On the Cosmogony of Moses. 115 
. There are many parts of the ancient Hebrew Scriptures 
which it is obviously necessary to understand, and which are 
to be understood according to the judgement of the most learned 
and orthodox critics, in a metaphorical manner; not by mere 
changes in the force of particular words, but by ‘figurative ap- 
plications of the sense cf whole p: issages, the real meaning be- 
: ing contained in some allusion, and expressed by a type, which 
under a sensible and striking image conveys a more abstract 
truth. It is well known that a similar method of illustration 
prevailed extensively among the philosophers of the East, from 
whom the Greeks learnt to divide their doctrines into esoteric 
and exoteric, a practice which was introduced by Pythagoras 
and Plato, and followed by Aristotle and others. We are well 
assured that the learned among the Jews viewed many parts of ~ 
their ancient Scriptures in this light; and, after the captivity of 
their nation at Babylon, in which calamity a considerable portion 
; of their literature was lost, and the explanations of many things 
apparently forgotten, which had been preserved among the 
priests, set themselves to make up the deficiency. The extent 
of the Talmud, and the great authority which this compilation 
acquired, notwithstanding its numerous absurdities, proves how 
firmly they were persuaded of the esoteric sense contained in 
e many parts of the biblical writings. At the Christian era there 
* was only one sect, viz. the Sadducees, who wholly followed the 
literal meaning, and they were held in no great estimation: and 
we learn from St. Paul, that the Pharisees, who allowed the 
figurative sense, had the truest interpretation of the Jewish dis- 
cipline. It was in this path that Hillel acquired so much fame, 
as well as his descendant and follower Gamaliel. Philo* the 
" learned Jew, and Josephus, assure us that many passages must 
be explained in this tropical or figurative way; and, what is 
iS very remarkable and strongly in favour of my argument, they 
both make an express observation to this effect, with reference 
, to the six days’ work of the creation. It cannot be denied that 
r this mode of interpreting has led to many abuses, and that 
¥ Origen and others, by explaining away the historical facts of the 
. Old Testament into types and metaphors, converted history into 
a mass of mystica] absurdity. But this is no argument against 
Hi the limited ‘and judicious application of a method which is 
a sanctioned, as We have seen, by the highest authorities among 
the Jews themselv es and which has been acknowledged by all 
Christian writers to be necessary for the explanation of many 
passages. Thus, for example, what sense, except. the most 
_. wrifling one, can be made of the following passage, if we are 
* Philo Judaus in Cosmopaia item in Allegoriis. 
H 2 obliged 
