Is there a mind, capable of forming just notions of the Deity, that can believe any testimony, which records that the divine, infinite, and eternal Being is affected by accident, or is subject to passion? It is impossible for the theist to admit, that any thing is more powerful than God; and, therefore, he cannot allow, that God can ever be in a state of passion; for passion must always be the effect of action, and of action which cannot be resisted. Passion is sufferance, and no being suffers of its own accord. If any thing could put the divine mind into a state of passion, that thing would act independently, and in spite of God. Hobbes has said that passion is power. He should rather have held, that it proves power, for it is the effect of

power.

From this view of the subject, then, I

am not afraid to state, that, if the writers of the Old Testament were really inspired, they must be supposed to have spoken figuratively on all those occasions, when they have ascribed human passions to the Supreme. Being. It may be objected to me, that as the Hebrew Scriptures contain little else than the histories of squabblings and bickerings between Jehovah and his people, we might come in this way to allegorise the greater part, if not the whole, of the Old Testament. I confess, for my own part, I would rather believe the whole to be an allegory, than think for a moment, that infinite wisdom could ever waver in its judgments, could ever be disturbed by anger, or could at any time repent of what it had ordained.

These are opinions which I have no wish of promulgating to the mob; but I

call upon the theist, who has contemplated the universe as the work of intelligence, to consider, whether the Old Testament, if literally interpreted, present him with such exalted notions of the Deity, as natural religion is itself capable of inspiring. I must acknowledge, that the Jewish scriptures, thus understood, appear to me to be contrary to all true theology.

It is

monstrous to be told, if the sense be taken literally, that the infinite Mind showed its back parts to Moses. I read with pain, if there be no allegory, that the God of nature revealed himself to Jacob, in order that that Hebrew shepherd should make a journey to Bethel;—that this same keeper of kine and sheep, after having wrestled with a man all night, boasted in the morning that he had seen God;-and that the Lord of the Universe showed himself in a vision to Jacob, standing upon the top of a

ladder. Then what are those things upon the ladder, which our painters represent with chubby cheeks, with wings at their shoulders, and with long petticoats? If Jacob saw all these things in a dream, it must be evident that he was dreaming indeed. Am I really to believe in the existence of such singular conversations, as are said, in the book of Job, to have taken place between God and the Devil? "Skin for skin," said Satan to Jehovah. expression is not very elegant, and it does not sound very spiritual. The story of Jonah in the fish's belly, if it be not allegorical, is a most surprising one, and the whole must be a little puzzling to the natural historian. We are told in one of the Psalms, that God rode upon a cherub. But

The

we learn from Ezekiel, that a cherub was a strange creature with four heads, like a

man's, a lion's, a bull's, and an eagle's,

with four wings, with one hand,—and with the hoofs of a calf. This was a very singular equipage for Jehovah to choose, when he went to take an airing. I shall leave the literal interpreters to explain these things as they can.

There are, however, some yet graver objections which I have to make against them. I cannot reconcile to my notions of the perfectly wise and good Being the literal interpretation of the verse in Exodus ;"And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." Perfect wisdom cannot repent of its intentions, any more than perfect goodness can think of doing evil. When it is stated in Genesis," that it repented the Lord, that he had made man on the earth, and that it grieved him at his heart," we can scarcely suppose, that this was literally meant.