imitation; or, on the other, seem to affect a puerile originality, by the solicitous avoidance of sentiments already so well expressed and defended. To escape this dilemma, the sermon was prepared and preached without once referring to Dr. Magee's book: and, when the requisition to publish obliged me to revise and transcribe it, I observed the same caution till the whole discourse, and a considerable part of these notes, were written. I then carefully perused the valuable work mentioned, with a view to ascertain the kind of comparison which I might presume my own little production would bear to it. The subject being the same, it was next to impossible that a sameness should not appear in some leading ideas: but, upon the whole, I found the points of resemblance to be few, and a considerable difference apparent in the plan, the mode of discussion, and the doctrinal deductions. The following will, I trust, be found a correct statement of the result of comparison.

1. Coincident topics. The antiquity and universality of SACRIFICES.-Not of human invention, but of divine institution. Apparently unreasonable, irrespectively of the revealed import.-Figurative and symbolical.-Their actual significancy.-Designed as typical annunciations of the great object of the Messiah's mission.-His sacrifice alone possessed of intrinsic value and efficacy.-The mediatorial scheme originating in the Divine benevolence ;-and agreeable to the general sense and conduct of mankind.

2. Apparent differences. In this Discourse, I have bound myself to a rigid strictness of method; not only with a design to render the object of the whole, and the relation of the parts, more obvious; but with an especial wish to expose every sentiment and argument to the fullest examination. Dr. Magee's Two Discourses are composed with greater freedom in this respect and the Seventy-six Dissertations, appended to successive parts of the text, are not arranged in the logical order of the argument, and evidently bear no relation of series to each other.

* Vetera et scripta aliis? parata inquisitio, sed onerosa collatio. Intacta et nova? graves offensæ, levis gratia. Plin. Ep. v. 8.

To theological sentiments, distinct from the general subject, Dr. Magee has but sparing and brief allusions: so that it would be presumptuous to form a decided opinion as to his approval of the views of Christian doctrine advanced in these pages, or his dissent from them. I fear, however, that some passages in his work indicate a material difference from those views which I think it my duty to maintain, upon the real value of the Redeemer's sacrifice,-its relation to the moral attributes and government of God,-its connexion with the Divine Nature of Christ,-its efficacy,-and its application.

3. Topics in Dr. Magee not adverted to, or but slightly, in this Discourse. These are chiefly in the Dissertations, which extend to 825 pages, and, though perhaps too desultory, contain a treasure of information, reasoning, and criticism. Many of them are upon different lights and bearings of the same subject so that the following, though a concise, will not, I hope, be found an incomplete enumeration.-The inefficacy of repentance and human works to procure pardon.- Multiplied objects of single divine acts.-Prayer.-Divine origin of human speech.-Date of the permission to use animal food.Disquisitions on the sacrifices of Abraham and of Job:-the command to sacrifice Isaac :—the history and criticism of the book of Job:-the diversities of the Levitical sacrifices :-the theories of sacrifice maintained by different authors.-Many valuable criticisms and comments on scripture.-Remarks on the objections, doctrines, and writings of Deists, Unitarians, Socinians, Arians, and the supporters of the schemes of Grotius, Spencer, and Warburton.

4. Topics in this Discourse not included in Dr. Magee's plan. These may be generally stated as the whole of the reasonings and observations from p. 31, to the end of the Discourse.-In Notes I. and III. I had collected some of the instances which Dr. Magee had adduced; but, on comparison with his Dissertations, I have omitted them, and added a reference to his work. The passage from Cicero (pro Fonteio), he mentions, but does not insert. If there be any other coincidence, it has escaped my observation.

Upon the whole, I flatter myself that, in the collation of

this Discourse with the Archbishop's large and valuable work, there will be found as few resemblances as could be expected in two discussions of the same subject, and professedly drawn from the same sources of original authority.

The reader will perceive that this Note refers to the first edition, in 1812, of the First of the preceding Discourses. To the present publication it is less relevant; but I conceived myself not to be at liberty to suppress it.

Note XXIII.-page 100.

CITATION FROM DR. RYLAND.

