communications and devices were had and moved, wherein meution was, by an incident, made of matters touching heresies and erroneous sects. It was spoken and reported by one bishop there being present, and confirmed by a good number of the same bishops, in presence of all the lords spiritual and temporal then assembled, that two of the said bishops were minded and desired to repair unto the University of Cambridge, for examination, reformation and correction of such errors as then seemed, and were reported to reign among the students and scholars of the same, as well touching the Lutheran sect aud opinions, as otherwise the Lord Cardinal informed of the good minds and intents of the said two bishops in that behalf, expressly inhibited and commanded them in no wise so to do. By means whereof error (as they affirmed) crept more abroad, and took greater place saying farthermore, that it was not in their defaults that the said heresics were not punished, but in the said Lord Cardinal; and that it was no reason any blame or lack should be arrested [imputed] unto them for this offence. Whereby it evidently appeareth, that the said Lord Cardinal, besides all his other heinous offences, hath been the impeacher and disturber of due and direct correction of heresies; being highly to the danger and peril of the whole body and good Christian people of this your realm." Herbert. 1740. p. 228. the same I find nothing of this in Burnett, nor have I met with it elsewhere. Unfortunately, the time is not mentioned when the Cardinal was supposed thus to shelter from punishment these Cambridge heretics. "There was one John Taverner, organist of Cardinal College, Oxford, at its first erection in 1525, who being suspected of heresy, for hiding Lutheran books in his music school, was excused by Cardinal Wolsey." I quote this from Dr. Ward's Lives of the Gresham Professors, p. 216, where he appears to take the account from a MS. of Dr. Pepusch. HISTORICUS. Mr. Bennett's Reply to Criticisms, inserted in the Evangelical Magazine for January, 1817. March 2d, 1817. ענה כסיל כאולתו פן יהיה חכם בעיניו "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Prov. xxvi. 5. HAD my much learned antagonist been candid in his criticisms on my pamphlet, the "Discourse on Sa- In the above-mentioned Magazine (page 23) is a Review of " A Discourse on Sacrifices. By Solomon Bennett," &c. "The design of this Discourse (it is said) is to refute the doctrine of atonement for sin by the sacrifice and death of the Messiah. With this view the writer, who describes himself as one of the House of Israel, undertakes to prove, first, that the patriarchal sacrifices were not expiatory, or offered with any reference to atonement of sins; secondly, that the shedding of animal blood was not necessary to the remission of transgressions under the law; thirdly, that the commands relating to sacrifices were merely ceremonial, local and temporary. The conclusion he wishes to establish from these premises, is, that the doctrine of atonement for sin by the sacrifice and death of the Messiah, is not counte nanced by any part of the Old Testament. But of all the attempts that have been made to impugn this doctrine, we remember no one more feeble than the present." It is impossible for me consistent with the design of your publication to quote the whole of my "Discourse;" yet I shall repeat the drift of it with announcing the authorities from Scripture which my ambiguous antagonist passed by (either from motives of ignorance or prejudice) in silence. With regard to the first position, I must observe that in my "Discourse" I have shewn plainly that Moses was not the first author of sacrifices; that sacrifices were practised by the patriarchs previous to Moses, as far back as the creation; that their sacrifices were not absolutely by the shedding of animal blood, but they were various, viz. of vegetables, libations and of animals; that their offerings were not by any particular divine command, but merely voluntary donations; that their offerings had not in any shape references to atonement for sin, but were gifts of mere gratitude and acknowledgments of submission to that great Being the Universal Benefactor. Every one who is versed in Scripture may examine himself the texts relative to the patriarchal offerings, and he will find them to have been congenial to the principles described. But observe the insolence of my ambiguous antagonist. Passing by in silence all the authorities I have brought from Scripture regarding the patriarchal sacrifices, he flatly makes this assertion: "In support of the first position, Mr. B. offers nothing but his own confident assertion, which he seems to think will be kindly admitted as irrefragable proof." Who will not observe the malicious principle of this critic? Being unable to turn the text to his favourite hypothesis, he thought proper to pass by those