Sidor som bilder
[ocr errors]

fellow-men. Suppose, then, that the Jewish catechumen reads on in order to find out his duty to non-Israelites; on the following leaf he reads "There is but one judgment for him that kills an Israelite or a Canaanitish servant. He is to be put to death for either. . . . An Israelite who kills a sojourning proselyte, is not to be executed by the tribunal on his account; for it is said, But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour'↑ (Exod. xxi. 14,) and it is not necessary to say that he is not to be executed on account of a Gentile. There is one judgment for him that kills a slave belonging to others or to himself: he is to be executed on the slave's account; for the slave has taken upon himself the commandments, and has been added to the inheritance of the Lord." (Ibid. ii. 10, 11.) Here the oral law tells him distinctly that he has not the same duty towards all his fellow-men; that there is a great difference between man and man ; that for the Israelite the life of the murderer is to be forfeited, but for a proselyte of the gate, or an idolatrous Gentile, it is not to be forfeited. In the commentary to this law, we are told, that the murderer, in this case, though not amenable to the tribunal, is guilty "in the judgment of Heaven." But suppose such a case was referred to a judge and jury of men, taught by this catechism that the oral law is divine, they could not decide that the murderer is to be executed; for this oral law tells them, that he is only amenable to the heavenly tribunal. Or suppose that a youth, educated according to the principles of this catechism, knew of an Israelite who had murdered “a sojourning proselyte, or an idolatrous Gentile," would it be his duty to inform against him, and to bring him to justice before a nonIsraelite tribunal? The oral law tells him, first, that a murderer of this class, though guilty before God, ought not to be executed. It tells him, secondly, that if he informs against a brother Israelite, he is himself guilty of death; and that the circumstance of his brother being a wicked man makes no difference; for "it is forbidden to inform against an Israelite's person or property, so as to deliver him into the hands of Gentiles, even though he be a wicked man and a transgressor. . . . And that if he thus inform against an Israelite, he has no part in the world to come." (Hilchoth Chobel umazzik, ch. viii. 9.) As he hopes for salvation, then, he is bound not to bring him to justice. In either of these cases, then, the course of justice would be stopped, and the murderer would go free. But what is the youth's own duty towards Gentiles ?-for that has not appeared yet. Is he to spare the life of a fellow-man who happens to be a Gentile? The following passage gives the answer :-" As to the Gentiles not at war with us, and those who tend the small cattle belonging to Israel, and such like, we are not to cause their death; but it is unlawful to deliver them if they are near to death. For instance, if we see one of them who has fallen into the sea, he is not to be helped out; for it is written, Neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour.'

[ocr errors]

• i. e., A proselyte of the gate, who was allowed to sojourn in the land of Israel. i. e., Upon an Israelite. The sojourning proselyte is not looked upon as a neighbour; and still less the idolatrous Gentile.

(Levit. xix. 16.) But such an one is not thy neighbour."* Here, then, is the limit of the Israelite's duty to idolatrous Gentiles. He is not himself to take away his life; but if anything else, either men or beasts, or elements, arise to take it away, he is not to interfere nor deliver him. With what face, then, could the compilers of the Bavarian catechism head their chapter on the relative duty with the words-" Of the Duties referring to every human being, without any difference ?"

The Franckfort catechism, though, as we have seen above, it teaches the divine authority of the oral law, is evidently much shyer of its support, and therefore more sparing of its citation. Its author, however, could not resist the temptation of representing the Talmud as an amiable and charitable book; and has, therefore, got the following question and answer :-(Question 216, p. 141.) "As to our teachers, the Talmudists, who in their day did not enjoy those great advantages which lay us under such great obligations,† what duties of love did they teach us to practise to our fellow-men of a different religion ?" Answer. "Every Israelite, as our wise men teach, is bound, according to the divine law, to love as brethren those men out of every nation who follow the seven Noahitic commandments, to visit their sick, to bury their dead, to tend and to support their poor and distressed, as well as those of Israel. And, in general, there is no act of brotherly love which a true Israelite dare refuse to perform towards the observers of the Noahitic doctrines." (Talmud Treatise Gittin, 61.) The Bavarian catechism has a very similar passage, for which it refers to Maimonides; but Mr. Johlson, in the text of his book, refers to the Talmud itself, and prints the whole passage with quotation marks, as if it were a veritable extract. Now, what will the Jewish youth who look out his reference think when they find, that, on the leaf referred to, there is no such passage, and not the least mention of "the observers of the seven Noahitic commandments ?" I can only suppose, that Mr. Johlson did not himself refer to the Talmud, but took his reference at second-hand from some one less honest. I have now the "Treatise Gittin" before me; and the only passage, on the the 61st leaf, at all resembling his supposed quotation, refers, not to the sons of Noah, but to idolaters. Literally translated, it is as follows:-"Our Rabbis have taught, that the poor of the aliens () are to be fed with the poor of Israel; and the sick of the aliens to be visited with the sick of Israel; and the dead of the aliens to be buried with the dead of Israel, on account of the ways of peace." And that I am right in interpreting " aliens" to mean "idolaters," is plain, from the authority of Maimonides, as quoted by Mr. Johlson himself, in the note. I can hardly think that so respectable a man as Mr. Johlson would intentionally and knowingly have made so gross a misrepresentation. I, therefore, suppose that

