proved of by their master, as it is written his angels he chargeth with folly,34 I will now give you a description of HIS character, whom you call a God of love, 35 and peace; 36 who delighteth in mercy, and doth not afflict, willingly, nor grieve the children of men ;3 but styles himself a merciful, gracious, and long-suffering God!39

3 3

In the first place we find him creating every thing out of nothing; which Christians say is impossible: for nothing cannot produce a something. We next find him praising the work of his own hands, by saying it was all good, yea very good;40 though Solomon said, let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips. 41 Yet, in a few days, he curses all these very good things which he has just made, because a poor simple young woman happened to steal a little fruit belonging to him !42 this, it appears was placed there for the sole purpose of tempting her to steal, or what could have induced him to make it so good for food and pleasant to the eye? Surely here was a temptation sufficient to overcome any young woman, who might be placed in a similar situation; for we may naturally suppose that she was in a longing condition!

And

Yet notwithstanding the character which Nehemiah, (ix, 32.) Daniel, (ix. 4.) and Nahum, (i. 2.) give of this Bible God, we do not find him so black as the clergy have painted him. They say that he was not satisfied with muliplying sorrows on the poor deluded young woman, but that he actually doomed all her posterity, in consequence of her stealing his fruit, to suffer an eternity of torments amidst fire and brimstone in some other world! A sentence more unjust and cruel, could never have been given by the most tyrannical monster that ever existed.

But from which passage in this book, the Bible, do they obtain authority for so saying? I cannot find one that bears the least resemblance to such a condemnation as that of eternal punishment for her disobedience. Jesus never taught it: nor even as much as mentioned either

E

her or her husband's name, much less their fault: yet they say that it was upon their account, and through their transgression, he came! Neither did the prophets, nor the apostles, as they are called, ever allude to such a condemnation. Doubtless if it had ever been decreed by this God, he would have made it known to some of the fathers, unto whom he spake by the prophets in divers manners and at sundry times : 4 4 especially, as "the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth, (even) his secret unto his servants the prophets ;"' (Amos iii. 7.) this being a subject of far more importance to be made known, than the manner of robbing a bird's nest, (Deut. xxii. 6.) or of manufacturing candlesticks and snuffers!45 But instead of any future punishment in another world, as the priests say, the God of Moses says expressly that their punishment shall be in this. world; 46 not a word about any other; and that he will not extend the punishment upon the children, beyond the fourth generation:47 though Ezekiel's God says, that the child shall not bear the iniquity of the father! + 8

Solomon, who we find, was wiser than all men, 49 consequently knew all those matters better than any of our priests; yet neither he nor Moses, the chosen favourite of God, ever once mentioned the names of either Mr. or Mrs. Adam, Devil, or Holy Ghost. For we must not suppose that the book of Genesis could have been written by Moses, or he surely would not have omitted saying so. Besides there are several things related therein, that could not have occurred till after his death. For instance; we read in Gen. xii. 6, and xiii. 7, that when Abram was travelling through the land of Canaan, "the Canaanite and Perrizite dwelled then in the land;" which evidently implies that this was written at a time when they were not in the land; and which, we find, did not occur until the days of Joshua; even then, and for several ages after, we read that the Canaanites would dwell in the land; for they having made themselves chariots of iron, crept into the valleys, where neither the Jews, nor yet their God, could drive them out! (Judges i. 19, 27.) So that if

Moses wrote this account, it is as ridiculous as though any one in the present day, were to say, that when his Majesty, George IV, went over to Ireland, the Irishmen dwelt then in the land: but if in ages hereafter they should be driven out of the land, as was the case with the Canaanites after the days of Moses, then it might be said with propriety.

Again in Chap. xxxvi. 31. while speaking of the descendants of Esau, it says, "these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel;" which you yourself admit could not have been written until after there had been some king reigning in Israel; which did not occur till many years after the death of Moses; Saul being made the first King in Israel. As a proof that this book of Genesis could not have been written until nine hundred years, at least, after the death of Moses, we find that the above verse, and the twelve that follow it, are an extract from 1 Chron. i 43-54; which could not have been written until after the Captivity, or how could the writer of the book of Chronicles, give the genealogy of Zedekiah and his descendants, in Chap. iii. 84 ?

