her the sooner for her being a wife. I say then, that Abraham did not betray her chastity, supposing he had good men to deal with. But if we suppose the contrary, he would then have betrayed her chastity as much in owning her to be his wife, and would besides have very needlessly exposed his own life, and brought blood-guiltiness upon the land. If it be said that Sarah, at least, must at length have discovered herself to be Abraham's wife, or else have complied against conscience and duty, supposing the king who had taken her to be a wicked man; this indeed appears unavoidable in the case, had the thing gone on so far. But it was right in the meanwhile to evade the difficulty as long as it could lawfully be evaded, and to wait and see whether Divine Providence might not some way or other interpose, before the last extremity. The event answered: God did interpose, and brought off both Abraham and his wife harmless. Upon the whole, I see nothing in Abraham's conduct, but what, all circumstances considered, was conformable to the rules of true prudence, and well becoming so wise and so good a man. They do not seem to know Abraham, who can imagine that he could twice very deliberately have taken that method, had he not known it to be strictly lawful, yea, and his duty to do as he did: for if a man does not use all lawful human means in such cases, it is a culpable neglect, and a presumptuous tempting of God's. Abraham's practice in this matter appeared so innocent and laudable, that his son Isaac afterwards, without the least scruple, followed the example, and with the like success. In both of them, it was doing all that they wisely and justly might, trusting God for the event, but not tempting him by expecting his interposition for them, while they had it in their power to use any innocent means to save themselves. See Natalis Alexand. vol. i. p. 202, &c. August. contr. Faust. lib. xxii. 381, &c. • Augustin, ibid. p. 383. 51 But the heaviest article with the Objector is, that Abraham, by this conduct, got a great deal: for he cannot bear that a prophet or a priest should get any thing. Whatever he got, it was plainly owing to the favour, and countenance, and blessing of God, who miraculously interposed to assist and comfort him: so that this flout is aimed directly against God himself, for being kind to Abraham. But it is the property of the Divine Being to be particularly kind and gracious to true and faithful men : and one would wonder what the Objector had been thinking of, to make any doubt of it. He goes on however still slandering of Abraham. GEN. XV. 8. AND HE SAID, LORD GOD, WHEREBY SHALL I KNOW THAT I SHALL INHERIT IT? The words are Abraham's, after God had promised him the inheritance of the land of Canaan. The Objector thinks he has here caught the good man tripping in his faith; and thereupon, rejoicing, says, "And immediately after his faith was "counted to him for righteousness, did he not doubt of "God's promise till God spoke to him in a deep sleept?" Now the whole force of the objection lies in the words VIND, which we render, Whereby shall I know? And which may as literally be rendered, in what, or by what shall I know? And the meaning may be, either by what sign shall I know, that I may believe it? or by what circumstance shall I know, that I may form a more exact idea of it? The latter construction appears the more natural, and suits best with what follows. God had not yet told him how, or when, or, with what particular circumstances he should inherit the land of promise; but after casting him into a deep sleep, God was pleased to inform him of all particulars, as he lay in a dream. The whole context shows, that such is the drift and purport of the text in question: for in return to Abraham's request, God does not so properly give him a sign to confirm his faith, (for what sign or certainty was there in the dream, more than in the vision before it?) as he gives him a particular description of the time, manner, and circumstances of fulfilling the promise. So the thing that Abraham desired was, to have the general promise made more particular, that he might have a clearer and more distinct idea of it. This was not doubting of what God had before said to him, but it was showing his satisfaction so far, and desiring him still to say more. In a word then, Abraham in asking, "whereby shall I know?" did not mean to ask by what sign he might know that the promise would be fulfilled; but whereby, or by what circumstances he might know how, or in what respects it should be fulfilled. Karà Tì yvároμaι, say the Seventy, very rightly. As to what respects shall I know, that I may form an idea of it? See Le Clerc on the place, who gives much the same