animated by the breath of the Almighty; and that the woman was taken from the man. In the first chapter he informs us that man was commanded to subdue the earths in the second he gives the particulars. He says that God planted a garden, and put man into it, to dress and to keep it. In the first he informs us that God gave man the trees and herbs for food; and in the second, that man was permitted to cat of the trees of the garden. Let any unbiassed person read these two chapters with attention, and it would seem that he must discover that they both relate to the same event. Moses wrote as most of our military commanders write in these days. First by giving a summary of the event, and then by giving a detailed account of the same event. In this manner Moses wrote the history of man's creation; first by a summary, then in detail.*

Our historian commences the second chapter by saying, "Thus," (that is, in the manner described in the first chapter) "the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." In the second and third verses, Moses gives an account of God's ending his work, and consecrating the Sabbath. Here Moses ends his summary or general account of the creation. You allege a clause in the fifth verse to prove that after the seventh day, there was not a man to till the ground. We readily admit that Moses declares there was not a man to till the ground. But he gives no intimation that this was after the seventh day. On the contrary, we

* "The first and second chapters of Genesis," says Dr. Shuckford, "give us the whole of what Moses relates concerning the creation of mankind. Now we shall see that they accord perfectly with each other; if we consider the first chapter as giving a short and general account of this great transaction; and the second to be a resumption of the subject, in order to relate some particulars belonging to it, which, in the conciseness of the first relation, were passed over unmentioned." Connexion, Vol. IV. p. 67. "The second chapter is no more than a supplement to the former." Ib. p. 71.

have endeavored to show that the second chapter is only a supplement to the first. If this be the case, then the clause you cite, instead of applying after the seventh day, applies before. But let us examine the passage itself, with a view to ascertain the time to which the clause in question alludes. The fourth and fifth verses read thus-"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created; IN THE DAY that the Lord God made the earth, and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." Now let us ask, when was there not a man to till the ground? The passage shall answer. In the day that the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the plants and the herbs. By turning to the first chapter, it will be seen that the plants and herbs were created on the third day; and that man was created on the sixth day. So it was true that there was not a man to till the ground on the day in which the plants and herbs were created; for man was not created until the sixth day, that is, three days later. Thus we see that the fifth verse of the second chapter does not furnish a particle of proof in favor of your hypothesis; but, when taken in its connexion, goes directly to confirm the views we have advanced. Will you still maintain that this passage applies after the first week of the world, when the subject, the context, and every rational consideration forbid it? I think you will not.

I know of no argument which you adduce in proof of your hypothesis, which has not been examined, except the one founded upon the words, create and form. Be cause Moses in the first chapter uses the word create and in the second the word form, you take it for granted that these terms express ideas entirely different from

each other. But we have already endeavored to show that the same is meant by creating in the first chapter, that is meant by forming in the second. The subject and connexion put the same meaning upon both terms. I have already shown that the word create is, in the first chapter, applied to the brutes as well as to men; and if it necessarily signifies bringing into spiritual existence, in one case, it must signify the same in the other. Nay, the argument you draw from these terms to prove that man possesses two natures, the one spiritual and pure, the other earthly and sinful, proves that the brutes also possess two such natures.. Moses, it is true, says in the first chapter of Genesis, that God created man, and in the second chapter, that he formed him. And he says precisely the same concerning the brute creation. Chap. i. 21. "And God created great whales, and every living creature." Chap. ii. 19. "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air." Here then the same brute animals are said to have been created in one chapter, and formed in the other; and if this circumstance relative to man proves that he possesses two distinct and dissimilar natures, it proves the same concerning the brutes. But will you contend that the brutes possess two distinct natures, the one immortally pure, the other sinful? I think you will not. You will probably admit that when Moses, in the second chapter, says the Lord formed the brutes, he alluded to their being brought into existence, which is expressed in the first chapter by the

* Dr. Shuckford has the following remarks upon the word formed. "We say formed, in the perfect tense; but the Hebrew perfect tense is often used in the sense of a preterpluperfect to speak of things done in a time past. The Syriac version is rightly rendered, God had formed; for the creatures were made before man." Thus our learned author understands the word form to have the same meaning as the word create in the two first chapters of Genesis. See Connexion, Vol. IV. pp. 67-71.

word create. If this then is the sense relative to the brutal, it is undoubtedly the sense relative to the human creation. Besides, in the second chapter it is expressly said that the woman was made. "And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man,' verse 22. It is manifest from this passage that Moses has expressed what you call the formation of man by the word make, a word which is certainly synonymous with create. You contend that man was created in the image of God. But when the divine Being addressed Noah after the flood, and fixed the penalty of murder, he assigns this as a reason: "For in the image of God made he man."* Here it is expressly said that man was made in the image of God. And Moses, as we have seen above, declares that the woman was made from the man. Hence it is apparent that the distinction, for which you contend, was unknown to our historian. And if we inquire into the scripture use of the terms create and form, we shall find that the sacred writers use them to signify one and the same thing. When speaking of men, they use these words promiscuously to express their introduction into being. They pursue the same course, when speaking of inanimate nature. The Lord by the prophet says, "I form light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil." It is obvious that the words, create and form, are used synonymously in this scripture. It is also worthy of remark, that God is represented in the first chapter of Genesis, to have created that very light, which he is here said to have formed. In a great variety of instances, God is said to have created the heavens and the earth. But the psalmist expresses the same thing by the word form. Addressing his Maker, he says, "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth or the world, even from

Gen. ix. 6.

+ Isa. xlv. 7.

everlasting to everlasting thou art God.”* The earth itself, therefore, is said to have been created in one passage, and formed in another. But shall we maintain that the earth possesses two natures? that it was first created spiritually, and then that the earth was formed of the dust of the earth? This would appear like trifling with the subject, but it appears to me to be just as consistent, as the distinction you make between the creation and formation of man.

I think, Sir, that a person must have a strong inclination for the marvellous, to discover your favorite distinction in the two first chapters of Genesis. Even you yourself, when this part of your system is out of sight, admit the views for which I am contending. You acknowledge that our bodily appetites were created. Your words are: "Our appetites and passions are at all times with us and they are all good in the place for which they were made, and for the use for which they were created."t In this very Lecture, you maintain that all appetites and passions are a part of our earthly nature; and you here expressly say that these appetites were created ; consequently the creation and formation of man are one and the same thing. In fact, I know of no distinction which you can make between the words, create and form. You would probably explain the word form to signify to compose, to organize, or put together of materials which are already in existence. And I would ask, what different sense you can put upon the word create? You cannot say it signifies to make out of nothing; for you do not allow such a creation.‡ So upon the whole I very much doubt whether you can put any signification upon the word form, which will not apply equally to the word create.

We have now examined the two first chapters of Aton. p. 90.

* Ps. xc. 2.

+ Lect. p. 79.