not, without any violation of propriety, conceive his own interpretation, or conjecture, to be more satisfactory? But, even supposing that I have made "an authoritative affirmation," was it not the duty of the reviewer to show, (what neither he, nor Professor Monk, may, perhaps, be able to show) that it was made without sufficient reason, before he ventured to condemn it ? E. H. BARKER. Defence of Mr. S. BENNETT against the Monthly Review. As my work, intitled The Constancy of Israel, published in January 1809, has fallen into oblivion, I take the liberty of presenting you with the following remarks on the subject, in compliance with the plan of your newly-established Review. I can only attribute the ill success of my work to the animadversion of the reviewers. Let the public, however, judge for itself, after the perusal of the following extracts: The Constancy of Israel, &c. &c. Mr. Solomon Bennett, the author of this work, is, in addition to his theological qualifications, an engraver of Prints in line, &c, &c. at No. 63, Charing Cross. Of his style of engraving, he has exhibited a specimen at the commencement of his work, in a portrait of his own agreeable phisiognomy; and many of our readers, will, no doubt, think, that he shines more as a Professor of the Arts, than as a Champion of Theology, &c. Critical Review, March 1809, Art. xiii. p. 323. "The Constancy of Israel, &c. &c. The writer may be a good artist; but is certainly a very indifferent theologian-we think the engraving the best part of his work." Monthly Register-Le Beau Monde-April, 1809, p. 31. What conception can the reader form of a work, by this mode of reviewing? If these gentlemen were strangers to the Hebrew language, and the phraseology of the Hebrew text, silence would have been their more honorable course. Had the editors entered on a regular controversy, which they were qualified to maintain, I should either submit to their sentence, or vindicate my assertions; but, at present, they only strike at random. The booksellers were so much influenced by these strictures, that not one of them would undertake the publication; no advertisement was issued-and my book was condemned to obli vion. I shall, therefore, sir, with your permission, again enter on the subjectthrough the medium of your Review; and I trust that the candid reader, if he should not give full credit to my assertions, will, however, endeavour to counteract whatever prejudices he may have received against Hebrew literature in general. This work, intitled The Constancy of Israel,' is an answer to a small book, intitled A Letter to the Hebrew Nation, by Lord Crawford,' the design of which was, to convert the Hebrew Nation, by a statement of the principles which form the basis of Christianity, and by various doctrines inferred from different passages of Scripture. As a reply to his lordship's Letter, my work was written. I beld' that the (false) translations and explanations of those chapters which his lordship brought forward to support his own opinions, although they had passed for correct translations in the Christian world, during 1800 years, were in reality not so; that they contained no allusion to any Messiah, and still less to Jesus. My work contains an argument deduced from the different dispersions of the Jews, at the time of the destruction of the first Temple, and subsequently. All these dispersions were the result of a Divine Economy, for the purpose of promulgating, among the civilised nations of the earth, the knowledge of the Divinity, his omnipotence, and providence. It seems unreasonable to assert, as we are told by the doctors of Christianity, that these dispersions took place on account of the crime committed against Jesus the Messiah; for as they all occurred before the birth of Jesus, the Israelites could not be punished for a crime not yet committed. On this subject, I was censured by the editor of the Monthly Review for August, 1812. His words are as follow: In this last paragraph, Mr. B. manifests either his art or his ignorance. Who ever connected the Babylonian captivity with the crucifixion of Christ? It is the dispersion of the Jews into all the nations of the earth, in conse quence of the destruction of their city and polity by the Romans, which is attributed to them as a judgment for their rejection of Christ. More severe have been the sufferings of the Jews, in consequence of this last and long dispersion, than any which were inflicted on them, by the Babylonians and Assyrians, &c. &c. p. 400. But let me inform the critic, that it was, with me, the result neither of art nor of ignorance; but merely a conciseness of expression, in stating my sentiments. I shall take this opportunity of enlarging upon the subject. I hope the editor will not deny that it is a principle of great