solution that I do. And the Objector, it is to be hoped, will not except against him, being, in his judgment, "as able a Divine as this, or perhaps any other age "has produced "." GEN. XVII. 10. THIS IS MY COVENANT-EVERY MAN-CHILD AMONG YOU, SHALL BE CIRCUMCISED. In opposition to this and other texts, which refer the original of the Jewish circumcision solely to Divine appointment, our Objector is pleased to account for it another way, as here follows *. "This institution, as is proved by Marsham, and others, "seems to be owing to the Egyptians, who thought all "to be profane who used it not: and it was after Abra"ham had been in Egypt, that circumcision was insti"tuted; in order, it is likely, to recommend his posterity "to the Egyptians, on whom they were for some ages to 53 "depend. And what makes this the more probable is, "that it was not till after the Lord had ordered Moses "into Egypt, that the Lord met him by the way in the "inn, and sought to kill him, for not circumcising his "son. And upon Joshua's circumcising the Israelites, "(circumcision not being observed during their stay in "the wilderness, when they had no communication with 66 'Egypt,) the Lord himself says, THIS DAY HAVE I 66 ROLLED AWAY THE REPROACH OF EGYPT FROM OFF 66 YOU" Before I come to examine this smooth account, it may be proper to take notice, that Celsus y of old, and after him Julian2, objected much the same thing; and Sir John Marshama has since dropped some hints, as if the Jewish circumcision had been borrowed from the Egyptians, or, however, came after theirs. But we need not suppose that our Objector looked so high as Celsus, or Julian, or even Marsham: all he has to say is plainly stolen from an English author b of later date, who is our Objector's oracle, and to whom he is indebted (though he has not been so fair as to own it) for every article of this charge. But to examine it distinctly. C I. It has not, neither can it be proved, that circumcision was in use at all among the Egyptians, or any where else, before Abraham's time. Neither Diodorus Siculus, nor Herodotus, nor even Sanchoniatho can be of weight sufficient to determine this question. They are all modern, in comparison; and their stories ill supported. Some conjectures may be raised from the last of the three; and if Cronus be Ham, as a very good and great Prelate supposes, possibly he might first have used circumcision, * Josh. v. 2-9. y Origen. contr. Cels. p. 17, 259. Cyrill. contr. Julian. p. 354. Marsham, Can. Chron. p. 72, 207. ed. Lond. b Lord Shaftesbury's Charact. vol. iii. p. 52–55. Vid. Wits. Ægyptiaca, p. 223, &c. Basnag. Hist. Judaic. lib. v. cap. 8. and from him the Egyptians might derive it: but nothing can be certainly affirmed of that matter: the contrary, for any thing I see, may still be more probable. 2. Were it certain, as it is not, that the Egyptians first practised circumcision, yet it would not from thence follow, that the Hebrews, or God of the Hebrews, took it from them, or had any respect to them in it. It is plain that Abraham submitted to it in obedience only to a Divine command, and he received it as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace between God and him. What relation has that to Egypt? Or if such regard was to be paid to the Egyptian rites, why was not Abraham circumcised before he went into Egypt, or at least while he sojourned there, to ingratiate himself with them? Why should it be deferred, on that supposition, to above twenty years after his leaving the country? Since the Objector conceives that Abraham's posterity, and Moses's son, were to be circumcised beforehand, in order to recommend them the more to the Egyptians at their first coming thither; why should not Abraham have been circumcised before he went down into Egypt, to make him the more welcome there? Was there such care taken to recommend his posterity to them, and yet none to recommend him, when it was more immediately wanted? But further as to the care taken to recommend his posterity, (who were to depend, it seems, upon the Egyptians for some ages,) let us see how this pretence falls in with the rest. Why was Ishmael to be circumcised, and his sons, and Abraham's sons by Keturah; and why Esau afterwards, and his, who were none of the promised seed, and were not to depend upon Egypt? Besides, it looks odd and fanciful to imagine, that Abraham should begin this practice so early, near 200 years before there should be occasion for it for so long it was between Abraham's circumcision and his posterity's going down into Egypt. Our author himself confesses, that God did not rigorously insist upon Moses's circumcising his son, till he was just going into Egypt: and yet he fancies that Abraham's |