4,14 



Monthli/ Review of Literature, 



[April, 



welfare of France ; I have ilone all iu my power to 

 contribute to it, and I can say with truth to you, 

 who are present at my last moments, that the first 

 wife of Napoleon Buonaparte never caused a tear 

 to be shed." These were her last words. Alexander 

 shewed the most sincere sorrow ; his eyes remained 

 fix«<l on the mortal remains of the wife of a man 

 ivlio was proscribed and unfortunate; the young 

 hero honoured by his presence the last moments 

 of a woman so universally regretted. He withdrew 

 much .ifFected, and returned some horns after ; ap- 

 proachuig the coffin, he lifted up the shroud, which 

 already covered her, and with his eyes bathed in 

 tears, took a final leave of her, saying, " She is dead, 

 and leaves an eternal regret in the heart of her friends, 

 and of all those who have knosn her." 



His people wished to bestow on him tlie 

 title of " The Blessed;" his answer is 

 stril<ing, noble, and worthy of being re- 

 corded. 



When this deputation was presented to him at 

 Weunar, and begged him to accept the honorary 

 title, and to allow a monument to be erected to him, 

 Alexander replied, with that genuine modesty which 

 can confer more honour than all titles, " I have 

 always endeavoured to give the nation the example 

 of simplicity and modesty; I cannot accept the title 

 offered to me, without deviating from my principles ; 

 and as for the monument, it is for posterity to erect 

 one to me, if they think me worthy of it. 



The accounts of his last jounic)', of his 

 illness .ind death, are without doubt the 

 best yet extant. We should quote them 

 for the amusement and information of our 

 readers if onr limits would permit us ; but 

 we must conclude with recommending this 

 sketch as a useful compendium of the 

 events of a momentous reign, anda.-? an im- 

 partial outline of the character of Alex- 

 ander, and of the state of Russia under his 

 dominion. 



- An Answer to the Rev. John Davison's 

 Inquiry info the Origin and Intent of Pri- 

 mitive Sacrifice. By the Rev. John Nas- 

 sau IMoi.EswoiiTH. — Few subjects of late 

 years have roused the attentioit of theolo- 

 gians as much as that which the volume 

 before us so ably discusses. Indeed so 

 great has been the interest excited by Mr. 

 Da\ison's book, that we cor.sider it a para- 

 moimt duty to give the matter our imme- 

 diate attention. JMr. Davison has, with great 

 acumen and cousiderdble learning, endea- 

 voured to prove, that sacrifice is of liiiman 

 invention, and that the Deitj' adopted this 

 human invention, and directed it to form 

 one of the leading rites of the Jewish wor- 

 ship. We shall refrain from otfering any 

 remarks, until we have made these cham- 

 j)ions speak for themselves in the listed 

 iield. Mr. Molesworth takes the opposite 

 side, and, with dignity becoming his profes- 

 sion ;ind the subject, states his adversary's 

 arguments with the greatest perspicuity, 

 generally quoting his own words ; and then, 

 «iili a force of reasoning and clearness of 

 conception not often to be met witli, re- 

 futes them, and, in trutii, scatters them 

 like clialV before the wind. 



Mr. Davison's positions are : — 



1st. Th'.t a di I'i lie appointment ot saa'tficccamwt 

 be maintr.incd, as the more probable account of the 

 origin of that mode of worship. 



2d. Thatitshunia7iinstitntion, if that be admitted, 

 does not intrench in any manner upon the honour 

 and sanctity of the Mosiac Law; nor invade, much 

 less invalidate, the essential doctrine of the Chris- 

 tian atonement. 



3d. That if any person shall still prefer to ascribe 

 the first sacrifices to a divine appointment, there is 

 yet no tenable ground for the belief that any revela- 

 tion of their intent, in reference to the future sacri- 

 fice and atonement of the gospel, was joined with 

 them." 



Mr. Molesworth's positions are these : 



I. There is sufficient evidence of the divine insti- 

 tution of sacrifice. 



H. Sacrifice was used, and appointed by God to 

 be useil from the beginning as an expiatory rite. 



III. The patriarchs and other holy men had some 

 revelation of the Redceiiier as the antitype of sacri- 

 fice. 



Thus these polemical champions join 

 issue. Mr. Molesworth, with great acumen, 

 " declines entering into a close examination 

 of Mr. Davison'ss^coJir/position" — because, 

 if he couhl establish his first, the second 

 would follow— tlierefore the whole force of 

 the argument is concentrated into the 

 question, " Is sacrifice of Divine Institu- 

 tion?" Mr. Davison su])i)orts his opinions 

 with these arguments, whicii, if not the 

 \\'hole, are the leading ones, in favour of 

 his first pro])Osition — " Sacrifice was a 

 confession of guilt — as death was known to 

 be the wages of sin, it was natural for the 

 first worshi)ipcrs, the family of Adam, to 

 present an innocent victim to be slain for 

 him, and j)ay for him his transgression." 

 These, as far as viC caji comj)rchend them, 

 are Mr. Davidson's points. It matters not 

 how ornamented or fine-drawn tliey may 

 be in his work ; these are the points, and 

 to us they appear deplorably inadequate 

 for the purpose lie wished. Mr. Moles- 

 worth, evidently a close and powerful rea- 

 soner, has used the inductive argument 

 from cfllct to cause, which is equally cer- 

 tain, when well managed, with the argu- 

 meiit froin cause to effect — and in the 

 present instance more applicable to the 

 sid)iect. 



We will quote the following passage 

 from Mr. Molesworth s book, as at once 

 carrying conviction with it and overthrow- 

 ing Mr. Davison's theory. 



Animal sacrifices were confessedly not only pro- 

 mment and principal parts of God's worship under 

 the law, but also both crpiator;/, and ti/pical of 

 the great atonement made by Jesus Christ. Is it 

 a probable inference, that God left the rite, which 

 so aptly, so circumstanti.tlly, so wonderfully adum- 

 brated the mysterious peculiarities of this great 

 event, to be groped for, and stumbled upon by the 

 dim-sighted and unccrtaiji efforts of human reason ? 

 The eircttntstaiifes and effects of Chnsfs death and 

 suffering were vndouhtcdly not ordained to corres- 

 pimd wiOi the eircumstanees of the saerijice ; but 

 sacri&ce prejifftired the circumstances and effects of 

 Christ's death. Now, is it a reasonable supposition, 

 that God did not ordain a rite so singularly repre- 

 senting events, which nothing but Revelation could 



