of his Faith. In such a time as that was it, that the command went forth, that the Son in whom his hopes; his faith; peace; happiness were alike centred should be offered up a burnt offering unto the Lord by the hand of his Father. "It came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and 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."*

Bitter as was the word; - destructive as it was to his soul's hope; his faith stumbled not at the saying. He set forth. He prepared the wood. He built the altar. He stretched forth his hand to slay his son; "accounting" as St. Paul writes, "accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure."† Then was it, when all but the actual blow had been completed, that "the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said: Lay not thine hand upon the lad; for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." The trial was over. A ram caught in a thicket by his horns met his view: and the father and son in mutual prayer, praise and gratulation, bound him on the altar, and sacrificed him to the Lord. The rite completed; "the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said; "By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord (JEHOVAH), for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in

multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars in heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice."

66

There are three things which call for remark in the narrative of this transaction; and which, as apparently conveying a slight degree of ambiguity, should carefully be investigated. They respect the person of the Divine Being who thus held intercourse with Abraham. It is stated in the opening verse, that God did tempt Abraham." In verse 11 it is said that "the angel of the Lord" called on him to forbear the sacrifice, at the same time assuming to himself the honour of the oblation. In verse 15 "the angel of the Lord" calls on him a second time; but his language seems in that instance to have changed its character. He speaks apparently as the as the messenger of the Father; and assures the blessing, which arose out of Abraham's fidelity, in a mode of expression which would seem to denote that it proceeded not from himself.

But, however varied the form of expression may at first sight appear, I think that, not only the continuity of design (which in itself is a very great point), and the dependence of the sacrifice on events and promises which preceded it, demand that the person who formerly appeared to the Patriarch, should be the same, who now exacted obedience and delivered promises to him; but also that the form of speech, though just capable of being applied to different beings, may upon examination, be fairly received as pointing only to one.

66

Let it be conceded, for instance, that "God," who in the commencement is said to have tempted Abraham, may be predicated of God the Father. We will suppose the framing of the sentence will admit it. Still the scene of the actual trial, when the angel of the Lord appears, brings back the expression in its application, as in the former history of the Patriarch, to Christ the Redeemer. The memory is then led back to former interpositions and former promises, which the angel of the Lord has made to Abraham, and which, from their very nature, can only be interpreted of the Messiah. The term God" which is first used, is only one of the titles by which Christ, as we have seen, is distinguished in Scripture. Lay not thine hand upon the lad, &c., for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy only son from me." Who is "from me" except that except that person who called upon him not to withhold his only son from him? God tempted Abraham, that he should not withhold his son from God; and Christ, the angel of the Lord, says, "I know that thou fearest God, because thou hast not withheld thine only son from me." If however the idea intended to be conveyed was, that the Father tempted Abraham, and that the angel in the subsequent appearances came only in the character of a messenger, delivering the will of a superior Being, the construction should have been written in some similar form to this :-Lay not thine hand upon the lad, for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thine only son from Him. The assertion of his own right to the obedience of Abraham, with which the sentence closes, seems to bring

back the mind, clearly and satisfactorily, to the original idea, that Christ was the Person whom the Patriarch obeyed.

Now if this part of the question may be considered as determined, the solution of the rest is of comparatively little difficulty; since however the words of the angel may vary from the former mode of expression, there can be no doubt at all, that the person speaking was the same. "And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time." If therefore it is fixed in the mind, that at the first time-the time when the sacrifice was prohibited he spake and prohibited of his own authority, and not by the authority alone of a higher Power; the very sameness of the person, (declared in the expression, "the second time") is sufficient to prove, that no diminution of authority can have taken place, however the mere form of words may seem, if taken literally, to imply it. But bearing the idea in mind, which we have desired to impress, the difficulty-even taken in its very literal form-is not such as to warrant a doubt that the Person who now spoke was the same who had on former occasions spoken to Abraham. It would rather appear a form of speech to give a solemn and extreme dignity to the subject, than as intimating any separation between the person who spoke and the person who promised. "By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, that in blessing I will bless thee, &c." By myself have I sworn, saith JEHOVAH-the eternal-all powerful almighty God. I, the eternal God, have sworn, &c.

The change of person cannot alter the substance

of the blessing; the things promised are the same in an enlarged form, which Christ has formerly promised to Abraham. There is no change in the promises; they are only confirmed in a more distinct manner; but still they are in fact and in spirit the same as those, which have oftentimes before been vouchsafed to Abraham. And if these are acknowledged of Christ, how can the enlarged repetition be separated from him?

I am quite aware, that this mode of reasoning may have a face of pleading for a certain object, on which the mind had previously resolved, and of straining the sense of particular passages which seem to militate against the predetermined conclusion, to bring them within the range of the object desired. A subject of so grave a nature as the present, should be raised far above the reach of such a thought; its evil results might prove incalculable; since the natural revulsion in the reader's mind, if convinced of such an intention, might, in his aversion to that which he believed false, cause him to reject even that in it which was true. I cannot, however, feel that the argument has been really treated with any undue bias of this nature. It would be the merest

idleness to expect that so intricate a question should be drawn forth with so even a thread, as to present no seeming entanglement; it is enough, that it should be eventually unravelled without severance. But on carefully reviewing what has been written on Abraham's temptation, I cannot persuade myself that other than a fair and legitimate use has been made of its points of adaptation to Christ as its overruler; a use which the revelations previously