work is accordingly divided into two dissertations; which are again subdivided, the former into twenty-two chapters, the latter into seven. Without subscribing to every sentiment held by the learned author, we acknowledge that there are few writers who have treated these subjects more according to our views. He has not made all the use of his subject of which it is capable; but so far as he does go, he is generally very judicious in his interpretation

and application of the Scriptures. On one or two points the translator has animadverted with propriety, and it would have been well had he extended, not his animadversions, but his illustrative or corroborative notes a little further.

The work of Dr. Magee may be considered as having superseded this; but it is not the case. Some of Dr. Outram's sentiments are more in unison with our own, than those of Dr. Magee, to whose elaborate work we are, notwithstanding, disposed to ascribe a high degree of merit. While both combat, and that very powerfully, the Socinians; there is far less of the odium theologicum in Outram than in Magee; while he maintains his argument with great point and decision. In the following passage, which we give as a specimen, he is treating of the work of Christ in heaven. We agree entirely with him on this interesting subject.

"Now the first point, which is that Christ presented himself to God in the heavenly sanctuary in such a manner as constantly to commend to him both our persons and services, and with a view to render him perfectly propitious to us, is proved by the declaration that he offered himself to God in heaven; by the design of the sacerdotal office, of which office the oblation that followed the slaughter of the victim was always a principal function; and by the express language of the scriptures.

"For, in the first place, he who is said to offer any thing to God, is, by this very expression, declared to have business with God, and to do that which relates to God. Hence it is evident that Christ, in offering himself to God as a piacular victim previously slain for our sins, performed a function which related to God. But what was the object of that function may be learned from the design of such a sacrifice; which its piacular nature shows to have been, that God, in consideration of it, might be inclined to be propitious to us. But if Christ, our high priest, had entered into the heavenly sanctuary without intending to do any thing that related to God, there

could have been no reason why he should have been said to have offered himself to God there. For to what purpose would he have been said to have offered, or presented himself, to him with whom he had no business?

"Moreover, as the oblation which followed the slaughter of the victim, was one of the principal functions of a priest; and as every priest, unless he were wanting to his duty, would offer the piacular be propitious to his people; it is consacrifices with a desire that God would cluded that Christ, our high priest, who in that office displays the greatest faithfulness and benevolence towards us, offered himself to God in heaven, as a sins, in order that he might constantly piacular victim previously slain for our commend to him both our persons and services, and with a desire to render him perfectly propitious to us.

"The same truth is conveyed in the following passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews: For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the

presence of God for us; nor yet that he

.

should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with the blood of others.' These two phrases, to appear in the presence of God for us,' and, to offer himself to God,' signify one and the same thing, considered in two different points of view; the latter as begun, the former as continued; with the exception of this single difference, both expressions possess the same force, and convey the same sentiment. The meaning of the former phrase is self-evident. For when the apostle says that 'Christ appears in the presence of God,' he attributes to Christ some office that is exercised immediately with God. For to what purpose, except to do something that has respect to God, and is transacted immediately with him, is it said that he appears in the presence of God?' But when he is said to appear in the presence of God for us,' we are reminded that that office is designed to commend us to God. As our high priest now executes this office with God, so he began to execute it when he first appeared in his presence in the heavenly sanctuary, that is, at the moment when he offered himself' to God: so that if he now commends us to God, by 'appearing in his presence,' he must have begun to do this by offering himself to God.'"-pp. 363–365.

The transition from the translations we have noticed to the ori