On the Cosmogony of Moses. 1 J) 



only required in them human saj^acity to adopt ; but Moses, it 

 seems, had nothing but i/ie light of revelation to guide hhn ; 

 consequently he made no use of records. Now there is," con- 

 tinues he, '• one grand ohjection to this conchi-.ion ; viz. that it 

 takes for granted the cliief thing intended to be proved." There 

 is also, I would remind Dr. Prichardj one grand ohjeclion to the 

 whole argument ; viz. that it is not exactly mine. My exception 

 rests on the want of analogy in the cases : in the one, inspira- 

 tion appears to be superfluous, in the other indispensable. The 

 compilation of a genealogv, of which the ixuiterials were tve 

 knoiu recorded in Scriptiue, needed' no inspiration. The manner 

 of the creation could be known willi certainty to no human 

 being, not even to Moses, except by a revelation. Besides, 

 there is in Scripture neither hint nor trace of any revelation cun- 

 cerniiig tlie creation, anterior to Moses; nor is there any other 

 ground for the belief of inspired doeuments or traditions of which 

 he might have availed himself, than that of vague and visionary 

 conjecture*. But waiving this consideration, and supposing that 

 there may have existed in the time of Moses docujnents or tra- 

 ditions oi such a primitive reveiati(m ; there could, if he was 

 inspired with regard to the creation, be no possible motive fur 

 his having recourse to thein. In such circumstances it is (|uite 

 idle to talk of an inspired writer choosing to avail himself of 

 other authorities in preference to the immediate authority of 

 Heaven. The version of my argument, therefore, should not 

 have been generally, that " Moses had nothing but the light of 

 revelation to guide him ; consequently he m^adc no use of re- 

 cords:" but that, with regard to the creation, Moses having the 

 light of revelation to guide him, there is no assignable reason 

 why he should be made to have recourse to assumed recordi or 

 traditions. I do not perceive that the o?ie grand objection ap- 

 plies to this conclusion. 



Dr. Prichard disclaims the merit whicli he erroneously con- 

 ceives I intended to ascribe to him, of having formed the " in- 

 grnioui imagination" of circuitous inspiration. I am, indeed, 

 ignorant to whom this not recent invention is due ; but as an 

 auxiliary whom he esteems" jierfectly well informed respecting 

 the points in controversy f" had employed it in his favour, I 

 confess that by showing its insufficiency in the case to which it 

 was applied, I intended to prevent its adoption by the principal. 

 Of his protest against the pretensions of those who, like me, 

 " talk largely about circuitous inspirations, and immediate in- 

 spirations," I can merely express an unconsciousness of entcr- 



* Dr. I'liihiird, liowever, esteems ir mo^t vnretentinfiti/ inquisitorial of 

 iiic to rc(njir(; any better prixjfot' tliis iissumed primilivc rtvelution. 

 t Set: Phil. Mag. No. 210, pp. CU ■..nd IVl. 



B 2 taining 



