Thus Almighty God is the natural object of the several affections-love, reverence, fear, desire of approbation. For though He is simply one, yet we cannot but consider Him in partial and different views. He is in Himself one uniform being, and for ever the same, without variableness or shadow of turning; but His infinite greatness, His goodness, His wisdom, are different objects to our mind. To which is to be added, that from the changes in our own characters, together with His unchangeableness, we cannot but consider ourselves as more or less the objects of His approbation, and really be SO. For if He approves what is good, He cannot, merely from the unchangeableness of His nature, approve what is evil. Hence must arise more various movements of mind, more different kinds of affections. And this greater variety also is just and reasonable in such creatures as we are, though it respects a Being, simply one, good and perfect. As some of these affections are most particularly suitable to so imperfect a creature as man, in this mortal state we are passing through, so there may be other exercises of mind, or some of these in higher degrees, our employment and happiness in a state of perfection.

BISHOP WARBURTON.

WILLIAM WARBURTON was the son of the town-clerk of Newarkupon-Trent, and was born there, December 24, 1698. His first education was that of an attorney; but having an inclination for study greater than could be gratified in the bustle and interruption of a provincial lawyer's office, he exchanged it for the clerical profession. In 1723 he received deacon's orders, and in 1728 was presented to the rectory of Brand Broughton, near his native town. Here he pursued his favourite researches with uncommon energy, and here he wrote a work on "The Alliance between Church and State," which appeared in 1736, and produced a considerable sensation. The attention, how

ever, which this volume attracted was soon absorbed in the commotion produced by its successor at the opening of 1738. This was the first volume of the work with which the name of Warburton is now associated as intimately, if not as happily, as is that of Butler with the "Analogy." Its title sufficiently explains its object: "The Divine Legation of Moses demonstrated on the principles of a religious Deist, from the omission of the doctrine of a future state of reward and punishment in the Jewish Dispensation." The second volume, in two parts, succeeded in 1741. In this work he found ample scope for his adroit and daring ingenuity in maintaining its leading paradox; and for his multifarious erudition he created an outlet, as often as he pleased, in those brilliant episodes and amusing digressions which still allure the scholar to his animated pages.

The "Legation" gave rise to a vast amount of angry controversy, in which, however, no champion took the field more fierce or doughty than our author himself. In the meanwhile, a remarkable friendship had sprung up between the fiery polemic and the bard of Twickenham. Besides publishing a Vindication of "The Essay on Man," he wrote notes to "The Dunciad," and revised the "Essay on Homer." As a mark of regard, Pope bequeathed to him the half of his library, and appointed him his literary executor. In 1751 he published Pope's Works, with notes, in nine volumes octavo.

In 1757 he was advanced to the deanery of Bristol, and was consecrated Bishop of Gloucester in 1760. He died at his palace there, June 7, 1779, and was buried in his own cathedral.

Of the invective and scurrility contained in "the most learned, most arrogant, and most absurd work of the eighteenth century," it is better not to give illustrations. As a specimen of its better style, we quote the following remarks on

Abraham's Sacrifice of Esaac.

They say, God could never give such a command to Abraham, because it would throw him into inextricable doubts concerning the Author of it, as whether it proceeded from a good or evil being. Or if not so, but that he could persuade himself it came from God, it would then mislead him in his notions of the Divine attributes, and of the fundamental principles of morality. Because, though the revoking the command prevented the homicide, yet the action being commanded, and, at the revocation, not condemned, Abraham and his family must needs have thought human sacrifices grateful to the Almighty; for a simple revoking was no condemnation, but would be more naturally esteemed a peculiar indulgence for a ready obedience. Thus, the Pagan fable of Diana's substituting a hind in the place of Iphigenia did not make idolaters believe that she therefore abhorred human sacrifices, they having been before persuaded of the contrary. This is the whole substance, only set in a clearer light, of all their dull cloudy dissertations on the case of Abraham.

God had been

1. Let us see, then, how his case stood. pleased to reveal to him His eternal purpose of making all mankind blessed through him, and to confirm this promise, in a regular course of successive revelations, each fuller and more explicit than the other. By this time, the Father of the Faithful, as we must needs suppose from the nature of the thing, would be grown very desirous of knowing the manner how this blessing was to be brought about-a mystery, if we will believe the Author of our faith, that engaged the attention of other holy men, less concerned than Abraham, and, consequently, less stimulated and excited by their curiosity"And Jesus turned to his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things which ye see. For I tell you that many prophets and kings have desired to see those

ABRAHAM SEES CHRIST'S DAY.

83

things which ye see, and have not seen them, and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them" (Luke x. 23, 24). But we are assured, by the same authority, that Abraham had, in fact, this very desire highly raised in him—“ Abraham rejoiced to see my day," says Jesus, "and he saw it, and was glad ;" or rather, he rejoiced that he might see, INA IAḤ; which implies, that the period of this joy was in the space between the promise that the favour should be conferred and the actual conferring it, in the delivery of the command; consequently, that it was granted at his earnest request. In the second place we shall prove, from the same words, that Abraham, at the time the command was given, knew it to be this revelation granted at his earnest request-" Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad." ̓Αβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἠγαλλιάσατο ΙΝΑ ΙΔΗ τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἐμήν· καὶ εἶδε, καὶ ἐχάρη. We have observed that ἵνα ἴδῃ, in strict propriety, signifies "that he might see." The English phrase, "to see," is equivocal and ambiguous, and means either the present time-"that he did then see or the future, "that he was promised he should see;" but the original va ton has only the latter sense. So that the text plainly distinguishes two different periods of joy-the first, when it was promised he should see; the second, when he actually saw ;-and it is to be observed, that, in the exact use of the words, ayaλλiáoμai signifies that tumultuous pleasure which the certain expectation of an approaching blessing, understood only in the gross, occasions; and xaípw that calm and settled joy that arises from our knowledge, in the possession of it. But the translators, perhaps, not apprehending there was any time between the grant to see and the seeing, turned it, he "rejoiced to see;" as if it had been the paraphrase of the poet Nonnusἰδεῖν ἠγάλλετο θυμῷ

whereas this history of Abraham has plainly three distinct periods. The first contains God's promise to grant his re

quest, when Abraham rejoiced that he should see; this, for reasons given above, was wisely omitted by the historian ;within the second was the delivery of the command, with which Moses' account begins; — and Abraham's obedience, through which he saw Christ's day and was glad, includes the third. Thus the patriarch, we find, had a promise that his request should be granted; and, in pursuance of that promise, an action is commanded, which, at that time, was a common mode of information; he must needs, therefore, know it to be the very information so much requested, so graciously promised, and so impatiently expected. We conclude, therefore, on the whole, that this command being only the grant of an earnest request, and known by Abraham, at the time of imposing, to be such grant, he could not possibly have any doubt concerning the Author of it. He was soliciting the God of heaven to reveal to him the mystery of man's redemption, and he receives this revelation in a command to offer Isaac a revelation that had the closest connexion with, and was the fullest completion of, the whole series of the preceding.

2. For, as we come now to shew, in answer to the second part of the objection, the command could occasion no mistakes concerning the Divine attributes; it was, as we have proved, only the conveyance of an information by action instead of words, in conformity to the common mode of conversing in early times. This action, therefore, being mere scenery, and, like words, only of arbitrary signification, it had no moral import; that is, it conveys or implies none of those intentions in the prescriber which go along with actions that have a moral import. Consequently, the injunction of such an action as hath it not can no way affect the moral character of the person commanding; and, consequently, this command could occasion no mistakes concerning the Divine attributes with regard to God's delighting in human sacrifices. On the contrary, the very information conveyed by it was the highest