authorities in silence, depending on the ignorance of his adherents for their submission to him. In the second position, I have plainly shewn in my "Discourse," from Leviticus, that the regulations of sacrifices it contains were also various, viz. of vegetables, animals and libations; that they were regulated also according to the circumstances of the different classes of the people, a regulation equally observed in all kinds of offerings, in particular in those of sin and trespass offerings of the poor class, in which a quantity of flour was appointed and accepted for their salvation. (See Lev. v. 11-14.) From the diversity of sacrifices contained in Leviticus, we behold the simple and incontestable conclusion, viz. that the shedding of animal blood was inessential and not absolute in the system of sacrifices, either in voluntary or sin offerings, public or individual sacrifices; that libations and pancakes were also acceptable. But let us see the acuteness and ingenuity of my opponent, who made a show of his learning by establishing his favourite hypothesis on an unaccountable principle. Thus he expresses himself: "We know no instance which more strongly exemplifies the maxim, exceptio firmat regulam, the exception confirms the rule. Every attentive reader of the Pentateuch must perceive it to have been a general and radical principle of legal economy, that without the shedding of animal blood there could be no remission; for that it was the blood which made atonement for the soul." Let us now examine his hypothesis. We know of no code either of divine authority, or civil and political regulations, and reason itself dictates, that a man is not bound to that law which it is impossible for him to fulfil, and therefore no law is enacted for such a one as to make him free from it, and no laws are enacted for minutiæ. But our learned critic strangely tells his readers that the poor class of the people (though they form a great part in any nation) are a mere exception, and accordingly establishes his hypothesis, "exceptio firmat regulam." A strange doctrine indeed! I could with more propriety conclude the reverse, viz. that vegetables and libations were the chief objects in the system of sacrifices, but these of animal sacrifices are the exception, and adapted only for rich people, who form the minor part of any community, as an additional punishment for their conduct. However I shall not decide with preference to either of them which is the absolute object: the laws regarding the diversity of offerings were equally legal: we have no need therefore to be too sanguine on this account. Another inference he makes thus: "Nor could it with any plausibility be pretended that even in this case of partial exception, the remission of the offence was wholly irrespective of animal sacrifice; while the sacrifices appointed for the day of annual expiation were expressly declared to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year'." (Lev. xvi. 34.) Here lies the deficiency of a competent study of the Hebrew liturgy among the Christian doctors, who pos sess only a mere superficial and a scanty knowledge of the original Scripture, and who never deliberated on the particulars of the diversity of the laws contained in the Mosaic code. They respect the Old Testament only so far as they can grasp in it something in behalf of their system of religion. But different was the case with the Rabbis, as the guardians of that code and the oral laws; and in the point in question they instructed us, taking into consider ation the variety of sacrifices appointed on all sins and trespasses, either of the public at large or those of individuals. What then were these appointed for the atonement day? They gave the explanation that as all the sin of ferings are for trespasses known and confessed by the aggressors, so these of the annual atonement day were for the generality at large, on דברים שאין להם ידיעה בסוף account of transgressions committed inadvertently, or things which individuals of a community may be ignorant of. Such aggressions are frequently committed in the career of human life, either ignorantly or innocently. The sacrifices appointed for the annual atonement day being for the community at large, they were then brought from the public treasure, and had no particulars in view but to expiate transgressions inadvertently done; nor had they any particular class in view, whether poor or rich, though my learned critic would establish a new object unknown to the then existing Israelites-why? because it suits his bloody system. burnt offerings and sacrifices: but this "As to the third position (my antagonist continues), to affirm that commands about sacrifices were ceremonial, is little otherwise than equivalent to saying that commands about ceremo nies are ceremonial cominands; which of course will not be disputed. But how this sage observation