Wesley Corpus

You say: (1) 'Either that notification was not so distinct.' It was so distinct that she could not then doubt. 'Or (2) Was notified to her by one of suspected credit, whom she could not believe.' Yes; she then believed, and knew it was the voice of God. 'Or (3) She was not of sound understanding if she disbelieved it.' When she disbelieved it, she was not. For as the serpent deceived Eve, so he then deceived her, fqeivrwn toV novmma aujth'". [See 2 Cor. xi. 3.] 'But could she possibly deny a plain matter of fact' You add, as if I have said so, 'Yes, in process of time she might, particularly if she drew back to perdition '; and then subjoin, 'But what is this evasive answer to the case of Hannah Richardson' I think, nothing at all. I never applied it to her case. She never denied her having had such a testimony. But after a time she doubted (as I said before) whether that testimony was true. 16. I presume Eve in paradise was at least equal in understanding with any of her posterity. Now, unto her God said, 'In the day that thou eatest of the tree of knowledge thou shalt surely die.' And doubtless 'this notification was as distinct and perceptible to her as the sun at noonday.' Yet after a time (perhaps only a few days) she utterly disbelieved it. You exclaim, 'Absurd! Impossible! There could be no such thing; as I shall prove immediately.' 'Either this notification was not so distinct as is pretended, or, if distinct, was notified by one of suspected credit, whom she could not believe. Or else, if it was both distinct and credible, she was not of sound understanding if she disbelieved it, nor of sound memory if she doubted of it.' Therefore the whole story is absurd and a self-inconsistent (not a cunningly devised) fable.