I observe also, that when the text relates to the conduct or character of God, however grossly it reflect upon him, yet if it cannot be brought to support any favourite doctrine on either side, they will all, generally speaking, admit the stain to rest on the divine character, without any apparent wish to remove it, which they might do by allowing the narration to be defective, or some incorrectness in the translation.

I now come to the subject, viz. the case of Abraham in offering his son Isaac upon the altar. This, if the history be correct, was done by the express command of God. Now though it shocks all the tender feelings of the human heart, and represents the Deity as acting cruelly to his servant Abraham, yet mankind in general are taught to believe it; and are willing to admit all the absurd consequences, rather than make an apology for the historian, or seek a sense more agreeable to reason, and the conduct of God towards mankind.

Having thus alluded to the case, I beg to explain wherein the history appears to me to be incorrect, and offer some rea sons for such a conclusion. The question is this-does it appear reasonable that God commanded Abraham to offer his own son?

I cannot read the original, but Ithink that some alteration should be made in the translation, or some addition thereto, to prevent the general opinion which attends reading the history as it is, and the consequent sentiments arising from such an erroneous opinion. This may be done, if we are allowed to take this history as we often take from our friends their narration of a fact, or an event unknown to us before. In such a case it is not uncommon to hear them first tell us that which was the subsequent or last thing which happened; or they briefly preface their account with an allusion to the event. This in some instances is done first, to prepare the mind to attend to the circumstances leading to the end; and sometimes, in remarkable cases, the impression on the minds of the parties concerned is first spoken of, to prevent a rash imputation of criminality to their conduct.

This appears to be nearly the case in the account we have of Abraham and his temptation. The writer begins as if he were afraid that the conduct of Abraham would disgust the reader, and therefore says. " that God did tempt Abraham," &c. by which I understand that Abraham had an expectation that God would provide a lamb for him to offer, which, not being done immediately, occasioned some doubts to arise in his mind concerning the promise of a lamb. This state of disappointment produced impatience, and in the confusion of thought it suggested to him, surely my son must be the lamb which God intended to be offered. This was the temptation

or trial that is spoken of; and this is attributed to God, merely because it was occasioned by some delay of the promise, but not by the command of God to slay his son.

Admitting then that God did promise to provide a lamb, I think we may read the two first verses of this twenty-second chapter of Genesis after this manner, ·

"And it came to pass that God said unto Abraham, take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer there a Lamb that I will provide, upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."

Thus the history containing nothing of Abraham's being tempted by God, nor any command for him to offer his son, is free from every thing objectionable concerning the divine conduct, and rendered every way more consistent with reason and revelation.

I am aware some will object, and say " that by altering a text, or making additions, we destroy the meaning of it, and may prove any thing," &c. That some addition to the history is necessary, even upon the common opinion of it, will, I think, be admitted. How can it appear credible without it? For whether Abraham really received a command from God to offer his son or not, we must suppose much conversation (not in the history) passed between Abraham and Isaac before he was laid upon the altar. We cannot imagine that Abraham who was an hundred years older than Isaac, seized upon his son by surprise, and bound him against his will. We must suppose that the father reasoned with him upon the fitness of his being submissive and obedient. But if God commanded Abraham to offer his son. and he went on his journey with that intent, we must suppose further that Abraham said to him, "although I told you that God will provide himself a lamb," yet this I did being fearful of making you uneasy on the journey, in the view of such an awful event, as the father slaying his beloved son. Some conversation of this kind with Isaac must have taken place, to convince him of the delusion he was under, and the pious fraud of which the father had been guilty in encouraging his son to expect a lamb; for it must appear to be a fraud or trick of Abraham's, if he at the same time designed to make his son the victim.

These observations might be unnecessary, were it not that they tend to prove, that take the history as we may, it is not a complete account without some addition, Let me observe further, that though Abraham be celebrated for his faith, and in the eleventh chapter to the Hebrews, v. 17, particularly, in respect to offering up his son-" By faith (or fortitude) Abraham when he was tried offered up Isaac;" yet he is no where in

the sacred scriptures celebrated for this as acting in submission to a divine command, or doing a pious act. It is mentioned as an instance of fortitude, in which sense the term faith is often used in this chapter in respect to him and others.

He was certainly very intent on the worship of God; and he no doubt was uneasy when he found no lamb. His patience and faith were tried in waiting for God, and apprehending that his son must be the victim, this trial must be great indeed. But Isaac being a child of promise, and Abraham's love to God and confidence being great, he accounted, or considered and concluded, that God was able to raise him from the dead as well as to give him to his parents in their old age. But when or at what time he expected that God would raise him is not told us, He must have expected it immediately, if God had commanded to offer him, or he could not have truly told his servants, that "I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you: and if it be true that he intended to offer Isaac, and this in obedience to the command of God, I must leave to those who think so to define what kind of worship Isaac was to perform.

I object then to the translation as it is, both because it represents Abraham as acting with duplicity towards his son and his servants, and the Deity as being cruel in his command to his faithful servant Abraham, Besides, it is contrary to the assertion of the apostle James, who, speaking of God, says (chap. i. 13) "neither tempteth he any man." If this be true, why should we think that he tempted Abraham?