"The REASONABLENESS of the Doctrine of CHRIST'S MEDIA TION and SATISFACTION, as agreeing in some measure with the feelings and conduct of men.-If a person very dependent and deeply indebted, should injure and abuse you, and obstinately persist in so doing, notwithstanding all you could do to reclaim him, convince him, or win him by new obligations; surely he might go on so long in this course that you would afterwards be unwilling to forgive him, (unless upon religious, evangelical considerations" [such, for instance, as those derived from my consciousness of my own offences against God, and his infinite grace in forgiving me, no analogy to which can be transferred to the Divine Being ;]-) " even though he should leave off his evil practices, and ask pardon. But, if a much dearer friend who had always been true to that character, and was a near relation of the offender, should intercede for him, put himself to much expense, labour, and difficulty, and undergo great hardships and sufferings, to procure his forgiveness at your hands; and if the person himself should change his mind, and beg pardon for the sake of this common friend-who would not feel differently disposed, and ready to forgive him, for this intercessor's sake, though not for his own? Certainly, it is agreeable to the common feelings and

practice of mankind, for those who are connected with a person of distinguished excellence and merit, to be treated differently, on account of that relation, to what they would have been had no such relation subsisted. Who is there that has a singular love and esteem for a parent, that would not value the children the more for his sake? (-David to Mephibosheth, for Jonathan.-) And even more distant relations and friends; especially if it be known that the superior relation had a singular regard for the interest of the inferior, and would take what was done for him, as done to himself. So Paul for Onesimus; Philemon, verses 17, 19. In this case, one person is in some degree substituted for the other; his merit is as it were imputed to him and treated as if it belonged not only to the most worthy person, but also to his relation and friend. (Jonathan and Mephibosheth.-) All this is the more conformed to our common ideas of propriety, in proportion to the nearness of relation between the parties, one of whom is supposed to recommend the other to favour; also the degree of affection by the superior to the inferior, and the interest he takes in his welfare, especially if he seriously and earnestly desire it, and that in such a degree as to be willing to promote or insure it at the greatest expense, by his own continued labour or extreme suffering. If he also apply particularly and earnestly to the person offended, whom he highly esteems, and who in the like manner has the highest value for him and if he intercedes with him for the offender, whom he loves and pities, and whose cause he has made his own; yet in such a way as not to imply the slightest reflection on the offended, or any inclination to countenance the offender in his misconduct, to justify or excuse what he had done amiss. This must have the more weight, if all were conducted with such wisdom and decorum as would prevent any part of the transaction from lessening the idea of the mediator's virtue: or rather if it were so contrived as to be a wonderful display of virtue, an exhibition of uncommon excellence. (Judah's plea for Benjamin.-) It would crown all if the mediator aimed as much at the reformation of the offender, as at the prevention of his punishment and ruin."

This venerable man, distinguished for his penetration and felicitous tact in metaphysical and moral questions, carries on the application of these hypothetical views to the Mediatorial character and work of Jesus Christ. He describes the dignity of this Saviour, yet his close relation to man ;-his supreme respect to the government and glory of God, combined with the most tender regard to the happiness of man : -his voluntariness and deep interest in the whole engagement;-that his so interesting himself in favour of unworthy and guilty creatures, involved him in no disgrace; as would have been the case had he in the least palliated the conduct of sinners, or afforded any apology or countenance to sin, or implied any reflection upon the law or the Lawgiver ;—that, in the whole arrangement and its execution, he gave the most impressive demonstration of his love to moral order, to holiness and justice ;-that he made it essential to the enjoyment of an interest in his benevolent undertaking, that none can receive the benefit till they concur with him in his sentiments and feelings of loyalty to the divine government; accounting it equally a matter of happiness and blessing to become duteous subjects to the rule of eternal righteousness, as to be restored to the favour of God;-and that the whole plan of redemption and its application is infinitely excellent in the estimation of the Divine Father, and acceptable to all his glorious attributes.

PASTORAL MEMORIALS, selected from the Manuscripts of the late Rev. JOHN RYLAND, D. D., in two volumes; vol. i. p. 174 -179. Dr. Ryland died on May 25, 1825, aged 72.

Note XXIV.-page 153.

ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

I have copied the titles of these two elaborate and very important works, not because the brevity of the one stands in contrast to the amplitude of the other, but because the