Besides there are many passages, even in the other books that are ascribed to Moses, which prove that none of them were ever written by him; and as Moses himself never said that he wrote them, I cannot see what right the Priests have to say that he did. In the first place, it is evident that he could not write the last Chapter of Deuteronomy, which records his death. Neither can we suppose that he wrote the 12th Chapter of Numbers, wherein it is said "now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth," without considering him as an ostentatious braggart, which is the very reverse of meekness. In short, the style and manner in which these books are written, are sufficient proof, if further proof were necessary, that they were not written by Moses; for it is every where expressed that the Lord said unto Moses; and Moses said unto the Lord; or Moses said unto the

people; and the people said unto Moses; and Moses began to declare; and Moses made an end of speaking; all evidently proving that some other person was writing the history of Moses: but in all that Moses is reported to have said himself, we find not a word about Âdam, Eve, Ghost, Devil, or Hell, much less the immortality of a soul!

Paul, we find, speaks more about these things than any body else: yet he only says, that by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:50 which does not imply that death has passed upon all men for the transgression of Adam and Eve, but for their own sins, for ALL have sinned. Neither does it imply, that any of their posterity are to live in everlasting torments after death, in consequence of their sin; instead of which he says that as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive;5 for as by the offence of one, judg ment came upon all men unto condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free-gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 52 This, probably, is some of Paul's mystical jargon, to which Peter alludes when speaking of his writings; in all his Epistles, he says, there are some things hard to be understood. Surely, an all wise God would never have commanded Paul to deliver such an important message, if it alluded to the fall and recovery of man, in such an ambiguous manner, that those who are unlearned might wrest it unto their own destruction. But Paul says that God will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent: because the world, by wisdom, knew not God. (1 Cor. i 19, 21.) How then is God to be known? If man's wisdom be too short, can folly reach him? And if those who are unlearned, wrest his messages to their own destruction, how is he to be known at all? or how are we to discover wherein the immortality of men is taught? Is it to be learnt from Paul's foolish and absurd allegory? when he says, in answer to an anticipated question which he expected some rational being would propose, viz. how are the

dead raised up? and with what body do they come ?54 he calls him a fool, in spite of the anathema of Jesus," and says, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die; so also is the resurrection of the dead; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.56 Herein we discover his ignorance of the laws of nature; and he ought to have his own epithet, thou fool, retorted upon himself, for almost every plough-boy knows, that if a grain die in the ground, it can neither quicken nor vegetate: whereas, if it do not die it may chance to bring forth thirty, sixty, or even an hundred-fold! Besides, we cannot imagine that an all-wise and merciful God would leave men ignorant of their dreadful state and condition till the days of Paul, whom we find to have been the chief of sinners, even a Blasphemer !5 8 Yet this is the man upon whom Christians build their Church; notwithstanding the promise of Jesus, that it should be built upon Peter !59

5

But this very book, the Bible, positively denies the immortality of man, by saying, that God placed a cherubim to guard the tree of life, lest man should eat thereof and live for ever. 60 And Solomon, who certainly knew the state and condition of man, as well as Mr. Paul, he being under the express tuition of his God, 61 tells us that man is but dust; that all turn to dust again; all go to one place; as the one dieth so dieth the other;62 with this difference, that in consequence of the peculiar organization of man, his spirit or breath, goeth upward, whilst that of the beast, through his organic structure, goeth downward. Spirit and breath being often used as synonimous terms in these books. 63 Yet notwithstanding the declaration of the wisest of men, with the testimony of God himself, who assures us that he secured the tree of life, lest man should eat thereof and live for ever, the priests would make us to believe that man is immortal, in spite of God's anxious and providential care to the contrary! Besides without we had eaten some of the fruit of that tree we all know it to be a thing opposed to reason and experience, that this body, after having been made a