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 DAT 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. Because 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

1

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." 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

• Pi. xc. 2.

+ Lect. p. 79.

Aton. p. 90.

Genesis, on which you found your notion of two natures in man, and find no authority for its support. We have seen that there is no more evidence that man was created in Jesus Christ, than there is that he was created in himself; that the two first chapters of Genesis allude to the same events; that there is no more proof that men were created spiritual beings, than there is that the brutes were created such; that what is ascribed to man in the first chapter, is as indicative of a corporeal body, as what is ascribed to him in the second; that the words create and form have one and the same meaning in Moses' account, and that on your system it is hardly possible to give them different significations; that all your arguments prove too much, and of course prove nothing at all;In a word, that your whole scheme of two distinct, complex natures in man, is nothing but a phantom too mystical for belief.

Having shown that the idea of two natures in man, the one created and pure, the other formed and sinful, is unfounded, we will now inquire further into the truth of your repeated assertion, that all sin originates in the flesh. Though you lay this down as an axiom, it is a position which is by no means admitted. Before attending to this particular, we will observe, that this is a necessary part of the two natures in man. This grows out of your notion of the formation of man. If what has been offered against that visionary idea be valid, the point we are now upon, is already decided. Every argument which weighs against one, opposes the other. Now we ask proof of the assertion that all sin originates in the flesh. This assertion, though constantly made, is not accompanied with evidence. You will probably say, that sin arises from lust, and lust originates in the flesh. To this let it be replied, that lust, or temptation, selfconsidered, is not vicious. It is no crime in me that an evil suggestion presents itself to my mind. It is the