• Hilchoth Rotzeach, iv. 11.

+ He means the obligations to the governments of Europe, which have ameliorated the condition of the Jews.

Talmud. Gittin., fol. 61, col. 1, at the end of the 10th line.

[merged small][ocr errors]

some one else misled him; and this latter person, whoever he was, evidently did it in order to deceive Christians. He wishes to insinuate, for he does not plainly say so, that the Talmud considers Christians as 66 sons of Noah;" he therefore turned the word aliens into Noachida. He wishes, secondly, to prove that the Talmud teaches brotherly kindness to Christians from motives of love; he therefore left out the objectionable words "for the sake of the ways of peace," which plainly shew, that idolaters are to be treated kindly merely from motives of policy. And he added the last sentence, for which there is no authority at all in the original. I must add, that such conduct, such misrepresentation, and such suppression of the truth, is, at all times, disgraceful, and that it must have the most pernicious effects upon the minds of the Jewish youth. If the compilers of these catechisms really believed that Christians are their brethren, they should have stated it most distinctly, and as distinctly protested against the intolerance of the Talmud, and repudiated all notion of its divine authority. The Christian, at all acquainted with the oral law, knows that there is no possibility of compromise. The reformers of the Jews must either renounce the Talmud, or they must be content to be considered as unenlightened, and as intolerant, as their forefathers. No catechism can be satisfactory to a competently-informed Christian which does not contain the following plain questions, and does not furnish explicit and definite answers:

1st. Is the Talmud of divine authority?

2nd. Are Christians idolaters?

3rd. If idolaters, how are they to be treated?

4th. If children of Noah, what made them such, seeing that the Talmud declares that that sort of proselyte is to be received only when the year of jubilee is celebrated?

No general professions of love and goodwill, founded on mutilated Talmudic passages, will either reform their brethren or satisfy the minds of Christians. I can respect and esteem the genuine Talmudic Jew, who conscientiously believes that we are idolaters, and honestly expresses his conviction. But I expect from the man who tells us that we are not idolaters, but his brethren, that he will as unequivocally renounce that system which teaches the contrary, and not endeavour to take advantage of our supposed ignorance. There are some already who take an interest in the study of Rabbinical literature; and I do earnestly hope that the subject of the foregoing pages will serve to convince many more of the importance of forming an acquaintance with the Rabbinical laws.

[blocks in formation]

"Still I am not satisfied; and the stubborn fact of scarcity inclines me to suspect, that the pens of the monks were less constantly employed than many would induce us to believe."-BERINGTON.

WITHOUT entering into any question here as to what may, or may not, be properly called scarcity, in regard to ancient manuscripts, let us VOL. IX.-May, 1836.

3 R

assume that its existence is a stubborn and undeniable fact; yet that fact may, perhaps, admit of some explanation. Suppose there are but few manuscripts in existence, it is no proof that but few were written; and, indeed, I must say, that from what I have been able to learn respecting the real number, of which this surviving scarcity consists, and the circumstances under which they have been preserved, I can only wonder that we have so many—or, I am almost tempted to say, that we have any-manuscripts seven or eight hundred years old. It is, however, quite clear, that if we would form any opinion of the state of literature, or means of knowledge, in the Dark Ages, we must, in some degree, enter into this question, and cannot pass it over with a slight allusion to the ravages of time. It is necessary to our design; and I am inclined to hope, that a short and superficial sketch, such as the nature of these essays admits, may not be altogether uninteresting. As a great part of my illustrations will be drawn from the reports of some literary travellers, I will first give some notice of them, in order that I may hereafter refer to them with more brevity, and that such of my readers as are not acquainted with the books may understand my references.

