Hence, the ori

death, the death of an animal. gin of the maxim in the Levitical code, "Without shedding of blood, i. e. without the sacrifice of death, is no remission of sin."

"It were most sincerely to be wished," says Dr. Magee," that the doctrines of scripture were at all times collected from the scripture itself: and that pre-conceived notions, and arbitrary theories were not first to be formed, and then the scripture pressed into the service of each fanciful dogma," vol. i. p. 17. In proportion, as artful men are conscious of doing wrong, they dwell in words upon what is right, and endeavour to shield themselves from the suspicion of error, by ascribing, with lofty confidence to their adversaries, the very things with which they are themselves chargeable. After the above decla ration, the reader would necessarily suppose that the author wrote conformably to the spirit of it, having the word of God evidently on his side of the question: and yet I am free to say, that scarcely a work can be found in which the author, while professing to follow the scriptures, has more grossly acted in opposition to them, or more obviously tortured them in support of his own pre-conceived notions. " In the mode of enquiry," says he, "which has been usually adopted on this subject, one prevailing error deserves to be noticed. The nature of sacrifice, as generally practised and understood, antecedent to the time of Christ, has been first examined; and from that, as a ground of explanation, the notion of Christ's sacrifices has been derived: whereas, in fact, by this all former sacrifices are to be inter

preted; and in reference to it, only can they be understood," vol. i. p. 42. This is what Dr. Magee calls a fundamental error; and he proceeds, with magisterial air, to correct it: and what is this pretended correction, but simply to say, that the sacrifices of the law are to be interpreted by a previously assumed notion of the sacrifice of Christ? Besides, the argument exhibits a complete instance of the circulating syllogism. The rites of the Levitical code must be considered as deriving their nature and efficacy from the death of Jesus; and the death of Jesus must, in a peculiar manner, be propitiatory, because they are pre-signified by the rites of the Levitical code. A sensible child would have avoided a mode of reasoning so puerile, feeble, and irrational.

Having proved, as he supposes, that the sacrifices of the law were but preparations for the one sacrifice offered by Christ, Dr. Magee proceeds to shew that the same might be asserted of sacrifices from the beginning; and with this view he adduces the oblations of Abel and Cain. "The words," adds he, "are remarkable. By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts." But surely the obvious meaning of the words is, By faith in God, Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice. The sacrifice of Abel was more excellent, because it was the sacrifice of a righteous man: God himself bearing him testimony to that effect. In spite of this obvious sense suggested by the text, our author

says, "The meaning is, that by faith Abel offered that, which was more of the true nature of sacrifice, than what had been offered by Cain. Abel, consequently, was directed by faith: and this faith was manifested by the nature of his offering." The object of this faith then, is the sacrifice of Christ: yet this is not mentioned, nor the slightest intimation given of it, either by Moses, or by the apostle; so that Abel offered by faith not only in what he did not understand, but in what he had no idea of. The expostulation, he adds, which God addressed to Cain, gives strength to this notion. "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." The original of sin he proposes to render sin-offering and the last clause would then be," And if thou doest not well, a sin-offering lieth even at the door. The God re-.

connection is thus rendered evident bukes Cain, for not conforming to that species of sacrifice, which had been offered by Abel." It is not easy to find in any commentator, an instance of so gross and palpable a violation of the sacred text as this before me. The true sense is most obvious; and no man could well miss it, but he who wished to shew his ingenuity in finding out some new argument, in support of a tottering system. The offering of Cain would have been accepted, if he had done well; if, like Abel, he had been a righteous man. And it was not accepted, because he was not a righteous man, because he did not do well; and because he did not do well, SIN lay at his door, that is, Guilt or Punishment couched at his door like a beast of prey, waiting

for it to open, that he might enter, seize his victim, and deliver him over to death. The saying is founded on the maxim above-mentioned, that every man, by sin, is become obnoxious to the punishment of death.

This appears to me a fair specimen of Dr. Magee's critical talents, and of the arguments with which he supports the doctrine of the atonement. His volumes indeed, throughout, exhibit a strange mixture of learning and ignorance, of affected humility and real arrogance, of professed love for the gospel and intolerant zeal for antichristian doctrines that disgrace it: nor can I account for the existence of such a work in the present enlightened state of biblical criticism, except that by some derangement in the order of Providence, an author appeared in the nineteenth century, who had been designed to add deeper shades to the gloom and bigotry of the dark ages.

THE END.

J. G. BARNARD, SKINNER-STREET, LONDON.