the text in the Revelation has to the latter. Blessed are ye (says Jesus in this gospel) when men shall revile you and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad, FOR great is your reward in heaven. Rejoice! for what? Is it not for the persecutions they suffer for his sake? A present blessing sure; though not perhaps to our Author's taste. The reason why they should rejoice, follows, for great is your reward in heaven. And yet here, he says, the words refer to blessings in prospect. In truth, what led him into all this inverted reasoning, was a pleasant mistake. The one text says Be glad and rejoice, FOR, or-The other, Rejoice and be exceeding glad, FOR, OT-Now he took the particle, in both places, to signify propter, for the sake of; whereas it signifies quoniam, quia, and is in proof of something going before. So that he read the text-Rejoice, for the marriage of the Lamb is come; As if it had been-"Rejoice for the marriage of the Lamb, WHICH is come:" And-rejoice, for great is your reward in heaven; as if it had been,"Rejoice for your great reward in heaven."

But now let us consider these texts in another view, in order to do justice to his delicacy of judgment. I had said that, in the exact use of the two Greek words, they signify so and so; and applied that observation to a FACT; where a person was said to have rejoiced, &c. In order to disprove this criticism, he brings three passages, in which those Greek words are used, where no FACT is related; but where men are, in a rhetorical manner, called upon, and bid to rejoice, &c. In which latter case, the use of one word for another, is an elegant conversion. Those, in possession of a blessing, are bid to rejoice with that exceeding joy, which men generally have in the certain expectation of one approaching; and those in expectation, with that calm and settled joy, which attends full possession. And who but our Examiner could not see, that the use of words is one thing, in an historical assertion; and quite another, in a rhetorical invocation?

he falls upon But no sooner

Having thus ably acquitted himself in one criticism, another. "What shall we do with iva?"-What indeed! said than done, ""Iva (says he) is often put for őre or őrt, positive as you are, that it always refers to a future time." [Consid. p. 144.] Now, so far from being positive of this, I am positive of the contrary, that there is not one word of truth in all he says. I observed indeed, that iva idŋ, in the text, refers only to a future time. And this I say still, though our translators have rendered it, equivocally, to see. Yet he affirms, that I say, "va [standing alone] always refers to a future time." That I am positive of it, nay very positive, "positive as you are," says he. And to shame me of this evil habit, he proceeds to shew, from several texts, that iva is often put for ὅτε οι ὅτι. "Thus John xvi. 2. The time cometh THAT [iva] whoso ever killeth you will think he doth God service. Again: 1 Cor. iv. 3. With me it is a small thing THAT [iva] I should be judged of you. And nearer to the point yet, 3 John 4. I have no greater joy [iva ȧkovw] than THAT I hear, or, than to hear that my children walk in the truth. And why not here, Sir; Abraham rejoiced [iva ion] WHEN he saw, or THAT he saw, or (which is equivalent) TO SEE my Day." [Consid. p. 144.] For all this kindness, the best acknowledgment I can make, is to return him back his own criticism; only the Greek words put into Latin. The Vulgate has rendered iva on by ut videret, which words I will suppose the Translator to say (as without doubt he would) refer only to a future time. On which, I will be very learned and critical:-" Positive as you are, Sir, that t always refers to a future time, I will shew you that it is sometimes put for postquam the past,

Ut vidi, ut perii, ut me malus abstulit Error!

and sometimes (which is yet nearer to the point) for quanto-Ut quisque optimè Græcè sciret, ita esse nequissimum. And why not here, Sir, Abraham rejoiced [ut videret] WHEN HE saw, or THAT he saw, or which is equivalent, TO SEE my day?" And now he says, there is but one difficulty that stands in his way. And what is this, I pray you? Why, that according to his (Dr. Stebbing's) interpretation, "the latter part of the sentence is a repetition of the former. Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad; i. e. Abraham rejoiced to see, and then saw and rejoiced. But such kind of repetitions are frequent in the sacred Dialect; and, in my humble opinion, it has an elegance here. Abraham rejoiced to see, kai éïde, xai éxapη. HE BOTH SAW AND WAS GLAD." [Consid. p. 144, 145.] Before he talked of repetitions in the sacred Dialect, and pronounced upon their qualities, he should have known how to distinguish between a pleonasm and a tautology; the first of which, indeed, is often an elegance; the latter, always a blemish in expression: and, in the number of the latter, is this elegant repetition of the Doctor's own making. Where a repetition of the same thing is given in different words, it is called a pleonasm; when in the same words (as in the Doctor's translation of the text in question) it is a tautology, which, being without reason, has neither grace nor elegance. Nay the very pretence it has to common sense arises from our being able to understand the equivocal phrase, to see, in my meaning, of, that he might see. Confine it to the Doctor's, of-Abraham rejoiced when he had seen my day; and he saw it and was glad, and the absurdity becomes apparent. For the latter part of the sentence beginning with the conjunction completive kaì, it implies a further predication. Yet in his translation there is none; though he makes an effort towards it, in dropping the sense of kaì in the sound of BOTH.