Between the 16th of April and the 10th of June, 1682, Dom Mabillon, accompanied by his brother Benedictine, Michael Germanus, made a journey through Melun, Sens, Auxerre, Dijon, Verdun, Chalons sur Saone, and Autun, to Lyons, and returned by way of Moulins. In the course of this excursion they visited Citeaux, Clugni, and many other monasteries, and overhauled their manuscripts; the object of their journey being to examine, or to search for, some documents relating to the royal family. How far this was openly avowed, and whether it was known even to the younger of the two travellers, I cannot tell; but Mabillon's acknowledged supremacy, in all such matters, naturally pointed him out to the minister Colbert as the fittest person to be sent on such an errand. That he executed it with skill and fidelity, and, at the same time, took an opportunity of doing a little business in his own way, of antiquarian research, nobody will doubt. Two years after, he drew up an account of his tour; and it was subsequently printed under the title of " Iter Burgundicum."*

The next year, they went, by the same order, through part of Germany, taking the route of Basil, Zurich, Augsburg, Munich, &c. They set out on the 30th of June, and appear to have returned in October. Mabillon prefixed an account of this journey to his "Vetera Analecta," under the title of " Iter Germanicum.” †

In the year 1685, at the suggestion of Le Tellier, Archbishop of Rheims-the brother of the minister who had succeeded Colbert, and the owner of 50,000 volumes-Mabillon was sent, at the royal cost, to investigate the libraries of Italy, and to procure books for the king's library. He set out, with the same companion as before, on the 1st of April, and returned in the June of the following year. The royal library was enriched by the addition of 3000 volumes; and Mabillon

[blocks in formation]

published an account ofthe journey, in the first volume of his "Museum Italicum," under the title of " Iter Italicum." *

Again this father set out in the year 1696, accompanied by another Benedictine-the well-known Ruinart; and, between the 20th of August and the 10th of November, they travelled through most of Alsace and Lorraine, conducting themselves, in respect of all libraries which they could meet with, in the way which might be expected from them. Ruinart drew up an account of the journey, which he entitled, " Iter Litterarium in Alsatiam et Lotharingiam."+

When Father Mountfaucon had completed the Benedictine edition of "Athanasius," he became convinced that the Greek fathers could not be properly edited without first ransacking the libraries of Italy for manuscripts; and, therefore, (permissu superiorum,) he and Father Paul Brioys, set off for that purpose on the 18th of May, 1698, and did not return until the 11th of June, 1701. In the course of the next year he published his "Diarium Italicum;" which was, I believe, the year after, translated into English.

The Benedictines of St. Maur-that learned body, to which all the travellers hitherto mentioned belonged-having determined to undertake a new edition of the "Gallia Christiana," resolved to send one of their number to collect what materials he could, for correction and addition, from the various libraries, churches, and monasteries of France. "La resolution," says Dom Edmund Martene, "en fut prise à Marmoutier au chapitre general de 1708, et comme j'étois sur les lieux, et qu'on sçavoit que Dieu m'avoit donné quelque petit talent pour lire les anciennes écritures, je fus un des premiers sur lesquels on jetta les yeux." Nothing could be more natural, as it respects the chapter; and, perhaps, as to Martene, though he might sincerely feel all that he says of the vastness of the undertaking, nothing more agreeable. He set out accordingly on the 11th of June, and travelled until the 23rd of December, when he got back into winter quarters at Marmoutier, just in time to avoid being exposed to a more inclement season than any which the oldest persons living could remember. Being informed that he must set out again, as soon as Easter was past, he begged to have a companion. This request was granted; he chose Dom Ursin Durand, and they set forth together on the 4th of April. In short-for I am not writing the history of their travels— that year, and the four which succeeded, (except when they were in winter quarters,) were spent in making various circuits, in the course of which they visited a great part of France; the whole time, from Martene's first setting out to their joint return on the 16th of Nov. 1713, being five years and a half; or, so far as travelling was practicable, we may perhaps more correctly say, six years. Martene tells us, that they visited about a hundred cathedrals, and at least eight hundred abbeys; in which they failed not to examine whatever manuscripts they could find. In so doing, they not only fulfilled their commission, as it regarded the "Gallia Christiana," but met with a vast

• It. Ital.

+ It. Alsat.

+ Diar. It.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »