in concluding, that the assumptions of Methodism are of the bold est character; that they tend to encourage the most dangerous and erroneous sentiments, by a representation of the state of human nature, and the condition of the race of man, very different, as well from the actual state of things, as from the declarations of Scripture. Dr. Magee is careful to refer to their own writings in confirmation of all that he alleges against them; and in this he is ex tremely wise, for we have no means of judging of them, but from what they say, and what they write. The great question is, do they mean what they express, or do they intend to be understood, as saying one thing and meaning another. Some of their defences would almost lead us to suppose that the latter was actually the

case.

The additions to No. xxxv. consist principally of a long note, (taken into the text in the 3d edition,) on the true import of the Hebrew term which we render Passover. Dr. Magee cites with good effect Josephus, Philo, Aquila, and Jerome, to show, that according to the ancient version, nothing can be more correct than the English term Passover. It seems, however, that Vitringa and Lowth, Dathe and Rosenmuller, some of the most eminent of modern commentators questioned the propriety of the English term. The two latter having founded their objection on the different sense of the correspondent term in Arabick, Dr. Magee objects to their principle, and proposes a sort of canon upon this head, which we shall transcribe

"Objections drawn from the kindred dialects ought to be admitted only in the case of such words as are in themselves of doubtful signification, receiving no illus tration either from corresponding passages or from early versions. Very different is the case in question. Not only, as we have seen, do some of the earliest and most competent translators ascribe to it the sense already stated, but several passages of Scripture justify that sense by a corresponding use of the verb from which the word is derived. This will appear by considering the several verses of the 12th Ch. of Exodus, in which the institution of the Passover is prescribed, and the reason of its designation by that term expressly assigned.”

The Professor proceeds to this investigation, and after many references to prove his point, he is brought to a citation from Rabbi Sol. Jarchi adduced by Dr. Geddes; which naturally leads him to notice, the strange term adopted by the latter, of Skip-offering, which he admits to come nearly up to the true idea of the term, were it not so devoid of all taste and decorum, as to be nearly ludicrous, in comparison with the more sober and chaste term of Passover. The learned author pursues this inquiry further than we can follow him, making many acute remarks and observations on criticks and writers of the highest eminence. We shall say but little here upon the additions to No. XL. because in the 3d edition we shall find it in a different place, and shall therefore reserve our remarks upon it, till we meet with it there. No. XLII. is, we believe, almost entirely additional. In the new matter added here the Dr. introduces Mr. Bryant's very curious account of the Phænician offering of the most dearly-beloved of their offspring, in cases of emergency, attended with such circumstances, as in the

estimation of that respected author appeared to be strongly typical of the Christian Sacrifice. Dr. Magee is inclined to differ from Mr. Bryant in assigning the origin of this rite to a tradition descending through the race of Esau; he professes to be "rather disposed to think, that this sacrifice of the Phoenicians, grew out of the intended sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, to which the cir cumstances of the history seem to correspond in many particulars."

In the addition to No. XLVIII. we have an admirable exposure of the absurd comments of Dr. Geddes on the Mosaick Law, and with great judgment, and admirable effect, Dr. Priestley is called in to answer him. Dr. Geddes contends, that it is so obvious that Moses borrowed his rites from the Egyptians, and only adapted them to the Jewish people, that it no longer remains "a question among the learned;"-but says Dr. Priestley, whoever can indulge such a suspicion, can "never have compared those rights together:" and Dr. Priestley had undoubtedly the advantage in the argument. "I could not resist," says Dr. Magee, "the opportunity of confronting him," (Dr. G.) with a brother critick, equally removed from the trammels of received opinions, and equally intrepid in exercising the right of free inquiry, in the face of whatever consequences might result-when Greek meets Greek. The most important matter, however, in this citation of Dr. Priestley, is the notable circumstance that the Doctor here answers even himself. Dr. Magee particularly remarks a circumstance, with which we have ourselves been struck in the perusal of Dr. P's late works, namely, that he approached much nearer to orthodoxy in his latter days. His "notes on all the books of Scripture;" (a posthumous work,) and his "Dissertation on the originality and superiour excellence of the Mosaick Institutions," bearing very important testimonies to the divine mission and sacred authority of the Jewish legislator.

