72 Analysis of a Work by a Jewish Author, Mr. Bennett, on Sacrifices. for the remission of sin. They were all voluntary gifts and free donations, as tokens of gratitude and obedience to the Universal Benefactor: but in process of time, when mankind became more numerous, the practice deviated from its primitive simplicity; it became an inheritance to the priests, and the servants of the temple: and in consequence they were varied and multiplied; they became moreover absolute, and were insisted upon as of indispensable obligation. * "Profane history informs us that the heathen sacrifices did not only extend to thanksgivings and sin-offerings, but that they were also augurial and soothsaying employed for inquiries respecting events to come, and discoveries either of political and public concerns or of private interest. These were regulated according to the fancies of the augurial priests; and a most productive system it certainly was to them. "At the exit from Egypt, when the Commonwealth of Israel was formed, this practice of sacrifices was so generally spread that it could not altogether be dispensed with. The divine wisdom, which wrought miracles in the firmament and the elements of nature, never wrought a miracle on the human character. Any super-natural change in the human mind would militate against the emphatical charge in Deut. xxx. 19, “I testify unto you this day, I have set before you life and death, a blessing and a curse-Choose life." To change the manners and customs from one extreme to another would have been a violence done to the choice of the mind therefore the divine Legisla tor thought proper not to abolish the general practice of sacrifices, but only to reduce them to a more limited system. Generally speaking they were reduced to two classes; the one freewill offerings, thank and peace-offerings; the other, duty-offerings, for sin and guilt. The sacrifices of both classes were also ordained according Does not this account of the tricks of Priests in the most ancient times correspond with what may clearly be traced out in the history of the Christian Church, of the revenues, obtained by priests, and the various means they gradually brought about of obtaining money from the bebievers? to the fortune of the donor or the, transgressor, and were either animal or vegetable according to ability: they were to be offered to the Supreme Power alone, in Jerusalem only, and by the hands of the tribe of Levi." We are lead to believe upon reading the history of Moses, that it was the original design of the Lawgiver not to burden the Israelites with many ceremonies; the first institution was extremely simple, and it would probably have continued so, had not the Jews discovered such an absolute determination to attach themselves to rites and ceremonies which all the other nations were fond of, that it was found necessary to load them with burdens, in order to keep down their rebellious spirits truly does it appear, upon tracing onwards their history, that the prophet spoke truth when he said, 'My people will have it so.'. "2. When we examine the order of sacrifices as it is described in Leviticus, we find that the shedding of blood was not at all necessary for the remission of sins. Thus Leviticus, 1st and 2nd chapters, there is an order for meat-offerings of flour with oil and incense. But, still more to the purpose, in xi. xiv. But if he be not able to bring two turtle doves, then he that sinned shall bring a tenth part of an ephod of fine flour for a sin-offering. He shall put no oil therein.' Nothing can be more distinctly intended here, than that the shedding of animal blood, according to the Mosaic dispensation, was not essential for trespasses and sin-offerings at large; but was purely ceremonial and circumstantial. "S. If we examine the prophetical books at large, we shall find that they all confirm what I have advanced-that the whole system of sacrifices was neither essential to salvation nor of absolute commandment. Thus in Samuel, Hath God as great delight in burnt-offering and sacrifice as in obeying the word of God? Behold to obey is preferable to offering sacrifice, and to hearkeu is more acceptable than the fat of lambs." King David said, Sacrifice and offering thou didst not require; ears hast thou opened in me.' (Meaning that men ought to listen to absolute rational commandments applicable to human welfare). See also xvth Psalm at large, Analysis of a Work by a Jewish Author, Mr. Bennett, on Sacrifices. in which, amongst the grounds of human salvation, the psalmist does not mention one word about sacrifices. King Solomon declared, that "To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to God than sacrifice." Isaiah, "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me, saith the Lord, &c.; Am I to be served with burnt-offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts, or with the blood of bullocks, of lambs and of he-goats-things of which I have no desire?" See also Isaiah viii. at large, where moral and philosophical principles are laid down, and no mention whatever is made of sacrifices. He also quotes Jer. vii. 22, Hosea vi. 6, Micah vi. 6, and alludes to many other prophetic passages pointing to the same object. From these prophetical declarations, he adds, "we obtain in the plainest language the validity of my third as sertion, that the whole of the commandments of sacrifices were neither absolute ones, nor essential to human salvation; for how could the prophets be in unison in exclaiming against absolute laws, enacted by a divine legislator as essential to salvation, and in declaring them null and void? Ei ther the declaration of the first prophets or of the latter ones must then be absolutely false. But it appears from what has been proved, that the primitive institution of sacrifices was not established as essential to the remission of sin, and that the shedding of animal blood was not in any wise indispensable to salvation-that the institution of them was not absolute, but merely ceremonial and temporal; and therefore the prophets did, with