Another reason for objecting to the translation is, that it countenances the abominable practice of offering human sacrifices; for though the act did not take place, yet it is said to be the command of God that it should be done.

Had a command been given to slay the child of a servant or stranger, it would have been shocking; but to suppose that God would command a parent to do violence to those tender feelings and affections which he had implanted in human nature, by slaying his only or most beloved son, is very absurd and unaccountable.

Another reason I would offer against the translation is thisIt represents the Deity as acting with duplicity towards his servant Abraham, by calling into action all the tender and noblę feelings of his heart, by raising his courage and trying his fortitude in unprofitable employment; it supposes God to give a positive command (where the law of morality could not enforce obedience,) and at the same time designed that his command should not be obeyed. Does not the supposition weaken to human view the authority of God, and leave the mind in a state of wretched uncertainty? For if it be true, we may boast

of being blessed with a divine revelation, and yet suffer under suspicions that the will of God is not made known. On these considerations there is reason to conclude that the translation is false, or very incomplete.

Such, Mr. Editor, are my present thoughts upon the subject. If they fall in the way of any unbelievers in Christianity, I hope they will not be offensive; and I feel confident that the Christian will find comfort in embracing them.

This subject will afford us improvement, if it help us to watch against temptation. In it we have the trial of Abraham's faith; the trial of faith will sometimes prove it to be defective. Had there been no defect in the faith of Abraham, he would, I think, have waited with more patience, and continued his expectation of a lamb for the victim. Had he done so, he probably would have avoided the sore temptation which he suffered. This idea of the case I confess is a reflection upon the conduct of Abraham not the most agreeable. I only add that is no proof of its being false.

It is creditable to the sacred scriptures, that they record not only the piety and virtues of great and good men, but also their failings and their vices. For instance, Job is renowned therein for his patience, but those scriptures record that under an heavy affliction he became peevish and "cursed his day. Moses was remarkable for meekness, but the scriptures also record instances wherein he was rash in word and deed.—David stands as an instance of great devotedness to God, but it is not concealed from us how much he was polluted with the evil of his own way. Solomon is celebrated for his wisdom, and dedicated a temple for the worship of the true God; but it must have been foolishness in him not to abstain from idols. Abraham is justly reputed for his faith, and believing the promises of God, and in one instance that he did not stagger through unbelief; but it does not follow that he never staggered, nor that he was always free from doubts and fear. There are instances in which it appears his conduct was the result of impatience and the want of confidence. In these and other instances, we may observe that some of the most eminent men have stained their characters by some actions directly opposite to the peculiar virtues in which they shone. May we be more guardedwe have the will of God revealed for our guide, and exceeding great and precious promises for our comfort and support -may we continue to be obedient and unshaken in our faith and confidence!

We may learn from the case of Abraham and others, how liable we are to misconduct, and to involve ourselves in distress, if zeal be not guided by knowledge, nor fortitude directted by prudence; when enthusiasm will offer in sacrifice

what the Lord hath not required, and superstition bow where there is no God.

May we highly prize the evidences of divine truth, upon which we rest our faith and hope, and carefully guard against every delusion. Yours, &c.

J. D.

P. S. Since the preceding thoughts were penned, the writer, on reading them to a friend, was referred to a piece entitled "The Old Testament illustrated," &c. by Samuel Parker.

66

In the Appendix of which (No. 2) he acknowledges having been favoured with a little work written by a Jew, in which the account given of the matter is different from what is usually presented to the mind of the enquirer. This author (viz. the Jew) says, If it be rightly considered, it will soon appear that the Lord never ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac; nor did Abraham imagine before he went upon that journey, or while he was on that journey to the land of Moriah, that the Lord intended that the sacrifice which he was to make should be his son." And further, he says, "The whole misconstruction of Genesis xxii. ver. 2, arises from the wrong translation of the affix pronoun him;* as also in verse 13, they should be rendered that; and the word asher (which) has no relation to the mountain, but it agreeth with the sacrifice.”

It is no small gratification to the writer to find that his opinion of the above verse is so clearly and ably supported by the learned Jew; at least it shields him from fear of contempt and ridicule, having proof that his thoughts are neither new nor unfounded.

THE PRIMITIVE CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT OF THE

I

CHRISTIAN CHURCH DELINEATED.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

THINK I may, without the imputation of arrogance, assume, that I have proved the point of my two former essays, viz. that pulpit preaching and stated ministers are repugnant to the primitive method of promulgating Christianity; that the apostles did appoint specific and proper means for its perpetuation; that the church alone ought to be the teachers of it; and that they did unite all believers into one body, called the church, under one constitution and government. I say, Sir, I may justly consider that these points are proved beyond the power of contradiction, because, notwithstanding the numbers interested (both churchmen and dissenters) in supporting opposite opinions, not one has dared to wield his pen in answer to my arguments. Even the specious Juvenis, who professes such ardent desire for truth, and who has been called upon in such a way as to implicate his honour and his honesty by

an

*the pronoun of the third person signifies either a person, crea, ture, or thing.