difficulty to him to whom the creation of a universe or a mite, alike depends simply on his volition? Certainly not. With equal ease he can regulate the economy of a world, and permit "a hair of the head to fall."

"As to the account of the creation with which the book of Genesis opens, it has all the appearance of being a tradition which the Israelites had among them before they came into Egypt, and after their departure from that Country, they put it at the head of their history without telling as, it is most probable that they did not know, how they came by it. The manner in which the account opens, shews it to be traditionary. It begins abruptly. It is nobody that speaks. It is nobody that hears. It is addressed to nobody. It has neither first, second, nor third person. It has every criterion of being a tradition. It has no voucher. Moses did. not take it upon himself, by introducing it with the formality that he uses on other occasious, such as that of saying, “The Lord spake unto Moses, saying." Why it has been called the Mosaic account of the creation, I am at a loss to conceive. Moses, I believe, was too good a judge of such subjects, to put his name to that account. He had been educated among the Egyptians, who were a people as well skilled in science, and particularly in astronomy, as any people of their day; and the silence and caution that Moses observes, in not authenticating the account, is a good negative evidence, that he neither told it nor believed it.-The case is, that every nation of people has been world-makers, and the Israelites had as much right to set up the trade of world making as any of the rest; and as Moses was not an Israelite, he might not choose to contradict the tradition. The account however is harmless; and this is more than can be said for many other parts of the Bible."

In undertaking this reply to the work of Mr. Paine, the great difficulty that I had to encounter, was not that of being able to offer a complete confutation of every charge that it contains, but so to condense my proofs, that nothing important might be omitted; and yet in my endeavour to be brief, to avoid as much as possible being obscure.

Whether the book of Genesis be traditionary or not, it is certainly "authenticated" by Moses; nor is it more ob

noxious to the charge of abruptness, impersonality &c. than many other similar compositions that we know to be not traditionary. What is there more abrupt in the following passage, describing the origin of the world &c. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," than in that on the opening of Sallust's history of the Cataline Conspiracy, which runs as follows, "Omnis homines, qui sese student præstare cæteris animalibus, summa ope niti decet, vitam silentio ne transeant, veluti pecora quæ natura prona, atque ventri obedientia finxit." Who is the speaker here?-to whom is it addressed? Where is the first, second, or third person? It actually opens with an impersonal verb. Ridiculous objection! if it be at all valid, it rather applies to the prophane, than the sacred historian, for in the latter, Elohim say, "let us make man, &c. but the truth is, that not only history, but dissertation also, frequently begins with propounding some general truth, which, like the major proposition of a syllogism, contains the subject matter of the narrative or discourse. If Mr. Paine's disciples mean, that because Sallust wrote his history in Latin, therefore it was addressed to the Romans, why then the book of Genesis was addressed to the Jews, because it was written in Hebrew. In any other respect there is no more evidence of a particularity of address; of a first, second, or third person, in the one, than in the other.

If Moses did not take upon himself to introduce the account of the creation with the formality that he uses on other occasions, yet that he has authenticated the Book in which it is contained, it will not be difficult to prove.

Moses, in Books of which he was unquestionably the Author, makes frequent allusion to important facts recorded in that of Genesis, and which are no where else to be found. He encourages the Israelites to possess the land of Canaan, because "the Lord had said to them in Horeb &c. &c. behold I have set the land before you; 'go in and possess the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them

and to their seed after them." Here is a complete recognition of part of the book of Genesis, for in no other book can be found the promise alluded to; and, if this acknowledgment be not introduced with the "formality used by Moses on other occasions," yet it differs in manner only, and not in essence, for in both it is "the Lord says." The very circumstance of the creation is also vouched for in the acknowledged writings of Moses, and that in a direct communication from God himself, who says, "the seventh day is the Sabbath &c. for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth" &c. How aptly this closes with the decree of the Almighty on the cessation of his work, may be seen by comparing it with the 2nd. and 3rd. verses of the 2nd. Chap. of Genesis.-Again, in verse 37th. Chap. 19th. of Genesis, we find it said, that the Son of Lot was called Moab, and that "the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day." Now the latter part of this expression, as well as the circumstance of the Moabites having become a people, evidently implies a time that must have been consiberably posterior to that of the event. If we use the Bible chronology, there is about four hundred years between the birth of Moab, and the time that Moses undertook the redemption of the Israelites from the bondage of Pharaoh; it may, therefore, be fairly inferred, as a high probability, that the Recorder of the above passage, did not live at a period very remote from that of Moses; and, as to no other person has been assigned the composition of the Book in question, it would by no means be violating the strict rules of criticism, to conclude that this passage affords a high presumptive proof, next in degree to absolute certainty, that he was the Author of it.

