"with certain gifts and powers supernatural, infused by "the Spirit of God; and that in these gifts their perfection "consisted."

GEN. III. 6.

THE WOMAN SAW THAT THE TREE WAS GOOD FOR FOOD, &C.

Here the Objector "desires to be informed, how Eve, "before her eyes were opened, saw," &c. To which the obvious answer is, that her eyes were opened from the first to see the forbidden fruit, but they were not open to see or to perceive her shame and misery, till afterwards. No one that knows the latitude of the phrase of opening the eyes, and how variously it is used in Scripture, would ever have offered this poor objection. The Objector's eyes were open to write this pernicious libel against religion; but his eyes are not yet opened to see the folly of doing it, nor perhaps ever will be, as long as he lives.

GEN. III. 7.

AND THE EYES OF THEM BOTH WERE OPENED, AND THEY KNEW THAT THEY WERE NAKED, &c. The Objector asks, "Why, though custom has made it "shameful to go without clothes, in those places where "clothes are worn, the first pair should nevertheless, "though they knew not what clothes were, be ashamed "to be seen unclothed by one another, and by God him"self?" But is he sure that there is nothing but chance or custom in this matter? How came that shame to be so universal, if it were not natural? There is no account to be given of it from the nature of the thing itself: for why should a man be ashamed of any thing but vice? Yet so strong is that passion in mankind, that none but the most impudent wretches, with much striving, have been able to break through it. The text does not say, as this author pretends, that Adam and Eve were ashamed to be seen

2 See Le Clerc in loc. Nicholls's Confer. p. 129.

unclothed by one another; neither is there any necessity of supposing it. It is observed by Moses, that they "hid "themselves," not from one another, but " from the pre66 sence of the Lord Goda:" and the reason is intimated, because they were naked b. It seems, that they were struck with the consciousness of their nakedness, and the impression of shame following it, immediately upon their transgression but the shame they had upon them was more upon account of the presence of God, than of each other's. And though the author may think it strange, that any one should be ashamed of nakedness in the presence of God only, yet he does not consider the difference between a visible and an invisible presence; nor how one is apt to strike any person more than the other. The presence of God in that visible manner, wherein he was then pleased to appear, had the same effect upon them, as any strange or awful company has been apt to have upon mankind in such cases ever since. God impressed it upon them then as part of their punishment, and has left the like shame upon their posterity ever since, for a perpetual memorial of it.

But the Objector makes himself diversion about their sewing fig-leaves together for aprons: "having, it seems, (says he with a sneer,) "all things necessary for sew"ing." I apprehend what he means: they wanted needle and thread, and perhaps thimble too. It is a stale objection, borrowed from Burnet or Blount, and taken notice of at large by Dr. Nicholls, though hardly deserving to have such honour done it. However, there is no necessity of saying that they sewed fig-leaves together; another rendering would quite disable the objection. It might as well have been said, tacked together: but then he would ask, no doubt, how they came by tacks, before smiths were in being? Well, to cut off all cavils at once, we will

d Burnet's Archæolog. p. 293. Blount's Oracles of Reason, p. 44.

• Nicholls's Conference with a Theist, p. 130.

say fastened or joined together, (for that the original word will very well bear,) and then the sarcasm is lost, and the jester disappointed.

GEN. III. 8.

THEY HEARD THE VOICE OF THE LORD GOD

WALKING IN THE GARDEN IN THE COOL OF THE

DAY. The Objector thinks this a "strange representation "of Godf." Yes; if it be taken literally of God's walking as a man walks: but he must be next to an idiot that can so understand it. God can choose what symbol of his presence he pleases; and a human form, as well as any other. But if the author's delicacy is offended at that, he may understand the words not of God's walking, but of the voice walking; that is, going forth, approaching, or the like 5.

GEN. III. 21.

