Observations on the intended Sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. No. CCLXXXVI." Sir Robert Howard. Sir Robert Howard (savs Toland, in his Life of Milton, Works, I. 43.). lately deceased, a gentleman of great generosity, a patron of letters and a hearty friend to the liberty of his country, being told that he was charged in'a book with whipping the Protestant clergy on the back of the Heathen and Popish priests, he presently asked I hat they had to do there? He was a great adiairer of Miltou to his dying day, and being his particular acquaintance would tell many pleasant stories of him': as, that he himself having de manded of him once, What made him side with the Republicans? Milton answered, among other reasons, Because their's was the most frugal governnient; 661 for that the trappings of a monarchy might set up an ordinary commonwealth." The work of Sir Robert Howard's alluded to was The History of Religion. Written by a Person of Quality. 8vo. 1694. He thought and probably conversed with, the early English Unita rians. He was a great admirer of Archbishop Tillotson, and was accused, together with Tillotson, of Deism if not Atheism, by the accuser of the brethren,' Lesley. There is a letter of his in reply, in a well-written, and amusing book, called A Twofold Vindication of the late Archbishop of Canterbury and of the Author of the History of Religion. 8vo. 1696. The writer of the second part of this work, a clergyman, was an Unitarian, though not a Socinian. See pp. 89, 101, 145. BIBLICAL CRITICISM. Nov. 1st, 1816. Observations on the intended Sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. AS S Isaac was the child of the old age (for such we should call it) of Abraham and Sarah; as, in the event of his death, there was no human prospect of his place being supplied; and as it was expressly promised that in the patriarch's seed all the families of the earth were to be blessed, we may with ease conceive how particularly dear such a son would be to his parents. What then would be the trial of their faith, of the faith of the father especially, were they summoned to surrender such a gift! This test of confidence, of duty and submission, they actually underwent. God," says the Apostle James (i. 13)," is not tempted with evil; neither tempteth he any man." Yet, in the sacred history, we read (Gen. xxii. 1)" God did tempt Abraham." For the removal of this seeming difculty, I observe that the original expression, which our translators almost invariably render by the word tempt, does not always admit this sense. Sometimes, as in the clause now quoted from the book of Genesis, it means simply, to try, or make trial of, the faith and virtue of an individual; at other times, it has the signification commonly affixed to the verb tempt, and imports to seduce into sin.” Now as it cannot without injustice and im 66 piety be affirmed of God that he seduces any being into wickedness, and as, so far, he tempteth no man," it is equally true that he sees fit to prove, by various tests, the integrity and devout confidence of his servants. In this manner, to this extent, and no further, did he tempt Abraham, when he said, "Take now thy son, thine only son, Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering, upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of." Nor was the patriarch disobedient to the celestial voice, whether it spake to him in vision, or otherwise. “Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife, to, slay his son." It was an eventful moment: with what contend ing emotions must his heart have struggled! But every painful feeling soon vanished before the joy and wonder of which he was conscious: for, at this critical period, the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said," Lay not thine hand upon the lad, &c." As the consequence, the blessings of which Abrahaui had more than once received assurances were again promised to him, in terms yet stronger than before: and this test of his obedience, while it answered the end of illustrating and heightening the Gen. xxii. 2.‚' Gen. xxii. 11-14. excellence of his personal character, subserved the interests of even his remote descendants. The intended sacrifice of Isaac, is never represented in the Scriptures as typical of the death of Christ. On a subject of this nature conjecture must not be opposed to facts: nor must imagination gain ascendancy over the understanding. It has been asked, whether God did hot require Abraham to commit an aggravated murder, to slay, with his own hands, a tenderly beloved child? Now that a voice from heaven called on the patriarch to make this sacrifice, is undeniable. Yet, before we pronounce it murder in intention, we should attend to the circumstances of the case, to the situation, the prerogative, the motives of the parties. The Sovereign Lord of life, may doubtless revoke this grant, when and how he pleases. In fact however it was not his design that human blood should be shed in the present instance. Consequently, no murder was authorized by the Divine decree, which ought to govern our interpretation of the language here employed. And though Abraham was on the point of sacrificing his son, no malignant feelings prompted him to the action. The crime of murder, which has different shades of guilt, essentially consists in taking away life unlawfully." What, nevertheless, if, under circumstances so peculiar that they are not likely to befal any other individual, or to occur in any other age, a father's devout confidence and attachment be tried by the