of

P. 190. CCC. Dr. Stebbing tells me, "there is not one word, in the history of the Old Testament, to justify this threefold distinction:" and that I myself CONFESS as much. It is true, I confess that what is not in the Old Testament is not to be found there. And had he been as modest, he would have been content to find a future state in the New Testament only. -But where is it, I would ask, that "I confess there is not one word, in the history of the Old Testament, to justify this three-fold distinction?" I was so far from any such thought, that I gave a large epitome Abraham's whole history, to shew that it justified this three-fold distinction, in every part of it. His manner of proving my confession will clearly detect the fraud and falshood of his charge. For, instead of doing it from my own words, he would argue me into it, from his own inferences. "You confess it" (says he); "FOR you say, that Moses's history begins with the second period, and that the first was wisely omitted by the historian.” Let us apply this reasoning to a parallel case. I will suppose him to tell me (for, after this, he may tell me any thing) "that I myself confess there is not one word in the Iliad of Homer, to justify me in saying that there were three periods in the destruction of Troy; the first, the robbery of Helen; the second, the combats before the Walls; and the third, the storming of the Town by the Greeks; FOR that I say, that Homer's poem begins at the second period; wisely omitting the first and the last." Now will any one conclude, from this reasoning, that I had made any such confession?

P. 190. DDD. This shews why GOD might say to Hosea, Go take unto

From p. 175 to 177, of this volume.

thee a wife of whoredoms, &c. chap. i. ver. 2.-Though all actions which have no moral import are indifferent; yet some of this kind (which would even be indifferent, had they a moral import) may, on the very account of their having no moral import, be the object of pleasure or displeasure. Thus, in the adventure between Elisha and Joash, we are told, that the Prophet said unto the King, "Take bow and arrows; and he took unto him bow and arrows. And he said to the king of Israel, Put thine hand upon the bow; and he put his hand upon it; and Elisha put his hands upon the king's hands. And he said, Open the window eastward; and he opened it. Then Elisha said, Shoot; and he shot. And he said, The arrow of the Lord's deliverance from Syria: for thou shalt smite the Syrians in Aphek, till thou have consumed them. And he said, Take the arrows; and he took them. And he said unto the king of Israel, Smite upon the ground; and he smote thrice and stayed. And the man of God was wrath with him, and said, Thou shouldest have smitten five or six times, then hadst thou smitten Syria, till thou hadst consumed them, whereas now thou shalt smite Syria but thrice." 2 Kings xiii. 15—18. Here it is not difficult to apprehend, that the Prophet, by God's command, directed the King to perform a significative action, whose meaning God had beforehand explained to his Messenger: and, amongst the particulars of it, had told him this, that the Syrians should be smitten as often as the King smote upon the ground, when the Prophet should order him (only in general words) to smite it. Hence the Prophet's anger, occasioned by his love to his country, on the King's stopping when he had smote thrice.

P. 190. EEE. To this Dr. Stebbing answers, "I can easily understand, Sir, how the matter stood with Abraham; and that HE was in no danger of being misled, as to the nature of human Sacrifices, who knew the secret of the whole affair; and that it was nothing else but Scenery. But how this answer will serve for his Family, who are to be presumed to have known nothing of this scenical representation, is utterly past my comprehension ;-because you have told us from the very first, that the information to be conveyed by it was intended for Abraham's SOLE USE; and I do not see how Abraham could open to his family the scenery of the transaction, without explaining the mystery.-But is not your putting the Family of Abraham, in possession of this consequence, a very plain declaration, that they knew the mystery of Christ's sacrifice? Now therefore, Sir, 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 of Christ's sacrifice; it will overturn all you have said concerning their ignorance of a future state: It likewise overturns the single 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 information of Abraham, and that his family knew nothing of it, the objection will lie full against you, unanswered.". [Consid. p. 166.]