importance in the doctrine of Christianity, that all the Patriarchs and pious men of the Hebrews have had a foreknowledge of the advent of Jesus as the Messiah; that Moses himself, and all the prophets, have prophesied concerning his existence with his father, and his commission as the Universal Redeemer, &c. This doctrine could not then escape the knowledge of the whole nation, who adhered to the instructions of the prophets and chiefs of the community; nor could it fail to be promulgated among the people. The conclusion must then follow: If the Israelites, then existing, did acknowledge and embrace the faith of the Messiah, so frequently inculcated by the prophets, then their salvation ought to have been at hand; and the destruction of the first Temple, with the consequent dispersion, would have been an unjust punishment. But, if they did not acknowledge the faith of the Messiah, and were therefore to be punished, the destruction of the first temple, and the consequent dispersion, should not be considered as a punishment, on that account, any more than the destruction of the second temple, by the Romans, and the events which followed it. In short, if the destruction of the second temple by the Romans, and the subjection of the government, were permitted, on account of the Jews' conduct towards Jesus in the character of the Messiah, the first destruction by the Babylonians might be attributed to their disbelief of the Messiah; but if the first destruction and dispersion were not inflicted on that account, neither are the second destruction and dispersion to be regarded as a punishment for the rejection of Jesus. For the nation was the same; the prophets and prophecies were the same, the facts of destruction were the same: and therefore, the causes must absolutely have been also the same. But the Christian doctors insist, that the whole dispersion of the Jews, into all the nations of the earth, was a consequence of the crucifixion of Jesus! Secondly, I have to remind the editor, that not only the first dispersion of the Israelites into the eastern countries, but also the subsequent one into the western countries, were both prior to the crucifixion of Jesus; for the History of Judæa, during the period of the second temple, cannot, I presume, be unknown to him. Thus, we are informed by Philo, Josephus, &c. that, while Jerusalem was in subjection to the Greeks, numerous families of the Jews established themselves in the Grecian dominions in Europe, partly as captives, and, in part, voluntarily, to avoid the tyranny of the Grecian kings. During the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, in Egypt, the Judæan settlement in that region increased to such a degree, that (as we are informed in Talmud,) they instituted a sanhedrim and cathedrals at Alexandria, far superior to those established at Jerusalem. During the government of the high-priests at Jerusalem, particularly that of Hyrcanus and his successors, when they became allies of the Romaus, the Jews made innumerable settlements in the Roman provinces of Europe: a further extension into the western parts was then to be naturally expected. It is therefore evident, that the dispersion into the western dominions, in the æra of the second temple, was also prior to the crucifixion of Jesus. Titus, who destroyed the second temple, caused no additional dispersion whatever. The great slaughter which Adrian made of the Jews at Alexandria and Cyprus, and which happened about fifty years after the victory of Titus, is well-known to have been occasioned by the attempt of Bar-cuchvah, who proclaimed himself a temporal Messiah, and revolted against the Romans. He was subdued by the force of Adrian; and since that period, no attempt has been made at a restoration; particularly, as the succeeding Roman emperors granted a general liberty of establishment throughout their dominions. In a work, still in MS. with me, intitled "The Temple of Reason, or, The Spirit of Theology," I have investigated, to a considerable extent, the doctrine relative to the Messiah, and the royalty of the house of David; with all the authorities deduced from Scripture, Mishnah, Such are my sentiments respecting the dispersion of the Jews; and The persecutions of the Israelites by the Christian churches, during S. BENNETT. INDEX OF ALL THE BOOKS IN THE LAST NUMBERS OF THE REVIEWS AND MAGAZINES. Classical Journal. (Continued Quarterly.) No. XII. PREFACE. JORTIN, it received so little encourage- Since that period, a new era has In the beginning of the last century, of accurate taste, and critical sagacity, The experience of a few months has In the prosecution of our plan, we Critical Observations on Classical It remains for us only to add, in the nissimè invitamus ad symbolas alacri- CONTENTS. Oxford Prize Essay On the Utility of |