Who the objectors are, I know not; but the truth of the text requires us to say, that therefore man had a divine and godlike soul, a true offspring of the divine nature. Because the breath or Spirit of the holy triune God, was that breath by which he was made a living soul.――And therefore the riches of this first life in man, were the riches of the divine nature manifesting itself in the soul. But the Doctor will have it, that only an unlearned _English_ reader, can collect any thing to be divine in the soul, from the words of _Moses_, as not knowing that what is translated a living soul, signifies, in the original, only a living animal. But this, every _English_ reader may know to be a vain criticism; for no stress is laid upon the expression, a living soul, no more than if it had been said, a living animal. But the full proof of the divine greatness of the human soul, lies solely in this, that the breath or spirit of the holy Trinity was breathed into it, and was that which made it to be a living soul, and therefore the life that arose in it, was the life of God in the soul. The Doctor thus comments upon the words of the text. “God, the great plastic artist, is here represented, as making and shaping out a figure of earth and clay, which he afterwards animates or inspires with life. He breathed into this statue the breath of life, and the lump of clay became a living creature.” Had this elegant and most graphical description been only found in some minor poet, or school declamation, it might have been overlooked; but in a prose treatise of divinity, it ought not to pass uncensured. I know of nothing that can equal it, unless it be supposed that some ingenious anthropomorphite, reading these words, _and the Lord God did unto Adam and Eve make coats of skins, and cloathed them_; should thus describe the matter, “Here, God, the great artist, is represented, as having the skins of beasts before him, and with his divine hands, cutting, shaping and joining them together in forms of garments, fitted to the size and distinction of the first man and his wife.” I may defy any one to shew, that this comment does not pay as great a regard to the _letter_, and do as much honour to the sense of this scripture, as the Doctor’s doth to the other text.