abor any body's KNOWLEDGE, at the time profibus when the transaction happened, but from the prof but from the similitude and correspondency between the event and the tran action by which it was prefigured; which is exactly the same upon either I 10 PP. 150, 7. Tots answer and say, 1. That I myself never supposed that the desa pendency between the two dispensation did arise from 499 Abraham's knowledge, or any body's knowledge," at that or any other time; but from GOD'S INTENTION that this commanded action should import or represent the sacrifice of Chris and then comes in the question whether that intention be best discovered from God's HE અપનાવ declaration of it to Abraham, or from a similitude and Correspondency between this commanded action and the sacrifice of Christ. Therefore, 2. I answer and say, that a SIMILITUDE and CORRESPONDENCY between the event and the transaction which prefigured it, is not enough to shew this DEPENDENCY to the satisfaction of enough to shew this DEPE unbelievers: who say, that a likeness between two things

462 same rent

the nature; as the offering up two men to

03

90

though in ways, and transacted in two very distant periods, is not sufficient alone to shew that they had any relation to one relation to one another*. With the same reason they will say, you might pretend that Jephtha's daughter, or the king of Moab's son, whom the father sacrificed on the wall f, were the types of Christ's sacrifice. Give us, say they, a Bible-proof that God declared or revealed his intention of prefiguring the death of Jesus; or some better authority at least than a modern typifier, who deals only in similitudes and correspondences. Now whether it be our Examiner, or I, who have given them this satisfaction, or whether they have any any reason to require it of us, is left to the impartial reader to consider. vol su svi den now to pay siqioural Saus XIX. We now come to the UTILITY of my interpreotation of the command, having got through all his objecyitions to bits TRUTH. And here, the same civility and candour which so polished and enlivened the foregoing part, shine out again, in the very first words of this. ali e See what the Letter-writer abovementioned says, pp.53, 54. 34much to the same purpose.it m de la

2 Kings iii.

DD 2

And

"And now, Sir, (says he) give me leave to ask, what "service have you done to religion by your interpreta"tion? We were prepared for it, by an intimation that "something was to arise from it to the confusion of infidelity: As how? why first, as by your manner of explaining this transaction of Abraham, you should "illustrate God's truth by the noblest instance that "ever was given of the harmony between the Old "and New Testament." And 2dly, as by its aid you should be enabled to give the true solution of "those inexplicable difficulties which have been so long the stumbling-block of infidelity." p. 157.

66

66

66

And now he addresses himself to shew, that my interpretation has neither of these advantages. "First, as "to the harmony (he says) he has just above shewn that "the transaction will be equally prophetic of Christ's "sacrifice, whether my interpretation be admitted or "not." He hath shewn it indeed! as the Irishman shewed his And it is fresh in the reader's memory. Come we, then, to the second. "As to the second "(says he) the difficulties which have been so long the stumbling-block of infidelity, which upon the foot of "the common interpretation you call insuperable; I "greatly marvel that you should call them so, when you acknowledge, in the very same page, that the argu"ments, hitherto brought to support the history of "this.command are of great weight and calidity." pp. 157, 8. He marvels! Why let him marvel. I suppose he never heard that there are insuperable difficulties even to some demonstrable propositions. But he, of all men, should have accepted my concession upon fair terms, since it was made to humour Divines like himself; who think it enough for religion if the objections to it be, as he warily expresses it, GUARDED AGAINST; (p. 137.) which, God knows! they often are, by arguments of no great weight or validity.

XX. However (says he) "whether you had owned "this or not, I SHOULD HAVE TAKEN UPON MYSELF "THE PROOF that these insuperable difficulties may be very effcctually and substantially removed, without borrowing any aid from your interpretation. The substance of the objection to the historic truth of this

46

"relation,

"relation, as collected by yourself*, is this, That God, "could never give such a command to Abraham, be❝ cause it would throw him into inextricable doubts "concerning the author of it; as whether it pro"ceeded from a good or evil being because it' would mislead him in his notions of the Divine, "attributes, and of the fundamental principles of morality. For though the revoking the command prevented the homicide; yet the action being commanded, and, at the revocation, not condemned; "Abraham and his family must needs have thought human sacrifices grateful to the Almighty. For "a simple revoking was no condemnation; but would be more naturally esteemed a peculiar indulgence for ready obedience. Thus the Pagan fable of "Diana's substituting a hind in the place of Iphige"nia, did not make idolaters believe that she there"fore abhorred human sacrifices, they having before "been persuaded of the contrary." p. 158. The objection, the reader sees, consists of two parts: the one, that Abraham must doubt of the author of the command: the

ing his attributes, that he would be misled concern

sacrifices to him.

