66

"reason you have given why the explanation (usual in "all such cases) to shew the import of the transaction was not added, viz. that it was a point not fit for common knowledge. But if you shall chuse to say, that "the revelation of this mystery, was for the SOLE infor"mation of Abraham, and that his family knew nothing "of it (which L-think you must say, to make your inter"pretation good), the objection will lie full against you, unanswered. For upon this supposition, they must "have considered this transaction, not in your artificial, "hidden light, but in its apparent, natural light; and "the construction in favour of human sacrifices must "have been the very same, as if no such representation "as you speak of had been intended." pp. 165-168.

66

"Whether (says he) you agree with me, or ARE OF THE INFIDEL SIDE OF THE QUESTION. A dire dilemma! to which he reduces all his adversaries. Agree not with him, and you are at once on the infidel side of the question.

Qui meprise Cotin, n'estime point son Roi, "Et n'a, selon Cotin, ni Dieu, ni foi, ni loi.

But if this be my alternative, sit anima mea cum philosophis, as was said on the like occasion; they are much the better company.-I believed that an infidel objection to the command to Abraham, on the common interpretation of it, had weight; and I explain the force of it, in order to remove it; and to excite other defenders of Revelation to consider it: for which, it seems, I am of the infidel side of the question.

66

I had said, that the command was for Abraham's sole use; and "therefore (he says) that the family of Abraham "must be presumed to know nothing of this scenical representation." Notwithstanding this, I presume they did know it. Here he takes me in a flagrant contradiction. But did he indeed not see that where I spoke of its being given for Abraham's sole use, I was opposing it, (as the course of my argument required), not to the family which lived under his tents, but to the Jewish people, when the history of the transaction was recorded *.-And now having

*Here the Letter-writer, so often mentioned before, is quite scandalized; and cannot forbear breaking out at p. 77" I declare ❝ it,

66

99

having exposed his wrong conclusion from my words, let us consider next the wrong conclusion he draws from his own. "I do not see (says he) how Abraham could open to his family the scenery of the transaction without "explaining the mystery." What does he mean by, open the scenery of the transaction?" There are two senses of this ambiguous expression; it may signify, either explaining the moral of the scenery; or simply, telling his family that the transaction was a scenical representation. He could not here use the phrase in the first sense, because he makes explaining the mystery a thing different from opening the scenery. He must mean it then in the latter. But could not Abraham tell his family, that this was a scenical representation, without explaining the mystery? I don't know what should hinder him, unless it were a charm. If he had the free use of speech, I think, he might, in the transports of his joy, on his return home, tell his wife, "that God had "ordered him to sacrifice his son, and that he had carried

66

him to Mount Moriah, in obedience to the Divine "command, where a ram was accepted in his stead. "But that the whole was a mere scenical representation, "or figure, of a mysterious transaction which God had "ordained to come to pass in the latter ages of the "world." And I suppose when he had once told his wife, the family would soon hear of it. Now could they not understand, what was meant by a scenical representation, as well when he told them it was to prefigure a mystery, as if he had told them it was to prefigure the Crucifixion of Jesus? The explanation, here given, had I no other way of blunting his dilemma (for if I escape his contradiction, he has set his dilemma, which, he says, 'tis impossible I should avoid) had I nothing else, I say, 'tis very likely I should have insisted upon this: but there

are

"it, if you be Dr. S-, I am perfectly astonished at you.". But so am not I. The good man knows nothing of the contagion of controversy. He seems to have studied his profession with an intent only of coming to the truth; and he speaks from the heart. His whole pamphlet is a learned and well-argued performance: and if he has been more attentive to the force of his reasoning than to the ornaments of his language, the lovers of truth have the more to thank him for, as he gives her to them undressed, and puts gloss upon nothing.

66

66

are more ways than one of taking him by his horns. "Now therefore (says he) take your choice, and give up one part of your hypothesis or the other, as best pleases you; FOR TO HOLD BOTH IS IMPOSSIBLE. "If you say that the family of Abraham were acquainted "with the mystery, it will overturn all you said concerning their ignorance of a future state.-But if you shall "chuse to say that the revelation of the mystery was for "the sole information of Abraham, and that his family "knew nothing of it, then-the construction in favour of "human sacrifices must have been the very same as if no "such representation, as you speak of, had been intended.” I desire to know where it is that I spoke ANY THING concerning Abraham's family's ignorance of a future state; and therefore call upon him, for the sirth and last time, to name the place. But, I am afraid, something is wrong here again: and that, by Abraham's family, he means the Israelites under Moses's policy. For, with regard to them, I did indeed say that the gross body of the people were ignorant of a future state. But then I supposed them equally ignorant of the true import of the command to Abraham. But, if, by Abraham's family. he means, as every man does, who means honestly, those who resided with him under his tents, I suppose them indeed acquainted with the true import of the command; but then, at the same time, not ignorant of a future state. Thus what our Examiner had pronounced IMPOSSIBLE, was, it seems, all the while very possible. And, in spite of his dilemma, both parts of the hypothesis were at peace. I can hardly think him so grossly immoral as to have put this trick upon his reader with design; I rather think it was some confused notion concerning the Popish virtue of TRADITION (that trusty conveyancer of truth) which led him into all this absurdity; and made him conclude, that what Abraham's family once knew, their posterity could never forget. Though the written word tells. us, that when Moses was sent to redeem this posterity from bondage, they remembered so little of God's revelations to their forefathers, that they knew nothing even of his nature.