a truly philosophic air, justly exclaim against the infatuation of the vulgar practices and forms of false devotion, which sought to appease an offended Deity by a fat ram, a roasted bullock or a vessel of good wine, while the heart was corrupted and depraved, and destitute of all divine and moral principles. Throughout the Penta 73 teuch we observe, that in the trespasses between man and man the first and chief thing required was retribution; the sacrifice was but an inferior matter and so with a transgression of a civil or moral nature, which was an offence against God." Mr. Bennett then proceeds to produce some authorities from the most ancient rabbies, whom he calls the Links of Tradition; from whom he makes it appear that all commandments which relate to the productions of the land were applicable only to the land of Israel; that tithes, agricultural donations, sacrifices, &c. being land productions, were not obligatory nor ever esteemed so, without. the boundaries of Palestine. And he quotes a case, in which many of the dispersed Jews of Babylon, Mesopotamia, Syria, &c. countries adjoining Palestine, brought sacrifices to Jeru salem; and that the Doctors of the Temple would not accept them on this very ground that, They might not encourage the belief that the law of sacrifices was an absolute law; from which we obtain the assurance that they were local, temporary and cercmonial, by no means absolute and not. essential to human salvation. Another argument he adduces appears to be conclusive, that while all the other commandments of the Pentateuch, both of jurisprudence, criminal, conjugal, inheritant, &c. as well as the rites of the sabbath, public festivals, impure animals, circumcision, &c. were general and universal, given to the nation at large for all times and all places, of abode, the laws relative to sacrifices have these peculiar exceptions, they were limited to a class, the tribe of Levi; to place, the temple of Jerusalem; to time, while the commonwealth of Israel was in possession of their patriarchal inheritance (Palestine). Is it consistent with reason, and still more. with divine justice, that sacrifices should be essential to human salvation, and yet that their observance should be conditional and confined to three things-class, place and time?† Not so, alas! the mobile vulgus that fol- + One cannot help being struck with It also deserves our notice, that all the prophets who censure the misconduct of their nation held the subject of sacrifices as the point in question, and never referred to the abuse of any other rite. He concludes with summing up his argument thus : I. The institution of sacrifices was not invented for the remission of sins. II. Neither was the shedding of blood essential as an atonement; for pancakes served also as a pacification to cleanse the sinner. III. That, generally speaking, sacrifices were not at all essential to human salvation, and accordingly they were ceremonial, local and temporary by law, but by no means absolute. TH On the Divine Government. HERE are only two schemes of the divine government, either consistent in themselves, that I know of, or which have any pretensions to reason or the common apprehensions of mankind. The first is, that at the creation, the Divine Being, subjected all that he had made to fixed and invariable laws, that both matter and mind, whatever they be, are governed by such laws, that consequently every thing happens, as he has appointed it, every thing was to him foreseen and determined, all is an universal settled scheme of Providence; prophecies are possible, because nothing is contingent; and miracles are also possible, as they might be included in the first and general plan of the divine economy. Every being performs his part, and the final dispensations of Deity will follow his pleasure concerning all creatures. The second scheme is, that God at the creation subjected matter to fixed laws, but gave a power to mind, of self-determination, so that man, the previous circumstances being the same, can perform the action A. and certain limits, and that the divine That God has given to the human I know of no other scheme of the divine government consistent with itself; and if any of your correspondents choose to advert to them, it will gratify your humble servant. AN INQUIRER. Leigh Street, Red Lion Square, its contrary B. This scheme sup- YOUR correspondent, Mr. Prout, poses, that whatever depends upon the determination of the human mind, was left loose, and could not be foreseen by the Creator, yet that pleasure and pain were fixed within in a letter to you, which you have put into my hand, after referring to my papers in reply to Mr. Belsham, on the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, published in the third volume of the Monthly Repository, pp. 379 66 -382, 470-475, 551-558, 653659, and 718-723, says, "I confess that I am rather surprised at his (Mr. Marsom's) almost instantaneous conversion to the Unitarian faith so late in 1 Mr. Marsom on the Pre-existence of Jesus Christ. life. I hope," he adds, “I shall not give offence by requesting your high ly respected friend to point out the path in which he has recently trodden in order to attain his present view of things." And further, he requests that he would favour the readers of your interesting Miscellany with an illustration of certain passages of scripture which he particularly mentions. The circumstances of the case, I admit, sufficiently warrant such a request. I have appeared in the above mentioned volume as the advocate of the doctrine alluded to by your correspondent, and it was natural for one who" candidly acknowledges that he felt the force of my reasoning," to wish to be informed of the means by which I was led to renounce a sentiment which I had so strenuously laboured to defend; and it is but right that I should endeavour to shew, that I have not adopted my present views without such reasons as were fully sufficient to carry conviction to my mind. I cannot, however, admit that I have been either recently or instantaneously converted