18 On the Coimogony of Moses. 



which this change has not been produced, and in which this 

 power is exerted. Is the loss of the power of communicating 

 the shock to bo attributed to the Kiss of vohmtary power over 

 the organ ? Docs this fact bear any analogy to the effects pro- 

 duced by ca^tration in animals ? 



5. That the possession of one organ only is sufficient to pro- 

 duce the sliock. 



6. That the perfect state of all the nerves of the electrical 

 organs is not necessary to produce the shock. 



And, 7. From the whole it may be concluded, that a more 

 intimate relation exists between the nervous system and electri- 

 cal organs of the torpedo, both as to structure and functions, 

 than between the same and any organs of any animal with which 

 we are acquainted. And this is particularly shown, 1st, By the 

 large proportion of nerves supplied to the electrical organs : 

 and, 2d, By the relation of the action of the electrical organs 

 to tiie life of the animal, and vice ver^d. 



V. Iiepl}/ to Dr. Prichard on the Cosmogony of Moses. 

 By F. E s. 



To Mr. Tilhch. 



Sir, — With com.mendable prudence. Dr. Prichard passes 

 lightly over the tender ground of his inconsistent assertions ; 

 affirming, in allusion to the direct proof I had given of tlcm, that 

 I am " still determined to find contradictions between proposi- 

 tions which have no relation to each other," and that I quarrel 

 " even with the words in which they are expressed." If these 

 two affirmations be not absolutely correct, they are, at least, in 

 correctness absolutely equal. He cannot " stay to notice mere 

 cavih," but hastens to exhibit " a spethnev of the mode oi rea- 

 soning adopted by" his " perlhiacioiis critic." I shall now en- 

 deavour to show whether vviiat he has produced for that pur- 

 pose be a specimen of my logic or of his own fairness; and in 

 this attempt as well as on similir occasions he will, I trust, have 

 the goodness to endure repetitions which he has rendered un- 

 avoidable. — " III my last paper," says he, " I hinted at the in- 

 stance of St. Matthew and St. Luke, in order to prove that in- 

 spired writers have chosen to avail themselves of historical do- 

 cuments, when such sources of information were to be Jound. 

 Mr. F. E. seems to allow the force of this example,, but denies 

 that it leads to any inference with respect to Moses ; and the 

 exception he takes against it is to the following purport. St. 

 Mattliew and St. Luke found pre-existing docurnentr., which it 



only 



