that of the Apostle, that I shall offer no further comment upon the passage. By examining the two first chapters of Genesis, I can discover no ground for the distinction you attempt to make between the creation and formation of man. You assert that after man was formed of the dust of the ground, he was a "partaker of flesh and blood, and possessed appetites and passions."* Now the propagation of our species certainly requires the existence of flesh and blood, and appetites. St. Paul mentions adultery and fornication as the works of the flesh. Remarking upon this passage you say, "These works, (i. e. adultery, fornication, &c.) are all the natural productions of our fleshly, earthly nature." Again; "These are the sins which our fleshly minds are daily producing." Thus you acknowledge sexual intercourse to be the work of our fleshly, earthly nature. Without such intercourse our species cannot be propagated, and this work necessarily requires the existence of flesh and blood. Now man in his created character, as you term it, was commanded to propagate his species. As soon as man was created, he was commanded to "be fruitful and multiply," verse 28. Since procreation necessarily supposes the existence of flesh and blood, and bodily passions, the command to multiply in the created state, incontrovertibly shows that they were in a condition to comply; i.e. that they were composed of flesh and blood at their first creation. So that the distinction you make between creation and formation, appears to be unfounded. For we have seen that man in his created state, as you denominate it, possessed those very appetites which you ascribe to flesh and blood, and attribute to his earthly nature. It is expressly said, that man was cre * Aton. p. 31. Lect. p. 74. + Gal. v. 19. ated male and female, verse 27. But I would ask, does this distinction exist among spiritual beings? Have we any account in scripture of male and female souls? Does our idea of spiritual intelligences harmonize with the work of procreation-a work which necessarily requires fleshly organs? Can we suppose-But I will drop this delicate subject. What is there, I demand, in the account of man's first creation, which will not comport with a corporeal creation? The same terms and phrases in the same connexion, are applied in common to men and to brutes. Must we understand that the brutes also were created spiritual? It is said in verses 21, 22, that “God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.” Now this language is precisely the same as that made use of to express the creation of man, and ought to be understood in the same manner. If the word create, when applied to man to express his introduction into being, signifies that his existence is spiritual, and not corporeal; then the same word in the same connexion, when applied to the brutes, ought to be understood in the same sense. There is no intimation in the account that this term has one meaning in one case, and another entirely different, in the other. After the fish and the fowls were created, they were commanded to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters and the earth. After man was created, he was commanded to be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth. Now if the fact that the brutes could propagate their species, proves, as all will admit, that they possessed corporeal bodies, then the same fact relative to man, proves that he possessed a corporeal body, and that, at his first creation; for immediately after his creation, he was commanded to multiply. If the phrase, be fruitful and multiply, when applied to brutes, is understood of a corporeal multiplication, then the same phrase, in the same connexion, ought to be understood in the same sense, when applied to men, since nothing to the contrary is intimated in the connexion. If we are allowed to interpret the same terms and phrases differently, when they are found in the same connexion, and when the subject does not require, but absolutely forbids it, we can make the scriptures mean what we please. Men and brutes were created in the same manner; and you must either admit that the brutes were first created spiritual beings, or else give up this fundamental article of your system. Again; you say, "After God had finished his work of creation, consecrated the seventh day, and rested from his labor, we are informed that there was not a man to till the ground. This information is reasonable, and authorizes ine to say, that as man stood in his created character, which is Christ, the heavenly man, he was not at that time formed of the dust of the ground, was not of the earth, earthly, and therefore was not a tiller of the ground." The sentiment here expressed is diametrically opposite to the account given by MoInstead of there being no man to till the ground, after the six days' work was accomplished, we are assured that no sooner was man created, than he was commanded, not only to increase and multiply, but to replenish the earth and subdue it. I cannot expose your statement more effectually than by giving the language of the historian. Verses 27, 28. "So God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." ges. ⚫ Aton. p. 31. + Male and female ereated he them. The learned Dr. Shuck And God blessed them; and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Upon this passage let it be observed, that this is the first account we have of the creation of man. Our first parents here stood in the created character, as you are pleased to call it. But instead of their being spiritual, we find they were distinguished by sexes, and commanded to propagate their kind. You say after the six days' work was finished, there was not a man to till the ground. But the language of our historian is entirely different. He informs us that man was commanded to replenish the earth, and subdue it, while in the character in which he was created. Subduing the earth is tilling the ground; and this, man was commanded to do on the first day of his creation. It was also on the first day of his creation, that dominion was given him over the brute creation. This is another proof that man was at first created with a corporeal body. Will you pretend that the brute creation were put in subjection to man while he was entirely detached from matter, and only a pure spiritual intelligence? Would such dominion be a blessing to spirits abstracted from all corporeal substances? The farthest from it possible. ford, in his elaborate connexion between Sacred and Profane History, has the following remarks upon these words. "The Hebrew words might be translated-the male and the female, he created them; that is, he created both: not the male only, but the female also. The words of Moses are very plain; he tells us that God on the sixth day created the woman as well as the man. He does not say that God created both at the same instant, nor in the same manner; for this he distinctly considers in the next chapter. But he here hints to us, that God made both the male and the female within the time of this sixth day." See vol. IV. \PP. 67, 68. It is further evident, that our original ancestors were at first created corporeal beings, from verse 29—“And God said, (to Adam and Eve) Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." Here we find that God provided man with vegetables for his food. But will you absurdly maintain that beings purely spiritual, feed upon vegetables ? No, you will not. You say yourself, "it does not satisfy the soul, her food is of a different kind."* Thus from the first chapter of Genesis we are taught that man was at first created an earthly, corporeal being, and distinguished by sexes; that he was commanded to propagate his species, and cultivate the earth; and that he might do this more effectually, God provided him with vegetables for his food, and gave him dominion over the brute creation. The gross mistake into which I conceive you have fallen, arises from considering the second chapter of Genesis a continuation of the history begun in the first. Instead of its being a continuation of the first chapter, it appears to be only an explanation or supplement to the same account. In the first chapter Moses has given a summary account of man's creation; in the second he has given the same account in detail. As the subject of man's creation was vastly important, and as the account of that event was more brief, according to its magnitude, than the account of other events, Moses thought proper to enlarge upon this subject, and inform us of the manner of its accomplishment. Consequently in the second chapter he resumes the subject, and gives a circumstantial account of the creation of man. In the first chapter he tells us that man was made male and female; in the second he informs us of the process. He says the male was made of the dust of the earth, and • Aton. p. 32. |