they did not know their own Nakedness till they were expelled out of Paradife. There is certainly a ftrange Oppofition to the Senfe of Mankind in this Author, that he is for having every thing figurative which others understand literally, and is refolved to ftick close to the Letter there only where others agree to depart from it. However if the Expreffion, he founds this Objection upon, is to be understood literally, it proves not their Want of Reason, but of Sight. To speak freely then is not the Objector fomewhat unhappy in the Two Inftances of Rationality he has pitched upon? Suppofing Mofes had forefeen the Objection, and, in Order to obviate it, had expreffed himself as this Doctor would direct him. "And that you may be convinced "this Pair were endued with Reason in Paradife, they gave Proofs both of a natural Defire to propagate their Species, and of their Faculty "of feeing." Would this Proof have filenced the Objector? or would he not rather have been the first to cry out, "I could by the very fame "Means prove every Individual in the Brute Crea"tion a Reasonable Creature."

HIS Proofs of their Want of Reafon from their Knowledge follow next. The natural Law could not teach them, he says, that the Fruit of a Tree would infpire Knowledge; or that the Knowledge of Good and Ill could be criminal or hurtful. I fuppofe his Argument is this; these were Inftances of Knowledge above the Reach of Reafon, and therefore they, who had this Know

ledge,

ledge, wanted Reason. We fhall not stand to dispute it with him, for neither of these are such Inftances. They did not know that the Fruit of a Tree would infpire Knowledge. Eve indeed was fo weak as to believe this on the Credit of the Tempter: but, if to be imposed on by the Devil working in Concert with our Lufts fhews a Want of Reason, fure none of Us will have the Hardiness to claim it. And, unhappily for the Objector as to the next Inftance, they were fo far from knowing that the Knowledge of Good and Ill would be criminal or hurtful, that before the Experiment of Eating, they believed the direct contrary. Nothing was painted in the Imagination of Eve but Scenes of Happiness. For fure they would never have fallen, had they known that Crime and Hurt was all they should get by it. But this Piece of Knowledge was referved for their Hours of Reflection and Penitence. And even then they would not impute their Crime or Punishment to any Enlargement of Knowledge, in the vain Expectation of which they were grievously difappointed, but to their Tranfgreffion of the divine Command. He adds, nor was it the Light of Reafon which directed them to hide themselves from the Sight of God among the Trees. I agree with him. It was the Darkness of their Reason. Guilt had introduced Disorder and Confufion into their Minds, and they weakly ftrove, to hide themselves from the Sight of that God whom they were afraid to behold. Sin in many yet feeks the Shade. And if some of

the

the bolder Sinners of our Age have got over this Weakness, and dare oppofe God in open DayLight, it proves not their fuperior Reason but their more hardened Impiety. He goes on to observe that the fame Law, which inftructed Adam to give Names to the Beafts proper to their feveral Natures, would have taught him at the Same Time, that they were all dumb, and that the Ufe of Speech was the peculiar Privilege of Man. And therefore if Eve had had any natural Reason, She must have been shocked and furprized when one of the lowest of thofe Beafts began to hold Difcourfe with her. As for Adam's Part, after this Proof of his great Sagacity, in adapting the Names of the Creatures to their proper Natures, which he himself has produced, who will believe him when he says that Mofes has represented him as devoid of Reason? And for Eve, how does he know that She was not astonished at the Dif course of the Serpent? In fo fhort an Account as Mofes gives of this Tranfaction, an obvious Reafon may be given for his making no Mention of it. For he would choose to omit those Circumstances of all others, to the Knowledge of which his Readers must naturally be led by the reft that he defcribed. This is the Manner of the most admired Writers. And fure, if we fuppofe that Eve knew the Serpent to be naturally dumb, the Hiftorian must have written for Readers of a very dull Apprehenfion, if, after telling them that the Serpent fpoke articulately and rationally to Eve, he had thought it neceffary to G

add,

add, that Eve was furprized. But we do not know in Fact that Eve was well acquainted with the Nature of all the Beafts. At least the Account, he has produced for that Purpose, is far from fhewing it. For that great Review of the Brute World was held before She was created. a And therefore if there be any inconfiftent Oppofition in these Two Paffages it depends on this Foundation, that a Knowledge of the Natures of all the Beafts was infufed into Eve before She exifted. He tells us laftly on this Head, that when the wonderful Works of the Creator had convinced our first Parents of his infinite Power and Wisdom and Goodness, the natural Law could not inform them, That there was another invifible Being in the World, of an oppofite Nature, abfolutely wicked, malicious, and endued likewife with great Power; which he was perpetually employing, to defeat all the Good and Happiness, which God had provided for his Creatures: If the Account of Mofes does lead us to believe that our First Parents were acquainted with these two great Points, there needs no more than this to overthrow all that he has advanced, or can advance on this Subject. For almoft the whole of his Objections against the common Acceptation of this Account are intended to fhew, that there is not the leaft Ground in the whole Story for our believing that they had any Notion of either of them. Can He say, that in the whole of this Hiftorical Narration (as the Sharpness of his Wit prompts him often to

a See Gen. 2.19 &c.

call

call it) we cannot difcover the leaft Trace of any natural Law, nor of any Religion which Reafon could teach? and can He in the very next Page add, as what the Narration alfo leads him to, that the wonderful Works of the Creator convinced our First Parents of his infinite Power and Wifdom and Goodness? What can fhew more fully our Strength of Reafon, or what indeed was our Reafon chiefly given us for but to lead to this very Truth? Can he again fay, that there is Reason from the History to imagine, that they had a Knowledge of another invifible Being oppofite to the divine Nature, abfolutely wicked and malicious? and can he afterwards affert that to fuppofe the Devil concerned in the Temptation, is not only void of all Support from the Text, but contradictory to the express Senfe of it? When he can Support thefe oppofite Points, then I shall readily agree with him that the whole Story is a Fiction, and a grofs Imposition on the Credulity of Mankind. If then he will grant that the History makes our First Parents poffeffed of that Degree of Knowledge he here objects to, he contradicts himself, and the Dispute is at an End. But if he be of Opinion that there is no Foundation in the Text hiftorically understood for admitting this their Strength of Reason, or this their Belief of an evil Spirit, how impertinently are they then introduced to make the Text, thus understood, fpeak Inconfiftences with itself?

I will add a general Reflection on this his Opinion, which I defire the Reader to carry along

G 2

in