The additions to No. LXVII. are not very considerable in quantity of matter, but curious as tending to confirm the rendering of Gen. iv. 7, adopted by the learned professor in his sermon; first proposed by Lightfoot, approved by Kennicott and Pilkington, and very much supported by the renderings of Jerome and Theodotion. Dr. M. notices an oversight, (if it really were so,) of Dr. Geddes, in regard to that anomalous connexion of a feminine noun nen with a masculine adjunct ya on which the construction of the passage in the way proposed by Lightfoot materially depends. Dr. Geddes would insist upon it that there are no authorities for connecting the noun in its ordinary sense of Sin, with a masculine adjunct nor yet even in the sense of Sin-offering, but Dr. Magee has expressly proved the contrary in regard to the latter, and shown that in fact the masculine adjunct expressly tends to demonstrate that the term nor is here to be taken in the sense of a Sin-offering; he cites to this end Exod. xxix. 14. Levit. iv. 21, 24. v. 9. and other places, in Levit. whence the masculine pronoun is used instead of the feminine. To vindicate and establish the reading proposed.

the learned Professor in this note, offers the following elucidation' of the passage.

"The principal difficulty attending the translation of the verse in question, (Gen. iv.7.) has arisen from the apparent want of connexion between the concluding clause and those which go before. If, however, the context be well considered, the connexion becomes clear and convincing. Of Cain, who was filled with rage at the preference given to his brother Abel by the acception of his sacrifice whilst his own was rejected, Jehovah demands the reason of his anger: "If thou doest well, (says he,) shalt thou not be accepted?" or rather as the margin of our Bible reads, shalt thou not have the excellency or exaltation, above thy brother, which thou conceivest to belong to thy birth-right?" and if thou doest not well, a Sin-offering lieth at thy very door," to make the due reconciliation, and restore thee to the station which thou hast lost by thy misconduct. So that in every way it depends upon thyself, that thy brother shall be rendered subject unto thee, and that thou shalt have the superiority over him. This meaning naturally and spontaneously flows from the literal rendering of the passage as it stands connected. And the Lord said unto Cain wherefore art thou wrath, &c. (with thy brother?) is there not, If thou doest well, exaltation; and if thou doest not well, a Sin-offering lying at thy door? and thus he may become subject to thee, and thou mayest have the dominion over him. It is apprehended that this, which is an exact translation of the original, affords in the view of the above paraphrase, a clear, consistent, and satisfactory sense, of a part of Scripture which has hitherto caused much trouble to interpreters."

An ingenious attempt is made also in this No. to account for the extraordinary rendering of the LXX, though the Professor claims no higher credit for his proposed construction and arrangement of the passage, for this end, than that "it is to be considered after all as rather possible than actual." We cannot, however, here find room for the Doctor's solution of the difficulty.

No. LXX. is almost entirely new, "on the disproportion between the effects of the Mosaick and Christian Sacrifices," and it is extremely important; showing the false conclusions drawn by F. Sotinus and Crellius, from their own views of the two systems, as described by the apostle to the Hebrews. Those two fathers of the Socinian School having clearly agreed with Grotius in the three following principles: 1. That the expiation wrought by the sacrifices under the law, were typical of that effected by the death of Christ. 2. That in every type there must be something of the same general nature with that which is contained in the thing typified: and 3. That combined with this general correspondence between the type and the thing prefigured, there should exist that disproportion which might be expected between the shadow and the substance." These principles, Dr. M. shows, both F. Socinus and Crellius admitted; but differed from Grotius in the application. His own exposition of matters is brief, but excellent; he plainly shows, that the Jewish sacrifices were not merely and solely typical, but had a real efficacy suited and proportioned to the dispensation to which they belonged: in their way they were complete and effectual, though at the same time introductory and subservient to other and more important objects.

The additions to No. LXXI. are very considerable in quantity, and very valuable in point of matter. It is impossible for us to do justice to the many curious and able remarks of the author, upon the various topicks handled in this Dissertation. It is full of learning, and extremely interesting. The title of the Number is,

