1386 On the Cosmogony of Moses. 
In the paper* which oceasioned my observations, Doctor 
Prichard, after having, as he imagined, exhibited a complete co-’ 
incidence between the series of facts detailed in the first chap- 
ter of Genesis and those inferred from geological phenomena, 
remarks, that “if this coincidence is surprising in itself, it ap- 
pears the more so when we compare the cosmogony of the He- 
brews with the notions on this subject that prevailed among 
other nations of antiquity. We find invariably that all other 
cians, on this subject are founded on some fanciful ana- 
fogy with natural processes that are daily observed.” In his - 
recent communication +, however, our attention is particularly 
directed to, and our surprise excited by, ‘¢ the remarkable con~ 
nexion discovered between the primitive histories of the most 
remote nations on the earth and these documents embodied in 
Genesis.” It is added that, not only the Asiatic nations, but the 
Runic scalds of Iceland and Seandinavia, and the ancient priests of 
Mexico were equally in possession of the primitive traditions ;” 
and the latter certainly never obtained them from Jerusalem {. 
Other similar facts are adduced in support of the opinion that 
the early parts of Genesis are a compilation: but in maintaining 
it, Doctor Prichard does not place the author of the Penta- 
teuch in the rank of common compilers of historical fragments 
possessed merely of natural intelligence ;” nor does he regard 
the supposed materials of the compilation, ‘‘in their origin as 
common historical testimonies.”” On this hypothesis I shalt 
merely obseve, that if in relating events which no uninspired 
person could ever with certainty know, the author of the Pen- 
tateuch had recourse to records and traditions of whatever cha- 
racter or antiquity, it could only be to supply the want of im- 
mediate inspiration. It seems, therefore, that to preserve con- 
sistency, either the hypothesis or the inspiration of Moses must 
be abandoned. 
I now proceed to the points in discussion. In my former ob- 
servations the word day is admitted to have been figuratively 
employed in Hebrew, as it has, I believe, in every language, to 
signify an indefinite portion of time; but I contended that in 
the six days creation it cannot be so understood; because, for 
no other discoverable purpose than to guard the term against a 
metaphorical interpretation, its meaning is there expressly con- 
fined to the duration of an evening and a morning, to the decay 
and the return of light, the limits of a natural day. This limita- 
tion, reiterated six times in terms as explicit as language can 
supply, causes no difficulty whatever to Doctor Prichard; ‘ for,” 
he remarks, “if we use the word doy to signify a portion of 
* Phil, Mag. No, 210, p. 285, ¢ Ibid. No, 214. } p..112. 
time, 
