upon this point, they produce but one particular instance, and that one most probably a misrepresentation of Abraham's intended sacrifice, and not a true account of any sacrifice really performed by any person that ever lived in the world. Or, if this may be controverted, and it be thought, that the person they mention, did really offer the sacrifice which they mention; yet it must appear from the historian from whom they have it, that he did not live earlier, nor so early as Abraham; and therefore his sacrifice might be designed in imitation of Abraham's, and not Abraham's in conformity to any known practice of the nations where he lived.

The instance they offer is this. They say, that Chronus, whom the Phoenicians call Israel, and who after his death was deified, and became the star called Saturn, when he reigned in that country, had an only son by the Nymph Anobret, a native of the land, whom he called Jeud (that word signifying in the Phoenician language, only-begotten) and that when he was in extreme peril of war, he adorned his son in the royal apparel, and built an altar with his own hands, and sacrificed him." Philo-Biblius from Sanchoniathon in another place represents it thus; that Chronus upon the raging of a famine and pestilence, offered his only son for a burnt-offering to his father Ouranus." Now upon this fact we may observe.

PSir John Marsham writes it, IA, and translates it Ilus, but Eusebius writes it loganλ.

Euseb. Præp. Evang. 1. 4. c. 16.

r Id. Ibid lib. i. c. 10.

t

I. That the Chronus here mentioned was not more ancient than the times of Abraham; for if any one consults Sanchoniathon's account given us by Philo,' he will find, that after Sanchoniathon has brought down his genealogy to Misor, that is, to the Mizraim of Moses, with whom he makes Sydec contemporary; he then informs us, that Sydec was father of the Dioscuri, Cabiri, or Corybantes; and that xara T8T8s, or in their life-time" Eliun was born. Ouranus was son of Eliun, and Ilus, or Chronus, was son of Ouranus. Thus, supposing this Chronus, to be the person who sacrificed his only son, it will be evident, that the grandfather of this person was born in the life-time of the sons of Mizraim the grandson of Noah, by his son Ham; and parallel to this, Nahor the grandfather of Abraham was born three hundred and forty-two years before the death of Salah the son of Arphaxad, who was Noah's grandson by his son Shem. Or we may compute this matter another way: Mizraim died A. M. 1943, his son Taautus lived forty-nine years after Mizraim's death, i. e. to A. M. 1992. Taautus was contemporary

In Euseb. Præp. Evang. 1. 1. c. 10.

See vol. i. b. i.

This expression xara Teres implies that Eliun was younger than the Corybantes. Abraham was born in the forty-third year of the reign of Ninus, and so Eusebius says he was born nara тaтov. Præf. ad Chronic.

This may easily be collected from Moses' account of the births and deaths of the post-diluvians. Gen. xi.

* See vol. i. b. 4.

Thus

with the Dioscuri; for they were said to be sons of one contemporary with the father of Taautus. Abraham was born A. M. 2008, i. e. only sixteen years after Taautus' death, so that Abraham's grandfather must have been long before the deaths of these men. by both these accounts Ilus or Chronus cannot be more ancient than Abraham; rather Abraham appears to have been more ancient than he. And this must be allowed to be more evidently true, if we consider that it was not Ilus or Chronus the son of Onranus who made this sacrifice of his only son; but rather Chronus, who was called Israel, and was the son of Chronus, called Ilus, and therefore still later by one generation. Philo-Biblius in Eusebius does indeed hint, that Chronus offered his son to his father Ouranus; from whence it may be inferred, that the elder Chronus or son of Ouranus was the sacrificer; but we must not take the word father in this strict sense; for both sacred and profane writers often mean by that word, not the immediate father, but the head of any family, though the grandfather, or a still more remote ancestor. Sir John Marsham asserts that no one but Eusebius called this sacrificer Israel, that Philo wrote it Il meaning Ilus, not Israel, and that Eusebius mistook in thinking Il to be a short way of writing Israel. But to this it may be answered, that Ilus could not be the person that offered his son, because Ilus had more sons than one, for he had three sons, Chronus, Belus, and Apollo. His son Chronus had

Eusebius Præp. Evang. lib. i. c. 10. p. 38.

but one only begotten son by Anobret, and this Chronus therefore was the person who sacrificed his only son, as he was likewise the person who circumcised himself and family." Thus Eusebius, in calling this Chronus Israel, only distinguishes him from his father who was called Ilus; and if Philo did indeed write him Il, he could not mean Ilus, because by his own. account of Ilus' children, he was not the person who offered his only son. The person therefore whom these writers mention upon this occasion, can in no wise serve their purpose; for if they will credit their historian, he must be later than the days of Abraham, and what he did, and what can be said about him, will not prove that these sacrifices had been customary in the days of Abraham; but rather that the heathen nations, having a great opinion of Abraham and his religion, fell into this barbarous practice of sacrificing their children, upon a supposition that he had sacri-` ficed Isaac, and set them an example. I need offer nothing further about Sanchoniathon's Chronus, what is already said will indisputably prove him too modern to furnish objections and cavils against Abraham's religion. However I cannot but think,

II. That this account of Sanchoniathon is really a relation of Abraham's intended sacrifice of Isaac, with only some additions and mistakes, which the heathen writers frequently made in all their relations. Sanchoniathon's history is long ago lost, and the fragments of it, which are preserved in other writers, are not

2 Euseb. Præp. Evang. lib. 1. c. 10. p. 38.

intire as he wrote them, but have many mixtures of false history, allegory, and philosophy; such as the son of Thabio and other commentators upon his work had a fancy to add to him. And very probably, if we had Sanchoniathon himself, we should not find him exact in chronology or in the facts which he related, so that we must not examine his remains with too great a strictness. But if we throw away what seems the product of allegory, philosophy, and mistaken history in his remains; we may collect from him the following particulars about Chronus, whom the Phoenicians called Israel. 1. He was the son of a father, who had three children," and so was Abraham. 2. Chronus had one only son by his wife, and so had Abraham. 3. He had another son, by another person, so had Abraham. 4. This Chronus circumcised himself and family, so did Abraham. 5. Chronus sacrificed his only son,' so was Abraham reported to have done, by some of the heathen historians. 6. Chronus' son, who was sacrificed was named Jehud, and thus Isaac is called by Moses. 7. Chronus was by the Phoenicians called Israel; here indeed is a small mistake; Israel was the name of Abraham's grandson; but the heathen writers commit greater errors

Gen. xxii. 2. God said to Abraham, take now thy

son, Jehud ka, i. e. thine only son.

Euseb. Præp. Evang. lib. 1. c. 10. p. 40. 1. 4. c. 16.