I had said, that the command was for Abraham's sole use; and "therefore" (says the Doctor) "the Family of Abraham must be presumed to know nothing of this scenical representation:" Notwithstanding this, I presume (he says) that they did know it. Here he takes me in a flagrant contradiction. But did he indeed not apprehend 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 single family which THEN lived under his tents, but to the Jewish People, WHEN the history of the transaction was

recorded?-And now having shewn 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, opening 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 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 do not know what should hinder him, unless it was the sudden loss of speech. If he had the free use of his tongue, 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 this Son 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, to figure out 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? Had I no other way of avoiding his dilemma (for if I escape his Contradiction, he has set his Dilemma-trap, which, he says, it is impossible I should escape) had I nothing else, I say, it is very likely I should have insisted upon this explanation: But there are more safe 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 have spoken ANY THING of the ignorance of Abraham's Family, concerning a Future State. 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 few of his houshold, 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 it appears that what our Examiner had pronounced IMPOSSIBLE, was all the while very possible. And in spite of this terrible Dilemma, both parts of the hypothesis are at peace. I can hardly think him so immoral as to have put a designed trick upon his Reader: I rather suppose it to be some confused notion concerning the Popish virtue of TRADITION (that trusty Guardian of Truth) which led him into all this absurdity: and made him conclude, that what Abraham's houshold once knew, the Posterity of Abraham 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 Fore-fathers, that they

knew nothing even of his NATURE, and therefore did, as men commonly do in the like case, enquire after his NAME.

P. 193. FFF. "To me" (says the noble writer) "it plainly appears, that in the early times of all Religions, when nations were yet barbarous and savage, there was ever an aptness or tendency towards the dark part of Superstition, which, amongst many other horrors, produced that of human Sacrifice. Something of this nature might possibly be deduced even from Holy Writ."-To this a note refers in the following words-Gen. xxii. 1. and Judg. xi. 30. These places relating to Abraham and Jephthah are cited only with respect to the notion which these primitive warriors may be said to have entertained concerning this horrid enormity, so common amongst the inhabitants of the Palestine and other neighbouring nations. It appears that even the elder of these Hebrew princes was under no extreme surprise on this trying revelation. Nor did he think of expostulating, in the least, on this occasion; when at another time he could be so importunate for the pardon of an inhospitable, murderous, impious, and incestuous city, Gen. xviii. 23, &c. Charact. vol. iii. p. 124.

Dr. Stebbing will needs try his strength with the noble Author of the Characteristics. For, whether I quote for approbation or condemnation, it is all one; this active Watchman of the Church militant will let nothing escape him, that he finds in my service; nor leave any thing unpurified that has once passed through my hands. To this passage of the noble Lord he replies, "The cases widely differ. God did not open precisely what he intended to do with these wicked cities; only said, Judgment was passed. But what has this to do with Isaac, who did not stand as a sinner before God; but as a Sacrifice, acknowledging God's sovereign dominion. For Abraham to intercede here would have inferred a reluctancy to do homage, which would have destroyed the perfection of his resignation." [Hist. of Abr. pp. 41, 42.] So, Isaac's innocence and his not standing a sinner before God when he was doomed to death, makes him a less proper object of Abraham's intercession and compassion, than a devoted City, inhospitable, murderous, impious, and incestuous. This is our Doctor's HUMANITY: and a modest petition of the Father of the faithful, like that of the Saviour of the world, If it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt, would have destroyed all the perfection of his resignation. And this is our Doctor's DIVINITY! Strange that this Father of Orthodoxy could not see, that what might be done by the divine Antitype himself, without destroying his perfection of resignation, might likewise be done, without that loss, in behalf of the Type. After so fine a specimen of what great things he is able to do against this formidable Enemy of Revelation; what pity is it, he was never set on work by his Superiors, in a more avowed and open manner!

P. 197. GGG. This man, not long since, wrote against the Divine Legation under the name of a Society of Free-thinkers: by the same kind of figure, I suppose, that He in the Gospel called himself Legion, who was only the forwardest Devil of the Crew.

P. 197. HHH. But I mistake. Unbelievers, I think, are not yet quite so shameless. The objection, in form, comes from another quarter. It is Dr. Stebbing, who, for the honour of the Church, makes it for them. He will not allow that the words of Jesus are of any validity to support my interpretation of the Command to Abraham, because Unbelievers will not admit the inspiration of the New Testament. But what then? they have not yet disputed with me my interpretation of the Command. Nobody hath done this but Dr. Stebbing. And I hope the Authority of Jesus will