Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

easily suppose the contrary. And that I do him no wrong, I will here give the reader a remarkable instance of this dexterity, in the counter exercise of his arms. In p. 150, of these Considerations, (he says)" IT DOES "NOT FOLLOW, that, because a thing is prefigured, there"fore it must be seen and understood AT THE TIME "when it is prefigured." Yet in the body of the pamphlet, pp. 112, 113, having another point to puzzle; he says (on my observing that a future state and resurrec tion were not national doctrines till the time of the Maccabees)" he knows I will say they had these doctrines from the prophets yet the prophets were dead two hundred years before."-But if the prophets were dead, their writings were extant-" And what then? is "it LIKELY that the sons should have learnt from the "dead prophets, what the fathers could not learn from "the living? Why could not the Jews learn this doc "trine from THE VERY FIRST, as well as their posterity at the distance of ages afterwards?" In the first case we find he expressly says, it does not follow; in the second, he as plainly supposes, that it does,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

XVI. "But there are other objections besides this (he says) to my interpretation of the command: as "first it doth not appear how Abraham could collect "from this transaction, that Christ was to be offered up as a sacrifice.I can easily understand that converse may be maintained by actions as well as by words, What you have said upon that subject *, &c. no doubt "is very just; and the instances you have produced from Scripture, where actions have been used as foreshewing "the determinations of Providence, are beyond all exception. But whereas you have considered the action "of Abraham in offering up his son as a case parallel to these; it differs from them all in a very material cir cumstance, viz. that nothing is here added by way of "explanation to shew the import of it. When Zedekiah "made him horns of iron, he said,-THUS shalt thou push "the Syrians, 1 Kings xxii. 11. When Jeremiah was "bid to take a linen girdle and hide it in the hole of a rock, &c. the explanation immediately follows:-Thus saith the Lord, AFTER THIS MANNER will I mar the Div. Leg. Book iv. § 4.

[ocr errors]

(6

[ocr errors]

pride of Judah, &c. Jeremiah xiii. 19. And so it is in every instance you have produced; which I need "not particularly prove, because you have confessed it*, "And no doubt such explanations, attending the trans"action, were always necessary for the information of "the prophet; because though actions are as expressive "of ideas as words are; yet it is on supposition that there "is either common use, or special intimation, to deter mine what ideas such or such actions import; other "wise nothing can be understood. You will not pretend, "I suppose, that by any common usage of those times, "this transaction was significative of the sacrifice of Christ; therefore there must have been some special "intimation attending the transaction, and determining it to this meaning, if it was the intention of Providence, "hereby to give Abraham any such information; of which special intimation since nothing appears, it can "never appear that any such information was intended, "The presumption lies the other way: because if any such information had been intended; it is natural to

26

think that the explanation would have been recorded “with the transaction, as it is in all other such like "cases." pp. 153, 154. This, indeed, stands unequalled, even by himself. In The Divine Legation, I had shewn the nature of this significative action here commanded;— I had shown how it agreed, and how it differed, from others of the same kind-I had shewn how Abraham must necessarily understand the import of it. Yet here, the Examiner comes over me with an objection, that implies a profound ignorance of every thing I had said. I would fain instruct him; but if he chuses rather to be shamed; why, every man to his taste. He says, I consider the information by action in the case of Abraham as parallel to the information given to, or by the prophets Zedekiah and Jeremiah, for the instruction of the people; "Whereas it differs from them in a very material, cir"cumstance; namely, that nothing is here added by way

[ocr errors]

of explanation, to shew the import of it." Hear, now, whether I consider it as parallel or different having spoken of those significative actions done by the prophets, at God's command, for the people's information, I go on * Div. Leg, vol, vi. p. 25.

thus

thus, By these actions the prophets instructed the peoplè in the will of God-but where God TEACHES THE PHOPHET, and, in compliance to the custom of that time, condescends to the same mode of instruction, then the significative action is generally changed into a vision, either natural or extraordinary-I say generally, but not always. Sometimes, though the information was only for the prophet, God would SET HIM UPON an expressive action, whose obvious meaning conveyed the intelligence proposed or sought. I therefore call upon him here again, the Fifth Time, to prove that I considered them as parallel; or else to make his retractation. He says, "he supposes, I will not pretend that, by any com"mon usage of those times, this transaction was signifi"cative of the sacrifice of Christ." All that I pretended to, I delivered in very plain terms, in the following manner. From the view given of Abraham's history, we see, how all God's revelations to him, to this last [of the Command] ultimately relate to that mystic fundumental promise, made to him on his first vocation, that in him should all families of the earth be blessed. opens the scheme of his dispensations, by exact and regular steps-We see, throughout, a gradual opening and fit preparation for some further Revelation, which could be no other than that of the Redemption—the completion of the whole of God's economy-But the only remaming one recorded-is the command to offer Isaac.