contributes any support to the conclusion which Mr. B. would establish, he has not shewn. To regard them as mere ccremonies destitute of all spiritual significance, is truly degrading to a religion of heavenly origin." Now observe reader! In my Discourse on Sacrifices" I have quoted many passages out of the Prophetical Books and the Psalins: all speak in one plain language, and in unison with that of Jeremiah's saying, " For I spake not unto your fathers, nor did I command them in the day that I brought them out of the laud of Egypt, concerning Notwithstanding the omission of the scriptural authorities which I brought to prove the invalidity of sacrifices, ny learned antagonist did not forget to bring to recollection that abstruse 53d chapter of Isaiah, as a proof of his Trinitarian hypothesis, saying, "How much mors worthy of the Divine Legislator do they appear, when considered as typical of him who, according to the predictions of Isaiah, was to bear the sin of many, and to make his soul an of fering for sin," &c. as well this of the 110th Psalm, which he continued, "The priesthood of Aaron has been superseded by him who was predicted by David, as a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." On the false translations and the hypothesis deduced from these texts, as the limits of your publication do not admit their insertion, I shall refer the reader to my work, entitled "The Constaney of Israel," Part I. in which he will meet with the simple translation and elucidation of these chapters. Returning to the point in question: I think that I have shewn authorities from Scripture sufficient enough to prove that the shedding of animal blood was inessential for the remission of sin, according to the Mosaic code itself; and according to the Prophetical Books we obtain the knowledge that the order of sacrifices in general was inessential to religion, not absolute for salvation, and accordingly they were but ceremonial, local and temporary. What I have proved from Scripture, I have corroborated also in my Discourse," from our rabbinical writings. For, those who are acquainted with the ancient history of Judaism know well, that during the whole great period (500 years) of the second temple, in which sacrifices were practised by the inhabitants of the mother Country (Palestine) in its full length; yet the innumerable synagogues and colleges of the Hebrews then established at their great dispersion, like those of Babylon, Persia, Assyria, Egypt, &c. all were independent of the pontifical orders of Jerusalem, and had nothing to do with sacrifices; nor did the Doctors of the temple of Jerusalem accept any sacrifices when brought from without Palestine; instances of which I have quoted in the "Discourse," out of the Mischnah. In short, I have there stated matters of fact, and incontradictory historical truths. But, observe my learned and much pious critic tells his readers," Mr. B. also misrepresented the doctrine of the Mischnah, critic continues his scurrilous and abusive arguments in the same style, which for brevity sake only I think unnecessary to quote. Whether this last is a fair argument on the point in question, I leave to the judgment of impartial readers to decide. But how came he to the knowledge of those particulars respecting Mr. B. ? It will be undoubtedly questioned, who were the informers respecting his character? for surely those Christians who attend to hear the frequent concerts at the great synagogue, have no knowledge whatever of Mr. B. I am fully convinced that liberal-minded men will think with me, viz. that such vilifying arguments deserve no notice; in particular, as I (thanks to the Omnipotent) do not depend on clerical or rabbinical support, nor am I in any shape whatever interested in my literary pursuits. Hard labour, strict honesty and sobriety are the chief principles of my religion. What I do or what I write is with conscience and disinterestedness. Can Rallis or Reverends say the same? The opinions of others affect me little whilst I give no cause of complaint against me: one cannot please the world at large; sycophants are in our time prevailing and more prosperous. To apologize therefore to hypocrisy or ignorance may be equally pusillanimous. Yet, as our Rabbis (of old) instructed us from the reply of Hannah to Eli, saying, "No my Lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit, but I have not drunk either wine or any strong drink, &c." (1 Sam. i. 15.) ,He * הנהשר על הדבר ואין בו צריך להוזיע -as well as of the Pentateuch, with out shewing the propriety of that assertion, in what manner or instance it was misrepresented. who is falsely suspected of any thing, is bound to clear himself of it." Therefore, with regard to the above-mentioned charges, I shall inform my sagacious critic, that I was always and am still a member of the synagogue in my country (Poland), though not of this of