XXIV. Our Examiner now concludes his Considerations (which we have quoted word for word in order as

66

they lie, without curtailing or abridging) in this manner. Thus, Sir, it appears, that what was well before, comes "out bad, from under your hands. Which confirms to me what I have often thought; that experiments in religion are seldom good for any thing. The truth of "this whole case, appears to me in this plain light. God "called Abraham to this great trial; to make him an "example of faith and resignation. Abraham obeys "God's call; under a full persuasion that his son was "lost to him; and yet as fully assured that the promises 66 of God should not fail. In this view he is an example "of both; and thus much the Scriptures warrant. We, "who see the resemblance between this case, and God's requiring his only Son to be offered up as a sacrifice "for the sins of the whole world, rightly say, that the one "was intended to be the figure of the other. But whe*ther Abraham knew any thing at all of Christ's sacri'fice; or whether he knew nothing; the Scripture is wholly silent; and You ought to have been silent too. "It is fit for us to stop where the Scripture stops-and "let infidelity do its worst." p. 169.

16

66

"What was well before, comes out bad," it scems, "under my hand;" which confirms him in a "Thought "he often had, THAT EXPERIMENTS IN RELIGION ARE "SELDOM GOOD FOR ANY THING." By the way, though, this seems but an odd compliment to the many fine experiments, which a great Prelate of his acquaintance has made in religion. However, that he often had this thought, I do not at all doubt. The thing I least expected was, that he should venture to tell his thoughts. But, in the paroxysm of answering, out it came; and from a man not the best formed by nature aperto vivere voto. Writers, indeed, have differed much, how these EXPERIMENTS should be made. Some would have Scripture alone employed in making them: others were for taking in fathers and councils; and some again for applying raillery and ridicule to the work. But I know of no Protestant till our Examiner, who ever talked against the thing itself. That language had been now, for near two hundred years, confined to the walls of the Inquisition. For what is making experiments in religion, but illustrating it by new arguments, arising from new dis

coveries

1

coveries made of the harmony in God's various dispensations to mankind; just as philosophers unfold nature, by new enquiries into the contents of bodies? No EXPERIMENTS, is the language indeed of POLITICIANS (for in some things bigotry and politics agree; as extremes run easily into one another, by their very endeavour to keep at distance) because, according to the politician's creed, religion being useful to the state, and yet not founded in truth, all inquiries tend, not to confirm, but to unsettle, this necessary support of civil government. But can a man who believes religion to have come from God, use this language! If he pretends to believe, and will yet talk at so scandalous a raté, let me ask him, how it comes to pass, that experiments, which do such service in our advancement in the knowledge of nature, should succeed so ill in religion? Are not both equally the works of God? Were not both given to be the subject of human contemplation? Have not both, as proceeding from the Great Master of the Universe, their depths and darknesses? And does not the unveiling the secrets of his Providence tend equally with the unveiling the secrets of his workmanship, to the advancement of his glory? Have not the wisdom and goodness of God been wonderfully displayed, in these latter ages, to the confusion of Atheism, by some noble experiments made in nature? And why should not the same wisdom and goodness be equally displayed, to the confusion of Deism, by experiments made in religion? I believe I should not be accused of vanity, even by our Examiner himself in his better mood, should I venture to appeal to The Divine Legation itself, for the POSSIBILITY of the thing: for he has been graciously pleased to allow, that "what I "have said of converse being maintained by actions as "well as by words, is very just; and that the instançes

ર

I have produced from Scripture, where actions have "been used as foreshewing the determinations of Provi"dence, are beyond all exception." p. 153. Now here, I presume, his modesty will confess, that I have taught him something new; both in the principle, and in the following application of it to the primary and secondary sense of prophecies. But if ever there was an experiment made in religion, this was one; it being deduced from a

careful