advantage of these. But I feel confident in the general strength of the evidences adduced, and I trust that it will be borne in mind, that the loss of one or two outposts does not necessarily compromise the safety of the citadel,

With respect to Mr. Davison's talents, and theological acquirements, I can speak in no other terms than those of the greatest respect. His work on Prophecy alone invests him with a literary, and theological reputation of no ordinary stamp. This work is calculated to excite a free, but sober and reverent spirit of enquiry. I am not his opponent, but I am the decided opponent of his work on Primitive Sacrifice. I look upon ti with regret. I am concerned to see the powers of his mind concentrated, not only on what I deem a paradox, but on a point, which appears to me to have no tendency to any valuable result. The general faith of Christians appears to have adopted the article of the divine institution, and originally expiatory purport of Sacrifice. If an error, it would not have been one of importance, nor would its exposure have led to any material consequences*. But, if not an error (and such I believe to be the case) then the evil of an attempt to subvert that belief is proportionate to the acuteness, and polemical skill of him, who makes the attempt. In these Mr. Davison, if report speak true, is no mean proficient; and his name, and talents will have served to give currency, and importance to an error, which, when advocated only by Mr. Bel

*After all Mr. Davison's elaborate arguments in favour of the human institution, every reader of his book must (notwithstanding the qualifications with which he follows it up,) be forcibly struck with this remarkable announcement.

"I do not press a peremptory decision against the Divine origin." Surely on the perusal of this passage the recollection of the tenor of every part of his book, and of the earnestness and subtlety, with which he has endeavoured to weaken, nay to destroy, the supposed evidence of this divine origin; cannot fail to give rise to one question, upon them, viz. CUI BONO?

sham, and his coadjutors, peacefully reposed in oblivion and insignificance. These talents however, will not, I trust, be able to beat down this generally received doctrine, that, from the beginning God revealed, however obscurely, the principal feature in his dispensation of mercy-that, as man's life was forfeited, and could not be redeemed by his own righteousness, God himself" provided a Lamb ”— gave to his fallen creatures the sacramental memorial as the symbol of the sacrifice of Christ-the gracious, but perhaps obscure intimation of his mysterious designs-that all mankind should be redeemed,, " with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times."

"What are these," said the elder in the Revelations, "which are arrayed in white robes? And whence came they?

?"

The answer is, "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the BLOOD OF THE LAMB?" Is Abel, and are all those heroic, and faithful servants of God not to be numbered among those with white robes? and can they have made their robes white, or in other words have been accounted righteous otherwise than by faith in the blood of the Lamb.

† 1 Pet. i. 19, 20.

APPENDIX I.

I HAVE observed, that my views upon the subject of legal atonement have involved me in a difference of opinion with the learned Archbishop of Dublin. This difference, though it does not materially affect, but rather strengthens the principal conclusion which he endeavours to maintain, I cannot declare, without entering into an examination of the points on which we are at issue. It is a respect due to a writer of his authority, and necessary to the reception of my own opinion, that I should submit to the public my reasons for dissenting from him.

In the Appendix to his Sermons on the Atonement, No. xxxviii., he is replying to several Socinian arguments against the Vicarious Import of Sacrifice, and amongst others is this, supported by Sykes and Taylor. "The sacrifice could not have implied any thing Vicarious, as no atonement could be made where life was forfeited." To this Dr. Magee replies, "There is no argument advanced by the opponents of the doctrine of atonement, with greater confidence than this; and there is none which abounds with greater fallacies. It is untrue, in point of fact; it is sophistical, in point of reasoning: and it is impertinent, in point of application."

"I. It is untrue; for atonements were made in cases where, without atonement, life was forfeited. This appears at once, from the passage of Leviticus last referred to*, which positively asserts the atonement to be made for the life of the offerer; it also appears from the unbending rigour of the law in general, which seems to have denounced death against every violation of it, (see Deut. xxvii. 26; Ezek. xviii. 19-23; Gal. iii. 10; James ii. 10,) and in particular, from the specific cases of perjury, (Levit, vi. 3.) and of profane swearing, (v. 4.) for which atonements were appointed, notwithstanding the strict sentence of the law was death (Exod. xx. 7. and Levit. xxiv. 16.) See on this Grot. de Satisf. cap. x. §3.;

Lev. xvii. 11.

Hallett's Notes and Disc. p. 275-278; and Richie's Peculiar Doctrine, vol. i. p. 245-249, 280. This latter writer, it is to be observed, though opposing the doctrine of vicarious suffering, and wishing to avail himself of the objection here urged, yet finds himself not at liberty to advance farther than to state, that it seldom happened that death was denounced against any offences for which atonement was appointed"

That "it is untrue," I perfectly agree with this learned writer, but think that he has not pointed out the real sense in which it is untrue. The fact is, that atonement for sin was never made, but in cases in which life was forfeited: that is, forfeited by the original sentence against man's disobedience. But atonement did not avert this forfeiture; the forfeiture invariably took place, and atonement redeemed man from its effects after the forfeiture had taken place. The archbishop, I submit, has not taken a correct view of the application, when he imagines, that sacrificial atonement usually availed to avert the infliction of death, in the case of any crime for which it was appointed to be inflicted by the hand of man; or for which it was specially appointed to be inflicted even by the hand of God, for the sake of public example. The general declaration of Leviticus xvii. 11. I consider to have principally a reference to the charter of atonement before the law, and to have implied the future restoration of life. If its reference to atonement peculiarly by the law be admitted, as I think it may, it denotes, not the means of averting any special punishment to be inflicted by man, but no more than the general consequence of being reconciled to God, and thus being permitted to enjoy long life, and to escape the premature infliction of death, to which they would be liable should they persist in despising the appointed means of being re-admitted to his favour and service. But this amounts to nothing like the appointment of atonement to avert the death denounced by the law, as a special punishment for any particular offence. Every transgression, of which the offender persisted in refusing to acknowledge the guilt, and seek the pardon, by God's established means, became presumptuous sin, and rendered the offender liable to death, not because there was no atonement appointed for that transgression, but because he contemptuously neglected the be said, in a general sense, to be for the life of the Jews, yet, in the case I have just stated, the offender does not suffer death for any

atonement. Therefore, though atonement may the case

Magee on Atonement, Appendix, No. xxxviii.

3