to a man who was about to engage in war with many nations? Had it no tendency to confirm his faith? Was it no lesson to him to obey, in all things, the commands of God, and to give the glory of his conquests to the author of them, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? As to your wit about pulling off the shoe, it originates, I think, in your ignorance; you ought to have known, that this rite was an indication of reverence for the divine presence; and that the custom of entering barefoot into their temples subsists, in some countries, to this day.

You allow the book of Ezra to be a genuine book; but, that the author of it may not escape without a blow, you say, that in matters of record it is not to be depended on: and as a proof of your assertion, you tell us that the total amount of the numbers who returned from Babylon does not correspond with the particulars; and, that every child may have an argument for its infidelity, you display the particulars, and show your own skill in arithmetic, by summing them up. And can you suppose that Ezra, a man of great learning, knew so little of science, so little of the lowest branch of science, that he could not give his readers the sum total of sixty particular sums? You know, undoubtedly, that the Hebrew letters denoted also numbers; and that there was such a great similarity between some of these letters, that it was extremely easy for a transcriber of a manuscript to mistake a 2 for a (or 2 for 20), a a for a 2 (or 3 for 50), a 7 for (or 4 for 200). Now, what have we to do with numerical contradictions in the Bible, but to attribute them, wherever they occur, to this obvious source of errorthe inattention of the transcriber in writing one letter for another that was like it?

I should extend these letters to a length troublesome to the reader, to you, and to myself, if I answered minutely every objection you have made, and rectified every error into which you have fallen; it may be sufficient briefly to notice some of the chief. The cha

racter represented in Job under the name of Satan 18, you say, "the first and the only time this name is mentioned in the Bible." Now I find this name, as denoting an enemy, frequently occurring in the Old Testament; thus, 2 Sam. xix. 22. "What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries unto me?" In the original it is, Satans unto me. Again, 1 Kings, v. 4. "The Lord my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there is neither adversary, nor evil occurrent"-in the original, neither Satan nor evil. I need not mention other places; these are sufficient to show, that the word Satan, denoting an adversary, does occur in various places of the Old Testament; and it is extremely probable to me, that the root Satan was introduced into the Hebrew and other Eastern languages, to denote an adversary, from its having been the proper name of the great enemy of mankind. I know it is an opinion of Voltaire, that the word Satan is not older than the Babylonian captivity. This is a mistake; for it is met with in the hundred and ninth psalm, which all allow to have been written by David long before the captivity. Now we are upon this subject, permit me to recommend to your consideration the universality of the doctrine concerning an evil being, who in the beginning of time had opposed himself, who still continues to oppose himself, to the supreme Source of all good. Amongst all nations, in all ages, this opinion prevailed, that human affairs were subject to the will of the gods, and regulated by their interposition. Hence has been derived whatever we read of the wandering stars of the Chaldeans, two of them beneficent, and two malignant-hence the Egyptian Typho and Osiris-the Persian Arimanius and Oromasdes the Grecian celestial and infernal Jove-the Brama and the Zupay of the Indians, Peruvians, Mexicansthe good and evil principle, by whatever names they may be called, of all other barbarous nations-and hence the structure of the whole book of Job, in what

ever light, of history or drama, it be considered. Now, does it not appear reasonable to suppose, that an opinion so ancient and so universal has arisen from tradition concerning the fall of our first parents; disfigured indeed, and obscured, as all traditions must be, by many fabulous additions?

The Jews, you tell us, "never praved but when they were in trouble." I do not believe this of the Jews; but that they prayed more fervently when they were in trouble than at other times, may be true of the Jews, and I apprehend is true of all nations and all individuals. But the Jews never prayed for any thing but victory, vengeance, and riches."-Read Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the temple, and blush for your assertion,-illiberal and uncharitable in the extreme!

It appears, you observe, " to have been the custom of the heathens to personify both virtue and vice, by statues and images, as is done now-a-days both by statuary and by paintings; but it does not follow from this that they worshipped them any more than we do." Not worshipped them! What think you of the golden image which Nebuchadnezzar set up? Was it not worshipped by the princes, the rulers, the judges, the people, the nations, and the languages of the Babylonian empire? Not worshipped them! What think you of the decree of the Roman senate for fetching the statue of the mother of the gods from Pessinum? Was it only that they might admire it as a piece of workmanship? Not worshipped them! "What man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians was a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter? Not worshipped them!-The worship was universal. "Every nation made gods of their own, and put them in the houses of the high places, which the Samaritans had made-the men of Babylon made Succothbenoth, and the men of Cuth made Nergal, and the men of Hamath made Ashima, and the Avites made

you

Nibbaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burned their children in fire to Adrammelech, and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim: " (2 Kings, chap. xvii.). The heathens are much indebted to for this your curious apology for their idolatry; for a mode of worship the most cruel, senseless, impure, abominable, that can possibly disgrace the faculties of the human mind. Had this your conceit occurred in ancient times, it might have saved Micah's teraphims, the golden calves of Jeroboam, and of Aaron, and quite superseded the necessity of the second commandment!!! Heathen morality has had its advocates before you; the facetious gentleman who pulled off his hat to the statue of Jupiter, that he might have a friend when heathen idolatry should again be in repute, seems to have had some foundation for his improper humour, some knowledge that certain men esteeming themselves great philosophers had entered into a conspiracy to abolish Christianity, some foresight of the consequences which will certainly attend their suc

cess.

It is an error, you say, to call the psalms-the Psalms of David. This error was observed by St. Jerome many hundred years before you were born; his words are- "We know that they are in an error who attribute all the psalms to David.-You, I suppose, will not deny that David wrote some of them. Songs are of various sorts; we have hunting songs, drinking songs, fighting songs, love songs, foolish, wanton, wicked songs; if you will have the "Psalms of David to be nothing but a collection from different songwriters," you must allow that the writers of them were inspired by no ordinary spirit; that this is a collection,. incapable of being degraded by the name you give it; that it greatly excels every other collection in matter and in manner. Compare the book of Psalms with the odes of Horace or Anacreon, with the hymns of Callimachus, the golden verses of Pythagoras, the choruses of the Greek tragedians (no contemptible

.

compositions any of these), and you will quickly see how greatly it surpasses them all in piety of sentiment, in sublimity of expression, in purity of morality, and in rational theology.

As you esteem the psalms of David a song book, it is consistent enough in you to esteem the proverbs of Solomon a jest book. There have not come down to us above eight hundred of his jests; if we had the whole three thousand which he wrote, our mirth would be extreme. Let us open the book, and see what kind of jests it contains; take the very first as a specimen The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; but fools despise wisdom and instruction.". Do you perceive any jest in this? The fear of the Lord! What Lord does Solomon mean? He means that Lord who took the posterity of Abraham to be his peculiar people who redeemed that people from Egyptian bondage by a miraculous interposition of his power who gave the law to Moses-who commanded the Israelites to exterminate the nations of Canaan.Now this Lord you will not fear; the jest says, you despise wisdom and instruction.-Let us try again"My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and for sake not the law of thy mother."-If your heart has been ever touched by parental feelings, you will see no jest in this. Once more-" My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not."-These are the first three proverbs in Solomon's "jest book." If you read it through, it may not make you merry; I hope it will make you wise; that it will teach you, at least, the beginning of wisdom-the fear of that Lord whom Solomon feared. Solomon, you tell us, was witty; jesters are sometimes witty; but though all the world, from the time of the queen of Sheba, has heard of the wisdom of Solomon, his wit was never heard of before. There is a great difference, Mr. Locke teaches us, between wit and judgement, and there is a greater between wit and wisdom. Solomon “ was wiser than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol."-These men you may