The Objector, upon this text, has a fling at what is said of God's making them coats. "Coats," says he, " of the "skins of beasts newly created in pairs h:" as if the thing could not have been done without destroying a whole species. But how does he know that no more than a pair of every sort was at first created? Or supposing it so, how knows he that the beasts had not multiplied before the time when God taught Adam and Eve to make coats of skins? I forbear to say more, because the objection is stale and trite, taken up from Burnet and Blount, and it has been answered at large by Dr. Nicholls k, to whom I have nothing to add.

f Christianity as Old, &c. p. 385.

* See Bishop Patrick and Le Clerc in loc. The same verb, in hithpael, is used of arrows, Psal. lxxvii. 17. and is there rendered, went abroad; and seems to be meant of the thunder. However, certain it is from that place alone, that the verb, in this conjugation, is not always applied to a person. Christianity as Old, &c. p. 386.

i Burnet's Archæol. p. 293. Blount, p. 44.

k Nicholls's Confer. p. 131.

GEN. VI. 6.

AND IT REPENTED THE LORD, THAT HE HAD MADE MAN UPON THE EARTH, AND IT GRIEVED HIM AT HIS HEART. Offence is here taken at the expression, by our over nice gentleman, who thus descants upon it', "In what a number of places is God said to try people; "and yet notwithstanding this caution, how often is he "said to repent? Does he not even repent of the first ac❝tion he did in relation to man? Nay, does not the Scrip"ture suppose, he has so often repented, that he is weary "of repenting?" It is very true that the Scripture does say these things; and it is no less true that the Scripture means no such thing by them, as this gentleman would insinuate. There is not a commentator of any note, but what would have set him right in this matter, had he pleased to be at the pains to learn, before he had set up to teach. God is unchangeable, and repenteth not in a strict and proper sense; but when he undoes what he has before done, or changes his first measures, as circumstances require, he is said to repent m or grieve, by a figure taken from the manner of men, who, in such cases, do really repent and grieve. God accommodates his phrases to the language of men, in order to be the better understood by men, and also to render his expressions more pathetic, lively, and affecting. There is great use in it, and no harm can come by it, while the hearer or reader has any tolerable measure of common sense.

The Objector perhaps will reply, that then this is interpreting Scripture by reason. It is so, and by Scripture too, which in other places declares that God "does not re"pent"," and that his words are not "yea and nay"." And what if Scripture must be interpreted by reason, that is, reasonably interpreted, as every book should? Is Scripture

1 Christianity as Old, &c. p. 251.

m See St. Austin contra Adversarium Leg. et Prophet. lib. i. cap. 40. p. 573. • 2 Cor. i. 19,

"Numb. xxiii. 19. 1 Sam. xv. 29.

20.

therefore useless, because reason should go along with it, as with every thing else? Or is reason alone sufficient without Scripture? No; no more than eyes alone are sufficient without light to see by, or objects to look upon. Reason, the eye of the mind, looks into as many things as are set before it, and appear with sufficient lustre: but if either the objects be few, or the light dim, reason alone can be of very little service. We interpret those texts about God's repenting, by reason: but by reason alone we should have known nothing of the facts themselves of God's repenting, nor of a thousand others revealed in Scripture. Great is the light which Scripture brings; and not the less for supposing such light to shine upon rational creatures capable of perceiving it. But I beg my reader's pardon, for striking thus far into the argumentative part of the book, when the Scriptural part only is my professed province; to which I now return.

GEN. VIII. 21.,

THE LORD SMELLED A SWEET SAVOUR: namely, after Noah had offered burnt offerings upon the altar; as is related in the verse preceding. Our author takes himself to be facetious, when he banters such expressions in the person of the heathen Jupiter; designing it equally against the God of Israel, as appears by the turn of his argument, and his manner of expression, and his printing the words in Italic, to be the more taken notice of. He expresses his wonder," that the stench of burnt flesh "should be such a sweet smelling savour in his nostrils, as "to atone for the wickedness of men :" and he thinks it a gross conception of God, " that he should be delighted "with the butchering of innocent animals." He goes on P: "If the Pagans" (say Jews, and the argument is the same) "believed beasts were not given them for food,

why did they eat them? Or if they thought they were,

why did they ungratefully throw back the gifts of God

P Christianity as Old, &c. p. 91.