"On the Correspondence between the Sacrificial Language of the Old Testament, and that employed in the New, to describe Redemption by the Death of Christ." On this subject the learned author has been induced to enter into an investigation of singular importance and great curiosity, namely, the probable relation exist ing between the primitive religion of the world, and the pagan mythologies. He enters ably into the subject, by a judicious correction of the learned Tillotson, for whose character and talents he expresses the highest consideration and veneration, but who undoubtedly fell into an errour, upon this head, of great consequence; an errour countenanced by other great names, but which is, nevertheless, without any support either in Scripture or reason. If the Jewish sacrifices and Christian atonement were but accommodations to a human invention, the Bible loses much of its character, even the attributes of the Almighty are lowered and debased, and we must give up the very history of the beginning of things, as related by the great Jewish legislator. Natural religion was not the commencement of things. Revelation began all the communications between the Deity and man; the Pagan systems were corruptions of a primitive revelation, and not revelation the imitator of Gentilism. Sacrifices were in the very first order of things after the fall, and they were typical, emblematical, introductory to the great Christian propitiation; and the heathen sacrifices, and heathen mythologies, were so many departures from, and corruptions of, the true revealed religion. This is a question of very material consequence, especially in these days, when the atonement, by the death of Christ, is liable to be misunderstood, and even denied, and the connexion between the New and Old Testaments on this great point under-rated, misrepresented, and abused. The question is intrinsically connected with the Professor's main subject; and though it has led him into a wide field, and occasioned great additions, there is perhaps no part of his work less out of place, than the view here taken of the real histories and bearings, (if we may so speak,) of revelation and natural religion. It must ever be a curious subject. Writers of the first eminence, and highest literary fame, have found or made this a stumbling-block in the way of their researches, their reasonings, and speculations, their criticisms, their view of scriptural, philosophical, and historical truths. Dr. Magee is able to cope with the greatest of these writers; and, both in learning and temper, particularly competent to weigh the merits of their respective opinions, which he does in this number of his disquisitions, in a style and manner most interesting and most instructive. It can scarcely be unknown to any of our readers, how much the late discoveries in India have revived all the questions and speculations relating to the true antiquity and precedency, (if we may so say,) of the Jewish Scriptures, and upon these points Dr. Magee is particularly learned and able; and we apprehend, no part of his book will be read with more avidity. It is easy to introduce extracts from a work, the style and manner of which require chiefly to be made known; but it is almost tri

fling with the readers to transcribe only a few passages for his perusal, of a work, of which, if he be competent to read and relish a part, he ought, on all accounts, speedily to make himself master of the whole. Even from this long number, we have found it almost impossible to select any one part more important than others, or which might, with justice to the author, be severed from the context. A very long note on lord Bolingbroke, introduced into this number of the 2d edition, is properly and judiciously thrown into another form in the third.

We have lastly to notice the additions to No. LXXIV. of the present edition. We must confess, that they are principally directed against a modern and contemporary writer of name and eminence, but whose conduct has ever appeared to us most questionable and most extraordinary; we mean the Reverend Robert Fellowes, (if he do not disdain and discard, as many of his brethren do, the title we have prefixed to his name.) Of Mr. F's talents we have never dissembled our opinion; he is an able and agreeable writer upon certain topicks. His learning, his judgment, his discretion, and, (we could almost add,) some more important qualities, we feel ourselves obliged to question. His private character we respect upon the testimony of those who know him, and have borne witness to it; but he has undoubtedly assumed a publick character, which is of course most prominent and most exposed to animadversion; and this we must declare, it is utterly impossible for us to approve. Dr. Magee has taken him in hand: he is a powerful, and, we think, a most victorious antagonist! And we confess, feeling as we ever have done, with regard to the inconsistent, anomalous, suspicious conduct of Mr. F., we think it very fortunate, that he has fallen under the lash of the Professor's animadversion. The doctor has detected, and here exposed, in a very forcible manner, the strange inconsistencies and contradictions to be found in Mr. F's writings.

"Really," says he, (with no slight feeling of concern and indignation,) "it were by no means unadvisable, that a writer, (not excepting even a teacher of theology,) should take some little pains to know what his own opinions were, before he proposed them for the instruction of the publick."

And again:

"Surely, he should have endeavoured to form at least a consistent set of opinions, before he attempted to obtrude them on the publick; and more particularly before he ventured to fly in the face of the whole Christian world, by an open rejection of one of the most important portions of inspired Scripture. Humility, however, is not one of the weaknesses of this writer; and certainly knowledge is not his forte."

In reference to Mr. F's extraordinary conduct in continuing a minister of the Established Church, while he holds opinions diametrically opposite to her creeds and articles, he says, with great

reason:

"It is indeed scarcely conceivable, how a person, in the possession of a sane under. standing, can reconcile to himself subscription to the Articles of the Church, and rejection of the doctrines which those Articles define."

A very judicious remark is also introduced, in regard to the 6th Article, under which these casuistical ministers would seek to take shelter.