injunction himself to slay his child? If murder he estimated by the existence of the wicked mind and principle which dictates it, I maintain that the deed represented is not murder. Some men, it is certain, are fond of appealing to precedents, real or supposed, in justification of their own views and conduct. Nor shall 4 shrink from granting the possibility that a particular description of persons may be disposed to seek in the example before us a defence of actions from which our nature shudders. Still, I cannot recollect a single case of this abuse of Abraham's history: and every thinking man will be sensible that it could not be so perverted excepting by individuals whom either enthusiasm or vice has rendered absolutely insane. Thus, the only question which remains to be considered is, whether the patriarch had rational evidence of the command being addressed to him by God? And that it proceeded from no inferior authority, is amply proved by previous and by subsequent events in the life of Abraham. He had already been favoured with many important communications from the Deity, and was able to distinguish between these and the suggestions of his own mind. The substantial benefit of obeying these communications he had alo experienced; and therefore he would not be less disposed to exercise a similar obedience at present. I add that be actually reaped the advantage of his readiness to make this costly sacrifice to the Divine Will. The remainder of his life, was eminently peaceful and happy: the faith thus tried was invigorated by the trial, and the mea of that age and country, and distant generations, would receive important lessons from the event. Abraham was specially educated by God, for purposes of infinite moment to all mankind. To form a just opinion of his history and character, we should go back, in our thoughts, to other times and regions than our own, to the infancy of the world, to a period when the sun of Divine Truth was far indeed from having reached it's perfect day. And if any person be still inclined to exclaim respecting the command of which I am treating, "It is a hard saying: who can bear it?" I may be permite ted to illustrate this language by Solo mon's, on a memorable occasion: he ordered that a living child should be divided in two; not designing however that the order should be exec ted, because it was not fit to be exe cuted—and yet, remarks the author to whom I am indebted for the illus tration," the success of this method shewed the command to be very fit and expedient.” N. 1 Kings ii. 16. + Grove, in a Sermon on this part of Abraham's History. ART. 1. Letter to the Unitarian Christians in South Wales, occasioned by the Animadversions of the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of St. David's. To which are annexed 1. Letters, before published in The Gentleman's Magazine, in Reply to his Lordship's Letters to the Unita'rians. 2. A Brief Review of his Lordship's Treatise, entitled "The Bible, and Nothing but the Bible, the Religion of the Church of England." 3. An Estimate of his Lordship's Character and Qualifications as a Theological Polemic. By Thomas Belsham. 8vo. pp. 144. Hunter. Tis said that some animals counteract their venom by the repetition of their own bite. Certainly, bigoted and angry polemics become in a little time perfectly harmless. Their power of hurting is derived froin public opinion, which, however it may be misled for a moment, will not finally lend it self to prejudice and passion." Bishop Burgess has found in Mr. Belsham a champion whom he cannot alarm by his vauntings, terrify by his menaces, or worry and vex and weaken by his continual attacks. Secure in his argument, steady to his point and conscious of his powers, Mr. Belsham enters the arena with firm and intrepid step, maintains the conflict according to the rules of honourable warfare, detects and foils his antagonist when ever he takes up unlawful weapons, and retires when the contest is fairly ended, cheerfully awaiting the decision of the intelligent aud learned public, the only proper judges, but expecting, not presumptuously nor unreasonably, that to him the palin will be awarded. Mr. Belsham explains in an Advertisement that he addresses the Unitarian Christians in South Wales, because they are a numerous and rapidly increasing body; becanse that district being the principal seat of Bishop Burgess's residence, it is there that his Lordship's works are most likely to be read and to make impression; and because he has been actually called upon by some persons of consideration among the Unitarians there to take notice of his Lordship's animadversions: To the Advertisement is annexed the Letter which Mr. Belsham inserted in our last Volume [X. 746], on some passages in Dr. Estlin's late publication in reply to Bishop Burgess, reviewed in a recent Number (p. 544). The Rẻsolutions of the South Wales Unitarian Book Society, at their last meeting, an account of which is given in this Volume of our Magazine (p. 427), shew that Dr. Estlin was mistaken in supposing that any disservice had been done to the Unitarian cause in the Principality by any of Mr. Belsham's writings. There are points on which the Unitarians amicably divide; but there can be but one opinion amongst them, concerning the merits of Mr. Belsham as the defender of their great and good cause. The question between Mr. Belsham and the Bishop of St. David's is a his torical and learned one; but Mr. Belsham has we think made it intelligible to every English reader. Why, indeed, should not any controversy, excepting