deference was due to the God of heaven, and would have disdained to let any narrow selfish principle interpose between him and duty. He could plead for others; such was his large extensive charity for himself he could not plead; such was his modesty, ingenuity, and disinterested piety f. He had been well acquainted with God, now for fifty years or more, and knew his manner of appearing, and manifesting himself to him. Being secure of the main thing, that the order was from God, (to whom he owed every thing, even that very son now demanded of him,) he readily submitted; having never learned to dispute with unerring Wisdom, when required to obey. He was sensible that the offering up his son to God was no more than paying a debt, resigning up a trust, or returning a loan. Besides, he had good reason to believe he should shortly again receive him from God who had before given him, and who had promised that in Isaac should his "seed be called." Excellent is the account of Bishop Cumberland; which, because it is not in every one's hands, I shall here transcribe.

"This faith concerning his resurrection, in case he had "been offered, was the true cause of his readiness to obey that command, as we are assured by the Apostles: "on which account also he shows, that a Christian's "faith is like Abraham's, and in like manner to be re"warded; because they believe on God, as one who "raised their Lord Christ from the h dead.

"This makes his case, even if he had actually slain his son as a sacrifice, (being before assured that he must shortly be raised again, and have a great family, which

It may be further said, that Abraham interceded for the Sodomites as objects of God's wrath, who would suffer by death; but not for his son, as being the object of Divine love, and certain to be a gainer by it. The former were demanded for punishment, which wanted an intercessor: the latter, for an occasion of farther manifestation of Divine goodness, which called for compliance, and not for intercession. A curse was the end of one, blessing the end of the other.

Heb. xi. 17, 19. Rom. iv. 17, 18.

VOL. VI.

Rom. iv. 23, 24, 25.

F

and a

"within 400 years should come out of Egypt, and possess "Canaan,) to be unlike all the heathen murdering of "children in sacrifice, when they have no hope that they "shall be restored to them by a speedy resurrection: for "if Isaac had then died, his death must have been a sleep "for a short time, because he must quickly be awaken"ed, to be the father of many nations, the Edomites as "well as the Israelites; besides the Christians, who were "to be his children by imitation of his virtues.

"Christ alone could thus offer his human nature, be"cause he had full assurance of his resurrection on the "third day. And this is the only sacrifice of a man (who << yet never saw corruption) which God ever accepted. "And yet even in that case, above the piety that was "called for in Abraham's case, there was an extraordi

nary expiation for the sins of all mankind, and a great "example both of martyrdom for the true religion, and "of the greatest love to the universal Church. So care"ful hath God been to give no example or encouragement "to such inhuman sacrifices, in which there is no ground to "expect a miraculous resurrection of the person offered i." Thus far that judicious and learned Prelate.

I need not here enter into the dispute, whether the barbarous custom of offering human sacrifices was earlier than Abraham, or whether it was afterwards taken up in imitation of this instance of Abraham's offering up (though not slaying) his son Isaac. It might be earlier, without derogating at all from the worth and excellency of what Abraham did; since he acted upon better warrant, and more rational and much nobler principles, than those inhuman sacrificers did: or it might be later, and yet not taken up in imitation of Abraham, or with any view at all to his illustrious pattern; which the Pagan sacrificers either knew little of, or very carelessly observed. I must own, I incline to think, that that barbarous custom was

i Cumb. Sanchoniatho, p. 139, 140..

