he then recalled the command, and gave the living child to her, to whom it properly belonged. And, here it is to be remembered, that the ground or reafon of Solomon's recalling the command, was not any change of circumftances with refpect to the child, but it was because the end of the command was anfwered, in trying the affections of the two harlots as aforefaid.

The cafe of Ifaac, is exactly parallel to the cafe I have now mention'd. To have taken away Isaac's life would have been an unfit action, becaufe not any circumstances. attended the cafe which rendered it fit that he fhould die; and yet, the command which required it, was a fit command. And the reafon of this is as evident, as in the former cafe, viz. because the command was not given in order to execution, and with an intent that it should be obeyed, but only to try the understanding, the faith, and the obedience of Abraham, and under thefe circumftances it was a fit command. And, that the command was given with this view, and to answer this purpose, viz. to try Abraham, is evident, not only from its being recalled, but alfo from the teftimony of the biftorian. Thus, Genefis xxii. 1, 2. And it came to pafs after these things, that God did tempt (or try) Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham; and be faid, behold here I am. And be faid, take now thy fon, thine only fon Ifaac whom thou loveft, and get thee into the land of Moriah,

and

and offer him there for a burnt offering, upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. Here we fee, that the command was given to tempt or try Abraham, (if the hiftorian's teftimony will be allowed to be of any weight in the prefent cafe;) and under this circumftance, it was a fit command, tho' the action was unfit, which was required by it. If God had given the command in order to execution, and with an intent that it fhould be obeyed; then, and under these circumftances, the command, as well as the action would have been unfit. But this was not the cafe; and therefore, when God had tryed Abraham as aforefaid, he then recalled the command. And, here it is likewife to be remembered, that the ground or reafon of God's recalling the command, was not any change of circumftances with refpect to Ifaac, but it was because the end of the command was answered in trying the understanding, the faith, and the obedience of Abraham as aforefaid. And,

That no circumftance attended the cafe, which rendered it fit that Ifaac fhould die, and confequently that the taking away his life was an unfit action, is moft plain and evident from God's recalling the command. For, if any circumftance' had attended the cafe, which rendered it fit that Ifaac fhould die, and confequently the taking away his life would have been a fit action, then, moft certainly be would have died, because it was

right and fit that he fhould; then God would not only have commanded Abraham to kill Ifaac, but he would also have infifted upon Abraham's executing that command; and then the recalling the command would have been perfectly unfit, because it would have prevented or bindered the performance of a fit action. So that, if God always acts right (which is the fuppofition I go upon, and which is the only point I take for granted in the present argument ;) then, I say, the recalling the command proves to a demonftration that the taking away Ifaac's life was an unfit action, and that no circumstance attended the cafe, which rendered it fit that he should die. And, as it was fit that God fhould give the command, to answer the purposes aforefaid; fo it was equally as fit that he fhould recal it, that thereby he might prevent or hinder the performance of an unfit action. The taking away Ifaac's life was not a trifling affair; and therefore it could not be an indifferent action; but it must be either. fit, or unfit. If it was fit that Ifaac fhould die, and if it was fit for God to command the taking away his life; then it would have been equally as fit for God to have infifted upon the execution of the command; and then it would have been unfit for him to have recalled it. On the other fide, if the taking away Ifaac's life was unfit, then as it was fit that God fhould command it to be taken away, in order to tempt or try Abra

ham;

ham; fo it was equally as fit that God should recal the command, when the end of that command was anfwered, which was done accordingly. If indeed Ifaac by his wicked behaviour had rendered himself a common enemy to the common good, and if the taking away his life, by the hands of his father, would have better answered the purposes of government, than the taking it away by any other hand; then, and under thofe circumftances, it might have been fit that Ifaac fhould have died by the hands of his father. But these are circumftances which did not attend the cafe; and therefore are foreign to the argument.

To this I may add, that Abraham was a profperous man, that his fituation in the world, the circumstances of his family, and the behaviour of his fon was fuch, as will bear me out in saying, that Ifaac's life did not fo come in competition with the publick good, as that one of these must of neceffity have given place to the other; and then, I think, they will bear me out in saying, that no circumftance did attend Ifaac's cafe, which rendered it fit that he should die. It will, I think, be needlefs to enquire what was Abraham's opinion concerning this matter, or what were the grounds and reasons of action to him; because nothing can certainly be concluded about it, or from it. Abraham might poffibly be ready to obey the command, without entering into any kind of reafoning

N

reafoning upon the cafe. Or he might think that fome circumftances attended the cafe, tho' he perceived it not, which might render it fit that his fon fhould die by his hand. But then, in this he greatly erred. Or, he might think it right to kill his fon when commanded, upon a prefumption that God would raise him from the dead. But then, this was a groundless prefumption. For, as God never intended that Ifaac should be flain; fo confequently, he never intended to exert his power in Ifaac's refurrection. However, this is evident from the history, that the command was given by way of temptation or trial to Abraham, tho' he did not understand it to be fo; and that Abraham was ready to yield obedience to the command. And if this should be thought to be a proper ground for celebrating, and thereby Thewing the excellency of Abraham's faith, or obedience; be it fo, these are points not controverted by me.

This is the ftate of the cafe, as it ftands recorded in the hiftory. I have indeed confidered the command given to Abraham to be a trial, as well upon his understanding, as upon his faith and obedience; because I think it was in fact as much a trial upon the one, as upon the other. It is true, this is not faid, nor intimated in the hiftory; nor is it faid, or intimated that it was given as a trial of Abraham's faith. And yet, as it was in fact as much a trial of his faith as of