only such as are verbal and gramma tical, which cannot be of the first importance, be intelligible to all men of understanding and general reading, or, in words which we flatter ourselves are of the same meaning as these last, to Unitarians in the humbler ranks? In the Letter, Mr. Belsham, makes a happy use of the philosophical argument for Unitarianisin. He puts the following case with regard to the silence of the New Testament on the Deity of Christ: write a history of Jesus Christ for the instruction of early and uninformed converts, would be, like Matthew, Mark, "If Bishop Burgess had undertaken to and Luke, have passed over his Divine nature in absolute silence, or with an incidental, distant, and ambiguous allusion to it? If this learned prelate had continued the history of the apostles' preaching and doctrine for thirty years after our Lord's Ascension, would he, is it possible that he could, have forborne to record a single instance in which the apostles taught, or the first disciples professed, the sublime doctrine of our Lord's divinity? Would the venerable Bishop of St. David's, when dictating a pastoral and paternal charge to his younger clergy, the express design of which was to direct them in what manner they were to act, and upon what topics to insist in their ministerial instructions, forget to mention, or at best, but obscurely hint at those sublime mysteries, the belief and profession of which are essential to saiva tion? I am confident that the learned prelate, lukewarm and indifferent as his feelings must be upon these subjects in comparison with those of the early be lievers, would never have been guilty of so important an omission. How then can this omission be accounted for in the aposfles of Christ and in the writers of the New Testament !"-Pp. 10, 11. Buchanan's interesting Account of the State of Christianity in India.""-Note, p. 22. It is fortunate for the cause of truth that Bishop Burgess provoked a discussion concerning the merits of Dr. Priestley's celebrated argument with Dr. Horsley, in the Gentleman's Magazine; for by dragging Mr. Belsham into a correspondence in that work, he has forced a number of clerical and other readers to understand a dispute of which they would otherwise probably have gone down to their graves in utter ignorance. Mr. Belsham has proved that Dr. Horsley was com He argues also very conclusively upon the necessary effect of the revela-pletely vanquished by Dr. Priestley, tion of the divinity of Christ upon the and in exhibiting this proof in his usual able manner, he himself has minds of the aposiles: satisfactorily confuted the present Bishop of St. David's. The argument is of so much consequence that we shall extract Mr. Belsham's statement of it: Their whole souls would have been absorbed in this unexpected and overwhelming discovery. Their imaginations would have been wholly occupied with the stupendous idea. Their minds could have thought, and their tongues could have "spoken of nothing but the Divine glories --of their great Master, of the amazing condescension of the Almighty Creator in becoming incarnate, and in submitting to be rocked in a cradle and suspended on a cross. This wondrous theme would have been the first and the last, the Alpha and Omega, of their discourse, the unceasing topic of their public harangues, and the darling subject of their social conversation. Their writings would have been filled with "it from beginning to end. Nor would it have been possible for Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for Paul, and Peter, and James, to have left it to the Apostle John, many years after their decease, to have dicclosed this great mystery to the astonished world."-Pp. 16, 17. We are much pleased with the fol~lowing hint to the Bible Society, by which, if its judgment and honesty be equal to its resources and zeal, it will not' fail to profit: the passage refers to the notorious forgery of the text relating to the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v. 7: . "Your attentive readers will recollect that the Emperor Adrian razed the city of Jerusalem to the ground; that nearly which he called Elia; which he colonized upon the same site he built a new city, with Gentiles, to which he granted many privileges, and from which he excluded all Jews under pain of death: also that a Christian Church was formed in the new city, of which Marcus, a Gentile, was the first Bishop. Mosheim, in bis Commentaries, states his opinion, that this church consisted chiefly of believing Hebrews, who abandoned the rites of Moses for the sake of being admitted to the privileges of the Elian colony. In support of this hypothesis, Mosheim appeals to the testimony of Sulpitius and Fpiphanius; and to his judgment Bishop Horsley accedes. Dr. Priestley opposes Mosheim's supposition. He makes light of that learned writer's authorities; and with Tillemont, Fleury, and the great body of modern ecclesiastical writers, be maintains that all Jews, without exception, were excluded from Elia by Adrian's de cree. "Bishop Horsley pursues the argument in the following words (Tracts, p. 409) "To convict my adversary of shame"This spurious text is wanting in, the ful precipitance, absolves not me of the Syriac manuscripts which have been found imputation, that I have related, upon the among the native Christians in the Penin- authority of Mosheim, what Mosheim resula of India. It is said the Bible Societylated upon none. I will therefore briefly are printing the New Testament in Syriac, for the use of these Christians. It is to be hoped that they will not presume to insert this exploded text into the printed copies, and thus pollute and debase their great and honourable work by, a wilful adulteration of the sacred text. See Dr. state the principles which determine me to abide by Moshein's account of the transactions in question. I take for granted then these things: 1. A Church of Hebrew Christians, adhering to the observance of the Mosaic law, subsisted for a time at Jerusalem, Review-Belsham & Letter to the Unitarians of South Wales, and for some time at Pella, from the beginuing of Christianity until the final dispersion of the Jews by Adrian. 