1806.) On the Meaning of the Word ‘* Created,” in Gencfis, 
Creation (which I fha!l mention prefently) 
but alto of the deluge, aad other circum- 
Rances. That your readers may be equal- 
ly convinced with myfelf of the truth ‘of 
this coincidence, even in matters of infe- 
rior moment, let him attend to the follow. 
ing fpecimen. In the Molaic account of 
the ark, and the abatemeni of the deluge, 
Gen. viii. v. 8, 9, 12, it isthus written: 
** Alfo he fent forth a dove: but the 
dove found no reft for the fole of her foot, 
and fhe returned; for the waters were on 
the face of the whole earth. And he 
ftayed yet other feven days, and fent forth 
the dove, which returned not again,” 
Let us compare with this account the Gre- 
cian narrative: “Os jev ody pvborcyas ro 
Arvzarian Doct megislecay ex Tg Auprecnog - 
AODsELEV HY, OnrAwce yever Hos KEbLWYOS EV, 
EITW TFaALY EVOvOMLEVHYy evowes Of aoromr- 
lacayv. (See Plut. Terreft. an Aquat. 
anim. calid {fe&. 13, vol. iv. p. 930-1. 
Edit. Wyttenb. and compare Apollod. i. 
7) ‘The myzhologifts fay that the 
dove, which was fent forth by Deucalion 
from the ark, was, by its return, a ma- 
nifeftation of the tempeft; but when it 
flew away it was a proof of ferenity.” 
Can there be any ftronger coincidence ? 
The ark, the dove, the return, and, the 
flight, are alike in both narratives The 
fiory about the intermediate-emiffion of 
the dove, and its return with the olive 
Jeaf, narrated in the ro:h and 11¢h verfes 
of Gen. viii. Town appears to me an in- 
terpolation of perhaps one of the Judezo- 
Athenian coloniiis ; at Jeaft it breaks the 
fimplicity of the narrative, feems of no 
utility, and, by the mention of the olive, 
favours ftrongly of Attica; befides, if an 
olive could be found, and Noah thus 
“knew that the waters were abated,”’ 
where was tne ule o: fending the dove a 
third time? But this istof no moment ; 
every confidcrable circumftance is in both 
writers the fame, and maniteftly derived 
from the fame fource. If I chofe to 
Gwell upon thefe coincidences, I would 
compare the fiory of the ravens bringing 
bread and flefh to Elijab. (Kings, 1. xvii. 
6.) with the birds bringing ambrofia ‘to 
Cronus (Plut. de Fac. in Orb. Lun. {£. 
xxVi.) ; but thele are of fecondary cenfi- 
deration, and are only adduced to prove 
that much of the Heathen mythology is 
derived from the ‘ame origin as the Scrip- 
ture hittory; and that this is particularly 
the cafe in the account of the creation, 
according to the explanation above given, 
I thall now attempt to demonttrate. 
“The world (according to Plato, 
whofe do&trine affuredly was derived from 
983 
Egypt) was made (yzyovevas) by God— 
but the fubftance and matter from which 
it was made were not created, but always 
fubje&ed to the artificer’s hand to form, 
and arrange them as much poffible accord- 
ing to his own likenefs, (mgos avloy Ezo~ 
poorwory) oi y#e =p SUAS a} ligt ovlog n YEVET ES 
GAA ex Te [AN HAWS [20 becevars enyuviog. 
This he further expiains by comparing the 
divine woik to a ftatue made out of a 
block of marble, a houfe out of raw ma- 
terials, &c.; ** for the diforder (axeapia) 
which prevailed before the creation was 
not without body, but eithout form’ 
(couophac) ; and he afierwards {peaks of 
it as dark and confuled (cxelewny, raga- 
xn), which God arranged into form 
and order (dla&e vas dssnoojnce) 3 ** and 
when it obtained beauty, form, and figure, 
it became earth, fea, heaven, plants, and 
animals ;"” and hence the word zocuog 18 
derived, which fignifies arrangement. 
The inftruments which God worked with 
are repre‘ented to be harmony, proportion, 
and number. (See Plut. de Anim. pro- 
creat. in Timeo Plat. fect. v. vi.vii.) It 
is true that the Immaterialifts of that day 
trembled for their faveurite fyftem, and 
endeavoured to confute Plato by proving 
his contrariety to his own doétrines, but 
how futile their endeavours were may be 
learnt from fe&tion viii. of the above work. 
Indeed he infifts conftantly upon the cha- 
otic confufion of the elements previous to 
the divine arrangement; oray ocoy Hy bca~ 
lov, ox nouxsey ayov, GAAX HbVEEVOY alegn- 
: e049 \\ 
Jus, cov Osov mxparacovia GhAHOSIAELY —m 
(Sect. ix.) But what I with more parti- 
cularly to attract the attention of the reader 
is the following explanation of the Geze- 
Jis—creation—given by the fame philofo- 
pher. ‘In the beginning (ro cv yoae 
mecle) all thefe things, viz. the elements, 
were without order or proportion——but 
God firft arranged them (ueannyaticclo) 
by forms and numbers—he fixed alio and 
bound theheaven.’” Andagain: §* From 
thefe tour elements the world was made 
obedient to afiinities and proportion, and 
can never be diffolved but by the Author.” 
(Sect. ix.) Of this account of the origin 
of the world the fame philolopher obferves, 
in his Timaus, that it ought to ve ad- 
mitied as true, being handed down from 
wile men. (qase avduv Deortuny arede- 
xowevos.) And I trult, sir, that your 
readers will agree with the philotocher that 
it is fo handed down, namely in the beoks 
of Mofes, and from Egyptian efigin: 
and if, Sir, we add to this, the high pro- ¢ 
babiluy of the books of Moles belag wr.t. 
ten long atter his death; tte’ iniierceurle 
Ffz thag 
be 
