i 
before a confufed mifhapen mafs; or, as 
the Greek mythologifts have explained it, 
Oexocunce; and that this is the only jult 
acceptation of the Hebrew orignal, I 
tru may be demonftrated from the fol- 
lowing confideraticns. 
Fiift. The original Hebrew word has 
the very meaningwhich I have afligned to 
it in various other parts of the Sciiptures, 
and particularly in this fame chapter; 
hence Parkhurft, in his Hebrew and Eng« 
lith Lexicon, after afivming that the word 
denoted the production either of fubftance 
or form, in fepport of the latter cies 
Genwi. 21. * So the Aleim formed the 
great aquatic myniters, no doubt of pre- 
exiftent matter; and ver. 27. formed man, 
male and female ;”” in both which places 
our verfion has the word created; but 
that this is wrong is evident from the 7th 
verfe of chapter the fecond. ‘* And the 
Lord God formed man of the duff of the 
ground.” See further illufrations in 
Parkhurft. But Mr. Parkhurit proceeds 
to obferve, that the word © cannot relate 
to form in the firfi verfe of Genefis, be- 
caufe, asit follows in the next verfe, the 
earth was without form, or in \cofe 
atoms.”’’ Now this appears to mea molt 
extraordinary conclufion, for the world’s 
being in a ftate of loofe atoms was furely 
a fufiicient reafon for the interference ai a 
fuperior power to arrange and beautify it, 
whereas had the infpired writer purpofed 
to inculcate the idea of a new creation, 
there could not be a fofficient reafon af- 
figned for its being created imperfect, but 
rather the fame Almighty fiat weuld have 
created it in the moft perfect fate of ar- 
rangement. This confideraticn leads me 
to my fecond reaion. 
And I fubmit that the above explana- 
tion of the paflage tallies better with the 
whole context ; for the fecond verfe, up- 
on which fo much firefs is laid by Park- 
huré, appears to me nothing more than a 
concife defcription of the ftate of the 
earth previous to the commencement of 
the Aleim’s operations, and the exact 
fame picture is given in the Heathen my- 
thology. This will appear more msniielt 
if we fubfitute the word wow inftead of 
éud, and let it be remembered that thefe 
“particics are of great latitude in all Jan 
guages: the paflage then, according to 
my interpretation, will be read thus: 
*¢ In the beginning Ged arranged (or 
formed, difpofed, reduced to order) the 
heaven and the earth. Now the earth was 
(i.e. previous to the Divine interpofition) 
without form, and void; and darknefs 
was upon the face of the deep.’ The 
On the Meaning of the Word * Created,” in Genefis. [April 1, 
third verfe commences the Divine opera=: 
tions, of which the two former were onj 
introduétory. ‘** And God faid; Let 
there be light: and there was light.” 
Thus, Sir, the whole context is in unity 
with itfelf and with reafon. I fhall now, 
therefore, after premifing a few chronolo- 
gical faéts, proceed to my third, and, 
what appears to me, (trongeft argument. 
At what period of time the books of 
Mofes were written fs a matter of confi- 
derable doubt and dificulty ; this ‘much, 
however, feems certain, that the period 
was long after the death of Mofes. And 
this I affirm, not only becaufe the death 
and burial of the Jewifh legiflater are 
there defcribed as having taken place in 
the land of Moab; and mention is made 
of the children of Ifrael. weeping and 
mourning jor him thirty days ; but’ bes 
‘caule Jofhua is appointed his fucceffor, 
and his fubje&ts hearken unto -him. See 
Deut. ch. 34. Befides, the death of Motes 
is manifeilly deferibed in an hiftoricai 
manner, as- is the death of Jofhua (fee 
Jofhua, ch. 24, v. 29.), and by no means 
prophetically, as had beem previoufly the * 
cafe with them both.—Comp. Gen. 32. 
v. so. with Jofhua, chap. 23.14. Why 
then recourte fhould be bad to infpiration 
in the one cafe more than the other, I leave 
others to de‘ermine, in neither does there 
appear a dignus vindice nodus, -and -in an 
hittorical account fuch recourfe muft ap- 
pear a manifeftation. of imbecility. But 
be this as it may, the death of Mofes is 
fated to have happened about the year 
B.C. 1451. which was fomewhat more 
than fifty years fubfequent to the deluge 
of Deucalion, and upwards of two cen- 
turies after that of Ogyges. Now, Sr, 
at this period, and long before it, there 
had been confiderable intercourfe between 
Attica and the fates of Egypt and Syria. 
In the year B.C. 1493, Cadmus carried 
the Phoenician Ictters into Greece. In 
1556, Cecrops brought his Egyptian ce- 
lony into Attica, and introduced the wor- 
{hip of its deities: Danaus, too, the Egyp- 
tian, after a long reign over the kingdom 
of Argos, died about the year 3425. I 
fay nothing of the thory of the fifty fens 
of /Leyptus, or Sefoftris, and their being 
weli received by their uncle Danaus, be- 
caufe my only aim is to efablifh, upon 
hiftorical veracity, the intercourfe be- 
tween Egypt and Greece at the period 
above alluded to; and I infift the more up- 
on this intercourfe, becaufe it will account 
for the/extracrdinary coincidence of ideas, 
words, and jacis, between the Heathen 
and Jewish narratives, not only of the 
Creatipa — 
; a: 
