Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

obferved, that it indicates an odd turn of mind (however general it may be), which disposes the Learned to feek for the origin of the superstitious rites of antiquity, rather in the cafual adventures of particular men, than in the uniform workings of our common nature *.

But the learned Writer fancies his folution is much strengthened by the general notion of Antiquity, that the ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΘΥΣΙΑ was a Myftical Sacrifice. Let us examine his reasoning on this head. Mr. Bryant having given us, from the fragment of Sanchoniatho, what relates to IL or KRONUS's facrifice of his only fon (by which, indeed, it appears, that human Sacrifice was not a conceit of yesterday; the Author of that fragment plainly deriving his story from this part of the Abrahamic Hiftory), goes on in thefe words, "They [human facrifices] were "inftituted probably in confequence of a pro"phetic tradition, which I imagine had been "preserved in the family of Efau; and tranf "mitted, through his pofterity, to the people "of Canaan."

To this, let me, first of all, obferve, that the fuppofition of a prophetic tradition rests entirely on the truth of my peculiar idea of the nature of the command to Abraham, viz. That it was a

See the Divine Legation.

+ P. 291.

mere

[ocr errors]

mere fcenical reprefentation, given at the patriarch's earnest request. For on this idea only could the command be confidered as a prophecy. But this is doing too much honour to my hypothefis, ftill held, I fuppofe, by the more orthodox, to be a paradox; and, what is ftill worse, it greatly weakens the learned Writer's reasoning; for a Scenical reprefentation, which muft naturally end as this did, in a prohibition of the commanded facrifice, could hardly induce any one, who went upon the grounds, or in confequence of a prophetic Tradition, to think that human Sacrifices were acceptable to the Deity. But the truth is, this prophetic Tradition, in the family of Abraham, is merely gratis dictum. We find not the leaft footsteps of it in the more circumftantial History of the other branch of Abraham's Family, the Patriarchal; which was most concerned to preserve it, had there been any fuch. Befides, how this commanded facrifice, which was forbidden to be perpetrated, fhould encourage human facrifices, before men had fteeled themselves, by long ufe, in the practice of fo unnatural a crime, is hard to conceive. It is true, that this argument will lofe fomewhat of its force, when we fuppofe the command was given to a family which were no strangers to human Sacrifices. This is obferved purely in

reverence

reverence to truth; but, be this as it will, it fubverts the fancy of the Abrahamic original. For the fact seems to be, that, at the time this Command was given to the Patriarch, the Gentile world was deeply plunged into this diabolic Barathrum: which though the defcendants of Efau poffibly had not escaped, yet the line of Ifaac certainly had.

The Mofaic account of the State of Religion in the Abrahamic times, fhews that it was extremely depraved. For though the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full*, yet that of their neighbours, in Sodom and Gomorrah, we know, was. These confiderations reasonably induced Philo the Jew, in his Difcourfe concerning Abraham, to fuppofe that human Sacrifices were in ufe before the time of Abraham. And Marfham, one of the best modern Critics concerning ancient times, declares, without hesitation, in favour of this humiliating circumftance; and our admirable Spencer thinks, there is fo little reafon to afcribe the original of Infanticide to the command to Abraham, that, unless the History of that command be told very lamely and imperfectly, it affords very ftrong arguments against that inhuman practice. But it is not generally the way of Scripture to reprobate a

* Gen. xv. 16.

bad

3

bad practice before it has been conceived or committed *. Hence we may fairly collect, that buman Sacrifices were in ufe before the command to Abraham. But what need we more to prove the fact in queftion, than this, That, if the account, here given, of the origin and progress of Sacrifice be the true (as it hath the fairest claim of being fo received, fince the first use, and all the gradual abufes of it, till it funk into the horrid Rite in queftion, may be understood, and understood only on this fimple Principle, the uniform workings of our common nature) human Sacrifices muft needs have preceded that æra.

What follows, in the learned Writer, as a ftrong confirmation of his fyftem, is this, that CHILD-SACRIFICE was a type or reprefentation of SOMETHING TO COME. Now, if by Childfacrifice he means the command to Abraham, this we allow and even contend for. But, if he means that the fpecific rite of Child-facrifice

*Probe novi quamplurimos alia omnia de ritus hujus nefarii fonte fentire, quafi ex Abrahami filium fuum offerentis, hiftoria corrupta et depravata profluxiffent. Huic autem fententiæ fidem adhibere nefcio, cum hiftoria illa nifi planè mutilata, magna præbeat contra morem illum inhumanum argumenta; et verifimile fit multas Gentes liberos fuos immolare folitas, de Abrahami exemplo, ne vel fando quicquam audiviffe. De Leg. Hebræo, ritualibus, L. 11. C. 13. Sect, 3.

was

was underflood by Sacrificers, either Jewish or Gentile, to be a type or representation of SOMETHING TO COME, I think he speaks without the leaft proof.-What he adds, one knows not what to make of.-Child-facrifice (fays he) is the only inftance of any Sacrifice in the Gentile world which is faid to be MYSTICAL.-For, if by mystical he means, a type of fomething to come, this has been anfwered already. But if by mystical we are to understand, what was fo called by the Gentiles in their Sacrificial Rites, almost all of them were mystical; that is, had a meaning fubjoined, not obvious, nor intended to be obvious to the uninitiated, or the Profane. All their fecret Rites, in which Sacrifice bore a principal part, abounded fo much in hidden meanings of this fort, that these Rites were called MYSTERIES by way of eminence.

But if, after all, this TEKNOOYEIA or Childfacrifice had the plain meaning which I have given to it, and not the mystical of the learned Writer, what becomes of his whole hypothefis? That it had no other meaning, than the plain one, I appeal to the Authority of an infpired Writer. MICAH, without doubt, underftood the true Origin, and confequently, the right import of Child-facrifice; and he delivers my fenfe of it in these words-Will the Lord

be

« AnteriorContinuar »