Duke's Place; that I was always and am still But let us bring to the test the last and strongest argument, which my pious and devout antagonist advanced to the public notice. Thus he argues: "We have no doubt of the writer's Jewish descent; but we are ready to ask, is he a member of “a cordial admirer the synagogue? Does he statedly at- and honourer of literary men of all tend its services? Does he unite in classes." I shall also tell him, that I those liturgical forms which he repre- have seen (in London in particular) sents as of such high antiquity, &c.?" hundreds of Jews who belong to the He then concludes his arguments: synagogue and attend its services, and "What then must we think of Mr. yet are a disgrace to the name of B.'s sincerity in the synagogue, or his Israel; thousands of Christians who consistency out of it?" My pious belong to and attend the churches, and yet are a disgrace to Christianity; principles, I ought to set them on and I shall take a step farther, viz. a table, that like a candle they may that I have seen divines who are even give light to all around them. Was a disgrace to the human race at large; Jesus or his apostles indifferent about and, if such examples are the stand- making converts to their opinions? ards, and the absolute proofs of reli- On the contrary, they came into the gion and piety, I do not wish to be world, and spent their time about counted among them. nothing else but making convert, and they were certainly not afraid of "controversial preaching," but disputed daily in the temple, and in the open air" with all manner of people, and frequently among them SIR, SOLOMON BENNETT. Sandon, March 31, 1817. I This is a good tory for December, 1816, [XI. 733], it is said of him, that he was "a man remarkable for his frank, straightforward integrity." Obituaries in general, are, I think, dictated more by the spirit of affection, than by the spirit of truth. But the above-mentioned piece of encomium was without doubt eminently due to the character of the dead. The writer however of the obituary proceeds to say, that "he seldom made his own creed the subject of conversation, and appeared to have no desire to make converts to his own opinions." Yet, it is a little after asserted, that the deceased "was accustomed to remark, that controversy was necessary to a more correct knowledge of the Scriptures, the best antidote against bigotry, and no bad remedy to the errors of education;" and that "among his particular friends he was fond of promoting religious discussions." I shall not stop to reconcile these apparent contradictions, but shall proceed to remark, that to feel no desire to make converts to our own opinions, abstractedly considered, is I think no matter of praise. It either implies that our opinions are worth nothing, or that we are very indifferent to the progress of truth. Now if our opinions are Christian opinions, we are bound as Christians to make as many converts to them as lies within our power; and if our opinions are not Christian, then we ought not to possess them ourselves. If my opinions are true and beneficial to myself, they must be equally beneficial to others, because they are founded in Scripture; at least I believe so, and I ought to act consistently with my own belief. If my opinions are worthless, I may safely enough put them under the bushel; but if they are Christian's cause. Jesus and Paul, unlike our modern scribes and pharisees, no where deprecated controver ial preaching." Jesus said to Pilate, “[ have ever spoke openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogues_and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort, and in secret have I said nothing." We cannot open a page of the Life of Jesus Christ, but we find him involved in public dispu tations. Without controversy the hu man mind would stand still: truth would make no progress: darkness and superstition would perpetually reign in the world. This is the case with Spain and Italy, and this will continue to be the case wherever controversy is deprecated. G. F. Bath, March 20th, 1817. SIR. friend, Mr. Mack murdo, [p. 58]. grieved me very much. I most sincerely sympathize with his good family for their great loss. He was a truly good man, and an uniform inquirer after truth, and professed it openly in the view of all the world. if we had many such in different parts of the country, we should soon be able to witness a great reformation. To the entertaining article of Mrs. Milner's death, [p. 117], may be added an anecdote relating to Dr. Goldsmith. The Doctor who was master of the school, was particularly noted for detecting impostors. On one day, when Goldsmith had taken a walk, one whom the Doctor had in conversation with him was discovered as he thought to be an impostor: as soon as he was gone, the Doctor sent after Goldsmith, having just paid him an half year's salary, to guard him |