Thus, I humbly think, that whether Moses were the Author of the book of Genesis or not, he has sufficiently authenticated it by these and many other references, which he made to it; and, therefore, Mr. Paine's assertion of his "silence and caution" is false, and his "good negative evidence of disbelieving it," without foundation.

In order to bring the Biblical account of the creation

into contempt, Mr. Paine says, that "every nation of people has been world-makers." It is a remarkable fact, in the history of Cosmogony, with which he probably was unacquainted, that if the various opinions scattered amongst mankind concerning that event, were collected together, and what is peculiar to each were rejected, and what is. common to all, were retained, that the latter would exhibit a very correct outline of the Biblical record; and therefore, establish it, as the original parent of the rest.

"When we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest every thing that is cruel.

We scarcely meet with any thing, a few phrases excepted, but what deserves either our abhorrence or our contempt, till we come to the miscellaneous parts of the Bible. In the anonymous publications, the Psalms and the book of Job, more particularly in the latter, we find a great deal of elevated sentiment, reverentially expressed of the power and benignity of the Almighty; but they stand in no higher rank than many other com. positions on similar subjects, as well before that time as since.

The Proverbs, which are said to be Solomon's, though most probably a collection (because they discover a knowledge of life which his situation excluded him from knowing;) are an instructive table of ethics. They are inferior in keenness to the proverbs of the Spaniards, and not more wise and œconomical, than those of the American Franklin."

In the first of these paragraphs, Mr. Paine entirely mistakes the meaning of the expression "the word of God," and then reprobates it. "The obscene stories and voluptuous debaucheries" &c. of which he so vehemently com-. plains, no Christian ever mistook for "the word of God;" they are damnatory proofs of the wickedness of man; and had Mr. Paine condescended to examine how they provoked Almighty indignation, he would have distinguished "the word of God" in the manifestation of divine justice,

from the gross iniquities of a rebellious people. He would have beheld, from what a height of purity man had fallen, and under what a necessity he laid of divine assistance to recover his situation. Mr. Paine says, that these abominations, ought rather to be called "the word of a demon, than the word of God;" I would readily have closed with his suggestion, had he denominated them the works of the Devil. But when he says, that the Bible "has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind," I cast back the charge into his teeth, with an unhesitating denial; and call upon his disciples to produce one tittle of proof to support it; to tell us what nation, once pure in morals, became "corrupt and brutalized" in consequence of becoming religious? I could swell the negative of this with endless authorities; with numberless examples; but even abstract, a priori argument, explodes it at once. No! however Mr. Paine may detest cruelty, he will find no cruelty countenanced in the Bible; Justice, Truth, and Mercy are its only characters. With as much propriety might he have averred, that the Newgate Calendar, which is a summary of human wickedness, or even History itself, has tended to "brutalize mankind," because each exhibits the punishment of flagrant crime; whereas, they are rather proofs of existing justice.

In the beginning of the second paragraph, Mr. Paine says, that "we scarcely meet with any thing, a few phrases excepted, but what deserves either our abhorrence or our contempt, till we come to the miscellaneous parts of the Bible." Is there any thing to deserve "abhorrence or contempt" in the sublimely simple description of the creation, which excited so much the admiration of Longinus? Prophane history, and even Homer himself will be ransacked in vain, to parallel it. Is there any thing to excite "abhorrence or contempt" in the deluge? in the miraculous redemption of the Israelites, and their forty residence in the wilderness? in the complete summary years of moral aud civil legislation delivered in the laws of MoWhether these facts be considered as important ele