or in the gratefulness of human

To the first, our Examiner answers, partly from what I myself had observed might be urged by believers, as of great weight and validity, and partly from what he had picked up elsewhere. But here I shall avoid imitating his exainple, in endeavouring to shew the invalidity of arguments professedly brought in support of religion: an employment by no means becoming a Christian Divine. If they have any weak parts, I shall leave them to unbelievers to find out. I have the more reason too to trust them to their own weight, both as they are none of his, with whom only I have here to do, and as I have acknowledged their validity. All I shall observe is, that, as I had made that acknowledgment, I see not to what end they are urged against me; unless it were to entertain us with his common-place: which I should have received in silence, had he not affected to introduce it with so much pomp-" Whether you had Div. Leg. vol. vi. p. 80.

66

owned this or not (says he) I should have taken upon inyself the proof." Whereas, all that he has taken is the property of others; made his own, indeed, by a weak and an imperfect representation,

"

But now he comes to the second part of the objection. "As to the latter part of the objection (says he) that "from this command, Abraham and his family must "needs have thought human sacrifices acceptable to "God; the revoking the command at last, was a suffi"cient guard against any such construction. To this 66 "you make the unbeliever answer: No; because the "action having been commanded ought to have been "condemned; and a simple revocation was no con"demnation. But why was not the revocation of the "comuiand, in this case, a condemnation of the action "If I should tempt you to go and kill your next neigh "bour, and afterwards come and desire you not to do, it; would not this after-declaration be as good an ❝evidence of my dislike to the action, as the first was of my approbation of it? Yes, and a much better, as it may be presumed to have been the result of maturer deliberation. Now though deliberation and afterthought are not incident to God; yet as God in this case condescended (as you say, and very truly) to act "after the manner of men; the same construction should be put upon his actions, as are usually put upon the actions of men in like cases." pp. 160, 161, Now, though, as was said above, I would pay all decent regard and reference that becomes a friend of Revelation, to the common arguments of others in its defence, yet I must not betray my own. I confessed they had great weight and validity; yet, at the same time, I asserted, they were attended with insuperable difficulties. And while I so think, I must beg leave to inforce my reasons for this opinion. And, I hope, without offence; as the arguments, I am now about to examine, are purely this writer's own. And the reader has, by this us time, 2 much of him to be apprehensive, that the lessening his authority will be attended with any great to streligion. I had observed, that the reasonings of unbelievers on this case, as it is commonly explained, were not devoid

disservice

all am to

too

of

of all plausibility, when they proceeded thus-That as Abraham lived amongst heathens, whose highest act of divine worship was human sacrifice; if God had commanded that act, and, on the point of performance, only remitted it as a favour (and so it is represented); without 3 declaring the iniquity of the practice, when addressed to idols; or his abhorrence of it, when directed to himself; the family must have been misled in their ideas concerning the moral rectitude of that species of religious worship: therefore, God, in these circumstances, had lic commanded the action as a trial only, would have explicitly condemned that mode as immoral. But he is not represented as condemning but as remitting it in favour: consequently, say the unbelievers, God did not command the action at all.-Now what says our Examiner, in answer to all this? He says," But why? "Was not the revocation of the command a condemnation of the action? If I should tempt you to go and kill your next neighbour, and afterwards come and DESIRE you not to do it, would not this after-declaration be as good an evidence of my dislike to the 28 action, as the first was of my approbation of it?" To this I reply; that the cases are, by no means, parallel; either in themselves, or in their circumstances: 1st. Not in themselves. The murder of our next neighbour was, amongst all the Gentiles of that time, esteemed a high immorality; but, on the contrary, human sacrifices a very holy and acceptable part of divine worship. 2dly, Not in their circumstances. The desire to forbear the murder tempted to is (in the case he puts) represented as repentance whereas the stop put to the sacrifice of Isaac is (in the case Moses puts) represented as favour.

ટહ

แ

But what follows I could wish (for the honour of modern theology) that the method I have observed would have permitted me to pass over in silence. Now, though deliberation and after-thought (says he) are not incident to God, yet, as God, in this case, condescended (as you say, and very truly) to act atter the manner of men; the same construction should be put ciupon his actions, as are usually put upon the actions "of men in like cases:" (pp. 155, 156.) i. e. though deliberation and after-thought are not incident to God;