to the Unitarian faith; because I have been an Unitarian, (in the proper sense of that term, as much so as I am at present) more than fifty years, nor have my views undergone any material alteration either respecting the unity of God, or the nature of the person of Christ du. ring that period. My recent change of sentiment has no relation to the nature of Jesus Christ, but simply to the time when he began to exist: whether that existence commenced when he came in the flesh, or whether be existed from the foundation of the world. As to the "almost instantaneous" nature of my conversion, your correspondent should recollect that it is now seven years since my replies to Mr. Belsham appeared in the Repository. There is a certain process which takes place in the mind in order to a conviction of the truth or falsehood of any doctrine; that process may be long or short; it may be attended with many difficulties and struggles arising from a variety of causes; but a change of sentiment, the result of that process by which the mind is made up upon the subject, is probably almost always instantaneous. But what adds to the surprise of your correspondent is, that such a change 75 should have taken place" so late in Before I proceed to give an account First, that Mr. Belsham's arguments, in his Letters to Mr. Carpenter, on my first perusal, appeared to me to possess considerable weight, and for some time made a deep impression on my mind, which led me to re-consider them with close attention; upon doing so, I discovered (at least I thought I discovered) that in some instances he had made use of declamation instead of argument; that in other instances his arguments were inconclusive; that he had laid himself open to considerable animadversion, " 76 Mr. Marsom on the Pre-existence of Jesus Christ. and that much of his declamation and argument derived their whole force from the supposition that the doctrine of the pre-existence of Jesus Christ necessarily included in it that of his possessing a super-human or super-angelic nature; that he was a being of extraordinary powers, a subordinate Jehovah, a delegated Creator, under God the maker and upholder of all things. Upon the discovery of such "amazing facts," "Would not the mind ofa Jew," exclaims Mr. Belsham, "who had never heard of delegated Creators and subordinate Jehovahs, have been overwhelmed with astonishment when this new and strange doctrine was first discovered to him?" These ideas opened to him a wide field for declamation, but to me, believing they had no foundation in scripture or any connexion with the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, they furnished strong objections to his hypothesis, and laid him open to much animadversion, and this gave rise to the following interrogations in my first letter, M. Rep. Vol. iii. p. 381-"Is not Mr. B. guilty of the same fault which he would be ready enough to charge on the opposers of Christianity, that they attack its corruptions and not Christianity itself as left in the New Testament? Will he say in reply, that he finds this new and strange doctrine maintained as a doctrine of scripture by his learned friend to whom he is writing? So may they say, that these corruptions, as we call them, are maintained as Christianity by its advocates." These considerations determined me, by a reply to Mr. Belsham, to bring the subject before the public in order to obtain some further light upon it, and to settle my own mind which had been in a measure unsettled by Mr. B.'s Letters. Mr. Belsham, however, for reasons best known to himself, did not think proper to take any notice of my arguments in reply to him, leaving me in possession of the field. He probably thought my arguments too contemptible to merit any notice, and his own so perfectly clear, conclusive and convincing as to stand in no need of correction, explanation or defence. Secondly. I considered the doctrine of Christ's pre-existence as necessarily involving in it that of his miraculous conception, although, his miraculous conception does not ne cessarily imply his pre-existence; because had he pre-existed his conception must have been preternatural ; but it might have been preternatural if he had not existed before; as was the case respecting Isaac and Samuel. If then it should appear that his conception was not miraculous, I was fully convinced that the doctrine of his pre-existence must necessarily be given up. Under these impressions a work published in 1813,* felt into my hands, in which, I think, the author has proved that the accounts of the miraculous conception, as they now stand in the beginning of Matthew and Luke, are spurious; and he has stated some facts as taking place, not at Bethlehem, but at Rome, from which the stories, recorded in the two first chapters of Matthew and Luke, probably originated. These circumstances, together with the improbability of their truth which appears upon the face of the accounts themselves, led me to conclude that they were not the genuine productions of those Evangelists to whom they are ascribed. Thirdly. The inconsistency of those accounts with each other-with historical fact and with the current language of the New Testament, furnish additional evidence that those accounts were not written by Matthew and Luke. With respect to their inconsistency I shall mention but one circumstance. The flight into Egypt recorded by Matthew, is not only unnoticed by Luke, but his account evidently, as I conceive, contradicts it. He tells us, ch. ii. 22, that," When the days of her (i. e. Mary's) purification according to the law of Moses, were accomplished (that is when Jesus was forty days old) they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord." And after relating what passed in the temple, he says, 39th and following verses, And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee to their own city," not Bethlehem, but “Nazareth. And the child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom and the grace of God, was upon him. Now * Jones's Sequel to his Ecclesiastical Researches. |