they are used synonymously in other passages, as will be shown below. Now I cannot believe that you will contend for a principle which will disprove every proposition, and leave you in scepticism.

St. Paul, it is true, calls Christ the image of God, and the same Apostle says also that man is the image of God.* Now this passage proves as clearly that man was created in himself, as you have proved that he was created in Jesus Christ; and the former is no more mystical than the latter. If any person has discernment enough to understand what is meant by man's being created, that is, first brought into existence, in Christ, I presume that he can understand what is meant by man's being created in himself. For my own part, I can form no conception of either. According to your views of the subject, the idea I am opposing is a leading feature in revealed religion. You make use of this notion to account for the origin of evil, to explain the doctrine of atonement, to show the nature of salvation, and to limit the extent of punishment. Your views of the creation and formation of man are, therefore, the fundamental article of revealed religion. And can we suppose that an article thus important would be wrapt up in mystery to that degree, that not one in ten thousand can understand it? The declaration, that man was first created in Christ, is to me utterly unintelligible, and I very much doubt whether any person whatever can form any definite idea upon the subject. If this be revelation, then revelation instead of enlightening, tends to perplex, darken, and bewilder the human mind. The doctrine of two natures in man appears to be too mystical for belief. You object to the Trinitarian notion of two natures in Christ. You reject it because it is so mysterious that no definite idea can be formed

* 1 Cor. xi. 7.

upon the subject. But your doctrine is liable to the same objection. You regard the Trinitarian notion of two natures in Christ as a subterfuge to shield them from the arguments of their opponents. When any passage is quoted expressive of Christ's inferiority to the Father, they immediately say, this applies only to his human nature. This course, you strictly condemn. But you make use of the two natures in man in the The parable of the wheat and chaff you explain in the same way. The wheat signifies the heavenly, and the chaff the earthly nature.*

same manner.

To support the idea of two natures in man, you sometimes quote 1 Cor. xv. 45, 46, 47.† "The first man, Adam, was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven." Whoever will take the trouble to read this passage in its connexion, will be sensible that the Apostle was speaking of Christ and Adam, and not of the two natures in But for the sake of the case, we will admit that Paul was speaking of two natures in man. The passage then, instead of favoring your views, is directly opposed to them. You maintain that man was first created a spiritual man, and afterward was formed a natural

man.

* man.

But the Apostle maintains the contrary. He says, "That was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." You contend that man was at first heavenly, and afterward by formation, became earthly. But Paul was of another opinion. He says, "The first man was of the earth, earthy; the second man was the Lord from heaven." Your opinion is so directly opposite to

Aton. p. 159.

↑ Notes on the Parables, p. 17.

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.t 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.

♦ Aton. p. 49.

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 me 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 Moses. Instead 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."t

* Aton. p. 31.

+ Male and female ereated he them. The learned Dr. Shuck