2. Upon this event a Christian Church arose at Ælia. 3. The Church of Elia, often, but improperly, called the Church of Jerusalem, (for Jerusalem was no more in its external form, that is, in its doctrine and its discipline,) was a Greek Church, and it was governed by Bishops of the uncircumcision. In this I and my adversary are agreed. The point in dispute between us is, of what members the church of Elia was composed. He says, of converts of Gentile extraction. I say, of Hebrews of the very same persous, in the greater part, who were members of the antient Hebrew Church, at the time when the Jews were subdued by Adrian. For again I take for granted, 4. That the observation of the Mosaie law in the primitive Church of Jerusalem was a matter of mere habit and national prejudice, not of conscience. Again, I take for granted, 5. That with good Christians, such as I believe the primitive church at Jerusalem to have been, motives of worldly interest, which would not overcome conscience, would overcome mere habit. 4,6., That the desire of partaking in the privileges of the Elian colony, from which Jews were excluded, would accordingly be a motive that would prevail with the Hebrew Christians of Jerusalem, and other parts of Palestine, to divest themselves of the form of Judaism by laying aside their antient customs. 66a if he be so pleased, may seek their settlement 66.6 where For,' as Bishop Burgess pertinently adds, in confirmation of this most novel and satisfactory demonstration, should we seek but at Jerusalem, the primitive seat of Hebrew Christianity?” "In his sixth disquisition (Tracts, p. 519), Bishop Horsley states, That the proof of his proposition rests in part only upon St. Jerome's evil dence. The entire proof rests upon the seven positions. And St. Jerome's evidence goes barely to the proof of the last of those positions, the seventh; namely, that a body of orthodox Christians of the Hebrews was actually existing in the world much later than the time of Adrian. St. Jerome's evidence is brought for the proof of this position singly, and this, proved by St. Jerome's evidence, in conjunction with six other principles previously laid down, makes the whole evidence of the main fact which I affirm, that a Church of orthodox Christians of the Hebrews existed at Elia, from the final dispersion of the Jews by Adrian, to a much later period.' "These are Bishop Horsley's own words. He expressly asserts that the seven positions make the whole evidence of the main fact-that of these positions, the six first go no further than to ac count for the disuse of the Mosaic law among the Christians in Palestine in Adriau's reign, upon the supposition that the thing took place;' and that 'St. derome's evidence goes singly and barely to the proof of the seventh position, namely, that a body of orthodox Christians of HeIt may seem,' adds Bishop Horsley, brews was actually existing in the world p. 419, that my six positions go no fur- - much later than the time of Adrian; that ther than to account for the disuse of the is, in the days of Jerome, more than two Mosaic law among the Christians of Pales-hundred and fifty years after the reign of tine, upon the supposition that the thing took place; and that they amount not to a proof that a church of Hebrew Christians, not adhering to the rites of Judaism, actually existed at Elia. To complete the proof, therefore, I might appeal to Epiphanius.But I will rather derive the proof from a fact which I think still more convincing. I affirm then, “ 7. That a body of orthodox Christjans of the Hebrews were actually existing Ja the world much later than in the time of Adrian. "I will rest the credit of my seventh proposition upon the mention which occurs in St. Jerome's Commentary upon Isaiah, of Hebrews believing în Christ, as distinct from the Nazarenes. These were orthodox believers,—and were not observers of the Mosaic law,—and actually ́ existing somewhere in the world' from the reign of Adrian to the days of St. Jerome, if they were not members of the church at Elia, dwelling at Elia. Dr. Priestley, Adrian. But it is evident that this fact proves nothing as to the actual state of things in Adrian's time. This cypher, therefore, added to the other six, constitutes, by Bishop Horsley's own concession, the whole of his proof that the Church of Elia, in the time of Adrian, consisted chiefly of orthodox Hebrew Christians, who had renounced the rites of Moses to obtain the privileges of the Elian colony. "Being thus in possession of the whole of the case, your intelligent readers will be enabled to form a correct judgment of the question at issue between Bishop Burgess and your present correspondent, and of the arguments alleged by each, which otherwise it would be impossible to understand."--Pp. 60–65. There is much sprigluliness and humour as well as sound argument and mauly and Christian expostulation in the Brief Review," following the |