earlier than Abraham; as Sir John Marsham and Sharrock k have suggested, and Bishop Cumberland has rationally maintained: though the stream of learned men, as Dr. Hydem, Natalis Alexander", Bochart, Heidegger P, Witsius 9, and Bishop Patrick', have taken the other side of the question; and Mr. Shuckfords now lately, for reasons which are not contemptible, have fallen in with them. Mr. Bedford, I observe, in his very learned and elaborate t work, acquiesces in Bishop Cumberland's account, adding some improvements of his own. And to this account, for the present at least, I am willing to subscribe: First, Because the other opinion seems to load the example of Abraham beyond what it can well bear; especially considering that he did not slay his son, and that the stopping him by an angel from heaven, in the very article of time, was a much better argument against human sacrifices than a probative command, not executed, could be for it. Secondly, Because it seems to reflect too hardly upon Divine wisdom and forecast, to suppose that God himself was the occasion of introducing that barbarous practice, by an indifferent private command, proper to a single person; and which, for any thing that appears, might have been spared, rather than minister to so much mischief. Thirdly, Because it appears more likely, that God designed by that very in stance to discourage and discountenance human sacrifices, though at the same time he intended to show, that he requires all men to be strictly obedient to his commands,

* Marsham's Can. Chronic. p. 76. edit. Lond. Sharrock de Fin. et Offic. p. 497.

and to prefer him above any the nearest and dearest relations". Fourthly, Because it is most probable that the Gentiles, having learned by tradition from Noah or from Adam, that the sacrifice of the life of a beast would atone for sins, might too hastily infer from thence, that the sacrificing the lives of men, as more valuable and precious than the other, would much more do it; and thereupon they grafted the practice of human sacrifices: and hence arose that vile custom, set on perhaps also and encouraged by demons.

Upon the whole, whatever side we take in this question, infidels can make no just advantage of it. For it can never be proved, either from this instance, or from any other example or rule in Scripture, that the God of Israel approved those cruel practices of offering up human blood in sacrifice to him.

I have now run through all the Objector's cavils or calumnies against Abraham, a man of the fairest and brightest character to be met with in all history, and therefore made the object of our writer's spleen and satire. But he might better throw dirt any where than here, where none will stick. He might more prudently have been contented with his stale, but much more plausible, calumnies upon priests in general, or Christian clergy in particular. But when he aims his scurrilities at Abra, ham, the friend of God, and through him at the God of Abraham too, he betrays his thoughtlessness and want of discretion. Abraham, from the time of his call, (A. M. 2083.) became the great restorer and reviver both of natural and revealed religion to a corrupt world. By his sons, Isaac and Ishmael, and six more, and by his nephew Lot, he spread religion and virtue wide and far, their descendants being numerous as the stars of heaven, and growing up into many and great nations. When our Objector speaks of the world's being left without revelation for four thousand years, he knows not what he "See Cumberland's Sanchoniatho, p. 141.

talks of: he seems to have forgot what was done in the first ages of the world, when the revealed will of God was made known to all mankindy; or what was done, after the flood, to Noah and his sons; and what four hundred and twenty-seven years after to Abraham; and how his descendants carried the knowledge of the true religion wide and far, which continued for a time; and how the Jews afterwards, by their numberless dispersions, were a kind of preachers of righteousness to as many as they came to. God has neither concealed himself entirely from mankind, nor made his manifestations too cheap and familiar; but he has observed a medium between the two extremes, such as was proper, and which infinite, wisdom could best judge of. I just hint these things by the way, as they occurred to me upon the mention of Abraham. I shall only observe farther, that Abraham's fame reached much farther than the Jewish Scriptures reached, among the Gentiles, among the Arabians especially, his descendants: and there are some remains of his religion and memory among the Persians at this day2. Our caviller's singling out that great and good man for the object of his scorn and ridicule is no argument of his taste, or of his love to virtue, or of his benevolence to mankind.

GEN. XXVII. 19.

AND JACOB SAID UNTO HIS FATHER, I AM ESAU THY FIRSTBORN, &c.

The Objector says, (p. 263.) " There are things either "commanded or approved of in Scripture, which might "be apt to lead men astray. A man who looks no fur"ther than that, might think it no crime to cheat his el"der brother, impose on his aged parent, and by a lie ob"tain his blessing; nay, hope that God would confirm it, "when he sees how Jacob obtained the greatest blessing

y See Jenkins's Reasonableness, &c. vol. i. p. 46, &c.

See Hyde's Relig. vet. Persar. cap. ii. iii. Fabricii Cod. Pseudepigr. V. T. in Abraham.