God

Now the happiness or redemption of mankind, promised to come through Abraham, could not but make him more and more inquisitive into the manner of its being brought about, in proportion as he found himself to be more and more personally concerned, as the instrument of so great a blessing.--We have shewn it to be the custom of antiquity to instruct by actions as well as words-that God himself, in compliance to a general custom, used this way of information.-Nothing could be conceived more appe site to convey the information than this very action; ABRAHAM DESIRED EARNESTLY to be let into the mystery of the Redemption, and God, to instruct himsaid, Take now thy son, &c. The duration of the action Div. Leg. vol. iv. p. 134.

was

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

was the same as between Christ's death and resurrection, &c*Could Abraham now, after this, be any more in doubt, that this command was to prefigure the sacrifice of Christ; than Ezekiel, that what he saw in the chambers of imagery was to represent the idolatries of his countrymen? But our Examiner artfully concealed, that I had, all along, supposed from the proofs given, that this Revelation was "made at Abraham's earnest request" and then asks, Whether "by any common usage this transaction was significative of the sacrifice "of Christ." If not, he says, "there must have been. "some special intimation determining it to this meaning: "of which, since nothing appears, it can never appear "that any such information was intended. The presumption lies the other way, because if any such inti"mation had been intended, it is natural to think, the "explanation would have been recorded with the transaction, as it is in ALL other such like cases." s." Here again, he honestly conceals from his reader, that I had given two reasons, why the explanation was not recorded: The one arising from this species of information; the other, from the nature of the thing informed of. The. first was, that the narrative of such a converse by action was not, in its nature, so intelligible or obvious, as that where God is shewn conversing by action to the prophets, in the several instances before given. And the reason is this: those informations, as they are given to the prophets for the instruction of the people, have, necessarily, in the course of the history, their explanations annexed. But the information to Abraham being solely for his own use, there was no room for that formal explanation z which made the commanded actions, performed by the prophets, so clear and intelligible f. And, to illustrate the truth of the observation, I gave an example, in the relation of Jacob's wrestling with the angel. Which (like this of the command) was an information by action, for Jacob's sole use: and therefore has the same obscuity, as not having its explanation annexed. I have shewn what that information was. And will he say, because the explanation was not recorded, that this was See Div. Leg. vol. vi. pp. 17. & seq. † Ibid. pp. 25, 26.

[ocr errors]

the

the history of a simple wrestling, as that was of a commanded human sacrifice? Or will he rather chuse to retract what he had said, that where it is an information by action, the explanation is always recorded in such like cases?

[ocr errors]

The second reason I gave why the explanation was not recorded, arose from the nature of the thing informed. of. The knowledge of God's future dispensation, in the redemption of mankind, by the death of his Son, revealed as a singular favour to the Father of the Faithful, was (say I) what could, by no means, be communicated to the Hebrew people, when Moses wrote his history for their use; because they being then to continue long under a carnal economy, this knowledge of the end of the law would have greatly indisposed them to that dispensation with which God, in his infinite wisdom, thought fit to erercise them*."

[ocr errors]

XVII. But he has not learnt his trade for nothing. Catch an Answerer without his salvo, if you can. You may trust him to take care that it shall never be said, he had passed over, in absolute silence, the answer given above; he therefore subjoins-" To this you reply, that "the information to Abraham being solely for his own use, and which could, by no means, be communicated to the Hebrew people when Moses wrote his history; there was no room for the formal explanation which made the "commanded actions performed by the prophets so clear and "intelligible." p. 155." To this (says he) you reply." To what? To his objections against my interpretation; which are these-"That nothing is added by way of "explanation--that this transaction was not, by any "common usage of those times, significative of the sacri"fice of Christ-that if any such information had been: "intended, it is natural to think that the explanation "would have been recorded with the transaction."-Had. he given but a common attention to what I wrote, he would have seen, that the answer, he here quotes from me, was a reply to quite a different thing; namely, why the sacred writer did not, for the information of the Jewish church, give an explanation of the significative

Div. Leg. vol. vi. p. 24.

« EdellinenJatka »